I prefer to make a funny face and ask: How is a judicial candidate like the city park system? Or for a question that sounds less like the set-up to a punch line: What’s the deal with downtown Ann Arbor and its connection to the art millage and the library bond proposal?

Voting results from two Nov. 6, 2012 proposals on the Ann Arbor ballot: The Ann Arbor District Library bond proposal and the public art millage. Maps do not include the portion of the library district outside the city boundary. Maps show only in-person votes, not including absentee voters. Shades of green through white indicate a majority voting yes. Shades of lavender through purple indicate a majority voting no. (Maps by The Chronicle.)

Of course, politicians are at least partly right when they say that the voters have spoken. But what did the voters actually say? It’s easy to make true statements about voter sentiment – if you stick to the text of the ballot.

For example, in the non-incumbent race for judge of the 22nd Circuit Court, more voters preferred to have Carol Kuhnke decide future Washtenaw County court cases than to have Jim Fink decide them. You can tell that just from the ballot and from the results. But it’s possible to make a stronger claim: More voters preferred the kind of person Kuhnke is – a candidate endorsed by the city of Ann Arbor Democratic Party. And to support that claim, we’d need to look at other results, like those from the presidential election.

Or by way of another example, the election results indicate that a majority of Ann Arbor voters said they do not want the city to levy an 0.1 mill tax to pay for art in public places. That’s all you can tell from the ballot question and the results. To make stronger claims – related, for example, to what (if anything) voters were trying to say about the existing Percent for Art program – you’d need to find some other way to explore the content of voters’ minds.

The same goes for the Ann Arbor District Library bond proposal and the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage renewal. “Do not tax us to make the bond payments for a new downtown library building, but please continue to tax us to pay for city park needs.” That’s all voters said. They didn’t say anything about their favorite books, or which city park is the best. (By the way, it’s West Park, located in Ward 5, which is indisputably the highest-numbered ward in the city.)

Yet we’d like to divine something more from the results than just the results.

This column, which is heavy on impressionistic conclusions based on maps, and light on rigorous statistical analysis, begins with mapped illustrations of some basics. For example, mostly Democrats live in the eastern portion of Washtenaw County. And in Ann Arbor, Wards 2 and 4 are the strongest city wards for Republicans – even though those wards also lean Democratic. That’s still true 20 years after Ann Arbor’s ward boundaries were drawn to achieve that effect.

The column concludes by illustrating a possible geographic connection between the failed public art millage and the failed downtown library bond proposal – namely, downtown Ann Arbor. 

Ann Arbor City Ward Boundaries

The ward boundaries in the city of Ann Arbor underwent their last substantial revision in the early 1990s. The goal of the redistricting was to establish three heavily Democratic wards (1, 3 and 5), leaving two Republican-leaning wards (2 and 4). Comparing the ward boundaries in Map 1 and the results of the presidential race in Map 2, the ward-wise distribution of Democrats and Republicans has remained fairly stable. Except in the northwest precincts of Ward 4 – where the Ward 5 Democratic strength bleeds down into Ward 4 – the ward boundaries are reflected clearly in the presidential results.

Map 1: Ann Arbor ward boundaries.

Map 2: Ann Arbor 2012 presidential election results (in-person voting only.) Darker blue reflects greater strength for Democrat Barack Obama.

Judges, Dems, Parks

Judicial races are non-partisan. But in the non-incumbent race between Carol Kuhnke and Jim Fink, the local Democratic Party endorsed Kuhnke. And Fink himself, during a candidate forum hosted by the Democratic Party, acknowledged that if it were a partisan legislative race, ”you would not even think about voting for me.” So it was not a secret that Kuhnke was “the Democrat” and Fink “the Republican” in the race. Fink’s pitch to Democrats as voters was that he would follow the law and as a judge set aside his personal views. And in fact, several high-profile Democrats supported his campaign.

In Map 3, the results within the city of Ann Arbor show that support for Kuhnke shows a vaguely similar pattern to the presidential results. But it was not by any means an exact mirroring of the pattern of support received by the Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama. In fact, the geographic distribution of Kuhnke’s support within the city of Ann Arbor seems to resemble more closely support for the parks millage (Map 4) than it does support for Obama.

Map 3: Nov. 6, 2012 Ann Arbor city results for 22nd Circuit Court non-incumbent judicial race (in-person voting results only). Darker blue areas reflect stronger support for Carol Kuhnke, who defeated Jim Fink.

Map 4: Nov. 6, 2012 Ann Arbor city results for parks maintenance & capital improvements millage renewal (in-person voting results only). Darker green areas indicate greater support for the parks millage.

Countywide Judicial Race

Countywide, the race between Kuhnke and Fink (Map 6) also showed a roughly similar pattern to the presidential race (Map 5), but it was not by any stretch an exact mirroring.

Map 5: Washtenaw County presidential results for the Nov. 6, 2012 election. Blue shades indicate a majority for Democrat Barack Obama. Red shades indicate support for Republican Mitt Romney.

Map 6: Nov. 6, 2012 Washtenaw County results for 22nd Circuit Court non-incumbent judicial race. Blue shades indicate a majority for Carol Kuhnke. Red indicates support for Jim Fink.

So I think it’s fair to conclude that a substantial number of people voted for the kind of person that they perceived Kuhnke to be (a Democrat, with whatever associations that comes with) as contrasted with the kind of person they perceived Fink to be (a Republican, with whatever associations that comes with). But it’s also fair to conclude that many voters appealed to something other than the “party” in making their choice.

Art and the Library: Downtown Connection

I don’t think the geographic distribution of results in the presidential and judicial races is particularly surprising, even if they do make for pretty maps.

But the distribution of results within the city of Ann Arbor for the public art millage (Map 7) and the Ann Arbor District Library bond proposal (Map 8) reveals something interesting: One factor underlying voter sentiment on those two questions seems to be proximity to the downtown.

Both proposals drew their strongest support from areas near the geographic center of the city. Opposition was strongest in areas further away from the geographic center. For the library bond proposal, which would have funded construction of a new downtown library building, that’s not surprising. For the public art millage, it’s not as obvious that this should be the case.

One possible theory is that folks who live in or near downtown are just more “cosmopolitan” and “arty” and for that reason supported the millage. More plausible, I think, is the idea that greater support in the core areas really reflects less opposition – and that the opposition was based in part on the perception that the public art millage was all about only the downtown. That perception could be based on the fact that the two highest profile, most expensive, and most controversial pieces of public art produced by the city’s current Percent for Art program are located downtown: Herbert Dreiseitl’s fountain sculpture, and Ed Carpenter’s interior piece, both at the new Justice Center. [Carpenter's hanging sculpture has been commissioned, but not yet installed.]

Perhaps some of the votes against the public art millage might be seen as votes against a downtown-centric art program. The Ann Arbor public art commission has recently been working toward an approach that would be more geographically balanced – based on quadrants of the city. And a revision to the city’s public art ordinance that’s expected to be brought forward at the Nov. 19 city council meeting also has a geographic component. The proposed revision to the ordinance includes a requirement that councilmembers for the ward where a piece of art is proposed be notified of that proposal.

