Jane Lumm (Ward 2) talked with Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Kunselman (ward 3) before the March 3 meeting started. (Photos by the writer.)

The delays allowed the council to wrap up a potentially long meeting relatively early, by around 10:30 p.m. As a part of the meeting, the council also approved a raft of routine items essential to keeping the city operational – like the purchase of 18 replacement vehicles.

In its three actions on public art policy, the council: (1) directed the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for the next two years; (2) transferred $943,005 out of the public art fund; and (3) extended the contract for the city’s part-time public art administrator by six months.

The transfer of Percent for Art money back to its funds of origin was made possible by an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance given final approval by the council on Feb. 18. The $943,005 total is an amount that defunds the art project at Argo Cascades, but keeps funding for the Coleman Jewett memorial and for a project called Canoe Imagine Art. The art projects at East Stadium bridges and at the Kingsley & First rain garden would also retain their funding. Because the resolution involves a transfer of funds, it required eight votes on the 11-member council to be approved. The vote on the question was 10-1 with Margie Teall (Ward 4) dissenting.

An additional resolution approved by the council focused exclusively on the transition to a new public art program. The resolution directed the city administrator to ask the staff to develop a transition plan, and to present that plan to the council by Oct. 6, 2014. The resolution also prohibits initiating additional projects using pooled Percent for Art funds, and directs the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for FY 2015 and FY 2016. Because it did not transfer any funds, the resolution on establishing a timeline and a budget did not require more than a simple six-vote majority. Dissenting on the vote were: Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4).

The third public art resolution approved by the council on March 3 was one that extended the contract for the city’s part-time public art administrator by six months, appropriating $18,500 for that purpose – drawn from Percent for Art money. The item first appeared on the council’s Jan. 21 agenda.

A resolution that would have established an urban park on a portion of the surface of the Library Lane underground parking structure was delayed, amid the expressed intent by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) to bring forward a companion resolution to hire a broker to sell the rights to build on top of the parking structure. The urban park resolution, which was put forward by Jack Eaton (Ward 4), had resulted from his work with the Library Green Conservancy. It drew on recommendations on downtown parks made last year by the park advisory commission (PAC).

But the resolution drew criticism from both the current and former chair of PAC during public commentary at the meeting, as they said it flouted two of PAC’s eight recommendations: that additional parks not be established as a trade-off to maintenance of existing parks; and that open space on top of the Library Lane parking structure be designed in the context of adjacent development.

The consideration of the urban parks resolution spurred mayor John Hieftje to counter with an item he placed on the agenda the day of the March 3 council meeting: a slideshow he presented early in the meeting to argue for consideration of several open spaces downtown, including the surface lot on the northeast corner of Main & William. The council will take up the urban park resolution again on March 17.

In other parks-related business on March 3, the council also approved funding for the reconstruction of basketball and tennis courts at Clinton Park in the southern part of town. And the council approved applying for a grant from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Grants Management to help pay for a universal access playground at Gallup Park. The Rotary Club of Ann Arbor has already pledged $250,000 toward that playground.

Delayed at the council’s March 3 meeting was a resolution that would have established funding for a pedestrian safety and access task force. Councilmembers had concerns about the amount of funding, which totaled $197,250. That amount includes approximate costs of the anticipated city staff effort for the project. Councilmembers also had concerns about the use of funds to hire an outside consultant as a facilitator. The council will take up the pedestrian task force funding issue again on April 7, by which time the task force is expected to have held its initial meeting.

Related to pedestrian issues at the March 3 meeting, the council approved funding for the design of two sidewalks – on Barton Drive and Scio Church Road – as well as funds to construct a section of sidewalk on Ann Arbor-Saline Road.

Also on March 3, police chief John Seto briefed the council on increased traffic enforcement activities conducted with a $125,000 allocation the council had made at its Dec. 16, 2013 meeting – in the same time frame as the pedestrian task force was created. Seto also briefed the council on year-end crime statistics for 2013.

Another item delayed until April 7 was an ordinance that would regulate smoking in certain outdoor locations, outside of building entrances and possibly in some areas of some public parks. Councilmembers had various concerns, ranging from the possible disparate impact on the homeless to the difficulty of enforcement. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) expressed some frustration that he was just now hearing about these various concerns from his colleagues, even though he had brought the ordinance forward on Feb. 3 and asked for their comments and questions at that time.

The council did take action to direct the city administrator to develop a budget amendment that would allocate $600,000 from the city’s affordable housing trust fund to help the Ann Arbor Housing Commission pay for capital improvements. Approval of that amendment by the city council would be contingent on the upcoming closing of the sale of city-owned property at Fifth & William streets in downtown Ann Arbor – the former Y lot. Net proceeds of the sale, at around $1.4 million, are to be deposited in the affordable housing trust fund.

In routine business, the council approved the purchase of 18 replacement vehicles, most of which are used by the Ann Arbor police department. And finally, the council passed a resolution calling on state officials to find creative ways to provide full funding to a state program designed to give fire protection grants to municipalities that are home to state-owned institutions, like the University of Michigan.

Public Art

The council considered three separate actions on public art policy: (1) directing the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for the next two years; (2) transferring money out of the public art fund; and (3) extending the contract for the city’s part-time public art administrator by six months.

The possible transfer of $943,005 in Percent for Art money back to its funds of origin was enabled by an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance given final approval by the council on Feb. 18, 2014.

The $943,005 total is an amount that defunds the art project at Argo Cascades, but keeps funding for the Coleman Jewett memorial and for a project called Canoe Imagine Art. The art projects at East Stadium bridges and at the Kingsley & First rain garden would also retain their funding. Because the resolution involved a transfer of funds, it required eight votes on the 11-member council to be approved.

The former Percent for Art funding mechanism required 1% of all capital project budgets to be set aside for public art. A new approach to public art was established on June 3, 2013, when the council eliminated the Percent for Art mechanism from the ordinance. The new approach entails including city-funded art when it’s designed as an integral part of a capital project, with council approval. Art projects also could be funded through a combination of private and public money.

So the second resolution considered by the council on March 3 focused exclusively on the transition to the new public art program. The resolution directed the city administrator to ask the staff to develop a transition plan to be presented to the council by Oct. 6, 2014. The resolution also prohibited initiating additional projects using pooled Percent for Art funds, and directs the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for FY 2015 – which begins on July 1, 2014 – and for FY 2016.

An initial list of requests from department heads for FY 2015, released by the city on Feb. 10, shows an $80,000 request for arts administration, which includes funds for a full-time art administrator, drawn from the general fund. FY 2015 runs from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015.

Because it did not transfer any funds, the resolution on establishing a timeline and a budget did not require more than a simple six-vote majority.

The third resolution considered by the council on March 3 was one that extended the contract for the city’s part-time public art administrator by six months, appropriating $18,500 for that purpose – drawn from Percent for Art money. The item first appeared on the council’s Jan. 21 agenda, but the council postponed that vote until Feb. 3, when it was subsequently defeated. On Feb. 18 it was then brought back for reconsideration, but immediately postponed until March 3. The item required eight votes for approval.

The resolutions considered by the council on March 3 were based in part on a recommendation made by a council committee and attached to the council’s agenda as a report/communication about a year ago, for the council’s March 18, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of council committee's public art findings and recommendations]

The five councilmembers serving on that committee included Margie Teall (Ward 4), as well as all of those who have declared their intention to participate in the 2014 Democratic mayoral primary race: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

The recommendations include a three-year time frame for review of the program:

Recommendation: The staff should review the successful implementation of any changes in the ordinance after 36 months. This timing is based on the task force’s awareness that capital improvements may take longer than two years to move from inception to completion.

The recommendations also addressed the issue of administrative support:

Recommendation: a professionally trained public art administrator can provide this level of support, but needs to be employed more than 50% of the time. The Public Art Task Force agrees that the program would benefit from the services of a trained administrator, either as a contract employee or a direct hire.

Public Art: Public Commentary

Margaret Parker addressed the council as former chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission. She said that all but one current city councilmember has said they’re in favor of public art. That’s good, she said, because it shows pride in the community. She said that councilmembers have made the mistake of considering each piece of public art personally. She asked the city council to follow through with its own committee’s recommendation, which includes paying a public art administrator.

During his turn at public commentary at the start of the meeting, Jeff Hayner asked for some leadership that will save some money for the city.
By his reckoning, there was more than $1 million that could be saved. Making up part of that amount was the public art funds being left in place for the East Stadium bridges artwork. He asked the council to eliminate that project as well as the other art projects.

Lily Au signed up to talk about the public art fund transfer. She told John Hieftje that he’s the mayor and in charge of the city. She explained to him how she does her household budgeting, with mortgage and food as priorities.

Public Art: City Administrator Budget Direction

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the resolution she brought forward had been significantly revised since the last time it was in front of the council. It’s a path forward according to how the current ordinance reads, she said. It prevents new projects from being started with pooled Percent for Art projects.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) indicated she’d support the resolution and thanked Briere for doing all the heavy lifting. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) said she’d support it, of course, because she co-sponsored it. This as well as the other resolutions on the agenda are important for re-thinking public art in Ann Arbor, she concluded.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reported she and Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Briere had met and agreed to separate out the two issues for the fund transfer and the direction on establishing a budget. She supported returning unspent funds, but she did not support making an ongoing commitment to public art for two years, given other priorities, Lumm said. She didn’t support the idea of a full-time public art administrator. Streets and sewers should have higher priority, she said. Lumm allowed the resolution would probably pass. She said the council should not be making these decisions outside the budget process.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) noted that law enforcement will get $44.5 million of next year’s general fund budget, which is 60% of the budget, once the AAATA pass-through is factored out. That reflects an appropriate priority, he said, adding that the commitment to public art is material but modest.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he’d support the resolution. If the city administrator [Steve Powers] puts too much money into the public art administration budget [when Powers proposes the FY 2015 budget in April], the council can amend that, Kunselman said. He observed that the council has been talking about public art for a long time. He noted that he voted for the original public art ordinance in 2007. He wanted to see some kind of public art program continue.

Petersen pointed out that arts and culture are important to the city’s economic development. She said it’s consistent with the council’s priorities. Teall contended that public art was in fact one of the items that the council had identified under the “community livability” priority.

From left: Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and current Ann Arbor public art commission chair Bob Miller.

Briere said she and Petersen had attended a breakfast meeting of the Ann Arbor Area Convention & Visitors Bureau, and she’d been approached by leaders of the arts community who wanted to make sure she understood the economic impact of art. Briere said that the resolution does not state there must be a full-time art administrator. The resolution will give the council an idea of the budget impact. If the council doesn’t ask for that impact, she noted, it’s not possible to know what that impact will be.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) said his two goals were to wind down the Percent for Art projects and to see those completed, and to make a transition. Warpehoski then tried to engage in a moment of levity with Lumm, saying he was trying to imagine what her campaign rallies are like, with people chanting: “Less Art! More Cops!” Lumm indicated she was not amused. Warpehoski then acknowledged his attempt at light-heartedness has missed the mark and said he’d stop talking.

Near the end of the meeting, during communications time, Warpehoski apologized to Lumm for his earlier remarks , saying his intent was to be playful, but the impact had been hurtful, so he wanted to apologize.

During the deliberations that continued, Kailasapathy and Lumm both rebuked Warpehoski for trivializing the issue.

Mayor John Hieftje said he’d support the resolution. He felt that the public art program will need an administrator. He said public safety is doing well and is a big share of the budget. He allowed the roads are a mess but said they will get better. He then recited the history of the East Stadium bridges project and how the street millage was reserved for a while in anticipation of the possibility that the city would need to pay for all of the bridge replacement project. Hieftje then recited some standard arguments for public art.

Kunselman asked if an administrator had to be hired, or if a “service” could be hired. He drew an analogy to the city’s greenbelt program. [The city contracts with The Conservation Fund to manage the greenbelt program.]

Kunselman didn’t think city staff has respect from donors to do fundraising. He called the effort to solicit donations for public art a very specialized program.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the resolution that directs the city administrator to develop a public art administration budget, over dissent from Anglin, Kailasapathy, Lumm and Eaton. (It required just six votes.)

Public Art: Fund Transfer

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reviewed the content of the resolution: to transfer of $943,005 in Percent for Art money back to its funds of origin. She said the council should make a clean break from the Percent for Art program, which it eliminated on June 3, 2013. If the funds were returned, she said, then she’d support the contract extension for the part-time public art administrator.

Margie Teall (Ward 4).

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he’d support the resolution and gave kudos to Lumm for the tough negotiations with other councilmembers. He said public art administration needs to come out of the general fund.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said the history of the art program is well known. Now the city is trying to figure out a different way to fund it. “We’re on a better track if we cut clean and move forward,” he concluded.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) would not support the resolution, because she didn’t see a problem with the Percent for Art funding mechanism. She didn’t think that the baked-in art approach to capital projects would result in unique projects of the kind that Margaret Parker had described during public commentary. She felt like the part-time art administrator’s contract was being held hostage.

Outcome: The council voted to return $943,005 in Percent for Art money to its funds of origin, over dissent from Teall.

Public Art: Art Administrator’s Contract

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) ventured that they didn’t need a lot of discussion. He described the bargain that had been struck: Return of Percent for Art money to the funds of origin, in exchange for the public art administrator’s contract extension. [The position is held by Aaron Seagraves.]

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to extend the contract with the part-time public art administrator for six months, allocating $18,500 for that purpose and an additional $2,000 for administrative activities.

Library Lane Urban Park

The council considered a resolution that proposes to build an urban park on top of the Library Lane underground parking structure.

Library Lane park proposal.

The resolution includes a proposal to reserve about 10,000 square feet on the surface of the Library Lane structure for an urban park, to be “bounded by the Fifth Avenue sidewalk on the west, the Library Lane Street sidewalk to the south, the western entry to the central elevator to the east, and the southern curb of the service alley on the north.” [.pdf of proposed resolution] [.pdf of proposed site boundaries]

The proposal had also been presented at the Feb. 25, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. The commission was not asked to act on it.

Sponsors of the resolution that appeared on the March 3 city council agenda were Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5), who serves on PAC as an ex officio member.

The resolution calls for financial support as well as an allocation of staff time to design and create the park. The resolution asks PAC and the parks staff to prepare preliminary recommendations for the park’s design, to be presented at the council’s first meeting in October of 2014.

Other aspects of the proposal include:

• asking the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to prepare for an eventual transition from parking to non-parking on the surface of the Library Lane structure;
• asking the DDA to conduct a structural analysis of the Library Lane structure to determine if any modifications are needed to safely support design features, such as soil, plantings of various sizes, water features, a skating rink, a performance stage, and play equipment;
• asking that the city’s community services and parks staff work with DDA and the Ann Arbor District Library to facilitate public programming with activities including craft fairs, book fairs, food carts, and fine arts performances;
• asking the DDA to work with the city to explore possible above-ground private and/or public development of the remaining, build-able portion of the surface level north of the central elevator and above the central exit/entrance ramp.

The resolution specifies certain conditions for development rights on the remaining surface of Library Lane, including additional public open space and pedestrian access as features of any private development. The resolution also calls for close collaboration with neighboring properties and businesses, including the Ann Arbor District Library, First Martin Corp., the University of Michigan Credit Union, the Inter-Cooperative Council, and the businesses facing Fifth Avenue and Liberty Street.

From left: Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Will Hathaway and Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

Activists have pushed for a public park or plaza on the top of the Library Lane underground parking structure for several years. Several members of the Library Green Conservancy – including former park commissioner Gwen Nystuen, and former Ann Arbor planning commissioner Eric Lipson – attended PAC’s Feb. 25 meeting. The presentation to PAC was made by Will Hathaway, on behalf of the Library Green Conservancy.

PAC has explored the urban park issue more broadly, most formally with a downtown parks subcommittee created in 2012. The subcommittee presented a report at PAC’s Oct. 15, 2013 meeting that included general recommendations, with an emphasis on “placemaking” principles that include active use, visibility and safety. The most specific recommendation also called for developing a park or open space on top of the Library Lane structure. A park or open space at that location should exceed 5,000 square feet, according to the report, and connect to Library Lane, the small mid-block cut-through that runs north of the library between Fifth and Division. [.pdf of 21-page full PAC subcommittee report]

The subcommittee’s report was accepted by the Ann Arbor city council on Nov. 7, 2013 over dissent from Anglin.

Hathaway’s presentation on Feb. 25 drew on recommendations from the PAC subcommittee, as well as from information in the DDA’s Connecting William Street study.

On Feb. 25, several park commissioners had raised concerns, some of which focused on the process of bringing this resolution forward without specific direction from the council. Hathaway noted that the council resolution was intended to start the process, with council direction, to begin working with stakeholders, PAC, the public and others in the design and development of this park.

Library Lane Urban Park: Public Commentary

Several people spoke to the council during public commentary reserved time at the start of the March 3 meeting about the urban park proposal.

Odile Hugonot-Haber spoke in favor of an urban park. It’s difficult to imagine a park in the cold weather, she said. Why a park? She answered her own question: Why not a park? She asked the council to imagine some flowers and a nice place to sit – not an urban forest. She asked the council for a park, which she called a simple thing and a simple step.

Julie Grand addressed the council as former chair of the city’s park advisory commission. [Grand has also taken out petitions to compete in the August Democratic primary to represent Ward 3 on the city council.] Grand said that the resolution about the urban park asks PAC to act against its own recommendations. She focused on recommendations (4) and (8) that PAC adopted on Oct. 15, 2013, based on work of a subcommittee on downtown parks. [.pdf of 21-page full PAC subcommittee report] The first of those states that additional park space should not be created at the expense of maintenance of existing parks. It puts the cart before the horse, Grand said.

Ingrid Ault, chair of the city’s park advisory committee, spoke with Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) before the March 3 meeting. Kunselman prevailed in the 2011 Democratic primary, a race the two both contested. They graduated Pioneer High School the same year.

Ingrid Ault addressed the council as current chair of the park advisory commission. She also spoke about the resolution on establishing an urban park. She reviewed for the council the work of a PAC subcommittee that made a recommendation to PAC that was then forwarded to the city council. PAC’s intent was that their recommendations would be the start of a conversation. She said that PAC does not object to constructing a park on the Library Lane site. But she stressed that the PAC recommendations included a clear process. She asked for postponement.

Doug Kelbaugh, former dean of the University of Michigan College of Architecture & Urban Planning, introduced himself by giving his downtown address on Ann Street. He ventured that everyone knew that downtown Ann Arbor has a really vibrant public realm – with a lively sidewalk life. But Ann Arbor lacks a real plaza – an outdoor civic space where people can gather for organize events, programmed events, or simply to enjoy the active and passive pleasures of living in the city, he said.

The site on top of the Library Lane parking structure is ideal for such a plaza, Kelbaugh said. It’s centrally located – near key destinations, near transit and parking, and open to the sun most of the day. It’s also structurally more suitable for a plaza than a park – because the parking deck is only strong enough for deep soil and large trees where there are columns below.

What makes a good urban plaza? Kelbaugh asked. He identified at least three things. [Kelbaugh was reprising remarks on plazas delivered at the Jan. 9, 2013 meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board.] First is a sense of enclosure – like an outdoor room framed by neighboring buildings on at least three sites, he said. It needs something to generate activity, maybe a fountain or an ice rink, but with sufficient hardscape for events. A plaza also needs three active edges, with lots of people and eyes on the space, as well as transparent frontages, with entrances to a busy mixture of venues.

The north end of the proposed park, Kelbaugh said, is the side of the Earthen Jar building, which is low and has no entrances. And there’s an alley between it and the proposed park, further weakening that edge. There needs to be a new building at that edge – one with transparent and active edges, built from the outset. That’s because at the other end of the space, the Ann Arbor District Library’s current configuration does not really allow an entrance on the plaza. That other building needs to be there from the get-go, Kelbaugh said – to front the space, to monitor it, and to have eyes on it and perhaps to maintain the plaza.

Will the site to be big enough? Kelbaugh asked. He ventured that a small, busy plaza is arguably better than a large, empty one. The plaza envisioned in the 2008 scheme for a new library was roughly 90 feet x 90 feet – which is small enough to recognize a friend’s face or call someone’s name across the space. And it’s large enough for special events when that end of Library Lane can be closed. That would substantially increase the plaza’s footprint to about 90 feet x 150 feet, which is a good size and a good shape, he said. A downtown park would be wonderful, but a park should be on terra firma, he said, with more softscape and large trees – lots of them. The top of the Library Lane parking structure doesn’t seem to be that place, he said. Kelbaugh recommended a revised resolution.

Alan Haber said the issue of an urban park first arose when the city acquired the old Y lot and there was a question about what to do with the Y building. No private enterprise could do as much for Ann Arbor as Ann Arbor residents could do for themselves at that location, Haber said. He said the city should begin to ask residents to financially support a park on the Library Lane site. Patrons and pillars of the community would support it, he said. There can be other buildings, but for the western part of the Library Lane parcel, a park should be constructed, he said.

During his turn at public commentary at the start of the meeting, Jeff Hayner said he had actually intended to talk about the funding for the pedestrian task force, even though the agenda indicated he was to speak about the urban park. He added that it’s exciting to hear ideas about public space on the Library Lane site.

During public commentary at the end of the meeting, Kai Petainen said Ann Arbor is a world-class city. As long as the Library Lane parking structure is there, it makes sense to do something. He ventured that the space could be an indoor park.

Library Lane Urban Park: Mayor’s Presentation

Added to the agenda on the same day as the meeting was a presentation from mayor John Hieftje on downtown plazas. He thanked Jack Eaton (Ward 4) for putting the resolution about the urban plaza on the agenda, saying that he’d been planning to give the presentation a few weeks down the road, but he decided to move it up, given Eaton’s urban park resolution. [.pdf of slides presented on plazas]

The path of a walk described by mayor John Hieftje in his presentation to the city council is highlighted in red.

Hieftje said he first started talking about this back in September 2012. He thanked Amy Kuras for putting together the drawings. He sketched out a walk starting at Liberty Plaza. The walk he described did not cross through the adjacent First Martin property, because the city doesn’t have an agreement to do that. The idea was to use decorative pavement in the sidewalk to create something like a “yellow brick road” that would lead people from a re-imagined and re-done Liberty Plaza, down Library Lane to a park on top of the Library Lane parking structure.

It would lead past the “Dahlmann Fountain” – a reference to Dennis Dahlmann’s recent purchase of the former Y lot – down the block past the Fourth & William parking structure and past a new park on the city-owned lot next to Palio restaurant. And continuing across the street you would get to the Kline’s lot on Ashley, where there could be another fountain, and more greenery at the end of the block. And then across Ashley, the city owns a small lot that would lead down to a greenway. So the walk that Hieftje described would connect up from Liberty Plaza to the greenway.

From Liberty Plaza in the other direction, heading east, the walk would go all the way through – with marked special pavement – to the University of Michigan Diag. Hieftje called the Diag the largest park in the downtown and it would continue to be that way, he said.

The reason Hieftje wanted to bring this forward, he said, was because he wanted people to think about the whole concept. The Allen Creek greenway has been under consideration for a long time, he said. He has been working with Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and the Greenway Conservancy on a regular basis, he said. They have been making progress, but he allowed that the progress had been slow, saying that they have been trying to work on the issue during the worst economy since the 1930s.

Sketch of possible park installation at the lot on the northeast corner of Main and William, next to Palio restaurant.

The progress that they’d been making was set back a little bit when the city was not awarded the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund grant for $300,000 to develop the 721 N. Main parcel. Now, the city is turning its attention back to 415 W. Washington, he said. City staff are working on a proposal to take to the city’s historic district commission to ask for permission to tear down the 415 W. Washington building. The report that had come back indicated that it would require a $6 million investment do anything with that building, he said.

Tearing down the building would clear the way for a greenway park, he said. The reason he wanted to put 415 W. Washington in this presentation was that a graduate class at the University Michigan had agreed to take on a project next fall for the development of a master plan. Students would pull together work that has been done on the greenway and develop a master plan, which would be helpful in applying for grants and in the discussion with the university. Hieftje said that 415 W. Washington might represent one of the best places to start.

The concept that he wanted people to think about – given that the greenway has been on the to-do list for very long time – was that the city needs to find a way to pay for it and maintain it, he said. One of the things that the city could do is to reach out and look for partners. He said there’s an opportunity to build on top of the Library Lane lot and at 415 W. Washington and on the Palio lot, and to find a partner to develop parks.

Hieftje pointed out that First Martin Corp. takes care of the city-owned park at Liberty Plaza. [.pdf of Liberty Plaza costs incurred by First Martin] First Martin also takes care of Wheeler Park, he believed. He said he was happy to hear Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) say a couple weeks ago that Kunselman wanted to see the buildable part of the surface of the Library Lane parking structure sold. “I agree with that,” Hieftje said. He felt there was an opportunity to incorporate a park into the development so that the developer’s funds are used to build the park, and a developer’s funds would be used to maintain the park.

Sketch of possible park/plaza on the surface of Library Lane parking structure.

Hieftje stressed the idea of incorporating the construction of a park into a development agreement. He pointed out that 75% of Central Park in New York City had been paid for with donations. Hieftje felt like a partnership with a developer at 415 W. Washington could achieve the same kind of thing. An RFP (request for proposals) had been put out several years ago for the 415 W. Washington property. It had not been a very good time to do it, Hieftje said, but the climate had change greatly, he ventured. [For background on that RFP process, see Chronicle coverage: "City Restarts 415 W. Washington Process."]

He suggested trying to sell that property and to incorporate the development and maintenance of a greenway park in the development agreement. The same thing could be done with the Library Lane lot. He would not propose a park at the Palio lot if the city were not going to reach out to the Main Street Area Association and include those businesses. They could be included in the whole proposal as it is being put together, he said.

About the close-up slide on the Palio lot, Hieftje described it as taking a walkway that many people use now – to cut the corner by walking through the middle of the parking lot. There are play areas and a water feature included in the sketch, he noted.

Hieftje allowed that one of the shadows that hangs over any proposal for a new downtown park is Liberty Plaza, at the southwest corner of Liberty and Division. He ventured that there are not many citizens who think of Liberty Plaza as a place they want to visit – noting that the city has made great efforts to improve Liberty Plaza over the years. A lot of progress has been made, he said. Hieftje noted that Liberty Plaza needs to be leveled up. “We need to figure out a way to make Liberty Plaza a place where all of our citizens would like to go, where they’d like to sit and read a book. And it’s not that way now.”

Library Lane Urban Park: Council Deliberations

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) said he was pleased to bring the resolution forward as his first resolution as a councilmember. He’s been working with the Library Green Conservancy for several years, he said. He recounted the process that PAC had engaged in, saying that 76% of the public had called for more downtown parks. The resolution took the next “tiny step” in a long process, he said. PAC had made recommendations, and the resolution follows up on that, he noted. The resolution overlaps with the PAC recommendations with respect to a larger-than-5,000 square foot park at the Library Lane site. It’s not a huge park that’s recommended, he said – it’s 100 feet by 100 feet.

Jack Eaton (Ward 4).

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) has asked for time to bring forward a companion resolution, Eaton reported, which raised the possibility that the item would be postponed.

Kunselman said he did want a postponement to have time to meet with some Ann Arbor District Library board members. But more importantly, he said, he wanted to list the property for sale.

The amount invested in the underground parking structure for future speculative development is about $15 million, Kunselman said. He read aloud a part of the city administrator’s commentary on the surface of the Library Lane structure, which essentially describes construction of a public space in concert with the private development of the property. Kunselman said he’s cautious about giving city staff too much to do. So he wanted to ask for postponement. He called the resolution lengthier than the one designating First & William as a park [which the council approved in the summer of 2009]. But as far as he knew, that resolution still stands. So he didn’t see this resolution as much different from that one.

Discussion then unfolded among Kunselman, Eaton, Hieftje, and city administrator Steve Powers on the right date to which it should be postponed. They settled on the following meeting, on March 17.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) then tested the mood of the council for also holding a public hearing on the topic at the next council meeting, on March 17. Eaton didn’t think it was necessary.

Hieftje advised that the council not pursue a process that resulted in changing the categorization of the land to a park, because that would require an ordinance change. Hieftje said if the council decided at its next meeting that a public hearing were warranted, it could postpone again and set a public hearing.

Hieftje ventured that the park/plaza area could become a public space accessible to the public but not owned by the city. He noted that the city already has a lot of parks. If it were a vote today, Hieftje said he’d have a hard time putting this site ahead of 415 W. Washington for development as a park. He wanted to look at the issue in the context of all the city’s parks.

Kunselman said he would be talking to the library board about moving the library over to the surface of the Library Lane structure. He didn’t think the city would break even on the building rights for the top of the parking structure, given the amount of investment for development that has already been made. So he thought that partnering with a public entity might make more sense.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) highlighted the distinction between a park and an urban plaza that Doug Kelbaugh had made during public commentary.

Mayor John Hieftje.

Eaton said he didn’t see a difference between a plaza and a park. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) agreed with Eaton. She said there’s a strong sentiment for something that’s not hardscape, but agreed with Eaton that they themselves are not park designers.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that he’d support the postponement, but asked that PAC be consulted on the resolution. He noted that PAC received the resolution as somewhat of an affront. The boundaries of the space will play a tremendous role, he said. That shouldn’t be set in stone. That could result in a park that can’t work, he said. “It cries for an integrated approach,” Taylor said. He hoped that the postponement can be used as an opportunity to rethink the “dip-the-Gordian-knot-in-concrete approach” of the resolution.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said the idea started in concept as a commons. He said it’s important to include the public in the process, and that’s what the resolution was trying to do. The library is the focal point, he said. With the cooperation of the library, something really good could be designed, he thought.

