Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) sets up his presentation on the Local Development Finance Authority (LDFA) before the start of the April 12 council budget meeting. Rapundalo sits on the LDFA board as the Ann Arbor city council’s representative, and currently chairs the board.

At the April 12 budget meeting, the council heard presentations on two related entities: the Local Development Finance Authority (LDFA) and Ann Arbor SPARK. The LDFA contracts with Ann Arbor SPARK for various business development services.

The two key themes that emerged from the LDFA presentation were consistent with the overall topic of the city’s budget: (i) Where does the LDFA get its money? and (ii) What does the LDFA spend its money on?

Part of the LDFA’s revenue goes towards economic development activities – a business accelerator – for which it contracts with Ann Arbor SPARK. The presentation to the council from SPARK’s CEO, Michael Finney, was followed by testimonials of companies who said they had benefited from SPARK’s efforts.

Development activities are just one kind of investment that the LDFA could make under its TIF (tax-increment financing) plan. It could also make investments in physical infrastructure. During question time, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) drew out from Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) the possibility that the LDFA could contemplate an investment in a fiber-optic network. Rapundalo, who serves on the LDFA board, indicated that such an LDFA investment might be possible, even if Google does not select Ann Arbor as a test community for its current fiber-optic initiative.

The council also heard from the economic development community about how the name “Ann Arbor” is perceived in the rest of the world.

The part of the council’s meeting dedicated to deliberations on its own budget was comparatively brief. Councilmembers were keen to portray in a positive light a couple of different issues, among them a potential increase in the city’s debt load resulting from a failure to complete a $3 million sale of property at First & Washington, as well as proposed increases in water rates.

Local Development Finance Authority (LDFA)

The presentation to councilmembers on the LDFA was made by their colleague, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who sits on the LDFA board in the slot designated for a city councilmember, and currently chairs the body.

A point of emphasis for Rapundalo – to counter what he characterized as “misinformation” – was to make clear that there are some taxes not captured by the LDFA.

The two kinds of taxes identified by Rapundalo and displayed on the slide in his presentation as not captured by the LDFA are Ann Arbor Public Schools debt service and the enhancement millage. Ann Arbor’s public schools “remain whole,” Rapundalo said, due to the way property taxes are redistributed by the state.

LDFA: Where the Money Comes From – Capture

By way of more detailed background, it’s worth considering what’s meant by “capturing taxes.”

The LDFA is funded through tax-increment financing (TIF) in a manner similar to the way the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority is supported. A TIF district allows authorities like the LDFA and the DDA to “capture” some of the property taxes that are levied by other municipal entities in the district.

There’s a contrast, then, between property taxes that are “levied” by a municipal entity that has the right to collect (i.e., levy) them, and taxes that are “captured” by an authority like the LDFA or the DDA.

The notion of “capture” conveys at least two ideas. First, a TIF authority does not itself levy taxes – the legal right for the collection of taxes stems from some other municipal entity, like the city of Ann Arbor, or Washtenaw County or the Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS). This is sometimes one of their selling points: Creation of a TIF district does not contemplate creation of new taxes or raising taxes.

Second, if a particular TIF authority did not exist, the taxes it captures would be collected anyway, and those monies would have some other “destiny.” In most cases, that destiny would be direct use by the municipal entity that levied the tax. By way of a concrete example, one of the kinds of taxes captured by the DDA is the city of Ann Arbor’s general operating millage. If the DDA did not exist, then the portion of city of Ann Arbor taxes currently captured by the DDA would go to the city’s general fund.

In the case of the LDFA, the story of an alternative destiny for some of its captured taxes has an extra wrinkle. That’s a wrinkle involving capture on the increment for the AAPS general operating millage. If the LDFA did not exist, then the taxes collected on behalf of the AAPS for its general operating millage would not be used directly by AAPS, but rather would go to the state’s School Aid Fund, for redistribution among school districts statewide based on a per-pupil formula as determined on a specified “count day.” This is what underlies Rapundalo’s explanation that local schools would “remain whole.” [Previous Chronicle coverage with a primer on how public schools are funding in Michigan: "Does It Take a Millage?"]

The TIF plan for the LDFA discusses the potential impact to local school funding as follows:

Based on current state law, this Plan shall have no direct impact upon the local school districts, as it has no direct impact upon the per pupil reimbursement from the State to the public schools. The impact to the State School Aid Fund will be approximately $24,000,000 over the 15 years of the LDFA plan. This translates to approximately $1,600,000 annually, or $0.79/student statewide.

The state of Michigan’s School Aid Fund is administered in a way such that some districts get back more from the state than their millages contribute to the fund, while others get back less. Those that get back less – like AAPS – are known as “donor districts.”

The Ann Arbor school district’s status as a donor to the School Aid Fund is sometimes heard in defense of any possible negative impact on statewide school funding potentially caused by the LDFA’s tax capture. That is, the LDFA can be seen as a mechanism by which the Ann Arbor area recoups millage dollars that are lost to other areas of the state due to its “donor” status in the School Aid Fund. This recouping, of course, does not recover millage dollars for the direct benefit of the public schools.

The specific taxes that are captured by a TIF authority are spelled out as part of the set of formative documents for such an authority. For the Ann Arbor DDA, the relevant taxes that are captured are spelled out as follows [emphasis added]:

Per Public Act 197 (1975), as amended, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority collects the tax revenues levied by the City of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA), Washtenaw Community College, and the Ann Arbor District Library on the initial taxable value of all new real and personal property within the DDA District.

Prior to 1994, the DDA also captured Ann Arbor Public Schools taxes and the Washtenaw Intermediate School District taxes.

For the LDFA, the taxes to be captured are spelled out as follows [emphasis added]:

Under this Plan, tax increment revenues subject to capture by the LDFA shall include, to the maximum extent permitted by Act 281 of 1986, as amended, the following: Ann Arbor portion of the district – 50% of operating millage of local school districts and 50% of the State Education Tax levied upon the Captured Property. Ypsilanti: no revenue shall be captured at the present time. The LDFA shall not capture tax revenues attributable to the levies of any other taxing jurisdiction.

The specific geography of the LDFA district mentioned here – the union of the geographic areas specified in the respective DDAs of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – is one of two ways that the amount of taxes to be captured by a TIF authority is limited: geography and increment.

