Screen shot of Washtenaw County clerk election results map for Ward 2. Purple shading corresponds to precincts won by Lumm, light blue to those won by Westphal. The two precincts won by Westphal were the lightly voted 2-1 (70 Westphal, 59 Lumm, 5 Brown) and 2-2 (7 Westphal, 3 Lumm, 3 Brown).

In Ward 4, Democrat Jack Eaton was unopposed on the ballot and won easily, with 88.9% of the tally, against declared write-in candidate William Lockwood.

The Ann Arbor Public Schools sinking fund millage won easily with a 13,321 (80.34%) to 3,259 (19.7%) margin.

The outcome makes Eaton the only new member on the 11-member council. He’ll replace Democrat Marcia Higgins. Eaton and Higgins contested the Aug. 6 Democratic primary, which Eaton won in decisive fashion – with about 65% of the vote.

The composition of the council will not change before its Nov. 7, 2013 meeting, which features a very heavy agenda. Eaton will join Ward 4 colleague Margie Teall at the table for the Nov. 18 meeting, but will be officially sworn in on Nov. 11.

Ward 2 featured the closest race, with Lumm’s 2,071 votes (55.9%) still a clear margin over Democratic challenger Kirk Westphal’s 1,549  (41.8%), and independent Conrad Brown’s 71 (1.9%). Lumm’s relative share of the votes was slightly less than the 60% she received in her 2011 win against Stephen Rapundalo, but came within eight votes of matching the number of votes she received in 2011 (2,079).

The $20,875 raised by Lumm during the pre-campaign finance period was twice what Westphal had raised. [Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Campaign Finance 2013"] Possibly more significant than the total amount raised was the distribution of donation amounts. In recent years, those campaigns with a greater skew toward donations of lower amounts have been winning efforts. This year during the pre-campaign period, Lumm’s average donation was $102, compared to $133 for Westphal.

Ward 2 also had the highest voter turnout of any of the wards, with 3,751 voters participating. That’s 19.83% of registered voters. Even though Mike Anglin was unopposed on the ballot, Ward 5 had the second highest turnout, with 3,418 (15.37 %) of registered voters participating in the election.

Possibly helping that Ward 5 turnout was Chip Smith’s write-in candidacy for Ward 5, which was announced on Oct. 24, just shortly before the election. But voter turnout in Ward 5 is typically strong, compared to other wards. Anglin received 2,112 votes (67.8%), with “Write-In” receiving 1,004 votes (32%). That write-in tally is for the number of voters who filled in the write-in bubble, not broken down by candidate or validated by election officials. The two declared write-in candidates in Ward 5 were Thomas Partridge and Chip Smith.

The percentage of votes received by Ward 5 write-in candidates was similar to that received by independent Ward 1 challenger Jeff Hayner. Hayner received 549 votes (31.9%), compared to 1,147 votes (66.6%) for the incumbent Democrat Sabra Briere. Independent Jaclyn Vresics, who had announced she was withdrawing from the race – but not in time to prevent her name from appearing on the ballot – received 20 votes (1.2%).

In Ward 3, Democrat Stephen Kunselman received 1,545 votes (70.3%) compared to Sam DeVarti’s 618 (28.1%). Kunselman told The Chronicle that on Election Day, for two of the city’s five wards (Ward 3 and Ward 5) he managed to collect enough signatures to satisfy the requirement for his 2014 mayoral election effort. He collected 60 signatures in each of those wards, which gives him a margin of 10 over the minimum 50 in each ward.

As in Ward 5, in Ward 4 the write-in tally of 209 (11%) is for the number of voters who filled in the write-in bubble, but those have not yet been validated. So declared write-in candidate William Lockwood could have received a maximum of 11% of the vote. It’s possible some number of those write-ins were tallied for a joke candidate, Twenty Pound Carp.

Results here are unofficial. For unofficial results compiled by the Washtenaw County clerk’s office, including maps, see: Election Results.

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

Early returns of Ann Arbor city council races based on paper tapes from precinct locations are published here with the most recent updates. Results here are unofficial. For unofficial results compiled by the Washtenaw County clerk’s office, see: Election Results.

Ward 1 Ann Arbor City Council Race

With results from 4 of 8 in-person polling locations informally reported, Briere has received 592 votes (67.4%), Hayner has received 274 votes (31.2%), and Vresics has received 9 votes (1%).

Updated at 8:20 p.m.: With results from 5 of 8 in-person polling locations informally reported, Briere has received 791 votes (66.6%), Hayner has received 378 votes (31.8%), and Vresics has received 13 votes (1%).

Updated at 8:58 p.m.: With results from 6 of 8 in-person polling locations informally reported, Briere has received 930 votes (64.9%), Hayner has received 485 votes (33.8%), and Vresics has received 13 votes (0.9%).

Updated at 10:02 p.m.: With results from 8 of 8 in-person polling locations informally reported, Briere has received 965 votes (65.2%), Hayner has received 492 votes (33.2%), and Vresics has received 15 votes (1%).

Updated at 10:26 p.m.: With results from 8 of 8 in-person polling locations informally reported, as well as absent voter totals from precincts in Ward 1, Briere has received 1147 votes (66.6%), Hayner has received 549 votes (31.9%), and Vresics has received 16 votes (0.9%).

Ward 2 Ann Arbor City Council Race

With results from 4 of 8 in-person polling locations informally reported, Lumm has received 1030 votes (55%), Westphal has received 815 votes (43.5%), and Brown has received 22 votes (1.1%).

Updated at 8:16 p.m.: With results from 6 of 8 in-person polling locations informally reported, Lumm has received 1285 votes (54%), Westphal has received 1043 votes (43.8%), and Brown has received 43 votes (1.8%).

Updated at 9:05 p.m.: With results from 7 of 8 in-person polling locations informally reported, Lumm has received 1553 votes (54.4%), Westphal has received 1243 votes (43.5%), and Brown has received 50 votes (1.7%).

Updated at 9:55 p.m.: With results from 8 of 8 in-person polling locations informally reported, Lumm has received 1556 votes (54.3%), Westphal has received 1250 votes (43.6%), and Brown has received 53 votes (1.8%).

Updated at 10:24 p.m.: With results from 8 of 8 in-person polling locations informally reported, as well as absent voter totals from precincts in Ward 2, Lumm has received 2071 votes (55.9%), Westphal has received 1549 votes (41.8%), and Brown has received 63 votes (1.7%).

Ward 3 Ann Arbor City Council Race

With results from 0 of 6 in-person polling locations informally reported, as well as absent voter totals from precincts in Ward 3, Kunselman has received 291 votes (83.3%) and DeVarti has received 56 votes (16%).

Updated at 9:25 p.m.: With results from 2 of 6 in-person polling locations informally reported, as well as absent voter totals from precincts in Ward 3, Kunselman has received 430 votes (78.1%) and DeVarti has received 114 votes (20.7%).

Updated at 9:42 p.m.: With results from 6 of 6 in-person polling locations informally reported, as well as absent voter totals from precincts in Ward 3, Kunselman has received 1545 votes (70.3%) and DeVarti has received 618 votes (28.1%).

Ward 4 Ann Arbor City Council Race

Write-in counts are for the number of voters who filled in the write-in bubble, not broken down by candidate or validated. The declared write-in candidate for Ward 4 was William Lockwood.

With results from 0 of 8 in-person polling locations informally reported, as well as absent voter totals from precincts in Ward 4, Eaton has received 383 votes (95.5%) and Write-in has received 18 votes (4.4%).

Updated 9:28 p.m.: With results from 8 of 8 in-person polling locations informally reported, as well as absent voter totals from precincts in Ward 4, Eaton has received 1678 votes (88.9%) and Write-in has received 209 votes (11%).

Ward 5 Ann Arbor City Council Race

Write-in counts are for the number of voters who filled in the write-in bubble, not broken down by candidate or validated. The two declared write-in candidates in Ward 5 were Thomas Partridge and Chip Smith.

With results from 1 of 10 in-person polling locations informally reported, Anglin has received 38 votes (63.3%) and Write-in has received 22 votes (36.6%).

Updated at 9:18 p.m.: With results from 2 of 10 in-person polling locations informally reported, as well as absent voter totals from precincts in Ward 5, Anglin has received 625 votes (81.3%) and Write-in has received 143 votes (18.6%).

Updated at 9:24 p.m.: With results from 3 of 10 in-person polling locations informally reported, as well as absent voter totals from precincts in Ward 5, Anglin has received 731 votes (78.5%) and Write-in has received 200 votes (21.4%).

Updated at 9:52 p.m.: With results from 10 of 10 in-person polling locations informally reported, as well as absent voter totals from precincts in Ward 5, Anglin has received 2132 votes (67.9%) and Write-in has received 1004 votes (32%).

AAPS Sinking Fund Millage

With results from 1 of 40 in-person polling locations inside the city of Ann Arbor informally reported, 358 (86.6%) have voted YES and 55 (13.3%) have voted NO on the AAPS sinking fund millage.

Updated at 9:00 p.m.: With results from 2 of 40 in-person polling locations inside the city of Ann Arbor informally reported, as well as absent voter totals from the city of Ann Arbor, 1378 (76.4%) have voted YES and 424 (23.5%) have voted NO on the AAPS sinking fund millage.

Updated at 9:58 p.m.: With results from 13 of 40 in-person polling locations inside the city of Ann Arbor informally reported, as well as absent voter totals from the city of Ann Arbor, 3497 (80.6%) have voted YES and 839 (19.3%) have voted NO on the AAPS sinking fund millage.

Dots correspond to addresses that made contributions to Ann Arbor city council candidates for the Nov. 5, 2013 election.