Implicitly responding to Taylor’s remarks, Eaton said that the location of the park was actually set in stone when the council approved the construction of the Library Lane parking structure – without knowing what would go on top. The location of the park is dictated by where the support columns were installed. The Library Green Conservancy needs definite boundaries so that it can start fundraising, he said. Eaton ventured that FAR [floor area ratio] premiums could be established in the zoning code for adopting a public park. Briere admonished Eaton to speak to the postponement.

Hieftje said it wouldn’t have made any sense to build the structure without adequate foundations to support building something.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) said that setting the boundaries is very important. He was concerned about the northern boundary. He encouraged the sponsors of the resolution to consider that. He was also concerned that the numbers don’t add up for him, in terms of what percent of the surface is being proposed for a park: Is it 20% or 40%?

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she hoped during the period of postponement there would be some serious discussion with AADL about what their needs are. She said that the library has considered moving the building to the top of the parking structure and ventured that AADL has concluded it’s not in the AADL’s best interest. She said that if people had energy to put into the existing Liberty Plaza, it could serve the purpose of the community gathering space.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone until March 17 the resolution designating a portion of the Library Lane surface level as an urban park.

Parks Improvements

The council considered action on two city parks at its March 3 meeting – Clinton Park in the southern part of town and Gallup Park on the Huron River. For Clinton Park, the focus was new basketball and tennis courts. For Gallup Park, the council is looking to the state of Michigan to help fund a universal access playground. The Rotary Club of Ann Arbor has already pledged $250,000 toward the project. The city is applying for $300,000 from the state and would potentially add $100,000 of city funds, which would make a total project budget of $650,000.

Parks Improvements: Clinton Courts

The council was asked to consider a $133,843 contract with Best Asphalt to rebuild the tennis and basketball courts at Clinton Park. The city’s park advisory commission had recommended the contract at its Feb. 25, 2014 meeting.

Clinton Park is located in the southeast part of the city, on Stone School Road, north of Ellsworth Road.

The park is located on the west side of Stone School Road, south of Eisenhower Parkway.

Including a 10% construction contingency, the project’s total budget is $147,227. Best Asphalt provided the lowest of five bids, according to a staff memo. The project will be funded with revenues from the park maintenance and capital improvement millage.

The scant remarks from councilmembers on the item stemmed from a question about where in the city the park is located.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the contract with Best Asphalt for repaving of the courts at Clinton Park.

Parks Improvements: Gallup Universal Access

The council considered approving an application for a grant from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Grants Management (MDNRGM) to help fund the project.

PAC had been briefed on the proposal at its Jan. 28, 2014 meeting. Representatives of Rotary Club had attended that PAC meeting to convey the group’s $250,000 pledge. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, told park commissioners that although there are about 80 playgrounds in Ann Arbor, none are universally accessible. It’s a “huge shortcoming” for the parks system, he said.

The exact location within Gallup Park hasn’t been determined, but the playground would be about 5,000 square feet and exceed the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The design and equipment is intended to create environments that can be used by all people, with features like ramps, color-contrasting structures, wider bridges and walkways, and playground equipment that makes it easier for people using wheelchairs.

Parks Improvements: Gallup Universal Access – Public Commentary

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Karen Kerry introduced herself as the president-elect of the Rotary Club of Ann Arbor. She noted that the Rotary Club’s Centennial co-chair, Bernie Lugauer, was also in the audience. She described the Rotary Club as an international humanitarian organization of professional men and women. The Rotary Club was started in the U.S. in 1905 and has grown into a worldwide organization of about 34,000 clubs and 1.3 million members, she told the council.

From left: Karen Kerry, president-elect of the Rotary Club of Ann Arbor, and Josie Parker, director of the Ann Arbor District Library. Parker is also a member of the Rotary Club.

The Rotary Club of Ann Arbor has nearly 350 members, she continued, about equally divided between town and gown. It’s about the 32nd largest Rotary Club in the world, she said. In addition to being one of the largest clubs, the Rotary Club of Ann Arbor is also one of the oldest – and in 2016 the club would be celebrating 100 years of service to the Ann Arbor community.

To mark that 100-year anniversary, the Rotary Club of Ann Arbor is partnering with the city of Ann Arbor’s parks and recreation department to build a state-of-the-art universal-access playground at Gallup Park, Kerry said.

The playground would be all-inclusive, she said. Regardless of age or ability, the playground would serve everyone. Playing, especially playing together, she said, isn’t just for those who can stand, run and jump. To that end, the Rotary Club is committed to raising at least $250,000 to support the construction of such a playground. That would be in addition to funding its ongoing programs at home and abroad, she explained.

Parks Improvements: Gallup Universal Access – Council Discussion

The item appeared with a group of other items on the consent agenda, but councilmembers can pull out items for separate consideration, which Jane Lumm (Ward 2) did. She acknowledged the Rotary Club’s gift in support of the park. “It’s just phenomenal,” Lumm said. “It’s breathtakingly generous.” Mayor John Hieftje added his own remarks of support.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the grant application for a universal access playground at Gallup Park.

Pedestrian Task Force Funding

The council considered a proposal to appropriate $197,250 to fund the work of a pedestrian safety and access task force. That amount includes an “estimated $122,500” as the approximate cost of the anticipated city staff effort for the project. The total project budget also includes $77,400 for a professional services agreement with Project Innovations Inc.

The funds were to be sourced in part from an allocation made during the May 20, 2013 budget deliberations, which appropriated $75,000 for a study to prioritize sidewalk gap elimination. The connection between sidewalk gaps and the task force’s work is based in part on one of the other “resolved” clauses establishing the task force: “… the task force will also address sidewalk gaps and create a tool for setting priorities for funding and filling those gaps; …”

The pedestrian safety and access task force was established through a council resolution passed on Nov. 18, 2013. Confirmed as members of the task force on Jan. 21, 2014 were: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, and Owen Jansson.

Another key “resolved” clause establishing the group’s scope of work includes the following: “… the task force will explore strategies to improve pedestrian safety and access within a framework of shared responsibility through community outreach and data collection, and will recommend to council improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

The responsibilities of the task force include delivery of a report a year from now – in February 2015.

The funding for the task force was in part to be used to pay for the $77,400 contract with Project Innovations Inc. to provide facilitator support to the task force.

Frank Burdick spoke during public commentary against the funding allocation for the pedestrian safety task force and in particular against the funding of a contract with Project Innovations.

According to a staff memo written in response to councilmember questions, the facilitator would assist with an anticipated 18 task force meetings, 24 resource group (staff) meetings, five stakeholder meetings and three public meetings. The facilitator would be “preparing materials and agendas; facilitating the meetings; summarizing the meetings; facilitating communication and discussions between, and among, the task force members and the resource group; and, developing materials for community outreach in addition to the actual public meetings, including content for press releases and web page publishing, and a community survey.”

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, a “team of staff members has identified Project Innovations, Inc. as a firm in the region that has demonstrated skill in task force facilitation and robust community engagement efforts, and is uniquely qualified with the capacity to facilitate the pedestrian safety and access task force’s rigorous work approach within the specified timeframe.” Based on the phrasing in the memo, the work appears not to have been put out to bid and Project Innovations was identified as a “sole source” provider.

Project Innovations is the same firm currently providing facilitation support to a citizens advisory committee that is attached to a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study being conducted by the city.

The resolution establishing the pedestrian safety task force did not explicitly charge the group with a review of the city’s crosswalk law. But the pedestrian safety task force was established in the same time frame as the council was considering an amendment to the city’s crosswalk law. The council ultimately voted to change the language of that law at its Dec. 2, 2013 meeting – so that motorists were required to concede the right-of-way only to pedestrians who had already entered the crosswalk.

That change was subsequently vetoed by mayor John Hieftje. Drawing on the phrasing used in Hieftje’s statement of veto, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) has indicated he intends to bring forward an amendment that would require motorists to stop at crosswalks for pedestrians only if “they can do so safely.” At the council’s Feb. 18, 2014 meeting, Kunselman announced he’d be pursuing such an amendment.

In the same time frame when the council considered the revision to the crosswalk ordinance and established the pedestrian safety task force, the council also made an $125,000 allocation, at its Dec. 16, 2013 meeting, for increased traffic enforcement. At that same meeting, the council passed a resolution directing city administrator Steve Powers to develop a funding and implementation plan for the city’s non-motorized plan. The first report on that, focusing on improvements to pedestrian safety in the downtown, was due to the council by March 1. The report, dated Feb. 28, was attached to the March 3, 2014 meeting agenda. [.pdf of Feb. 28, 2014 city administrator report on non-motorized plan implementation]

Pedestrian Task Force Funding: Public Commentary

During his turn at public commentary at the start of the meeting, Jeff Hayner asked for some leadership that will save some money for the city. By his reckoning, there was more than $1 million that could be saved. He identified $77,000 in consulting for the pedestrian task force as one area of savings.

Frank Burdick asked that the council vote no on the funding of the consultant for the pedestrian task force. He said the city already has staff who are competent to facilitate the work of the task force, and he weighed in against hiring Project Innovations to do the work. He expressed dissatisfaction with PI for its work with the wet weather sanitary sewer evaluation study. He spoke from his perspective, serving on a citizens advisory committee for that project.

Pedestrian Task Force Funding: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) recalled Stephen Kunselman’s (Ward 3) comments from earlier in the evening, when he said that it’s easy to direct staff to do things. She wanted to postpone the item until the first meeting in April – on April 7. She ventured that the scope of work might be different by then and the budgeted amount might also be different.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) supported the postponement. She hoped the task force would meet before April 7. She was concerned about assigning the task force the task of addressing sidewalk gaps. She also suggested separating out the Project Innovations contract into a separate resolution. Briere responded by saying she’s not even sure that the recommendation for an outside consultant would be part of the proposal when it comes back on April 7. Briere said the task force could meet before this resolution.

Briere identified Connie Pulcipher as the city staff member who’d support the task force. City administrator Steve Powers weighed in, pointedly saying that the staff assignment would be made by staff. Responding to Petersen’s comment, he noted the resolution is much broader than the sidewalk gaps issue. Briere apologized for saying Pulcipher had been assigned, saying she thought Pulcipher had already been identified.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she’d support the postponement. But she was concerned about language in the resolution that indicated additional funding could be requested in the future.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone the funding for the pedestrian safety task force until April 7, 2014.

Target Pedestrian Safety Traffic Enforcement

Commenting on the dedicated overtime traffic enforcement initiative, police chief John Seto told the council that the Ann Arbor police department had given the program an internal name: “26 weeks to Safer Streets.”

Educational pamphlet handed out as warnings as a part of traffic enforcement in Ann Arbor. In format, they resemble a ticket.

The first date when officers were deployed for the program was on Jan. 9, he reported. For the first two months, on two days a week there were officers assigned to either four- or eight-hour shifts. A total of 47 different officers have worked the detail so far, he said, and 450 hours of overtime have been scheduled. That’s about 24% of the hours the department had estimated would be scheduled during the program. About $26,000 of overtime has been used, which is about 21% of the $125,000 that had been allocated.

About 80% of the enforcement time focused on some type of pedestrian-related safety concern – such as crosswalks, or failing to yield at a red light or stop sign. The other 20% involve speeding or disregarding traffic control devices. There have been 40 separate dedicated locations of enforcement throughout the city, Seto said, 14 of which have been in the downtown and student areas. A total of 363 traffic stops have been made, and 166 citations have been issued – which accounts for about 46% of the total stops. Of those contacts, 197 resulted in warnings or educational opportunities, which is about 54% of the stops, he said.

Seto showed the council a copy of the educational handout that had been distributed in connection with traffic stops. He told them it was effective because it looks like a ticket, but is actually educational material. [.pdf of Walk-Drive-Ped-Card] When people find out it is not a ticket and they don’t actually have to pay the fines or the points they would have received, it’s proven effective, he said.

The locations for enforcement were identified through citizen complaints, Seto explained, in part through the complaint questionnaire that went live on Jan. 13, 2014. Since its implementation, 47 separate questionnaires have been completed, he told the council. And they have been used to help identify locations of enforcement.

Seto indicated that the harsh weather that the city had experienced over the last two months has likely decreased the number of traffic violations that the officers have seen. That’s the reason the department has expended only 21% of the overtime for the first 1/3 of the program. The department plans to increase its deployment over the next few months as the weather warms up.

Seto indicated that the visible presence of officers at the target locations has been beneficial. Although the first phase has used locations identified through complaints, the next phase will include areas that in the police department’s judgment are in need of additional enforcement – such as areas of high incidence of traffic crashes.

Crime Statistics Update

Police chief John Seto also briefed the council on year-end crime statistics. Background materials attached to the agenda included historical crime data: [.pdf Ann Arbor 2013 crime stats]

Part I crime totals for 2013 were 2,827, down from 3,059 in 2012. Part II crime totals for 2013 were 3,625, down from 3,883 in 2012. Total crimes for 2013 were 6,452, down from 6,942. That’s a 7% drop.

Seto stressed that the numbers being reported were not the official FBI numbers but they are the internal Ann Arbor police department numbers that are reported to the FBI. For 2013, he said, the year-end reported number of Part I crimes was 2,827. [Part I crimes include: criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary (breaking or entering), larceny, motor vehicle theft and arson.] That represented about an 8% reduction compared to the previous year, Seto said.

The most significant area of reduction was in the area of break-ins – which includes home invasions and break-ins into businesses. In 2013 there were 427 break-ins, which is the lowest reported number for at least the last 10 years, Seto said. That’s a 42% reduction compared to the previous year.

However, Seto urged caution when looking at crime statistics. One crime is one crime too many, he said, especially when it comes to violent crimes. In 2013 there were two homicides, Seto noted, and he was grateful for the hard work of the detectives and officers that led to arrests in both of those instances. He also stressed the importance of looking at crime statistics not just as a snapshot from one year to the next, but also to consider statistics over an extended period of time – statistics over many years.

He noted that the council had been provided with a table of crime statistics going back to 2002. He said those statistics indicated that there seemed to be a jump in crime every 3 to 4 years – but the overall trend has been for a steady reduction since 2002.

Ann Arbor crime statistics from 2002 through 2013 for larceny (red) and burglary (blue). (Data from the AAPD. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor crime statistics from 2002 through 2013 for Part I crimes except for larceny and burglary. (Data from the AAPD. Chart by The Chronicle.) The downward trend is consistent in every category except for sex crimes (red).

The city makes daily crime data available in a six-month rolling window through crimemapping.com.

Ann Arbor monthly crime statistics for burglary. (Data from crimemapping.com. Chart by The Chronicle.) The drop in burglaries appears to have occurred after a relative high in December 2012.

Ann Arbor monthly crime statistics for drug offenses (Data from crimemapping.com. Chart by The Chronicle.) The bulk of drug offenses are marijuana possession (green). Although the actual numbers are low, incidences of crack offenses (orange) and heroin offenses (purple) seem to becoming more frequent.

Sidewalk Design, Construction

The council considered a design contract for two stretches of new sidewalk in two parts of the city – Barton Drive and Scio Church Road. Also considered at the council’s March 3 meeting was a $30,000 budget allocation for the construction of a sidewalk as part of the Ann Arbor-Saline road reconstruction project.

Sidewalk Design, Construction: Barton, Scio Church

As part of a contract to design urgent repairs to the sanitary sewer pipes and structures in Huron Street near the intersections of Glen Street and Zina Pitcher, Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. was tapped to provide the designs for two sidewalk projects that could ultimately result in special assessments for adjoining property owners.

By way of background, at its July 15, 2013 meeting, the council approved $15,000 for preliminary design of a sidewalk along Barton Drive.

Location of proposed Barton Drive sidewalk.

And at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting, the council approved $15,000 for preliminary study of a sidewalk to be constructed along Scio Church, west of Seventh Street. On Nov. 7, 2013, the council approved another $35,000 for Scio Church sidewalk design work.

Purple indicates stretches of Scio Church Road where no sidewalk exists.

The contract with Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. – which includes $50,629 for the design of the two stretches of sidewalk – would draw on that previously authorized funding.

The scant council remarks consisted of comments from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who said that residents all over the north side of town have been asking for a sidewalk connection along Barton Drive ever since the boardwalk was constructed.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the contract with Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc.

Sidewalk Design, Construction: Ann Arbor-Saline

The council considered a $30,000 general fund expenditure to pay for a new sidewalk along the east side of Ann Arbor-Saline Road from the westbound I-94 exit ramp to the north end of the I-94 bridge, and along the west side of Ann Arbor-Saline Road from Brookfield Drive to the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) park-and-ride commuter parking lot. The work is part of a more general road reconstruction project being handled by MDOT under an agreement between the city of Ann Arbor, the Washtenaw County road commission, MDOT and Pittsfield Township. Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. also did design work for this project.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to approve the $30,000 for new sidewalk construction on Ann Arbor-Saline Road.

Outdoor Smoking Law

The council was asked to consider initial approval of a local law regulating smoking in some outdoor locations. The law would regulate smoking outside of public buildings and also potentially in areas of some city parks.

The new ordinance had been postponed at the council’s Feb. 3 meeting.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), sponsor of the new proposed local law, had appeared before the city’s park advisory commission at its Feb. 25 meeting to brief commissioners on the proposal and solicit feedback.

Made punishable under the proposed ordinance through a $50 civil fine would be smoking within 20 feet of: (1) bus stops; (2) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of the Blake Transit Center; and (3) entrances, windows and ventilation systems any city-owned building.

The ordinance would also authorize the city administrator to have signs posted designating certain parks or portions of parks as off limits for outdoor smoking, and to increase the distance from entrances to city buildings where outdoor smoking is prohibited.

Where no signs are posted noting the smoking prohibition, a citation could be issued only if someone doesn’t stop smoking immediately when asked to stop.

An existing Washtenaw County ordinance already prohibits smoking near entrances, windows and ventilation systems, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution – but the county’s ordinance can be enforced only by the county health department. The memo further notes that the Michigan Clean Indoor Air Act does not regulate outdoor smoking.

Outdoor Smoking Law: Council Deliberations

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) led off by noting that the clerk had forwarded to people a substitute amendment. He characterized the changes as minor to make the wording more clear.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5). In the foreground is Jack Eaton (Ward 5).

Warpehoski noted that the ordinance was on the agenda as just a first reading. He indicated he was willing to postpone consideration of the ordinance again, in the context of some information that was provided only just today. [That included a statement of support from Tobacco Free Michigan, and a statement from Clifford Douglas, director of the University of Michigan Tobacco Research Network.]

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked Warpehoski what the outcome of the consultation with PAC and the business community had been. Warpehoski indicated that he had not yet moved forward with consultation with the business community.

Lumm asked what the reaction of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority had been. Warpehoski said the challenge that AAATA had identified was enforcement. But AAATA would like its bus stops to be smoke-free, he reported.

Lumm wondered how the areas in public parks would be designated as smoke-free. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he’d had some concerns when he first saw this proposal and he still has them. He did not want people calling 911 to resolve personal space issues – just because someone is smoking a cigarette. He wouldn’t support having Ann Arbor’s police officers chasing people who are smoking cigarettes.

Kunselman also said that not all “city employees” should be able to issue citations. He noted that the University of Michigan went smoke-free, without a penalty. But if you work for UM and you get caught smoking, that could have implications for your job, he allowed. He wondered why Washtenaw County passed an ordinance that designates the health department as the enforcer, instead of the sheriff’s office. He ventured that it’s because the county didn’t want sheriff’s deputies chasing people for smoking cigarettes.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Warpehoski agreed that he didn’t want people calling 911 about outdoor smoking. He said the parks and recreation manager, Colin Smith, indicated that he thought it would likely be self-enforced or not.

Kunselman came back to the issue of who can issue a ticket. He said the effort needs to be thought out again. If you’re in front of a judge for smoking a cigarette, that’s a problem, he said. He drew a distinction between rudeness and unlawful activity.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) focused on the issue of penalties. He wanted to know if being fined under this ordinance would remain as part of someone’s record. City attorney Stephen Postema said it would be like any ticket.

Anglin asked if it would be a misdemeanor. Postema said it would be a civil infraction. Postema explained that a civil infraction is not a violation of the criminal code. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked for examples of a civil infraction. City administrator Steve Powers gave as an example the failure to remove snow or ice from a sidewalk.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) said she wanted to postpone the ordinance. She liked the intent, but thought there should be a better way to enforce it. She wanted to give Warpehoski time to sort things out.

Warpehoski suggested the council’s first meeting in April as the date to which it could be postponed.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Lumm supported postponement, saying that there are a lot of unanswered questions. She said she didn’t believe in voting for something at first reading just to get it to second reading.

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) said that he’s a non-smoker and finds secondary smoke offensive, but he had problems with the proposed ordinance. He called the ordinance next-to-impossible to enforce – noting it takes maybe seven minutes to smoke a cigarette. He also had concerns about the disparate impact on the homeless. He noted that the fine for having marijuana is $25. He hoped that the focus can be narrowed to just around public buildings.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated he would not support the postponement. He said there’s been a “parade of horribles” about the social consequences of this ordinance, which he didn’t think were warranted. He ventured that in most cases, interactions would unfold along the lines of someone pointing out to a smoker that according to the sign, smoking is not allowed – with swift compliance by the smoker. He wanted to see the ordinance move forward to second reading.

Warpehoski complained that he’d asked councilmembers a month ago, on Feb. 3 – when the ordinance was first on the agenda and he’d himself asked for a postponement – if they had any questions or concerns. And he was only hearing their concerns now at the March 3 meeting.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone the ordinance until April 7, over dissent from Hieftje and Taylor.

Outdoor Smoking: Public Commentary

During public commentary at the end of the meeting, Seth Best thanked the council for their work. He was there speaking as a smoker. He liked the idea of allowing people to perform community service as an alternative to a fine. He also suggested that punishment could include voluntary smoking cessation intervention.

Affordable Housing Budget

The council considered a resolution directing the city administrator to prepare for the council’s approval a budget resolution that would allocate $600,000 from the city’s affordable housing trust fund to support the Ann Arbor housing commission’s plan to renovate its properties.

That allocation would be contingent on the closing of the sale of the former Y lot to Dennis Dahlmann, as the net proceeds of that sale are to be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

The resolution had been postponed at the council’s Feb. 18 meeting. It was postponed only after the council’s two liaisons to the housing and human services advisory board – Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) – had aired out conflicting perspectives on the importance of having the item on the agenda that evening. Briere had placed the item on the Feb. 18 agenda. Lumm argued that the agenda placement had come late on Friday and that it was not necessary – for the housing commission’s purposes – to vote on the issue until March 3.

Politics between the city council and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority are also a part of the mix, as the housing commission has made a $600,000 request of the DDA as well. It appears that the DDA is likely to meet that request over the course of three years, with $200,000 payments each year.

Council deliberations were brief. Briere reviewed the content of the resolution. The city does not yet have the money from the sale of the Y lot, she noted.

Lumm pointed out that her objection at the last meeting was a concern about process. She said this money is essential to the AAHC’s strategy for rehabilitating its properties.

Outcome: The council voted to direct the preparation of a budget amendment to make an allocation from the affordable housing trust fund to the Ann Arbor housing commission.

Vehicle Replacement

The council was asked to authorize the purchase of 18 new vehicles from Signature Ford in Perry, Michigan. Most of the new vehicles are for use by the Ann Arbor police department. Total cost of the purchase was $457,393 and included:

• one 2014 Ford F-150 four-wheel-drive pickup at $26,407.
• one 2014 Ford Escape four-wheel-drive at $24,050.
• four 2014 Ford Police Interceptors: Sedans at $24,601 each.
• nine 2014 Ford Police Interceptors: Utility at $26,298 each.
• two 2014 Ford Police Interceptors: Utility with rear-auxiliary air-conditioning for use as K-9 units at $26,846.
• one 2014 Ford F-150 two-wheel-drive pickup at $18,158.

The staff memo accompanying the resolution noted that the police vehicles to be purchased will replace vehicles that will have reached either the 80,000-mile or the six-year limit specified in the city’s labor contracts with the Ann Arbor Police Officers Association and the Ann Arbor Police Supervisors.

The memo further noted that the new sedans have less shoulder room than Crown Victorias. So the AAPD is finding it difficult to install the increased amount of equipment needed in police vehicles, while still maintaining adequate room for officers. That’s why more of the SUV pursuit-rate vehicles are being incorporated into the police department’s fleet.

The city’s non-police vehicles are subjected to a two-step process to determine replacement. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the first step scores a vehicle’s age, miles/hours of use, type of service, reliability, maintenance and repair cost. The second step is review of the vehicle repair history and general condition.

One non-police vehicle to be replaced through the purchase is a truck that has been in service for 7.6 years and has over 4,800 total hours of operation, averaging 0.23 repair work orders per month. The total cost of repairs has exceeded 60% of its purchase price.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to approve the vehicle purchase.

More Fire Protection

The council considered a resolution calling for higher funding levels for an existing state fire protection grant program.

The state grant program, which has historically varied in amount from year to year, was enacted to address the fire protection costs incurred by local municipalities that are home to state-owned institutions – like the University of Michigan. State law sets forth a formula to set funding levels for all Michigan municipalities where state-owned facilities are located. But the law also allows the legislature to fund only a percentage of the amount that results from the formula-based calculation.

The council’s March 3 resolution encouraged Gov. Rick Snyder, state senator Rebekah Warren (D-District 18), and state representatives Jeff Irwin (D-District 53) and Adam Zemke (D-District 55) to explore creative ways to fund the state’s fire protection grant program for municipalities like Ann Arbor, which host state-owned facilities.

By way of additional background, state-owned institutions like the University of Michigan, located in Ann Arbor, do not generate property tax revenue, which is used to pay for fire protection, among other basic services.

UM does not operate its own fire protection service, but Ann Arbor’s fire station #5 is located on university property, for which the university does not charge rent, utilities, or maintenance costs. UM estimates the annual value of that arrangement to the city at about $230,000.

In general, however, the Michigan legislature recognizes that municipalities hosting state-owned facilities face a burden of providing fire protection for such facilities – without receiving property tax revenues to pay for that fire protection.

So the legislature enacted a law to award fire protection grants from the state of Michigan – which are dependent on an allocation from the state legislature each year. The allocation is governed by Act 289 of 1977. [.pdf of Act 289 of 1977] The statute sets forth a formula for a state fire protection grant to all municipalities that are home to state-owned facilities – a formula that attempts to fairly determine the funding allocated for fire protection grants in any given year. The fire protection grant formula is defined for any municipality in terms of the relative value of the state-owned property in the municipality.

More precisely, the percentage in the grant formula is the estimated state equalized value (SEV) of state-owned facilities, divided by the sum of that estimated value and the actual SEV of the other property in the community. For example, in Ann Arbor, the total SEV of property on which property tax is paid is roughly $5 billion. The estimated value of state-owned facilities (primarily the University of Michigan) is around $1 billion. So the percentage used in the state fire protection formula for Ann Arbor is about 16% [1/(1 + 5)].

The percentage in the formula is different for each municipality. That percentage is then multiplied by the actual expenditures made by a municipality for fire protection in the prior fiscal year.

The formula can be described as equitable among municipalities – because the grant amount depends in part on the relative value of state-owned facilities in a given municipality. All other things being equal, a city with a greater number of state-owned facilities receives more fire protection grant money than one with a small number of state-owned facilities. The formula can also be described as equitable to the state of Michigan, because the formula calibrates the state’s investment in a municipality’s fire protection to the level of funding that a local municipality itself is willing to provide.

The roughly $14.8 million in a provisional budget request from the Ann Arbor fire department for FY 2015 would translate to a state grant of roughly $2.3 million.

But the state statute explicitly provides for the possibility that the legislature can choose not to allocate funds sufficient to cover the amount in the formula [emphasis added]:

141.956 Prorating amount appropriated to each municipality.
Sec. 6. If the amount appropriated in a fiscal year is not sufficient to make the payments required by this act, the director shall prorate the amount appropriated to each municipality.

Since 1996, the legislature has funded the grants at amounts as low as 23% of the formula to as high as 68%. For the five-year period from 2007 through 2011, the legislature funded the same dollar amount of about $10.9 million statewide, but that translated into diminishing percentages over the five-year span. In the last three years, the program has been only 40-55% funded.

State of Michigan Fire Protection Grants: Actual Dollars. (Data from state of Michigan, chart by The Chronicle.)

State of Michigan Fire Protection Grants: Percentage of Formula Funded. (Data from state of Michigan, chart by The Chronicle.)

More Fire Protection: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she sponsored the resolution but noted that it originated with city staff and the city’s lobbyist, Governmental Consultant Services Inc. (GCSI). She reviewed the background of the fire protection grant funding.

Mayor John Hieftje said he’d made a couple of trips to Lansing to stand with other mayors and fire chiefs to ask the state legislature to fund its own formula. He noted that the estimated taxable value of University of Michigan property is around $1 billion.

Hieftje hoped this issue gets more traction in Lansing this year.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the resolution calling on state officials to find ways to fund the fire protection grant program.

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: Potholes

Near the start of the meeting, during his communications time, city administrator Steve Powers gave an update on local road conditions. He began by saying there was statewide interest in road conditions. Requests on potholes through the end of February 2014 totaled 283 compared to 46 last year. This year so far, 251 tons of cold patch have been used. Last year by this time, 100 tons had been used.