To the extent that the results on these two proposals reflect something about attitudes toward the downtown, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority should take notice. Part of the logic behind enacting a downtown development authority – with its ability to “capture” taxes of other jurisdictions – is to pay for investments in the downtown area that wouldn’t otherwise be made.

Those investments wouldn’t otherwise be made, because the downtown would likely lose every single time, if the use of those taxes were put through the regular budgeting process. That’s because voters in the periphery (who’ll vote like any voters at least partly in a self-interested way) outnumber those in the core. The enactment of a downtown development authority is a mechanism for enforcing the discipline of making infrastructure investments in the downtown, without subjecting them to the relatively volatile annual city budgeting process.

I think one of the minor lessons of the 2012 general election in Ann Arbor is that the case for investments in the downtown is not obvious to many voters, and will need to be made on an ongoing basis.

Map 7: Results of the Nov. 6, 2012 Ann Arbor public art millage. Maps show only in-person votes, not including absentee voters. Shades of green through white indicate a majority voting yes. Shades of lavender through purple indicate a majority voting no.

Map 8: Results for the Nov. 6, 2012 Ann Arbor District Library bond proposal (in-person voting results only). Results from townships outside Ann Arbor are not included. Shades of green through white indicate a majority voting yes. Shades of lavender through purple indicate a majority voting no.

Links to Maps

Links to the dynamic maps built by The Chronicle on geocommons.com:

• 2012 Ann Arbor city parks millage
• 2012 Ann Arbor public art millage
• 2012 Ann Arbor District Library bond proposal for a new downtown library
• 2012 Washtenaw County non-incumbent 22nd Circuit Court judicial race
• 2012 Washtenaw County U.S. presidential race results
• 2012 Ann Arbor city non-incumbent 22nd Circuit Court judicial race
• 2012 Ann Arbor city U.S. presidential race results

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of civic affairs like elections. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already voting for us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The $65 million, 30-year bond proposal was rejected, gaining support from 33,604 voters (44.83%), with 41,359 votes (55.17%) cast against it. Support inside the city of Ann Arbor was slightly stronger, with 46.4% voting for the proposal compared with 41.2% voting for it outside the city. In addition to the city of Ann Arbor, the district includes parts of the townships of Pittsfield, Scio, Ann Arbor, Lodi, Webster, Salem and Superior.

The funds would have paid for the demolition of the existing library at 343 S. Fifth and the construction of a new building on that same site. Four campaign committees had formed, including three that opposed the project: Protect Our Libraries, Save the Ann Arbor Library and LOL=Love Our Library. The Our New Downtown Library campaign led by Ellie Serras supported the proposal.

In the nonpartisan AADL board elections, five candidates contested four open seats for four-year terms. The top four vote-getters were all incumbents: Nancy Kaplan (30,508 votes – 23.14%); Margaret Leary (28,060 votes – 21.29%); Rebecca Head (26,827 votes – 20.35%); and Pru Rosenthal (23,498 votes – 17.82%). Challenger Lyn Davidge received 21,670 votes (16.44%). Outside the city of Ann Arbor, Davidge and Rosenthal finished in nearly a dead heat, with Davidge receiving 6,800 votes compared to 6,839 for Rosenthal.

The board has said that the current downtown building needs major repairs. Options they’ll likely consider include placing another proposal on a future ballot to pay for renovations or a scaled-back project. The AADL board’s next meeting is on Monday, Nov. 19.

Ellie Serras, who leads the campaign to support AADL’s bond proposal for a new downtown library, spoke during public commentary to update the board on the campaign. (Photos by the writer.)

That update came from Ellie Serras, who leads the Our New Downtown Library campaign committee. She had briefed the board previously at its Aug. 20 meeting. If approved by voters on Nov. 6, the $65 million, 30-year bond proposal will fund the demolition of the existing library at 343 S. Fifth and the construction of a new building on that same site.

Speaking during public commentary, Serras catalogued the number of yard signs, buttons, postcard mailings, meetings and other efforts of the campaign. She described the campaign as being built on trust and confidence, “not rumor and innuendo,” and said the new library will be an expression of the community’s core values of education and equal access for all. Serras received a round of applause from board members after her remarks.

The other item tangentially related to the bond proposal was the uncharacteristic absence of AADL director Josie Parker from the meeting. Board president Margaret Leary reported that Parker was attending two separate township meetings that night to talk about the bond proposal. For the most part, the AADL district mirrors the Ann Arbor Public Schools district. In addition to the city of Ann Arbor, the district includes parts of the townships of Pittsfield, Scio, Ann Arbor, Lodi, Webster, Salem and Superior.

In addition to the bond proposal, there are four seats on the AADL board that are on the Nov. 6 ballot. Four incumbents – Rebecca Head, Nancy Kaplan, Margaret Leary and Prue Rosenthal – are running for re-election. The fifth candidate is Lyn Davidge, who attended the Oct. 15 meeting but did not speak during public commentary. For Chronicle coverage of a recent League of Women Voters forum on this race, see “Library Board Candidates Compete for 4 Seats.” While the four incumbents support the bond proposal, Davidge does not believe it’s the right project at this time.

During the Oct. 15 meeting, the board also got a brief report on library finances. And Leary notified the board that Parker has been appointed by Gov. Rick Snyder to the Michigan Commission for Blind Persons, an advisory group for state programs and services. The AADL administers the Washtenaw Library for the Blind & Physically Disabled.

Update on Campaign for Bond Proposal

By way of background, there are now four campaign committees related to the AADL bond proposal. The Our New Downtown Library committee was the first to form, and supports the effort to build a new library.

The other three committees oppose the new library project. A group called Protect Our Libraries formed in September with Kathy Griswold, a former member of the Ann Arbor Public Schools board, serving as treasurer. Douglas Jewett formed a committee called Save the Ann Arbor Library. He is opposed to demolishing the existing building, which he views as architecturally significant. The original portion of the building was designed by Alden B. Dow.

A third committee – called “LOL=Love Our Library” – filed earlier this month. Its treasurer is Sheila Rice, who is also a board member for the nonprofit Friends of the Ann Arbor District Library. FAADL supports the bond proposal.

During public commentary at the AADL board’s Oct. 15 meeting, Ellie Serras of the Our New Downtown Library committee described the group’s support as diverse and widespread, with over 100 contributors. [The committee's first financial statement covered the period through July 20, with $7,500 raised – including $5,000 from Serras. The deadline for the next financial statement is Oct. 26.]

Several AADL board members wore buttons supporting the bond proposal for a new downtown library.

Serras pointed to 30 testimonials from community leaders that are posted on the campaign website. She reported that 500 small yard signs have been distributed, and 25 large signs will be put up soon. Over 35,000 postcards have been mailed, and another 10,000 will be sent out in the next two weeks. Three hundred campaign buttons have been given out, and the committee has reordered more.

Members of the campaign have attended 14 events, done two radio interviews, and written opinion pieces for local media. More events are planned, she said, and volunteers are eager to add more to their calendar. Advertising is being placed in the local media, and volunteers are working at the Ann Arbor farmers market to talk to people about the proposal.