Lumm’s fundraising effort during the pre-election phase exceeded her total from 2011 when she contested the general election with incumbent Democrat Stephen Rapundalo. That year she raised $18,950 from 193 donors.

The third Ward 2 candidate, Conrad Brown, filed a reporting waiver, which is allowed if a candidate does not expect to raise more than $1,000.

Ward 1 incumbent Democrat Sabra Briere raised $11,800 in a race where she’s challenged by independent Jeff Hayner, who has raised $2,680 so far.

In Ward 3, incumbent Democrat Stephen Kunselman, who survived a tough primary race with Julie Grand, did not raise any additional money during this most recent filing period. Kunselman’s independent challenger Sam DeVarti raised $945.

In Ward 5, Mike Anglin does not have an opponent on the ballot, but raised $4,299 in this most recent period. He’s spent $1,340 of that. In addition to Thomas Partridge, who declared his write-in candidacy much earlier in the year, Charles “Chip” Smith has just recently filed his paperwork to declare a write-in candidacy for the Ward 5 seat that’s up for election this year. Responding to an emailed query, Smith said he will try to keep his expenditures under the reporting-waiver limit of $1,000.

In Ward 4, Jack Eaton does not face any opponents on Nov. 5 on the ballot or as write-ins, but does have a write-in opponent in William Lockwood. Eaton won the Democratic primary against incumbent Democrat Marcia Higgins.

The Ann Arbor city council includes a total of 11 members – two from each of the city’s five wards and the mayor. All city council positions are elected for two-year terms, with one of the wards’s seats up for election every year. The position of mayor is elected in even years, so not this year.

The filings, which were due on Oct. 25, are available through the Washtenaw County clerk’s searchable campaign finance database. Charts and maps by The Chronicle are presented after the jump.

Charts

A pattern for winning city council campaigns over the last few election cycles has been a skew toward more numerous but lower dollar amount contributions. For this pre-election period, Mike Anglin in Ward 5 had the lowest average at $64 per donor, with Kirk Westphal in Ward 2 coming in at $133 – or more than double Anglin’s average.

Jeff Hayner: Contributions to 2013 Ward 1 city council campaign. Hayner has raised $2,680, averaging $96 per donor, with a median of $50 for 28 donors. He’s spent $841 so far.

Sabra Briere: Contributions to 2013 Ward 1 city council campaign. Briere raised a total of $11,800, averaging $118 per donor and a median of $100 among 100 donors. So far she’s spent $6,864 including $1,000 for Brad O’Connor as a campaign manager. O’Connor managed Carol Kuhnke’s successful 22nd circuit court judge campaign as well as Adam Zemke’s 55th District state representative campaign.

Jane Lumm: Contributions to 2013 Ward 2 city council campaign. Lumm raised $20,875, averaging $102 per donor, with a median of $100 for 204 donors. She has spent $11,664 so far.

Kirk Westphal: Contributions to 2013 Ward 2 city council campaign. Westphal raised $10,103, averaging $133 per donor with a median of $100 among 76 donors. He has spent $4,614 so far.

Mike Anglin: Contributions to 2013 Ward 2 city council campaign. Anglin has raised $4,299, averaging $64 per donor with a median of $50 among 67 donors. He has spent $1,340 so far.

Maps

The 2013 general election filings continue the trend of Ann Arbor city council candidates showing considerable citywide support, in addition to having support in their own wards.

Jeff Hayner: Yellow dots correspond to addresses making contributions to his 2013 Ward 1 campaign.

Sabra Briere: Black dots correspond to addresses making contributions to her 2013 Ward 1 campaign.

Jane Lumm: Green dots correspond to addresses making contributions to her 2013 Ward 2 campaign.

Kirk Westphal: Purple dots correspond to addresses making contributions to his 2013 Ward 2 campaign.

Mike Anglin: Red dots correspond to addresses making contributions to his 2013 Ward 5 campaign.

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

On the ballot for Ann Arbor residents are two items: (1) city council races; and (2) continuation of the Ann Arbor Public Schools sinking fund millage.

A precise breakdown of absentee ballots by ward is difficult, because some of the combined precincts in the election cross wards. However, at least 380 of the first wave of ballots will be sent to residents of Ward 2, which will be a carefully watched race. That’s a contest between independent incumbent Jane Lumm, Democratic challenger Kirk Westphal, and independent challenger Conrad Brown.

Two years ago, in the 2011 Ward 2 race between Democrat Stephen Rapundalo and independent Jane Lumm, 731 absentee ballots were cast. Lumm received about 63% of those absentee votes, which was about three points better than she did overall in prevailing.

The last day to register to vote in the Nov. 5 election is Monday, October 7, 2013. Information on how to do that is available on the city clerk’s website. Information on how to request an absentee ballot is available on the same website.

The local League of Women Voters is again this year hosting candidate forums. They’ll be broadcast live on Community Television Network’s Channel 19, which is also streamed live over the Internet. [Channel 19 live stream] The schedule for those debates:

• Oct. 1, 2013 at 7 p.m. Ward 3: Stephen Kunselman (incumbent Democrat); Sam DeVarti (independent).
• Oct. 1, 2013 at 8 p.m. Ward 5: Mike Anglin (incumbent Democrat); Thomas Partridge (declared write-in).
• Oct. 2, 2013 at 7 p.m. Ward 1: Sabra Briere (incumbent Democrat); Jeff Hayner (independent); Jaclyn Vresics (independent). [Vresics has announced that she's withdrawn from the race, but she did so too late to prevent her name from appearing on the ballot.]
• Oct. 2, 2013 at 8 p.m. Ward 2: Jane Lumm (incumbent independent); Conrad Brown (independent); Kirk Westphal (Democrat).

Democrat Jack Eaton, who prevailed over incumbent Marcia Higgins in the August primary, is not opposed in Ward 4.

Joining Ward 1 incumbent Democrat Sabra Briere on the Nov. 5 general election ballot will be independent Jeff Hayner. Briere is unopposed in the Democratic primary and no Republican candidate filed to run – in Ward 1 or in any other of the city’s five wards. According to city clerk’s office records, Hayner took out nominating petitions on July 3, submitted them on Aug. 2, and they were certified by the city clerk’s office that same day.

Also in Ward 1, independent Jaclyn Vresics submitted signatures on Aug. 1 but the clerk’s office has been able to validate only 68 of them, which falls short of the 100 necessary to qualify for the ballot. If she submits 32 additional valid signatures by the Aug. 7 deadline, that would set up Ward 1 for a three-way race. Vresics is affiliated with the University of Michigan student Mixed Use Party.

A three-way race for Ward 2 is already assured, as independent Conrad Brown submitted 101 valid signatures on Aug. 1. He’ll join incumbent independent Jane Lumm and Democratic challenger Kirk Westphal on the Nov. 5 ballot. Lumm filed her petitions on July 23, and Westphal is unopposed in the Democratic primary. Like Vresics, Brown is affiliated with the Mixed Use Party.

In Ward 3, the winner of the Democratic primary – either incumbent Stephen Kunselman and Julie Grand – could face an independent challenge from Sam DeVarti. He filed his petitions on Aug. 2, but the city clerk has been able to certify only 97 of them.

In Ward 4, Noah Weber took out petitions in mid-May, but as of noon on Aug. 5 he has not yet filed signatures with the clerk’s office. If he does not file at least 100 valid signatures by the Aug. 7 deadline, then the winner of the Democratic primary – either incumbent Marcia Higgins or Jack Eaton – would almost certainly be unopposed on the November ballot.

In Ward 5, Thomas Partridge took out petitions to run as an independent on Aug. 2, but has not filed signatures yet. Partridge also took out petitions to run in the Democratic primary, but did not submit any signatures. Incumbent Democrat Mike Anglin is unopposed in the Aug. 6 primary for Ward 5.

Update on Aug. 6, 2013 at 4:35 p.m.:  DeVarti submitted supplemental signatures and now has 103 valid signatures. That sets up a choice for Ward 3 voters in the fall – between DeVarti and the winner of the race between Grand and Kunselman.

In Ward 1 Vresics submitted supplemental signatures today that city clerk staff are still verifying. And even though he already submitted enough signatures, Hayner also submitted supplemental signatures today to guard against the possibility that some people might have signed both his and Vresics’ petition. Signing both petitions would disqualify the signature for both candidates. 

Update on Aug. 7, 2013 at 4:10 p.m.: According to city clerk staff, Vresics did have sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot. With the deadline now passed – without Partridge or Weber filing petitions – that finalizes the field of city council ballot candidates on Nov. 5. (Kunselman and Eaton prevailed in the Ward 3 and Ward 4 Democratic primaries, respectively.) Ward 1: Briere, Vresics, Hayner. Ward 2: Lumm, Westphal, Brown. Ward 3: Kunselman, DeVarti. Ward 4: Eaton. Ward 5: Anglin.

From left: Julie Grand (Ward 3 challenger), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3 incumbent), Jack Eaton (Ward 4 challenger), Mike Anglin (Ward 5 incumbent), Kirk Westphal (Ward 2 candidate), Sabra Briere (Ward 1 incumbent).

In the Aug. 6 Democratic primary, only two wards offer contested races. In Ward 3, Democratic voters will choose between incumbent Stephen Kunselman and Julie Grand. Ward 4 voters will have a choice between incumbent Marcia Higgins and Jack Eaton. Higgins was reported to have been sick and was unable to attend.

The format of the event eventually allowed other candidates who are unopposed in the Democratic primary to participate: Mike Anglin (Ward 5 incumbent), Sabra Briere (Ward 1 incumbent), and Kirk Westphal, who’s challenging incumbent Jane Lumm in Ward 2. Lumm, who was elected to the council as an independent, was in the audience at the forum but didn’t participate. The event was held at the Ann Arbor Community Center on North Main Street. The Chronicle’s coverage is presented in a multiple-part series, based on common threads that formed directly in response to questions posed to the candidates, or that cut across multiple responses.