Powers indicated that the city was responding daily, if not more frequently, to issues on eight major thoroughfares. The city was still trying to maintain its 24-hour response to any pothole request. He allowed that the city is not achieving the 24-hour goal 100% of the time, but was still striving for that goal. The difficulty in achieving that goal relates to other weather-related needs that the field operations staff has to respond to, he said.

Comm/Comm: Environmental Commission

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) would be bringing forward appointments to the environmental commission (EC). The two people are re-appointments: David Stead and Susan Hutton. She would also like additional applicants for the EC, she said. The EC has asked for people with specific expertise in chemistry, urban forestry, and water issues. Briere also wanted to highlight the EC work plan in the attachments to the agenda. [.pdf of EC work plan]

Comm/Comm: R4C/R2A

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) also highlighted that the council has received a report from the R4C/R2A advisory committee. She hoped people will take time to read the report. [.pdf of advisory committee report]

Comm/Comm: Agenda Attachments, Minutes

During public commentary at the end of the meeting, Ed Vielmetti addressed the council highlighting items from the clerk’s report. He read aloud from communications sent to the city by students at Pattengill Elementary School, who complained about the lack of snow plowing near their school. Vielmetti also highlighted the 2009 Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority annual report, which was just now attached to the March 3 meeting agenda. He pointed out a very late set of historic district commission minutes that were attached to this meeting’s agenda.

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sumi Kailasapathy, Sally Petersen, Stephen Kunselman, Jack Eaton, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Chuck Warpehoski.

Next council meeting: Monday, March 17, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. We sit on the hard bench so that you don’t have to. 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!

The state grant program, which has historically varied in amount from year to year, was enacted to address the fire protection costs incurred by local municipalities that are home to state-owned institutions – like the University of Michigan. State law sets forth a formula to set funding levels for all Michigan municipalities where state-owned facilities are located. But the law also allows the legislature to fund only a percentage of the amount that results from the formula-based calculation.

The council’s March 3 resolution encourages Gov. Rick Snyder, state senator Rebekah Warren (D-District 18), and state representatives Jeff Irwin (D-District 53) and Adam Zemke (D-District 55) to explore creative ways to fund the state’s fire protection grant program for municipalities like Ann Arbor, which host state-owned facilities.

By way of additional background, state-owned institutions like the University of Michigan, located in Ann Arbor, do not generate property tax revenue, which is used to pay for fire protection, among other basic services.

UM does not operate its own fire protection service, but Ann Arbor’s fire station #5 is located on university property, for which the university does not charge rent, utilities, or maintenance costs. UM estimates the annual value of that arrangement to the city at about $230,000.

In general, however, the Michigan legislature recognizes that municipalities hosting state-owned facilities face a burden of providing fire protection for such facilities – without receiving property tax revenues to pay for that fire protection.

So the legislature enacted a law to award fire protection grants from the state of Michigan – which are dependent on an allocation from the state legislature each year. The allocation is governed by Act 289 of 1977. [.pdf of Act 289 of 1977] The statute sets forth a formula for a state fire protection grant to all municipalities that are home to state-owned facilities – a formula that attempts to fairly determine the funding allocated for fire protection grants in any given year. The fire protection grant formula is defined for any municipality in terms of the relative value of the state-owned property in the municipality.

More precisely, the percentage in the grant formula is the estimated state equalized value (SEV) of state-owned facilities, divided by the sum of that estimated value and the actual SEV of the other property in the community. For example, in Ann Arbor, the total SEV of property on which property tax is paid is roughly $5 billion. The estimated value of state-owned facilities (primarily the University of Michigan) is around $1 billion. So the percentage used in the state fire protection formula for Ann Arbor is about 16% [1/(1 + 5)].

The percentage in the formula is different for each municipality. That percentage is then multiplied by the actual expenditures made by a municipality for fire protection in the prior fiscal year.

The formula can be described as equitable among municipalities – because the grant amount depends in part on the relative value of state-owned facilities in a given municipality. All other things being equal, a city with a greater number of state-owned facilities receives more fire protection grant money than one with a small number of state-owned facilities. The formula can also be described as equitable to the state of Michigan, because the formula calibrates the state’s investment in a municipality’s fire protection to the level of funding that a local municipality itself is willing to provide.

The roughly $14.8 million in a provisional budget request from the Ann Arbor fire department for FY 2015 would translate to a state grant of roughly $2.3 million.

But the state statute explicitly provides for the possibility that the legislature can choose not to allocate funds sufficient to cover the amount in the formula [emphasis added]:

141.956 Prorating amount appropriated to each municipality.
Sec. 6. If the amount appropriated in a fiscal year is not sufficient to make the payments required by this act, the director shall prorate the amount appropriated to each municipality.

Since 1996, the legislature has funded the grants at amounts as low as 23% of the formula to as high as 68%. For the five-year period from 2007 through 2011, the legislature funded the same dollar amount of about $10.9 million statewide, but that translated into diminishing percentages over the five-year span. In the last three years, the program has been only 40-55% funded.

State of Michigan Fire Protection Grants: Actual Dollars. (Data from state of Michigan, chart by The Chronicle.)

State of Michigan Fire Protection Grants: Percentage of Formula Funded. (Data from state of Michigan, chart by The Chronicle.)

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The council’s first regular meeting in March will include several items of business leftover from previous meetings, including one resolution on affordable housing, an ordinance on outdoor smoking, and several matters related to public art.

The sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber, installed in the summer of 2013, includes Braille.

New to the agenda are several items related to non-motorized issues, most prominently a funding request to support the activity of an already-established task force on pedestrian safety and access.

The council will also be asked to fund requests related to city parks and other facilities like city hall and the airport. Eighteen new vehicles will also be added to the city’s fleet, contingent on council action on March 3.

The council will also consider a resolution that urges full funding of the state of Michigan’s fire protection grant program – for cities like Ann Arbor that host state-owned facilities like the University of Michigan.

In somewhat more detail, one public art issue, embodied in two different resolutions, was postponed from the council’s Feb. 18, 2014 meeting, when councilmembers could not agree on an approach to transferring money out of the public art fund back to the funds from which the money was originally drawn. The specific point dividing the council was not so much the transfer of money but rather a plan to fund the transition to a new approach to public art – after the council eliminated the Percent for Art funding mechanism last year.

Between council meetings, those issues have been separated out. The resolution ordered first on the agenda has been altered for consideration on March 3 so that it focuses exclusively on the public art program transition issue. The second resolution incorporates changes to reflect the council’s deliberations on Feb. 18: It transfers a total of $943,005 of Percent for Art money to its funds of origin, an amount that defunds the art project at Argo Cascades, but keeps funding for the Coleman Jewett memorial and for a project called Canoe Imagine Art. [public art resolution (1) for consideration on March 3, 2014] [public art resolution (2) for consideration on March 3, 2014]

That disagreement over funding of the new approach to public art – created by the council last summer when it eliminated the Percent for Art funding mechanism – is also related to another public art item on the agenda. That’s a six-month contract extension for the city’s part-time public art administrator. The item first appeared on the council’s Jan. 21 agenda, but the council postponed that vote until Feb. 3, when it was defeated. On Feb. 18 it was then brought back for reconsideration, but immediately postponed until the March 3 meeting.

Also postponed from Feb. 18 is an item that would direct the city administrator to prepare for the council’s approval a budget resolution regarding affordable housing. The resolution would allocate $600,000 from the city’s affordable housing trust fund to support the Ann Arbor housing commission’s plan to renovate its properties. That allocation would be contingent on the closing of the sale of the former Y lot to Dennis Dahlmann, as the net proceeds of that sale are to be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

Postponed from the Feb. 3 meeting was the first reading of an ordinance that would regulate smoking outside of public buildings and also potentially in areas of some city parks. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), sponsor of the new proposed local law, appeared before the park advisory commission at its Feb. 25 meeting to brief commissioners on the proposal and solicit feedback.

New items on the March 3 agenda include a funding proposal for the pedestrian safety and access task force established by the city council late last year, with members appointed in late January. The $122,250 item also includes a $77,500 contract for facilitation services from Project Innovations. That’s the same firm contracted for similar work in connection with the city’s sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation – which is expected to conclude in the summer of 2014. [The total amount being appropriated for the task force project budget in the item is $197,250. The stated “estimated $122,500” is the approximate cost of the anticipated staff effort for this project. The total project budget includes $77,400 for the professional services agreement with Project Innovations, Inc.]

Other issues on the March 3 agenda with a non-motorized connection are three stretches of sidewalk. In the context of sanitary sewer design work that Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. is being hired to do, two sidewalks are included: a stretch along Barton Drive, and a stretch along Scio Church Road. The council will also be asked to pay for the construction of a stretch of sidewalk along Ann Arbor-Saline Road near the I-94 bridge – as part of a road reconstruction project that the Michigan Dept. of Transportation is handling.

Another new item is a resolution that Jack Eaton (Ward 4) had announced at the council’s Feb. 18 meeting that he’d be bringing forward. It would waive the attorney-client privilege on a staff memo about laws governing the assessment of homes. The resolution indicates that the memo addresses the effect that reducing the assessment for one year would have on the property tax assessment for the subsequent year, based on action by the Board of Review and/or the Michigan Tax Tribunal.

In other action, the council will be asked on March 3 to approve the purchase from Signature Ford of 18 new vehicles – most of them for use by the Ann Arbor police department. Total cost of the purchase is $457,393.

City parks factor into three agenda items: (1) a resolution to establish an urban park on part of the surface level of the Library Lane underground parking structure; (2) a paving contract for the replacement of basketball and tennis courts at Clinton Park; and (3) a grant application to the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Grants Management to support a universal access playground at Gallup Park. The Rotary Club of Ann Arbor has already pledged $250,000 toward such a playground.

The city hall (Larcom Building) is featured in two agenda items – to pay $160,923 for a secondary chiller unit and $28,469 for new light fixtures. An amendment to an agreement with MDOT for an already-completed fence project at the Ann Arbor municipal airport also appears on the agenda, and will cost the city $425.

After authorizing significant equipment purchases to support water main repair activity at its Feb. 18 meeting, the council will be asked to approve two additional items related to water main repair. One item is a $44,702 emergency purchase order to buy more aggregate material used for backfilling water main repairs. A second item authorizes an emergency purchase order for repairing and making a new connection for the water main at 1214 S. University. In both cases, the emergency purchase orders were authorized by the city administrator, and the work was done.

Street closures for two events are on the council’s March 3 agenda: Take Back the Night and the Monroe Street Fair.

Also on the agenda is a resolution that would encourage Gov. Rick Snyder, state senator Rebekah Warren, and state representatives Jeff Irwin and Adam Zemke to explore creative ways to fund the state’s fire protection grant program for municipalities like Ann Arbor, which host state institutions. In the last three years, the program has been only 40-55% funded.

This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Monday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network starting at 7 p.m.

The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the meeting, published in this article below the preview material. Click here to skip the preview section and go directly to the live updates. The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m.

Public Art

At the council’s Feb. 18, 2014 meeting, two resolutions on the transfer of public art money back to its funds of origin were postponed. Councilmembers seemed to agree that a substantial sum – at least $800,000 that had accumulated under the now defunct Percent for Art funding mechanism – should be transferred back to its funds of origin. The issue actually dividing the council was not so much the transfer of money but rather a plan to fund the new approach to public art that the council put in place when the Percent for Art funding mechanism was eliminated last year.

The resolution proposed by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) called for establishing a budget for public art administration for FY 2015 and FY 2016. The resolution by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) did not include a budget provision for public art administration.

The former Percent for Art funding mechanism required 1% of all capital fund project budgets to be set aside for public art. The new approach entails including city-funded art when it’s designed as an integral part of a capital project, with council approval. Art projects also could be funded through a combination of private and public money.

Between the Feb. 18 and March 3 council meetings, the fund transfer issue has been separated from the transition funding question. The resolution ordered first on the agenda (Briere’s) has been altered for consideration on March 3 so that it focuses exclusively on the public art program transition. The resolution directs the city administrator to have staff develop a transition plan to be presented to the council by Oct. 6, 2014. It also prohibits initiation of additional projects using pooled Percent for Art funds, and directs the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for FY 2015 and FY 2016.

An initial list of requests from department heads for FY 2015, released by the city on Feb. 10, shows an $80,000 request for arts administration, which includes funds for a full-time art administrator, drawn from the general fund. FY 2015 runs from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015.

This resolution was put forward by Briere and is co-sponsored by Sally Petersen (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5). Because it does not include a transfer of funds, it no longer requires eight votes to be approved. A majority of six votes would ensure its approval.

The resolution ordered second on the agenda (Lumm’s) incorporates changes to reflect the council’s deliberations on Feb. 18: It transfers a total of $943,005 of Percent for Art money to its funds of origin, an amount that defunds the art project at Argo Cascades, but keeps funding for the Coleman Jewett memorial and for a public/private project called Canoe Imagine Art. The defunding of the art project at Argo Cascades was originally a feature of Briere’s resolution that was not shared by Lumm’s.

In addition to Lumm, this second resolution on the agenda is cosponsored by Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Because the resolution involves a transfer of funds, it will require eight votes on the 11-member council to be approved.

[public art resolution (1) for consideration on March 3, 2014] [public art resolution (2) for consideration on March 3, 2014]

Possibly a part of the council’s discussion on March 3 will be a review of what a council committee recommended in advance of the council’s decision to eliminate the Percent for Art program at its June 3, 2013 meeting. That recommendation was attached to the council’s agenda as a report/communication about a year ago, for the council’s March 18, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of council committee's public art findings and recommendations]

The five councilmembers serving on that committee included Margie Teall (Ward 4), as well as all of those who have declared their intention to participate in the Democratic mayoral primary race: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

The time frame that some councilmembers have talked about for funding the new approach to public art – before judging whether it has succeeded – is as long as three years. That appears to be based on one of the committee’s recommendations:

Recommendation: The staff should review the successful implementation of any changes in the ordinance after 36 months. This timing is based on the task force’s awareness that capital improvements may take longer than two years to move from inception to completion.

That finding also included a recommendation on administrative support:

Recommendation: a professionally trained public art administrator can provide this level of support, but needs to be employed more than 50% of the time. The Public Art Task Force agrees that the program would benefit from the services of a trained administrator, either as a contract employee or a direct hire.

The disagreement over funding of the newly created program is also related to another public art item on the March 3 agenda – a six-month contract extension for the city’s part-time public art administrator. The item first appeared on the council’s Jan. 21 agenda, but the council postponed that vote until Feb. 3, when it was subsequently defeated. On Feb. 18 it was then brought back for reconsideration, but immediately postponed until March 3. The amount at issue to fund the contract is $18,500.

Affordable Housing

Also postponed from the Feb. 18 meeting is an item that would direct the city administrator to prepare for the council’s approval a budget resolution regarding affordable housing. It would allocate $600,000 from the city’s affordable housing trust fund to support the Ann Arbor housing commission’s plan to renovate its properties. That allocation would be contingent on the closing of the sale of the former Y lot to Dennis Dahlmann, as the net proceeds of that sale are to be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

The item was postponed on Feb. 18 only after the council’s two liaisons to the housing and human services advisory board – Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) – had aired out conflicting perspectives on the importance of having the item on the agenda. Briere had placed the item on the Feb. 18 agenda. Lumm argued that the agenda placement had come late on Friday and that it was not necessary – for the housing commission’s purposes – to vote on the issue until March 3.

Politics between the city council and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority are also part of the mix, as the housing commission has made a $600,000 request of the DDA as well. DDA board members seem keen to see the city pledge its support to the housing commission before committing DDA funds. And some city councilmembers appear to want to secure the DDA’s commitment before voting to support the housing commission’s renovations with affordable housing trust fund dollars.

Outdoor Smoking

Postponed from the Feb. 3 meeting was the first reading of an ordinance that would regulate smoking outside of public buildings and also potentially in areas of some city parks. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), sponsor of the new proposed local law, appeared before the city’s park advisory commission at its Feb. 25 meeting to brief commissioners on the proposal and solicit feedback.

Made punishable under the proposed ordinance through a $50 civil fine would be smoking within 20 feet of: (1) bus stops; (2) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of the Blake Transit Center; and (3) entrances, windows and ventilation systems any city-owned building.

The ordinance would also authorize the city administrator to have signs posted designating certain parks or portions of parks as off limits for outdoor smoking, and to increase the distance from entrances to city buildings where outdoor smoking is prohibited.

Where no signs are posted noting the smoking prohibition, a citation could be issued only if someone doesn’t stop smoking immediately when asked to stop.

An existing Washtenaw County ordinance already prohibits smoking near entrances, windows and ventilation systems, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution – but the county’s ordinance can be enforced only by the county health department. The memo further notes that the Michigan Clean Indoor Air Act does not regulate outdoor smoking.

Non-Motorized Issues

New items on the March 3 agenda include a funding proposal for the pedestrian safety and access task force established by the city council late last year, with members appointed in late January. The $122,250 item also includes a $77,500 contract for facilitation services from Project Innovations. That’s the same firm contracted for similar work in connection with the city’s sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation – which is expected to conclude in the summer of 2014. [The total amount being appropriated for the task force project budget in the item is $197,250. The stated “estimated $122,500” is the approximate cost of the anticipated staff effort for this project. That project budget includes $77,400 for the professional services agreement with Project Innovations, Inc.]

Other issues on the March 3 agenda with a non-motorized connection are three stretches of sidewalk. In the context of sanitary sewer design work that Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. is being hired to do, two sidewalks are included: a stretch along Barton Drive; and a stretch along Scio Church Road.

Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. did design work for another project for which the council will be asked to authorize funding. The firm prepared the construction drawings, contract specifications and an opinion of probable construction costs for the roadway and non-motorized improvements for a stretch of sidewalk along Ann Arbor-Saline Road near the I-94 bridge. That’s part of a road reconstruction project the Michigan Dept. of Transportation is handling.

Non-Motorized: Pedestrian Safety and Access Task Force

A pedestrian safety and access task force was established through a council resolution passed on Nov. 18, 2013. Confirmed as members of the task force on Jan. 21, 2014 were: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, and Owen Jansson.

A key resolved clause establishing the group’s scope of work includes the following: “… the task force will explore strategies to improve pedestrian safety and access within a framework of shared responsibility through community outreach and data collection, and will recommend to council improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

The council will be asked on March 3 to consider a resolution to appropriate $122,250 to support the task force’s work, which includes delivery of a report a year from now – in February 2015. The funds are sourced in part from an allocation made during the May 20, 2013 budget deliberations, which appropriated $75,000 for a study to prioritize sidewalk gap elimination. The connection between sidewalk gaps and the task force’s work is based in part on one of the other resolved clauses establishing the task force: “… the task force will also address sidewalk gaps and create a tool for setting priorities for funding and filling those gaps; …”

The funding will in part be used to pay for a $77,400 contract with Project Innovations Inc. to provide facilitator support to the task force.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, a “team of staff members has identified Project Innovations, Inc. as a firm in the region that has demonstrated skill in task force facilitation and robust community engagement efforts, and is uniquely qualified with the capacity to facilitate the pedestrian safety and access task force’s rigorous work approach within the specified timeframe.” Based on the phrasing in the memo, the work appears not to have been put out to bid and Project Innovations was identified as a “sole source” provider.

Project Innovations is the same firm currently providing facilitation support to a citizens advisory committee that is attached to a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study being conducted by the city.

The resolution establishing the pedestrian safety task force does not explicitly charge the group with a review of the city’s crosswalk law. But the task force was established in the same time frame as the council considered an amendment to the city’s crosswalk law. The council ultimately voted to change the language of the law at its Dec. 2, 2013 – so that motorists were required to concede the right-of-way only to pedestrians who had already entered the crosswalk.

That change was subsequently vetoed by mayor John Hieftje. Drawing on the phrasing used in Hieftje’s statement of veto, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) has indicated he intends to bring forward an amendment that would require motorists to stop at crosswalks for pedestrians only if “they can do so safely.” At the council’s Feb. 18, 2014 meeting, Kunselman announced he’d be pursuing such an amendment.

Non-Motorized: Sidewalks – Barton Drive, Scio Church

As part of the same contract to design urgent repairs to the sanitary sewer pipes and structures in Huron Street near the intersections of Glen Street and Zina Pitcher, Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. is also being tapped to provide the designs for two sidewalk projects that could ultimately result in special assessments for adjoining property owners.

At its July 15, 2013 meeting, the council approved $15,000 for preliminary design of a sidewalk along Barton Drive.

Location of proposed Barton Drive sidewalk.

At its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting, the council approved $15,000 for preliminary study of a sidewalk to be constructed along Scio Church, west of Seventh Street. And on Nov. 7, 2013 the council approved another $35,000 for Scio Church sidewalk design work.

Purple indicates stretches of Scio Church Road where no sidewalk exists.

The contract with Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. – which includes $50,629 for the design of the two stretches of sidewalk – would draw on that previously authorized funding.

Non-Motorized: Sidewalks – Ann Arbor-Saline

The council will also be asked at its March 3 meeting to approve a $30,000 general fund expenditure to pay for a new sidewalk along the east side of Ann Arbor-Saline Road from the westbound I-94 exit ramp to the north end of the I-94 bridge, and along the west side of Ann Arbor-Saline Road from Brookfield Drive to the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) park-and-ride commuter parking lot. The work is part of a more general road reconstruction project being handled by MDOT under an agreement between the city of Ann Arbor, the Washtenaw County road commission, MDOT and Pittsfield Township.

Additional Vehicles

The council will be asked on March 3 to approve the purchase of 18 new vehicles from Signature Ford in Perry, Michigan. Most of the new vehicles are for use by the Ann Arbor police department. Total cost of the purchase is $457,393 and includes:

• one 2014 Ford F-150 four-wheel-drive pickup at $26,407.
• one 2014 Ford Escape four-wheel-drive at $24,050.
• four 2014 Ford Police Interceptors: Sedans at $24,601 each.
• nine 2014 Ford Police Interceptors: Utility at $26,298 each.
• two 2014 Ford Police Interceptors: Utility with rear-auxiliary air-conditioning for use as K-9 units at $26,846.
• one 2014 Ford F-150 two-wheel-drive pickup at $18,158.

The staff memo notes that the police vehicles to be purchased will replace vehicles that will have reached either the 80,000-mile or the six-year limit specified in the city’s labor contracts with the Ann Arbor Police Officers Association and the Ann Arbor Police Supervisors.

The memo further notes that the new sedans have less shoulder room than Crown Victorias. So the AAPD is finding it difficult to install the increased amount of equipment needed in police vehicles, while still maintaining adequate room for officers. That’s why more of the SUV pursuit-rate vehicles are being incorporated into the police department’s fleet.

The city’s non-police vehicles are subjected to a two-step process to determine replacement. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the first step scores a vehicle’s age, miles/hours of use, type of service, reliability, maintenance and repair cost. The second step is review of the vehicle repair history and general condition.

One non-police vehicle to be replaced through the purchase is a truck that has been in service for 7.6 years and has over 4,800 total hours of operation, averaging 0.23 repair work orders per month. The total cost of repairs has exceeded 60% of its purchase price.

City Assets

Several items related to upkeep and improvement of city assets appear on the city council’s March 3 agenda.

City Assets: Parks

City parks factor into three agenda items: (1) a resolution to establish an urban park on part of the surface level of the Library Lane underground parking structure; (2) a paving contract for the replacement of basketball and tennis courts at Clinton Park; and (3) a grant application to the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Grants Management to support a universal access playground at Gallup Park. The Rotary Club of Ann Arbor has already pledged $250,000 toward such a playground, which is expected to cost about $500,000.

City Assets: Parks – Library Lane Surface?

A resolution that proposes to build an urban park on top of the Library Lane underground parking structure appears on the city council’s March 3 agenda. The proposal was also presented at the Feb. 25, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. The commission was not asked to act on it.

Library Lane park proposal.

The presentation to PAC by Will Hathaway, on behalf of the Library Green Conservancy, included a proposal to reserve about 10,000 square feet on the surface of the Library Lane Structure for an urban park, to be “bounded by the Fifth Avenue sidewalk on the west, the Library Lane Street sidewalk to the south, the western entry to the central elevator to the east, and the southern curb of the service alley on the north.” [.pdf of proposed resolution] [.pdf of proposed site boundaries]

Hathaway reported at that meeting that he’s been working with city councilmember Jack Eaton (Ward 4). Sponsors of the resolution on the March 3 agenda are Eaton, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5), who serves on PAC as an ex officio member.

The resolution calls for financial support as well as an allocation of staff time to design and create the park. The resolution asks PAC and the parks staff to prepare preliminary recommendations for the park’s design, to be presented at the council’s first meeting in October of 2014.

Other aspects of the proposal include:

• asking the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to prepare for an eventual transition from parking to non-parking on the surface of the Library Lane structure;
• asking the DDA to conduct a structural analysis of the Library Lane structure to determine if any modifications are needed to safely support design features, such as soil, plantings of various sizes, water features, a skating rink, a performance stage, and play equipment;
• asking that the city’s community services and parks staff work with DDA and the Ann Arbor District Library to facilitate public programming with activities including craft fairs, book fairs, food carts, and fine arts performances;
• asking the DDA to work with the city to explore possible above-ground private and/or public development of the remaining, build-able portion of the surface level north of the central elevator and above the central exit/entrance ramp.

The resolution specifies certain conditions for development rights on the remaining surface of Library Lane, including additional public open space and pedestrian access as features of any private development. The resolution also calls for close collaboration with neighboring properties and businesses, including the Ann Arbor District Library, First Martin Corp., the University of Michigan Credit Union, the Inter-Cooperative Council, and the businesses facing Fifth Avenue and Liberty Street.

Activists have pushed for a public park or plaza on the top of the Library Lane underground parking structure for several years. Several members of the Library Green Conservancy – including former park commissioner Gwen Nystuen, and former Ann Arbor planning commissioner Eric Lipson – attended PAC’s Feb. 25 meeting.

PAC has explored the urban park issue more broadly, most formally with a downtown parks subcommittee created in 2012. The subcommittee presented a report at PAC’s Oct. 15, 2013 meeting that included general recommendations, with an emphasis on “placemaking” principles that include active use, visibility and safety. The most specific recommendation also called for developing a park or open space on top of the Library Lane structure. A park or open space at that location should exceed 5,000 square feet, according to the report, and connect to Library Lane, the small mid-block cut-through that runs north of the library between Fifth and Division. [.pdf of 21-page full subcommittee report]

The subcommittee’s report was accepted by the Ann Arbor city council on Nov. 7, 2013 over dissent from Anglin.

Hathaway’s presentation on Feb. 25 drew on recommendations from the PAC subcommittee, as well as from information in the DDA’s Connecting William Street study.

On Feb. 25, several park commissioners raised concerns, some of which focused on the process of bringing this resolution forward without specific direction from the council. Hathaway noted that the council resolution is intended to start the process, with council direction, to begin working with stakeholders, PAC, the public and others in the design and development of this park.

City Assets: Parks – Clinton, Gallup

At its Feb. 25, 2014 meeting, the Ann Arbor park advisory commission recommended approving a $133,843 contract with Best Asphalt to rebuild the tennis and basketball courts at Clinton Park. The council will be asked to act on the contract at its March 3 meeting.

Clinton Park is located in the southeast part of the city, on Stone School Road, north of Ellsworth Road.

The park is located on the west side of Stone School Road, south of Eisenhower Parkway.

Including a 10% construction contingency, the project’s total budget is $147,227. Best Asphalt provided the lowest of five bids, according to a staff memo. The project will be funded with revenues from the park maintenance and capital improvement millage.

Another item on the March 3 council agenda relates to a proposed “universal access” playground at Gallup Park. At its Jan. 28, 2014 meeting, the park advisory commission recommended applying for the grant from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Grants Management (MDNRGM) to help fund the project. Representatives of Rotary Club of Ann Arbor attended that PAC meeting to convey the group’s $250,000 pledge. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, told park commissioners that although there are about 80 playgrounds in Ann Arbor, none are universally accessible. It’s a “huge shortcoming” for the parks system, he said.

The exact location within Gallup Park hasn’t been determined, but the playground would be about 5,000 square feet and exceed the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The design and equipment is intended to create environments that can be used by all people, with features like ramps, color-contrasting structures, wider bridges and walkways, and playground equipment that makes it easier for people using wheelchairs.

The council will be asked to authorize the grant application at its March 3 meeting.

City Assets: Larcom Building

The city hall (Larcom Building) at 301 E. Huron is featured in two agenda items – to pay $160,923 for a secondary chiller unit and $28,469 for new light fixtures.

The $160,923 contract for installation of a secondary chiller would go to CSM Mechanical LLC. The existing chiller for city hall is described in the staff memo accompanying the resolution as old, requiring extensive maintenance. Repair is difficult because parts are becoming harder to find. It’s the only unit for the building, so if it goes down, the building has no cooled air. The unit also doesn’t handle well the rapid change in temperatures in spring and fall.

So the city’s strategy will be to install a secondary chiller – leaving the old chiller still in service. The new chiller unit will have about two-thirds the capacity of the old one. If the older unit breaks down during the peak summer season, the new unit will at least be able to provide some cooling air. The long-term plan is to replace the old chiller unit with a second smaller capacity chiller.

The purchase of $28,469 worth of light fixtures for city hall would be from McNaughton McKay Electric Company of Ann Arbor. The new fixtures will replace the original fixtures – which are being removed as part of an asbestos abatement project. The purchase covers the light fixtures for the third and fourth floors. They will match those installed in the basement and first floor during the recent renovation of city hall.