This campaign is built on confidence and trust, Serras said, ”not rumor and innuendo.” Data that’s been collected by library staff – described by Serras as “astute” – make arguments for the proposal all the more powerful and persuasive. It’s clear that the downtown library is booming and that it can’t accommodate the community’s needs, she said. She said the new library will be an expression of the community’s core values: education and equal access to everyone. It will be an exciting place, she said, where ideas collide and and innovation explodes.

Serras commended the board for its leadership in putting this initiative forward at this time. She said it was an honor for her to be part of an advocacy group for this great institution.

Update on Campaign for Bond Proposal: Board Response

Board members gave Serras a round of applause after her remarks.

Nancy Kaplan asked how people might contact the committee to get involved. Serras directed people to the campaign’s website, noting that you can post a comment or email her directly. The campaign can arrange for someone to attend a meeting or meet with people individually, she said.

Misc. Communications

Board president Margaret Leary noted that none of the board committees had met since last month’s meeting, so there was nothing to report.

From left: AADL board members Prue Rosenthal, Barbara Murphy (seated), and Jan Barney Newman.

She observed that AADL director Josie Parker was absent, and reported that Parker was meeting with groups in two townships that same evening to talk about the Nov. 6 bond proposal.

Leary also reported that Parker had recently been appointed by Gov. Rick Snyder to the Michigan Commission for Blind Persons, an advisory group for state programs and services. The AADL administers the Washtenaw Library for the Blind & Physically Disabled.

From the press release announcing the appointments: “Under her leadership, the Ann Arbor District Library and Washtenaw Library for the Blind and Physically Disabled have received local and national recognition for adopting new technologies which provide special services to a broader population, including K-12 students.”

Leary said the appointment is an honor for Parker and AADL, reflecting her commitment to high-quality service and AADL’s willingness to take on the WLBPD when Washtenaw County government decided they could no longer administer it due to budget cuts. The county board of commissioners approved eliminating support for the WLBPD in late 2008, estimating it would save the county about $500,000 by transferring services to the AADL.

Finance Report

Ken Nieman – AADL associate director of finance, HR and operations – gave a brief financial update to the board. [.pdf of finance report] He noted that through the end of September, the library has received 77% of its budgeted tax receipts – or $8.646 million. AADL’s fund balance stood at $8.035 million as of Sept. 30.

Four items were over budget, he said, but are expected to come back in line with budgeted amounts by the end of the fiscal year. Those line items are utilities, communications, library programming and grant expenses, and a line item for “other operating expenses.”

Board members had no questions for Nieman about the financial report.

Present: Rebecca Head, Nancy Kaplan, Margaret Leary, Barbara Murphy, Jan Barney Newman, Prue Rosenthal, Ed Surovell.

Next meeting: Monday, Nov. 19, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the fourth-floor conference room of the downtown library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor District Library board. Check out this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Douglas Jewett had filed paperwork on Sept. 25 for the Save the Ann Arbor Library ballot question committee. He also secured a sidewalk vendor permit on Aug. 20 for space in front of the downtown library at 343 S. Fifth. He uses the space to lobby against demolition of the current building, citing its architectural significance. The original portion of the building was designed by Alden B. Dow. His website includes a letter to AADL director Josie Parker, outlining in more detail his reasons for opposing the new building.

Another group opposing the new building is called Protect Our Libraries. It also was formed in September and its treasurer is Kathy Griswold, a former member of the Ann Arbor Public Schools board. The group recently started putting up yard signs.

Getting an earlier start was the pro-bond committee called Our New Downtown Library, led by Ellie Serras. That group officially formed in July, but had been working on a campaign to support the bond proposal for several months before that. Serras had updated the library board about the committee’s efforts during public commentary at the board’s Aug. 20 meeting.

The AADL board voted in July to place the bond proposal on the Nov. 6 ballot. The 30-year, $65 million bond question will appear on the ballot as Proposal 1, with the following ballot language: “Shall the Ann Arbor District Library, formed by the Ann Arbor Public Schools and the City of Ann Arbor, County of Washtenaw, State of Michigan, borrow the sum of not to exceed sixty-five million dollars ($65,000,000) and issue its general obligation unlimited tax bonds, in one or more series, payable in not to exceed thirty (30) years from the date of issuance of such bonds, for the purpose of paying all or part of the costs of constructing, furnishing and equipping a new main library building to be located at the current site of the downtown library building, including costs related thereto?”

If approved, it’s estimated that an 0.56 mill tax would be levied in 2013 – or $56 for every $100,000 of a home’s taxable value. The estimate for the average annual millage rate needed to pay off the bonds over the 30-year period is 0.47 mills. That amount would be in addition to the library’s operating millage. AADL is authorized to collect up to 1.92 mills, but currently levies only a portion of that – 1.55 mills.

Ann Arbor District Library director Josie Parker at the Sept. 24, 2012 meeting of the AADL board. She reported on recent recognition given to the Washtenaw Library for the Blind and Physically Disabled, which is administered by AADL. (Photos by the writer.)

But the bond proposal could be seen as the backdrop for a report by AADL director Josie Parker, who provided an update of the district’s five-year strategic plan, which the board adopted in 2010. Parker distributed a copy of the plan that highlighted achievements from the most recent fiscal year. “Our reach in the community is deep and it’s wide,” she said. “The strategic plan is our evidence.” [.pdf of highlighted strategic plan]

Board president Margaret Leary noted that as the community’s attention is rightly focused on the bond proposal, the goal of renovating or replacing the downtown building is only one item in the strategic plan. There are seven pages of actions that the library is taking, she said.

At last month’s board meeting Ellie Serras, chair of the Our New Downtown Library campaign committee, spoke during public commentary to brief the board on actions of that pro-bond group. And since then, two other efforts – to oppose the proposal – have emerged. A group called Protect Our Libraries was formed earlier this month. Its treasurer is Kathy Griswold, a former member of the Ann Arbor Public Schools board.

And Douglas Jewett, who had attended an August forum for potential AADL board candidates, filed paperwork on Sept. 25 for the Save the Ann Arbor Library ballot question committee. He did not file to run for the board. He previously had secured a sidewalk vendor permit on Aug. 20 for space in front of the downtown library at 343 S. Fifth. He uses the space to lobby against demolition of the current building, citing its architectural significance. The original portion of the building was designed by Alden B. Dow.

At the candidate forum, Jewett had praised the library, calling it the center of Ann Arbor. Four non-partisan board seats on the Nov. 6 ballot will be contested by five candidates: the four incumbents – Prue Rosenthal, Margaret Leary, Nancy Kaplan and Rebecca Head – as well as Lyn Davidge, who attended the Sept. 24 board meeting.

The positions will be elected by voters in Ann Arbor and portions of seven townships that are covered by the library’s district, in Pittsfield, Scio, Ann Arbor, Lodi, Webster, Salem and Superior. Those are the same boundaries served by the Ann Arbor Public Schools, with the exception of Northfield Township. The four-year terms begin Jan. 1, 2013.

