In this action shot from city council chambers, a paper copy of an amendment to the text of the four-party transit agreement is handed from city clerk Jackie Beaudry to councilmember Jane Lumm (Ward 2). In the background are Ward 1 councilmembers Sandi Smith (left) and Sabra Briere. (Photos by the writer.)

The council postponed action until its Feb. 6 meeting, but not before undertaking several amendments to the text of the agreement. The council had previously postponed action at its Jan. 9 meeting and had set a public hearing for Jan. 23. Thirty-nine people appeared before the council to speak during the hearing, and some of those people also reprised their remarks during public comment at the conclusion of the meeting. Fourteen of the speakers were either current or former elected or appointed public officials, or former candidates for public office.

The four-party agreement would be between the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County.

A delay was warranted from the perspective of some councilmembers, who wanted to hear the recommendation of a financial advisory group. The group has been meeting since the fall of 2011 and was scheduled to hold a final meeting on Jan. 27, four days after the council’s vote to postpone. However, later in the week the financial advisory group also chose to postpone its Jan. 27 meeting, in the wake of a 17-bill package of state legislation introduced on Jan. 26 – part of which would establish a regional transit authority for Washtenaw, Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties and a possible funding mechanism for that authority. It’s not clear if the financial advisory group will meet before the council’s next meeting on Feb. 6.

The council could undertake further amendments to the text of the four-party agreement at its Feb. 6 meeting. In fact, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated he’d bring forward an amendment to change the composition of the planned new transit authority board, to give Ann Arbor more than the currently proposed seven out of 15 seats, so that Ann Arbor would have a majority.

In other business, the council passed two resolutions as symbolic statements of position. One was to express opposition to Michigan’s Public Act 297, which was signed into law on Dec. 22, 2011. The act prohibits public employers from providing employee medical and fringe benefits to those who are not married to an employee, a dependent of the employee, or eligible to inherit from the employee under the laws of intestate succession.

The law impacts the city of Ann Arbor’s policy of extending benefits to “other qualified adults” – which can include a same-sex domestic partner. The resolution gained unanimous support on the Ann Arbor city council. As Jane Lumm (Ward 2) expressed her concerns about the council’s purview on such a resolution, but ultimately expressed her support for it, Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who is openly gay, was prompted to say, “I love this city!”

The second resolution expressing a position was passed over the dissent of Lumm and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). It encouraged the federal government to exercise prosecutorial discretion in pursuing the deportation of undocumented immigrants who have not committed serious crimes and who have ties to the community.

The council also approved a contract with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to supply policing services for the downtown Ann Arbor Blake Transit Center. And the council authorized a $10 million contract for engineering services in connection with the facilities renovation project at the city’s wastewater treatment center.

The meeting was bookended by mentions of the word “dragon” – in separate contexts. 

4-Party Transit Deal

The council considered a four-party agreement that would establish a framework for a transition of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to a countywide governance incorporated under Michigan’s Act 196 of 1986.

Front to back: Ann Arbor Transportation Authority CEO Michael Ford, Menlo Innovations president Rich Sheridan, legal counsel for the AATA Jerry Lax, and AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein.

The council ultimately postponed action until its Feb. 6 meeting. The council had previously postponed action at its Jan. 9 meeting and had set a public hearing for Jan. 23.

The four-party agreement is between the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County. The transition to a countywide governance and funding base is intended to (1) ensure stability of funding for transit connections outside of the city of Ann Arbor, which until now has depended on purchase-of-service agreements; (2) provide a higher level of transit service inside the city of Ann Arbor; and (3) expand the area where transit service is provided.

In the four party-agreement, the role of the two cities – Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – would be to pledge their current transit millages to the new authority, contingent on identifying a countywide funding source. The two cities currently levy millages that are designated for public transit and are passed through to the AATA. For Ann Arbor, that’s currently just over 2 mills. For Ypsilanti, which uses the proceeds of the tax – approved in November 2010 – to fund its purchase-of-service agreement with the AATA, the levy is just under 1 mill. [One mill is $1 for each $1,000 of a property's taxable value.]

As part of the four-party agreement, Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor would agree that AATA’s existing assets would be assumed by the new Act 196 transit authority, and they’d also agree to assign their existing millages to the new Act 196 authority. But the asset transfer and the millage assignment would be contingent on identifying a countywide funding source for the new Act 196 authority.

4-Party Agreement: Context – Funding Report, State Legislation

At the Jan. 23 meeting, some councilmembers expressed an interest in postponing any action on the four-party agreement so that their decision could be informed by the recommendation of a financial advisory group that has been meeting since the fall of 2011 and was scheduled to hold a final meeting on Jan. 27, four days after the council’s vote to postpone.

However, the financial advisory group also chose to postpone its Jan. 27 meeting, in the wake of a 17-bill package of state legislation introduced on Jan. 26 – part of which would establish a regional transit authority for Washtenaw, Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties and a possible funding mechanism for that authority. It’s not clear if the financial advisory group will meet before the council’s next meeting on Feb. 6.

4-Party Agreement: Context – Ypsilanti

In an email sent to The Chronicle following the Jan. 23 meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) expressed frustration that the Ann Arbor city council had not been apprised of a wrinkle in the Ypsilanti charter transit millage. The provision could appear to create the possibility that the Ypsilanti city council would not levy the transit millage – in the event that some countywide funding is approved by voters. By way of background, Ypsilanti voters passed the millage on Nov. 2, 2010 by a 3-to-1 margin. The ballot language read as follows [emphasis original]:

“This amendment authorizes, in any year a millage is NOT otherwise levied for countywide or regional public transit, or when needed to supplement a countywide or regional millage approved by City Council, a tax of 0.9789 mills solely for public transit purposes. Approval increases the tax levy by 0.9789 mills as new additional millage in excess of the legal limitation, restoring the authorized Charter millage to 20 mills, since reduced by the Headlee amendment.

The apparent intent of the language in the four-party agreement is to establish that Ypsilanti only gets a board seat if it levies that existing city millage and pays it to the new transit authority (TA). From the four-party agreement: “In exchange for the City of Ypsilanti mayor’s nomination with council confirmation, of one director of New TA’s board, … the City of Ypsilanti agrees to pay its charter transportation millage at the 2012 millage rate or as adjusted by State Statute to the New TA.”

In a phone interview with The Chronicle, Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber said his understanding is that Ypsilanti had the flexibility not to levy the full amount of the millage or not to assign it to the new authority – but that the result of such a decision would be to lose its membership and board seat in the new Act 196 authority.

The composition of the board of the new transit authority, as well as the existing board of the AATA, is one of the points of discussion.

4-Party Agreement: Context – Board Seats

At the Jan. 23 council meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) gave his colleagues a heads up that he’d be bringing a resolution to the next meeting to alter the four-party agreement so that Ann Arbor would have a majority on the board of the new Act 196 authority. As currently formulated in the agreement, Ann Arbor would have seven out of 15 seats. Based strictly on population, Ann Arbor would have five seats – roughly one-third of the county’s population lives in the city.

But the transfer of capital assets to the new authority and the ongoing provision of Ann Arbor’s local millage to the authority led to a board composition that provides seven seats to Ann Arbor. Some, including Kunselman, see that as insufficient in light of Ann Arbor’s expected financial contribution – that’s the rationale behind his expected amendment altering the board composition.

Another idea put forward by Kunselman at the council’s Jan. 23 meeting would fill the existing opening on the AATA board with a township elected official. [Rich Robben recently resigned from the AATA board. His last board meeting was Jan. 19, 2012.] The idea had come from conversations that Kunselman had with representatives of townships and the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. Kunselman mentioned Ypsilanti Township supervisor Brenda Stumbo specifically.

Mayor John Hieftje said he could look into that – a city councilmember couldn’t serve on the board, he said, but he wasn’t sure about an elected official of a township. Hieftje said he was going through the applications for the open slot on the AATA board, and was hoping to have a nomination to bring to the council by its next meeting, on Feb. 6.

Responding to a Facebook link to The Chronicle’s reporting on the postponement of the financial advisory group’s Jan. 27 meeting, Kunselman left a comment that prompted an exchange with Roger Kerson, a member of the AATA board. That exchange included Kunselman’s view that the current AATA board should have representation from the city of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township.

Stephen Kunselman Maybe there is a better way; let’s analyze all the options before going off the deep end and dissolving our City Transit Authority!
[Friday, Jan. 27] at 1:04 p.m.

Roger Kerson Steve, the authority would *not* be dissolved, but enlarged to provide better service to more people.
[Friday, Jan. 27] at 5:09 p.m.

Stephen Kunselman Roger, Act 55 allows expansion of the existing City Transit Authority, so what’s the problem?
[Friday, Jan. 27] at 5:27 p.m.

Roger Kerson If you favor expansion with a different structure, I’m all ears – tho as you know a great deal of planning, with public input, took place in developing the current proposal. If you’re not in favor of expanding transit, I’m interested in what other ideas you may have to reduce individual vehicle trips and associated environmental, congestion and parking concerns. If you’re against “dissolution” of the AATA, I’m not sure who you’re addressing, as no one has proposed this.
[Saturday, Jan. 28] at 3:41 p.m.

Stephen Kunselman Yes, I favor allowing City of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township having representation on the AATA Board since they pay for service – will you support their inclusion? Any community in Washtenaw Co. can request inclusion now under Act 55. And yes, the AATA is proposed to be dissolved, it’s in the 4 party agreement under debate – transfer all assets of AATA to the county authority. [Editor's note: Link added to relevant section of Act 55.]
[Sunday, Jan. 29]

Roger Kerson I’ve said my piece for now, but I’ll stick to this point: Transferring an asset to a different governance structure is not “dissolution.”
[Sunday, Jan. 29]

Stephen Kunselman Sure thing; thanks for chatting.
[Sunday, Jan. 29]

The composition of the current AATA board was controversial for the Ann Arbor city council in December last year, when some councilmembers, including Kunselman, objected to the nomination by Hieftje of a city employee, Eli Cooper, to the AATA board. Cooper is the city of Ann Arbor’s transportation program manager.

4-Party Agreement: Mayoral Politics

During his communications time, Hieftje, addressed what he described as an impression some people had that the four-party agreement is the “mayor’s proposal.” Hieftje was keen to establish that it was not his proposal. He said that he could not claim credit for it. The work was done by the AATA board and staff, he said.

Hieftje praised the work of the AATA, saying that he didn’t want the AATA board to think he was taking credit for their hard work. He stressed it’s been AATA’s proposal from the beginning.

[The impression that the four-party agreement is the "mayor's proposal" has been fostered, for example, by a post made by LuAnne Bullington on the newsgroup of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition entitled: "The Gov's regional transit service vs. the Mayor's regional transit services for Washtenaw County." A possible analysis for the attempt to characterize the AATA's proposed transition in governance structure as the "mayor's proposal": It's perceived by some as sufficiently unpopular that they believe it's an opportunity to damage Hieftje politically if he can be tied to it. He's expected to run for re-election again this year, although he's not made a formal announcement.]

4-Party Agreement: Summary of Amendments – Set One

Before postponing a vote on the agreement, the council undertook several amendments, which they handled separately. Councilmembers took turns reading them aloud. For the initial set of amendments, the council’s action tracked with the changes indicated in a document that had been available before the meeting. [.pdf of document with tracked changes]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) described the intent of many of the changes as an attempt to get a “refined document” that could be talked about. The point was to achieve “narrative clarity.”

The first amendment added the phrase to the end of the “Acknowledged Facts” section: “… only when all the contingencies of the Agreement are met.”

The next amendment undertaken by the council added an explicit requirement that the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti would need to vote to adopt the articles of incorporation that Washtenaw County would file to formally incorporate the new Act 196 transit authority. [.pdf of draft articles of incorporation] A brief conversation among Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Taylor on the legal meaning of the word “shall” did not lead anyone to ask for a change in wording. Taylor summarized the effect of the amendment as being: If the council votes down the articles of incorporation, then it’s “game over.”

A further amendment highlighted at the beginning of some relevant paragraphs the condition that must be met in order for the substance of the paragraph to apply, and expresses it in terms of time, not abstract logic: “After all of the Section 8 contingencies to Closing are satisfied, …”

Completely struck was a section that contemplated the possibility that “funding sources are elected to fund the NEW TA [transit authority] which do not require voter approval.”

Also inserted as an amendment, which Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she was putting forward because assistant city attorney Mary Fales had felt it was a good idea: “Nothing in this section has the effect of waiving the defense of governmental immunity available to an indemnifying party under applicable law as to 3rd parties.”

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Inserted in two places was an amendment (one for each of the cities in the agreement) to place on the new Act 196 transit authority a requirement to the effect that the new authority must provide to Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti “at a minimum, the continued level of services provided by its predecessor-in-interest, AATA, …” That amendment prompted a question from Kunselman, about the ability to bind the new Act 196 authority to something, if the new authority is not a party to the agreement. Kunselman had actually raised the issue earlier, in the discussion of a different amendment, but wasn’t able to pursue it – because Briere raised the point of order that Kunselman’s question didn’t bear on the amendment they were considering at that time.

But later, with the issue clearly in order, assistant city attorney Mary Fales explained that the intent of the language was to require that any agreement the AATA entered into with the new Act 196 authority would need to provide the minimum continued level of service.

Another revision accommodated the possibility that some municipalities might choose to opt out of an Act 196 authority if one were to be incorporated – by swapping in “authority-wide” for the phrase “county-wide.”

The last in the first set of relatively uncontroversial amendments was to address a wording mistake pointed out by Michael Benson, during the public hearing. The final boilerplate language in the general provisions stated [emphasis added]: “… and may be amended only in writing signed by both parties …” Given the nature of the agreement, involving four-parties, the word “both” was replaced with “all.”

Outcome: The council approved the first set of amendments unanimously on separate votes.

4-Party Agreement: Summary of Amendments – Who Else Is In?