One question posed to candidates explicitly involved transportation: What do we do to implement an effective transportation plan for Ann Arbor that would decrease congestion and encourage alternative modes of travel? But transportation fit into a broader set of themes at the forum that could be collected under the notion of “connection” – connectedness of citizens not just to physical locations, but to their local government.

Candidates had clearly prepared to talk about the topic of transportation generally. Jack Eaton criticized last year’s demised countywide planning effort, based on the fact that other communities were not asked to defray the costs of that planning. At the same time he called for better maintenance of roads, partly out of concern for bicyclist safety. He also called for more frequent bus service during extended hours – but cautioned that he was focused on spending Ann Arbor’s local transit millage money on transit in Ann Arbor.

As far as millages go, Mike Anglin was clear that he would vote for a possible new millage resulting from the admission of Ypsilanti to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. However, Anglin was emphatic that he did not support trains, but rather only buses – with a focus on moving people around inside the city.

Julie Grand said she was glad that the possibility of adding rail service was being studied, and that by council resolution, the question of possibly using the Fuller Road site for a new train station would go to the voters. She pointed out that the park advisory commission, on which she serves, focuses on the potential for non-motorized connections when it considers parcels to acquire as parkland. She called transit a regional issue, but said that ultimately we need to focus on transit within the community.

Stephen Kunselman was specific with a suggestion of how to return a focus to the city’s own transportation needs: Remove the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, from the AATA board – so that Cooper could focus on issues like sidewalk gaps and bicycle lanes. Kunselman also stated that he would be proposing that the city council rescind its memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan to build a parking structure as part of the Fuller Road Station project.

Although UM has withdrawn from participation in that project under the MOU, Kunselman said he wanted to “kill it.” That way, he said, the conversation could turn away from using the designated parkland at the Fuller Road Station site as a new train station, and could instead be focused on the site across the tracks from the existing Amtrak station.

Sabra Briere ventured that the community did not have a consensus about the basic question of what kind of transportation system is best for Ann Arbor – one that was geared primarily to commuters or one that was designed mainly for city residents as a replacement for personal automobiles.

Kirk Westphal told the audience that he’d chosen a house to buy in Ann Arbor based on its proximity to a bus line. He ventured that the transportation system needs to be robust enough to attract people out of their cars, and that to be financial viable, a certain amount of density is required. It’s important to support development near transit lines to provide that density, he said.

In addition to the question about connecting people to physical locations (i.e., transportation), candidates at the forum responded to a question about connecting people to local government. The question was specific to involving youth in local government. But candidates also delivered a range of comments throughout the forum related to the theme of connecting residents to government.

Among the specific suggestions was one from Westphal, who floated the idea of a “citizens academy” for general government along the lines of Ann Arbor’s citizens police, courts and fire academy.

Part 1 of this series focused on the candidates’ concept of and connection to Ann Arbor, while Part 2 looked at their personal styles of engagement and views of how the council interacts. Other themes from the forum will be presented in subsequent reports. Chronicle election coverage is tagged with “2013 primary election.”

Transportation: Non-Motorized, Safety

Non-motorized connections were part of the forum conversation, even when the topic was not explicitly about transportation. Sabra Briere told the audience that when she was first elected to the council, she’d asked why voters hadn’t been asked to approve a millage to fund sidewalk repair. [The city previously took the approach of requiring owners of property adjacent to a sidewalk to pay for repairs, when the city's inspection determined that a slab needed replacement or repair.] The answer she got was: Nobody would vote for a millage for this. So she was pleased that the request of the voters had been made and that the city was now fixing the sidewalks, and the cost is not being assessed to individuals.

Briere also said she was really pleased that the city is finally beginning to tackle sidewalk gaps. That’s a “weird issue to care about,” she allowed. But Briere reported that in her part of the city, there are lots of places where there’s no safe way to walk anywhere except in the middle of the street.

Jack Eaton also addressed non-motorized transportation. The infrastructure needs to be improved so that the pavement is good enough to ride a bicycle on, Eaton said. Potholes and the horrible surfaces that drivers complain about are even worse for bicyclists and pedestrians, he noted. Eaton also suggested improving the markings on roads and bicycle lanes so that they are clearly maintained – so that bicyclists feel secure in their bike lane.

Julie Grand told the audience that one of her interests during her service on the park advisory commission and in work on the PROS (parks and recreation open space) plan has been in connections for non-motorized use. When PAC prioritizes which parcels of land to acquire or when the city is planning for a new park, the potential for creating non-motorized connections is an important consideration. The North Main Huron River task force, on which she serves, had focused on the city-owned 721 N. Main property for its potential to make non-motorized connections. She ventured that if the city wants people to use bicycles for transportation on roads, then the city needs to encourage people to use their bikes in a recreational setting. It becomes more feasible for that person to think about using a bicycle to get to work, if they’re accustomed to riding a bicycle for fun, she said.

Not in the context of the question about transportation, but nevertheless related to that theme, were remarks from Mike Anglin about a stretch of road in Ward 5 along Seventh Street, between Pauline and Liberty. The downhill stretch results in excessive speeds, he said. So he was looking forward to supporting the efforts of a resident who recently began documenting the issue and who has set up a Facebook page: SOS (Safety on Seventh St.) Ann Arbor.

Anglin was critical of “traffic calming” as a policy that could address safety needs. “For me, it’s really hard to let [traffic calming] policy dictate safety in our community,” he said. Anglin characterized traffic calming as making the road narrower so that the driver gets nervous and says, “I’m going to have to slow down, because I may have an accident and ruin my car here.” Personally, Anglin said, he thinks a stop sign does a really good job at slowing down traffic.

We have control of the streets, Anglin said, and it’s important that we look at the things we have control of – and that we work to do things for the people who live here.

Transportation: Regional versus Local

Jack Eaton observed that transportation is really a regional question. About Ann Arbor’s local millage, he felt recently too much of it had been spent planning transit for communities outside of the city – who are not interested in participating in transit. One of the ways that you plan for regional transit is you make those other communities pay their share of the planning costs, Eaton said – because it shows that they are interested in participating when the plan is done. Rather than spending millions of dollars on a countywide system that dissipates due to lack of interest, he wanted to focus on improving the service that we have. We need to increase the frequency of buses, he said, and the buses need to run later in the evening.

As far as regional transportation is concerned, Ann Arbor needs to seek financial participation at the planning stage, he said, before service is expanded to Chelsea or Canton or Saline. Eaton said he’d be careful with the money that is collected for Ann Arbor’s local transit system. He would focus on improving what Ann Arbor has – showing how well it works for Ann Arbor – to make it an attraction to live inside the city of Ann Arbor.

Kirk Westphal noted that transportation is part-and-parcel of any kind of urban planning theory – in the functioning of the city and region as well. It is said that nobody buys or builds next to a bus line, he allowed, but he and his wife bought their house because it was on a bus line. Westphal said he uses public transit or bicycles every day.

Westphal called transit an equity issue that ties into issues of congestion. Coming from New York, he allowed that his view of congestion is a little different from that of people here. He quipped that a lot of cities in Michigan would like to have a problem with congestion. But transit has to develop along with density – and transit doesn’t work sustainably without density, he stressed. So density has to be part of that conversation. He indicated that roads also need attention and that road repair and transportation need to be discussed as a whole. Transportation service has to be robust enough to attract people out of their cars, he said. And it’s important to support development near transit lines, in order to make it a sustainable financial endeavor.

Julie Grand described transit as ultimately “for a region,” but as a city there’s only so much control that Ann Arbor has. The only regional transit decisions that the Ann Arbor city council can make involve reaching out to other communities, she said. Ultimately, the city should focus on transit needs within its community. Grand called for diversification of transit options. The park-and-ride system has been very successful for a lot of people, she said, and she would like to see more of that. At the point she delivered her remarks, Grand noted that no one had yet brought up the potential for trains – which Grand knew is a hot button issue – but she said she was really glad that the issue is being studied, and that it’s going to go to the voters.

Grand called for diversity in transportation but allowed that we need to recognize the limitations in the priorities of the communities around us – even though the approach should ideally be regional.

Sabra Briere ventured that we have a difference of opinion as a community about how transportation should work. Some people think public transportation should be our substitute for owning a car – that we should be able to go to the doctor, go to the grocery, go to the library, without having to own a car. And that means a lot of neighborhood service, Briere concluded.

Other people think that the transportation system should be the means for people who are driving their cars into town to go to work, Briere continued. People coming to work should actually be able to take the bus or the train or some other form of mass transit. She felt there was not a consensus about those two viewpoints – not in the community, not on the AATA board, and not in the public meetings she had attended on the topic.

There is a real tension back and forth about whether it’s this or that kind of transportation system, Briere said. In order to provide services for commuters, you might not be able to afford to provide neighborhood service. To provide neighborhood services, should you ignore the commuters?

Briere pointed out that Ann Arbor’s population has grown for the first time in over 20 years. She observed that a lot more cars are clogging up Ann Arbor’s streets and parking spaces. Briere reported hearing a complaint just recently that somebody couldn’t get to an event because there was no parking available downtown. She hears all the time that people don’t want to go downtown because the parking is so difficult. But she also hears people say it had not been necessary to build more parking downtown. The fact that the community has these very different, polarized opinions about transportation shows that this is not a simple problem, Briere concluded. She ventured that it’s not within our control to decide if the trains will come, or if there will be regional transportation all around Ann Arbor all the way to Detroit.