Director’s Report

Josie Parker began her director’s report by highlighting a newsletter distributed by the National Library Service. A section titled “Best Practices from the Network: Spreading the Word about NLS” featured tips from Terry Soave, AADL’s manager of outreach and neighborhood services, about getting coverage for the Washtenaw Library for the Blind and Physically Disabled, which is operated by AADL and serves over 400 people. [Celeste Choate, associate director of services, collections and access, had briefed the board in August about a recent satisfaction survey for WLBPD patrons.]

From left: Terry Soave, AADL manager of outreach and neighborhood services, and Celeste Choate, associate director of services, collections and access.

The National Library Service had reached out to AADL to be featured in its newsletter, Parker said, even though the library has only administered the WLBPD for three years. The newsletter listed a dozen items of advice from Soave about how to promote programs or services. The WLBPD had been covered in a June 2012 e-newsletter of the Homewatch Caregivers of Ann Arbor.

The board gave Soave and her staff a round of applause.

Parker also pointed to a handout of the district’s five-year strategic plan – actions that had occurred in the past fiscal year were highlighted in yellow. [.pdf of highlighted strategic plan]

The document shows how active the AADL staff has been in addressing all elements of the strategic plan, Parker said. ”Our reach in the community is deep and it’s wide,” she said. “The strategic plan is our evidence.”

She noted that some things might seem small, but in fact have broader implications. One example was securing the right to make the movie “Grown in Detroit” available for online streaming by AADL cardholders. It shows how AADL is working to bring different kinds of media to the public, in avenues that aren’t traditional, she said. [Eli Neiburger, AADL’s associate director of IT and product development, had described some of these initiatives in more detail during a presentation at the board's Aug. 20, 2012 meeting.]

Here’s a sampling of strategic-plan actions that were accomplished during the past fiscal year:

• Added all branches to the possible pickup locations for Art Prints.
• Developed and launched Science to Go kit collection in late 2011.
• Launched telescope collection for beginning users and hobbyists.
• Hosted a meeting of area ESL [English as a second language] service providers and educators in order to exchange information and promote AADL resources.
• Launched oldnews.aadl.org with over 100,000 local newspaper articles in October 2011.
• Developed a new sensory play event for children with autism.
• Developed an extremely popular event on funding for non-profits that was repeated several times due to demand.
• Provided a panel discussion on the homelessness issue in Washtenaw County in conjunction with the Washtenaw Housing Alliance. AADL also videotaped the event and as of June 27 (a little over 5 months after the event took place) the video has been viewed over 1,000 times.
• Placed withdrawn AADL materials with homeless students via AAPS Homeless Liaison.
• Partnered with C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital to provide storytelling at regularly scheduled events for patients and their families.
• Added collecting samples of each track into music cataloging workflow for inclusion in the catalog.
• Secured a grant from American Library Association and National Endowment for the Humanities to act as a focus group for book selection for the NEH Muslim Journeys Project.
• Conducted a WLBPD Patron Satisfaction Survey. (37% of WLBPD patrons responded.)
• Host a local listserv for Library Biz Connect, a group comprised of small business and entrepreneur-related support service-providers and libraries that shares information about their respective programs and resources; and, also partners on programming.

Margaret Leary, the board’s president, highlighted a couple of initiatives that she said reflect AADL’s work with the Ann Arbor Public Schools: (1) partnering with Mack School to teach fifth graders how to capture and record family stories, using traditional and modern techniques, including podcasting; and (2) partnering with AAPS, C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital and the VA Hospital to develop and deliver Valentine’s cards made by local kids to hospital patients.

Leary noted that the community’s attention is focused on the bond proposal, which is important. But that’s just a single goal under one of six strategic initiatives. There are seven pages of other activities that the library is pursuing too, she said.

Finance & Facilities Reports

As he does each month, Ken Nieman – AADL associate director of finance, HR and operations – gave a brief financial update to the board. [.pdf of finance report]

AADL board member Jan Barney Newman.

He noted a sharp increase in AADL’s unrestricted cash balance – from $8.132 million in July to $13.295 million by the end of August. This reflects the receipt of proceeds from the July tax bills. As of Aug. 30, the AADL had received 64% of its budgeted tax revenues for the fiscal year, which runs through June 30, 2013.

Five items were over budget, but are expected to come back in line with budgeted amounts by the end of the fiscal year, Nieman said. Those line items include employment costs, utilities, communications, and library programming and grant expenses.

In all, Nieman concluded, August was business as usual.

Later in the meeting, board member Barbara Murphy gave an update from the board’s budget and finance committee. She noted that a financial audit is currently underway, and will be presented to the board in November.

Prue Rosenthal reported from the special facilities committee, on which she, Ed Surovell and Nancy Kaplan serve. Speaking in very general terms, she said the committee had met and discussed the state of the downtown building, what can be done about it and how to move forward.

Present: Rebecca Head, Nancy Kaplan, Margaret Leary, Barbara Murphy, Jan Barney Newman, Prue Rosenthal, Ed Surovell. Also AADL director Josie Parker.

Next meeting: Monday, Oct. 15, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the fourth-floor conference room of the downtown library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor District Library board. Check out this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Listed as treasurer of the group is Kathy Griswold, a former Ann Arbor Public Schools board member. She also served as campaign manager for Sumi Kailasapathy’s Ward 1 Ann Arbor city council Democratic primary election campaign, which Kailasapathy won on Aug. 7. The URL for the group will be protectourlibraries.org, but was purchased just last week and does not yet have content.

A campaign committee to support the library’s proposal was formed in the summer. Called  Our New Downtown Library, the committee is being chaired by Ellie Serras. For more background about the library’s bond proposal, see Chronicle coverage: “Library Bond Move Toward Nov. 6 Ballot.”

Lynn Davidge, left, talks with Sheila Rice before the start of the Aug. 20, 2012 Ann Arbor District Library board meeting. Davidge is the only non-incumbent running for a library board seat in the Nov. 6 general election. Incumbents on the ballot are Rebecca Head, Nancy Kaplan, Margaret Leary and Prue Rosenthal. (Photos by the writer.)

Ellie Serras, chair of the Our New Downtown Library campaign committee, spoke during public commentary to brief the board on actions of that group. It was formed earlier this year to support a $65 million, 30-year bond proposal that the board voted to put on the Nov. 6 ballot. Serras described the committee’s outreach efforts, including its website, Twitter account (@OurNewLibrary), Facebook group, promotional mailing, yard signs, and meetings with individuals and groups in the community.

Committee members are committed to this project and they want everyone to know how important it is, she said. ”It’s a life changer.”

In the context of the proposed building project, AADL director Josie Parker told the board that library staff are being asked about the relevancy of public libraries, so she thought it was appropriate to address that question at a formal board meeting by looking at changes that public libraries are facing. Associate director Eli Neiburger described how the library is responding to changes in the publishing industry regarding digital content. Currently, publishers are fairly restrictive in allowing public libraries to access digital content for patrons. So the Ann Arbor library has started negotiating licensing deals directly with creators – including filmmakers of the 2009 “Grown in Detroit” documentary, and the author of the graphic novel “Poopy Claws” – to allow AADL patrons to access those works through online streaming and limitless downloads, respectively.