An additional amendment put forth by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) addressed the scenario that Ann Arbor could be the only municipality that participates in the Act 196 authority. It provides for the automatic termination of the four-party agreement if Ann Arbor is the only member:

Automatic Termination.
This Agreement will terminate automatically if (i) Closing does not occur before December 31, 2015, or if (ii) after incorporation of the Authority and the expiration of the statutory withdrawal period from the public authority, the City of Ann Arbor is the only participating political subdivision in Washtenaw County in the New TA [transit authority]. It is recognized by all the parties that if either of these conditions occur the stated objectives of Act 196 and this Agreement will not have been met and the Agreement shall be null and void.

Kunselman explained that he wanted to make sure that Ann Arbor is not the only member of the new transit authority.

Washtenaw County map with 26 local units of government labeled. (Image links to higher resolution file)

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the council had heard during the public hearing that 22 out of 26 units of government in Washtenaw County are participating in the process. She indicated that she was less worried that all the other units besides Ann Arbor would opt out of the Act 196 authority. But on the “off chance” that Kunselman is correct, she indicated she’d support Kunselman’s amendment.

By way of additional background, the figure of 22 out of 26 units that are participating in the process came from AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein during that evening’s public hearing. He described those units as “participating in the transit master planning process.”

The 20 townships of Washtenaw County are: Lyndon, Dexter, Webster, Northfield, Salem, Superior, Ann Arbor, Scio, Lima, Sylvan, Sharon, Freedom, Lodi, Pittsfield, Ypsilanti, Machester, Bridgewater, Saline, York and Augusta.

The six cities and villages include: city of Chelsea, village of Dexter, city of Ann Arbor, city of Ypsilanti, city of Saline and village of Manchester. The city of Milan is located only partly in Washtenaw County.

Possible composition of board membership for a Washtenaw countywide transit authority. (Links to larger image.)

A brief discussion then ensued about the Act 7 agreements some of those units will use to participate in the Act 196 authority. Act 7 of 1967 sets forth the standards under which agreements between different units of government can be made.

Of the 15 seats proposed for the new Act 196 board, nine require no agreement between local units, because they correspond to local government units that would be districts unto themselves – the city of Ann Arbor (7 seats), city of Ypsilanti (1 seat) and Pittsfield Township (1 seat). The remaining six seats correspond to five geographic districts that will require some kind of agreement among the units in those districts.

About the countywide government units in those districts, AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein stated at the council’s Jan. 23 meeting that “Most of them have signed Act 7 agreements to create districts to represent their interests and group them [preliminarily] to form an Act 196 authority.”

In the listing out below of the geographic coverage of those five districts, non-participating government units in are indicated in italics. In cases where dates are given, The Chronicle has been able confirm independently or via the AATA that a vote was taken on that date involving an Act 7 agreement – linked dates go to meeting minutes, when available. Act 7 agreements will eventually need to be filed with the county clerk.

• Northeast: Superior Township (June 20, 2011); Ann Arbor Township (May 16, 2011); Northfield Township (July 12, 2011); Salem Township (June 14, 2011 – the motion died for lack of a second)
• Southeast: Ypsilanti Township (July 19, 2011); Augusta Township (Oct. 11, 2011)
• South Middle: Lodi Township (Sept. 6, 2011); city of Saline (Sept. 12, 2011); York Township (Sept. 14, 2011); city of Milan (Oct. 17, 2011); Saline Township
• North Middle: Webster Township (Aug. 16, 2011); village of Dexter (Aug. 8, 2011); Scio Township (Aug. 9, 2011)
• West: city of Chelsea (Aug. 23, 2011 ); Dexter Township (Sept. 20, 2011); Lima Township (Oct. 10, 2011); Sharon Township (mentioned Sept. 1, 2011 but no hearing held due to time constraints); Freedom Township (Sept. 13, 2011 ); Manchester Township (mentioned but not voted on April 12, 2011); village of Manchester (Sept. 19, 2011); Lyndon Township; Bridgewater Township; Sylvan Township

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked for clarification about who is participating. Salem, Sylvan, Bridgewater and Saline townships have decided not to participate in the process, said AATA CEO Michael Ford. He said the door has been left open, but they’ve chosen not to participate at this time.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved Kunselman’s amendment that terminates the agreement if Ann Arbor were to be the only member of the Act 196 authority. [clean .pdf of the four-party agreement as amended by the Ann Arbor city council on Jan. 23, 2012]

4-Party Agreement: Summary of Amendments – Bonding Authority?

The amendment generating the most discussion was put forward by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) – it was not approved by the council. The section on full faith and credit already makes clear that neither city has to pledge its full faith and credit for projects undertaken by the new transit authority [emphasis added]:

The parties further agree that the Cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti shall not be required to, and do not by virtue of execution of this Agreement, pledge their respective full faith and credit for any project assumed by the NEW TA at Closing or undertaken by the New TA thereafter when operational.

Lumm noted that while Ann Arbor would not be required to pledge its full faith and credit, she wanted to amend the agreement to add an extra requirement that if the city did choose to do that, then it would require a popular vote, not simply a city council approval.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). At far left is Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) wondered if the city attorney’s office had had a chance to look at the amendment. Assistant city attorney Mary Fales indicated that Lumm had raised the question earlier, but that the language was new – it was being heard on the floor. Derezinski asked Fales what she thought. Fales told Derezinski that the council has the authority to put a ballot question on any issue presented to the council.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) asked if the council had taken any actions recently to pledge the city’s full faith and credit without voter approval. Yes, answered Fales. Hohnke asked Lumm why there should be a requirement of voter approval in this case, when it was not generally a requirement. Lumm told Hohnke she thinks this is a significant decision – she just thinks the council alone shouldn’t have that authority. Voters have the ability to weigh in on different steps, and she felt the issue of full faith and credit needed to be “tightened.”

Hohnke came back to his question of why Lumm wanted to draw a distinction between projects associated with the new Act 196 authority and other projects. He noted that the council regularly pledges the city’s full faith and credit without voter approval. Lumm replied that this decision is “a huge deal.” Mayor John Hieftje noted the city council had just recently given notice of its intent to issue $140 million in bonds for the facilities renovation project at the city’s wastewater treatment center. Lumm said she didn’t see the downside of letting people have the chance to weigh in.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the difficulty with seeking voter approval on bonds is one of timing – the decision has to be made months in advance, and nothing can happen unless and until voter approval occurs. She noted that there was not actually a bond being proposed, but said that the council might run into the issue of whether a project undertaken by the new authority project will be delayed adversely.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) gave his colleagues a concrete hypothetical example to contemplate: Suppose the new transit authority proposed light rail down Washtenaw Avenue, and when it hits city borders, it requires permission to construct on Ann Arbor city roads and wants to go for a bond. Kunselman wondered what the council’s role would be, if the new transit authority is constructing a light rail line on city of Ann Arbor property.

Fales explained that the new Act 196 authority would need to pull all permits, licenses and easements. If the new transit authority were seeking funding outside of its existing budget – through a grant from the city, or through partnering on a bond – that would come to the city council for a vote. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) got clarification that what Lumm’s amendment would do is require a popular referendum every time there’s a request for infrastructure improvement that the new transit authority wanted to undertake by bonding through the city.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) noted that every time something is put on the ballot, there’s a cost. Kunselman indicated some agreement with Smith’s point about the frequency of the popular votes, and offered to put in a minimum threshold – say $50 million. Lumm was amendable to changing her amendment to include a minimum threshold.

There was brief contemplation of delaying a vote on the amendment until the recommendation on funding came back from the financial advisory group – to figure out what the minimum threshold should be. But Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) seemed to speak for most of his colleagues when he said he would not support the amendment – with or without a limit, now or later. He said he trusted the judgement of future councils.

Outcome: The council voted against Jane Lumm’s amendment that would have required a popular referendum before the city could pledge its full faith and credit to back a project undertaken by the new Act 196 authority. It got support from Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

4-Party Agreement: Public Hearing – Who Spoke?

The Chronicle counted 39 people who addressed the council during the public hearing held on the four-party agreement. Of those, 14 were connected to public office in some fashion – current or former appointed or elected officials (or candidates). Five spoke on behalf of some organization other than a public body. Five people were affiliated at least indirectly with the AATA in some way. Eight of the speakers had donated to Jane Lumm’s 2011 city council campaign.

Thematically, their remarks could be separated into some basic categories, with several speakers touching on multiple themes: support for public transportation within the city of Ann Arbor; equity and the cost burden; concerns about control of the new authority; opportunities for collaboration; and general uncertainty about the details.

4-Party Agreement: Public Hearing – Good Service in Ann Arbor

What many speakers had in common was an expression of support for public transportation and better service in Ann Arbor – but that did not necessarily translate to support for the four-party agreement.

Chuck Warpehoski, of the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, spoke roughly midway through the hearing, and remarked on the fact that people for and against the four-party agreement seemed to share a broad understanding that Ann Arbor needs a better bus system. He felt that the four-party agreement could lead to that by bringing together the key parties around a service plan and the possibility of stable funding. He called it one step forward, but said it’s not the final piece. Joel Batterman told the council he wouldn’t be speaking in favor of the agreement if he had any doubt that it was the best way to improve service.

Former city planning commissioner James D’Amour said that AATA’s services need to be expanded – in Ann Arbor and also Ypsilanti, adding that we’re all for a better AATA. Clark Charnetski, a member of AATA’s local advisory council, described the changes in transportation needs over time, with the emergence of Domino’s Farms, St. Joseph Mercy Hospital, Washtenaw Community College and Briarwood Mall. He said the system would look very different if it were planned today – he was tired of waiting for something better.

Julie Steiner, executive director of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance, said she was speaking for people who aren’t often heard – severe low income people who are struggling to find a job. She said there are a lot of details to work out, but “our community can’t wait” for better transportation. There are people who can’t get to jobs that are being created as the economy improves. Cheryl Webber, a member of the AATA’s local advisory council, said the incremental expansion of AATA’s services that has taken place over time has allowed her lifestyle to expand. She told the council that she’s a disabled person and feels that a lot of people are in favor of the kind of expansion AATA is looking at. Kathleen Russell told the council she represents 130 people with Parkinson’s disease and she would ask those people to support the agreement.

Larry Deck told the council he supports expansion to a countywide system. His understanding of the resolution is to keep the process going forward. He trusted the council to make right decisions at the checkpoints along the way.

Several speakers addressed their concern that attempts to expand might result in a diminishment of services to Ann Arbor.

Vince Caruso described the extensive use that his family makes of the AATA buses and described himself as a supporter of public transportation. His concern was that the future arrangement be reversible so that Ann Arbor could revert back to the current situation. Glenn Thompson said the question is not about opposing transportation, it’s about preserving the transportation Ann Arbor already has. Odile Hugenot Haber noted that at the AATA board’s last meeting, a representative of the Michigan Transportation Association had praised the AATA as being a model system. But she said the system could still be improved.

Rita Mitchell led off her remarks with a question for the council: Did anyone ride the bus to this meeting? [No councilmembers raised their hands.] She ventured that maybe it was because they couldn’t get a ride back home when the meeting concluded – AATA’s service ends before the typical council meeting ends. She said that AATA should have improved service before expanding the service countywide. Former planning commissioner Ethel Potts described the current service offered by the AATA as good, but not complete. Tim Hull introduced himself as a supporter of public transportation, but ticked through a number of concerns about the four-party agreement.

4-Party Agreement: Public Hearing – Money/Equity

Alexis Blizman, policy director for the Ecology Center, expressed strong support for public transit and support for the four-party agreement. The Ecology Center had participated in the process through the leadership committee meetings and the AATA board. [AATA board member Charles Griffith is employed by the Ecology Center.] Blizman said we’d reached a point where more funding is required in order to improve service.

Tim Mortimer ventured that the people who are focused on benefits are Republican, but those who are concerned about costs seemed to be Democrats.

Alan Haber said that other parts of the county need to put money on the table. The data is not there for the financing, he said. He advised the council to restrain themselves from saying “Forward ever, backwards never.” Lawrence Baird described one of the parties as having major financial problems – Ypsilanti. Ypsilanti’s local millage isn’t covering the cost of Ypsilanti’s purchase-of-service agreement, he noted.

Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber said the 3-to-1 margin that Ypsilanti voters gave a transit millage in 2010 was significant. With respect to the suggestion that maybe Ypsilanti won’t pay, he said that the 3-to-1 margin speaks volume. He described the purchase-of-service agreement (POSA) system – an annual agreement to provide bus services – as a chain that can be broken from year to year. The plan being considered would stabilize funding for the service.

Karen Sidney said that part of the state operating assistance the AATA receives would disappear if the AATA changed to a different governance structure. She also ventured that what’s driving the process is development, pointing out that infrastructure improvements within a half mile of a transit station qualify under the state’s brownfield authority act.

Kathy Boris described herself as a non-motorist supporter of countywide service. The list of more services is appealing, she said – it’s impressive and ambitious. But she described the financial plan as “murky.” She wondered if Ann Arbor might be buying into something it wants but can’t actually afford.

John Satarino described the cost of implementing the system over the course of 30 years – over $600 million. That’s a large amount to think about, he said. But is that in today’s dollars or the projected equivalent 30 years from now? He said he does not support giving Ann Arbor’s aid to the townships – living in townships is cheaper, and there’s a reason for that.

Peter Eckstein also noted the program cost over the course of 30 years. He asked how it would be paid for. If there would be a millage, he wanted to know if it would be for 1 mill or less, and for how long. He called some of the benefits “dubious.” For example, with respect to the planned transit service to Detroit Metro airport, he said he’s not interested in paying for his rich friends’ vacations or out-of-state students.

Eckstein also contended that AATA has a reputation of having a high-cost system. He alluded to an analysis done by retired economics professor Richard Porter that had found AATA’s cost of providing service is above the average of comparable cities. Ted Annis has a number of good ideas, Eckstein said. [By way of background, Annis is a former member of the AATA board, who was often at odds with his board colleagues over the appropriate goal for a key metric – dollar cost per service hour. Annis contended an achievable goal for that statistic would be around $85. AATA has budgeted around $112 per service hour for its current fiscal year.]