LDFA: How Much Gets Captured – Putting the “I” in TIF

If a TIF authority captured all of the property taxes levied by a municipal entity everywhere those taxes are collected, then there would be no tax revenue to the municipal entity. That is not how TIF authorities are set up. The first limitation is geographical – the specific area in which the Ann Arbor DDA can capture taxes, for example, corresponds to an area generally described as downtown Ann Arbor.

The area in which the DDA can capture any portion of property taxes levied by a municipal authority is defined to be property inside the red line. (Image links to a .kmz file in the city of Ann Arbor’s Data Catalog, which can be opened in Google Earth.)

The second limitation is how much of the tax levy is captured in a defined TIF district. The “increment” in “tax increment financing” is the difference between some baseline of taxable value for properties in the district, compared to increases in the taxable value.

In the case of the DDA, the increment is defined to be the difference between the value of new construction and the previous value of the property. Any subsequent increases in the taxable value of the property as a result of market forces is not included in the increment on which the DDA captures taxes. This is sometimes called a “one-time increment.”

For the LDFA, the increment is defined as follows:

Beginning in 2003, the LDFA will capture ad valorem and specific tax levies on all new and incremental growth from the initial assessed value of Captured Property determined on the basis of assessments as of December 31, 2001. The initial taxable value of the LDFA District is $261,776,313. The LDFA will capture tax dollars for fifteen (15) years, commencing with levies imposed in 2003 through the levies imposed in 2018.

As reflected in the section of the LDFA TIF plan previously cited, it is not the entire amount of the increment that is used to define tax capture for the LDFA, but only 50% of it.

LDFA: How Much Is That in Dollars?

In his presentation, Rapundalo presented the actual dollars captured to date by the Ann Arbor LDFA:

2004  $   68,578
2005     199,699
2006     333,524
2007     526,624
2008     727,999
2009   1,101,408
2010   1,234,626

-

Based on projections presented by Rapundalo, the captured taxes will steadily increase to around $1.8 million in 2018, when the life of the LDFA currently ends. Summing over the entire 15-year life of the district from Rapundalo’s slide, current projections suggest that the district would capture about $16 million total. That is less than what was originally forecast – before the economic downturn of 2008 – in the formative documents for the district, which estimated that $24 million would be captured over the course of 15 years.

The total amount of taxes captured over the life of the district plays a role if the amount proves to be higher than what was originally estimated. From the LDFA TIF plan [emphasis added]:

Tax Increment Revenues in excess of the estimates set forth in this Plan, or in excess of the actual costs of this Amended Plan to be paid from Tax Increment Revenues will be considered surplus under Act 281. Unless retained to further implementation of the Development Plan set forth in Section III pursuant to a resolution of the Authority, surplus tax increment revenues must revert proportionately to the respective taxing jurisdictions from which collected.

LDFA: How the Money Is Spent: Activities, Infrastructure

The kinds of activities supported under the LDFA’s contract with Ann Arbor SPARK, Rapundalo explained, are centered around the business acceleration, incubator services, entrepreneurial education, and networking among businesses and entrepreneurs.

A business accelerator provides resources to help nascent start-up companies clear the hurdles to becoming a mature company with a saleable product, which in turn could lead to the creation of jobs and increased employment in the area.

The business acceleration services are conceived in terms of phases: Phase I, Phase II, Phase III.  In Phase I, initial contact is made with people who have a business/technology proposition and the idea is screened for programmatic fit, reviewed by advisers and consultants, and vetted for advancement to Phase II. That’s a step that entails an in-depth evaluation of a prospective client to determine capability of business for consulting help in Phase III.

That final phase reflects substantial involvement on the part of SPARK to get a company past start-up phase to a point where the company can attract venture capital investment. In Phase III, strategic issues are addressed, including the development of a business plan, schedule and budget.

Among the questions posed by councilmembers was one from Margie Teall (Ward 4), which focused on the notion of “virtual tenants” for SPARK’s incubator facility. Rapundalo deferred the question to Skip Simms, who is SPARK’s managing director for entrepreneurial business development. Simms explained that virtual tenants had access to internet service, a physical address where they could take a mail drop, and use of conference rooms.

Teall asked if a company needed an Ann Arbor address to become a virtual tenant of the incubator. Simms clarified that a company’s status as virtual tenant was a mechanism by which a company could claim an Ann Arbor address – that of the incubator on East Liberty Street. The question of a company’s address is important, because an Ann Arbor address is required for eligibility for LDFA services.

LDFA: Measurement of Success – Activities vs. Outcomes

In Rapundalo’s presentation, he noted the challenge inherent in evaluating success of the LDFA’s activities. During question time, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked Rapundalo about effectiveness. He noted that one kind of comparative metric they looked to was other LDFAs created under Michigan’s SmartZone legislation – what are best practices among other similar such districts? One of the priorities that came out of the board’s 2009 retreat, said Rapundalo, was a focus on an analysis of effectiveness. [Chronicle coverage of that retreat: "Expanded LDFA Board Reflects on Purpose"]

One of the statistics that’s tracked is activity related to the various business acceleration services, measured by the number of companies that used various services: Phase I services (218);  Phase II services (91); Phase III services (61); entrepreneurial boot camp (28); and incubator (34). Those activities were, in aggregate, associated with 106 new jobs, according to Rapundalo’s slide. Balanced against that were five companies that left the LDFA service area, resulting in 11 jobs lost.

One of the difficulties, Rapundalo acknowledged, was that they were dealing with very young companies and that there was a certain volatility associated with that.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), looking at the 106 new jobs, noted that some would say it’s not enough, but some would say it’s really good. “What is the measure of success?” Briere wanted to know. Rapundalo allowed that this was exactly the crux of the matter.

The LDFA TIF plan does make an estimate of the number of jobs that could be created through the LDFA investment over the 15-year life of the district: 700. From the TIF plan:

The estimation of jobs in the high technology sector and under the program outlined by this Plan is a speculative venture contingent upon many factors outside the control of the LDFA. However, the writers of this plan estimate that 700 jobs may be created as a direct and indirect result of these activities. This estimate is based upon the following assumptions: A survey conducted in 1998 by the Washtenaw Development Council and the Ann Arbor Software Council determined that the average technology company in the area employed 57 individuals after approximately 10 years of operation. Based on the establishment and/or location of two new businesses each year within either the Ann Arbor or Ypsilanti portions of the SmartZone, this would result in the creation of just over 700 jobs during the 15-year life of the LDFA.