City Assets: Airport

A $17,000 amendment on a contract with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation for a fence and gate project at the Ann Arbor municipal airport appears on the council’s March 3 agenda. Of that, the city’s portion is $425. The remainder is covered by federal and state funds. The actual project was completed in October 2013.

Water Main Issues

After authorizing significant equipment purchases to support water main repair activity at its Feb. 18 meeting, the council will be asked to approve two additional items on March 3 related to water main repair. One item is a $44,702 emergency purchase order to buy more aggregate material used for backfilling water main repairs. A second item authorizes an emergency purchase order for repairing and making a new connection for the water main at 1214 S. University. In both cases, the emergency purchase orders were authorized by the city administrator, and the work was done.

The emergency purchase order with Ellsworth Industries for $44,702 was submitted and approved on Feb. 14. The city had an existing contract with Ellsworth Industries to supply the aggregate material. The staff memo cites the extreme cold during the 2013-2014 winter as causing “a greater than average number, scope and magnitude of water main breaks city-wide.”

The emergency purchase order with E.T. MacKenzie was for a water main repair not to exceed $30,000 – on South University at the location of Pinball Pete’s. Here’s a timeline of the events of early February released by Oxford Property Management. [.pdf of Oxford Property Management timeline Feb. 6 through Feb. 12, 2014]

The city opted to use E.T. MacKenzie for the work – which included making a new connection to a different main – because the owner’s contractor was already on site.

Street Closures

Street closures for two events are on the council’s March 3 agenda: Take Back the Night and the Monroe Street Fair.

Take Back the Night is a demonstration against sexual violence. This year’s event begins on April 2 at 7 p.m. in the ballroom of the Michigan Union. The keynote speaker is Samantha Soward. A march through the University of Michigan campus and the city of Ann Arbor follows. The route of the march goes south down State Street to Madison, taking Thompson, William, Fourth Avenue and Liberty back to State Street.

This year’s annual Monroe Street Fair takes places on Saturday, April 5. The section of Monroe Street to be closed is between Tappan and State streets.

Fire Protection

A resolution sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) could be analyzed as obliquely related to the council’s decision at a special session on Feb. 24, 2014 not to exercise a right of first refusal to purchase the Edwards Brothers Malloy property on South State Street.

By way of background, that property will now be purchased by the University of Michigan, thus removing it from the tax rolls – because UM does not pay property taxes.

As a result, the city will lose about $50,000 per year in revenue, which is used to pay for basic services like police and fire protection. The university does not operate its own fire protection service.

The city’s station #5 is located on university property, for which the university does not charge rent, utilities, or maintenance costs. UM estimates the annual value of that arrangement to the city at about $230,000. In general, however, the Michigan legislature recognizes that municipalities hosting state-owned facilities face a burden of providing fire protection for such facilities – without receiving property tax revenues to pay for that fire protection.

So the legislature enacted a law to award fire protection grants from the state of Michigan – which are dependent on an allocation from the state legislature each year. The allocation is governed by Act 289 of 1977. [.pdf of Act 289 of 1977] The statute sets forth a formula for a state fire protection grant to all municipalities that are home to state-owned facilities – a formula that attempts to fairly determine the funding allocated for fire protection grants in any given year. The fire protection grant formula is defined for any municipality in terms of the relative value of the state-owned property in the municipality.

More precisely, the percentage in the grant formula is the estimated state equalized value (SEV) of state-owned facilities, divided by the sum of that estimated value and the actual SEV of the other property in the community. For example, in Ann Arbor, the total SEV of property on which property tax is paid is roughly $5 billion. The estimated value of state-owned facilities (primarily the University of Michigan) is around $1 billion. So the percentage used in the state fire protection formula for Ann Arbor is about 16% [1/(1 + 5)].

The percentage in the formula is different for each municipality. That percentage is then multiplied by the actual expenditures made by a municipality for fire protection in the prior fiscal year.

The formula can be described as equitable among municipalities – because the grant amount depends in part on the relative value of state-owned facilities in a given municipality. All other things being equal, a city with a greater number of state-owned facilities receives more fire protection grant money than one with a small number of state-owned facilities. The formula can also be described as equitable to the state of Michigan, because the formula calibrates the state’s investment in a municipality’s fire protection to the level of funding that a local municipality itself is willing to provide.

The roughly $14.8 million in a provisional budget request from the Ann Arbor fire department for FY 2015 would translate to a state grant of roughly $2.3 million.

But the state statute explicitly provides for the possibility that the legislature can choose not to allocate funds sufficient to cover the amount in the formula [emphasis added]:

141.956 Prorating amount appropriated to each municipality.
Sec. 6. If the amount appropriated in a fiscal year is not sufficient to make the payments required by this act, the director shall prorate the amount appropriated to each municipality.

Since 1996, the legislature has funded the grants at amounts as low as 23% of the formula to as high as 68%. For the five-year period from 2007 through 2011, the legislature funded the same dollar amount of about $10.9 million statewide, but that translated into diminishing percentages over the five-year span. In the last three years, the program has been only 40-55% funded.

State of Michigan Fire Protection Grants: Actual Dollars. (Data from state of Michigan, chart by The Chronicle.)

State of Michigan Fire Protection Grants: Percentage of Formula Funded. (Data from state of Michigan, chart by The Chronicle.)

The resolution on the Ann Arbor city council’s March 3 agenda would encourage Gov. Rick Snyder, state senator Rebekah Warren (D-District 18), and state representatives Jeff Irwin (D-District 53) and Adam Zemke (D-District 55) to explore creative ways to fund the state’s fire protection grant program for municipalities like Ann Arbor, which host state-owned facilities.

4:35 p.m. Legistar now reflects the names of those who’ve signed up for public speaking reserved time at the start of the meeting. All 10 slots are taken.

Six people are signed up to speak on the topic of the urban park designation for a portion of the top of the Library Lane parking structure: Odile Hugonot-Haber, Julie Grand, Ingrid Ault, Douglas Kelbaugh, Alan Haber, and Jeff Hayner. Two people are signed up to talk on the public art fund transfer: Lily Au and Margaret Parker. Frank Burdick is signed up to speak on the topic of the funding of the pedestrian safety and access task force.

Alternate speakers tonight are Cliff Douglas on the topic of regulation smoking in some outdoor locations, and Thomas Partridge on the return of public art money to its funds of origin and the airport fence contract amendment.

4:57 p.m. Supplemental materials for background on agenda items are now available. [Staff Answers to Councilmember Questions 3-3-14] [Library Lane Square Footages] [Urban Park Cost Estimates (Liberty Plaza costs incurred by First Martin)]

6:36 p.m. Additional background materials for police chief John Seto’s update are now available: [.pdf Ann Arbor 2013 crime stats] [.pdf of Walk-Drive-Ped-Card]

6:49 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) is signing agendas for high schools students who are here satisfying a course requirement. “Do you know what ward you live in?” she asks. Answer: “Ann Arbor?”

6:53 p.m. Ann Arbor District Library director Josie Parker and AADL board member Jan Barney Newman have arrived. City administrator Steve Powers is here. Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith is here. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) have arrived. Public art commissioners Bob Miller and John Kotarski are here.

6:54 p.m. Jack Eaton has now arrived, as has public services area administrator Craig Hupy.

6:57 p.m. A report/communication on “downtown plazas” has been added to the mayor’s communication’s slot. Not clear if this will be a presentation, or if it is just a mechanism for attaching this document: [.pdf of background on plazas]

7:09 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance. And we’re off.

7:10 p.m. Roll call of council. All councilmembers are present and correct.

7:11 p.m. Approval of agenda Mayor John Hieftje is adding a slot for Meg Crawley for a recognition of her volunteer work in the city parks.

7:11 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the agenda.

7:13 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. City administrator Steve Powers is giving an update on pothole requests. This year through February, the city has had 283 pothole complaints compared to 46 last year. This year so far, 251 tons of cold patch have been used. Last year by this time 100 tons had been used. He’s describing the non-motorized transportation planning implementation report.

7:13 p.m. Update from safety services area administrator. Police chief John Seto is addressing the council. Background materials here: [.pdf Ann Arbor 2013 crime stats] [.pdf of Walk-Drive-Ped-Card]

7:14 p.m. Part I crime totals for 2013 were 2,827, down from 3,059 in 2012. Part II crime totals for 2013 were 3,625, down from 3,883 in 2012. Total crimes for 2013 were 6,452, down from 6,942. That’s a 7% drop.

7:18 p.m. Seto is saying that these are not the official numbers, but it’s what the AAPD is reporting to the FBI. The most notable area of decrease was in break-ins, he says. He advises caution when weighing statistics. He notes that there has been a steady reduction in crime since 2002. Seto is giving an update on traffic enforcement since Jan. 9, which is a program that the department is calling “26 Weeks to Safer Streets.” He’s describing an informational flyer that has been formatted to look like a traffic ticket. He reports that people are happy to discover that it’s not a ticket they have to pay.

7:18 p.m. Hieftje tells Seto that the department is doing good work.

7:19 p.m. Introductions. Meg Crawley is being recognized for her volunteer work in the city parks.

7:20 p.m. Public commentary reserved time. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Six people are signed up to speak on the topic of the urban park designation for a portion of the top of the Library Lane parking structure: Odile Hugonot-Haber, Julie Grand, Ingrid Ault, Douglas Kelbaugh, Alan Haber, and Jeff Hayner. Two people are signed up to talk on the public art fund transfer: Lily Au and Margaret Parker. Frank Burdick is signed up to speak on the topic of the funding of the pedestrian safety and access task force.

Alternate speakers tonight are Cliff Douglas on the topic of regulation smoking in some outdoor locations, and Thomas Partridge on the return of public art money to its funds of origin and the airport fence contract amendment.

7:24 p.m. Karen Kerry is the president-elect of the Rotary Club of Ann Arbor. She’s describing what the Rotary Club is. Ann Arbor’s Rotary Club is one of the oldest in the county, and will celebrate its 100th anniversary in 2016. To commemorate that event, the club is committed to raising $250,000 for a universal access playground at Gallup Park.

7:27 p.m. Odile Hugonot-Haber is speaking in favor of an urban park. It’s difficult to imagine a park in the cold weather, she says. Why a park? She answers her own question: Why not a park? She asks the council to imagine some flowers and a nice place to sit – not an urban forest. She’s asking the council for a park, which she calls a simple thing and a simple step.

7:30 p.m. Julie Grand is former chair of the city’s park advisory commission. She says that the resolution about the urban park asks PAC to act against its own recommendations. She’s focusing on recommendations (4) and (8) that PAC adopted on  Oct. 15, 2013, based on work of a subcommittee on downtown parks. [.pdf of 21-page full subcommittee report] The first of those states that additional park space should not be created at the expense of maintenance of existing parks. It puts the cart before the horse, she says.

7:33 p.m. Ingrid Ault is current chair of the park advisory commission. She’s also addressing the resolution on establishing an urban park. She’s reviewing the work of a PAC subcommittee that made a recommendation to PAC that was then forwarded to the city council. PAC’s intent was that their recommendations would be the start of a conversation. She says that PAC does not object to constructing a park on the Library Lot. But she stresses that the PAC recommendations included a clear process. She asks for postponement.

7:35 p.m. Douglas Kelbaugh is former dean of the University of Michigan College of Architecture & Urban Planning. He says that Ann Arbor lacks a good civic plaza. The Library Lot is ideally sited for such a plaza. But three ingredients for a successful plaza are: a sense of enclosure; primarily flat; active edges. Kelbaugh expressed concerns about whether that location at this point has those ingredients.

7:39 p.m. Margaret Parker is former chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission. She says that all but one current city councilmember has said they’re in favor of public art. That’s good, she says, because it shows pride in the community. She says that councilmembers have made the mistake of considering each piece of public art personally. She’s asking the city council to follow through with its own committee’s recommendation, which includes paying a public art administrator.

7:42 p.m. Alan Haber says the issue of an urban park first arose when the city acquired the Y lot and there was a question about what to do with that building. No private enterprise could do as much for Ann Arbor as Ann Arbor residents could do for themselves at that location, Haber says. He says that the city should begin to ask residents to support a park there financially. Patrons and pillars of the community would support it, he says. There can be other buildings, but for the western part of the Library Lot parcel, a park should be constructed, he says.

7:46 p.m. Jeff Hayner says he’s actually intending to talk about the funding for the pedestrian task force, even though the agenda indicates he’s speaking about the urban park. He adds that it’s exciting to hear ideas about public space on the Library Lot. He’s here, though, to ask for some leadership that will save some money for the city. By his reckoning there’s more than $1 million that could be saved. He identifies $77,000 in consulting for the pedestrian task force as one area of savings. On the return of the public art funds, he asks the council to consider eliminating the East Stadium bridges artwork as well as the other art projects.

7:48 p.m. Frank Burdick asks that the council vote no on the funding of the consultant for the pedestrian task force. He says the city already has staff who are competent to facilitate the work of the task force, and he weighs in against hiring Project Innovations to do the work. He expresses dissatisfaction with PI for its work with the wet weather sanitary sewer evaluation study – he serves on a citizens advisory committee for that project.

7:51 p.m. Lily Au tells Hieftje that he’s the mayor and in charge of the city. She explains to him how she does her household budgeting, with mortgage and food as priorities.

7:53 p.m. MC-1 Confirmations. The council is being asked to confirm Jason Morgan as a member of the local officers compensation commission (LOCC). For background on this group, see: “What Do We Pay Ann Arbor’s Mayor?” Morgan is director of government relations at Washtenaw Community College.

7:53 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved Morgan’s appointment.

7:53 p.m. MC-2 Presentation on downtown plazas. [.pdf of background on plazas]

7:57 p.m. Hieftje is giving a presentation on downtown plazas. He thanks Eaton for putting the resolution about the urban plaza on the agenda, saying that he’d been planning to give this presentation several weeks down the road, but he’s decided to move it up, given Eaton’s urban park resolution.

Hieftje is sketching out a walk from the Library Lot down to the greenway or in the opposite direction to the UM Diag. He and Warpehoski have been working with the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy, he says. Progress was set back a bit when the city did not receive a state grant to develop 721 N. Main. He announced that the city is planning to make a request of the historic district commission to demolish the 415 W. Washington building and to add that property to the greenway.

8:00 p.m. Hieftje says that a park on the Library Lot can be constructed using a developer’s investment. He’s essentially arguing that the city’s financial resources should be leveraged to work with partners – whatever site is considered. He shows a sketch of the Palio Lot as a kind of greenish area.

8:02 p.m. Hieftje calls for improvements to be made to Liberty Plaza.

8:02 p.m. Public hearings. There are no public hearings scheduled tonight.

8:02 p.m. Minutes.

8:03 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the minutes of its previous meeting.

8:03 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes:

• CA-1 Airport fence. This is a $17,000 amendment on a contract with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation for a fence and gate project at the Ann Arbor municipal airport. Of that, the city’s portion is $425. The remainder is covered by federal and state funds. The actual project was completed in October 2013.
• CA-2 Larcom building (city hall) light fixtures. The purchase of $28,469 worth of light fixtures for city hall would be from McNaughton McKay Electric Company of Ann Arbor. The new fixtures will replace the original fixtures – which are being removed as part of an asbestos abatement project.
• CA-3 Emergency aggregate (Ellsworth Industries for $44,702). The city had an existing contract with Ellsworth Industries to supply the aggregate material. The staff memo cites the extreme cold during the 2013-2014 winter as causing “a greater than average number, scope and magnitude of water main breaks city-wide.”
• CA-4 Emergency repair at Pinball Pete’s. The emergency purchase order with E.T. MacKenzie was for a water main repair not to exceed $30,000 – on South University at the location of Pinball Pete’s.
• CA-5 Grant application to MDNR for universal access playground at Gallup Park.
• CA-6 Street Closing: Monroe Street Fair. This year’s annual Monroe Street Fair takes places on Saturday, April 5. The section of Monroe Street to be closed is between Tappan and State streets.
• CA-7 Street Closing: Take Back the Night. Take Back the Night is a demonstration against sexual violence. This year’s event begins on April 2 at 7 p.m. in the ballroom of the Michigan Union.

8:03 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. Lumm selects out CA-5, the grant application for the universal access playground.

8:04 p.m. CA-5 Grant application to MDNR for playground at Gallup Park. Lumm is acknowledging the Rotary Club’s gift in support of the park. “It’s just phenomenal,” she says, “it’s breathtakingly generous.” Hieftje adds his own remarks of support.

8:05 p.m. Outcome: The council has now voted to approve all items on the consent agenda.

8:05 p.m. C-1 Outdoor smoking ordinance. This proposed ordinance was postponed from the Feb. 3 meeting. It would regulate smoking outside of public buildings and also potentially in areas of some city parks. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), sponsor of the new proposed local law, appeared before the city’s park advisory commission at its Feb. 25 meeting to brief commissioners on the proposal and solicit feedback.

Made punishable under the proposed ordinance through a $50 civil fine would be smoking within 20 feet of: (1) bus stops; (2) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of the Blake Transit Center; and (3) entrances, windows and ventilation systems any city-owned building. The ordinance would also authorize the city administrator to have signs posted designating certain parks or portions of parks as off limits for outdoor smoking, and to increase the distance from entrances to city buildings where outdoor smoking is prohibited. [For additional background, see Outdoor Smoking above.]

8:09 p.m. Warpehoski says that the clerk has forwarded to people a substitute amendment. [We don't have the updated wording.] He characterizes the changes as minor to make the wording more clear.

8:10 p.m. Warpehoski notes that it’s just a first reading. He indicates he’s willing to postpone again, in the context of some information that was provided only just today.

8:12 p.m. Lumm asks Warpehoski what the outcome of the consultation with PAC and the business community had been. He says he’s not moved forward with the consultation with the business community.

8:13 p.m. Lumm asks what the reaction of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority had been. Warpehoski says that the challenge the AAATA had identified was enforcement. But AAATA would like its bus stops to be smoke free.

8:15 p.m. Lumm asks Warpehoski how the areas in public parks would be designated as smoke-free. Kunselman says that he’d had some concerns when he first saw this proposal and he still has them. He doesn’t want people calling 911 to resolve personal space issues – because someone is smoking a cigarette. He can’t support having AAPD chasing people who are smoking cigarettes.

8:17 p.m. Kunselman also says that not all “city employees” should be able to issue citations. He notes that UM went smoke-free, without a penalty. If you work for the UM and you get caught smoking, that could have implications for your job, he allows. He wonders why Washtenaw County passed an ordinance that designates the health department as the enforcer, instead of the sheriff’s office. He thinks it’s because the county didn’t want sheriff’s deputies chasing people for smoking cigarettes.

8:18 p.m. Warpehoski agrees that he doesn’t want people calling 911 about outdoor smoking. He says the parks and recreation manager Colin Smith indicated that he thought it would likely be self-enforced or not.

8:20 p.m. Kunselman is talking about who can issue a ticket. He says the effort needs to be thought out again. If you’re in front of a judge for smoking a cigarette, that’s a problem, he says. He draws a distinction between rudeness and unlawful activity.

8:24 p.m. Anglin is talking about the issue of penalties. He wants to know if being fined under this ordinance would be retained. City attorney Stephen Postema says it would be like any ticket. Anglin asks if it would be a misdemeanor. Postema says it would be a civil infraction. Postema explains what a civil infraction is – not a violation of the criminal code. Briere asks for examples. Powers gives failure to remove snow or ice from a sidewalk to illustrate it.

8:24 p.m. Petersen wants to postpone. She likes the intent, but thinks there should be a better way to enforce it. She wants to give Warpehoski time to sort things out.

8:25 p.m. Warpehoski suggests the first meeting in April as the date to which it could be postponed.

8:28 p.m. Lumm supports postponement, saying that there’s a lot of unanswered questions. She says she doesn’t believe in voting for something at first reading just to get it to second reading. Eaton says that he’s a non-smoker and finds secondary smoke offensive, but has problems with the proposed ordinance. He calls the ordinance next to impossible to enforce –noting it takes maybe seven minutes to smoke a cigarette. He also has concerns about the disparate impact the homeless. He notes that the fine for smoking marijuana is $25. He hopes that the focus can be narrowed to just around public buildings.

8:30 p.m. Taylor won’t support the postponement. He says there’s been a “parade of horribles” about the social consequences, which he doesn’t think are warranted. He wants to see the ordinance move forward to second reading.

8:31 p.m. Warpehoski is complaining that he’d asked councilmembers a month ago if they had any questions and he was only hearing them now.

8:31 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the ordinance until April 7, over dissent from Hieftje and Taylor.

8:31 p.m. DC-1 Recommend Ann Arbor Housing Commission’s request for an allocation from the Ann Arbor Affordable Housing Trust Fund. This item was postponed from the council’s Feb. 18 meeting. It would direct the city administrator to prepare for the council’s approval a budget resolution regarding affordable housing. It would allocate $600,000 from the city’s affordable housing trust fund to support the Ann Arbor housing commission’s plan to renovate its properties. That allocation would be contingent on the closing of the sale of the former Y lot to Dennis Dahlmann, as the net proceeds of that sale are to be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund. [For additional background, see Affordable Housing above.]

8:32 p.m. Briere is reviewing the content of the resolution. The city does not yet have the money from the sale of the Y lot, she notes.

8:33 p.m. Lumm notes that her objection at the last meeting was a concern about process. She says that this money is essential to the AAHC’s strategy for rehabilitating its properties.

8:33 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to direct the preparation of a budget amendment to make an allocation from the affordable housing trust fund to the Ann Arbor housing commission.

8:34 p.m. DC-2 Set timeline, direct preparation for budgeting for public art. This is a resolution that has been altered to remove any provision for transferring Percent for Art money to its funds of origin, and focuses on a transition to the new public art program. It directs the establishment of a public art administration budget for FY 2015 and FY 2016. This resolution was put forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and is co-sponsored by Sally Petersen (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5). This will need six votes for approval. [For additional background, see Public Art above.]

8:35 p.m. Briere notes that this resolution has been significantly revised since the last time it was in front of the council. It’s a path forward according to how the current ordinance reads, she says. It prevents new projects from being started with pooled Percent for Art projects.

8:36 p.m. Teall says she’ll support the resolution and thanks Briere for doing all the heavy lifting. Petersen says she’ll support it, of course, because she co-sponsored it. This as well as other resolutions on the agenda are important for re-thinking public art in Ann Arbor, she says.

8:39 p.m. Lumm says that she and Eaton, Kailasapathy and Briere had met and agreed to separate out the two issues. She supports returning unspent funds, but she doesn’t support making an ongoing commitment to public art for two years, given other priorities. She doesn’t support the idea of a full-time public art administrator. Streets and sewers should have higher priority, she says. She allows the resolution will probably pass. She says the council should not be making these decisions outside the budget process.

8:42 p.m. Taylor says that law enforcement will get $44.5 million next year, which is 60% of the budget, once the AAATA pass-through is factored out. That reflects an appropriate priority – the commitment is material but modest, he says.

Kunselman says he’ll support this. If the city administrator puts too much money into the public art administration budget, the council can amend that. Kunselman says the council has been talking about public art for a long time. He notes he voted for the original ordinance in 2007. He wants to see some kind of public art program continue.

8:43 p.m. Petersen says that arts and culture are important to the city’s economic development. She says it’s consistent with the council’s priorities. Teall contends that public art was in fact one of the items that the council had identified under the “community livability” priority.

8:45 p.m. Briere says the she and Petersen had attended a breakfast meeting of the Ann Arbor Area Convention & Visitors Bureau and she’d been approached by leaders of the arts community who wanted to make sure she understood the economic impact of art. Briere says that the resolution does not state there must be a full-time art administrator. The resolution will give the council an idea of the budget impact. If the council doesn’t ask for that impact, she notes, it’s not possible to know what that impact will be.

8:48 p.m. Warpehoski says his two goals are to wind down the Percent for Art projects and to see those completed, and to make a transition. Warpehoski tries a moment of levity with Lumm, saying he was trying to imagine what her campaign rallies are like: Less Art! More Cops! Lumm gives him a blank stare. He acknowledges his attempt at light-heartedness has missed the mark and says he’ll stop talking.

8:49 p.m. Kailasapathy and Lumm rebuke Warpehoski for trivializing the issue.

8:51 p.m. Hieftje says he’ll support the resolution. He feels that the public art program will need an administrator. He says public safety is doing well and is a big share of the budget. He allows the roads are a mess but says they will get better. He’s reciting the history of the East Stadium bridges project and how the street millage was reserved for a while in anticipation of the possibility that the city would need to pay for all of the bridge replacement project. He’s reciting standard arguments for public art.

8:53 p.m. Kunselman asks if an administrator has to be hired, or if a “service” could be hired. He draws an analogy to the greenbelt program. He doesn’t think city staff has respect from donors to do fundraising. He calls it a very specialized program.

8:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the resolution over dissent from Anglin, Kailasapathy, Lumm and Eaton. (It required just six votes.)

8:54 p.m. DC-3 Return Percent for Art funds ($943,005). This is a resolution that would return $943,005 in Percent for Art money to its funds of origin – an amount that defunds the art project at Argo Cascades, but keeps funding for the Coleman Jewett memorial and for a project called Canoe Imagine Art. [A previous version of this resolution would have left the Argo Cascades art project funding in place. ]

This resolution was put forward by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and is co-sponsored by Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). This will need eight votes for approval. [For additional background, see Public Art above.]

8:54 p.m. Lumm is reviewing the content of the resolution.

8:57 p.m. Lumm says that the council should make a clean break from the Percent for Art program, which it eliminated on June 3, 2013. She says that if the funds are returned, then she’ll support the contract extension for the part-time public art administrator.

8:57 p.m. Kunselman says he’ll support the resolution and gives kudos to Lumm for tough negotiations. He says public art administration needs to come out of the general fund.

8:59 p.m. Anglin says the history of the art program is well known. Now the city is trying to figure out a different way to fund it. “We’re on a better track if we cut clean and move forward.”

9:01 p.m. Teall won’t support this, because she didn’t see a problem with the Percent for Art funding mechanism. She doesn’t think that the baked-in art approach to capital projects will result in unique projects of the kind that Margaret Parker had described. She feels like the part-time art administrator’s contract is being held hostage.

9:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to return $943,005 in Percent for Art money to its funds of origin, over dissent from Teall.

9:01 p.m. DC-4 Extend contract with part-time public art administrator. This resolution would extend the contract for the part-time public art administrator for six months through June 30, 2014 and allocates $18,500 for that extension. [For additional background, see Public Art above.]

9:02 p.m. Eaton says that it doesn’t need a lot of discussion. He describes the bargain that had been struck.

9:02 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to extend the contract with the part-time public art administrator for six months, allocating $18,500 for that purpose and an additional $2,000 for administrative activities.

9:02 p.m. DC-5 Support funding of state fire protection grant. This resolution would encourage Gov. Rick Snyder, state senator Rebekah Warren (D-District 18),and state representatives Jeff Irwin (D-District 53) and Adam Zemke (D-District 55) to explore creative ways to fund the state’s fire protection grant program for municipalities like Ann Arbor, which host state-owned facilities.

In general, the Michigan legislature recognizes that municipalities hosting state-owned institutions face a burden of providing fire protection for such facilities – without receiving property tax revenues to pay for that fire protection. So the legislature enacted a law to award fire protection grants from the state of Michigan – which are dependent on an allocation from the state legislature each year. The allocation is governed by Act 289 of 1977. [.pdf of Act 289 of 1977] The legislature has historically funded the formula defined in the statute at amounts as low as 23% of the formula to as high as 68%. [For additional background, see Fire Protection above.]

9:04 p.m. Lumm says that she sponsored the resolution but notes that it originated with city staff and the city’s lobbyist, Governmental Consultant Services Inc. (GCSI). She reviews the background of the fire protection grant funding.

9:05 p.m. Hieftje says that he’d made a couple of trips to Lansing to stand with other mayors and fire chiefs to ask the state legislature to fund its own formula. He notes that the estimated taxable value of University of Michigan property is around $1 billion.

9:06 p.m. Hieftje hopes this issue gets more traction in Lansing this year.

9:06 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the resolution calling on state officials to find ways to fund the fire protection grant program.

9:07 p.m. DC-6 Designating urban public park location at Library Lane site. This resolution is sponsored by Jack Eaton (Ward 4), who worked with representatives of the Library Green Conservancy to bring it forward. It’s now also co-sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Mike Anglin (Ward 2). It includes a proposal to reserve about 10,000 square feet on the surface of the Library Lane Structure for an urban park, to be “bounded by the Fifth Avenue sidewalk on the west, the Library Lane Street sidewalk to the south, the western entry to the central elevator to the east, and the southern curb of the service alley on the north.” [.pdf of proposed resolution] [For additional background, see City Assets: Parks – Library Lane Surface? above.]

9:10 p.m. Eaton says he’s pleased to bring this forward as his first resolution as a councilmember. He’s been working with the Library Green Conservancy for several years. He’s recounting the process that PAC had engaged in, saying that 76% of the public had called for more downtown parks. This takes the next “tiny step” in a long process, he says. PAC had made recommendations, and this resolution follows up on that, he notes. This resolution overlaps with the PAC recommendations with respect to a larger-than-5,000 square foot park at the Library Lot. It’s not a huge park that’s recommended, he says – it’s 100 feet by 100 feet.

Kunselman has asked for time to bring forward a companion resolution, Eaton reports.