Vivienne Armentrout wondered what would happen if several of the local units of government opted out of the Act 196 authority. She said there should be a minimal-participation clause. She wondered if the new Act 196 authority would be viable at the funding levels that would result without participation of most of the units. She said it would be good to wait for the results of the financial advisory group’s recommendation. She expressed concern about the equity of the financial burden between residents of Ann Arbor and residents of the townships. Township residents have chosen to live where taxes are low, she said.

Glenn Thompson noted that current assets of the AATA are worth $50 million – more than the new police/courts building. He called it the largest valued contract the city has ever entered. He wondered what would happen if the assets have been used as collateral and the newly incorporated authority goes bankrupt. He felt there aren’t sufficient safeguards that would allow Ann Arbor to withdraw from the arrangement to recover its assets.

4-Party Agreement: Public Hearing – Control

John Floyd noted that there’s no necessary connection between expanded countywide service and the system of governance offered by Act 196. He said that if outlying districts feel AATA’s service is not of value, they don’t need to purchase it. Act 196 is just a change in legal form – and that form takes away from city residents because it results in a board that is less accountable to city residents than the current AATA board. The effect of the change, said Floyd, is to remove accountability, not to expand service.

Carolyn Grawi spoke on behalf of the Center for Independent living. She said she has concerns, but also has faith in what is going on. She encouraged the council not to vote down the proposal, because that would close the door – the door needs to be left open. The AATA has been very open in its process, she said, and now the governing bodies of the government units need to do the same. Citizens need to have a say in the voting process, she said, and she’s not convinced that the amendments to the four-party agreement do that.

4-Party Agreement: Public Hearing – In this Together, Economic Development

Washtenaw County commissioner Rolland Sizemore said we’re all in the same boat. “We can’t be in silos,” he said. He said the four-party agreement needs to move forward, calling it “one of the pieces of the puzzle.” He told the council to decide what it wants to do and the county board would then look at the articles of incorporation.

Jesse Bernstein introduced himself as a resident of Ward 2 for 40 years and chair of the AATA board. Responding to the suggestion that there could be widespread non-participation across the county in the Act 196 authority, he noted that 22 of the 26 local units of government in Washtenaw County have been participating in the transit master planning process, and most of them have signed Act 7 agreements. We need collaboration, he said. At any point, any member of the four-party agreement can end participation, and if that happens the AATA will continue as a Act 55 authority.

Bill Lavery introduced himself as a resident of York Township – he represents the south central district on the unincorporated Act 196 (U196) board that’s been meeting since the fall of 2011. He said he’d circled through his community and reported people are supportive of the planning process. He’s happy they’re participating in a shared vision. Transportation needs are growing, he said, noting increased numbers of residences for the elderly, and senior centers. People in Lodi Township have noted that bus service has been reduced in the school district, he said.

Ann Arbor Public Schools trustee Simone Lightfoot appeared before the council, saying she fully understands the challenge of navigating the politics of the situation. She asked the council to consider the rich opportunity to work with AAPS. She noted that the district is facing a $15 million budget challenge. That will affect the district’s ability to transport its students. She said she’d met with AATA’s CEO Michael Ford and is impressed with the work AATA is doing. She said she looked forward to the effort moving forward, so that AAPS can work with AATA.

State Rep. Jeff Irwin spoke in support of public transportation. He said he’d been a part of the public meetings to develop the transit master plan. He described it as a long and complicated process. The planned Act 196 authority will meet three main goals, he said: (1) fill holes in existing service; (2) increase connectivity to other places in the region; and (3) cement Ann Arbor as the economic center of the region. “No city is a island,” he said. The transportation system is an economic engine that will be good for us and good for property values, he concluded.

In support of collaboration and cooperation, Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board member Keith Orr offered the historical vignette of the founding communities that eventually came together to form Milwaukee. They were such fierce rivals that it nearly resulted in armed conflict. Streets were planned on opposites sides of the river to be misaligned for any bridges that might be built. To this day, the bridges are askew, Orr said. Eventually they realized that the friction between communities was discouraging settlement. The four-party agreement is the kind of regional leadership we should embrace, he said.

Rich Sheridan introduced himself as president of Menlo Innovations. He described how the company had tripled in size several times, which had led the company to move to different spots in downtown Ann Arbor. It now occupies the entire downstairs space at Tally Hall [now called Liberty Square]. He described Menlo Innovations as a high-tech firm that employs younger and older high-tech workers

Menlo has participated in the go!pass program since its inception, he said. He told councilmembers that they’ve likely seen him on the side of the bus – he participated in a publicity campaign that included head shots of local leaders displayed on the sides of buses and at bus shelters. As someone who gets around the country quite a bit to recruit talent, Sheridan said the kind of place people are attracted to are places with strong transit systems. When he visited Portland recently, he’d asked how it was that the transit system there had been approved. He’d been told there was a big fight – they weren’t sure anyone would ride it. He encouraged the council use their leadership to move the community forward.

Judy Wenzel described herself as a 32-year resident of Braeburn Circle. Among other issues, she gave an example of what happened when the county and the city were involved with a project. When a new traffic light was installed, she said, the county paid nothing, but the city paid half and her co-op paid half.

Thomas Partridge told the council that when he’d run for the 18th District senate seat, he’d done so on a platform to unite the region through transportation.

Putting transportation in the context of other areas of collaboration where the balance is difficult to achieve was Jim Mogensen. He alluded to the dispute between Washtenaw County and townships over the cost of providing sheriff deputy road patrols. Responding to mayor John Hieftje’s remark that countywide transportation planning had begun at least 10 years ago, Mogensen said it’d actually started 40 years ago. In 1969 Act 55 had been amended to allow provision of transit service as far away from a city as 10 miles. He said Ann Arbor already has a regional system that includes Ypsilanti, Superior Township, Ann Arbor Township and Pittsfield Township, which was established through an agreement among those parties to participate. He described the four-party agreement as opening up a “Pandora’s box.” He cautioned: “Let’s not go backwards.”

4-Party Agreement: Public Hearing – Uncertainty

Dorothy Nordness expressed dissatisfaction with the detail provided in answers to questions that the AATA had released in a document on Jan. 17. Those questions included some about the financing and the level of the University of Michigan’s participation.

Michael Benson, Ward 2 resident and president of the University of Michigan graduate study body, said the current four-party agreement still needs work. He encouraged the council to hold off approving it until after the budget is done [in May]. The financial piece still needs more work, he said.

LuAnne Bullington described the uncertainty of a situation in which countywide planning in Washtenaw is going on at the same time as new state-level legislation was planned to be introduced for a regional transit authority. [By way of background, the legislation has been in the works for several months, and was mentioned in Gov. Rick Snyder's state of the state address. The legislation was introduced four days after the council's Jan. 23 meeting.]

4-Party Agreement: Outcome

The rationale for postponement was for some councilmembers based on the desire to hear the recommendation of the financial advisory group, which had been scheduled to meet at the end of the week. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) made clear that he was willing to postpone, but did not think it was necessary to have the recommendation of the financial group before voting.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone action on the four-party agreement until its Feb. 6 meeting.

Resolution on Immigration

The Ann Arbor city council considered a resolution opposing federal policies that detain people and that result in deportation of immigrants who have not committed a “serious criminal offense” and who have long-standing ties to the community. The council’s resolution supports the use of prosecutorial discretion in such cases. The resolution also calls for timely legalization of undocumented immigrants who have not committed a serious criminal offense.

Several people held signs in support of the resolution on immigration.

The council previously passed a resolution, on July 6, 2010, opposing an Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to investigate a person’s immigration status, when there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the U.S. unlawfully.

And the council formulated a policy in 2003 that directs its police officers to “limit local enforcement actions with respect to immigration matters to penal violations of federal immigration law (as opposed to administrative violations) except in cases where the chief of police determines there is a legitimate public safety concern.”

The council’s resolution passed at its Jan. 23, 2012 meeting comes after they’d heard a plea at their Dec. 5, 2011 meeting from 14-year Ann Arbor resident Lourdes Salazar Bautista, who faced deportation in late December. She was subsequently given a one-year reprieve. The council’s resolution did not address Bautista’s situation specifically.

Immigration: Public Comment

Out of 10 reserved spots for public commentary at the start of the meeting, eight people signed up to address the resolution on immigration.

Linda Kurtz spoke to her direct personal experience living across the street from Bautista. Bautista has lived across the street from her for several years, and turned a rundown house into a nice one, Kurtz said. Bautista pays her bills on time – she’s the kind of neighbor everyone wants. Her presence on the street adds to value to the other houses, Kurtz said. Of the nine houses on the block, two have been foreclosed in the last year. The neighborhood doesn’t need another empty house on the street. Bautista and her children have become a part of the community they live in, Kurtz said.

Martha Valdez introduced herself as a graduate student at the University of Michigan who came to study community organizing and social work. She’d moved to Ann Arbor because she appreciated the sense of community here. She’d become aware of the injustices that occur in the immigrant community, and wanted to join those who are challenging those inequalities and working together to make a difference. She’s planning to find a job here so that she can remain in Ann Arbor after graduating in April. She wants to help make sure that others who come from immigrant families like she does can feel safe and respected in Ann Arbor. She called it critical to pass the resolution like the one the council was considering.

Diana Sierra introduced herself as a doctoral student at the University of Michigan. She told the council that she’d immigrated to the U.S. when she was five years old. Up until December 2011, when she obtained a permanent residency permit, she’d been living as an undocumented immigrant. Having lived that way for most of her life, she said, she understood that fear is a part of daily life for an undocumented immigrant.

Sierra described the tactics used against undocumented immigrants as harassment, “stalking” them outside grocery stores, schools and their homes. She noted that fear of deportation keeps people from reporting domestic violence, or abuses of landlords like the refusal to turn on heat or water.

Bob Snyder thanked Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) for bringing forward the resolution. He decried the use of the term “illegal immigrant” because it fails to differentiate between those who are here in the U.S. without the proper papers and those who’ve committed serious crimes. Snyder characterized as a “racist slur” the reference to Latin American guests in the U.S. as “illegal.” He lamented the fact that they are “fair game” in the hunting season of local, state and national elections.

Kevin Young spoke on behalf of the Washtenaw Community Action Team. He said the resolution would constitute a firm statement on behalf of justice and human dignity. He felt the resolution would expand the discussion on immigration beyond its current narrow focus, by countering rhetoric blaming immigrants. It would instead shift attention to the root causes of human migration – namely, a staggering level of global inequality.

Leslie Stambaugh spoke on behalf of the Ann Arbor human rights commission. She described solutions to the issue of immigration as a series of “patchy fixes” that sacrifice fairness. She said there are 15 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. She described how unmarked SUVs follow targeted persons to their homes, workplaces, churches and schoolyards, and noted that ICE [immigration & customs enforcement] agents can demand documents and detain people. She noted that the federal policy calls for low prioritization of those who haven’t committed a serious criminal offense, but the actual practice of ICE agents doesn’t live up to that, she said.

Carlos Zavala spoke on behalf of the Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights, saying that he wanted to acknowledge the positive impacts of immigrants on the community, such as providing manpower for labor-intensive occupations.

He cited the three principles of Catholic social teachings on migration: (1) People have the right to migrate to sustain their lives and the lives of their families; (2) A country has the right to regulate its borders and to control immigration; and (3) A country must regulate its borders with justice and mercy.

Joseph Summers introduced himself as the pastor of a local Episcopal church for 25 years. He said that public policies are a reflection of core values. He characterized the actions of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents as that of “goons,” likening them to the imperial stormtroopers from Star Wars. He said that as a Christian, his faith speaks clearly to him. He cited some verses of biblical scripture from Leviticus 19:34: “You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

Immigration: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who had co-sponsored the resolution, told her colleagues that there’d been “further language perfections,” made to the resolution. In the final two “resolved” clauses, reference to an immigrant’s ties to the U.S. was swapped out in favor of ties “to our community.”

Briere said she was confident other councilmembers recalled public comment at their December 2011 council meeting about an Ann Arbor resident who was at risk of deportation. That brought home to councilmembers an issue they’d perhaps heard about on the news, but had no experience of their own. Ann Arbor is not on the border, but residents are still at risk – not because they’ve committed crimes.

Briere said the U.S. should have a system where undocumented immigrants who have ties to a community can take steps to become citizens. People who are low risk are not supposed to be prioritized for deportation, based on statements from president Barack Obama. But such individuals wind up being prioritized – because they are easy to catch, because they’re law abiding. She encouraged her colleagues support the resolution.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) described how a few months ago a group had approached some councilmembers and a few of them had stepped forward, thinking that a resolution like this would be “in the soul of Ann Arbor.” The issue is being worked on, Anglin said, and the discussion needs to be nudged along. This resolution would do that, he said.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) called it “a beautifully written resolution.” She characterized it as sending a message and providing feedback to the federal government. For her, however, it is a situation where the council is being asked to address a national policy. She questioned whether a local resolution was appropriate. The other resolution on the agenda that night – expressing opposition to Michigan’s Public Act 247 – had a clear and direct connection to Ann Arbor, she said. For her, the resolution on immigration is one that doesn’t have a connection to Ann Arbor that is as direct or as clear. Given all that the council has to do, she said she’d resist the tendency to address something outside the council’s scope and control.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) responded to Lumm by saying the resolution was specifically written to address issues connected to Ann Arbor, but she appreciated Lumm’s concern about it being outside the council’s purview. The resolution is designed to give potential relief to citizens in Ann Arbor, Smith said. She agreed with Anglin, who said the resolution speaks to the soul of Ann Arbor. She allowed that the council has pressing matters it has to consider – among them the four-party transit agreement and the budget. But she said that the council stays and does its work. The resolution may prolong the council’s time at the table, but it does’t mean the council is unable to attend to its other work.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she appreciated Smith’s comments, but wouldn’t support the resolution. That’s been her consistent position for her entire time on the city council, she said. [Higgins attended the July 6, 2010 meeting when the council passed a resolution opposing Arizona's law requiring local law enforcement officials to investigate a person’s immigration status, when there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the U.S. unlawfully. However, she was not at the table when the vote was taken. Then-councilmember Stephen Rapundalo, whom Lumm replaced on the council, voted against the July 6, 2010 resolution. Rapundalo, Lumm and Higgins are all former Republicans.]