Following Rapundalo’s remarks, the city’s CEO, Tom Crawford – who sits on the LDFA board as an ex officio member – added that “we’re creating the environment that nurtures the growth.” The idea, said Crawford, is that one of these companies will “take off.” Pressed by Briere for any examples of a company that has “taken off,” the example of Xoran Technologies was offered.

Rapundalo echoed Crawford’s sentiments, saying that the business acceleration was about “hand holding” and helping companies learn how to walk. There’s high risk of failure, he allowed, but this was balanced against the potential for high return.

The LDFA, said Rapundalo, as an oversight body, needed to make sure that tax dollars were translated into “something meaningful.”

LDFA: Infrastructure Investments – Fiber Optics

In the course of his remarks, Rapundalo mentioned that the LDFA had offered $250,000 in support of Ann Arbor’s response to the Google Fiber initiative: The firm’s request for information (RFI) from communities interested in having Google install a fiber-to-the-home network. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked Rapundalo if the LDFA would consider making an investment in a fiber-optic network, even if Google did not choose Ann Arbor as a test community. Rapundalo did not rule out such a possibility, saying that the LDFA had talked a bit about the topic in a broader sense.

Smith was in some sense echoing sentiments the city council had heard before on the need for a fiber-optic network, even if Google did not fund one for Ann Arbor. During the public hearing on the city’s Google Fiber initiative, held on March 15, 2010, Wes Vivian urged the city council to think about how they would achieve a fiber-optic network, if Google did not choose Ann Arbor. [From Chronicle coverage: "Mixed Bag: Phones, Fiber, Fire"]:

Wes Vivian introduced himself as a decades-long telecommunications consultant, and told the council that for the last 15-20 years it’s been clear that either the telephone companies will migrate to fiber-optic networks or face domination by cable television companies. That process has begun, he said – AT&T has installed fiber in many communities.

If Google “coughs up the money” that’s great, Vivian said, but we need to find a way to implement this anyway – even if Google decides not select Ann Arbor as a test site. Fiber, he said, was part of the necessary infrastructure of a city – like a street. It wasn’t necessary to provide a system, he said, but just a hole in the ground or a hole in the air.

The idea of using LDFA funds as infrastructure investments – specifically the kind of high-speed telecommunications infrastructure represented by fiber-optic networks – is made explicit in the LDFA’s formative documents. From the TIF plan [emphasis added]:

The LDFA District is fully developed with roads, sidewalks, lighting and subsurface utilities. The infrastructure is publicly financed and maintained. The Development Plan does not anticipate large-scale improvements to or expansions of this infrastructure. In the event sufficient revenues become available through this plan, investment may be made to facilitate the expansion of high-speed telecommunications infrastructure throughout the District. Alternatively, the LDFA may become a grant recipient for financing designed to encourage this investment.

At the March 2010 meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board – on which Smith also sits, in addition to serving on the city council – Smith had drawn out the fact that when underground work on streets is undertaken by the DDA, conduit is installed to accept potential installation of various telecommunications.

Ann Arbor SPARK

Ann Arbor SPARK CEO Michael Finney gave a presentation that addressed some of the same issues that Stephen Rapundalo had touched on.

SPARK: Metrics for Success, Job Retention, ProQuest

Among the issues covered by Finney was the challenge in evaluating success – not only in choosing appropriate metrics, but in taking the measurements in a reasonable way. He noted that in calculating the number of “jobs retained,” the idea was to count only those jobs that were actually at risk of leaving. In the city of Ann Arbor for 2009, for example, Finney indicated that 450 jobs had been retained through the activities of SPARK.

SPARK’s activities related to job retention include talent recruitment for companies that are looking to expand. Finney gave ForeSee Results as an example of a company that recently indicated they were looking to hire 10 additional staff. If a company that is looking to grow cannot recruit the staff in the Ann Arbor area that it needs for that growth, there’s a risk that the company could try to achieve that growth in a different region of the county.

Finney had invited representatives of a few companies to speak on behalf of the positive effect of SPARK’s efforts. Among them was Elliott Forsyth, senior vice president of human resources and business services for ProQuest. He explained that in 2006 ProQuest had been financially stressed and that Cambridge Information Group had acquired the company, expressing some interest in moving operations elsewhere.

Forsyth credited SPARK’s efforts at coordinating support from the Michigan Economic Development Corp. and the city of Ann Arbor to encourage ProQuest to stay. The support from the city of Ann Arbor to which Forsyth alluded came in the form of a tax abatement approved at the city council’s March 3, 2008 meeting:

Resolution to Approve Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate Between the City of Ann Arbor and Proquest LLC. A motion was made by Councilmember Rapundalo, seconded by Councilmember Greden, that the Resolution be approved. On a voice vote, the Mayor declared the motion carried unanimously. Enactment No: R-08-094

In a Dec. 18, 2007 Ann Arbor News article on the $10 million Michigan Economic Growth Authority tax credits awarded to ProQuest, the value of the tax abatement granted by the city of Ann Arbor was put at around $1.2 million.

A search of online Ann Arbor News archives [registration required but free, available through the Ann Arbor District Library] shows that through the early to mid-2000s, a possible tax abatement for ProQuest had been discussed, but rejected until the 2008 approval.

One issue raised by Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) was the question of whether arrangements made to retain companies could be enforced. Finney indicated that agreements are typically contingent on jobs.

In the case of ProQuest’s tax abatement, the deal comes with the following conditions:

6. By December, 31  2009, ProQuest will add not less than Fifty (50) jobs at the facility named on the Application as compared to its number of employees as of the effective date of the Certificate. If ProQuest adds less than Fifty (50) additional Jobs by December 31, 2009, ProQuest shall have materially breached the terms of this Agreement and the City shall have the right to recommend revocation of the Certificate subject to provision 11 of this agreement to the State Tax Commission or taking other appropriate legal action in connection with the default.