Associate director Celeste Choate described the library’s non-media, non-traditional collections, which include art prints, energy meter readers, Science to Go kits, telescopes and electronic musical “tools.” The full list of collections is on the “Unusual Stuff to Borrow” page of AADL’s website. Additional collections are in the works, including art tools and kits for science experiments.

Though Neiburger described storage needs for digital media as trivial – he could keep 200,000 copies of “Poopy Claws” on his cell phone, if he were so inclined – the needs for non-traditional physical items are more challenging. The library’s tracking/circulation software is well-suited to adapt, because that system doesn’t care about size, he said. “But the shelf sure does.” It was an implicit reference to some of the arguments put forward in the board’s decision to pursue a new downtown building.

Also during the Aug. 20 meeting, Choate reported on a recent satisfaction survey for patrons of the Washtenaw Library for the Blind and Physically Disabled, which is operated by AADL and serves over 400 people. The library received high marks from those who responded to the survey, she said. [.pdf of survey results]

Public Commentary: Millage Campaign Update

Ellie Serras, chair of the Our New Downtown Library campaign committee, told the board that the group officially launched in July, the day after the board voted to put the bond resolution on the Nov. 6 ballot. [By way of background, other campaign committee members include Mike Allemang, (treasurer), Sally Allen, Janis Bobrin, Leah Gunn, Debbie Herbert, Norman Herbert, Pat McDonald, Paul Morel, Omari Rush, Paul Saginaw, Ingrid Sheldon and Robin Wax.]

Screenshot of Our New Library website – ournewlibrary.com – for the campaign to pass the Nov. 6 $65 million bond proposal to fund a new downtown library.

Since then, Serras said, the group has been working to get the word out, asking voters to reaffirm their investment in this community and its intellectual sustainability. They’ve developed several outreach strategies, including a website, Twitter account (@OurNewLibrary) and Facebook group. The website so far averages about 20 visits per day, but the important thing is the duration of the visits, she said – about 4 minutes, which she said means people are reading what’s on the site. They have about 100 Facebook fans and 29 Twitter followers. It’s unlikely they’ll get a large number of followers, she said, but what’s important is the quality of those followers. The majority of @OurNewLibrary’s followers themselves have between 200 to 3,000 followers each, which creates a bigger reach, she pointed out.

Last week a letter was mailed to about 1,000 voters asking for their support. Yard signs will be distributed in the next few weeks. There are ongoing meetings with individuals, businesses, and associations. Contributions to the campaign are good so far, she said, illustrating how important the library is to the community. Serras said the committee members feel privileged to work on this effort, because it’s a quality of life issue. It’s for the good of every citizen, who expects the library to be the community’s center for learning, culture and information. The committee is sharing the hard facts about the library’s critical role and relevancy, she said.

The campaign is dedicated to the people who account for the 600,000 visits to the library each year, she said, to the individuals who use the library’s computers and Internet access, who need job training, meeting space, services for the visually impaired and physically disabled – to everyone who uses the library for their own individual reasons, adding up to the common good for all, she said. Serras encouraged board members and others to learn how to use Facebook if they didn’t already know how, to get a yard sign, host a coffee, and help the campaign as much as they can. She said AADL director Josie Parker’s calendar will be filling up with meetings to talk about the bond proposal. The committee is committed to this project and they want everyone to know how important it is, she said: “It’s a life changer.”

The board and staff gave Serras a round of applause.

For additional background on the bond proposal, see Chronicle coverage: “Library Bond Moves Toward Nov. 6 Ballot” and “AADL Board: What’s Your Library Vision?” The AADL also posted a six-page fact sheet on its website with details about the proposal, and has additional information online, including a way for patrons to post comments on the library director’s blog.

Public Library Trends

AADL director Josie Parker told the board that library staff are being asked about the relevancy of public libraries, and she thought it was appropriate to address that question at a formal board meeting. The presentation was made by Eli Neiburger, AADL’s associate director of IT and product development, and Celeste Choate, AADL associate director of services, collections and access. Parker said they didn’t have time at the meeting to be comprehensive, but would touch on a couple of major points regarding the library’s collections.

Public Library Trends: Digital Content

Eli Neiburger’s talk covered some of the same ground as a presentation he’d made to the board in February 2012. He noted that the AADL currently provides access to eBooks through a proprietary service called Overdrive, which allows the library to buy temporary licenses for eBooks that can then be used one at a time by patrons. There are certain technical requirements to use Overdrive, he said, and a lot of people don’t make it through that process of updating software and making other modification before they can use the service.

Eli Neiburger, AADL’s associate director of IT and product development, preps for his presentation on digital publishing trends for public libraries.

In general, the publishing industry wants a distribution method to guarantee that its electronic offerings won’t be widely distributed among users without payment. That’s counter to how computers work – with the ability to easily share files – so libraries are experimenting with other approaches, Neiburger said.

The challenge is to develop licensing models that embrace and deliver on the potential of digital media, as opposed to using technology to emulate how physical objects are bought and circulated. People are accustomed to the immediacy of buying an eBook, so it’s frustrating when they’re told there’s a waiting list to download an eBook from the library. That’s not a good situation, he said.

Neiburger described a matrix to illustrate the current options and potential future of digital media and publishing in relation to public libraries. The X axis showed a range of market types – from closed markets like Overdrive on one end, to open markets like eBay and the Internet on the other. The Y axis ranged from the publishing industry dying back on one end, to a thriving industry on the other. He noted that it’s unlikely publishing would die off completely, likening it to candles that were once critical as a light source but that now are used primarily for ritual or ambiance.

Neiburger described four quadrants of possibilities along these axes.

• DRM (Digital Rights Management) Dystopia (Closed markets/publishing thrives): Publishers keep tight control over content, prices stay high, publishing deals are handled through intermediaries, and there are fights over what can be offered exclusively on certain devices used for reading the digital content. In this scenario, libraries take what they can get. They’d pay more for less content, and would need to find a way to offer supplemental value.
• Platform Wars (Closed markets/publishing “dies back”): Companies like Apple and Amazon lock up rights to digital content, there’s a huge range of quality, and content creators can sign exclusivity deals for their work to be distributed only over certain devices. There would be little interest in working with public libraries, so libraries would have to find a new way, such as focusing on creating new content or historical archives.
• Neo Renaissance (Open markets/publishing thrives): This scenario would be good for libraries, Neiburger said. Price points would be low, devices would be irrelevant, and libraries could buy digital content. Their infrastructure needs would be tied to storing and distributing that content.
• Free Culture Society (Open markets/publishing “dies back”): The dominant price would be free, devices would be irrelevant, publishing deals would no longer be the model, and the role of libraries would be to store and distribute content. That role would drive a library’s infrastructure needs.