What is in our control is the possibility that Ann Arbor residents could be asked to vote for another millage, Briere pointed out – in order to provide decent transportation within the urban core. [That additional millage would be requested in the context of Ypsilanti's admission into the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. The millage would be requested by the AATA itself.]

Transportation: Rail Service

Mike Anglin’s remarks were focused in large part on criticism of possible rail service. He blamed the fact that land designated as parkland along Fuller Road actually had the zoning classification of PL (public land) as allowing for the possibility that a train station could be proposed for that site.

The most economical way “to push people around the city” is on buses, Anglin contended. Buses are flexible and are much less expensive than trains. “If you think you can afford a train, you’re going to be really surprised how much that costs,” Anglin cautioned. While the majority of the cost of a bus system goes toward bus driver salaries, Anglin said, most of those salaries remain in the community, because the bus drivers work in the community and then spend their money in the community. “I’m a big supporter of the buses; I am not a supporter of the trains,” Anglin said. Amtrak should run the trains, Anglin said, and the city shouldn’t start getting into a business it knows nothing about.

Commenting on the AATA’s AirRide service between downtown Ann Arbor and Detroit Metro airport, Anglin allowed that it’s starting to gain popularity. But there are people who still take their cars to the airport, he said.

Anglin stressed that the city should focus on the essentials – fixing roads, and providing police and fire protection. He ventured that it was more important to plant trees and fix roads – once the basics are covered, only then is it appropriate to look beyond that. He wasn’t saying: Don’t have a vision. So he supported buses. He noted that the council had just approved a change to the articles of incorporation to include Ypsilanti in the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. But he cautioned that “It’s going to cost you money, though.” Voters would be asked to approve a millage, Anglin said, “and I will vote for the millage for the buses.” He would not, however, vote for a train, saying that the area doesn’t have the population density necessary to support a train.

Following Anglin was Stephen Kunselman, who echoed Anglin’s sentiments, noting that Anglin had said everything Kunselman had wanted to say. The discussion of Fuller Road Station had taken up too much of the transportation discussion, Kunselman said: “And we need to actually kill it.” If he wins the Democratic primary in August, he plans to bring forward a resolution to rescind the memorandum of understanding (MOU) that made Fuller Road Station a possibility. The MOU doesn’t have an expiration date, Kunselman said.

Kunselman called the idea of a 99-year lease to the University of Michigan in connection with the Fuller Road Station concept “a clear effort to evade the city charter requirement on the sale of parkland,” which requires a popular vote. Eliminating Fuller Road Station from the conversation would allow focus to be returned to the transportation needs of the community – transportation to get people to their jobs, to their homes, and to their recreational activities. As a planner, Kunselman continued, he understands the importance of a plan – as a document and as a vision. In that plan, he said, the city should be talking about park-and-ride, van pool, border-to-border trails, airport service, University Michigan, Amtrak, and a train station.

Kunselman then expressed support for locating any new train station directly across from the existing Amtrak station. He contended it would be out of the flood plain, based on looking at the huge drop-off down to the Huron River. But he wanted Fuller Road Station to be pushed aside so that the dialogue about a new train station can be more open and transparent.

Kunselman ventured that the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority is going to be more robust, now that Ypsilanti will have board representation.

Sidewalks and bike lanes are all things the city council is supporting, Kunselman said. And the city has a staff person who’s assigned to plan for those things. [Kunselman didn't name the person, but Eli Cooper is the city's transportation program manager, who also serves on the board of the AATA. Kunselman voted against confirmation of Cooper's appointment to the board.]

But Cooper couldn’t do his job as the city transportation program manager, because he was appointed to the AATA, Kunselman contended. That had led to the countywide transit effort that “flopped,” Kunselman said. “That failed – because it didn’t have the people behind it.” He called the countywide planning effort a classic example of “poker politics.” So Kunselman called for removing Cooper from the AATA – noting that Cooper doesn’t live in the city, and doesn’t “have an egg in the nest.” That would get Cooper focused on the city’s transportation planning, Kunselman concluded.

Connection: People to Services

Julie Grand said when she’s out in the community, she hears people talking about safety, about water problems and things that she can’t address – like their schools. She felt that one issue related to providing core services to the neighborhoods is that people are feeling very disconnected from their government.

She didn’t know that every road could be paved, or that all the other problems could be fixed. But one thing she felt she could do was to provide responsive communication. She described herself as “a problem solver,” saying that a resident could come to her and that she could immediately connect them to the person in the city who can address the concern. She told the audience that she’s trying to reach those people who are feeling disconnected, so that their voices are heard, and so that there’s a good sense of what those needs are and of how to meet those needs.

Connection: Youth Involvement

The specific question posed to candidates about connecting residents to local government was this: How do you plan within your ward to stimulate an increase in youth interest and participation in local government?

Grand suggested that one way you get young people involved in the community is “you take them very seriously,” and you understand their strengths. One of the things that made her want to stay in this community was an admission interview she’d done with a young woman years ago, who served on the board of a not-for-profit. And that experience made her think: This is where I want to raise my kids; this is a place where we involve youth on our boards and we involve them in politics. She felt that more of that should be done.

Grand thought that encouraging youth to volunteer, getting them to take leadership positions, taking their voices seriously – that is the way that you get them involved in the community. You don’t just give them some envelopes to stuff. Rather, you really allow them to be a part of policy decisions and allow their voices to be heard. The youth of the community are just as capable of making decisions and they know what is effective, she concluded.

Jack Eaton allowed he didn’t have an easy answer to the question of youth involvement. He pointed out there are “gradients of youth.” If you look at the college students who live here just for a few years, it’s particularly difficult to get them interested in local issues, Eaton said. He attends meetings of the College Democrats in hopes of figuring out what matters to them, but he’s not sure that they have burning local issues. He said he would continue to do outreach and participate in their organization to see what they’re concerned about and try to incorporate it into what he’s doing as a councilmember.

For younger people who actually live in the community, Eaton said, in his neighborhood there’s an organization that takes care of a local natural area preserve [Dicken Woods]. The organization gets youth volunteers to come to the woods and help chip the trails or pick up trash or to clean up. It’s good to involve students in a civic task that has a schedule, because a structured environment like that helps them feel like they have actually accomplished something, Eaton said, and they come back year after year. So he’d encourage various neighborhood organizations to be seen as a mechanism to reach out to schools to encourage youth involvement.

Stephen Kunselman said the No. 1 way to try to encourage youth involvement is to lead by example. In his campaigns, his kids have been involved, and their friends have been involved, and the kids of his friends have been involved. He cited Yousef Rabhi as an example – and pointed out Rabhi’s mother in the audience. Rabhi had helped him in his campaigns in years past, Kunselman said. Rabhi had learned from that experience and then ran his own campaign, Kunselman noted. And now Rabhi is chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. That is how to engage the youth, Kunselman said. [When Kunselman concluded his speaking turn, moderator Mike Henry  quipped: "We call that the 'Yousef card' because we all love Yousef!"]

Kunselman also mentioned that recently he’d attended the Portfolio Day at Scarlett Middle School, where he’d sat down with kids and asked about their aspirations, and told them a little bit about himself. He tried to encourage them to remember every vote counts, every person’s voice is important, that you make the difference and that you should participate. [The "every vote counts" point could have been made specifically with respect to Yousef Rabhi's first campaign – as he prevailed by a single vote.]

At that Scarlett Middle School event, Kunselman had heard from two girls that they wanted to work in the foreign service. That means that youth have aspirations, Kunselman said, and we need to listen to those aspirations and encourage them. But we also have to recognize that out of a community of 116,000 people, there are 11 elected officials on the city council and it’s very difficult to get there, Kunselman said.

Connection: General Participation

The specific question about youth involvement wasn’t posed to the candidates who don’t have contested races in the primary. But some of them commented on the general issue of participation and involvement.

Kirk Westphal observed that he currently chairs the city planning commission – and he’s served on the commission since 2006. It’s been an extremely rewarding volunteer opportunity. He tries to say that as many times as he can, to try to get more people participating on boards and commissions.

Westphal felt that creating stronger links between local government and neighborhood associations could result in encouraging more people to serve on boards and commissions. He observed that for many boards and commissions, the application files aren’t filled with a lot of resumes. He ventured that it was important to get more people running for the city council.

A lot of cities have citizens academies, he noted. And the city of Ann Arbor’s safety services area provides such an academy, focused on police and fire services. Westphal suggested that a citizens academy of some kind could introduce people to how local government works. That could bear fruit in the long run, he thought.

On the general topic of participation in local government, Mike Anglin observed: “Our turnout in a primary election is devastatingly low. It’s embarrassingly low. And our community cannot be proud of that at all.”

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

From left: Julie Grand (Ward 3 challenger), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3 incumbent), Jack Eaton (Ward 4 challenger), Mike Anglin (Ward 5 incumbent), Kirk Westphal (Ward 2 candidate), Sabra Briere (Ward 1 incumbent).

In the Aug. 6 Democratic primary, only two wards offer contested races. In Ward 3, Democratic voters will choose between incumbent Stephen Kunselman and Julie Grand. Ward 4 voters will have a choice between incumbent Marcia Higgins and Jack Eaton. Higgins was reported to have been sick and was unable to attend.

The format of the event eventually allowed other candidates who are unopposed in the Democratic primary to participate: Mike Anglin (Ward 5 incumbent), Sabra Briere (Ward 1 incumbent), and Kirk Westphal, who’s challenging incumbent Jane Lumm in Ward 2. Lumm, who was elected to the council as an independent, was in the audience at the forum but didn’t participate. The event was held at the Ann Arbor Community Center on North Main Street. The Chronicle’s coverage is presented in a multiple-part series, based on common threads that formed directly in response to questions posed to the candidates, or that cut across multiple responses.