7. ProQuest shall comply with all of the requirements of the City’s Living Wage Ordinance.

8. This abatement is being granted by the City in part to allow ProQuest to qualify for application of incentive tax credits by the State of Michigan. This agreement is contingent upon ProQuest receiving approval of State tax incentives within 120 days from the date the Michigan State Tax Commission issues the herein referenced abatement certificates. Failure to obtain approval of State tax incentives during this time will automatically revoke this agreement and the City shall have no further obligations to ProQuest under this Agreement.

9. ProQuest shall maintain operations within the City of Ann Arbor during the period of time for which the State tax incentives are in effect. If ProQuest relocates, whether within or outside of the State of Michigan, ProQuest shall pay to the affected taxing units an amount equal to those taxes it would have paid during the abatement term had the abatement not been in effect.

SPARK: What’s Your Elevator Speech for Ann Arbor?

Michael Finney indicated during his presentation that the name “Michigan” or “Detroit” did not generate a positive response from people he met from other regions of the country. The name “Ann Arbor,” however, had a positive association.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked Finney what his “elevator speech” was for Ann Arbor. [An elevator speech is the short, condensed pitch given to someone in the time it would take to ride an elevator with that person before going separate ways.] Smith said that she’d spoken to Ken Nisbet, director the University of Michigan’s technology transfer office, and that Nisbet had given Ann Arbor’s “quality of life” as his response to the elevator speech question.

Finney’s response focused on the idea of Ann Arbor’s robust entrepreneurial ecosystem. He noted that SPARK itself is a start-up organization. Having the right ecosystem, Finney said, is the key to success. Referring to the possibility of a Google fiber network, Finney said, “we’re drooling about something like that happening.”

However, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) focused on the idea that it’s not the city boundaries, but rather its regions that are important for the Midwest. He cited a book by Richard Longworth, “Caught in the Middle: America’s Heartland in the Age of Globalism,” as articulating that idea. Finney concurred with Derezinski that southeast Michigan is a relevant region in that sense, and that Ann Arbor could be the focus of that region, expanding outward from Washtenaw County.

City Budget

City administrator Roger Fraser kicked of the short discussion of the budget by noting that the budget would be presented formally at the council’s April 19 meeting, although the budget book has been available for a couple of weeks.

Councilmembers had a few clarificational questions on various aspects of the budget.

City Budget: Debt

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) was puzzled by a line in the budget summary that reads “Loan payment for First and Washington – $150,000,” noting that she did not think the city owed any money on the property.

Fraser allowed that Smith was correct – the city does not owe money on the property. However, the city is expecting $3 million from the sale of the property in connection with Village Green’s City Apartments project, which has site plan approval from the city, but has not moved forward yet due to lack of financing.

Fraser described the $150,000 as a contingency of sorts, borrowing some money to “tide us over” if the $3 million from the sale of that First & Washington property does not come through sometime soon. The site approval option to purchase agreement has been extended once by city council through December 2009, with a provision that the city administrator can authorize two 3-month extensions, which he has done. When the second extension runs out at the end of June 2010, the council will need to act if there is to be an additional extension.

At the council’s Monday budget meeting, the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, indicated that he’d had recent conversations with Village Green and that they were feeling positive.

Mayor John Hieftje asked Crawford to confirm that the city was within its legal limit for debt load – the city cannot have debt in excess of 10% of the total state equalized value of property. Crawford indicated that the city was at 2.6%, and he thus felt comfortable with the city’s debt level. Crawford also cited other cities’ debt load – Grand Rapids, Lansing and Kalamazoo – as comparable. Ann Arbor’s bond rating, said Crawford, was in the top 20 in the state.

City Budget: Rates and Fees

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) requested that for the various fee changes that were included, a two-year frame of reference be provided – she was concerned that fee increases proposed this year might be coming on top of fee increases already made last year.

Mayor John Hieftje asked Sue McCormick, the city’s public services area administrator, to confirm that the city’s water rates are low compared to other communities in the state. She provided that confirmation, saying that the city’s water and sewer rates were second-lowest in the state. She allowed that the city had a separate stormwater system, whereas some municipalities had their stormwater system integrated with their sanitary sewer, which would cause Ann Arbor’s rates to appear artificially lower.

However, after factoring in stormwater charges, McCormick said, Ann Arbor’s rates were still fifth-lowest in the state – roughly $1.40 for every 1,000 gallons of water. Tecumseh, she said, was an example of a muncipality that had lower rates – $1.25.

Even though Mary Morgan and I usually alternate writing The Chronicle’s Monthly Milestone column, April marks the third month in a row that I’m providing the update. I’d like to say right up front there’s no scandal in this. It does not reflect an internal struggle for power here at The Chronicle. Although if it did, it’s worth noting that my three-month streak would mean that I am winning. And I’d also like to say right up front: If there were to be an internal struggle for power here at The Chronicle, I would totally win. [No, there will not be a poll at the conclusion of this column, asking readers to weigh in on that.]

More seriously, the alternating authorship of the Monthly Milestone column reflects The Chronicle’s commitment to shared work – internal to our organization. But externally, our strategy for providing coverage of the Ann Arbor community is also partly rooted in sharing the work load.

So this month, I’d like to take a look at how that plays out on The Ann Arbor Chronicle’s website – in the form of reader comments – as well as among The Chronicle and other local media.

Shared Work: Reader Comments

Last month’s Monthly Milestone included the bullet point that “We [The Chronicle] don’t care much (only some) about comments.” To be clear, we do take seriously the “some” part of that point. In fact, one of the functions of my Monthly Milestones is sometimes to highlight particularly noteworthy comments written by readers.

Some of the most useful comments are those that ask simple factual questions. And sometimes it’s a question that someone at The Chronicle can answer immediately – or respond to by tracking down the requested information. Here’s an example of that ["County EDC: Money to Loan but No Deals"]:

By Karen Sidney
March 17, 2010 at 12:04 pm

Would these bonds be backed by county or city tax revenues or is the only entity on the hook the private or non-profit entities who use the bond proceeds?

The followup comment to Sidney’s question was made possible by the fact that she asked a simple factual question in a timely way:

By Dave Askins
March 17, 2010 at 3:26 pm

“Would these bonds be backed by county or city tax revenues or is the only entity on the hook the private or non-profit entities who use the bond proceeds?”