Higgins allowed that the resolution raised awareness, but contained nothing actionable. She said people should instead pick up the phone or email and contact legislators. While some people think a city council resolution carries more weight, Higgins said she felt that one voice combined with many other voices gives the position more weight. She encouraged people to raise their voices individually to make the message “a very strong shout.”

Mayor John Hieftje said what the council is objecting to is people getting jerked out of their homes, saying that the resolution does apply to this community and our neighbors.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the resolution opposing deportation, with dissent from  Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Resolution on Public Act 297

The council considered a resolution opposing Michigan’s Public Act 297, which was signed into law on Dec. 22, 2011. The act prohibits public employers from providing employee medical and fringe benefits to those who are not married to an employee, a dependent of the employee, or eligible to inherit from the employee under the laws of intestate succession. [.pdf of PA 297]

It’s not legal in Michigan for same-sex couples to marry. PA 297 thus effectively eliminates the possibility of providing benefits to same-sex domestic partners.

Ann Arbor provides employee benefits to “other qualified adults,” a definition that includes same-sex domestic partners. [.pdf of Ann Arbor employee retirement system definition of other qualified adult] Nine current or retired city of Ann Arbor employees are impacted by PA 297.

Before the bill was signed, the council – at its Sept. 19, 2011 meeting – passed a resolution calling on Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder not to sign the bill into law.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1): "I love this city!"

On Jan. 5, 2012, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in U.S. district court against Snyder on behalf of four couples. Four of the eight plaintiffs are residents of Ann Arbor. The public employer for the two Ann Arbor couples is the Ann Arbor Public Schools. [.pdf of complaint against Rick Snyder] The resolution directs the Ann Arbor city attorney to assist the ACLU in the lawsuit in whatever way is useful, including filing an amicus brief.

The resolution considered by the Ann Arbor city council on Jan. 23 also cites Ann Arbor’s history of commitment to non-discrimination and protections for those of all sexual orientations. [.pdf of Ann Arbor's non-discrimination ordinance]

During the council’s deliberations Jane Lumm (Ward 1) expressed her interest in not seeing the ACLU and the city of Ann Arbor by themselves trying to take on the state of Michigan. She asked city attorney Stephen Postema if other municipalities had indicated they’d be willing to help – he was not aware of any.

Responding to Lumm’s concern, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he would be proud to have Ann Arbor stand alone. He characterized PA 297 as a “state shame.” Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said it was appropriate to see a cause like this in a city like Ann Arbor. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she’d support the resolution wholeheartedly. Margie Teall (Ward 4) thanked Smith for bringing it forward.

Lumm, given the concern she’d expressed about Ann Arbor going it alone, was keen to stress that she opposes PA 297, saying it puts Michigan at a competitive disadvantage. And as Lumm went on, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) declared: “I love this city!”

Outcome: The council unanimously passed the resolution opposing PA 297.

AATA Policing Contract

The Ann Arbor city council considered a renewal to the agreement under which it supplies policing services to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority – at the transit agency’s downtown Ann Arbor Blake Transit Center.

The agreement entails the provision of a dedicated officer for the location. The previous agreement had expired on Oct. 31, 2011. Cost of the services to the AATA is $75,000, with a $5,000 increase per year after Oct. 31, 2012. The point of the increases is to get the contract value back to the fully-burdened cost, which is $112,000.

During deliberations, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she appreciated getting an answer to her question about the fully-burdened cost of providing a police officer dedicated to the Blake Transit Center – $112,000, as compared to $75,000 for the value of the contract. She said that she understood it to be the result of negotiation.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked why the city wouldn’t charge the full cost. Deputy chief of police John Seto came to the podium and told Higgins he didn’t know the full history of the initial agreement. The most recent round of negotiations resulted in an agreement to attempt to get the contract back to the level of the fully-burdened cost through a $5,000 increase each year. He’d revisit the possibility of increasing it to $10,000 annually, or even more aggressively. Higgins indicated interest to city administrator Steve Powers in discussing other similar contracts in the context of setting the fiscal year 2013 budget. [The council approves the budget for the next fiscal year in May – the fiscal year starts on July 1. So the council will approve the FY 2013 budget in May 2012.]

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the AATA policing contract.

Wastewater Project Contract

At its Jan. 23, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council considered a $10,802,423 contract with Malcolm Pirnie Inc. for engineering services related to the facilities renovation project (FRP) at the city’s wastewater treatment plant.

The city’s wastewater treatment facility includes an East Plant and West Plant. The West Plant has been taken offline due to its dilapidated condition and is planned to be demolished and replaced. The project also includes a number of improvements throughout the facility, including a new electrical distribution system, new emergency power generators, utilities relocation, and replacement of stormwater collection system equipment.

The total project cost is well over $100 million and is expected to be financed in part with low-interest loans through Michigan’s state revolving fund program, which is administered by the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality. [For additional background on the project, see The Ann Arbor Observer's "The Flow Never Stops" from April 2009.]

Outcome: The council voted without deliberation to approve the contract.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Downtown City-Owned Surface Lots

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) gave an update on progress with the “Discovering Midtown” project – a process for exploring alternate uses of downtown city-owned surface parking lots. The process is being led by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority based on direction given by the Ann Arbor city council at the council’s April 4, 2011 meeting. The effort will now be known as “Connecting William Street,” reported Smith, to avoid confusion with a character district in the city’s zoning ordinance that is called Midtown. There will be surveys conducted in February, she said. She noted that out of a recent $3 million federal sustainability grant that was recently awarded, a small piece will be used by the DDA to have a facilitator do public outreach, which begins in March. [The grant application included the DDA's planning effort.]

Comm/Comm: City-Owned Parcel – 415 W. Washington

Mayor John Hieftje reminded the council that a group had been formed to look at the city-owned 415 W. Washington lot. [The council passed a resolution giving direction for the effort at its Feb. 1, 2010 meeting, nearly two years ago. The resolution calls for the arts and greenway communities to lead fundraising and development of a vision for the parcel’s use. The site, across from the YMCA, is currently providing revenue to the city as a surface parking lot. It was previously the city’s maintenance yard.] Hieftje said the group continues to meet – the biggest challenge remains the building. He said a report on the status of the project would be given at the end of February.

Comm/Comm: Medical Marijuana

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) gave her colleagues a head’s up that the next meeting of the medical medical marijuana licensing board would be Jan. 31. The board has been meeting at least once a month since October 2011, she said. [Briere serves as the city council's representative to the board, which was established last year in connection with the city's medical marijuana ordinance.] So, the recommendation that the board is supposed to submit to the council by Jan. 31 would likely be in the council’s hands by early February, she said. [Recent Chronicle coverage: "ZBA Grants 1 of 2 Medical Marijuana Appeals" and "Medical Marijuana: Local Board Eyes 2012"]

Comm/Comm: Budget, Public Safety

During public commentary, Karen Sidney noted that the city council needs to approve next year’s budget [FY 2013] by the end of May. [The city's fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30, so FY 2013 begins on July 1, 2012. By city charter, the city administrator must submit a budget in April, and the city council must adopt it with any amendments by May each year.] That’s not a lot of time, she said, to solve the big budget problems the city is facing. She contended the city does not have adequate numbers of police officers and firefighters to keep residents safe. She said that two-person crews are not the answer, when it takes four firefighters to enter a burning building [two to enter and two to remain outside.]

In the last five years, Sidney counted a loss of 64 police officers and 12 firefighters. She called on councilmembers to start now, if they expected to figure out what to cut, in order to restore those positions. She said there’d been a historical pattern of spending time on time-consuming issues that can wait – the four-party countywide transit agreement is an example of that, she said, suggesting it could wait until after May. She hoped the proposed budget would be posted in a timely fashion and that the council would discuss any changes in the city council chambers, instead of at “meetings behind closed doors.”

During his communications, mayor John Hieftje said that in May 2011 he’d said that council’s challenge is to make sure that further cuts to the police force don’t happen – his preference would be to add officers. The hiring to replace retiring officers is going well, Hieftje said. The city had received 450 applications for 9-10 spots. He said the city had finished the year with a record reduction in crime for 2011.

Comm/Comm: Dragons, Council Rules, Warming

During the communications slot at the start of the council’s agenda, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wished everyone a happy Year of the Dragon, noting that it was the first night of the Chinese New Year [a festival that runs 15 days].

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Alan Haber. In the background behind Haber is city of Ann Arbor transportation program manager Eli Cooper.

Later in the evening, during public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Thomas Partridge alluded to Jane Lumm (Ward 2), saying it was “entirely disappointing” that she appeared to be taking a “dragon lady attitude” on the council. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) objected during Partridge’s remarks to the fact that Partridge was calling names.

Alan Haber followed Partridge to the podium, saying that he’d been listed as an alternate to speak during the reserved time at the start of the meeting, behind other speakers – Karen Sidney and Thomas Partridge. [The council makes 10 reserved slots available at the start of the meeting, giving priority to those who wish to address agenda items.]

Haber complained that while he always appreciated Partridge’s astute comments on social justice, and Sidney’s comments were always worth hearing, the two had not addressed topics on the agenda in their remarks at the start of the meeting. In contrast, he’d wanted to speak to an item on the agenda, but was nonetheless assigned alternate status.

The issue of that particular council rule has been a topic of previous complaint. At the council’s Sept. 19, 2011 meeting, Michael Benson asked the council to enforce that rule.

The reason for apparent lack of enforcement of that provision of the council’s rules can be found in the specific language of the rule. It gives priority to speakers who wish to address agenda items, but only for people reserving a time between 8 a.m. and 1 p.m. on the day of a council meeting. After 1 p.m. it’s strictly first-come, first-served.

On the morning of the regular meeting of the City Council the City Clerk shall sign up persons interested in speaking during the time designated as Public Commentary Reserved Time as follows:
a. Between 8 a.m. and 1 p.m. all ten speaking times will be available to persons wishing to address council on agenda items.
b. After 1 p.m. on that same day speakers wishing to address council on any matter will be signed up strictly on a first come first serve basis for any remaining times. Two alternates may also be designated.

The substantive issue Haber had wished to address was the idea of establishing a warming center. He’d intended to link that issue to the minutes of Ann Arbor’s human rights commission, which were attached to the council’s agenda, but which he contended he could not find. The reason he wished to link the warming center to the human rights commission, Haber said, is that the first human right is warmth – the right to come in out of the cold and to sit in the cave by the fire.

Comm/Comm: Leasing, Student Relations

Michael Benson addressed the council at the conclusion of the meeting, partly on behalf of the graduate student body at the University of Michigan, for which he serves as president.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton and Michael Benson.

He noted some dissatisfaction on the part of some people with the leasing situation. He was alluding to a provision in Ann Arbor’s leasing ordinance, approved by the city council in 2008, which is supposed to prevent landlords from renting or showing an apartment to another renter until 70 days of the current lease period has passed.

In that context, Benson reiterated a suggestion he made a year ago during public commentary – to reconvene the student relations committee and expand its membership. [Council representatives to the committee are Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).]

Comm/Comm: General Praise

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, John Litle called the council meeting and its public hearing on the four-party transit agreement a “shining example of democracy in action,” saying it had restored his faith in democracy.

Also at the conclusion of the meeting, Michael Benson thanked the council for their work, saying that after watching them transact business – while he didn’t always agree with all or any of them – he believed they had everyone’s best interests at heart. He said it’s important to remember that while we might disagree, attacking individuals is not the best way to move an agenda forward.

Comm/Comm: Vehicle Idling

During her public commentary turn on the immigration resolution, Linda Kurtz added her thoughts on an ordinance that might come before the Ann Arbor city council to regulate unnecessary vehicle idling. Kurtz said she was shocked at the number of vehicles she’s seen idling – it’s wasteful and unnecessary, she said. An educational effort should be undertaken, she said, and the enactment of an ordinance plays a part in that education. Education should start with city workers, she said. [In connection with the site preparation work for the City Place project on South Fifth Avenue, nearby residents reported city vehicles idling through the better part of a day.]

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

Next council meeting: Monday, Feb. 6, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Marsha Chamberlin and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) before the start of the Ann Arbor city council's Dec. 5 meeting. Chamberlin is chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission. (Photos by the writer.)

At its Nov. 21 meeting, the council had given initial approval to ordinance revisions that included temporarily reducing the required 1% allocation to public art from all city capital improvement projects, dropping the amount to 0.5% for the period from 2012 to 2015. Neither that provision, nor one that would have required allocated funds to be spent on public art within a specific period of time, survived a final vote. What did survive was a prohibition against using general fund dollars for public art projects, as well as an exclusion of sidewalk repair from the definition of projects triggering the public art requirement.

Councilmembers who had previously argued for the temporary reduction, but changed their positions after intense lobbying by the arts community – both privately and at the lengthy public hearing – included Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and mayor John Hieftje. All face possible re-election campaigns in 2012. Questions about the legal foundation of Ann Arbor’s public art program, which taps utility fees and dedicated millage funds to pay for public art, were raised again at the meeting by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

In other significant business, the council gave final approval to an expansion of the area around Ann Arbor that is eligible for protection using funds from the voter-approved greenbelt millage.

The council also approved its side of a deal to contract out Ann Arbor police dispatching services to the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office – at an annual cost of $759,089. The city expects eventually to save $500,000 a year with the move, which will entail laying off all of the city’s current dispatchers, not all of whom would be able to obtain employment within the expanded sheriff’s office dispatch operation.

The council also formally tabled a proposed ordinance that would have provided residents with the ability to forbid the delivery of newspapers to their property – by posting a notice on their front doors. The city’s code already prohibits depositing newspapers onto sidewalks.