Although they were not asked an explicit question about their personal style of engagement, candidates commented on the topic throughout the forum. A question about the council’s overall performance – with attention to factionalism in the group – prompted much of that commentary.

That question came relatively late in the forum. But opening remarks from Ward 3 candidate Julie Grand put the issue on the table, when she described herself as not necessarily wanting to be the loudest or most polarizing voice in the room. It was a bid to contrast herself with incumbent Stephen Kunselman, whose critics would likely characterize him as a loud and polarizing influence on the council.

Kunselman’s introductory remarks came immediately following Grand’s. And in a somewhat ironic twist, Kunselman had to be encouraged by the audience to speak up – because they couldn’t hear him. As the forum progressed, Kunselman turned up the volume. The substance of his response, which was echoed by other incumbents, rested in part on the idea that the council’s dynamic now, with its current composition, is better than it was five years ago. Candidates’ remarks related to this issue are presented in more detail below the fold.

Part 1 of this series focused on the candidates’ concept of and connection to Ann Arbor. Other themes from the forum will be presented in subsequent reports. Other Chronicle coverage is tagged with “2013 primary election.”

Composition of the Council

Julie Grand led off her introductory remarks by saying the core message of her campaign is not to be the loudest voice, and it’s not to be the most polarizing voice, but rather “to listen to you, work for you, and make informed, thoughtful decisions.”

Stephen Kunselman’s opening remarks, which followed Grand’s, didn’t respond directly to the implicit criticism she made. Instead, he focused on what he perceives as improvements in the council’s basic approach to issues.

By way of background, the November 2012 elections resulted in three new members on the council – Democrats Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5). The previous year, independent Jane Lumm (Ward 2) joined the council. Compared to 2007, when Democrats Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) were first elected, the composition of the council is different. Asterisks flag those current councilmembers who were not serving on the council back in 2007.

Ann Arbor City Council Composition

          2007                   2013
Ward 1    Sabra Briere           Sabra Briere
          Ron Suarez             Sumi Kailasapathy*

Ward 2    Stephen Rapundalo      Jane Lumm*
          Joan Lowenstein        Sally Petersen*

Ward 3    Stephen Kunselman      Christopher Taylor*
          Leigh Greden           Stephen Kunselman

Ward 4    Marcia Higgins         Marcia Higgins
          Margie Teall           Margie Teall

Ward 5    Mike Anglin            Mike Anglin
          Christopher Easthope   Chuck Warpehoski*

Mayor     John Hieftje           John Hieftje

-

At the June 8 forum, Kunselman said that in December 2012, with new councilmembers seated at the table, the council started taking a new direction.

Stephen Kunselman, Ward 3 incumbent.

The council was going places where he thought the community as a whole expected the council to go. That included making sure that the council puts all the cards on the table so that the community knows what the council is debating. The best decisions are made when all the players have all the information on the table, Kunselman said: “No more poker politics. No more hiding cards …” That’s the difference between his political philosophy and that of others, who disagree with his intent, Kunselman contended.

Jack Eaton ventured that recent elections have started to “turn the tide” on the council. The composition of the council had changed, and he felt the result was that council is now responding to residents’ needs and neighborhood concerns. He pointed out some of the specific accomplishments he felt were attributable to the new council. One was the abandonment of the proposal to reconfigure the fire stations [which would have reduced the number from five to three stations]. Another was the city’s withdrawal from the countywide transit plan, and the pausing of a plan to build a train station on city parkland. And finally, he described how a plan had been put off to reduce the frequency of trash pickup. All those examples, he believed, resulted from the different representation that is now seated at the council table.

And later in the forum, Eaton alluded to the current composition of the council by saying he was running for a seat to help those who have been elected recently move forward on sensible spending priorities.

Mike Anglin commented on the number of candidates for city council who had appeared at the forum, saying he thinks that shows a healthy city, a healthy environment. He also picked up on the theme of a shift on the council. Since 2007, there’s been a dramatic change on council, he said. Some votes are now turning out 6-5. When he first won election to the council, he recalled a 10-1 vote on the issuance of bonds for the new underground parking garage. He’d voted against it, because he thought that spending several million dollars on that project was a “waste to this community” and would have financial implications for years to come. We are now experiencing those financial implications, he contended.

Anglin also noted that when the police/courts building was constructed, he’d asked the police if they would rather have a job or a nice place to work – and they’d told him that they’d rather have jobs. But the council had said, Sorry, we are building it, Anglin recalled.

Anglin said he was pleased to serve with the people who are now sitting on the council, “because we’re having an open dialogue at last. Things are being done openly – finally.” He said it’s taken a long time. And to the degree that Ann Arbor remains a transparent community, Anglin continued, it will remain a strong community. People should know what’s happening. There should not be a small group that goes around making decisions because they can say: We have six votes, and we’re just going to pass it, and we’re going to leave the rest of the five out of the discussion. That’s unfortunate for a democracy, he said.

Mike Anglin, Ward 5 incumbent.

Anglin also stated that he thought elected officials should be held accountable for the votes that they take. He contended that it’s very hard for anyone as a citizen to figure out who has voted what way on an issue. When the new council is elected, he hoped that some measures could be taken to improve transparency – listing the votes on an issue, who voted for it and voted against it by name. It would become a permanent record that any taxpayer can look up, he said. [The council's minutes are available online through the city's Legistar system. The outcome of roll call votes is recorded by name.]

Anglin compared trust in government to trust in friends: “Individuals who are friends of yours, you trust them. Why? Because they tell you the truth. You don’t have a close friend who lies to you. You don’t have friends like that; you drop them from your life.” The government has to be trustworthy, he said, and he thinks the council is moving very strongly in that direction – and he’s proud to be a part of it.

In her remarks, Sabra Briere reflected on the fact that she and Anglin had joined the council at the same time and in many ways they shared the same values. At that time, in 2007, she and Anglin had been able to work with Kunselman and with former Ward 1 councilmember Ron Suarez for the first year. Working together, she said, they’d learned a lot about “who listens to what.” And one of the more interesting things from that effort was to get neighborhood voices heard around the council table. Her own background in neighborhood organizing led her to believe that some issues significantly impacting neighborhoods are not listened to by the council.

Briere noted that she’d lived through the earlier era of the council – as Kunselman and Anglin had – when there was perhaps a little bit less open discussion at the council table. The meetings were a lot shorter then, she observed. And that’s really the trade-off, she ventured: Meetings are a lot shorter when everyone knows what they’re basically going to say, and they say it, and the vote is taken, and you move on to the next issue. The fact that the council’s meetings go longer than they used to can be a detriment to those who are watching and listening, she allowed. It can also be a detriment to councilmembers who are getting really weary from being at the meeting. But the important thing is that councilmembers are expressing their different viewpoints. They are trying to find a position as a group that is a consensus voice, she said.

The more voices and the more viewpoints the council has, the richer the council discussion gets, Briere said. Sure, sometimes councilmembers get annoyed with each other because they don’t agree. But that’s ok, she ventured, because they’ll agree on the next item that comes up on the agenda – that’s the way it works. So whoever sits on the city council might change the dynamic of that group of 11 people. That changing dynamic makes life interesting for councilmembers sitting there, but it makes life better for residents, because they get to pick those voices, she concluded.

Personal Style

Sabra Briere described her approach to getting neighborhood issues in front of the council as “behind the scenes” – because she is a “quieter person.” But whether you are quiet or whether you are really visibly noisy, the council benefits from all those different viewpoints, she said. The council benefits, but so do residents, she continued, because “you may hold one view and your spouse, frankly, may hold a conflicting view.” The remark drew laughs, because Briere’s spouse is local attorney David Cahill, who was in the audience and is not known for having weakly-held views.

No one should ever think they speak for everybody, Briere cautioned. The council should never speak with a single voice, because then it would not be representing all of the views of the community. Through the give-and-take of the council, what makes it an enriching experience is to see how the positions she holds can be moderated by the position someone else holds, Briere said.

Julie Grand, a candidate for city council in Ward 3.

Julie Grand felt it’s important to have different voices – but stressed that those voices need to listen to one another. And they need to be motivated by information, and they need to be motivated for the right reasons of working for the city, she said.

Grand contrasted “differences of opinion” with “divisiveness and polarization.” Differences of opinion can lead to really strong decisions. But divisiveness and polarization very rarely accomplish anything, Grand cautioned. She stated that she doesn’t appreciate the viewpoint of some members of the current council that puts them on teams:  ”I’m on this team, and you’re on that team.” Grand said she has a four-year-old and a seven-year-old, and she reported that “team” dynamic is present in her own household more than she would like. She doesn’t like that dynamic in the federal government, and she doesn’t like it in the state government. And she feels “we are better than that.” Ann Arbor is worthy of a city council that does not “play teams,” she said.

Her leadership on the city’s park advisory commission has been consensus-driven, Grand said. [She is chair of PAC; her term ends in October.] If you ask anybody who has served with her, Grand continued, they’d say she does not try to shove her own viewpoint down anyone’s throat. When there’s a contentious issue, she tries to listen to those other voices and share her own opinion and then determine what it takes to make a compromise. She felt she has a strong record of doing that, and she wants to bring it to the council.

Kunselman responded to Grand by saying he appreciated her comments about not tending toward divisiveness and polarization. He contended that’s what has been accomplished with the changes to the composition on the council as of December 2012. Previously, there hadn’t been divisiveness or polarization, because there was isolation and hostility, he said – but it was kept behind the scenes. Some councilmembers were attacking others, stabbing them in the back, talking about other councilmembers in e-mails sent during council meetings. That was hostile, Kunselman said. But that’s no longer happening, he added, and that will be gone forever as long as he serves on the council.