Neiburger then gave some examples of how AADL is experimenting with licensing for digital content. One of its first attempts was by striking an agreement with Magnatune, a digital music publisher. In early 2011, AADL negotiated a deal with the firm for about 12,000 songs – or the equivalent of about 1,200 albums. The library bought a license for each of its cardholders at $15 per cardholder – about $10,000 annually – so that anyone can download tracks with no waiting. Magnatune’s standard charge for the service to individuals would be $15 a month. It’s akin to annual subscriptions for databases, paying a flat fee for unlimited use. Though Magnatune doesn’t offer current “hot” performers, it provides a broad collection with a wide variety of genres, including classical, world music blues, hip hop, and alt rock.

Since launching Magnatune in April of 2011, there have been about 62,500 downloads by AADL patrons, Neiburger reported. That works out to a cost per use of about 25 cents per track. He noted that as a rule of thumb for public libraries, anything less than $1 per use is considered a good deal.

Another example of AADL’s alternative approach to licensing digital content is the 2009 “Grown in Detroit” documentary, produced by Dutch filmmakers. The DVD cost $175 and at one point the library had a wait list of 60 people. So AADL approached the film’s creators, who were willing to negotiate a deal to allow library patrons to view the documentary through online streaming video. The library paid a flat fee, and anyone with an AADL card can view it. Since May of 2012, about 300 people have viewed it, Neiburger said – many more than would have had access to a DVD version.

The final example is an eBook version of the graphic novel “Poopy Claws,” about a boy and his cat, Stinky, who doesn’t use the litter box. The library negotiated a digital content license for four years, at a price set by the author for unlimited downloads by AADL patrons – $400.

Neiburger said the next target is audio books. In general, creators know that distributing their work doesn’t erode, but rather builds, their audience, he noted. For “Poopy Claws,” people who read it online might then want to buy the physical copy, or other items like T-shirts, for example.

Nancy Kaplan asked whether the library had enough space to accommodate its needs for digital content. Neiburger said the storage space that’s needed is trivial – he could keep 200,000 copies of “Poopy Claws” on his cell phone. Digital space is extremely compact, he added, and the cost of adding a file is negligible.

Jan Barney Newman asked how much Magnatune paid the musicians who are part of their collection. Neiburger said the company pays musicians 50% of the revenues it receives based on usage.

Segueing to the next part of the presentation, Neiburger noted that the library has built a very efficient system for circulating its traditional collection of materials. But circulation, shelving and building design are set up to house and circulate objects of a certain size. As that changes, one challenge is where and how to store non-traditional collections. The library’s tracking/circulation software is well-suited for it, because that system doesn’t care about size, he said, “but the shelf sure does.”

Public Library Trends: Non-Traditional Collections

Celeste Choate – AADL associate director of services, collections and access – talked to the board about the library’s non-media, non-traditional collections. She had given a briefing on that same topic at the board’s Jan. 16, 2012 meeting.

The collections include  art prints; meter readers to gauge the energy efficiency of home appliances and electronics,; and Science to Go kits that focus on specific themes – prehistoric mammals, for example. The Science to Go kits contain materials that include books, DVDs, Fandex educational cards, and objects like a replica of a fossilized wooly mammoth molar. The full list of collections is on the “Unusual Stuff to Borrow” page of AADL’s website.

A collection of cases holding electronic musical tools at the AADL’s downtown building.

Earlier this year, the library began circulating telescopes, Choate said, in partnership with the University Lowbrow Astronomers. There are seven telescopes now, but because of their popularity, the library has ordered 15 more. So far there have been no problems with the items being broken or not returned, she said.

The most recent collection is electronic musical “tools” – 22 different types are available, including a concertina, Hapi drum, and theremin. Right now, Choate said, this collection doesn’t allow holds or renewals. The items are displayed next to the circulation desk of the downtown library, where patrons can see what’s available. Eventually, the collection will be rolled out to other branches.

They’ve been circulating for about three weeks, and have been well received, Choate said – one patron who’s a musician used a tool on one of his recordings. The aim was to buy items that would stand up well over time, and that weren’t available elsewhere.

Some of the items were passed out to board members, and Eli Neiburger demonstrated how they worked. Josie Parker added that they could be toys, but they’re not. Her son recently returned from Scotland and was determined to learn the bagpipes, she said. So she checked out a set of macpipes for him, which are used by professional bagpipers to practice fingering.

Barbara Murphy wondered if there are plans for more traditional musical instruments. Neiburger said the Hapi drum is a bit like a steel drum, but in general the idea is to offer instruments that local businesses don’t provide, so that the library isn’t competing.

Choate reported that two other collections are in the works: (1) art tools, like a mural projector or yarn ball winder; and (2) science tools, as a complement to the Science to Go kits, which would allow parents and kids to conduct science experiments. She said the library is open to suggestions for other collections as well.

Update: Library for  the Blind & Physically Disabled

Celeste Choate also gave the board an update on a recent satisfaction survey for patrons of the Washtenaw Library for the Blind and Physically Disabled, which is operated by AADL. Such a survey is required by the National Library Service to be conducted every three years, and is very labor intensive, she said. Staff called or contacted in other ways every patron, to be sure they’re getting the service they want.

Of the WLBPD’s 446 active patrons, 37% (137 people) responded to the survey, which is a high response rate, Choate said. The responses were received by mail, email, or through talking with library staff. Of the respondents, 87% rated their experience as either excellent or good, and 97% would recommend the services to friends or family members.  [.pdf of survey results]

Choate described the results as really great news, and thanked the staff for their work – specifically, outreach and neighborhood services manager Terry Soave, and library technicians Tonia Bickford and Katie Chynoweth.

Finance Report

Ken Nieman, AADL associate director of finance, HR and operations, gave a very brief financial update to the board. [.pdf of financial report] He noted that the three line items currently over budget are expected to come back in line. Those items are: employment costs (because merit increases were paid in July); communications (for an annual internet fee paid in July); and library programming/grant expenses (large purchases for the summer reading program were made in July).

He joked about having to follow the public commentary by Ellie Serras, who had received applause from the board. Jan Barney Newman said they’d applaud him too – and they did.

Present: Rebecca Head, Nancy Kaplan, Margaret Leary, Barbara Murphy, Jan Barney Newman, Prue Rosenthal, Ed Surovell. Also AADL director Josie Parker.

Next meeting: Monday, Sept. 24 at 7 p.m. in the fourth-floor conference room of the downtown library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor District Library board. Check out this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The language for the ballot proposal itself had been approved at a special meeting on July 30, but did not include a title. [See Chronicle coverage: “Library Bond Moves Toward Nov. 6 Ballot.”] That omission led to the need for Monday’s special meeting, which was announced late last week.

There was minimal comment before the vote. Board president Margaret Leary described the title as short, simple, clear and reflective of the bond proposal’s single purpose.

The proposal will ask voters to authorize $65 million in bonds to build a new downtown library on its current site at 343 S. Fifth Ave., at the northeast corner of Fifth and William. At its July 16 regular meeting, the AADL board had voted to move forward on this 30-year bond initiative. In addition to construction of the new building, the funding would also pay for demolition of the existing structure, moving costs, and temporary leases while the new building is being constructed.