A sidewalk along Dexter Avenue, east of Maple Road, was the subject of a special tax authorized by the council to be applied to property owners there. The city will use the funds to construct a continuous sidewalk along that stretch, and make curb and gutter improvements.

The council took care of several housekeeping issues, including approving its set of rules for the coming year and making its committee appointments. Those included the appointment of Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) as the council representative to the board of the local development finance authority – replacing Stephen Rapundalo, who was defeated by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) in the Nov. 8 election. But Rapundalo was appointed as a citizen representative to the board and will thus continue to serve on that body. Council committee appointments were only slightly shuffled, because Lumm was assigned to a number of spots Rapundalo had previously filled.

At the end of the meeting, Hieftje announced a nomination to replace Sue McCormick on the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority – Eli Cooper. Cooper has previously served on the AATA board and is the city’s transportation program manager.

Highlights during public commentary included advocacy for a 24/7 warming shelter to be staffed by volunteers from the community, and support for 14-year Ann Arbor resident Lourdes Salazar Bautista, who faces deportation later this month.

Public Art Program

The council considered final approval of a revision to its public art ordinance that would temporarily reduce the amount allocated from all capital project budgets to public art from 1% to 0.5%. The city has a law – enacted in 2007 – that requires 1% of all capital project budgets to include 1% for public art, with a limit of $250,000 per project. At its Nov. 21 meeting, the council had given initial approval to the reduction, as well as other ordinance amendments.

The initially approved reduction applied for just the next three years, from fiscal year 2012 to 2015. That three-year timeframe was also a key part of a sunsetting amendment to the public art ordinance. The sunsetting amendment would have required that future funds reserved for public art under the ordinance be encumbered within three years. Money that was unspent or unencumbered after three years would have been required to return to its fund of origin. The language of the amendment would have made it possible for the council to extend the deadline for successive periods, each extension for no more than six months.

Councilmembers Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

The sunsetting clause had been proposed in response to criticism about the pace at which public art has been acquired. More than $500,000 has accumulated for public art over the last five years just from projects funded with the street repair tax – money that has yet to be spent on the acquisition of public art. Critics of the program also point to legal issues connected with the use of dedicated millage funds or fee-based utility funds for public art.

Two other amendments – that did receive final approval by the council on Monday – included a definition of capital improvement projects that excludes sidewalk repair from the ordinance requirement. Voters on Nov. 8 approved a new 0.125 mill tax that is supposed to allow the city to take over responsibility for the repair of sidewalks. Previously, sidewalk repair was paid for by adjacent property owners.

The amendments before the council for final consideration also excluded the public art ordinance from applying to any capital projects funded out of the general fund. Such projects are rare. [Additional Chronicle coverage: "Council Preview: Public Art Ordinance"]

Public Art Program: Public Hearing

As with all changes to city ordinances, a public hearing was held before the council took its second vote on the public art ordinance amendments. Most but not all spoke against the idea of reducing the 1% funding. The public hearing included many of the same personalities who have previously addressed the council on the topic. Here are some highlights.

Thomas Partridge, noted that his deceased mother was an artist, so it was only reluctantly that he was asking that the ordinance be amended to cut funding. The program had been so fully funded that it had enticed the mayor and council to a lapse in judgement that had led them to purchase a $750,000 object [the Dreiseitl fountain] that looks like it came out of a junkyard, he said.

Brenda Oelbaum told the council that her mother is on life support in Toronto and she’d traveled back to Ann Arbor because she felt that public art is on life support. She contended that the talk of Ann Arbor in a financial crisis is exaggerated, citing as evidence the fact that she’d gone to dinner on Thursday and waited for an hour in a place that wasn’t cheap. Where’s the recession? she asked. Ypsilanti and Detroit are suffering, but Ann Arbor, she claimed, is not suffering.

Cheryl Elliot, president and CEO of the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, spoke in support of the public art program, calling art the “gift that keeps on giving.”

Alan Haber encouraged the council to maintain the full amount of funding. He suggested bringing art from Ann Arbor’s sister cities around the world and displaying it in an art exchange.

Paul Hickman introduced himself as the owner of the home furnishing company Urban Ashes. He told the council he felt that something was being critically missed in the conversation. He asked how many people in the room had had a mentor – several people raised their hands. He said that his bridge from school to work was working with a professor doing public art in 1999-2000, which was funded through Arizona’s Percent for Art program. That bridge connected him to the trades and techniques of public art and took him into a career, he said. It’s allowed him to be able to do what he really loves to do, he said.

If councilmembers had not heard of Urban Ashes, Hickman told them, they would eventually hear about it. Six years ago he and his 5-year-old son had started working with disadvantaged kids in Brighton. The benefit of public art goes beyond the visual impact on the community, he said. Art is a profession, and it’s taught him an incredible way to give back to the community.

Shoshana Hurand, one of the organizers of FestiFools, expressed her support for the public art program, saying it makes economic sense.

Margaret Parker and Marsha Chamberlin, who both serve on the public art commission, spoke in support of maintaining the funding the same way it had been previously mandated. Parker said that cutting the percentage from 1% to 0.5% brings no new revenue to the city. She insisted that the amounts the council was discussing were “pennies.” Parker said the reason that so little art had been created up to now was that not enough money had been allocated for administering the program.

Chamberlin told the council that Ann Arbor is not a sleepy college town. She acknowledged that public art is well funded, judging by the amount that had been generated to date. The volunteer commission had started the ball rolling, she said. It sets a bad example to reduce the funding, she said. Having a three-year deadline for encumbering funds with the council extension is understandable, she said, but not a reduction from 1% to 0.5%.

Odile Hugenot Haber lamented the fact that funding for art is now pitted against social services.

Alexandra Hoffman introduced herself as a University of Michigan PhD student. She’s working with the group trying to establish a warming center. She told the council her group is not against public art folks, but invited the council to come help at the warming center.

Nancy Kaplan told the council she appreciated the effort they’d made to amend the ordinance. She said she also appreciated the hard work of the public art commission. She allowed that everyone appreciates public art, but said that the debate is not about art itself, but rather the method of funding. She called for a fresh start, with a public vote on public art. She told the council they should put a vote for art on the November 2012 ballot. That would provide a clarity for the funding source, she said, clarity on the amount so that it could be counted on, clarity on the duration of the program and clarity on the design – the design of a piece of art could be untied from the purpose of a particular funding source.

Kaplan said that currently the art fund is flush, and the temporary funding reduction would give the commission a chance to “catch up.” Kaplan told the council that it’s the funding mechanism that is tying the community in knots.

Public Art Program: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off deliberations by saying that after the council’s last meeting, she had a chance to look at the amendments to which the council had given their initial approval and to think over the implications of the changes for funding and policy. She said she was terrifically impressed with the passion expressed by the public in support of art. For her part, she said what they’re really talking about is the funding mechanism – not particular activities like FestiFools or the art fairs. The council is talking about funding mechanisms and priorities, she said. When the council established the ordinance, it had not clarified what it meant by “capital improvement” and didn’t look 3-4 years into the future to see what kind of funds would accumulate.

If the revision passed, it would allow the public art commission to take a breather and look at how it’s going to implement policies it has established – without amassing as much funding as the program has in the past three years. As proposed, the funding would automatically revert from 0.5% back to 1%, she said. The ordinance also doesn’t affect the fund balance that’s already there – it addresses only funding alloted for public art after July 1, 2012. She characterized it as a very narrow ordinance.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reflected on the lively discussion at the previous council meeting, saying that it had added to the discourse on the issue. She agreed with Briere’s emphasis on the funding source. In response to those who questioned where funding for new projects could come from if the funding were reduced, Lumm suggested partnerships with the private sector.

Councilmembers Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) before the start of the Dec. 5 meeting.

Lumm said she’d support the temporary reduction to 0.5%. Lumm responded to the rhetorical tactic from Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) at the last council meeting, when they’d said you can’t claim to support public art at the same time you reduce funding. She agreed with the remarks of Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) from the previous meeting, who’d noted that the council had also said it supported public safety at the same time the council reduced funding for it. Lumm said that’s a black-and-white view of things that is not appropriate. Taxpayers expect adjustments, she said. It comes down to tradeoffs and difficult choices, and she called on the council to get away from emotional demagoguery. A vote to temporarily reduce funding of public art doesn’t mean someone is anti-public art, she said. Lumm said she’d see things differently if the earmark for public art were based on a vote of residents.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said it’s important to provide an amount that’s sufficient for the program  to be successful.

Objecting to Lumm’s allusion to public safety, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) felt that conversations about public safety don’t have a place in this context. Bringing up public safety clouds the issue and misleads listeners, he contended. It’s capital money that is set aside – it can’t be used for public safety operations. He said he strived to find with this, as with other issues, some measure of balance. When the council had first considered the issue, he said, he was conflicted about reducing the funding temporarily to 0.5%.

The metaphor Taylor had introduced at the last meeting was one of pruning a plant. Taylor said it’s a useful metaphor, but he’d begun to doubt it’s applicability. What benefit would accrue to the program? he asked. He had yet to hear of a capital project that couldn’t be put forward, due to the public art program. He felt the program would benefit from an increased focus on staffing and administration, but had come to doubt that the temporary reduction would be useful.

Because Taylor did not feel the reduction would be useful, he said he would be proposing two amendments – to eliminate the temporary reduction in funding, and to eliminate the requirement that the money either be encumbered within three years, or else returned to its fund of origin.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) agreed with Taylor and said that Taylor’s remarks had encapsulated a lot of his own thinking. It would be a step backward, said Derezinski, who also serves on the public art commission. What kind of signal would it send? He said he was in favor of keeping the funding level at 1%. He suggested that an administrative solution needed to be found.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she’d twice supported the reduction of funding for the public art program. [At the council's Dec. 21, 2009 meeting and at the council's May 31, 2011 session, she'd voted for a reduction in funding.] Smith said she felt she’d been pretty consistent with the way she carries votes forward. The more she reflected on why she felt the way she did about the art program, the more she thought it might be because of a lack of more obvious progress.

The more Smith read about how to turn a place around and the reasons why people are drawn to a place, the more she wondered if reducing the funding was the right move. An epiphany came to her, she said, when crunching through the numbers and seeing the funding levels for the next three years for 1%, 0.5% and 0.25%. The difference between them, she said, is about “a buck and a quarter” per resident.

In talking about proposing an amendment, Smith said, Taylor had beaten her to the punch.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he supported the amendment, because maintaining funding at 1% is the right thing to do. He weighed in against executing a strategy to do everything at absolute minimum cost. He noted that Lumm had pointed out that having a conversation about the amount of funding shouldn’t be taken as support for art or not – up to a point. He said if someone were to suggest supporting 1/1000th of a percent, then that would not count as support for the art. Hohnke said he wanted Ann Arbor to be among the cohort of communities that leads.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she appreciated what had been said. As far as freeing up funds by reducing the percentage, she said, she didn’t know what the funds would be freed up for. It isn’t about art appreciation, she said. Ann Arbor has wonderful art fairs and people claim Ann Arbor is an artistic Mecca, but the city doesn’t really support art at all, she claimed. The Percent for Art ordinance is the mechanism to support public art, she said.

Councilmembers Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

People had described some great ideas about what the city could do with the arts funding, Teall said, but the city wouldn’t achieve any of the great ideas if the funding were cut.

With Smith and Taylor dropping their support, Briere appeared to understand that she’d likely lose the vote. She noted that her colleagues would remember that she didn’t propose the temporary drop in funding to 0.5%, but that she’d brought forward the resolution at the request of other councilmembers. [Her original proposal had been to leave the funding level at 1% but to exclude projects funded with the street repair millage.]

Briere indicated she appreciated the desire to return to 1%. The reason she could not support it, she said, is because the council had been engaged in “this dance” for three years. The council talked about it, but then backed away.

There’s absolutely no denying that art is important, Briere said. She reflected on the fact that it’s possible for the council to have a three-hour discussion that has little impact on individual budgets. Briere alluded to the council’s 45-minute debate in May 2009 on a $7,000 item for Project Grow funding. Using Smith’s analogy, that’s 6 cents per resident, she said. The council had recently approved a $25,000 appropriation for the Delonis Center warming center – that’s 22 cents a person, she said.

Over the next three years, the reduction from 1% to 0.5% takes funding from around $900,000 per year to almost $450,000, Briere said. She said she was hard-pressed to believe it would cripple a program that currently has around $1.5 million to spend. And if it were to cripple that program, we’d know it, she said, because the council would hear about it. She stressed that it’s a temporary three-year cutback. She did not think the temporary reduction would prevent someone from settling in Ann Arbor or expanding their business here. People come to places where there are jobs and housing, with well-maintained streets, she said – to places that take pride not just in art, but also in infrastructure.

This is the third time the issue has come back to the council, Briere said, and she felt that fact represents a real dissatisfaction with something about the program. She again stressed that she’d brought it forward at the request of other members on the council. If the council does not act, she said, councilmembers would face the same situation again in a year.

Lumm noted that the difference between the roughly $900,000 that 1% would generate and the $450,000 that 0.5% would generate was significant. The issue has to do with funding priorities, she said.

Taylor had voted for the reduction from 1% to 0.5% at the council’s first reading, in the same way he’d voted for the reduction at the first reading in 2009. He allowed that Briere raised a good point about the persistence of the council’s conversation. It’s one about which he was torn. The past two weeks had been illuminating for clarifying his thoughts.

Teall noted that permanent public art is costly, if it’s constructed as a life-long legacy to stand the test of time. The program doesn’t have an administrator, she said, and it’s a young program. [The city's current public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, started the job in May. It's a part-time position.] To “cut it off at its knees” is a mistake, Teall said. Reducing it would be a rollback at a time when the city is trying to institute things that don’t come to fruition in a short time.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) expressed some frustration, saying that as she listened to the debate, people always want to tie it to being for or against public art. The discussion is really about how to fund it. Higgins said that Marsha Chamberlin, chair of the public art commission, brought up a great point during public commentary when she’d said that the program has a lot of money right now, but nothing guarantees it in future years. If we want this place to be a Mecca for art, Higgins said, then let’s figure out how to fund it. The council was dancing around the question.