9:14 p.m. Kunselman says he does want a postponement to have time to meet with some library board members. But more importantly, he wants to list the property for sale. The amount invested for future speculative development is about $15 million, he says. Kunselman reads aloud a part of the city administrator’s commentary on the surface of the Library Lane structure. It essentially describes construction of a public space in concert with the private development of the property. Kunselman says he’s cautious about giving city staff too much to do. So he’s going to ask for postponement. He calls the resolution lengthier than the one designating First & William as a park. As far as he knows, that resolution still stands. So he doesn’t see this resolution as much different from that.

9:15 p.m. Discussion is now unfolding among Kunselman, Eaton, Hieftje, and Powers on the right date to which it should be postponed. The question now in front of the council is postponement until the council’s next meeting.

9:16 p.m. Briere tests the mood of the council for also holding a public hearing on the topic at the next council meeting, on March 17. Eaton doesn’t think it’s necessary.

9:19 p.m. Hieftje advises that the council not pursue a process that results in changing the categorization of the land to a park, as that would require an ordinance change. Hieftje says if the council decides at its next meeting that a public hearing is warranted, it could postpone again and set a public hearing.

9:20 p.m. Hieftje says that it could become a public space accessible to the public but not owned by the city. He notes that the city has a lot of parks. If it were a vote today, Hieftje says he’d have a hard time putting this site ahead of 415 W. Washington. He wants to look at the issue in the context of all the city’s parks.

9:23 p.m. Kunselman says he will be talking to the library board about moving the library over to the surface of the Library Lane structure. He doesn’t think the city will break even on the air rights, given the amount of investment for development that has already been made. He thinks that partnering with a public entity might make more sense.

Petersen highlights the distinction between a park and an urban plaza that Kelbaugh had made during public commentary.

9:25 p.m. Eaton says he doesn’t see a difference between a plaza and a park. Lumm agrees with Eaton. She says there’s a strong sentiment for something that’s not hardscape but agrees with Eaton that they are not park designers.

9:27 p.m. Taylor says that he’ll support the postponement, but asks that PAC be consulted on the resolution. He notes that PAC received the resolution as somewhat of an affront. The boundaries of the space will play a tremendous role, he says. That shouldn’t be set in stone. That could result in a park that can’t work, he says. “It cries for an integrated approach,” he says. He hopes that the postponement can be used as an opportunity to rethink the “dip the Gordian knot in concrete approach” of the resolution.

9:31 p.m. Anglin says that the idea started in concept as a commons. He says it’s important to include the public in the process, and that’s what this resolution is trying to do. The library is the focal point, he says. With the cooperation of the library, something really good could be designed, he thinks.

9:33 p.m. Eaton says that the location of the park was actually set in stone when the council approved the construction of the Library Lane parking structure without knowing what would go on top. The location of the park is dictated by where the support columns were installed. The Library Green Conservancy needs definite boundaries so that it can start fund raising. Eaton ventures that FAR [floor area ratio] premiums could be established in the zoning code for adopting a public park. Briere admonishes Eaton to speak to the postponement.

9:34 p.m. Hieftje says it wouldn’t have made any sense to build the structure without adequate foundations to support building something.

9:36 p.m. Warpehoski says that setting the boundaries is very important. He’s concerned about the northern boundary. He encourages the sponsors of the resolution to consider that. He’s also concerned that the numbers don’t add up for him, in terms of what percent of the surface is being proposed for a park: Is it 20% or 40%?

9:38 p.m. Teall says she hopes during the period of postponement there would be some serious discussion with AADL about what their needs are. She says that the library has considered moving the building to the top of the parking structure and ventures that AADL has concluded it’s not in the AADL’s best interest. She says that if people had energy to put into the existing Liberty Plaza, it could serve the purpose of the community gathering space.

9:39 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone until March 17 the resolution designating a portion of the Library Lane surface level as an urban park.

9:39 p.m. Recess. We are now in recess.

9:54 p.m. We are back.

9:55 p.m. DC-7 Downtown development liquor license for Takashi Concepts Michigan LLC. This resolution would recommend the award of a special downtown development liquor license to Takashi Concepts Michigan LLC (Slurping Turtle) at the location of the former Borders bookstore on Liberty Street in downtown Ann Arbor.

9:56 p.m. Lumm is describing what a downtown development district license is.

9:56 p.m. Lumm notes the final decision rests with the Michigan Liquor Control Commission.

9:56 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the recommendation Takashi Concepts be granted a downtown development liquor license.

9:56 p.m. DC-8 Waive attorney-client privilege on assessment issue. This resolution would waive attorney-client privilege on a staff memo about laws governing the assessment of homes. The resolution indicates that the memo addresses the effect that reducing the assessment for one year would have on the property tax assessment for the subsequent year, based on action by the Board of Review and/or the Michigan Tax Tribunal.

9:56 p.m. Eaton asks immediately for a postponement.

9:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone this resolution until March 17, 2014.

10:01 p.m. DC-9 Recommend non-renewal of liquor license for Banfield Bar & Grill. Lumm (Ward 2) explains the background, saying that no one had appeared to represent Banfield’s at the hearing.

10:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to recommend non-renewal of Banfield’s liquor license over dissent from Kunselman.

10:01 p.m. DS-1 Approve contract for rebuilding basketball and tennis courts at Clinton Park. This resolution would approve a $133,843 contract with Best Asphalt to rebuild the tennis and basketball courts at Clinton Park. [For additional background, see City Assets: Parks – Clinton, Gallup above.]

10:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Best Asphalt for repaving of the courts at Clinton Park.

10:01 p.m. DS-2 Resolution of intent to vacate a strip of land near East Ellsworth Road. This resolution would not vacate the property – a seven-foot-wide strip of land – but rather would authorize notice of the city’s intent to vacate the land. The vacation would be made in exchange for the granting of an easement for non-motorized use.

10:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to make known its intent to vacate the land.

10:01 p.m. DS-3 Approve purchase of 18 Vehicles. Total cost of the 18 vehicles – most of which will be used by the Ann Arbor police department – is $457,393. The staff memo notes that the police vehicles to be purchased will replace vehicles that will have reached either the 80,000-mile or the six-year limit specified in the city’s labor contracts with the Ann Arbor Police Officers Association and the Ann Arbor Police Supervisors. [For additional background, see Additional Vehicles above.]

10:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the vehicle purchase.

10:02 p.m. DS-4 Secondary chiller for Larcom Building. The $160,923 contract for installation of a secondary chiller would go to CSM Mechanical LLC. The existing chiller for city hall is described in the staff memo accompanying the resolution as old, requiring extensive maintenance. Repair is difficult because parts are becoming harder to find.

10:02 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the purchase of a secondary chiller for the Larcom Building.

10:02 p.m. DS-5 Resolution to approve agreement with Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. for general civil engineering services (sanitary sewer, sidewalk design). As part of the same contract to design urgent repairs to the sanitary sewer pipes and structures in Huron Street near the intersections of Glen Street and Zina Pitcher, Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. is also being tapped to provide the designs for two sidewalk projects that could ultimately result in special assessments for adjoining property owners – along Barton Drive and along Scio Church Road. Total cost for the sidewalk design is $50,629. The total cost for the contract is $148,176. [For additional background, see Non-Motorized Issues above.]

10:03 p.m. Briere says that residents all over the north side of town have been asking for a sidewalk connection along Barton Drive ever since the boardwalk was constructed.

10:03 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc.

10:04 p.m. DS-6 Funding for pedestrian safety task force. This resolution would provide funding for the work of the pedestrian safety and access task force established by the city council late last year, with members appointed in late January. The total amount being appropriated for the task force project budget in the item is $197,250. The stated “estimated $122,500” is the approximate cost of the anticipated staff effort for this project. That includes $77,400 for the professional services agreement with Project Innovations Inc. [For additional background, see Non-Motorized Issues above.]

10:06 p.m. Briere is recalling Kunselman’s comments from earlier in the evening, when he said that it’s easy to direct staff to do things. She wants to postpone this until the first meeting in April. That’s April 7. She ventures that the scope of work might be different by then and the budgeted amount might also be different.

10:09 p.m. Petersen supports the postponement. She says she hopes the task force will meet before April 7. She’s concerned about assigning the task force the task of addressing sidewalk gaps. She also suggests separating out the Project Innovations contract into a separate resolution. Briere says she’s not even sure that the recommendation for an outside consultant will be a part of the proposal when it comes back on April 7. Briere says the task force can meet before this resolution.

Briere identifies Connie Pulcipher as the city staff member who’d support the task force. City administrator Steve Powers weighs in, saying that the staff assignment would be made by staff. He says the resolution is much broader than the sidewalk gaps issue. Briere apologizes, saying she thought Pulcipher had already been identified.

10:11 p.m. Lumm says she’ll support the postponement. But she’s concerned about language in the resolution that indicates that additional funding could be requested in the future.

10:12 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the funding for the pedestrian safety task force until April 7, 2014.

10:12 p.m. DS-7 Approve $30,000 for new Ann Arbor-Saline sidewalk construction. This resolution would authorize a $30,000 general fund expenditure to pay for a new sidewalk along the east side of Ann Arbor-Saline Road from the westbound I-94 exit ramp to the north end of the I-94 bridge, and along the west side of Ann Arbor-Saline Road from Brookfield Drive to the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) park-and-ride commuter parking lot. [For additional background, see Non-Motorized Issues above.]

10:12 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the $30,000 for new sidewalk construction on Ann Arbor-Saline Road.

10:12 p.m. DS-8 Accept new sanitary sewer easement at 3150 Boardwalk Drive from JK Ann Arbor Real Estate LLC. This is a standard easement.

10:12 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the sanitary sewer easement.

10:16 p.m. Communications from council. Briere says at the next council meeting she’ll be bringing forward appointments to the environmental commission (with Anglin). The two people are re-appointments: David Stead and Susan Hutton. She would also like additional applicants. The EC has asked for people with specific expertise. She also wants to highlight the EC work plan in the attachments to the agenda. Briere also highlights that the council has received a report from the R4C/R2A advisory committee. She hopes people will take time to read the report.

10:16 p.m. Petersen notes that March 17, the next meeting, is her husband’s 50th birthday, so she will be late.

10:17 p.m. Warpehoski says he wants to apologize to Lumm for his earlier remarks [about Lumm's campaign rallies], saying his intent was to be playful but the impact had been hurtful, so he wanted to apologize.

10:17 p.m. Public comment general time. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

10:18 p.m. Kai Petainen says Ann Arbor is a world-class city. As long as the parking structure is there at the Library Lot, it makes sense to do something. He ventures that the space could be an indoor park.

10:21 p.m. Ed Vielmetti is addressing the council. He’s highlighting items from the clerk’s report. He’s reading aloud from communications sent to the city by elementary school students at Pattengill Elementary School, who complained about the lack of snow plowing near their school. Vielmetti also highlights the 2009 Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority annual report, which was just now attached to this meeting agenda. He points out a very late set of historic district commission minutes that were attached to this meeting’s agenda.

10:24 p.m. Seth Best thanks the council for their work. He’s there speaking as a smoker. He likes the idea of allowing people to perform community service as an alternative to a fine. He also suggests that punishment could include voluntary smoking cessation intervention.

10:24 p.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

A sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chambers gives instructions for post-meeting clean-up.

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the March 3, 2014 meeting agenda.

New to the agenda are several items related to non-motorized issues, most prominently a funding request to support the activity of an already-established task force on pedestrian safety and access.

The council will also be asked to fund requests related to city parks and other city facilities like city hall and the airport. Eighteen new vehicles will also be added to the city’s fleet, contingent on council action on March 3.

The council will also consider a resolution that urges full funding of the state of Michigan’s fire protection grant program – for cities like Ann Arbor that host state-owned facilities like the University of Michigan.

In somewhat more detail, one public art issue, embodied in two different resolutions, was postponed from the council’s Feb. 18, 2014 meeting, when councilmembers could not agree on an approach to transferring money out of the public art fund back to the funds from which the money was originally drawn. The specific point dividing the council was not so much the transfer of money but rather a plan to fund the new approach to public art – after the council eliminated the Percent for Art funding mechanism last year.

Updated March 1, 2014: The first resolution has been altered for consideration on March 3 so that it focuses exclusively on the public art program transition issue. The second resolution incorporates changes to reflect the council’s deliberations on Feb. 18: It transfers a total of $943,005 of Percent for Art money to its funds of origin, an amount that defunds the art project at Argo Cascades, but keeps funding for the Coleman Jewett memorial and for a project called Canoe Imagine Art.  [public art resolution (1) for consideration on March 3, 2014] [public art resolution (2) for consideration on March 3, 2014]

That disagreement over funding of the newly created program is also related to another public art item on the agenda – a six-month contract extension for the city’s part-time public art administrator. The item first appeared on the council’s Jan. 21 agenda, but the council postponed that vote until Feb. 3, when it was defeated. On Feb. 18 it was then brought back for reconsideration, but immediately postponed until the March 3 meeting.

Also postponed from Feb. 18 is an item that would direct the city administrator to prepare for the council’s approval a budget resolution regarding affordable housing. The resolution would allocate $600,000 from the city’s affordable housing trust fund to support the Ann Arbor housing commission’s plan to renovate its properties. That allocation would be contingent on the closing of the sale of the former Y lot to Dennis Dahlmann, as the net proceeds of that sale are to be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

Postponed from the Feb. 3 meeting was the first reading of an ordinance that would regulate smoking outside of public buildings and also potentially in areas of some city parks. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), sponsor of the new proposed local law, appeared before the park advisory commission at its Feb. 25 meeting to brief commissioners on the proposal and solicit feedback.

New items on the March 3 agenda include a funding proposal for the pedestrian safety and access task force established by the city council late last year, with members appointed in late January. The $122,250 item includes a $77,500 contract for facilitation services from Project Innovations. That’s the same firm contracted for similar work in connection with the city’s sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation – which is expected to conclude in the summer of 2014.

Other issues on the March 3 agenda with a non-motorized connection are three stretches of sidewalk. In the context of sanitary sewer design work that Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. is being hired to do, two sidewalks are included: a stretch along Barton Drive, and a stretch along Scio Church Road. The council will also be asked to pay for the construction of a stretch of sidewalk along Ann Arbor-Saline Road near the I-94 bridge – as part of a road reconstruction project that the Michigan Dept. of Transportation is handling.

Another new item is a resolution that Jack Eaton (Ward 4) had announced at the council’s Feb. 18 meeting that he’d be bringing forward. It would waive the attorney-client privilege on a staff memo about laws governing the assessment of homes. The resolution indicates that the memo addresses the effect that reducing the assessment for one year would have on the property tax assessment for the subsequent year, based on action by the Board of Review and/or the Michigan Tax Tribunal.

In other action, the council will be asked on March 3 to approve the purchase from Signature Ford of 18 new vehicles – most of them for use by the Ann Arbor police department. Total cost of the purchase is $457,393.

City parks factor into three agenda items: (1) a resolution to establish an urban park on part of the surface level of the Library Lane underground parking structure; (2) a paving contract for the replacement of basketball and tennis courts at Clinton Park; and (3) a grant application to the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Grants Management (MDNRGM) to support a universal access playground at Gallup Park. The Rotary Club has already pledged $250,000 toward such a playground.

The city hall (Larcom Building) is featured in two agenda items – to pay $160,923 for a secondary chiller unit and $28,469 for new light fixtures. An amendment to an agreement with MDOT for an already-completed fence project at the Ann Arbor municipal airport also appears on the agenda, and will cost the city $425.

After authorizing significant equipment purchases to support water main repair activity at its Feb. 18 meeting, the council will be asked to approve two additional items related to water main repair. One item is a $44,702 emergency purchase order to buy more aggregate material used for backfilling water main repairs. A second item authorizes an emergency purchase order for repairing and making a new connection for the water main at 1214 S. University. In both cases, the emergency purchase orders were authorized by the city administrator, and the work was done.

Street closures for two events are on the council’s March 3 agenda: Take Back the Night and the Monroe Street Fair.

Also on the agenda is a resolution that would encourage Gov. Rick Snyder, state senator Rebekah Warren, and state representatives Jeff Irwin and Adam Zemke to explore creative ways to fund the state’s fire protection grant program for municipalities like Ann Arbor, which host state institutions. In the last three years, the program has been only 40-55% funded.

This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Monday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network starting at 7 p.m.

Public Art

At the council’s Feb. 18, 2014 meeting, two resolutions on the transfer of public art money back to its funds of origin were postponed. Councilmembers seemed to agree that a substantial sum – at least $800,000 that had accumulated under the now defunct Percent for Art funding mechanism – should be transferred back to its funds of origin. The issue actually dividing the council was not so much the transfer of money but rather a plan to fund the new approach to public art that the council put in place when the Percent for Art funding mechanism was eliminated last year.

The resolution proposed by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) called for establishing a budget for public art administration for FY 2015 and FY 2016. The resolution by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) did not include a budget provision for public art administration.

Updated March 1, 2014: The  resolution ordered first on the agenda (Briere’s) has been altered for consideration on March 3 so that it focuses exclusively on the public art program transition issue. This resolution was put forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and is co-sponsored by Sally Petersen (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5)

The resolution ordered second on the agenda (Lumm’s) incorporates changes to reflect the council’s deliberations on Feb. 18: It transfers a total of $943,005 of Percent for Art money to its funds of origin, an amount that defunds the art project at Argo Cascades, but keeps funding for the Coleman Jewett memorial and for a project called Canoe Imagine Art. The defunding of the art project at Argo Cascades was originally a feature of Briere’s resolution that was not shared by Lumm’s.  In addition to Lumm, the second item on the agenda is cosponsored by Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

[public art resolution (1) for consideration on March 3, 2014] [public art resolution (2) for consideration on March 3, 2014]

The former Percent for Art funding mechanism required 1% of all capital fund project budgets to be set aside for public art. The new approach entails including city-funded art when it’s designed as an integral part of a capital project, with council approval. Art projects also could be funded through a combination of private and public money.

Possibly a part of the council’s discussion on March 3 will be a review of what a council committee recommended in advance of the council’s decision to eliminate the Percent for Art program at its June 3, 2013 meeting. That recommendation was attached to the council’s agenda as a report/communication about a year ago, for the council’s March 18, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of council committee's public art findings and recommendations]

The five councilmembers serving on that committee included Margie Teall (Ward 4), as well as all of those who have declared their intention to participate in the Democratic mayoral primary race: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

The time frame that some councilmembers have talked about for funding the new approach to public art – before judging whether it has succeeded – is as long as three years. That appears to be based on one of the committee’s recommendations:

Recommendation: The staff should review the successful implementation of any changes in the ordinance after 36 months. This timing is based on the task force’s awareness that capital improvements may take longer than two years to move from inception to completion.

That finding also included a recommendation on administrative support:

Recommendation: a professionally trained public art administrator can provide this level of support, but needs to be employed more than 50% of the time. The Public Art Task Force agrees that the program would benefit from the services of a trained administrator, either as a contract employee or a direct hire.

The disagreement over funding of the newly created program is also related to another public art item on the March 3, 2014 agenda – a six-month contract extension for the city’s part-time public art administrator. The item first appeared on the council’s Jan. 21 agenda, but the council postponed that vote until Feb. 3, when it was subsequently defeated. On Feb. 18 it was then brought back for reconsideration, but immediately postponed until March 3. The amount at issue to fund the contract is $18,500.

Affordable Housing

Also postponed from the Feb. 18 meeting is an item that would direct the city administrator to prepare for the council’s approval a budget resolution regarding affordable housing. It would allocate $600,000 from the city’s affordable housing trust fund to support the Ann Arbor housing commission’s plan to renovate its properties. That allocation would be contingent on the closing of the sale of the former Y lot to Dennis Dahlmann, as the net proceeds of that sale are to be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

The item was postponed on Feb. 18 only after the council’s two liaisons to the housing and human services board – Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) – had aired out conflicting perspectives on the importance of having the item on the agenda. Briere had placed the item on the Feb. 18 agenda. Lumm argued that the agenda placement had come late on Friday and that it was not necessary – for the housing commission’s purposes – to vote on the issue until March 3.

Politics between the city council and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority are also a part of the mix, as the housing commission has made a $600,000 request of the DDA as well. DDA board members seem keen to see the city pledge its support to the housing commission before committing DDA funds. And some city councilmembers appear to want to secure the DDA’s commitment before voting to support the housing commission’s renovations with affordable housing trust fund dollars.

Outdoor Smoking

Postponed from the Feb. 3 meeting was the first reading of an ordinance that would regulate smoking outside of public buildings and also potentially in areas of some city parks. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), sponsor of the new proposed local law, appeared before the city’s park advisory commission at its Feb. 25 meeting to brief commissioners on the proposal and solicit feedback.

Made punishable under the proposed ordinance through a $50 civil fine would be smoking within 20 feet of: (1) bus stops; (2) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of the Blake Transit Center; and (3) entrances, windows and ventilation systems any city-owned building.

The ordinance would also authorize the city administrator to have signs posted designating certain parks or portions of parks as off limits for outdoor smoking, and to increase the distance from entrances to city buildings where outdoor smoking is prohibited.

Where no signs are posted noting the smoking prohibition, a citation could be issued only if someone doesn’t stop smoking immediately when asked to stop.

An existing Washtenaw County ordinance already prohibits smoking near entrances, windows and ventilation systems, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution – but the county’s ordinance can be enforced only by the county health department. The memo further notes that the Michigan Clean Indoor Air Act does not regulate outdoor smoking.

Non-Motorized Issues

New items on the March 3 agenda include a funding proposal for the pedestrian safety and access task force established by the city council late last year, with members appointed in late January. The $122,250 item includes a $77,500 contract for facilitation services from Project Innovations. That’s the same firm contracted for similar work in connection with the city’s sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation – which is expected to conclude in the summer of 2014.

Other issues on the March 3 agenda with a non-motorized connection are three stretches of sidewalk. In the context of sanitary sewer design work that Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. is being hired to do, two sidewalks are included: a stretch along Barton Drive; and a stretch along Scio Church Road.

Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. did design work for another project for which the council will be asked to authorize funding. The firm prepared the construction drawings, contract specifications and an opinion of probable construction costs for the roadway and non-motorized improvements for a stretch of sidewalk along Ann Arbor-Saline Road near the I-94 bridge. That’s part of a road reconstruction project the Michigan Dept. of Transportation is handling.

Non-Motorized: Pedestrian Safety and Access Task Force

A pedestrian safety and access task force was established through a council resolution passed on Nov. 18, 2013. Confirmed as members of the task force on Jan. 21, 2014 were: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, and Owen Jansson.

A key resolved clause establishing the group’s scope of work includes the following: “… the task force will explore strategies to improve pedestrian safety and access within a framework of shared responsibility through community outreach and data collection, and will recommend to council improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

The council will be asked on March 3 to consider a resolution to appropriate $122,250 to support the task force’s work, which includes delivery of a report a year from now – in February 2015. The funds are sourced in part from an allocation made during the May 20, 2013 budget deliberations, which appropriated  $75,000 for a study to prioritize sidewalk gap elimination. The connection between sidewalk gaps and the task force’s work is based in part on one of the other resolved clauses establishing the task force: “… the task force will also address sidewalk gaps and create a tool for setting priorities for funding and filling those gaps; …”

The funding will in part be used to pay for a $77,400 contract with Project Innovations Inc. to provide facilitator support to the task force.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, a “team of staff members has identified Project Innovations, Inc. as a firm in the region that has demonstrated skill in task force facilitation and robust community engagement efforts, and is uniquely qualified with the capacity to facilitate the pedestrian safety and access task force’s rigorous work approach within the specified timeframe.” Based on the phrasing in the memo, the work appears not to have been put out to bid and Project Innovations was identified as a “sole source” provider.

Project Innovations is the same firm currently providing facilitation support to a citizens advisory committee that is attached to a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study being conducted by the city.

The resolution establishing the task force does not explicitly charge the group with a review of the city’s crosswalk law. But the pedestrian safety task force was established in the same time frame as the council considered an amendment to the city’s crosswalk law. The council ultimately voted to change the language of the law at its Dec. 2, 2013 – so that motorists were required to concede the right-of-way only to pedestrians who had already entered the crosswalk.

That change was subsequently vetoed by mayor John Hieftje. Drawing on the phrasing used in Hieftje’s statement of veto, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) has indicated he intends to bring forward an amendment that would require motorists to stop at crosswalks for pedestrians only if “they can do so safely.” At the council’s Feb. 18, 2014 meeting, Kunselman announced he’d be pursuing such an amendment.

Non-Motorized: Sidewalks – Barton Drive, Scio Church

As part of the same contract to design urgent repairs to the sanitary sewer pipes and structures in Huron Street near the intersections of Glen Street and Zina Pitcher, Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. is also being tapped to provide the designs for two sidewalk projects that could ultimately result in special assessments for adjoining property owners.

At its July 15, 2013 meeting, the council approved $15,000 for preliminary design of a sidewalk along Barton Drive.

Location of proposed Barton Drive sidewalk.

At its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting, the council approved $15,000 for preliminary study of a sidewalk to be constructed along Scio Church, west of Seventh Street. And on Nov. 7, 2013 the council approved another $35,000 for Scio Church sidewalk design work.

Purple indicates stretches of Scio Church Road where no sidewalk exists.

The contract with Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. – which includes $50,629 for the design of the two stretches of sidewalk – would draw on that previously authorized funding.

Non-Motorized: Sidewalks – Ann Arbor-Saline

The council will also be asked at its March 3 meeting to approve a $30,000 general fund expenditure to pay for a new sidewalk along the east side of Ann Arbor-Saline Road from the westbound I-94 exit ramp to the north end of the I-94 bridge, and along the west side of Ann Arbor-Saline Road from Brookfield Drive to the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) park-and-ride commuter parking lot. The work is part of a more general road reconstruction project being handled by MDOT under an agreement between the city of Ann Arbor, the Washtenaw County road commission, MDOT and Pittsfield Township.

Additional Vehicles

The council will be asked on March 3 to approve the purchase of 18 new vehicles from Signature Ford in Perry, Michigan. Most of the new vehicles are for use by the Ann Arbor police department. Total cost of the purchase is $457,393 and includes:

• one 2014 Ford F-150 four-wheel-drive pickup at $26,407.
• one 2014 Ford Escape four-wheel-drive at $24,050.
• four 2014 Ford Police Interceptors: Sedans at $24,601 each.
• nine 2014 Ford Police Interceptors: Utility at $26,298 each.
• two 2014 Ford Police Interceptors: Utility with rear-auxiliary air-conditioning for use as K-9 units at $26,846.
• one 2014 Ford F-150 two-wheel-drive pickup at $18,158.

The staff memo notes that the police vehicles to be purchased will replace vehicles that will have reached either the 80,000-mile or the six-year limit specified in the city’s labor contracts with the Ann Arbor Police Officers Association and the Ann Arbor Police Supervisors.

The memo further notes that the new sedans have less shoulder room than Crown Victorias. So the AAPD is finding it difficult to install the increased amount of equipment needed in police vehicles, while still maintaining adequate room for officers. That’s why more of the SUV pursuit-rate vehicles are being incorporated into the police department’s fleet.

The city’s non-police vehicles are subjected to a two-step process to determine replacement. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the first step scores a vehicle’s age, miles/hours of use, type of service, reliability, maintenance and repair cost. The second step is review of the vehicle repair history and general condition.

One non-police vehicle to be replaced through the purchase is a truck that has been in service for 7.6 years and has over 4,800 total hours of operation, averaging 0.23 repair work orders per month. The total cost of repairs has exceeded 60% of its purchase price.

City Assets

Several items related to upkeep and improvement of city assets appear on the city council’s March 3 agenda.

City Assets: Parks

City parks factor into three agenda items: (1) a resolution to establish an urban park on part of the surface level of the Library Lane underground parking structure; (2) a paving contract for the replacement of basketball and tennis courts at Clinton Park; and (3) a grant application to the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Grants Management (MDNRGM) to support a universal access playground at Gallup Park. The Rotary Club has already pledged $250,000 toward such a playground, which is expected to cost about $500,000.

City Assets: Parks – Library Lane Surface?

A resolution that proposes to build an urban park on top of the Library Lane underground parking structure appears on the city council’s March 3 agenda. The proposal was also presented at the Feb. 25, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. The commission was not asked to act on it.

Library Lane park proposal.

The presentation to PAC by Will Hathaway, on behalf of the Library Green Conservancy, included a proposal to reserve about 10,000 square feet on the surface of the Library Lane Structure for an urban park, to be “bounded by the Fifth Avenue sidewalk on the west, the Library Lane Street sidewalk to the south, the western entry to the central elevator to the east, and the southern curb of the service alley on the north.” [.pdf of proposed resolution] [.pdf of proposed site boundaries]

Hathaway reported at that meeting that he’s been working with city councilmember Jack Eaton (Ward 4). Sponsors of the resolution on the March 3 agenda are Eaton, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5), who serves on PAC as an ex officio member.

The resolution calls for financial support as well as an allocation of staff time to design and create the park. The resolution asks PAC and the parks staff to prepare preliminary recommendations for the park’s design, to be presented at the council’s first meeting in October of 2014.

Other aspects of the proposal include:

• asking the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to prepare for an eventual transition from parking to non-parking on the surface of the Library Lane structure;
• asking the DDA to conduct a structural analysis of the Library Lane structure to determine if any modifications are needed to safely support design features, such as soil, plantings of various sizes, water features, a skating rink, a performance stage, and play equipment;
• asking that the city’s community services and parks staff work with DDA and the Ann Arbor District Library to facilitate public programming with activities including craft fairs, book fairs, food carts, and fine arts performances;
• asking the DDA to work with the city to explore possible above-ground private and/or public development of the remaining, build-able portion of the surface level north of the central elevator and above the central exit/entrance ramp.