Kunselman indicated that he now feels comfortable that he can rely on his council colleagues to help him deal with the amount of information councilmembers have to contend with. The idea of divisiveness and polarization was in the past, he contended.

At a different point in the forum, Kunselman indicated that he didn’t mind if his approach resulted in some people taking a personal dislike of him. He quoted from the May 8, 2013 broadcast of the Colbert Report [a satirical reportage broadcast on Comedy Center]: “Yes, the definition of leadership is getting people who despise you to listen to you.” Kunselman didn’t include the punch line: “It’s also the definition of the Eagles.” Although Colbert’s line has been widely reported as “to listen to you” and would be more consistent with the put-down of the 1970s band, Colbert may have flubbed the line when he actually said “to work with you.”

Responding later in the forum, Briere said Kunselman’s allusion to the Colbert quote amused her – the idea that if people despise you and listen to you, then you’re doing something right. Briere ventured that it’s also true that if people disagree with you and they listen to you, and they change their mind, then you are doing something right.

Jack Eaton, a candidate for city council in Ward 4.

Jack Eaton noted it’s important to remember that about 90% of council votes are unanimous – observing that there isn’t that much disagreement. He also stressed the importance of remembering that all councilmembers actually have good intentions: They really want what’s best for the city. There may be disagreements about how to achieve what’s best for the city, and even disagreements about what is best for the city. But Eaton reiterated that he thinks everybody comes to the table with good intentions. You have to respect those you disagree with, he continued.

Eaton described the councils of the past as making too many decisions in secret among a group of people who voted in lockstep. Over time that has changed, he said, and much more of the discussion happens at the council table. There’s a perception that the discussion by the council has gotten “louder,” but he felt that’s because good, healthy democracy is going to include disagreement.

Eaton ventured that he would disagree with some of the people at the table, and he would do it in a civil tone – and he was going to expect the same. He applauded Ward 2 councilmember Jane Lumm for taking a stand at a recent council meeting, saying that it was unacceptable to make personal attacks on another councilmember just because you disagree. [The occasion was the council's April 15, 2013 meeting, when Lumm delivered a rebuke of mayor John Hieftje along those lines.] Eaton said he would want to be that same kind of voice. He’d enthusiastically disagree with some councilmembers but he wouldn’t make it personal. He’d also not let anybody on the council turn things into a personal issue about him or anybody else on the council.

Mike Anglin gave some examples of community discussions that eventually had productive outcomes – Argo Dam and Huron Hills golf course. The Argo Dam discussion had begun with the possibility of removing the dam, but had ended with the result of the construction of Argo Cascades, Anglin said. He called it an example of open politics, and said he was very proud of that discussion.

Commenting on the question of factions on the council, Kirk Westphal was struck by the fact that there are relatively few forums that bring out this kind of discussion: “I have learned a lot already today.” Westphal echoed something that Briere said about “quiet, productive discussions.” Those discussions might happen on the committee level, or just among members of a board before coming to the city council. That was where he felt it was possible to have a really positive discussion.

Kirk Westphal, a candidate for city council in Ward 2.

Westphal referred to how much “angst and political capital” has been used in the council’s recent discussion of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Specific issues had been brought up about the DDA a few years ago, then they seemed go away. But when they come back to the council table, the issue becomes “fraught,” he said. If there are concerns about the DDA’s mission, or if there are concerns about the DDA’s budget, these things have to be pursued, he allowed – but they’re not exciting.

“Committee meetings don’t make headlines,” but they have to be kept up on, Westphal stressed. He said that it hurts him to see an issue being used “as a club” and start dividing the council. He felt a lot of the un-exciting quiet work behind the scenes could smooth out some of these processes. If there’s concern about ethics, Westphal said, let’s have a robust ethics policy. Let’s get a working group on it now, before something else happens, and it becomes a divisive issue, he suggested. It’s not very exciting, he allowed, but that’s the kind of thing he would like to work on.

On the topic of personal style, Briere characterized herself as “not a very noisy person, but I’m a very determined person.” Later in the forum, when she immediately followed Kunselman in his remarks – which included a forceful call for the removal of Eli Cooper from the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority – Briere ventured: “I am not nearly as exciting as what you just heard.”

She could be a bullish person, but she was quiet about it, she said. It’s a benefit to her when those people who are more bullish than she is push their issues. If the council is all a group of retiring, quiet people, then “we’re just going to want to get along with each other.” She said it’s necessary to have the tension that comes from different viewpoints, in order to make a solid mix – of strong voices with strong opinions and other people who are reflecting and thinking and finding a middle ground among those strong voices. That’s what the council is like today, Briere said.

On the general topic of personal style, Eaton said he wanted to be elected to add a civil voice to the council’s deliberations. He’d disagree with some people on council, but he would never make it personal. He’d never raise his voice to somebody or call them names, he said. It’s time for the council to be able to have open, honest discourse, he added, where councilmembers can disagree in public, yet treat each other with the respect that everybody deserves.

Working Together

Candidates were invited to “say something nice” about their opponents, or to name a policy position on which they agreed. They all managed to demonstrate that they were capable of engaging at that level.

Stephen Kunselman described how he and Julie Grand “go way back.” He noted that Grand was appointed to the park advisory commission at the time he was a councilmember back in 2007. He’d served on PAC as one of two council appointees to the commission that year. Kunselman felt that Grand had really put a lot of effort and desire into improving the recreational and infrastructural needs of the park system. One of the things he thinks that he and Grand really agree on is the need to make sure that the city’s park system is the best park system that it can possibly be.

Within the park system, Kunselman highlighted the skatepark at a point of major agreement. He called it the most significant accomplishment since 2008 when he and Grand served on PAC together. He thought there would be a contract coming before the city council pretty soon, and that it would start construction. When you think of the years involved, with his advocacy, and Grand’s involvement, as well as PAC, this is a significant, accomplishment for the community, he said. And Kunselman really appreciated Grand’s support on that.

Julie Grand and Stephen Kunselman.

Speaking about Kunselman, Grand also highlighted their shared passion for parks. She noted that the skatepark contract, as Kunselman had observed, was coming up next month before the park advisory commission. She called that exciting news and a great example of collaboration between the city and the county and private citizens. It’s a great example of what can be done when you think creatively, she said.

Besides parks, Grand said, she and Kunselman also care about their families. She reported that she’d had a great talk with his son just the other night about his career. [Kunselman's son recently graduated from college.] She thinks she and Kunselman are both really proud of their families. She thinks there’s no doubt that Kunselman cares about the neighborhoods and that he cares about the community. They may disagree about what direction the city needs to take to get that accomplished, but there’s no doubt Kunselman cares about the city, about the community and his neighborhood, she concluded.

About Marcia Higgins, Jack Eaton said: “Marcia and I actually get along well. I like Marcia. I have a lot of respect for her. It’s not personal. We just disagree about some issues.” One of the issues he and Higgins did agree about was the plan that the city administration had proposed last year to close some fire stations. He and Higgins had discussed this at length. She opposed it, he opposed it, and they agreed on that. He and Higgins had worked together to find other members of council to oppose the idea of closing fire stations.

Sabra Briere, Ward 1 city council incumbent.

Also during the forum, Sabra Briere offered a view of how the council as a group represents constituents. She allowed that there are ward boundaries, but essentially said there are no boundaries within the city when it comes to representing residents. She ventured there were no issues in other wards that she would not eventually hear about when they came before the council as a whole. When she hears concerns from residents in another ward, she passes them automatically to the members of the council serving that ward – but she also stores it in her brain, because that’s going to come back to the city council as a group.

Briere noted that Eaton had been right about 90% of the council’s votes being unanimous. Many issues simply are not contentious, she ventured. Issues in neighborhoods often are not contentious: Fixing Miller Road, fixing Packard Road, fixing Arborview – those are not contentious issues, she said. The council doesn’t have a disagreement that those roads need fixing. Contentious issues arise about those things that affect the city at large – and especially the downtown, because the downtown is shared everyone, she noted.

About current and future councilmembers, Briere said, “We serve you all. And there are no ward boundaries between the service we give and your needs.” Based on that, she encouraged audience members to raise their concerns with any of the candidates. If voters are not talking to the candidates, they are missing an opportunity, Briere said, as they could be affecting a candidate’s viewpoint when approaching service on the council.

“Nobody should only hear from their supporters,” Briere said. “Nobody should only hear from the people they disagree with.”

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

From left: Julie Grand (Ward 3 challenger), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3 incumbent), Jack Eaton (Ward 4 challenger), Mike Anglin (Ward 5 incumbent), Kirk Westphal (Ward 2 candidate), Sabra Briere (Ward 1 incumbent).

In the Aug. 6 Democratic primary, only two wards offer contested races. In Ward 3, Democratic voters will choose between incumbent Stephen Kunselman and Julie Grand. Ward 4 voters will have a choice between incumbent Marcia Higgins and Jack Eaton. Higgins was reported to have been sick and was unable to attend.

The format of the event eventually allowed other candidates who are unopposed in the Democratic primary to participate: Mike Anglin (Ward 5 incumbent), Sabra Briere (Ward 1 incumbent), and Kirk Westphal, who’s challenging incumbent Jane Lumm in Ward 2. Lumm, who was elected to the council as an independent, was in the audience at the forum but didn’t participate. The event was held at the Ann Arbor Community Center on North Main Street. The Chronicle’s coverage is presented in a multiple-part series, based on common threads that formed directly in response to questions posed to the candidates, or that cut across multiple responses.