Higgins talked about the need for the art commission to know how much money it would have and for how long. She wondered if $400,000 for the next 30 years, funded by a millage, would be one way to go. She noted that people say they don’t want general fund dollars to go towards public art, but she wondered how administrative support is paid for.

Higgins said she’d like to see the resolution tabled for four to five months so that the council could have a serious conversation about it. On the issue of the general fund, she wondered if some money for art shouldn’t come from the general fund. If it’s a priority for the community, she asked, why not?

Hohnke allowed that the dollar amount generated is significant over the next three years, whether the percentage is 1% or 0.5%. The elegance of the program, based on a percentage, is that it’s a reflection of the investments made in the built environment. The program provides resources relative to the investment in the built environment, he said.

Mayor John Hieftje said people had made many good points. One of the points is that there are strings attached to the way public art money is spent, and he supported loosening the strings to the extent it’s legally possible. If there is any general fund money in the public art fund, he said, it’s not enough to make it an issue of public safety. The question is whether to fund art.

Hieftje noted that Ann Arbor’s water and sewer rates are some of the lowest in the state. He assured people that they’d see some aggressive spending of street millage funds next year – the city had been holding them back as a contingency to help pay for the Stadium bridges replacement project. Hieftje revealed that he was a sponsor of the resolution to reduce the funding from 1% to 0.5% at one point. But in looking at public art as economic development and reflecting on that, he found that 1%, up to the $250,000 limit per project, is okay. He found himself in favor of the amendment to keep funding at 1%.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) complained that the legality of the transfer from the street fund to art had never been explained in a written opinion from the city attorney. Alluding to Hieftje’s mention of “strings,” he said if the council is going to talk about strings, the strings should be written down.

Describing a millage pitched by Tuscola County to its voters, Kunselman said Tuscola County assured voters that there could be no transfer of special millage funds to another account. That’s what Tuscola County says, so what do we say, Kunselman wondered. He suggested the new city administrator ask for a written opinion from the city attorney. Then there could be certainty, he said.

Kunselman liked the idea of an art millage. Not acting meant punting it down the road to a future council in a way that could end up in a lawsuit, he said. Ann Arbor is the only city in Michigan that has a Percent for Art ordinance, Kunselman said, and the city doesn’t even have it written down why it’s legal.

Outcome on amendment restoring the 1% level of funding: The council voted to eliminate the original amendment, thus restoring the funding level to 1%. Dissenting were Lumm, Kunselman and Briere.

Taylor then went on to propose eliminating another amendment, already given initial approval, that money be returned to its fund of origin if not encumbered within three years. He said he’d initially thought it was a reasonable way to incentivize spending money with deliberate haste. He felt there were complications with the provision, despite the fail-safe that allowed the city council to extend the three-year deadline for funds in six-month increments.

Teall thanked Taylor for bringing forward the amendment. She feared the original proposal would have the effect of rushing the public art commission into spending money.

Briere noted that any time you talk about deadlines, there’s a valid concern it would result in hasty, ill-considered decisions. Responding to the issue of money in some funds accruing slowly, she noted that money is pooled and could be put together with other funds. Briere noted that the idea of placing a temporal deadline had come from public services area administrator Sue McCormick, who oversees the public art program. Briere said that placing a finite deadline on the accrual of funds would help focus attention. The idea is not to rush to judgment, she said. It’s to focus attention. It allows the city to keep better track of things.

Councilmember Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Margaret Parker, a member of the public art commission.

Higgins said she wouldn’t support Taylor’s amendment, pointing out that she’d heard Marsha Chamberlin say at the podium that the three-year period is reasonable. Higgins also noted that it’s not just one six-month period of extension – it’s an indefinite number of six-month extensions that are available. It’s an easy check and balance.

Smith noted that one of the things that affects her thinking about the public art ordinance is that there’s at this point very little public art to see. The original change that the council approved may help push projects along, so she was not in favor of reversing it. It’s important to have some sense of urgency, she said.

Derezinski said he’d proposed and voted for the amendment that allowed the council to grant an extension because it made the overall proposition less bad. He said it related to the issue of process and how the public art commission operates. If the commission had the right staff, he felt, it would be possible to address the issue through the procedures of the commission. Writing a requirement into the ordinance is using “too large a club,” he said.

Lumm said that the three-year provision did not amount to a hardship. She called it simply a very good discipline and said she wouldn’t support Taylor’s amendment.

Outcome on amendment removing requirement that funds be encumbered within three years: The amendment passed on a 6-5 vote, with approval from Derezinski, Taylor, Teall, Hohnke, Anglin and Hieftje.

Public services area administrator Sue McCormick was asked how the administration for public art would be charged. She described it as analogous to the way that engineering projects are charged to the project management group at the city.

In her concluding remarks, Briere noted that other communities with Percent for Art programs restrict the money in some way. When the Ann Arbor city council had originally passed its ordinance, it had not restricted the money. That made it problematic to manage. She hoped her colleagues would allow some restrictions going forward by passing the resolution as amended. [The surviving changes included the prohibition on using money from the general fund and the definition of capital improvement projects to exclude sidewalk repair.]

Lumm expressed frustration, commenting: “This thing is really watered down!” [Briere subsequently told The Chronicle that she'd gotten out of it what she'd wanted – an agreement to restrict the funds in some way.] Lumm said she’d started paying attention to it when Higgins had proposed a budget amendment in May of that year. Now, Lumm said, she wasn’t sure what to do.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the two changes to the public art ordinance.

City-County Consolidated Dispatch

On the agenda was a resolution for a $759,089 annual contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office to handle police dispatch operations for the city of Ann Arbor. The five-year agreement is anticipated to start in March of 2012.

According to the staff memo accompanying the council’s resolution, the city of Ann Arbor expects to realize at least $500,000 in savings annually compared to continuing to employ its own dispatchers. The cost savings arise from the fact that not all of the city’s current dispatchers would be hired on by the sheriff’s office – the total number of dispatchers in the consolidated operation would be reduced by six FTEs, compared to the two separate operations.

In the separate but co-located dispatch operation currently in place, at any given time, one Law Enforcement Information Network support officer is used for each operation – one for the Ann Arbor police department and one for the Washtenaw County sheriff's office.

In more detail, the city’s dispatch operation is currently authorized for 19 dispatching positions, and the county has 17 positions. The combined operation is proposed to employ 30 full-time dispatchers. It also calls for 10 part-time dispatchers.

A significant reduction in the FTE number (5.25 positions) is achieved in the consolidated operation by using just one LEIN (Law Enforcement Information Network) officer, instead of using one LEIN officer for each dispatch operation (for a total of two) at any given time.

The way these efficiencies were gained was laid out at the council’s Dec. 5 meeting, as they had been at a work session in September, by Kerry Laycock, a management consultant hired to help with the consolidation. [Laycock has been tapped for assistance on many of the city's reorganizational moves over the last several years, including most recently the Ann Arbor housing commission.]

Of the 19 budgeted city positions, one dispatcher retired this fall, leaving current staffing at 18. Two dispatchers are currently on approved leave. As a result of the consolidation, 4-5 Ann Arbor dispatchers who currently have full-time positions would not have a full-time job under the consolidated operation.

In addition to the cost savings that accrue from employing fewer people overall, it emerged during council deliberations that the difference in compensation between city and county dispatchers averages around $9,000 per year – Ann Arbor city dispatchers earn more. That can translate into around a 20% pay cut for Ann Arbor city dispatchers, who earned $44,000-$56,000 in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010.

The contract with the county for dispatch services is offset by a $12,520 facility use fee paid by the county to the city. The Washtenaw County sheriff’s office is already co-located with Ann Arbor police dispatch, in a facility above the city’s Fire Station #1 on South Fifth Avenue just across the street from the municipal center. The sheriff’s office also currently handles dispatching services for Northfield Township, Michigan State Police, Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority and the city of Ypsilanti. [Additional Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor, Washtenaw: Joint 911 Dispatch?"]

According to the staff memo accompanying the council’s resolution, the consolidation of dispatch operations would help qualify the city for the state of Michigan’s Economic Vitality Incentive Plan. The MEVIP has replaced statutory state-shared revenue as the means that the state legislature uses to distribute to local governmental units their portion of the state’s sales tax. The distribution of a portion of the state sales tax to local units is based on the fact that in Michigan, local units have limited ability to generate revenue through taxes.

Consolidated Dispatch: Public Commentary

Anne Daws-Lazar told the council she was a life-long Ann Arbor resident and that she’d worked 24 years as a dispatcher and would be retiring in February 2012. She characterized the proposed move not as a merger but as a “takeover.” She questioned the ability to take more calls with fewer people. She noted that currently the two operations are co-located. Before co-location, she said, Ann Arbor dispatchers answered more than 48,000 911 calls. After co-location, she said (adding the county sheriff’s operation) Ann Arbor dispatchers answered 85,000 calls. That’s because Ann Arbor dispatchers are answering Washtenaw County calls. [In the dispatching operation, there are two distinct functions performed by separate people – a call-taking function and a dispatching function.] So the Ann Arbor dispatching staff is already assisting with the Washtenaw County workload, Daws-Lazar concluded.

Ann Arbor dispatchers have more experience than county dispatchers, she said. Of the current 16 Ann Arbor dispatchers, nine have over 10 years of experience, and nobody has less than six years of experience. On the county side, she said, six out of 14 have less than four years experience. She accounted for the reduced experience on the county’s side by pointing to the conditions they work under and their treatment by their administration. She said she felt that very few people will be transitioned – Ann Arbor dispatchers will have to apply for a job. She felt very few Ann Arbor dispatchers will actually do that, because they’ve seen firsthand the conditions that the county dispatchers work under, which in turn will lead to a less-experienced dispatching staff.

Among the conditions the county dispatchers work under, Daws-Lazar pointed to a difference in their contracts – Ann Arbor dispatchers aren’t allowed to work 16 hours, unless it’s an extreme emergency. But county dispatchers work 16-hour days regularly, she contended. And they do that often two to three days in a row. That comes at a price, she said, including officer safety.

Danyelle Tucker introduced herself as a current employee at the dispatch center. In June of this year, she contended, all 18 dispatchers had been sent letters saying they would be laid off due to a lack of funding. She alluded to an alternative proposal, that would create revenue for the city instead of costing the city $759,000 per year, including the loss of PSAP (public safety answering point) funds totaling over $600,000 per year.

She contended that during a May 11, 2011 meeting of a the county-city collaboration task force, attended by assistant city attorney Nancy Niemela, city of Ann Arbor CFO Tom Crawford, and deputy police chief Greg Bazick, they discussed the best avenue for getting around a full city council vote. As members of the city council, she said, they should question why secrecy would be needed, if it were the best plan for the city. Why would Bazick raise the possibility of the consolidation process to be stopped by an injunction? she asked. She said there was a reason why the police department administration did not want the council to see the alternative proposal.

Tucker also expressed concern for citizens of Ann Arbor who are accustomed to a certain level of service from a dispatch center. Under the proposal, she said, citizens would be relying on Washtenaw County to maintain a full-staffed dispatch center. According to meeting notes obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request, full staffing would require 33 full-time employees, Tucker said. Currently the Washtenaw County dispatch operation has 14. To date, through 2011, the current level of staffing by the county has led to 5,000 hours of overtime, forcing current staff to work double shifts multiple days of the week, she said.

Consolidated Dispatch: Management Review

Ann Arbor chief of police Barnett Jones was invited to the podium by Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) to give an overview.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and chief of police Barnett Jones.

Jones reviewed his time as chief in Ann Arbor, which began six years ago. After four months on the job, he said, he’d been told he’d need to reduce staff. Since then, it’s been six years of reducing staff. In the course of those reductions, he said, he didn’t touch dispatch. It’s one of the core areas – patrol, investigation and dispatch. He reminded the council that he had presented the buyout option to the council to induce early retirements in 2009, which they’d approved. That had resulted in 26 people taking early retirement, two of whom were dispatchers. Those positions were then replaced, he said.

For this round of reductions, he said, he’d tried to come up with a way to keep his people employed. He first called the sheriff to explore the possibility that Ann Arbor could take over the sheriff’s dispatch, to perhaps generate revenue through the dispatch operation. Jones alluded to statutory mandates that prevent the sheriff from doing that. So they had looked at it the other way – with the sheriff taking over Ann Arbor’s dispatching operation. Later during council deliberations, sheriff Jerry Clayton said the proposal was cost-neutral from the county’s perspective.

Jones told councilmembers they’d seen some of the notes – alluding to the information that had been described during public commentary. When you brainstorm, he said, you throw every idea you can think of on the wall. The point is to try to save jobs, he said. Of the current Ann Arbor dispatchers, 13 or 14 of them would be employed under the consolidation, he said. His reality is that he faces a $1.2 million deficit. To meet that target without consolidation, he’d need to eliminate some dispatchers and officers, he said.

[Later during deliberations, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) invited a dispatcher to comment from the podium, who noted that on either scenario, with or without consolidation, she'll be losing her job.]

Jones presented the consolidation as good public policy because it helps keep patrol officers on the street.

Clayton also contended that the dispatch consolidation is good public policy. His office was there to assist the city, he said. He compared Ann Arbor’s situation with that faced by Ypsilanti previously. Ypsilanti was faced with the choice of laying off a police officer or firefighter. In that instance, Ypsilanti dispatchers applied for jobs to the county and they were brought in to the county dispatching organization, Clayton said. The approach in Ann Arbor would be similar, he said. He confirmed that if a decision is made to consolidate, those who are laid off from Ann Arbor dispatch would not be guaranteed a job.

He described how there would be a transition period of around six months while separate dispatching would continue as the dispatchers are cross-trained – county dispatchers for the city of Ann Arbor and Ann Arbor dispatchers for Washtenaw County.