The resolution specifies certain conditions for development rights on the remaining surface of Library Lane, including additional public open space and pedestrian access as features of any private development. The resolution also calls for close collaboration with neighboring properties and businesses, including the Ann Arbor District Library, First Martin Corp., the University of Michigan Credit Union, the Inter-Cooperative Council, and the businesses facing Fifth Avenue and Liberty Street.

Activists have pushed for a public park or plaza on the top of the Library Lane underground parking structure for several years. Several members of the Library Green Conservancy – including former park commissioner Gwen Nystuen, and former Ann Arbor planning commissioner Eric Lipson – attended PAC’s Feb. 25 meeting.

PAC has explored the urban park issue more broadly, most formally with a downtown parks subcommittee created in 2012. The subcommittee presented a report at PAC’s Oct. 15, 2013 meeting that included general recommendations, with an emphasis on “placemaking” principles that include active use, visibility and safety. The most specific recommendation also called for developing a park or open space on top of the Library Lane structure. A park or open space at that location should exceed 5,000 square feet, according to the report, and connect to Library Lane, the small mid-block cut-through that runs north of the library between Fifth and Division. [.pdf of 21-page full subcommittee report]

The subcommittee’s report was accepted by the Ann Arbor city council on Nov. 7, 2013 over dissent from Anglin.

Hathaway’s presentation on Feb. 25 drew on recommendations from the PAC subcommittee, as well as from information in the DDA’s Connecting William Street study.

On Feb. 25, several park commissioners raised concerns, some of which focused on the process of bringing this resolution forward without specific direction from the council. Hathaway noted that the council resolution is intended to start the process, with council direction, to begin working with stakeholders, PAC, the public and others in the design and development of this park.

City Assets: Parks – Clinton, Gallup

At its Feb. 25, 2014 meeting, the Ann Arbor park advisory commission recommended approving a $133,843 contract with Best Asphalt to rebuild the tennis and basketball courts at Clinton Park. The council will be asked to act on the contract at its March 3 meeting.

Clinton Park is located in the southeast part of the city, on Stone School Road, north of Ellsworth Road.

The park is located on the west side of Stone School Road, south of Eisenhower Parkway.

Including a 10% construction contingency, the project’s total budget is $147,227. Best Asphalt provided the lowest of five bids, according to a staff memo. The project will be funded with revenues from the park maintenance and capital improvement millage.

Another item on the March 3 council agenda relates to a proposed “universal access” playground at Gallup Park. At its Jan. 28, 2014 meeting, the park advisory commission recommended applying for the grant from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Grants Management (MDNRGM) to help fund the project. Representatives of Rotary Club attended that PAC meeting to convey the group’s $250,000 pledge. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, told park commissioners that although there are about 80 playgrounds in Ann Arbor, none are universally accessible. It’s a “huge shortcoming” for the parks system, he said.

The exact location within Gallup Park hasn’t been determined, but the playground would be about 5,000 square feet and exceed the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The design and equipment is intended to create environments that can be used by all people, with features like ramps, color-contrasting structures, wider bridges and walkways, and playground equipment that makes it easier for people using wheelchairs.

The council will be asked to authorize the grant application at its March 3 meeting.

City Assets: Larcom Building

The city hall (Larcom Building) at 301 E. Huron is featured in two agenda items – to pay $160,923 for a secondary chiller unit and $28,469 for new light fixtures.

The $160,923 contract for installation of a secondary chiller would go to CSM Mechanical LLC. The existing chiller for city hall is described in the staff memo accompanying the resolution as old, requiring extensive maintenance. Repair is difficult because parts are becoming harder to find. It’s the only unit for the building, so if it goes down, the building has no cooled air. The unit also doesn’t handle well the rapid change in temperatures in spring and fall.

So the city’s strategy will be to install a secondary chiller – leaving the old chiller still in service. The new chiller unit will have about two-thirds the capacity of the old one. If the older unit breaks down during the peak summer season, the new unit will at least be able to provide some cooling air. The long-term plan is to replace the old chiller unit with a second smaller capacity chiller.

The purchase of $28,469 worth of light fixtures for city hall would be from McNaughton McKay Electric Company of Ann Arbor. The new fixtures will replace the original fixtures – which are being removed as part of an asbestos abatement project. The purchase covers the light fixtures for the third and fourth floors. They will match those installed in the basement and first floor during the recent renovation of city hall.

City Assets: Airport

A $17,000 amendment on a contract with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation for a fence and gate project at the Ann Arbor municipal airport appears on the council’s March 3 agenda. Of that, the city’s portion is $425. The remainder is covered by federal and state funds. The actual project was completed in October 2013.

Water Main Issues

After authorizing significant equipment purchases to support water main repair activity at its Feb. 18 meeting, the council will be asked to approve two additional items on March 3 related to water main repair. One item is a $44,702 emergency purchase order to buy more aggregate material used for backfilling water main repairs. A second item authorizes an emergency purchase order for repairing and making a new connection for the water main at 1214 S. University. In both cases, the emergency purchase orders were authorized by the city administrator, and the work was done.

The emergency purchase order with Ellsworth Industries for $44,702 was submitted and approved on Feb. 14. The city had an existing contract with Ellsworth Industries to supply the aggregate material. The staff memo cites the extreme cold during the 2013-2014 winter as causing “a greater than average number, scope and magnitude of water main breaks city-wide.”

The emergency purchase order with E.T. MacKenzie was for a water main repair not to exceed $30,000 – on South University at the location of Pinball Pete’s. Here’s a timeline of the events of early February released by Oxford Property Management. [.pdf of Oxford Property Management timeline Feb. 6 through Feb. 12, 2014]

The city opted to use E.T. MacKenzie for the work – which included making a new connection to a different main – because the owner’s contractor was already on site.

Street Closures

Street closures for two events are on the council’s March 3 agenda: Take Back the Night and the Monroe Street Fair.

Take Back the Night is a demonstration against sexual violence. This year’s event begins on April 2 at 7 p.m. in the ballroom of the Michigan Union. The keynote speaker is Samantha Soward. A march through the University of Michigan campus and the city of Ann Arbor follows. The route of the march goes south down State Street to Madison, taking Thompson, William, Fourth Avenue and Liberty back to State Street.

This year’s annual Monroe Street Fair takes places on Saturday, April 5. The section of Monroe Street to be closed is between Tappan and State streets.

Fire Protection

A resolution sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) could be analyzed as obliquely related to the council’s decision at a special session on Feb. 24, 2014 not to exercise a right of first refusal to purchase the Edwards Brothers Malloy property on South State Street.

By way of background, that property will now be purchased by the University of Michigan, thus removing it from the tax rolls – because UM does not pay property taxes.

As a result, the city will lose about $50,000 per year in revenue, which is used to pay for basic services like police and fire protection. The university does not operate its own fire protection service.

The city’s station #5 is located on university property, for which the university does not charge rent, utilities, or maintenance costs. UM estimates the annual value of that arrangement to the city at about $230,000. In general, however, the Michigan legislature recognizes that municipalities hosting state-owned facilities face a burden of providing fire protection for such facilities – without receiving property tax revenues to pay for that fire protection.

So the legislature enacted a law to award fire protection grants from the state of Michigan – which are dependent on an allocation from the state legislature each year. The allocation is governed by Act 289 of 1977. [.pdf of Act 289 of 1977] The statute sets forth a formula for a state fire protection grant to all municipalities that are home to state-owned facilities – a formula that attempts to fairly determine the funding allocated for fire protection grants in any given year. The fire protection grant formula is defined for any municipality in terms of the relative value of the state-owned property in the municipality.

More precisely, the percentage in the grant formula is the estimated state equalized value (SEV) of state-owned facilities, divided by the sum of that estimated value and the actual SEV of the other property in the community. For example, in Ann Arbor, the total SEV of property on which property tax is paid is roughly $5 billion. The estimated value of state-owned facilities (primarily the University of Michigan) is around $1 billion. So the percentage used in the state fire protection formula for Ann Arbor is about 16% [1/(1 + 5)].

The percentage in the formula is different for each municipality. That percentage is then multiplied by the actual expenditures made by a municipality for fire protection in the prior fiscal year.

The formula can be described as equitable among municipalities – because the grant amount depends in part on the relative value of state-owned facilities in a given municipality. All other things being equal, a city with a greater number of state-owned facilities receives more fire protection grant money than one with a small number of state-owned facilities. The formula can also be described as equitable to the state of Michigan, because the formula calibrates the state’s investment in a municipality’s fire protection to the level of funding that a local municipality itself is willing to provide.

The roughly $14.8 million in a provisional budget request from the Ann Arbor fire department for FY 2015 would translate to a state grant of roughly $2.3 million.

But the state statute explicitly provides for the possibility that the legislature can choose not to allocate funds sufficient to cover the amount in the formula [emphasis added]:

141.956 Prorating amount appropriated to each municipality.
Sec. 6. If the amount appropriated in a fiscal year is not sufficient to make the payments required by this act, the director shall prorate the amount appropriated to each municipality.

Since 1996, the legislature has funded the grants at amounts as low as 23% of the formula to as high as 68%. For the five-year period from 2007 through 2011, the legislature funded the same dollar amount of about $10.9 million statewide, but that translated into diminishing percentages over the five-year span. In the last three years, the program has been only 40-55% funded.

State of Michigan Fire Protection Grants: Actual Dollars. (Data from state of Michigan, chart by The Chronicle.)

State of Michigan Fire Protection Grants: Percentage of Formula Funded. (Data from state of Michigan, chart by The Chronicle.)

The resolution on the Ann Arbor city council’s March 3 agenda would encourage Gov. Rick Snyder, state senator Rebekah Warren (D-District 18), and state representatives Jeff Irwin (D-District 53) and Adam Zemke (D-District 55) to explore creative ways to fund the state’s fire protection grant program for municipalities like Ann Arbor, which host state-owned facilities.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. We sit on the hard bench so that you don’t have to. 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!

While the change is essentially administrative – changing the version of the International Fire Code adopted in the ordinance from 2003 to a more recent 2009 – some councilmembers on June 17 indicated an interest in exploring the question of frequency of fire inspections. They’ve heard complaints that fire inspections are being conducted too frequently – as a way to generate revenue.

On June 17, fire chief Chuck Hubbard indicated that some of the confusion could be attributed to re-inspections, which are done when a deficiency is found. But Hubbard indicated on June 17 that fire inspections have increased. He’s increased the number of personnel assigned to fire inspections from three to seven.

Ann Arbor fire inspections: 2006-2012. (Data is from city financial records. Chart by The Chronicle.)

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Chart 1: City of Ann Arbor two-year outlook for the general fund. The black bar represents recurring revenue. The stacked bars represent expenses. From the bottom up, those expenses are: existing recurring expenses (light red), requests for new recurring expenses (dark red), one-time requests (light blue), and capital improvement plan needs (dark blue). There also could be additional expenses needed to meet the city council’s priority goals.

The most recent of those work sessions took place on March 11, 2013. The agenda focused on the city council’s top priorities, as identified at its planning retreat late last year: (1) city budget and fiscal discipline; (2) public safety; and (3) infrastructure. Two additional areas were drawn from a raft of other possible issues as those to which the council wanted to devote time and energy over the next two years: (4) economic development; and (5) affordable housing. The retreat had resulted in a consensus on “problem” and “success” statements in these areas – answering the questions: (1) What is the problem we are solving? and (2) What does success look like?

The priority-focused March 11 work session followed one held on Feb. 25, which mapped out the financial picture for the next two years fund-by-fund – not just the general fund, but also the various utility funds (water, sanitary sewer, stormwater, and streets) and internal service funds (fleet, and IT). But on March 11, the council’s focus was primarily on the general fund – as deliberations centered on the first two priority items: fiscal discipline and public safety.

The Feb. 25 session had provided the council with a sketch of the basic general fund picture for the next two years, which is better than it has been for the last several years. Based on current levels for all services, recurring revenues for the two years are projected to exceed recurring expenses by a total of $1.44 million in a general fund budget of about $82 million each year.

That doesn’t factor in requests from various departments that would result in additional recurring expenses, totaling $1.17 million for the two years – which would leave a surplus of just $265,000. When further requests from departments are considered that would result in one-time expenses, that two-year surplus would flip to a deficit of about $252,00. And if all as-yet-unfunded capital improvement expenses are added in for the two years, the city would be looking at a two-year general fund deficit of $4.41 million.

The general fund’s uncommitted balance could cover that deficit – but it would leave the uncommitted balance at $9.69 million at the end of FY 2015, or 11.5% of operating expenses. Under city policy, the uncommitted general fund balance should be between 8% and 12%. However, Tom Crawford, the city’s chief financial officer, has recommended that the city strive for 15-20%.

None of those numbers factor in any additional resources that could be required to achieve success measured in terms of the city council’s priority goals.

At the March 11 session, discussion by councilmembers of the first two priority items – fiscal discipline and public safety – revealed some unsurprising philosophical differences in approach. The majority of councilmembers seemed to accept city administrator Steve Powers’ inclination to take FY 2014 as a “breather” year, not asking departments to meet reduction targets this year, after several years of cuts. But Jane Lumm (Ward 2) – who previously served as a Republican on the council in the mid 1990s, and was elected as an independent in 2011 – expressed disappointed with this approach. She wants reduction targets every year.

And Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), who was elected in November 2012, challenged the idea that it’s only new councilmembers who need to learn during the budget process. She pointed out that city staff members also have a learning curve – as they shift the organization’s priorities to the new council’s priorities.

For public safety, a consensus seemed to emerge that the council’s planning retreat success statements about policing might need further refinement – in light of the current department’s configuration. Police chief John Seto characterized that configuration as set up to be reactive, not proactive. Current staffing levels don’t allow for a proactive configuration, he indicated.

But the council did not appear to have a complete consensus about the importance of that proactive capability – unless that capability could be linked to success in making the community be safe and feel safe. Measuring perceptions of safety through the National Citizens Survey – for the first time since 2008 – was an idea that seemed to have some traction on the council. Some sentiment was expressed that the number of police officers should be increased – whether or not that increase could be tied to better safety as defined in adopted city council goals.

For the fire protection side of public safety, councilmembers effectively made a decision – without voting – to give clear direction to fire chief Chuck Hubbard that they didn’t want to see his three-station plan implemented. He had first presented the plan about a year ago. The proposal would close three stations but re-open one, for a net reduction from five to three stations.

Some dissent was offered, but mayor John Hieftje indicated that in his view the three-station plan was dead. Still, councilmembers seemed unenthusiastic about an alternative – which would entail hiring an additional 23 firefighters to staff existing stations. They seemed more inclined toward incremental improvements in fire safety. Those improvements might be gained through community education. Another possibility is deployment of some light rescue vehicles, which would require a crew of just two, instead of water-carrying trucks that need a crew of three.

This report focuses exclusively on the top council priorities of budget discipline and public safety. Also discussed at the working session, but not included in this report, were draft work plans for the other three priority areas: infrastructure, economic development and affordable housing.

The council may schedule an additional work session on March 25 to give city administrator Steve Powers more direction as he shapes the final budget that he’ll submit to the council in April.

Work Session Overview

The agenda for the council’s working session included draft work plans built around the council’s priorities and success statements – which they had adopted from their late 2012 planning retreat. [.pdf of 2014 draft priority area work plans]

Work Session Overview: General Fund

But before being briefed on the draft work plans for the five priority areas, city administrator Steve Powers invited chief financial officer Tom Crawford to review the basic financial picture for the city’s general fund. The council had been briefed on this at their previous work session held on Feb. 25.

Crawford highlighted the contrast between recurring requests and nonrecurring requests. He also pointed out that there was a line for capital improvement plan (CIP) projects that have no other funding identified except for the general fund. Listed as “TBD” in the chart presented to the council were additional resources for the council’s priorities identified at their planning retreat, as well as other possible subsidies from the general fund that might be required for other funds.

Crawford told the council he would be listening that evening to hear their feedback. Specifically, he’d be listening for how the council wanted to measure success for each of their priority areas. Based on the council’s reaction to the draft work plans, Crawford said, he’d be listening to see if the staff had heard accurately what the council had expressed about how it wanted to measure success.

Crawford presented the council with a slide they’d seen at their previous work session [figures are in thousands]:

                      FY 2014     FY 2015
Recurring
Recurring Revenue   $(82,274)   $(83,527)
Recurring Expenses    80,797      83,565
Net Recurring         (1,477)         38
Recurring Requests       698         476
Net Recur Oprtns        (779)        514

Non-Recurring
One-time Rqsts           431          86
Gen Fund CIP Rqsts     1,298	   2,856
Council Priorities       tbd         tbd
Gen Fund Subs Other      tbd         tbd
Total Non-Recur Rqsts  1,729       2,942

(Surplus)/Deficit        950       3,455

Uncommitted Fnd Blnc  13,144       9,689
Fnd Blnc as Percent    16.1%       11.5%

-

Crawford reminded the council that if all current departmental requests were granted, and all of the capital needs were funded, that would result in the use of general fund balance of around $950,000 in fiscal year 2014 and roughly $3.5 million in fiscal year 2015. The result would be to reduce the uncommitted general fund balance to about 11.5% of total expenses. The current fund balance, Crawford indicated, reflects about 18% of operations. He reminded the council that the range that he recommended for the uncommitted fund balance for the general fund was between 15% and 20%.

Work Session Overview: Draft Work Plans

To give councilmembers an idea of what they’d be presented that evening, city administrator Steve Powers described the draft work plans as centering around the council’s priority areas – which the council had identified at the December 2012 planning retreat. Powers indicated that the service area administrators would be presenting the draft plans and highlighting those places where the staff feel like they need additional feedback from the council.

Powers also stressed that some of the action items might be accomplished without additional funding and that the service area administrators would highlight those items. Some of the action items might also be undertaken in partnership with other entities, he said, not necessarily under the leadership of the city. Powers reiterated Crawford’s point that staff would be looking for feedback from the council on how to measure success as set forth by the council.

The desired outcome for the staff that evening, Powers said, was a consensus about the success statements and guidance for the 2104 and 2015 budgets, and about how the council would like to proceed in developing its priorities. The staff wanted guidance on topics that the council would like to see brought before the body within the next two years. The idea was to transform the draft work plans into something that was really actionable during the two-year timeframe, Powers said. He stressed the fact that the work plans are currently drafts on which the staff is looking for feedback at the work session or later.

Later in the presentation, Powers also reminded councilmembers that the problem statements and the success statements in the draft work plans were developed and adopted by the city council. The other parts of the work plan were initiated by the city staff.

Budget Discipline

Crawford reviewed the success statements on budget and fiscal discipline from the council’s planning retreat.

Problem: Provide efficient, quality service delivery in the face of the projected gap between revenue and
expenses.
Success: Prioritizing expenditures while matching them with revenues over the long-term.

Budget Discipline: Draft Work Plan Summary

The city staff were hearing that the council was basically satisfied with the kind of discipline that the city currently has, Crawford indicated. In thinking about how to measure success, he told the council, the staff felt that they could continue to look at the question: Do we have a balanced budget?

Whether a budget is balanced is measured in two ways. First, is the budget balanced on a recurring basis over the two-year plan? And second, on a non-recurring basis – unless you’ve been saving for a particular investment – does the two-year plan balance out by not showing a net use of fund balance? The city staff’s interpretation so far, Crawford said, is that this kind of metric would resonate with the city council. He wanted to hear some feedback if that kind of metric doesn’t meet the council’s expectations.

Staff is trying to listen to the council’s direction about how to achieve budget discipline, Crawford indicated, so staff had come up with four basic strategies, with four corresponding action items.

The four strategies that were in the draft work plan, with comments from Crawford made at the work session, are:

1. Pursue efficiencies where/when possible. This reflects the fact that there are always opportunities for improvement and the staff always need to be looking at ways to become more efficient, Crawford said.
2. Periodically consider how services are delivered (in-house, privatized, franchised, etc.). Crawford said the staff needs to step back periodically and consider whether the city should be providing a service using in-house resources, whether it should be a franchise arrangement, or privatized. Historically, Crawford explained, the city had applied that kind of scrutiny during the “off year” of the budget cycle – when there is a chance to “chew on” some of the bigger questions. [The city has a two-year budget planning process, but adopts budgets one year at a time. This is the first year in the two-year budget cycle. The second year is considered to be the "off year."]
3. Develop a citywide strategic plan to help inform the prioritization of services. The idea here, Crawford said, is that the city provides a wide range of services to the community, and they are not necessarily independent. In fact, many of the services are interrelated, he noted. So the strategic framework would have a longer lasting priority direction.
4. Reconfirm budget policies/practices. Crawford explained this strategy in terms of action items related to it. Those included a laundry list of general policies and practices that are currently in place. Those policies have implications for how the staff develops the budget each year.

In addition to the strategies and action items, Crawford continued, the staff has listed out some challenges associated with the council’s goals. With respect to budget discipline, he said, the staff recognizes that the city council has elections every year, with half of the council elected every year. Given the size of the organization and complexity of operations, it takes time to get up to speed on all the issues. Another challenge is that a complete re-prioritization takes a lot of resources – and it might not be something you do every year or every two years, but only periodically.

To illustrate the inter-relatedness of the various services and the complexity of the organization, Crawford gave the example of crime reduction. A lot of people might think that’s a police function, Crawford said, but the attorney’s office also has a role in that. And for crime related to nuisance properties, for example, the planning and development services area has a role to play. So there’s a lot of relatedness between the city’s various operations, he said.

Another challenge is the staffing resources to support a number of simultaneous efforts.

Crawford returned to the initial sentiment he’d expressed – a sense that the council felt that the city’s fiscal discipline was in pretty good shape, but that it could perhaps be tweaked. That’s the context in which the work plan for budget discipline was offered, he said. If that’s not the case, then the staff needed to hear about that.

Budget Discipline: Why No Reductions?

City council reaction was led off by Jane Lumm (Ward 2). She told Crawford she appreciated the fact that some “meat had been put to the bones” of the strategic framework. She told Crawford that she felt he and his staff did pursue efficiencies wherever possible. But picking up on the statement that there is always room and opportunity for improvement, she said, the city has identified no cost reductions targets for the next two years. She understood that there had been budget reductions over the last few years, but she didn’t feel that meant there were no further efficiencies that could be achieved.

Lumm felt that continuous improvement is a reasonable expectation. Even in a world of flat budgets, she continued, we should be striving to optimize resource allocation, to meet priorities. Savings generated in one area could be reinvested in another, she said. She encouraged staff to strive to identify cost-saving targets. “That was a surprise to me that we didn’t do that.” The city has been through some tough times, Lumm said, but she still felt that cost reductions are something that the staff should always strive for.

Crawford responded by indicating that earlier in the day, in response to a question that Lumm had raised at the previous working session, staff had developed some responses that had been emailed to the council. Summarizing the sense of the email, he said staff’s view is that the organization “needs a breather” right now. The staff does believe that there is always opportunity for improvement – but the larger opportunities for that improvement will require some planning, and may require that a lot of different elements be brought together, he said. Significant efficiencies are likely to be more surgical in the future, Crawford felt. That contrasted with the way things were done in the past – where the city collectively had been “ratcheting down.”

Lumm characterized the issue as perhaps a philosophical difference, and reiterated her view that there were always opportunities for improvement and finding savings so that the city can allocate resources in a way that’s consistent with its priorities.

Budget Discipline: Against Wal-Mart-ization

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he heard the staff saying that efficiencies and improvements are always part of the analysis – and in the past it’s been driven by a need for cost savings. But now, Taylor said, he didn’t necessarily want to have a desire for cost savings drive the efficiencies. If we can achieve cost savings and maintain or improve service, then absolutely we should do that, he said. But in the environment he envisioned in the future, he felt the goal is not merely to provide service, but provide excellent service. He compared cutting merely to achieve cost savings to “Wal-Mart-ization” – cutting and cutting and cutting and making the products thinner. Ann Arbor’s goal, he felt, should be to do the best we can to provide services to the residents with the taxes and the few dollars that we have. We should make sure that we’re doing it right, he said, and in that he concurred with Lumm. But he wanted the organization to equally emphasize excellence in service.

Lumm reiterated her point that the goal should be to find savings in some areas so that the money can be spent in other areas that are a higher priority. For example, she felt very strongly that the city needs to look at the pension plan – and to transition from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan, or some hybrid form. That would not be for existing employees, she said, but rather for future employees. That’s just one example, she said, where the organization could find savings to invest in other areas.

Budget Discipline: For a Breather

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) summarized the last 10 years as a period during which the city had been downsizing. As some of the areas have been totally reorganized, she characterized the result as “a lot of chaos.” However, in the last couple of years, she continued, things had settled down a little bit. With the new city administrator and service unit managers, she felt those people are now looking at how the organization is structured and asking where additional efficiencies can be realized. But she felt that the organization did need “a moment to take a breath” – otherwise there could be continual chaos in the organization, and that just leads to a lot of anxiety.

Ann Arbor: Total number of city employees by year.

Higgins felt that the staff came to the council every year with proposals for savings and how the savings could be used in other areas. She felt the staff are already doing a pretty good job at that. Higgins felt it was a great dialogue to have about how the identified savings can be used on the council’s identified priorities. So Higgins asked Lumm how Lumm envisioned that dialogue taking place. “Where in the process do you see that taking place?” Higgins asked.

Budget Discipline: Council Input Process (Dog Food)

Lumm ventured that everyone could put forward their budget amendments. Last year, the budget amendments that she had brought forward had identified savings in certain areas to be spent in other areas, she said. “A lot of people didn’t like the dog food, so it didn’t really go anywhere,” she laughed. Identifying savings in one area and spending it in another – that was how she envisioned the next step unfolding. But she ventured it was difficult to say, because the council did not yet know what budget the city administrator would propose.

Steve Powers weighed in by suggesting that some of that feedback and discussion could be conducted before the point of preparing budget amendments. He ventured that the draft work plans being presented that evening could provide a framework for discussion.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said that for her part, the city had gone through 10 or 11 years of cutting. She felt the city is now a very lean organization. If the staff feels that the council needs to give them a break to see how things are going, and let things settle down a bit, then now is the time to do that, she felt. A lot of the stress, she ventured, comes not just from the chaos, but from doing more with less over and over again. So she wanted to let up a little bit if the organization feels it can do that. Her question for Lumm was: When is there a point when you’re not looking to cut anything?

Lumm responded to Teall by saying that she felt it was always possible to look for continuous improvement and savings. There are lots of ways to do that, Lumm said, and there are lots of things that the savings can be spent on – like the priorities identified by the council. A lot of it is simply shifting money from one bucket to another, she said. Infrastructure is a council priority, she observed, but she felt that she didn’t want to see any more money spent on the city hall building. She wanted more potholes to be filled instead. It’s those kinds of shifts, she suggested, where the city is reducing allocation in one area and increasing it elsewhere.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) told Crawford that she did not want to quibble with what he had said. But she picked up on his remark that when there are changes in the city council membership, there can be a steep learning curve to digest the budget complexity. She flipped that perspective by suggesting to Crawford that the city staff need to digest the fact that new priorities sometimes come with new councilmembers.

She felt that the priorities identified in the council’s planning retreat did not reflect a “Wal-Mart-ization,” but rather shifted priorities. She did not feel that the council had stressed cutting and achieving more efficiency, but rather the retreat had focused on what the council wanted to spend money on. She knew a lot of people, for example, who wanted to see the roads fixed.

Teall interjected that road repair was, in fact, one of the council’s priorities. Mayor John Hieftje wanted to move the discussion along, but before doing that, he responded to Lumm’s remark about shifting funds from one bucket to another. He stressed that this is possible just as long as the “buckets” are located inside the general fund. But outside the general fund, the various buckets, in many cases, have legal restrictions on them. He wanted to make sure that no one in the public misunderstood the city’s intentions.

Police Services

Ann Arbor chief of police John Seto reviewed the problem and success statements from the council’s planning retreat.

Problem: Inadequate police staffing resources to do proactive and consistent enforcement and community outreach.
Success #1: Part I crime rates (major crimes) are among the safest 20% of communities in the country.
Success #2: Community perception of safety is high.
Success #3: Police officers have 25%-30% of time available for proactive policing.

Police: Crime Rates

Seto told the council that he would like to hear some input about measurement of that 20% standard. The way the city of Ann Arbor analyzes its crime statistics, he explained, is through the Federal Bureau of Investigation crime statistics reports. Those reports group cities into different population sizes, he explained. Ann Arbor falls into the population size of 100,000-250,000. For 2011 – the last year for which the city has complete data – 206 communities fell into that group. Ann Arbor is ranked 26th out of those 206, which translates to the top 12% – so Ann Arbor is in the top 20%. By that standard, the city is meeting success as defined in the statement right now. So the strategies and action items related to that success statement, Seto explained, relate to the idea of maintaining and continuing what the city is doing to achieve that success that has already been achieved.

Strategies for achieving the top 20% safest community standard included in the draft work plan are:

• Increase efficiencies in communicating with the public through Neighborhood Watch and social media.
• Increase communications with other law enforcement agencies within Washtenaw County.
• Seek opportunities for collaboration with other law enforcement agencies to reduce crime.
• Create a Crime Strategy Unit with the mission of reducing crime.