At a committee meeting today, I asked Washtenaw County corporation counsel Curtis Hedger this question. He clarified that it was not the full faith and credit of the county that backs these bonds — the party on the hook is the private entity.

Fortunately, readers don’t just ask good questions. They also know things. And sometimes they’re in a unique position to know things, and they share the knowledge that answers a question ["AAPS Weighs Schools of Choice Program"]:

By Chuck Warpehoski
March 24, 2010 at 10:46 am

When evaluating the cost of the outsources vs insourced food service, did Rolland Zullo include the cost of payments to the state pension fund in the cost of in-sourced food service?

That question was answered by Zullo himself:

By Roland Zullo
March 24, 2010 at 1:57 pm

Hi Chuck,
The short answer to your question is yes, I included all costs, including pensions.

The analysis is a bit more involved, because costs and revenues change over time, and both affect the total budget.

The study is available at: [link] If you have questions, please feel free to contact me.

Roland

When a reader can provide the answer to a factual question posed by another reader, that’s a perfect sharing of work. It means that here at The Chronicle, we don’t have to do everything ourselves.

Shared Work: Other Media and The Chronicle

The idea of not trying to do everything ourselves is something that extends to our choices about what aspects of the community to cover in The Chronicle. A certain amount of that material is set by our commitment to trying to cover the work – in a fair amount of detail and context – of the public bodies who are responsible for spending public dollars.

But there’s some discretionary coverage we provide that falls outside of public meetings. For example, I recently wrote a piece about a University of Michigan group who knit scarves for homeless people. Why would The Chronicle invest time and resources writing about some student knitters, but take a pass on sending someone to the Google Fiber rally on the UM Diag? After all, isn’t fiber optic cable more or less like very high-tech thread? If we care about wool, why don’t we care about fiber optic yarn?

In favor of knitting, part of the story’s appeal was an opportunity to connect the knitters’ venue – Couzens Hall – to some of our UM regents meeting coverage. The regents authorized a major capital investment in refurbishing that dormitory over the next year, which will be closed during the renovation. Also, The Chronicle already has a certain history of giving knitting its due, when we stumble across it in other contexts.

So why not a rally for Google Fiber? First, we’d already included the general subject of the city’s response to Google’s request for information (RFI) in our city council meeting coverage – which included a public hearing on a council resolution of support. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) was point man on the council for promoting the city’s response to the RFI and inviting public participation. He spoke to that issue at meetings prior to the public hearing – remarks we included in our reports of those meetings.

But seriously, why not just head over to the Diag already and document the Google rally? Did we not know about the rally? Did we not even think about the rally?

Yes, I thought about the rally. I thought about it in some detail. Here’s how detailed my thinking was. In announcing the public hearing on the council’s Google Fiber resolution, Taylor had expressed his hope that the public hearing in council chambers would include, perhaps, a song – he noted that there was some precedent for songs sung in the council chambers. He was surely alluding to Libby Hunter – who generally renders her public comment to the council in the form of a song. But Hunter did not oblige at the public hearing, and neither did anyone else.

So, to me, the burning open question about the rally was this: Would Taylor’s wish for a song be realized?

To get the answer to that question, I could have attended the rally, or I could have done what I did, which was stay home and read about it on Twitter, Facebook, or myriad other online sources. We didn’t “get the story” for The Chronicle.

When we don’t get a story like that, it does not bother us. When there’s an event like that, which every other media outlet will predictably cover, The Chronicle is mostly relieved that we don’t have to cover it. We’re focused on being there on those occasions when most other media outlets are not going to be there – or when most other media outlets are not going to report out the comprehensive detail that we’re committed to providing. We don’t try to do everything ourselves.

Coda: What About the Song?

As it turns out, there was a group sing at the Google Fiber rally on the UM Diag. An Associated Press article reported that it wasn’t merely a song – it was an anthem. Question answered.

I was not able to obtain the complete text to the Google Fiber Anthem, but it seems to have included the line “Ann Arbor Google Fiber, ain’t nothing any finer.” So it’s probably a good thing that I elected not to attend the rally, because I would have felt compelled to bellow forth the competing song below. I undertook to compose it in an effort to render a more accurate translation of Schiller’s “Ode to Joy.” If you’re keeping score, an ode trumps an anthem.

NODE TO JOY

Freude, schöner Götterfunken, Tochter aus Elysium
Fiber surely, Google’s funky, download now made easier

Wir betreten feuertrunken himmlische dein Heiligtum
We’ll be trading urban [trans. note: possibly 'drunken'] fairies, in for holy optic towers

Deine Zauber binden wieder, was die Mode streng geteilt
You’re the Fiber binding, winding, what the modems strongly tore

Alle Menschen werden Brüder, wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.
All the mentions will be broader, when you search on Google’s World

Seid umschlungen, Millionen! Diesen Kuß der ganzen Welt!
Sung it song-like, millions sing now, this will kiss the world wide web.

Brüder, überm Sternenzelt muß ein lieber Vater wohnen.
Broadly, sternly, ever mustard, is a lovely Fiber well.

Singing that would clearly not have served anyone’s best interest. Fierce debate would have erupted over the accuracy of the translation, and that would have distracted from the point of the rally. [I would accept the criticism that the translation is somewhat casual in places, but to its credit, its meter scans the same as the original – so it's eminently singable.]

So readers who voluntarily subscribe to The Chronicle are supporting, in part, the extraordinary discretion I displayed in choosing not to attend the Google Fiber rally.

Dave Askins is editor of The Ann Arbor Chronicle.

Other agenda items receiving some discussion were the public hearing scheduled on the Google Fiber initiative, plus a contract revision for Recycle Ann Arbor to perform single-stream curbside recycling using automated carts.

Ban on Cell Phone Use While Driving

At its Feb. 16, 2010 meeting, the city council had given initial approval to a proposed city ordinance banning cell phone use while driving. That initial approval – at the ordinance’s first reading before the council– was followed by revisions to the ordinance that were numerous enough that it was presented again as a first reading at the council’s March 1, 2010 meeting. The council again gave the ordinance its preliminary stamp of approval.

On the agenda for Monday is the second reading of the ban on cell phone use while driving, together with a public hearing on the item.