In their introductory remarks and in the course of responding to other questions, some of the candidates described their concept of and connection to Ann Arbor – how they came to live here, and how they conceive of the place. Other themes from the forum will be presented in subsequent parts of this series. Other Chronicle coverage is tagged with “2013 primary election.”

In her introductory remarks, Julie Grand told the audience she’d come to Ann Arbor 17 years ago. Hers might be a familiar story, she said: She came to attend graduate school, and fell in love with the university. Then, a few months later, she fell in love with a person. And over time she fell in love with the community, she continued. And it was that love of the community that made her and her husband choose to raise their family here.

So she settled in and became gradually more and more involved in the community. Eventually she began teaching health policy studies at the University of Michigan, Dearborn. So she’s running for city council because “I believe that we are an extraordinary community. And as an extraordinary community, we are worthy of having representatives that present thoughtful leadership and responsive communication to you.”

Stephen Kunselman began by noting that he grew up in Ann Arbor, which he thought everybody knew. He graduated in the same class as Ingrid Ault from Pioneer High School in 1981. [The allusion wasn't random. Ault was sitting in the front row of the audience. And before the forum started, she had updated the audience about the activity of a downtown park subcommittee of the city's park advisory commission, on which she serves and which Grand has chaired. Also, Ault had contested the 2011 Ward 3 Democratic primary, which Kunselman won.] Kunselman said he’d had a great time living in Ann Arbor all his life.

Later in the forum, Kunselman observed that having grown up in Ann Arbor, he was aware of all the amenities the city provided in the past – but he allowed that it wasn’t possible to provide all those things now.

Kunselman, who holds a masters degree in urban planning, rejected the idea that Ann Arbor should aspire to be more than what it is: a college town. “We can think of Ann Arbor as a great metropolis … but as an urban planner, all I see us as is a college town, a midwestern college town that empties out for four months out of the year in the summer. And that’s why we all love living here – because then the students are gone and we’ve got lots of room to park downtown!” The line drew applause from the audience.

Commenting on the possibility of a hotel/conference center in downtown Ann Arbor, Kunselman said the idea that a hotel is going to bring conferences in November or February or March is ludicrous. How many people are going to come to Ann Arbor in the middle of the winter and hang out with gray skies and sit out on the sidewalk? That’s not going to happen, he said. “So let’s stop pretending we are some metropolis and that we’re going to compete with Chicago or all these other big conference-type facilities,” Kunselman cautioned. It’s not going to happen and we need to focus on what we can accomplish: staying with the city’s core services, and letting the private sector take care of its business.

Jack Eaton described his connection to Ann Arbor through his neighborhood association. “I became involved in local politics through my neighborhood organization. I’ve led a number of efforts in my neighborhood, and have helped other neighborhoods organize.” [He was an organizer of the A2 Neighborhood Alliance.] He stated: “I believe that Ann Arbor is a special town and we [have the] obligation of taking good care of it and working on the small problems. It doesn’t require radical changes to our zoning or our town to keep what is special about it.”

Sabra Briere said: “What makes Ann Arbor special is why we are all here. … I’m here because of the people who live here. I am here because of the different ideas that they bring to my dining room table and talk to me about, and because I am made richer by those contacts.”

Kirk Westphal had described in his opening remarks how he had moved with his wife to Ann Arbor in 2004. In his closing remarks, he told the audience how they came to move to Ann Arbor. When they were thinking about making a change from New York City, they’d approached it like “some of those people you read about” who figured out where they want to live first, and then went about trying to make a life there. And Ann Arbor was at the top of his short list, Westphal said. He admitted he was “kind of obsessed” with the top-10 lists that you read about in magazines – in which Ann Arbor is frequently included.

Ann Arbor was attractive, because of what he’d read about it, Westphal said, including its progressive values – and the fact that it was Democratic “was noticed.” The fact that so much culture is here for a city this size was very important. Ann Arbor has exceeded his expectations, he said.

Westphal thinks this is a really exciting time for Ann Arbor. It seems that Ann Arbor is increasingly being mentioned in the same breath as some larger cities across the country – as a place that people who have other choices can locate their business and move to. He continued: “I think that we can set our sights even higher. It will never be Chicago nor should we ever strive to be a large city …”

But Westphal felt that he’d been able to offer some interesting perspectives in his service on the Ann Arbor planning commission. The city must plan for the people who are here now, and serve the people who are here, he said. But a city only thrives when we think about the next generation and what is motivating people to make it a great place to be. He’d played the role on the planning commission of an outsider, and was always thinking about: Why did I move here?

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

Democratic incumbent Mike Anglin (left ) and Republican challenger Stuart Berry (right) before the League of Women Voters forum on Oct. 5. The two men are vying for a seat on the Ann Arbor city council representing Ward 5. (Photo by the writer.)

This report focuses on the forum for Ward 5, where Republican Stuart Berry is challenging Democratic incumbent Mike Anglin. A replay of the forum is available via Community Television Network’s video on demand service. [Ward 5 CTN coverage]

The council is an 11-member body, with two representatives from each ward, plus the mayor. All members of the council, including the mayor, serve two-year terms. In a given year, one of the two council seats for each ward is up for election. In even-numbered years, the position of mayor is also up for election.

This year, the general election falls on Nov. 8. Readers who are unsure where to vote can type their address into the My Property page of the city of Ann Arbor’s website to get that information. A map of city ward boundaries is also online.

Although the election in Ward 1 is not contested – Democratic incumbent Sabra Briere is unopposed – voters in that ward will have a chance to vote on three ballot proposals along with other city residents. The first two ballot questions concern a sidewalk/street repair tax; the third question concerns the composition of the city’s retirement board of trustees.

Ballot questions were among the issues on which LWV members solicited responses from candidates. Other topics addressed by the two Ward 5 candidates, presented in chronological order below, included the proposed Fuller Road Station, high-rise buildings, human services, public art and finance.

Opening Statements

Each candidate had a minute to give an opening statement.

Opening: Berry

Berry began by thanking the LWV and introducing himself as a Ward 5 candidate. He first came to Ann Arbor in the late 1960s to help his father deliver milk on one of his routes. He described it as hard work – six days a week, 52 weeks a year, year after year. But he was glad to do it – his father had immigrated to the U.S. from Scotland, because he knew hard work paid off. He knew then Ann Arbor was a special place and it remains special today, he said.

Ann Arbor has great neighborhoods and schools, a terrific park system, and a competent, dedicated group of public employees, Berry said. But the world has changed and Ann Arbor has to face new realities, he said. When he returned to Ann Arbor in 1989 to work for the University of Michigan, the levels of services were very good. Declining revenue has forced tough choices, he said. The council has not always been wise about making those choices. The council has chosen to reduce basic services, he said.

Opening: Anglin

Anglin said that we all stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. He was honored to follow in the footsteps of local leaders who have left a legacy for Ann Arbor – a park system, a public safety system, a vibrant downtown and livable neighborhoods. Those are the things that make it a special city, he said. Ann Arbor’s greatest resources are its people and their personal commitments to the community, he said.

As an elected official, Anglin said he would continue to nurture and maintain the relationship between taxpayers and voters. Respect for constituents will result in a continued legacy of progress. He said he was honored to serve Ward 5 and would continue to lead, with voters’ help.

Street Repair Millage

Question: Proposal 1 on the Nov. 8 ballot requests up to 2.0 mills for street and bridge reconstruction. Proposal 2 allows an additional 0.125 mills for sidewalk repair outside the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority TIF district. Please explain the mechanics of the two proposals’ interdependent passage. Tell voters in your ward how you plan to vote.

Street Repair Millage: Background

At its Aug. 4, 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council approved language for the Nov. 8 ballot that would renew the street and bridge reconstruction millage, at a rate of 2.0 mills. It was last approved by voters in November 2006 for five years beginning in 2007 and ending in 2011. A tax rate of 1 mill is equivalent to $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value.

As a separate proposal on the ballot, voters will be asked if they support an additional 0.125 mill to pay for sidewalk repair. Up to now, sidewalk repair has been the responsibility of property owners.

The ballot language for the street repair millage will read:

Shall the Charter be amended to authorize a tax up to 2 mills for street and bridge reconstruction for 2012 through 2016 to replace the previously authorized tax up to 2 mills for street reconstruction for 2007 through 2011, which will raise in the first year of levy the estimated revenue of $9,091,000?

The ballot language for the sidewalk portion of the millage will read:

Shall the Charter be amended to authorize a tax increase of up to 0.125 mills for 2012 through 2016 in addition to the street and bridge resurfacing and reconstruction millage of 2 mills for 2012 through 2016, which 0.125 mills will raise in the first year of levy the estimated additional revenue of $563,000, to provide a total of up to 2.125 mills for sidewalk trip hazard repair in addition to street and bridge reconstruction and resurfacing? This Charter amendment shall not take effect unless the proposed Charter amendment to authorize the levy of a tax in 2012 through 2016 of up to 2 mills for the purpose of providing funds for the reconstruction and resurfacing of streets and bridges (Proposal 1) is approved.

The sidewalk repair portion of the millage would be levied only if the street repair millage were also approved by voters. But the levy of the street repair millage is not dependent on the authorization of the sidewalk repair millage.

If both millage proposals were to be approved by voters, the money would be collected under a single, combined millage – but accounting for reconstruction activity would be done separately for streets and sidewalks.

The separation of the question into two proposals can be explained in part by a summary of responses to the city’s online survey on the topic of slightly increasing the street repair millage to include sidewalk repairs. Sidewalk repairs have up to now been the responsibility of property owners. The survey reflects overwhelming sentiment from the 576 survey respondents (filtered for self-reported city residents) that it should be the city’s responsibility to repair the sidewalks.