Responding to comments made during public commentary about the quality of service, Clayton allowed that right now the sheriff’s office doesn’t have enough staff. Even under those conditions, he said, county dispatchers deliver excellent service.

Consolidated Dispatch: Budget Context

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted the $1.2 million projected shortfall for the police department for the FY 2013 budget year, and compared that to the projected $500,000 annual savings from the consolidated dispatch operation. That still leaves $600,000-$700,000 to make up. She wanted to know how Jones proposed to cover the remaining shortfall. Chief of police Barnett Jones indicated that he did not have a proposal, except to hope the council found another way.

The context of the budget to which Jones alluded during his remarks has changed as the result of a new contract signed by the police officers union (AAPOA) in September of this year. The city’s position is that the layoff of four officers would not have been necessary, if the police union had made concessions on their contributions to health and pensions benefits before June 30.

During deliberations, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that the $1.2 million projected shortfall in the public safety services area had been based on the analysis of a previous city administrator [Roger Fraser]. Kunselman said he was interested in getting a budget analysis from Steve Powers, the new city administrator.

Another change in the context for the $1.2 million projected shortfall is on the revenue side. From the city’s CFO Tom Crawford, Kunselman elicited Crawford’s expectation that property tax revenues next year could show an increase compared with this year.

At multiple points during the evening, including deliberations on the consolidated dispatch, mayor John Hieftje talked about a plan to preserve police officer staffing levels – it currently appears that nine officers will retire around the beginning of the year. The city is looking to rehire the officers just recently laid off. For the remaining five positions, there are around 400 applications for those jobs. The savings from the new AAPOA contract and the anticipated savings from the consolidated dispatch, Hieftje said, get the city where it needs to be to preserve current staffing levels.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) drew out the fact that there would be transitional costs associated with the consolidation of somewhere between $300,000-$500,000 in the first year.

Consolidated Dispatch: Adequacy of Service

At one point, Hieftje asked Jones to confirm that dispatching services would be adequate under the consolidation. Jones provided that confirmation. He said he’d gotten a lot of grey hair over this decision. Part of his comfort, he said, was based on the continuing liaison that would exist between the police department and the consolidated dispatch.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked for a review of some of the metrics that would be used to determine if performance was being maintained. Jones gave the basic industry standard that 90% of calls should be answered in less than 10 seconds. The consultant Kerry Laycock also indicated that one component of performance can be monitored by calling back citizens who make calls to 911 to get a measure of their satisfaction. A final component is to get feedback from officers who are dispatched. That part is still under development.

Smith wanted to know what happens if the metrics show the consolidation is failing. Jones indicated that the whole process of gradual consolidation would need to be undone in reverse. That’s why this has to work going forward, he said.

Higgins confirmed with sheriff Clayton that the city could get performance metrics as often as it liked – the city is the customer, Clayton said.

Consolidated Dispatch: Human Resources

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) got clarification that 13-14 Ann Arbor dispatchers would be able to apply for jobs under the consolidated dispatch operation. He got confirmation that their pay would be less than they currently make. From the audience someone called out the question: “How much less?” Although Hieftje admonished attendees not to interrupt the meeting that way, the figure was tracked down in response to the question: On average, county dispatchers make $9,000 less than city of Ann Arbor dispatchers.

Hieftje allowed that it’s not a slight but rather a significant difference. Higgins noted that dispatchers are not the city’s highest paid employees. [Dispatchers earned $44,000-$56,000 for FY 2010].

Higgins also wanted to know what the difference in benefits is between the county and the city. Laycock said that human resources staff had described them as comparable. Sheriff Clayton said that among county workers, the dispatchers had very good benefits. Higgins was assured she’d be provided with a benefits comparison.

Consolidated Dispatch: Council Deliberations – Bid to Postpone

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) made a bid to postpone the vote, based on uncertainties associated with the changing budget picture. Asked by Kunselman, city administrator Steve Powers said that with respect to timing, the contract did not need to be approved that night.

Kunselman invited one of the dispatchers in the audience to comment from the rank-and-file staff perspective, given that the council had just heard at length from the management side. [It's not common that the council invites an audience member to address the body outside of time set aside for public commentary, but the council's rules explicitly provide for that possibility.]

Mayor John Hieftje’s response to Kunselman’s gambit was first to note that the council had already heard from dispatchers during public commentary, but he quickly adopted the position that he had no objection to hearing more.

The dispatcher who approached the podium reviewed how the current operation is already co-located and that the call-taking function [which is a different task from dispatching] is already merged. She suggested that the two operations should truly be merged instead of the sheriff’s department taking over the Ann Arbor dispatching. The dispatchers themselves, she said, were out of the loop. She said they’d been told they’d all be laid off – that had shaken up people’s lives.

She told the council that dispatchers are extremely frustrated. Although there are dispatchers who have worked over 20 years, she hadn’t worked that long, so she noted that she’d lose her job regardless of the consolidation. She invited councilmembers to take the time to see the dispatch center. She told them they couldn’t make an educated vote without seeing it for themselves.

Kunselman’s motion to postpone nearly died for lack of a seconding motion, but that eventually came from Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) asked city administrator Steve Powers if during a delay on the vote, Powers could think of a reason that would change his mind. Powers said he doesn’t approve an agenda item for the council’s consideration unless he supports it. He said it’s unfortunate that there’s disruption for dispatchers and a difference in compensation. For reasons that had already been enumerated, Powers said he supported the consolidation. Responding to the invitation the council had heard to visit the city’s dispatch center, he encouraged them to visit other dispatch centers where consolidated dispatch was already being done – fire, police, and EMS. Consolidated dispatching is being done all over, and it makes sense for the city at this time, he concluded.

Hieftje, noting the length of time that the proposal had been in the works, said he wouldn’t support postponement.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she was confident that Powers and Jones will ensure that response times are maintained. She pointed out that the sheriff’s office has experience doing shared dispatch. She also pointed to the fact that the consolidation of dispatch operations would help qualify the city for the state of Michigan’s Economic Vitality Incentive Plan. The MEVIP has replaced statutory state-shared revenue as the means that the state legislature uses to distribute to local governmental units their portion of the state’s sales tax.

Lumm and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wondered if postponing the vote would affect the city’s opportunity to qualify for the MEVIP. City CFO Tom Crawford indicated that the city’s application needed to include items that the city had already accomplished and things that are planned. It would be described to the state as “planned” in any case, he said, even if the vote were taken that night.

Crawford also indicated it’s not clear what the state will do next year. He said it’s become clear that there was an impression that communities are not doing much in the way collaboration. Crawford said the state is learning that Ann Arbor as well as many other communities have a long history of collaborations. Crawford gave towing as another possible example of collaboration with the county.

Outcome on postponement: Only Kunselman voted for postponement, and the motion failed.

Consolidated Dispatch: Council Deliberations – Finale

There were no substantive deliberations after the vote on postponement.

Outcome: Kunselman joined his colleagues in the unanimous vote for dispatch consolidation. The consolidation will also require approval by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

Greenbelt Expanded Boundaries

Before the council for its consideration was final approval to a change in the boundaries for the city’s greenbelt program – an open space preservation effort funded by a 30-year 0.5 mill tax approved by voters in 2003.

The council approved the addition of the southwest and northeast corners to the greenbelt-eligible area. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

The area in and around Ann Arbor eligible for land preservation under the greenbelt program is defined in Chapter 42 of the Ann Arbor city code. The council has expanded the boundaries once before, in 2007. The current proposal is essentially to square-off the area by adding a mile to the southwest in Lodi Township, and one mile to the northeast in Salem Township. [.jpg of map by The Chronicle showing original boundaries, the 2007 expansion and the proposed expansion]

Another amendment to Chapter 42 was also considered by the council. It would allow a parcel of land adjacent to the greenbelt boundary to be eligible for protection, if it is also adjacent to a parcel under the same ownership within the greenbelt boundary. The greenbelt advisory commission had voted to recommend the ordinance changes at its Sept. 14, 2011 meeting. The council gave the changes initial approval at its Nov. 21, 2011 meeting.

Since the start of the greenbelt program, roughly $18 million has been invested by the city of Ann Arbor in protecting open space. That has been matched by roughly $19 million from other sources, including the federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program, surrounding townships, Washtenaw County and landowner donations. That funding has protected roughly 3,200 acres in 27 separate transactions.

Thomas Partridge spoke during the public hearing on these changes, calling for priority to be given to affordable housing.

Greenbelt Expanded Boundaries: Council Deliberations

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who serves as the city council representative to the greenbelt advisory commission, led off discussion with the introduction to some essentially administrative amendments to the wording. He stressed that the boundary change alters the total area of the greenbelt-eligible properties by 6%. He characterized the change as “normalizing” the boundary changes that were already approved in 2007. At that time, the area now to be included was not added, because of the limited willingness of townships in those areas to participate in the greenbelt program – Salem and Lodi townships. However, those townships are now interested in participating.

A breakdown of percentage contribution of different entities to the 26 greenbelt land transactions that have been completed to date. Of the 26, 12 did not include any township contributions. Two of the 12 transactions did not have any other governmental source, but had landowner donations. (Image links to higher resolution file. Chart by The Chronicle)

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) drew out the fact that there are two components to the amendment of the boundaries. Only one of them makes sense, she said – the one regarding properties that are adjacent to the boundary.

Lumm said she did not support the other component, which is the expansion of the area. She said that conceptually the arguments were similar to those the council had discussed during the debate about public art. It’s not about all or nothing, she said – it’s about making adjustments. She stressed the difference between the voter-approved millage and the Percent for Art program.

She asked: Is there any point at which the council believes the boundary goes too far? At what point, she asked, would asking voters about repurposing the millage revenues be considered? Annual revenues from the millage proceeds exceed by $1 million the bond payments. [The strategy was to take out a bond using future millage proceeds to pay for it, so that there would quickly be cash on hand to take advantage of land deals as the opportunities arose, instead of waiting to accumulate the cash through the millage.]

Lumm noted that this is the second proposed expansion of the greenbelt-eligible area. The original compact with voters, Lumm said, was to spend 1/3 of the millage proceeds inside the city and 2/3 outside. The goal had also been to achieve matching contributions for acquisitions that would make the city’s contribution 1/3 of the cost. But to date, she said, 27% of the investment has been on parkland inside Ann Arbor, and on average Ann Arbor has contributed 49% of the cost – higher than the 1/3 target.

In the meantime, Lumm said, Ann Arbor’s own city parks are starved for funds. She thanked Hohnke for bringing forward a smaller proposed expansion than what some people might have wanted. She said the council owes it to taxpayers to monitor the spending. At what point, she asked, are we spending money because it’s there? Until there’s clarity about that, she said, she wouldn’t support the boundary expansion.

Hohnke said that Lumm raised some good points. He said he appreciated her desire to maximize fiscal resources. He contended that the “slight” boundary expansion does that, by providing for additional opportunities that would serve the original purpose of the millage. It would also give the city the opportunity to leverage additional funds, to invest in open space of high quality, and it’s a way to help tax dollars go further.

Mayor John Hieftje also said good points had been raised. He suggested that this would be the final and last expansion of the boundaries. The corners of the area represent unique opportunities and a chance to find new partners. Hieftje cited the language on one of the main pieces of literature from 2003 millage campaign, which had referred to “other sources” of funding. That was one of the things that has changed, he said – the state of Michigan previously had a program and that’s the difference in the city’s ability to achieve the 1/3 goal.

Hieftje noted that the amount of funding from outside sources is actually more than equal to the city’s contribution. Hieftje stated that Ann Arbor had been very fortunate in that 90% of federal farmland protection money that’s awarded throughout the state of Michigan comes to the Ann Arbor area.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) agreed that the proposed changes are minor, but looking at the map, the boundaries completely avoid Ypsilanti Township. She wondered if there could ever come a time when people look at that irregular boundary and consider expanding.

Hohnke indicated that he did not think there was really high quality land there that would be worth considering and that’s not likely to change, he ventured, because it’s an already-built environment. From the audience, greenbelt advisory commission chair Dan Ezekiel and Ginny Trocchio, a Conservation Fund staff member who helps administer the program, nodded their agreement with Hohnke’s assessment of the missing southeast corner of the greenbelt-eligible area.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the expansion of the greenbelt-eligible area, as well as the adjacent property provision, over dissent from Lumm.

“No Newspaper” Law

On the agenda was a resolution revising the city’s littering and handbill ordinance that is meant to give residents the ability to regulate the kinds of newspapers that are deposited onto their property. The ordinance was aimed in part at publications that are delivered free in the community. The ordinance would make it a misdemeanor to deposit a newspaper on someone’s property, if a notice forbidding delivery of that specific newspaper is posted on the front door. The misdemeanor is punishable by a combination of a fine up to $500 and 90 days in jail. [.pdf of marked up version of ordinance]

The ordinance would also create liability not just for the person who might deposit commercial handbills or newspapers onto someone’s property, but also for the corporate entities who “cause” that activity to take place.

First Amendment issues raised by the city’s attempt to restrict unwanted delivery include the possibility that the proposed ordinance has created a content-based distinction between newspapers and commercial handbills. [.pdf of City of Fresno v. Press Communications, Inc. (1994)] However, the U.S. Supreme Court has established a right of residents to regulate the degree to which they must contend with printed matter delivered to their property. [.pdf of Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. (1970)] And in a more recent New York Supreme Court case, the court ruled that “neither a publisher nor a distributor has any constitutional right to continue to throw a newspaper onto the property of an unwilling recipient after having been notified not to do so.” [.pdf of Kenneth Tillman v. Distribution Systems of America]

The initial consideration of the ordinance had been postponed already at the council’s previous meeting, and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who sponsored the measure, indicated that another delay would be requested. His remarks suggested that some publishers had responded in such a way as to alleviate some of the concern that had prompted the perception that an ordinance was required.

Some back and forth ensued about tabling compared to postponing to a specific date. The council settled on tabling. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) cautioned that according to the council’s rules, if a resolution is not taken back up off the table for consideration in six months, the measure is considered demised.