The strategies were heavily focused on communication, Seto observed.

Some of that increased communication could require additional staff support, he ventured. He noted that the reductions in overall police force staffing have not only affected sworn officers, but also civilian support staff. A lot of factors are also outside of the department’s control, he noted – like economic conditions, or the policies of other judicial systems. Seto summarized by saying that the department needed to continue to do what it is doing, and to increase some of the efficiencies through better communications. Invited to comment on the strategies and action items for the first success statement, councilmembers did not offer any feedback to Seto.

Police: Perceptions of Safety

Seto told the council that some additional direction on the second success statement might be required – noting that the perception of safety is highly subjective. One of the strategies listed is to participate in the National Citizens Survey to determine the current community perception of safety. He ventured that some councilmembers might remember that the last survey was conducted in 2008. So he was suggesting that another one could be done – to gather a more current measure of Ann Arbor residents’ perception of safety. Based on the results of the survey, additional action items could be generated, he suggested. The cost of the National Citizen Survey – a tool for measuring community perception of safety – is estimated to be around $15,000-$20,000, Seto told the council.

It’s all about visibility, he said, and allowing people to see the police. It’s also important to have accurate information available so that people have accurate statistical data about crime – instead of having to rely on what they hear from their neighbors. As challenges, Seto noted that there could be a trade-off between assigning additional resources to downtown foot patrols and the department’s ability to react effectively to other situations. That could have an impact on Part I crime rates.

Police: Council Reaction – Perception of Safety

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) said he appreciated the way the success statements are defined because the goal is not to hire officers – but rather to have a safe community. He wanted to keep that goal in front of the council and to talk about approaches to reaching that goal. But he said that the community’s perception of safety has to be taken with a great deal of caution. In connection with some high-profile sexual assaults recently, Warpehoski said people had an understandable fear about “strangers in the bushes, and parking garages,” but he pointed out that most sexual assaults take place in homes where the victim knows the assailant: Somebody might feel safe with someone they know, but might not actually be safe. So improving a sense of safety is not always about making an actually safer community, he said. He noted that it’s a nuanced issue.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Warpehoski felt that it was important for people to actually be safe, and then also feel safe as a function of that real safety. He indicated support for the use of the National Citizens Survey as a tool to measure perception of safety – but felt it was important to decide in advance of administering that survey a clear goal for the metrics.

If a clear standard were not identified before administering the survey, he feared that once the survey was done, whether the numbers reflected in the survey were too high or too low would a political discussion as opposed to a data-driven discussion. So he wanted to identify a specific numerical goal for perception of safety in the same way the council had identified a numerical goal for Part I crime rates.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) felt like there was probably some benchmark that would be reliable. Seto indicated that the 2008 survey data included benchmarks. If there were benchmarks associated with the 2008 survey, then Higgins wanted to know from Seto what was done with that information and what the results of the survey were. Seto told Higgins he would provide a link to a summary of the public safety portion of the survey. [.pdf of 2008 Ann Arbor National Citizens Survey]

Public safety results from 2008 Ann Arbor National Citizens Survey.

Police: Budgeting – Hiring, Staffing Level

When he laid out the costs for some of the action items, Seto indicated that an additional officer for fiscal year 2014 would cost $78,000 and in fiscal year 2015 it would be $86,000 – due to step increases, Seto explained.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked if there would be an explicit connection in the budget presented by Powers between the numbers and council’s priorities. Powers indicated there could be. One of the outcomes that would be helpful for the staff would be some council discussion on, for example, recurring revenues and recurring expenditures, he said. It would be useful for him to know where those revenues and expenditures coordinate, conflict, or collide with the priority area of policing and the need for additional resources.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) before the March 11 work session started.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated that his feedback on that question was: If we don’t have recurring revenues for something, we shouldn’t be making recurring expenditures associated with it. Petersen indicated that she wanted a notation in the proposed budget that specific expenses reflected the implementation of the council’s priorities.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) stated her expectation that the council’s priorities – especially those related to public safety – would be reflected in the proposed budget. And that doesn’t just mean how to spend new money, she said. It also means a reallocation of existing resources to the council’s priority areas. That’s how she interpreted the direction that the council had given the city administrator. Added personnel would be at a cost.

Last year Lumm had asked the question about the “magic number” for sworn officers. Some back-and-forth between Lumm and Seto established that the current authorized number of sworn officers is 119 and there are currently 117 officers, after recent hires. She wanted to see the city on a “glide path” to get to higher numbers, so that the police agency can become not just reactive but also proactive. She felt it is desirable to have additional foot patrols in the downtown, but at the same time it is important to balance that against pulling them from some other place.

Later in the working session, Seto indicated a problem with not knowing if somebody is going to be eliminated from the training program, which is what happened to one of the two people who were supposed to bring back the staff number of sworn officers to 119. Seto indicated that the department did not have a policy of staffing more than the authorized number of FTEs.

Lumm objected somewhat to the characterization of all the “new” hiring, saying that all of the new hires had replaced retired positions. She felt it was important to clarify that the size of the police force had not grown. She noted that the department had strategically held that number lower than 119 because of the overtime bill that has to be paid – so not filling those positions is freeing up the cash to pay for overtime. [Lumm's characterization was based on remarks made by Seto at the Feb. 25 working session.]

Powers weighed in to correct Seto’s statement about authorized staff levels. He noted that when there are talented, competent candidates, he’s given Seto authorization to hire above the 119 level. He’s given the chief direction to “over-hire” in the event that there are very highly qualified candidates who apply. Seto has also not been restricted in his hiring in order to achieve overtime pay, Powers said. Powers also noted that the department has proceeded with hiring replacements despite losing $350,000 in funding from the Ann Arbor Public Schools. So the staff’s direction – following the council’s priorities – has been to continue to strive to maintain the staffing level at 119 FTEs. He wanted to make sure that the staff understands the direction it’s been given by the city council is to maintain staffing – not to reduce it to offset overtime or to compensate for lost revenue from the Ann Arbor Public Schools.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) looked at the police department staffing levels as a whole in 2001, when the staff total – sworn officers and civilians – was 244. In 2009 the level was down to 209. And in 2013 the level was down to 146, which he characterized as a precipitous drop over the last five years. He didn’t figure that the city could make up 60 FTEs anytime soon, and he knew that Seto did not want to say what the magic number was for the right staffing level. But he felt like the city had a long way to go to return to being a proactive department.

So what he was hearing from the administration, Kunselman said, was that the council needs to find some revenue. He asked Powers if additional direction would need to come from the council in order to direct any additional revenue toward police and fire staffing. “Or will that be something that we can just assume that you are going to want to do?” Powers told Kunselman that one of the desired outcomes from that night was for the council to have some discussion in a work session setting regarding priorities. Given that feedback, Powers could – with Seto and Crawford – develop a proposed budget. If it’s not to the satisfaction of the city council, the council would have the opportunity to amend the proposed budget.

Police: Budgeting – Overtime

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) noted she had raised the question of overtime at a previous work session. Adding more police officers does not necessarily mean that the city would be spending more money, she contended, pointing out that this could result in a reduction in overtime. There is a “sweet spot,” she said, for the hiring of additional police officers, that would somewhat reduce overtime, even if it wasn’t dollar-for-dollar. In the ensuing back-and-forth, Seto indicated that he did not believe there was a great deal of efficiency to be gained by eliminating overtime.

But Kailasapathy wanted to find that “sweet spot.” Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) questioned why there are currently only 117 officers on the job, when the city had budgeted for 119. Seto indicated that the department would have been at full strength (119) but one of the officers to whom AAPD had made an offer declined at the last minute and took a job with a different department. Another one had not made it through the training program. Higgins wanted to know if 119 was the proper number of sworn officers that would optimize overtime costs.

Tom Crawford then gave a more detailed analysis of the department’s overtime expenditures, which total around $1.2 million. Only about $250,000 of that total amount is attributable to scheduling, he noted. Reimbursable overtime – like University of Michigan football games – cause a spike for a couple of months, but you would not hire FTEs to cover those spikes, he said, when the cost is covered by the university.

The next category of overtime is holiday pay and court appearances. For that category, as you add staff and proactive enforcement, that will cause an increase in overtime costs, Crawford explained. And that category of overtime costs has gone down as staffing levels overall have declined, he said. So if staffing levels were to increase again, he would expect overtime in that category also to increase. The smaller category of around $250,000 equates to about 8,000 hours of work per year, which would be 3-4 FTEs. He did not feel that hiring additional FTEs would help reduce that overtime. “You’re at a very low level of overtime already.” He allowed the council might have other reasons to want to increase police staffing levels, but he did not feel that the desire to reduce overtime expenses should be one of those reasons.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) questioned the equation of $250,000 to 3-4 FTEs. He pointed to the various costs per officer that had been provided – $78,000, $86,000 and $110,000 – so Taylor indicated that he had a tough time reconciling $250,000 with four FTEs. Crawford explained that he’d used the rate of overtime pay, and divided that into $250,000. So $250,000 divided by $30/hour yields roughly 8,000 hours of work. Given 2,000 work hours a year per employee, roughly, that works out to four employees, Crawford explained. Taylor did not seem illuminated by Crawford’s explanation, but allowed, “This may not be important enough to keep talking about.” Still, Taylor continued by suggesting that it seemed to him the calculation should be dividing $250,000 by the $78,000 or the $86,000 figure. Taylor eventually seemed convinced that hour-by-hour it’s cheaper to pay the overtime than to hire the FTEs.

Police: Staffing Levels – Core Functions

Kunselman raised the point that in addition to less crime and fewer police officers, the city also had less revenue coming from officers performing core responsibilities, like traffic enforcement.

Ann Arbor traffic citations: 2006-2012 [No data was available for 2010]

Ann Arbor parking violations: 2006-2012

Kunselman concluded that if the city wants to perform core responsibilities really well, they need to add to the number of FTEs in the police department. As an example, he noted that for a while the city had focused on pedestrian traffic safety. Then “all of a sudden” the hotspot was taxicab ordinance enforcement. [The taxicab ordinance enforcement was actually pushed by Kunselman, who chairs the city's taxicab board.] What’s going to be next? he wondered. He compared the approach to Whac-A-Mole where things are addressed in one area, but would pop up again in another place. It seemed to him that more FTEs were needed to perform core responsibilities, saying that the 60-FTE drop in the last five years was pretty significant in his mind. With all the talk about successes, he felt there are a lot of things that are still not getting done.

Total Ann Arbor police department staff strength: 1997-2012. CFO Tom Crawford cautioned against using simple staff levels as an indicator of the amount of police services being delivered to the community.

Seto reminded Kunselman that the 60 FTEs includes civilians. And Crawford pointed out that it’s difficult to draw conclusions from a chart. As an example, Crawford noted that by contracting with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office for dispatching services, the city was continuing to provide dispatch service – but not by using full-time city employees. That meant the FTE count went down, but the service was still being provided. In other cases, the FTE count might go down because the same service was transferred to a different department.

As examples, Crawford gave an information technology position that was transferred from the police department to IT, and accounting positions in the police department that were just absorbed by the accounting services department. Crawford also pointed out that through technology and capital investments, service levels can be increased, even though the FTE count might not stay the same. So he did not view the FTE count as the only way to evaluate how much service was being delivered.

Police: Proactive Policing

Seto recalled some remarks he’d made to the council at their previous work session, when he’d told them he felt the department was very effective at reacting. Statistics show the department is effective at making arrests, he said.

Ann Arbor physical arrests: 2006-2012

But there’s not a lot of flexibility in the staffing levels to allow for proactive engagement, Seto said. The proactive engagement that is currently done in the department is not at the same level as the department used to do, he said. Seto indicated that additional personnel would be needed, depending on the desired level of additional proactive and community engagement.

Police: Proactive Policing – Council Reaction

Higgins returned to the success statement the council had adopted related to proactive policing. Proactive policing can mean a lot of different things to different people, she said. She asked Seto to define what he was talking about. Seto indicated that the success statements were given to him by the city council. Higgins ask Seto again to define what proactive policing meant to him. Seto referenced the success statement: Officers will have 25-30% of their time available for proactive policing. He noted that the police department had developed an electronic data sheet that maintains accurately all of the activities the officers perform. That was rolled out in January, and it still has a few bugs in the system, Seto allowed. But he noted that each category of activity can be accurately captured.

In this extract from the city of Ann Arbor’s digital activity report system, 22 minutes were logged on downtown foot patrol.

He felt it would be possible to pull out specific categories – such as downtown foot patrol, or neighborhood patrol – and evaluate whether officer activities in those categories add up to 25-30%. And that could be the gauge that the department could use. But clear definitions of categories of activities that constitute proactive policing would need to be defined, he said. He allowed that his idea of proactive policing might differ a little bit from councilmembers.

Higgins told Seto that she still hadn’t heard what his definition of proactive policing is. He told Higgins it has to be dedicated time that is not obligated to respond to calls coming over the radio. Higgins ventured that it meant engaging one-on-one with the community. She imagined it meant when officers were on foot patrol in the downtown, talking with citizens and “just being personable.”

Seto agreed with that description, adding that it could mean taking an hour of time to go to a neighborhood association meeting, or visiting the schools. There are a lot of activities that he felt could be characterized as proactive. The parameter he would use, he said, would be that it’s time when you’re not answering the radio – you’re free to make contact with citizens and businesses.

Higgins ventured that an officer on a patrol could pull up to a city park and then take 15 minutes to take a stroll through the park and see what’s actually happening on the park grounds. Seto agreed, saying that is what officers do now as free time permits. The difference between the way the department approaches that now, and the way the department did previously, is that previously they would have an officer dedicated eight hours a day to do just that. Now it’s only as free time permits that officers would walk around in Briarwood Mall or around downtown, for example. Some of that can be accomplished now, Seto said, but not with as much flexibility.

Warpehoski indicated that his recollection from the planning retreat in late 2012 is that the definition of proactive policing had come from the consultant who facilitated that retreat. The consultant had referenced an outside standard. The 25-30% figure makes sense to him if it’s related to a third-party standard. If the city itself is coming up with a number and assigning some other definition to it, he was less certain. If the definition was something more akin to what Higgins and Seto had just described, and if that definition was unique to Ann Arbor, then the question of 25-30% as appropriate needed to be revisited, Warpehoski felt. His own definition of proactive policing would include the behaviors that Higgins had just described, but he wanted to get some clarity. He ventured that defining proactive policing was not something that Ann Arbor had to do completely on its own.

From left: mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and city administrator Steve Powers.

Taylor echoed what Warpehoski had said – and he wanted to push that sentiment even further. The success statement by the council, he said, struck him more as an action item rather than a separate goal.

Taylor felt that the goal is to be actually safe and to feel safe. If the way to achieve that goal is to have zero proactive policing – every officer in a patrol car just driving around town – that would be fine with him. If it means 50% proactive policing, “you tell me.” For his part, Taylor would “downshift” on the third success statement and focus in on the first two. “If you come back and tell me in order to get to one and two you need 25-30% of time available for proactive policing, I’d say, ‘Thank you, chief, we’ll see what we can do.’”

Seto told Taylor that the staff was simply trying to create some options for the success statement that the council had identified. Seto pointed out that one of the recommended action items was to develop standards for measuring the impact of proactive policing. He felt that proactive policing may have an impact on success statement number one, for example. Crime might go up, because there are more reported crimes – because people feel more comfortable reporting crimes. It also might have an impact on the perception of crime – positively or negatively.

Teall said that to her, the core function of policing was to respond to calls, and that core function needs to be completed in any case. To her, the percentage of proactive policing loses meaning. In her experience, when she contacts the police about issues in the neighborhood, they have been addressed reactively, but then intense proactive policing begins in an area that really needs that extra attention. If more proactive policing were done everywhere that would be great, she said, but she felt that it should in some sense be driven by a need and fed by reactive policing.

Seto indicated agreement with Teall. He agreed that the department is reactive to concerns identified by residents or by the city council – and that resulted in proactive efforts in a particular area. Seto also pointed out that the department gets requests for enforcement of traffic safety or traffic enforcement. So more proactive policing could be taking time away from traffic enforcement or other code enforcement in other areas, he explained. “It’s all a balancing act,” he said.

With respect to the balancing act, Warpehoski felt that Taylor’s idea – to look at the first two goals and then tell the council what it would take to achieve those goals – made a lot of sense. He encouraged a data-driven approach, alluding to a report from San Jose, California – academic research on the relationship between police staffing and crime. Citing that research, Warpehoski contended there is a general consensus that simply adding or subtracting police personnel will not impact crime. The report indicates that the “hotspot model” – identifying where there’s a problem and focusing resources there – does work. Seto noted that even with reduced police staffing, the long-term trends are that crime is down, not just here in Ann Arbor but in other communities as well.

Fire Protection

In Ann Arbor, the chief of police is also head of all public safety – so fire protection also falls under John Seto’s general administration. Seto gave the overview for the fire department draft work plan before inviting fire chief Chuck Hubbard to comment and respond to questions from councilmembers.

Problem: Current fire staffing and deployment is not optimized to meet the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards for Fire Suppression.
Success: Fire station locations, number and infrastructure are optimized to meet community needs and industry standards, within City resources.

Options from the draft work plan for fire safety:

• The Station Restructure Plan.
• Reduce minimum staffing by deploying light rescue vehicles, which can be operated with two fire personnel. This could reduce minimum staffing without closing any stations.
• Hire 23 new employees so that each of the existing 5 stations can be staffed with a minimum of 4 fire personnel each day given the current contract language for daily staffing.
• Work with employees to develop ways of maintaining minimum staffing.

Seto indicated that more clarification was needed – to determine what the community’s needs and desires are with respect to fire suppression and medical response. Should the department emphasize fire suppression, medical response, or both? [Later during the work session, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) told Seto that he was adamant that both fire suppression and medical response were priorities.]

Ann Arbor EMS responses: 2006-2012

Ann Arbor fires extinguished: 2006-2012

Seto told the council that more clarity was needed from them on that point. Depending on the answer to that question, Seto said, different action statements might be appropriate. The new station reconfiguration plan is a possibility. Also a possibility is reducing required staffing by deploying light rescue vehicles. Hiring 23 new employees was another possible action for the council to take – which would allow the operation of the current five stations with both fire suppression and medical response as priorities.

Fire Protection: Light Rescue Trucks

Margie Teal (Ward 4) indicated that light rescue vehicles had been talked about for a long time. She was not sure why the city had not already moved ahead in that direction. She felt it was pretty clear a while back that this would be a great cost saver. She wondered what the holdup was.

Ann Arbor fire chief Chuck Hubbard.

Fire chief Chuck Hubbard responded to Teall by explaining that the department had put in a bid for a light rescue vehicle a few months ago. In the final stages, he explained, the vendor “came up with some things that were not discussed initially” – so that vehicle had to be re-bid. The department is in the process of doing that right now.

Assistant city attorney Mary Fales, he said, is currently reviewing the request for proposals. As soon as she gives a green light, that light rescue vehicle will go out to bid again. He indicated that one light rescue vehicle was currently in service. Once the new RFP is issued and another vehicle is purchased, that would bring the total to two.

Fire Protection: What the Truck?

Mayor John Hieftje asked for an update on the tower truck the city is purchasing. Hubbard said he expected delivery of the new tower truck next month. The day after the work session, a final inspection was to be done in Dublin, Ohio, he said, where the truck is being built. He expected delivery of the truck by April.

Fire Protection: Inspections

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked about redeployment of staff to raise revenue as it relates to increased fire inspections. She told Hubbard that she had received some feedback from “customers” and she felt that there are a lot of people in the community questioning why there is suddenly an increase in annual fire inspections. Depending on the property class, inspections may not be required at all, or might be required only every two years, not annually, she observed. She said the justification and rationale for the inspections is not clearly understood. If it’s a safety enhancement policy that’s one thing, she said. It’s a revenue enhancement policy then “not so good,” she said.

Ann Arbor fire inspections: 2006-2012

Hubbard told Lumm that fire inspections are a proactive approach to safety. In the department’s past history, it had not been particularly diligent in that area. He could not speak to why that was – because he was not the chief at the time. “But under my tenure that has become a priority – to be proactive as opposed to react.” These inspections are critical, he said, for businesses and for tenants. He told Lumm that he’d received her email and there were some statements in it that were not accurate, and he would be responding to it. The annual compared to biannual inspection is one of the items, he said. Re-inspections can be required, he explained, if an issue is identified and the fire department inspector needed to return, to ensure that the problem had been rectified. Hubbard stressed that the inspection program is not designed to increase revenue but rather to increase safety for Ann Arbor’s citizens. “We want to prevent fires as opposed to going to put them out.”

Fire Protection: Station Restructuring Plan

Lumm asked about the fire station restructuring plan. She felt that the restructuring plan was based on the wrong premise and answering the wrong question. Rather than responding to the question of what the necessary staffing levels and equipment were, the restructuring plan was an attempt to optimize service, given staffing levels. Lumm wanted confirmation about the question of whether the plan is still “hanging out there.” Is this still being considered as a valid option? she asked.

Hubbard gave a straightforward answer: “As far as I’m concerned, yes. It is still a valid option.” He acknowledged that Lumm’s characterization was accurate – that the station reconfiguration plan had been designed around current staffing levels. He reminded Lumm that when he had put the plan together it was designed to meet the NFPA and the OSHA standards – to provide the best service the department possibly could with the staffing levels that it had. So he considered it to be a viable option.

Lumm wanted to know what the parameters were for framing the issue. She felt that the city was not looking at the issue in the right way.

Fire Protection: Station Reconfiguration

Kunselman passed along some praise from a constituent he’d met over the weekend who’d experienced a dryer fire in his house. Ann Arbor firefighters had gone “above and beyond” and had done everything in their power to save the constituent’s possessions. The constituent was also adamant that if the truck had to come from someplace else besides the Huron Parkway station [Station #6], the house would not have been saved. It’s that kind of concern that led Kunselman to conclude that closing any fire stations was not an option – whether there’s three people on the truck or four. What’s paramount, he said, is to get a truck on the scene, so that some kind of action could be taken.

Kunselman reported that he had attended one of the public meetings on the station reconfiguration proposal – at Cobblestone Farm. He’d heard from a heart attack victim, who told him that firefighter first responders had saved his life. Kunselman weighed in adamantly that the priority of the fire department should be both fire suppression and emergency medical response. He felt there should be a way to find a hybrid solution where the downtown fire station had the staffing to put four people on a truck, to cover the denser downtown area. He didn’t know how it would be possible to hire an additional 23 firefighters. But if the city could get a few more, he wondered if that might relieve the pressure to close stations. He felt it was very important to the community that a station in their neighborhood be open – so that they would feel safe and that they would be safer.

Fire Protection: Station Reconfiguration – Light Rescue Trucks

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked Hubbard if he was implying that the acquisition of additional light rescue vehicles could possibly mean that the existing five stations could be kept open as they are now. Hubbard explained that light rescue vehicles require only two personnel. The current labor contract with the firefighters union requires three personnel for any vehicle that carries water. Light rescue vehicles don’t carry water, but they are equipped with all the medical equipment and firefighter tools and gear. The only thing missing is water. So in a situation that might trigger overtime to staff a three-person truck, when there’s a two-person truck that can be put in service, that prevents the need to pay overtime to the third person, Hubbard explained. And that keeps the station open. If the community’s priority is for medical response, then a two-person rescue truck could staff the station. Petersen ventured that the answer to her question was yes, which Hubbard confirmed.

Teall questioned the idea that with one additional light rescue vehicle, all the stations could be kept open. She felt that depends on the community needs. For Kunselman’s example, she wondered what would happen if a three-person truck from the Huron Parkway station arrived at a fire: How many people could be sent in to fight the fire? Hubbard told Teall she was referring to the OSHA law – which requires a two-in-two-out deployment for a total of four firefighters on the scene before a firefighter could enter a burning building. That’s the principle that the restructuring plan was designed around.

The idea would be to put four firefighters on the scene together, so that they could safely attack the fire. He noted that a dryer fire, as in Kunselman’s example, is a lot different from a structure fire. When you pull up to an actual structure fire, you need the people, he explained. Teall asked if Kunselman’s example had been a structure fire, how would that have been different? Hubbard told her that there would have been a lot more to do, for one thing. Firefighters from other stations would have eventually arrived on the scene.

Map 1. Ann Arbor fire chief Chuck Hubbard’s plan is to protect the city from fires with three stations (red helmets): Station 1, Station 2, and Station 5. Closed would be Station 3, Station 6 and Station 4 (gray helmets). Station 2 is currently not used and would need to be re-opened. The light blue area is the part of the city that is reachable by at least four fighters within four minutes. Red dots indicate fire locations over the last decade.

What the restructuring was designed to do was to get four firefighters on the scene at the same time together – as opposed to arriving separately. When you arrive with three people instead of four, it’s rolling the dice, Hubbard said. If two people go in, they essentially don’t have an escape plan. Still, Hubbard said, “a firefighter is going to do their job.” The problem comes, he said, if someone gets killed or hurt. Then we have to answer the hard questions, he said: Why didn’t you have the two-in-two-out? Why didn’t you wait?

That’s why you try to design a plan that is safer for firefighters and for residents, Hubbard explained. The extra two minutes or three minutes to get everyone there is, in some cases, the time you need to take. In the station reconfiguration plan, for some areas of the city, the result was to actually get trucks on the scene much quicker, he said. It’s hard to have a fire station on every corner, Hubbard said.

Teall made clear that she was not opposed to the station reconfiguration plan. She felt it’s part of the efficiencies that Lumm had alluded to. She wondered if the council is going to have a discussion on the question of fire suppression versus medical response. She recalled having community conversations about the issue back in 2002. When Huron Valley Ambulance pulls up at the same time a “giant fire truck” rolls up, she said, the city is paying for the expense of that truck every time it leaves the station. She felt that the medical response issue needed to be discussed, and community needs should be determined.

Fire Protection: Station Reconfiguration – Two-in/Two-out

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) didn’t follow the logic that all four firefighters had to arrive at the same time. If three firefighters arrived on scene, she felt they could still start on the prep work. Why is there a fixation on the idea that all four firefighters need to arrive at the same time? she wondered.

Hubbard allowed that there are, in fact, outside operations that have to take place before the fire can be attacked. Even one person can at least pull the hose off the truck and get it laid out on the ground, he noted. But minutes count, he said. And if there’s a rescue situation, then that’s very labor intensive. It requires a lot of bodies, and you need them immediately. If four firefighters arrive together, they can start to put that plan together en route, and when they arrive they can go right to work, instead of waiting. And by waiting, he didn’t mean just standing there doing nothing – because there’s a lot of things you can do even without the four personnel. But if there’s a rescue situation, then there is a lot of very intensive work – ladders that need to be raised and the like – that needs to get done very quickly. If there is a possible rescue, he noted, the firefighters will go in. The problem comes when they’re trying to attempt a rescue and something goes wrong and there’s no one to come get them out.

Kailasapathy indicated she was not interested in exposing firefighters to an unsafe situation. She was not asking that firefighters enter a burning structure without having the required two-in-two-out configuration. At the same time, she felt that having four people arrive at the same time seemed to be a goal in and of itself. If time was a so important, then even if there were fewer people at a closer station, it would be better to get them there immediately, she felt.

Mayor John Hieftje indicated that it had come up many times in conversation – if there were three firefighters on scene, and a rescue needed to be performed, then they would attempt a rescue. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) told Hubbard that she was confused – because she had heard him say that every minute counted, but also that sometimes there was no choice but to just wait. Higgins indicated that Ward 4 under the current configuration has large sections that are within the acceptable time frame. Under the station reconfiguration plan, there were large sections of the ward that had unacceptable time limits.

Higgins told Hubbard that when he said the station reconfiguration plan is “still on the table,” she did not feel it was still on the council table. She did not know that the council had said yes or no to it. She only knew that the plan had been introduced to the community at public meetings. She did not feel like the council had continued that dialogue at the council table – about whether to go forward with it. She felt the council had not yet given the fire chief enough input to give clear direction about whether the station reconfiguration plan was the right path or not. The council had not done its job in giving the fire chief clear direction, she said. Hubbard agreed with Higgins’ assessment.

Fire Protection:  Station Reconfiguration – Decision

Hieftje then indicated it was very apparent to him that the fire station restructuring plan “isn’t going anywhere.” He felt it would be beneficial to take it off the table and if a vote of the council was needed to do that, than the council could vote. But he felt it was already very apparent that it was not going anywhere. He didn’t feel that it had anywhere close to a majority of the council’s support. “So this might be a good time to just say: Let’s work with the stations we have.”

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) hews to the old adage that it doesn’t work if you don’t plug it in.

Lumm quipped that she wanted to make a motion. Hieftje cautioned that the council did not make decisions at working sessions. Higgins picked up on Hieftje’s wording that the city would continue to work with the stations it has – but she pointed out that the city still has a station that is closed [Station #2]. She’s heard repeatedly that Station #2 is an integral piece of the station reconfiguration plan because of its location. She wondered what the final cost would be a staffing all six stations. She was interested in seeing that analysis.

Taylor understood the station reconfiguration proposal not as something that the city was definitely planning to do. Hubbard had been queried about it, and had said it remained a possibility in the world of possibilities. It was a useful topic of conversation, Taylor felt. It was useful to have the clarity of Hieftje’s understanding of sentiment around the table. Taylor felt it was useful for the public to understand that the station reconfiguration proposal was not something that was before the council for its consideration.