But at the Sunday caucus, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that she’d heard from the ordinance’s sponsor, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), that it would likely be postponed – more revisions had been undertaken to the ordinance language. Mayor John Hieftje confirmed that he’d heard similar news from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Asked if this might mean a third presentation of the ordinance to the council as a “first reading,” Hieftje allowed that it could mean that. He said he saw it as evidence that the process was working – the community was giving feedback on the proposed ordinance that was being incorporated into the language.

Asked if the council might consider – in lieu of passing a local ordinance – passing a resolution calling on the state legislature to take action on a cell phone ban, Hieftje allowed that this was a possibility. He also said that if the ordinance eventually failed to win council’s approval, that it would likely be based – for some councilmembers – on the fact that they see the issue as more appropriately addressed at the state level.

Briere, for her part, said she had a concern about the fact that the ordinance specified it was a primary offense – drivers could be pulled over for cell phone use specifically. Secondary offenses require some other additional reason for a driver to be pulled over. Resident Eppie Potts remarked that she figured if she were pulled over by the police, by the time the officer would approach the car she’d have put the cell phone down.

Resident Jack Eaton, who works as an attorney, indicated that he represented transit unions. Every transit union in the state, he said, has a rule against drivers using cell phones while driving. The difficulty, he said, is that enforcement becomes a he-said-she-said issue. How could a hands-free Bluetooth device be seen under long hair, for example?

Hieftje said he was concerned that when stopping motorists, looking for evidence of cell phone use was one more reason that police officers could use to look around in people’s cars.

Briere said she’d hate to think that we’d be sending police officers chasing after people using cell phones, while acknowledging that cell phone use is seen to be a genuine safety hazard by local traffic enforcement officers.

Briere elaborated on a statement from chief of police Barnett Jones, made at a recent city council meeting, that drivers using cell phones could currently be cited for careless driving, but that a cell phone ordinance would make things cleaner in a court of law. She said it would need to be shown that the cell phone was in use at the time of an accident, and that it would need to be demonstrated that such cell phone use caused the accident.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) noted that the use of various hand-held electronic devices would only proliferate. He cited a demonstration of voice-activated commands for such devices that he’d witnessed as two tech people had squared off – one with a voice-activated smart phone and the other without – as they’d tried to find the answer to the question he’d posed: When was Budweiser founded? The guy with the voice-activated device was faster.

Google Fiber

The city council is holding a public hearing Monday evening on the city’s proposal that Google choose Ann Arbor as a site for installation of a fiber-to-the-home network. The council will be considering a resolution urging Google to select Ann Arbor as a site and promising “to take all lawful measures to expedite and accommodate the safe and efficient installation of the Google FTTH network.”

Though the Google Fiber network has been widely discussed as cost-free, the language of Google’s request for information (RFI) specifies that homeowners would be offered Internet service “at a competitive price” and this is reflected in the city council resolution.

Asked what they would consider to be a “competitive” price, Hieftje, Briere and Anglin required some time to noodle through what they currently paid to Comcast for their high-speed access, plus TV and phone. Consensus put that number between $60 and $100.

Asked how many residents of Ann Arbor they thought would be adopters of fiber and at what price, councilmembers were not sure. Hieftje said that Ann Arbor was one the most wired communities in the world.

Hieftje reported that he’d been included on a conference call with someone in the governor’s office the previous Friday in the wake of Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s trip to California to lobby Google to choose a Michigan city as a location for their fiber network. Based on his understanding from that phone call, he said, Google’s goal is to see the federal government take the lead on installation of fiber networks – their initiative would be a pilot to demonstrate how successful it could be. In Google’s view, said Hieftje, fiber optic access to the Internet should be like a utility.

On the question of competitive price, resident Jack Eaton speculated that the actual dollar amount would be comparable to Comcast, but that the Google fiber network would compete on quality and speed of service.

With respect to the service, Briere said she’d heard from constituents that they were already at the point of needing the kind of bandwidth that fiber offered (100-times faster than typical cable service), even if many people were not. She said in the next decade, she thought that video conferencing via fiber networks [an extremely high-bandwidth application] would play an increasing role.

On the question of neighborhood reaction to any hardware that might need to be installed external to houses, Briere offered her view that in light of the potential benefit, the aesthetic concerns could come later, not now.

Single-Stream Recycling

Late last year, the city made several decisions setting in motion a switch to single-stream curbside collection of recyclable materials from the current two-tote system – one for paper and the other for containers. The council heard a presentation at its Oct. 12, 2009 work session on the approach, which will include incentives for residents to set out their new single-stream carts for collection.

At their Nov. 5, 2009 meeting, the council authorized upgrades necessary for the materials recovery facility (MRF), and at their Dec. 21, 2009 meeting, they authorized the purchase of four new trucks plus 33,000 carts equipped with RFI (radio-frequency identification) chips.

At the Sunday caucus, resident Eppie Potts contended that most people didn’t know anything about the new single-stream system, and that when she told people about it they were shocked. She said that she did not want to dump the containers, which she rinsed out, on top of the paper she collected, out of concern that it would contaminate the paper. This was something the single-stream system would do anyway.

Potts wondered if the old recycling totes could be recycled. Hieftje said he would get an answer for her on that. From The Chronicle’s report of the council’s Nov. 5, 2009 meeting: “The new carts will be available in June/July 2010. The old totes can be recycled.”

Potts questioned the amount of public money spent on the project, which included, she said, $1.4 million for the carts, $1.2 million for trucks, and $3.2 million for upgrades to the facility.

Hieftje told Potts that the payback on the investment was estimated to be around six years and that money from the city’s solid waste millage had been set aside incrementally to be able to pay for those investments.

On the subject of the solid waste millage, resident Jack Eaton put the investment in single-stream recycling in the context of the cost-cutting measures for the solid waste fund being contemplated in this year’s budget planning. Those measures include elimination of curbside holiday tree pickup, as well as elimination of loose leaf collection. [Chronicle coverage: "Budget Round 4: Lights, Streets, Grass"]

The benefits of single-stream recycling, contended Eaton, would still be there when the time came, even if its implementation were delayed. He wondered if it might not have been wiser to delay that implementation.