Responding to Briere’s concern, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who co-sponsored the ordinance, indicated that the ordinance was expected to be taken up again sometime in January 2012.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to table the revision to the ordinance on handbills and littering.

New Investment Policy

Before the council for its consideration was the authorization of a new investment policy. The item had been on the council’s agenda at its Nov. 21 meeting, but was postponed at the request of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who wanted to have the council’s budget committee review the policy first.

Highlights of the policy changes include the extension on maturity timelines for several different instruments: U.S. Treasury Obligations (from seven to 15 years); Federal Agency Securities (from seven to 10 years); Federal Instrumentality Securities (from seven to 10 years), Certificates of Deposit (from three to five years), and Obligations of the State of Michigan (three to 10 years).

Balanced against those extensions were some changes to portfolio restrictions that prevent the city from having too many longer-term maturity instruments: no more than 25% of the portfolio may be invested in securities with maturities greater than seven years, and no more than 12.5% of the portfolio may be invested in securities with maturities more than 11 years.

During the scant deliberations, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked staff for providing answers to her questions about the policy changes. She supported the policy changes because they would allow the city to be less reactive.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the change in the investment policy.

Dexter Avenue Sidewalk Special Assessment

The council was asked to consider a special assessment on property owners along Dexter Avenue east of Maple Road for a total of $11,651, to pay for sidewalks. The one-time payments by the individual property owners are due June 1, 2012. Required payments range from $30.57 to more than $3,000. The project has a total cost of $92,955 – $74,364 of that amount will be paid with federal money. For the north side of Dexter Avenue, the project includes construction of a new sidewalk for a portion of the stretch, as well as a new curb and gutter for the street across from Veteran’s Memorial Park. For the south side of the street, the project includes a new curb along Veteran’s Memorial Park.

The council started the multi-step process for levying the special assessment at its Sept. 19, 2011 meeting.

Because of the special assessments, the Dexter Avenue sidewalk improvements do not require a portion of the project budget to be allocated for public art. From the city’s public art ordinance: “A capital improvement project funded by special assessments or improvement charges is not subject to the requirements of subsection (1) of this section.”

During the required public hearing, Thomas Partridge asked that the resolution be postponed so that it could be re-examined.

During the brief council deliberations, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that when special assessments are imposed, those whose property is subject to the assessment are typically resistant. [For example, for the special assessment that funded part of the non-motorized pathway along Washtenaw Avenue, which was held in September 2010, several property owners spoke at the public hearing, expressing their opposition.] He allowed that the relatively small amounts involved may have affected the lack of resistance. [Many property owners were assessed as little as $30.57.]

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the special assessment.

Council Housekeeping

The council handled several housekeeping items, as it does every year shortly after the new edition of the city council is elected. That includes appointment of council subcommittee membership as well as council representatives to other organizations. It also includes the adoption of council rules.

Council Housekeeping: Committees

Some assignments are for subcommittees of the council, while others are for city council appointments to other public bodies.

Compared to last year, the most significant change to the council’s committee structure was the separation of the joint administration & labor committee into a council administration committee and a council labor committee. On the labor side, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) was slotted in for Stephen Rapundalo, whom she defeated in the Nov. 8 election. Shuffling among other councilmembers, who all returned to this edition of the council, included the replacement of Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) on the labor committee by Sandi Smith (Ward 1).

The council administration committee retains the same membership as the former administration and labor committee, except for Rapundalo, who was replaced by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Taylor also took over Rapundalo’s council appointment to the local development finance authority (LDFA) board. [Google spreadsheet contrasting 2011 with 2012 city council appointments]

Changes to committee assignments were on the whole relatively minimal. That was due in part to the fact that Lumm was given four of Rapundalo’s previous committee appointments, including labor budget, liquor control, and the housing & human services advisory board. Lumm was also assigned to represent the city council on the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s (DDA) partnerships committee, relieving Margie Teall (Ward 4) of that duty.

Teall will also no longer represent the council on the Washtenaw Metro Alliance – Sabra Briere (Ward 1) will pick up that responsibility. Of the veteran councilmembers, Teall’s committee assignments reduced the most, as she’ll also no longer serve on the city environmental commission – a spot also picked up by Briere. At the meeting, Teall indicated that she’d taken herself off the environmental commission, saying she would miss it, but would keep in touch. She said she was delighted that Briere would fill that spot. Teall expressed appreciation for everything that environmental coordinator Matt Naud and commissioners have done through the years. She said she felt that her departure would also open up the communication so more people know what’s going on.

Teall – along with Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) – will also no longer need to serve on the committee established by the council to negotiate a new contract with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority under which the DDA operates the city’s public parking system. At the Dec. 5 meeting, the council formally dissolved the committee, the parking contract having been signed in May.

Council Housekeeping: Rules

Also before the council was the adoption of its rules, which included essentially one change. Included in council minutes currently are all emails received by councilmembers on their government accounts. The revision to the rules stipulates that only those emails related to the subject matter of the meeting will be included in the meeting minutes.

Council Housekeeping: LDFA

The council was asked to consider three appointments to the board of the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti SmartZone local development finance authority (LDFA): former councilmember Stephen Rapundalo, current councilmember Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), and Eric Jacobson.

Of the positions on the 9-member LDFA board, the city of Ann Arbor appoints six and the city of Ypsilanti appoints three. One of the six Ann Arbor spots is for a member of the Ann Arbor city council, which had been held by Rapundalo, until he was defeated in the Nov. 8 general election by Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Taylor is thus replacing Rapundalo as the city council representative. Rapundalo’s appointment is to fill an existing additional vacancy on the board.

Jacobson was also appointed to the LDFA to fill a vacancy on the board.

The local development finance authority is funded through a tax increment finance (TIF) mechanism for the same geographic district as the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti downtown development authorities. The LDFA currently receives no revenue from the Ypsilanti portion of its district. The taxes on which the increment is captured are local school taxes. The impact of the LDFA tax capture is spread across school districts statewide, due to the way that local school taxes are pooled by the state of Michigan and redistributed to local districts.

Based on data available through A2OpenBook, in fiscal year 2011, the LDFA generated $1.475 million in tax capture. The LDFA contracts with Ann Arbor SPARK to operate a business accelerator.

Council Housekeeping: AATA Board

Also at the Dec. 5 meeting, the council handled an appointment unrelated in its timing to the new edition of the council. Mayor John Hieftje nominated the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, to serve on the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. On confirmation by the city council, Cooper would fill the vacancy on the AATA board left by Sue McCormick.

McCormick is leaving her post at the city of Ann Arbor as public services area administrator to take a job as head of the Detroit water and sewerage department. McCormick’s last day on the job is Dec. 16. City administrator Steve Powers announced at the Dec. 5 meeting that the city’s head of systems planning, Craig Hupy, will fill in for McCormick on an interim basis. Powers reported that Hupy had no interest in the permanent position.

Cooper’s city position as transportation program manager falls under the city’s systems planning unit. The council previously appointed Cooper to serve on the AATA board on June 20, 2005. He served through June 2008, and was replaced on the board by current board chair Jesse Bernstein.

There is not a spot reserved for a city of Ann Arbor employee on the AATA board. When Cooper previously served on the AATA board, along with McCormick, their service prompted an op-ed in The Ann Arbor News criticizing the appointment of city employees to citizen boards. [.pdf of "Let's Stick With Autonomous Appointees for Citizen Boards"]

Outcome on all city council housekeeping items, including appointments: The council voted unanimously to approve its rules, calendar, and all committee appointments, many of which were made with separate resolutions.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Warming Center

Several people signed up for public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, to address the council on the topic of establishing a 24/7 warming center. People who sign up in advance for one of the reserved spots are given priority if they’re addressing an agenda item. Those who signed up to speak about the warming center cited the minutes of the Oct. 19 Ann Arbor housing commission meeting (attached to the agenda as a communication item from the city clerk) as the agenda item they wanted to speak about. The main business of that meeting was the hiring of the new executive director, but speakers did not address the subject matter of the housing commission meeting in any obvious way.

The tactic could be explained in part by the experience of University of Michigan student Orian Zakai at the previous council meeting, who had been unable to claim one of the 10 reserved public commentary slots, partly because several people who wanted to advocate for public art funding, which was an agenda item, had signed up for a reserved spot and had priority over her. Zakai had stayed until the end of that meeting, when unlimited unreserved public commentary is allowed, in order to deliver her remarks.

Again at the Dec. 5 meeting, Zakai addressed the council on the topic of establishing a warming center that would operate 24 hours a day. She ticked through the proposed policies of such a center and asked the council for assistance in finding a space to locate it.

Arthur Endsley introduced himself as a research scientist living and working in Ann Arbor. He told the council he’d toured the Delonis Center, as well as a homeless encampment, Camp Take Notice, and the breakfasts sponsored by St. Andrews.

It should be obvious, he said, that winter is upon us. He thanked the council for the $25,000 they’d appropriated to keep the warming center at the Delonis Center open this year. He wondered what will happen next year. He described those who needed a warming center here in Ann Arbor as global economic refugees living in our own community. He contended that the Delonis Center had a 80% recidivism rate. [According to Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, which operates the Delonis Center, the 80% figure refers to the percentage of people who move from the Delonis Center to sustainable housing and who are still housed after one year.] Permanent solutions are needed, Endsley said. Responding to proposed cuts of the public art program, he said, some had contended that if we cut art, we are cutting down our own image. Endsley wondered what it says about our image if some of our residents are freezing to death in the streets.

Lily Au asked the council to support the effort to establish a warming center.

Alan Haber addressed the council in support of the warming center, in the guise of addressing the revision to the handbill and litter ordinance that was on the agenda. He had a leaflet, that supported establishing a warming center, among other things. He read it and asked the council if the leaflet was legal under the handbill ordinance. A leaflet like that, he said, should be able to go anywhere.

Three people also stayed until the end of the meeting, well past midnight, in order to address the council.

Judy Bonnell-Wenzel spoke in favor of support for a warming center.

David Coleman told the council he’d been living in the city about five months as a musician and artist. He told them he spoke from the standpoint of someone who is homeless, who has nowhere to go. The homeless are not all addicts or alcoholics, he said. He read aloud a hand-written statement.

From David Coleman's statement he read aloud to the council towards the conclusion of the Dec. 5 meeting. The warming center is intended to be "a place to go that's inviting, safe and warm, a place that rescues, rehabilitates, enlightens, edifies and empowers ..."

University of Michigan student Alexandra Hoffman addressed the perception that perhaps a 24/7 warming center did not need to be opened or that it was too large a project to accomplish. She encouraged the council to think positively. The group had thus far been frustrated with real estate issues – they haven’t found a location for the center. But as for staffing, volunteers are ready. She suggested the vacant Georgetown Mall and former Borders store on East Liberty as possible locations. She told the council she’s from Toronto, and their youth shelter is right on the main street of town – it’s something to be proud of, not something to be swept under the rug, she said.

During his communications time, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) took up the suggestion of 415 W. Washington as a possible location for a warming center, noting that it’s a publicly owned facility. He ventured that perhaps the council needed to direct the creative use of the property.

During her communications, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted that the city spends significantly more than 1% of its money on housing and human services. She also noted the emergency allocation the council had made to the Delonis Center to keep its warming center open. She rejected the idea that there’s a choice to be made between funding art and funding human services.

Responding to Kunselman’s call for the exploration of 415 W. Washington as a possible location for a warming center, mayor John Hieftje made clear he didn’t think that was a realistic possibility. He reported that he, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) had been working with the Arts Alliance and the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy to turn 415 W. Washington into a community art center and greenway park. The real problem they can’t get around is the condition of the building, he said. It’s filled with asbestos and jagged pieces of metal. It would take more than $1 million to make the building usable, he said. The Arts Alliance would likely withdraw from the project.

Comm/Comm: Deportation

Lourdes Salazar Bautista appeared before the council to appeal for their support in her fight to stay in the U.S. She faces deportation on Dec. 27. Laura Sanders of the Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights (WICIR) also spoke in support of Bautista. Sanders noted that Bautista had been in the U.S. for 14 years, she works and pays taxes and has never committed a crime. Sanders attributed Bautista’s imminent deportation on Dec. 27 to Ann Arbor’s proximity to Canada, and the need for federal immigration official to meet deportation quotas. In the next few weeks, she said, the council would be asked to sign a letter of support.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) responded to the commentary during his communications by saying that it’s not possible to do very much with local legislation. But he noted that the council could give its input. He said that by executive order, Bautista could avoid deportation.

By way of background, Ann Arbor’s local policy on federal immigration policy is expressed in a 2003 city council resolution, which among other things calls on the AAPD to “limit local enforcement actions with respect to immigration matters to penal violations of federal immigration law (as opposed to administrative violations) except in cases where the Chief of Police determines there is a legitimate public safety concern.”

Comm/Comm: Budget Retreat

City administrator Steve Powers suggested that the council hold its budget retreat for 2014-15 in June 2012. Mayor John Hieftje said he did not think it’s necessary to have a retreat in December.

Comm/Comm: Crosswalks

Kathy Griswold told the council she had a masters degree in public policy and an MBA from the University of Michigan and had served 15 years on the transportation safety committee. Still, she said, she’s not qualified to make traffic laws – she’s not a professional engineer. She criticized the council’s revision to the crosswalk ordinance in 2010, which the council is now revising further, as giving pedestrians a false sense of security.

Griswold told the council that transportation engineering is not always intuitive. She described a pamphlet available in the city hall lobby as a creative marketing tool, but contended that in fact, “pedestrians don’t rule.” She’d spoken to a driver education instructor, who had told her the ordinance is a major problem. She pointed councilmembers to a 30-minute program she’d recorded for CTN as well as to the website she’d created: seekids.org.

Comm/Comm: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge called for expanded access to affordable housing, transportation and education and made complaints about illegal discrimination.

Comm/Comm: Sewage

Kermit Schlansker called for the use of sewage in the creation of energy.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, Dec. 19, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the second floor council chambers of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!