Passage of the bond proposal on Nov. 6 would result in an initial bond millage levy in July of 2013. It’s estimated that 0.56 mills would be levied in the first year, with an average annual rate of 0.47 mills over the 30-year period.

The proposal is asking voters to authorize $65 million in bonds to build a new downtown library. At its July 16, 2012 regular meeting, the AADL board had voted to move forward on this 30-year bond initiative, and set the special meeting on July 30 to approve the ballot language. The funding would also pay for demolition of the existing structure at 343 S. Fifth Ave., moving costs, and temporary leases while the new building is being constructed.

Passage of the bond proposal on Nov. 6 would result in an initial bond millage levy in July of 2013. It’s estimated that 0.56 mills would be levied in the first year, with an average annual rate of 0.47 mills over the 30-year period.

AADL board member Jan Barney Newman reads the resolution regarding bond language for the Nov. 6 ballot. (Photos by the writer.)

Earlier this month, the board had voted to move forward on this bond initiative. If approved by voters, it would fund a new downtown building at the current site. At Monday’s meeting, AADL director Josie Parker stressed that the $65 million covers the cost of the entire project, not just the building itself. Other costs include demolition of the existing structure, moving costs and leases for temporary locations.

Passage of the bond proposal on Nov. 6 would result in an initial bond millage levy in July of 2013. It’s estimated that 0.56 mills would be levied in the first year, with an average annual rate of 0.47 mills over the 30-year period.

The new building would be on the downtown library’s current site at 343 S. Fifth Ave., on the northeast corner of Fifth and William. Parker gave a brief history of the site, to explain why that location is preferred. One major factor relates to the site’s previous ownership by the Ann Arbor Public Schools. Until 1995, the library was part of the AAPS.

A separation agreement with the school system gives AAPS the right of first refusal if AADL decides to sell the site. If the school system decides to buy it, AAPS would pay only 65% of the market value. If AAPS doesn’t buy the property and AADL sells it to another entity, AAPS gets 35% of the net sale proceeds. All of that factored in to the board’s decision to stay on the site, Parker noted.

Two advisors to AADL on this bond issue – James P. Kiefer of Dykema and Paul R. Stauder of Stauder, Barch & Associates – attended the July 30 meeting and answered questions from the board. Board members asked only a few clarificational questions, including some related to the millage rate, use of bond proceeds, and the possibility of local downtown development authorities capturing a small portion of the bond millage.

After the meeting, the library immediately posted a six-page information sheet with frequently asked questions about the project. The FAQ includes a chart showing estimates of how much individual property owners will pay. For example, the owner of a house with a market value of $200,000 is expected to pay $56 annually, based on a levy of 0.56 mills.

For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “AADL Board: Renovation Not the Best Option” and “Campaign Launches for Library Bond.”

Bond Ballot Language

At its July 16, 2012 regular meeting, the AADL board had discussed and ultimately voted to put a 30-year, $65 million bond proposal on the Nov. 6 ballot to fund a new downtown library at its current location. The board also set a special meeting for July 30 to vote on specific ballot language for the proposal.

The sole resolution on the July 30 agenda related to the bond proposal question and informational language to be included on the Nov. 6 ballot.

This was the ballot language presented to the board for approval:

Shall the Ann Arbor District Library, formed by the Ann Arbor Public Schools and the City of Ann Arbor, County of Washtenaw, State of Michigan, borrow the sum of not to exceed sixty-five million dollars ($65,000,000) and issue its general obligation unlimited tax bonds, in one or more series, payable in not to exceed thirty (30) years from the date of issuance of such bonds, for the purpose of paying all or part of the costs of constructing, furnishing and equipping a new main library building to be located at the current site of the downtown library building, including costs related thereto?

The board’s resolution also included the following informational text to be included on the ballot:

The estimated millage to be levied in 2013 to pay the debt service on such bonds is 0.56 mills ($0.56 per $1,000 of taxable value) and the estimated simple average annual millage rate required to retire the bonds is 0.47 mills ($0.47 per $1,000 of taxable value). In accordance with State law, a portion of the revenue collected may be subject to capture by the City of Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the Scio Township Downtown Development Authority.

Two advisors for AADL on this bond issue – James P. Kiefer, an attorney with Dykema’s Lansing office who specializes in public finance, and Paul R. Stauder of Ann Arbor-based Stauder, Barch & Associates – were on hand to answer questions from the board.

Bond Ballot Language: Public Commentary

Public commentary at library board meetings occurs at the start of each meeting.

On Monday, Lyn Davidge told board members that she was still trying to get more people to show up for public commentary. [This was a theme of her speaking turn at the board's July 16 meeting, too. Although a few members of the public attended the July 30 meeting, only Davidge spoke during public commentary.] She thanked the board for including the ballot language in the board packet, which was available online prior to the meeting. Her question related to words within the phrase “…for the purpose of paying all or part of the costs of constructing, furnishing and equipping a new main library building…” Davidge asked for clarification of the words ”or part of.” She hoped that clarification of that could be provided.

Bond Ballot Language: Board Discussion

Jan Barney Newman began the discussion by asking about the two millage rates mentioned in the ballot language – 0.56 mills and 0.47 mills. She wondered why there was a difference. Paul Stauder of Stauder, Barch & Associates responded that the rates are calculated in accordance with state law. The law requires an estimate of the first year that the millage would be levied, as well as an average millage rate over the entire 30-year period. To do that, certain assumptions are made, he said, such as an assumption that the overall tax base will grow. As the tax base grows, the millage rate is expected to diminish.

From left: James Kiefer of the law firm Dykema and Paul Stauder of Stauder, Barch & Associates. They are advising the library on its $65 million bond issue.

Newman clarified with Stauder that the calculation is made based on the number of properties that will be assessed.

Margaret Leary asked for clarification of the point raised during public commentary, related to the phrase “or part of.” James Kiefer of Dykema told the board that the phrase gives AADL flexibility. While AADL could spend the entire $65 million on the project, he said, if there is unexpected revenue from other sources – a grant, for example, or money bequeathed to the library in someone’s will – then the library wouldn’t be bound to spend the entire amount that could be raised from the bonds.

Leary noted that the language implies the bond proceeds can be used to pay for demolition of the current building. Kiefer confirmed that assumption – construction costs include demolition costs. AADL director Josie Parker added that the bond also covers the cost of moving and operating the library elsewhere during the construction period.

Rebecca Head wanted to clarify that the bond proceeds will be used for the new downtown library, not for other purposes. She said she wanted to emphasize that in the context of the earlier statement that only part of the bond proceeds might be used. If other revenue comes in and the entire bond amount isn’t needed for the new library, the bond funds wouldn’t be used for other projects.

Bond Ballot Language: Board Discussion – DDAs

Nancy Kaplan asked for explanation about the reference to the two downtown development authorities.

It’s very complicated, Kiefer replied. State law allows the a DDA to establish a baseline property value for its district, then capture taxes above that baseline on the increase in property values. A small amount of the library bond might be subject to that tax increment finance (TIF) capture, he said. State law requires the statement about DDA tax capture as part of the bond ballot language, he added, but he hadn’t researched the specific DDA plans to see how the TIF would affect the AADL bond. He noted that the library doesn’t control the amount that might be captured by the DDAs.