Briere responded to Eaton by noting that the cost savings of eliminating the leaf collection and holiday tree pickup were relatively small. The question to ask about single-stream recycling, she said, was not just what it costs, but rather also what Ann Arbor gains.

On the solid waste millage, however, Eaton suggested that now, when the city is short of cash, the solid waste millage rate could be reduced, instead of investing in a single-stream system. Eaton suggested that with a reduction in the solid waste millage, the city could make a stronger case to voters that they should approve a Headlee override – which would restore property taxes to their original rates, before the Headlee amendment rolled them back.

Larry Deck, board member of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition, addressed the council during the public hearing on the repeal of the city's bicycle registration system. (Photos by the writer.)

The council scrapped the city’s existing bicycle registration program at its Monday night meeting, but gave an assurance to a representative of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition that it would soon be replaced with something better.

Mayor John Hieftje used his communications time to rebut criticism of the planned Fuller Road Station – both with respect to its funding and its siting. While he assured critics that funding for the project would not come from the general fund, he allowed that he did not know how the project would be paid for.

And Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) reiterated enthusiasm for Ann Arbor’s response to a request for information by Google about a local fiber-optic network. He had also introduced the topic at a recent council meeting focusing on the budget.

The city administrator’s report to the council included updates on construction projects.

The city also continued a monthly recognition of its parks volunteers with a mayoral proclamation honoring Praveena and Madhan Ramaswami for their efforts to improve Bromley Park by organizing biannual events to remove invasive plants, plant flowers, and clean up the park.

Elimination of Bicycle Registration Program

The council had given initial approval of the measure at its previous meeting, which eliminates the city’s bicycle registration system.

At a February meeting of the council – in the context of discussions on a possible revision to the registration program, as well as a revision to all the city’s ordinances on bicycling – Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) had reported that the registration program had in recent years, not resulted in the return of stolen bicycles to their owners. The return of stolen bicycles to their owners is an often-cited benefit of the program.

Specifically, Hohnke had said that from September of 2007 to the present, 39 stolen bikes had been recovered and returned to their owners – but in none of those cases had the bicycle registration program been instrumental. The return of those bicycles had been the result of regular police work.

The revisions the council had considered – but postponed and ultimately tabled – involved fee structure and the map that’s provided with registration.

On Monday’s council agenda was the second reading of the ordinance revision, with its related public hearing.

Public Hearing on Bicycle Registration

At the public hearing, Larry Deck, a board member of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition, was the only person who spoke. He said that in January, the WBWC had suggested revisions to the program, but the group had not suggested its elimination. He asked for more time for discussion, because bicycle registration had a number of benefits. The WBWC was having a board meeting on March 4 and wanted to discuss the matter. Deck asked the council to defer action until April and to identify relevant city staff and others in the community to continue the discussion on bicycle registration.

Council Deliberations on Bicycle Registration

Hohnke began council’s deliberations by indicating that he was amenable to postponing the resolution at the WBWC’s request but hesitated to make that motion – in deference to Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who had sponsored the resolution, but who was not at the council table. Higgins was present at the meeting, but had left the table at the conclusion of Deck’s speaking turn at the public hearing, to engage Deck in a private conversation in the hallway outside the council chambers.

Responding to Hohnke’s suggestion to postpone, city administrator Roger Fraser told the council that the city essentially had an ordinance on the books that it was not enforcing, which put the city in a state of legal limbo. He suggested going forward with eliminating the registration system, with all of its records, and having a discussion with the WBWC about a future ordinance.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) countered Fraser’s idea that it put the city in a state of legal limbo, saying that even if that were the case, it seemed fairly benign. She was in favor of putting it off, pending the outcome of whatever conversations Higgins was having in the hallway.

Higgins returned to the table and reported that the WBWC had some ideas about a new replacement ordinance and would work over the next 2-3 months on that. She stated that in that context, she believed the WBWC was okay with the program’s elimination. Deck was called to the podium and confirmed: If the intent was to eliminate the registration program but replace it with something better, then the WBWC was okay with that.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to eliminate the city’s bicycle registration program.

Fuller Road Station

Fuller Road Station is a cooperative venture between the University of Michigan and the city of Ann Arbor to construct a 1,100-space parking deck near the UM medical campus. From previous Chronicle reporting ["Work Session: Trains, Trash and Taxes"]:

In broad summary strokes, the  Fuller Road Station project is proposed for a three-acre site – currently a surface parking lot – owned by the city of Ann Arbor, nestled just south of Fuller Road and north of East Medical Center Drive and the railroad tracks. It’s billed as a way to link automobiles, east-west commuter rail (demonstration due in October 2010), the north-south Plymouth-State Street corridor (study underway funded by AATA, UM, the  city of Ann Arbor, and the Ann Arbor DDA), buses, and bicycle traffic via the Border-to-Border trail.

There was not an agenda item related to Fuller Road Station, but it has been the topic of much community discussion.

Public Comment on Fuller Road Station

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Nancy Shiffler stressed that SEMCOG‘s approach in exploring the east-west commuter rail option, which would link Ann Arbor to Detroit, was to use as much existing infrastructure as possible. [There is an active Amtrak station on Depot Street, near the planned Fuller Road Station site.] The idea, she said, was to use that existing infrastructure to assess whether the initiative warranted full support – that assessment would come in 2013, she said.

The Fuller Road Station, Shiffler pointed out, might include a commuter rail station in a second phase. For now it was planned largely as a parking structure with completion in 2012, with UM paying for and using 78% of the spaces.  Shiffler raised several concerns about the lease arrangement for the new structure as well as the “permanent re-purposing” of the land, which is designated as parkland by the city.

Shiffler also stated that she assumed the city would be paying for the project out of its general fund.

Also at the start of the meeting, James D’Amour weighed in on Fuller Road Station. He told the council that he was there wearing two hats – one as a member of the Sierra Club’s Huron Valley Group executive committee and the other as an individual. [D'Amour has previously addressed the council on the topic of Fuller Road Station.] He said he was there to reiterate concerns about the planned station. While the Huron Valley Group supported public-private efforts for mass transit, including the east-west rail, they had concerns about process.

D’Amour characterized the public process as “after-the-fact” consultation. The planned station also entailed removal of parkland. Of the more than 1,000 parking spaces, he pointed out, only about 200 related to mass transit.