Kunselman thanked Hieftje for making sure that the station reconfiguration plan doesn’t go anywhere. Lumm thanked the mayor for saying loudly and clearly that the proposal is no longer “hanging out there” as a possibility.

Fire Protection: Education

Warpehoski said he’d had frequent chats with a retired firefighter who lives in his ward and who talked about the need for fire prevention and education. Warpehoski ventured that if he had a dryer fire in his house, there would be several minutes spent smelling the smoke, wondering what it was, and figuring out what to do before calling 911. Community training in recognizing signs of dryer fire, for example, could be useful in reducing the time between a fire actually making a 911 call.

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!

Three of the areas generated immediate consensus among the 11 councilmembers: (1) city budget and fiscal discipline; (2) public safety; and (3) infrastructure. Two additional areas were drawn from a raft of other possible issues as those to which the council wanted to devote time and energy: (4) economic development; and (5) affordable housing.

Five issues identified by the Ann Arbor city council as the areas they’d like to invest time and energy in the coming year: (1) city budget and fiscal discipline; (2) public safety; (3) infrastructure; (4) economic development; and (5) affordable housing. (Photos by the writer.)

Possibly more important than the five areas of focus were the answers councilmembers developed to two questions about each area: (1) What is the problem we are solving? and (2) What does success look like?

Based on remarks at the conclusion of the evening, councilmembers seemed almost universally enthusiastic with the outcome of the planning session, which was facilitated by Julia Novak of the Novak Consulting Group. Novak holds a masters degree in public administration from the University of Kansas – the same program where Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers obtained his degree. However, the two did not overlap there as students.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who’d helped plan the format and content of the session during budget committee meetings over the last two months, said: “I think the engagement among councilmembers tonight was extraordinary.” She attributed that engagement at least in part to the fact that councilmembers were asked not to bring their laptop computers or cellphones to the session.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) felt that having an objective facilitator helped. And Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) thought that Novak did a good job keeping the council focused on not presupposing solutions, but rather on trying to clearly define what problem the council is trying to solve.

The general enthusiasm among councilmembers  for the two-question approach that Novak took carried over to the work of a five-member city council committee on public art that met the following day. The group actively attempted to apply the problem/success approach to their work.

Somewhat dubious about one of the problem statements – in connection with public safety – was Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), who still wondered at the end of the session about the implications of the word “optimize.”

This report includes the consensus problem/success statements for each of the areas of focus. The report also provides a more detailed look at how the council moved from an initial draft to its final consensus on one of those priorities – public safety.

The following summary of the council’s answers to the key questions are taken from Chronicle notes, not the final report from Novak, which is expected in about a week, according to city administrator Steve Powers. Added on Dec. 20 after initial publication: [Novak's report of Dec. 10 planning session]

Fiscal Responsibility

What is the problem we are solving? To provide efficient, quality service delivery in the face of the projected gap between revenue and expenses.

What does success look like? Prioritizing expenditures while matching them with revenues over the long term.

Public Safety

The public safety area was divided into fire protection and police protection.

Public Safety (Final Version): Fire

What is the problem we are solving? Fire staffing and deployment is not optimized to meet National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards for fire suppression.

What does success look like? Fire station locations, number, and infrastructure are optimized to meet community needs and industry standards within city resources.

Public Safety (Final Version): Police

What is the problem we are solving? There’s inadequate police staffing resources to do proactive and consistent enforcement and community outreach.

What does success look like? The success statement has three parts:

1. Part 1 crime rates (major crimes) show Ann Arbor is among the safest 20% in the country.
2. The community perception of safety is high.
3. Police officers have between 25-30% of their time available for proactive policing.

Infrastructure

What is the problem we are solving? Lack of a coordinated urban core transportation plan that includes road conditions, pedestrian safety, lighting, signage, buses, and stormwater management.

What does success look like? A transportation system that effectively and efficiently moves people regardless of mode.

Economic Development

What is the problem we are solving? Create tax revenue separate from the University of Michigan, and the need to further increase and diversify private sector employment in the local economy.

What does success look like?

1. Creating diverse employment opportunities in various fields and industries.
2. Ann Arbor has an earned reputation as an attractive place to create, relocate, and maintain businesses.
3. Quality of life is maintained and improved.

Affordable Housing

What is the problem we are solving?

1. The continuing lack of affordable housing units.
2. The lack of routine and emergency maintenance for existing units, which includes deferred maintenance and a lack of systematic capital investment.

What does success look like?

1. Additional units – public, private, and nonprofit – are created for a variety of family configurations across the continuum of care.
2. All city-owned properties are at a good level of maintenance.
3. A plan for routine maintenance is in place.

Public Safety: Path to Final Version

The consensus versions of each of the problem/success statements emerged from a discussion by the council as a body. But they started from draft versions that pairs of councilmembers worked on for about 15 minutes separately. It was the only instance of smaller group work at the planning session. The council’s budget committee, in preparing for the session, had given direction against splitting the council into smaller groups during the session. Budget committee members felt that use of smaller groups in the planning sessions of years past had ultimately had a dividing effect on the council.

Facilitator Julia Novak appeared to resort to the pair-work strategy on that specific task only as a way to save some time. The time allotted for the planning session had been reduced by the length of a special meeting of the council – which was held at the originally scheduled start time for the planning session. That special meeting was called in order to approve a resolution of protest against state legislation that has been passed, which includes Washtenaw County in a regional transit authority (RTA).

For four of the five main areas of focus, the draft problem/success statements underwent relatively minor revision when the council as an entire body discussed them. However, the problem/success statement for public safety underwent significant revision.

Here’s the draft produced by councilmembers Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3):

Public Safety: Initial Draft

What is the problem we are solving? 

1. Lack of adequate staffing levels to meet community and industry standards.
2. Closing of two fire stations. [The proposal, still being weighed by the city, is to close three stations and re-open one – for a net reduction of two stations. For background, including the resulting staffing model if this approach is implemented, see Chronicle coverage: "A Closer Look at Ann Arbor's Fire Station Plan."]

What does success look like?

1. Incremental increases in police and fire staffing.
2. Optimize the cost/benefit equation.
3. Meet community needs and expectations for community standards enforcement and public safety.
4. Metrics indicate improvement in public safety.
5. Fire station location, number and infrastructure is optimized to meet community needs and industry standards.

Beginning with the issue of adequate staffing levels expressed in the problem statement, Novak asked if the issue being identified was that response times are too long.

Lumm responded by drawing a distinction between police and fire services, saying that for fire services, the issue is response time, but for police services it’s related to enforcement.

Public Safety: Path to Final Version – Fire

The outcome of the next few minutes of discussion was to divide the issue into fire protection services and police services. Mayor John Hieftje felt the goal should be to optimize fire services for the community, but he was a little “leery” about mentioning specific strategies, saying he’d prefer to have staff work on strategies. He described a hypothetical collaboration between the city of Ann Arbor and the townships of Ann Arbor and Pittsfield. Combining some stations with Pittsfield Township could hypothetically provide better fire protection services without necessarily adding staff, he ventured.

Julia Novak was the facilitator for the Ann Arbor city council’s planning session held on Dec. 10, 2012.

Hieftje’s basic point was that he didn’t think staffing levels needed to be in the problem/success statements. Novak returned to the basic question: What’s the problem with fire services right now? Kunselman responded to the question by saying: “Not enough fire staff.” Several of Kunselman’s colleagues responded to his statement with “That’s not the problem.” Kunselman was adamant, saying that insufficient staffing had led to the proposal to close two fire stations, and concluded: “That would be a problem to me.”

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) responded to Kunselman’s view by noting that the problem identified in the proposal to reconfigure fire stations [closing three, opening one, for a net loss of two fire stations] was that current firefighting staff is not deployed in a manner that maximizes the city’s ability to get four people on the scene within four minutes. “That was the exact problem,” Taylor concluded.

Novak attempted to draw out some consensus: “Current staffing does not allow us to meet NFPA standards – that’s the problem we’re trying to solve?” Taylor indicated that current resources are not allocated in an optimal manner – and that was a problem that was proposed to be solved – with existing resources.

Novak ventured that it was a very clear problem statement – that current fire staffing does not allow the city to meet NFPA standards. Taylor wanted to retain the idea that the issue concerned optimization. Tentatively summarizing the problem statement, Novak moved to the success statement: “If you’re not currently optimized to meet NFPA standards, success looks like?” The answer from Sabra Briere (Ward 1) was simply, “Meeting NFPA standards.” Lumm wanted to make sure to include more than just NFPA standards, saying, “community and industry standards.”

Taylor offered as an alternative: “Utilizing available resources to meet the standards as best we can.” That was essentially a point of disagreement, highlighted by Lumm’s response to Taylor. Lumm contended it’s not about maintaining existing levels, and it’s not about utilizing existing resources. It’s about elevating the issue to identify adequate staffing levels. The issue, Lumm contended, is “lack of.”

Kunselman added that it’s not just an issue of fire suppression response, but also first medical response. He cautioned against solving one problem but creating another. Novak re-stated Kunselman’s point as a worry that solving the fire suppression problem and meeting the NFPA standards could create another problem – of not providing sufficient EMS response. Hieftje was quick to say that he thinks the city has very good EMS response, provided by Huron Valley Ambulance.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) then sought to resolve the different points of view by saying he was hearing an attempt to have the policy debate right then – and he wanted to focus on defining the problem. He allowed that the council was going to have a debate on the policy question through the whole budget cycle.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) ticked through three elements of the problem as he saw it, which left two fingers for additional elements.

But for the purposes of the planning session exercise that Novak was asking them to complete, Warpehoski suggested finding how to express the problem in a way that allows for increased firefighter staffing of five stations, but also doesn’t automatically say that’s the solution. Warpehoski continued by saying that he was hearing three elements to the problem: (1) meeting the national and community standards; (2) how resources are allocated; and (3) how many resources the city throws at the problem. And the council is trying to bring those three things into alignment, Warpehoski ventured.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) indicated she wanted to add one more element. Warpehoski, who had counted out the elements on his fingers, which he still held aloft, quipped: “I’ve got two more fingers.” Petersen’s additional element was the perception of safety. There’s the issue of whether standards are being met, she allowed, but what she hears from constituents concerns the perception of safety. Yes, with just three fire stations, Ann Arbor may meet the standards – because enough firefighters are staffed at each one. “But do residents feel more safe?” she asked.

Perception, Petersen ventured, is a “tougher nut to crack.” Warpehoski indicated he felt that the phrase “community and industry standards” incorporated the notion of perception. Novak returned the council’s attention to the problem statement: “Current fire staffing is not optimized to meet current NFPA standard for fire suppression.” Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) seemed skeptical, saying that she wanted clarity whether the reference to staffing dealt with levels, or configuration of staffing. Was the council saying that instead of having three people in four places, it would also be okay to have six people in two places?

Briere and Margie Teall (Ward 4) responded to Kailasapathy by stressing that the issue was optimization. For Kailasapathy, optimization indicated that the council was content with current levels of staffing. Teall responded by saying that it’s not a statement about staffing levels, but rather a statement about optimization. “The number is not enough, is that what we’re saying?” asked Kailasapathy. No, answered Teall, saying “There are other ways to optimize.”

Briere ventured that at that point they were supposed to be trying to define the problem, not the solution. Novak supported Briere’s comment by suggesting that there’s not a clear solution contained in the statement: “Fire staffing and deployment is not optimized to meet NFPA standards for fire suppression.” It doesn’t point you toward a solution, Novak ventured. That problem statement could result in a solution that doubles the number of firefighters at all five of the city’s current fire stations – or it could mean putting all the firefighters in three stations and doing it differently. Those are just the two extremes, Novak said.

Novak indicated that the success statement corresponding to that problem statement is: “Fire station locations, number, and infrastructure is optimized to meet community needs and industry standards.” Taylor wanted some reference to the resources that are available. Teall responded to Taylor by indicating she was hearing a desire by some councilmembers to revisit that. Taylor argued that without regard to whether current staffing levels are proper or improper, he felt they could all agree that the solution should be guided by the resources the city has available.

Novak restated the success statement as: “Fire station locations, number, and infrastructure are optimized to meet community needs and industry standards within city resources.”

Public Safety: Path to Final Version – Police

The council moved on to handle the police services part of public safety. Novak began by eliciting reasons for including police staffing levels as part of the problem statement. Kailasapathy offered that people don’t stop at stop signs anymore, because they know it won’t be enforced. It’s not about having a low crime rate, she said, but rather those things that have an impact on how safe the environment is – for children to walk, for example.

Novak wondered if the inadequate police staffing resources were related to the ability to do proactive enforcement and outreach. Lumm rejected the idea that it was just about outreach and education. “It’s about improvements in public safety,” Lumm said, as indicated by specific metrics. Novak told Lumm that would be handled in the success statement – and Novak wanted to focus on defining the problem. Petersen ventured that to her, it was a matter of having enough police to ensure public safety.

As the conversation seems to stall out a bit, Novak then told councilmembers, after quipping that police chief John Seto should plug his ears: “I’m kind of pushing you guys a little bit … because it’s really easy to just say, ‘Hire more police officers – that’s the answer to everything.’ And that’s what you might need to do – I’m not making any judgment. But I want you to tell me what the problem is that more police officers are going to solve.”

Briere responded to Novak’s challenge by observing that people complain in two ways – that the city fails to enforce existing ordinances, and also that the city enforces ordinances too aggressively. Both of those are complaints that councilmembers have heard, Briere noted. What that meant to her is that police are unable to enforce our ordinances consistently. Kunselman added “It’s complaint driven.” Novak suggested as useful phrasing to add to the problem statement: “effective and consistent enforcement.”

Hieftje floated the idea that what people were talking about amounted to a traffic problem – which met with little support from others on the council. Novak took another shot at phrasing the problem statement: “There’s inadequate police staffing resources to do proactive and consistent enforcement and community outreach.” She asked councilmembers if that expressed the problem they were trying to solve.

Ann Arbor chief of police John Seto.

Taylor wanted the statement to acknowledge that crime is at an historic low. Lumm countered that it’s possible that crime is only apparently low and that lower reported crime levels are a function of fewer police to take the reports. Hieftje put the question to police chief John Seto. Seto indicated that for Part 1 crime – a classification of serious crimes – he felt most of them are reported, because they’re very serious crimes. Most people who have their houses broken into report it, and most people who are robbed report that, he said. Part 2 crime is something that takes a little more analysis, Seto said. Those crimes might be reported less frequently – giving as an example an offense like theft of a lawn ornament – if there’s a perception that the police are not going to deal with it.

Higgins wondered if lower staffing levels could still impact response time and follow-up for Part 1 crimes, even if reporting of the crimes wasn’t affected. Seto allowed that the response time and also the follow-up could be impacted. Novak asked Seto if the Ann Arbor police department’s clear rates and response times were lower. Seto thought that would take a little more analysis – but he indicated those metrics are currently tracked. Novak ventured that, generally speaking, Part 1 crimes are probably not what councilmembers were talking about. “You don’t have a crime problem,” she said. “You have a quality-of-life type enforcement issue problem, which is community expectation here.”

Lumm again floated some language from the original draft of the success statement: “Optimizing the cost benefit staffing model for public safety, for police staffing.” Novak appreciated Lumm’s sentiments, but said that the phrasing Lumm was using was not familiar to her – in terms of how people talk about proactive policing. Novak wanted the councilmembers at that point to focus on what success would look like. About Lumm’s suggestion, Briere asked: How do you know when you’ve optimized the deliverable – the response time, the clearance rate, the sense of public safety that people have? Lumm ventured that there are natural break points along the spectrum, but she didn’t think that the council would be able to decide that during the planning session. Lumm just wanted to make a general statement.

Teall returned to Petersen’s earlier statement about the perception of safety. Novak suggested that if the community perception of safety is high, that would be an indication of success. She pointed out that in national surveys there are certain bellwether questions about safety: Do you feel safe in your neighborhood? Do you feel safe in parks? Do you feel safe in parks during the day? Do you feel safe in parks at night? Certain questions lead you toward an index of a perception of safety, Novak said.

Novak then paused to ask Seto if the Ann Arbor police department currently tracks the amount of officer availability for proactive policing. She went on to explain for councilmembers that this meant the time available to officers after subtracting the time they spent on dispatched calls for service. Seto indicated that right now, police officer activities are tracked – but it’s a manual tracking on a datasheet written using pen and paper. Analyzing that would require quite a bit of effort, he said. However, the department is currently testing an online system. And in January the department will start recording officer activity electronically. That will provide a much easier way of reporting the amount of time available for proactive policy.

Novak suggested to the council that although this data is not available now, over time they’d have it. And that data would provide insight into the council’s perception of the problem. As a group, their perception of the problem is that there are inadequate staffing resources to do proactive, consistent enforcement and committee outreach. “Part 1 crimes are not your worry,” Novak told them, “It’s Part 2 crimes, and it’s the community’s perception of safety that you want to get a handle on.”

After some back and forth by Briere and Hieftje on graffiti and other Part 2 crimes, Novak suggested there were three elements to the success statement: (1) Part 1 crime rates show Ann Arbor is among the safest 20% in the country. (2) The community perception of safety is high. (3) Police officers have between 25-30% of their time available for proactive policing.

That kind of success statement is one for which councilmembers will have the metrics to judge, Novak said. And then the council will know “if, for a fact, the answer is adding cops.”

The public safety priority area wound up with the following problem/success statements (repeated from above):

Public Safety

The public safety area was divided into fire protection and police protection.

Public Safety (Final Version): Fire

What is the problem we are solving? Fire staffing and deployment is not optimized to meet National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards for fire suppression.

What does success look like? Fire station locations, number, and infrastructure are optimized to meet community needs and industry standards within city resources.

Public Safety (Final Version): Police

What is the problem we are solving? There’s inadequate police staffing resources to do proactive and consistent enforcement and community outreach.

What does success look like? The success statement has three parts:

1. Part 1 crime rates (major crimes) show Ann Arbor is among the safest 20% in the country.
2. The community perception of safety is high.
3. Police officers have between 25-30% of their time available for proactive policing.

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!

According to fire chief Chuck Hubbard, the city currently has three vacancies, or 79 firefighters on staff.

The $321,000 from the SAFER grant for each of the next two years will be allocated for three firefighter positions, which the city estimates will cost $255,000 (at $85,000 per position). The remaining $66,000 per year will be spent on other unspecified fire services needs, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution – including overtime and fleet expenses. Hiring a fourth firefighter would require using $19,000 of fund balance, according to the memo.

The budget amendment was anticipated based on the city council’s budget deliberations and final FY 2013 budget resolution earlier this year on May 22, 2012, which directed the city administrator to submit a proposal to amend the budget and hire additional firefighters if the SAFER grant were to be awarded.

At the same Aug. 9 meeting, the council also authorized $1,043,685 from its fleet fund to purchase a new 2013 Sutphen model SPH100 mid-mount aerial platform – a “tower truck.” The department currently has two aerial trucks. The new purchase replaces a 1999 Emergency One brand 100-foot ladder truck – but it will be kept as a “reserve” aerial truck in the department. The department also has a 1996 Emergency One brand 100-foot aerial truck, which will be kept as a secondary aerial truck. Whichever Emergency One aerial truck first starts to have maintenance and repair costs that exceed its value will be retired from service – and the other truck will remain as a reserve.

The new truck is expected to arrive in 10-12 months.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

It’s a program that takes four years to finish – with one 10-day course completed each year at the Emmitsburg, Maryland campus. The curriculum includes: (1) executive development; (2) executive analysis of community risk reduction; (3) executive analysis of fire service operations in emergency management; and (3) executive leadership. Each year requires the completion of an applied research project.

Brow’s applied research project for 2010 was an analysis of fire risk caused by upholstered furniture placed on porches. The 48-page report was entitled: “Reducing the Risk of Couch Fires on Porches in University Off-campus Student Housing.” The Ann Arbor city council passed an ordinance on Sept. 20, 2010 that bans upholstered furniture from outdoor porches, if the furniture is not designed for that use.

In a phone interview, Tom Olshanski of the U.S. Fire Administration press office explained to The Chronicle that admission to the executive fire officer program is highly competitive – with around four applications for each of the 160 spots offered annually. The cost to firefighters who are enrolled in the course, Olshanski said, is limited to their food while on campus. USFA covers travel, lodging and the cost of the course itself. Since the inception of the program 24 years ago, around 3,000 firefighters across the county have completed the executive fire officer program, he said.

In the couple of weeks leading up to the May 21, 2012 meeting, councilmembers had their hands literally full with the FY 2013 budget. (Photo by the writer, taken on May 18.)

The amendments approved by the council included modifications that added a secretary position to the 15th District Court, increased human services funding by $46,899, added $78,000 to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission budget, and eliminated a contract with RecycleBank to administer a coupon program to encourage residents to recycle.

One resolution – which did not actually modify the budget – simply directed the city administrator to bring a future mid-year budget amendment to add up to six firefighters to the budget – if a federal grant and increased state fire protection allocations materialize.

Amendments that were brought forward, but that did not win council approval, included a proposal to leave money in various city funds, totaling $307,299, instead of transferring that amount to the public art fund. Also failing to win approval was an amendment that would give a specific interpretation to the city’s downtown development authority tax increment finance (TIF) capture ordinance – that would have benefited the city’s general fund by around $200,000. Both of those amendments were brought forward by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Another amendment that failed would have restored loose leaf collection service in the fall, as well as holiday tree pickup. And an amendment to fund additional police officers also did not succeed. Both of those amendments were proposed by Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Lumm was joined by Mike Anglin (Ward 5) in dissenting on the final budget vote.

The total expenditure budget for FY 2013 as proposed – across all funds, including utilities, solid waste and the like – came to $404,900,312 in revenues against $382,172,603 in expenses.

The originally proposed budget for the much smaller general fund – out of which the city pays for services like fire and police, planning, financial services, administration, parks and recreation – showed $79,193,112 in revenues against expenses totaling $78,869,750 for a planned surplus of $323,362. The following year, FY 2014, had been projected to be basically a break-even year.

The cumulative impact of the amendments approved by the council on Monday night increased expenditures to $79,070,842 against revenues of $79,193,112, for a surplus of $122,270. Below is a detailed list of proposed amendments and outcomes.

• Increase District Court budget by $76,193 to add a secretary position. Outcome: Approved on a 10-1 vote, with Jane Lumm (Ward 2) dissenting. The amendment was put forward by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).
  The increased expenditure did not identify a source of funds other than to tap the general fund. Rationale for the added position was that it restored a job that had been eliminated when it was uncertain whether Gov. Rick Snyder would appoint a replacement for judge Julie Creal, who resigned in 2011. Joe Burke was eventually appointed on Feb. 15, 2012 to replace her. The argument for adding the position was essentially that Burke needs the support staff.
• Policy Direction: Upon receipt of additional funding for fire protection from the federal or state government, make a future mid-year budget amendment to hire up to six additional firefighters for a total of 88 firefighters. Outcome: Approved on a unanimous vote. The amendment was put forward by Margie Teall (Ward 4).
  The funding for additional firefighters would potentially be a combination of a federal grant – for which the city has applied through a FEMA program called Staffing for Adequate Fire & Emergency Response grants (SAFER) – and possible increases in the state of Michigan’s fire protection allocation to municipalities that are home to state-owned institutions like the University of Michigan. The number of 88 had been identified by fire chief Chuck Hubbard as ideal at a working session conducted on March 12, 2012.
• Define DDA TIF capture on an interpretation of Chapter 7 that’s different from that of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, add $199,360 to general fund, and add two firefighter positions. Outcome: Rejected on a 3-8 vote. The amendment was put forward by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). It got support only from Kunselman, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).
  The interpretation of Chapter 7 was controversial since it was first identified last year by city financial staff as having an impact on the amount of tax increment finance (TIF) capture to which the Ann Arbor DDA is entitled in its downtown district. For more detail see: “Column: Let’s Take Time on Ann Arbor Budget.” The interpretation of the ordinance and method of calculation of the TIF capture proposed by Kunselman would have had a substantial impact on the city’s revenue, as well as that of other taxing authorities in the DDA district, including the Ann Arbor District Library.
• Increase human services allocation by $46,899. Outcome: Approved on a unanimous vote. The amendment was brought forward by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sandi Smith (Ward 1).
  Last year for FY 2012, the council amended the proposed budget to increase human service funding by $85,600, to bring the total allocation to nonprofits providing human services to $1,244,629. Compared to the originally proposed FY 2012 human services amount, this year’s FY 2013 amount is about $39,000 greater. But that reflects a $46,899 decrease from the level to which the council amended the budget last year.
• Decrease mayor/council travel budget by $6,500. Outcome: Rejected on a 2-9 vote. The amendment was brought forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), and won support only from Briere and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).
  The amount of $6,500 appears to arise out of an allocation of $550 for each of 10 councilmembers and $1,000 for the mayor. Two years ago on March 1, 2010, as the council was giving direction to then-city administrator Roger Fraser, a proposal was made to direct Fraser to eliminate travel for the mayor and councilmembers. The council decided on that occasion to preserve mayor John Hieftje’s allocation of $1,000.
• Eliminate RecycleBank funding, with virtually no impact this year to the solid waste budget. Outcome: Approved on a 8-3 vote. The amendment was brought forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). It was opposed by Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).
  RecycleBank administers a coupon-based reward program that is intended to increase rates of curbside recycling in the city. At its Sept. 19, 2011 meeting, the city council voted to retain the contract it had signed the previous year with RecycleBank. Leading up to that vote, there had been some interest on the council in canceling the contract entirely – because it was not clear that the impact of the coupon-based incentives was commensurate with the financial benefit to the city. But the council settled on a contract revision that was favorable to the city. The cost of continuing the contract this year would be $103,500. The cost of canceling is $107,200 – $90,000 in an equipment purchase settlement in accordance with terms of the contract and $17,200 for 60 days of contractual notice. Savings will be realized in subsequent years.
• Eliminate $307,299 in transfers to public art. Outcome: Rejected on a 2-9 vote. The amendment was brought forward by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). It got support only from its two sponsors.
  The amendment stipulated that the transfers from various city funds into the public art fund would not take place, “notwithstanding city code” – a reference to the city’s Percent for Art ordinance. The Percent for Art ordinance requires that 1% of all capital improvement projects, up to a cap of $250,000 per capital project, be set aside for public art. The amendment would have prevented the transfer of $60,649 out of the drinking water fund, $22,400 out of the stormwater fund, $101,750 out of the sewer fund, and $122,500 out of the street millage fund. The council had re-debated its public art ordinance most recently at its May 7, 2012 meeting, in the context of a sculpture for the Justice Center lobby, which was ultimately approved.
• Increase Ann Arbor Housing Commission budget by $78,000 to offset cost of allocating retiree healthcare costs. Outcome: Approved on a unanimous vote. The amendment was brought forward by Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).
  The resolution did not identify a source of revenue other than the general fund surplus to pay for the increase. However, the resolution made clear that the increase was for one year only, to give the AAHC time to find additional revenue. The increase to AAHC is intended to offset the additional costs to AAHC from the new method of allocating retiree health costs to different departments – based on where the liability is accruing. For the city’s general fund departments, this resulted in decreased costs this year totaling around $1 million. But for some organizations within the city, like AAHC, it resulted in increased costs. For detail on retiree cost allocation methodology, see The Chronicle’s coverage of a Feb. 13, 2012 working session.
• Count golf course support as parks support. Outcome: Approved with dissent only from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). The amendment was brought forward by Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).
  The background to the amendment is a 2006 administrative policy approved by the council in connection with the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage. Among other things, under the 2006 administrative policy, general fund support for parks will decrease only in concert with the rest of the general fund budget. The council has revised the 2006 administrative policy twice previously. On May 17, 2010, the city council revised the 2006 administrative policy to eliminate the natural area preservation program’s automatic 3% increase, and reset NAP funding to levels proportionate with other programs. And on May 16, 2011 the council revised the 2006 administrative policy to allow non-millage funds to count as general fund support for the parks, for purposes of the policy that require general fund support. The parks maintenance and capital improvements millage will likely be put on the ballot for renewal in the Nov. 6, 2012 general election.
  The result of the other budget amendments that the council passed on the evening of May 21 would have triggered a need to adjust parks funding upwards by $49,000. The budget amendment on golf support did not change the 2006 administrative policy. Rather, it stipulated that the $272,220 included in the FY 2013 budget proposal as a transfer to the golf courses covered the adjustment (the $49,000) that would have been required to meet the 2006 policy.
• Restore non-containerized fall leaf collection and holiday tree pickup, through a one-time use of $383,000 and recurring use of $275,280 money from the solid waste fund. Outcome: Rejected on a 3-8 vote. The amendment was brought forward by Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Joining her in support were only Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).
  The one-time use of funds would be for purchasing two sweeper/pusher vehicles. The amendment also called for recurring use of $275,280 to pay for labor/equipment costs. Of that amount, $25,204 would have gone to fund the curbside pickup of holiday trees. The amendment called for a range of different savings within the solid waste fund that might have been used to fund the recurring costs, including savings from the elimination of the RecycleBank contract.
• Add up to 10 sworn police officers – five to be funded through a federal Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant and five to be funded through reductions in other departments. Outcome: Rejected with support only from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). The amendment was brought forward by Lumm.
  The five positions to be added through the COPS grant would have been added only if the grant were awarded. The other five positions would have been funded from non-specific cuts to other city general fund departments: mayor and council ($8,957); 15th District Court ($94,617); public services ($192,265); and human resources ($35,939). The amendment also called for higher cost recovery for officers for which the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) contracts.

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