Prue Rosenthal asked who does control the amount? Kiefer said the county treasurer and local assessing units implement the TIF. To get more information about how the TIF would apply to the AADL bond, he would need to look at details of each DDA plan in terms of its baseline, duration and amount of tax capture, he said.

Barbara Murphy wanted to know about other types of TIFs, such as brownfield TIFs. Will those also affect the bond? No, Kiefer said. Under state law, only certain types of TIF districts are permitted to capture debt retirement taxes. In this case, only the Ann Arbor and Scio Township DDAs might be allowed to capture a portion of the AADL bond millage revenues.

By way of additional background related to TIFs, AADL director Josie Parker wrote an essay in July 2010 titled “Tax Increment Financing Development Erodes Library Millages.” And a TIF issue related specifically to the Ann Arbor DDA emerged in 2011, following a DDA board decision regarding “excess” taxes captured in its TIF district. See Chronicle coverage: “Library Weighs DDA Excess Tax Decision.”

Bond Ballot Language: Board Discussion – Site History

Margaret Leary asked AADL director Josie Parker to explain the history of the 343 S. Fifth Ave. site, saying it was indirectly related to the bond issue and that a question about whether to locate on the same site had been raised.

Parker replied that it’s actually directly related to the bond, because state law – the District Library Financing Act (Public Act 265 of 1988) – requires that the ballot language state how the library district was formed.

In 1994, Proposal A changed the state law so that public school systems could no longer operate public libraries using the school millage. When that happened, the Ann Arbor Public Schools and city of Ann Arbor moved to form the Ann Arbor District Library as a separate entity. In 1995, voters approved the establishment of the AADL with an independent governing board. At the same time, voters authorized a 2.0 mill tax in perpetuity to operate the library system. [Due to the state's Headlee Amendment, that 2.0 mills has been rolled back over the years to about 1.92 mills, which is now the maximum amount that AADL can levy each year. However, the library currently levies only a portion of that amount – 1.55 mills.]

As the library separated from the school system, Parker said, there were assets to consider, including land and buildings. Those issues were dealt with in a separation agreement between the AADL and the AAPS. The library system took ownership of the Loving branch on Creek Drive, which was later replaced by the new Malletts Creek branch on Eisenhower. The AADL also took over the lease of the branch at Westgate shopping mall, which was subsequently expanded and renovated.

For the downtown building, the separation agreement acknowledged the investment that AAPS had made, Parker said. The school system had taken on debt in 1991 to double the size of the downtown library. The library agreed to lease the downtown building from AAPS for $1 per year for 10 years, with the deed then transferring to AADL. The library took ownership of the building and land in December 2005.

But as an acknowledgement of the AAPS investment, the separation agreement included stipulations related to the sale of the downtown site, Parker explained. If AADL decides to sell the building and land, AAPS has the right of first refusal, and gets a year to make that decision. If the school system decides to buy it, they would pay only 65% of the market value. If AAPS doesn’t buy the property and AADL sells it to another entity, AAPS gets 35% of the net sale proceeds.

Parker noted that these factors had been considered by the special facilities committee in making its recommendation to build on the current site, rather than sell the site and build a new library elsewhere. [The details that Parker explicated about the downtown site were not mentioned in the six-page memo from special facilities committee that was submitted to the board, nor was the issue discussed explicitly during the board's public deliberations at its July 16 meeting.]

Parker said another consideration is the fact that the current site is larger than any other available parcels nearby. The size of the site is important because libraries in urban settings have certain security needs, she said. Having a larger building footprint means that each floor can be designed to give staff better lines of sight. The AADL’s new branches were constructed in this way. The alternative of building a taller structure would increase operating costs, because more staff would be needed on each floor. The goal is to have the safest environment for everyone, Parker said.

Bond Ballot Language: Board Discussion – General Information

Barbara Murphy asked whether the general information provided in the board’s resolution would also go on the ballot, in addition to the actual ballot question. James Kiefer replied that the informational language is also required by state law. The library will work with the Washtenaw County clerk’s office to finalize what goes on the ballot.

Murphy pointed out that there’s no indication in the informational paragraph that states why the AADL needs to build a new downtown library. Kiefer noted that some people would say it’s already a long run-on sentence, without including more information.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved ballot language to be placed on the Nov. 6 ballot.

Library Bond Proposal: Information for Voters

After Monday’s board vote, AADL director Josie Parker reported that the library staff had prepared a six-page information sheet with frequently asked questions about the project, called The Vision/The Vote. Questions that are addressed include:

• What will a new downtown library offer our community?
• What will the new library look like?
• Is $65 million enough?
• Why can’t you just renovate the existing facility?
• Why hasn’t the library board chosen to build the new library on the top of the underground parking garage on Library Lane?
• Why doesn’t the library board sell the property at Fifth and William and build elsewhere?
• Are libraries needed in the age of eBooks and the Internet? How many people use the downtown library?
• Why does the board think the public is interested in a new downtown library?
• What is wrong with the current building?

The handout also provides information about how residents can give feedback to the library – questions can be emailed to downtown@aadl.org. Another section of the handout addresses issues related to the Nov. 6 bond proposal, including the ballot language, rationale for the decision to pursue a bond proposal, and a chart showing how much taxpayers will pay based on the value of their property. For example, the owner of a house with a market value of $200,000 is expected to pay $56 annually, based on a levy of 0.56 mills.

Millage information for AADL bond proposal.

If voters approve the ballot proposal on Nov. 6, Parker said, the tax would be levied for the first time in July of 2013.

Parker stressed that the handout isn’t an advocacy document – the library is prohibited by law from asking people to vote in a certain way. Rather, it’s intended to be informational and as conversational as possible, she said. It’s posted online and will be available in printed form throughout the downtown library and the AADL branches.

Although this was not part of Parker’s report, a separate campaign by community leaders to support the bond proposal was officially launched last week. The Our New Downtown Library campaign committee has been working informally for several weeks. Some of its members had attended the July 23 board meeting, when the AADL board voted to put the bond proposal on the Nov. 6 ballot.

Campaign committee members include Ellie Serras (chair), Mike Allemang, (treasurer), Sally Allen, Janis Bobrin, Leah Gunn, Debbie Herbert, Norman Herbert, Pat McDonald, Paul Morel, Omari Rush, Paul Saginaw, Ingrid Sheldon and Robin Wax. The group has already launched a website, Twitter account (@OurNewLibrary) and Facebook group. According to a press release issued by the group, they intend to hold public forums, use social media, speak at community meetings and mail information to residents in support of the bond proposal.

Present: Rebecca Head, Nancy Kaplan, Margaret Leary, Barbara Murphy, Jan Barney Newman, Prue Rosenthal. Also AADL director Josie Parker.

Absent: Ed Surovell.

Next meeting: Monday, Aug. 20 at 7 p.m. in the fourth-floor conference room of the downtown library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor District Library board. Check out this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!