On a personal note, he said that the idea of applying “green architecture” to the Fuller Road Station was like putting lipstick on a pig. The city’s cost for the project would be several million dollars, he pointed out, at a time when the city was talking about cutting recreation programs like Mack Pool and the Ann Arbor Senior Center, and laying off police officers and firefighters.

Mayor’s Rebuttal on Fuller Road Station

Mayor John Hieftje used his time for communications to respond to criticism of the Fuller Road Station that the council had heard during public commentary.

He prompted city administrator Roger Fraser to speak to the issue of how the city’s portion of the project would be funded, by asking Fraser if it was the plan to use money from the general fund. Fraser’s answer: “No, sir.” Hieftje allowed, however, that the financing plan had not yet been formulated.

Addressing the issue of the land’s status as parkland, Hieftje pointed out that the parcel had been obtained as an easement in a land swap deal with the University of Michigan, motivated by a desire to preserve some Bur Oak trees. A condition on the swap, he said, was that the city would lease the land back to the university.

Hieftje laid out a case of that location as the best possible place for a transit station, noting that the university’s health system employs 17,000 workers. He allowed that it was a parking structure that was planned, but contended that it went beyond that – it also has a bus station, he said. It would be a whole new hub for the city’s bus system, he said. Hieftje also noted that it was located in the corridor being studied for a north-south connector, from Ann Arbor to Howell.

The current Amtrak station, Hieftje stated, would not work for commuter rail. If the second phase of the Fuller Road Station were eventually to be built, Hieftje indicated that there would also be a bike station with a repair facility and a place for cyclists to take showers. He concluded by saying, “If you are a believer in mass transit, there’s no better place for it than on this site.”

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) pointed out that construction of the parking structure at the Fuller Road site relieved the pressure the university felt to build two parking structures on Wall Street in order to meet its parking demands. [The planned Wall Street structures were not embraced by the neighbors along the street.]

City administrator Roger Fraser said the expectation was that access to city parks would actually be improved – cars currently parked across Fuller Road from the planned station would be parked in the structure, and that would “free up land for that game of frisbee,” he concluded.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) raised a couple of questions with the mayor about the site. She reported that she’d learned from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who serves as one of the council’s representatives to the city’s park advisory commission, that the parcel is still in the PROS (Parks, Recreation and Open Space) plan. She inquired whether it would be reconsidered as parkland in a line of questioning that resulted in Hieftje ultimately saying, “That’s a better question for the city attorney than for me.”

Briere also noted that her understanding of the funding for the Fuller Road Station was “a little vague.” She wanted to know if the city anticipated getting revenue from parking fees for spots in the structure. Hieftje deferred the question, saying that the city could respond to that when the numbers are worked out a little better.

Council Communications

-

Google Fiber

During his communications, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) reiterated his enthusiasm for the idea of the city responding to a recent request for information issued nationwide by Google. The request involves the possibility of Google building a fiber network in a community on an experimental basis, which would provide Internet access to individual homes at speeds roughly 100-times what most people currently enjoy.

There will be a public hearing on the subject at the city council’s next meeting on March 15, 2010, Taylor said.

Taylor noted that there’d been singing during public commentary at the council in the past and that perhaps there would be singers at the public hearing on the possible Google fiber network.

The city is partnering with the University of Michigan in this effort, which is described on the A2Fiber website.

Ann Arbor Skatepark

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) announced that the latest effort at fundraising by the Skatepark Action Committee was an event, the Grinds of March, to be held on March 13 from noon-6 p.m. The event would include skating performances by national-level skaters, Hohnke said. As part of the fundraising effort, old hand-drawn posters that have appeared in Zingerman’s Deli windows over the years will be available for purchase.

[The Grinds of March is located at 704 Airport Blvd. in a warehouse where the Skatepark Action Committee has built a wooden skateboard ramp. The likes of Andy MacDonald will be skating the Grinds.]

Local: Food and Money

In her communications, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) alerted her colleagues to a local food summit, which would be held the following day, Tuesday, March 2.

She also announced that the nonprofit Think Local First was conducting an inquiry into the feasibility of a local currency. [See Chronicle coverage: "Local Currency for Washtenaw County"]

Communications from the City Administrator

City administrator Roger Fraser reported that construction on the co-located 911 dispatch center in Fire Station #1 across the street from city hall was now complete, with operations on schedule to begin in May.

The fire station is directly across the street from the new municipal center (also known as the courts/police building), which is under construction at the corner of Huron and Fifth. Fraser reported that people would notice a sign of progress over the next few days: The external buck hoist, which is a lifting carriage used to get materials to the upper floors of a building, will be removed. That’s possible because permits have now been received for an elevator inside the building.

Asbestos abatement has concluded in the city hall basement, Fraser reported, so demolition of walls can proceed.

Fraser indicated that city staff had been really busy recently with snow removal during the period when 9.6 inches of snow fell, with 3-4 inches over the following days. He introduced the subject by deadpanning: “Some of you know we had a snowstorm …” Fraser said that it was the one major storm of the year, in contrast to previous years, when multiple major snowstorms hit the area.

Fraser also reported that there’d been interest expressed from a community in Australia in the city’s metering data for its water system.

Other Public Commentary

Alan Haber addressed the council on the topic of the development of the Library Lot. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Two Library Lot Proposals Eliminated"] Haber had helped put forward a proposal, the Ann Arbor Community Commons, that envisioned the use of the space as a community gathering place. Haber advocated for shifting bond money from paying for stronger foundations of the underground parking garage, which are needed to support development on top of the lot, to the construction of a park on the top. There was not need for the stronger foundations, he said, because they wanted the park to be there forever.

Haber contended that most people who are not developers want some kind of park there. He asked the council to lean on the Downtown Development Authority, which is building the underground parking structure, to provide the information on park maintenance costs that his group had been asking for.

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a Washtenaw County Democrat who’d been a recent candidate for the county board of commissioners. He told the council that he’d come out in the cold to call on all parties to bring about equitable budget reforms for the city, the county, the region, the state and the entire nation. He called on people of all religions and races to work together to protect the rights of senior citizens and disabled people.

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

Next regular council meeting: Monday, March 15, 2010 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]