The survey reflects some resistance to the idea that an increase in taxes is warranted, however. From the free-responses: “Stop wasting taxpayer money on parking structures, new city buildings, and public art. You are spending money like drunken sailors while we’re in the worst recession since the Great Depression.” Balanced against that are responses like this: “I strongly endorse the idea of the city taking responsibility for maintaining the sidewalks and am certainly willing to pay for it in the form of a millage in the amount cited in this survey.” [.pdf of survey response summary]

An amendment to the resolution approved by the council on Aug. 4 directs the city attorney to prepare a change to the city’s sidewalk ordinance relative to the obligation of property owners to maintain sidewalks adjacent to their property.

Street Repair Millage: Anglin

Anglin said he is in favor of the street repair millage. The streets need to be maintained better, he said. Periodically, every five years, the city requests support for that through a millage, he noted. On the second proposal, on sidewalk repair, he said he would only reluctantly urge people to vote for it. He wanted the accounting to be thorough – he wanted a “real good tabulation of those charges.” He was sorry so many people in the last five years had to pay to replace the sidewalks adjacent to their property. He described it as an inequitable system, and said he had no response to that, except to say he was sorry it happened that way.

Street Repair Millage: Berry

Berry said his concern is that we pay a lot of property tax already. He had to wonder why it is that we’re asked to pay for streets, when we already pay so much for general taxes. He said he’d have to study that proposal more.

As for the sidewalks, he would vote against it, Berry said. In his neighborhood, people had to pay to have their sidewalks replaced. To fund that from taxes is unfair to people who already had to pay for it themselves, he said.

Transportation

Question: The Fuller Road Station will require parkland for the purpose of providing a parking structure, which will be used primarily by the University of Michigan. For this, the city will pay 22% of the initial cost. Down the road, how will the parking revenue be split? Who will pay the maintenance? Who will provide safety measures and protection? How do you personally feel about the project? What is the long-term vision for this station and the probable timeline?

Transportation: Fuller Road Background

The introduction of the Fuller Road Station concept to the public can be traced at least as far back as January 2009, when the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, presented a concept drawing at a meeting of neighbors at Northside Grill. At the time, the city was trying to encourage the University of Michigan to reconsider its plans to build parking structures on Wall Street.

The city’s strategy was to get the university to consider building its planned parking structures on the city-owned parking lot, just south of Fuller Road, near the intersection with East Medical Center Drive. It would allow the university to participate in the city’s hoped-for transit station at that location. The university has leased that parking lot from the city since 1993.

The transit station is envisioned as directly serving east-west commuter rail passengers. A day-trip demonstration service that was to launch in October 2010 never materialized. But an announcement earlier this year, that some federal support for high-speed rail track improvements would be forthcoming, has shored up hopes by many people in the community that the east-west rail connection could become a reality. That hope has been further strengthened by the recent acquisition of the track between Dearborn and Kalamazoo from Norfolk Southern by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation.

The council has already approved some expenditures directly related to the Fuller Road Station project. It voted unanimously on Aug. 17, 2009 to approve $213,984 of city funds for an environmental study and site assessment. Of that amount, $104,742 was appropriated from the economic development fund.

On Nov. 5, 2009, on separate votes, the council approved additional money for the environmental study and site assessment and to authorize a memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan.

Controversy on the project includes the status of the land where the proposed Fuller Road Station would be located. It’s designated as parkland, but formally zoned as public land (PL). In the summer of 2010, the possible uses for land zoned as PL were altered by the council, on recommendation from the city planning commission, explicitly to include transportation facilities. Any long-term use agreement with the university is seen by many as tantamount to a sale of parkland. A sale should, per the city charter, be put to a voter referendum.

Recent developments have included an indication from mayor John Hieftje that a work session would be scheduled to update the council. When the city council subsequently added a July 11, 2011 work session to its calendar, it left the expectation that the topic of that session would be Fuller Road Station. However, that session did not include the proposed transit station on its agenda.

A letter from Hieftje sent to constituents in late July 2011 reviewed much of the information that was previously known, but appeared to introduce the possibility that the University of Michigan would provide construction costs for the city’s share of the parking structure up front, with the city’s portion of 22% to be repaid later.

Transportation: Berry

Berry said he was opposed to the Fuller Road project, and was opposed to turning parkland into a parking structure. The city charter says you can’t take parkland out of the system without a vote of the people, he said, and the project amounted to an “end run” around the city charter. The University of Michigan is going to get a benefit, he said, so it’s important that the university should pay its fair share of maintenance and upkeep.

Transportation: Anglin

Anglin described the Fuller Road project as a complicated problem. It was presented to the city council as a two-phase project. The second phase includes a train station. But the first phase is simply a parking structure, Anglin said. The city is really good at building parking structures, he said, but he has no interest in doing that. The university has enough land and they it can figure out the solution to the parking problem itself, Anglin said.

In the second phase, Anglin said, there would be fast trains between Ann Arbor and Detroit and Kalamazoo. He was glad that the federal government is pumping money into the rail line, but he felt the city should use the train station it has.

High-Rise Buildings

Question: What is the current acceptable standard for building height in the central city? Do you know if the student enrollment has substantially increased or is there simply an appetite for luxury apartment living? Please speak to the occupancy rate in university dormitories, older housing and new units coming on the market. Do you think the numbers are working to fill the buildings?

High-Rise Buildings: Background

By way of background, the D-1 zoning for core downtown allows for buildings as tall as 180 feet. That was enacted as part of the city’s A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown) rezoning initiative. That resulted in final approval by the city council in November 2009. [For Chronicle coverage, see "Downtown Planning Process Forges Ahead." For a timeline of the process, see also "Ann Arbor Hotel First to Get Design Review?"]

High-Rise Buildings: Berry

Berry said he sees it as a question of building up or out. The university is the largest employer in Ann Arbor, Berry said, and Ann Arbor needs to accommodate the university’s growth if the city wants to grow with the university. He described Buenos Aires as a city with a lot of variety – tall buildings next to short ones. At first it appears disjoint, because you don’t see a lot of conformity, but it works very well, he said. Berry said he’s in favor of allowing people to develop, as long as they adhere to the local zoning ordinances.

High-Rise Buildings: Anglin

Anglin said further discussions are necessary to develop a healthy relationship between the city and the university. The city is essentially powerless, he said, with respect to the university’s nibbling away of the tax base by acquiring land within the city. Anglin said that 50% of the houses are rental properties. He would like to see more student housing put up. He noted that the university is starting to do more renovation of student dorms.

Human Services

Question: The proposed Washtenaw County budget includes major cuts in human services. The Delonis Center homeless shelter will suffer from this. Is the city prepared and able to make up the shortfall? If not, it would seem to exacerbate the problem of homelessness in the city, particularly downtown.

Human Services: Background

For background on the recently proposed budget for Washtenaw County, see “Proposed County Budget Brings Cuts.”

The city’s support for human services is allocated in coordination with other entities: the United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw County and the Washtenaw Urban County. For background on the coordinated funding approach, back when it was still in the planning stages: “Coordinated Funding for Nonprofits Planned.”

Human Services: Anglin

Anglin said it’s a difficult problem, because services are combined with the city and county, and collaboration is being requested. The fundamental problem is that when someone volunteeers with an organization, they’re supporting the mission of that organization specifically – people who volunteer for the Family Learning Institute or Kiwanis are volunteering to support those specific organizations, he said. He worried that collaboration might threaten the volunteer base. We need the private sector to come in and help, he said, because the city’s funds were not adequate.

Human Services: Berry

Berry said he spends time down at the shelter periodically and knows that many people down there are not from Ann Arbor. They come from all over the county and all over the state or outside the state. He sees the solution in providing jobs to people who are down at the shelter. Many of them are looking for work, but can’t find work, he said. If the city fosters an environment that helps job creation, then people who happen to be unfortunate at this time can get off that system, so that they don’t have to rely on the goodwill of taxpayers.

Public Art

Question: The city council is reconsidering the previously approved Percent for Art program, which sets aside 1% of each capital improvement project to be used for public art in the city. The process appears to be slow in producing art. Should it be reconsidered? Do you have suggestions for improvement?

Public Art: Background

At the city council’s Aug. 4, 2011 meeting, councilmembers voted to place ballot language before voters for a street repair and sidewalk repair millage. Before the meeting, some councilmembers had indicated they were prepared to modify the ballot language to make explicit that millage funds would not be subject to the public art ordinance. The ordinance, which establishes the Percent for Art program, stipulates that 1% of all capital improvement projects must be set aside to be spent on public art.

Mayor John Hieftje effectively preempted that conversation by nominating Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) as a replacement for Jeff Meyers on the public art commission and assuring the council that the question of public art could be taken up at the council’s Sept. 19, 2011 meeting.

However, at the Sept. 19 meeting a proposed revision to the public art ordinance, brought forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), was postponed until after a working session to be held on Nov. 14, after the election on Nov. 8.

The proposed revision would change the Percent for Art program by explicitly excluding sidewalk and street repair from projects that could be tapped to fund public art.

Some councilmembers had previously understood the public art ordinance already to exclude replacement of sidewalk slabs from its definition of capital improvement projects. But based on additional information from the city attorney’s office, the proposed ordinance revision was meant to spell that out explicitly.

On two previous occasions in the last two years (Dec. 21, 2009 and May 31, 2011), the council has considered but rejected a change to the public art ordinance that would have lowered the public art earmark from 1% to 0.5%. The city’s Percent for Art program was authorized by the council on Nov. 5, 2007. It is overseen by the city’s public art commission, with members nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the council.

The most recent regular Chronicle coverage of the city’s public art commission is “Art Commission Preps for Dreiseitl Dedication.”

Public Art: Berry

Berry said that public art is always an issue for discussion. For the sake of clarity, he said, it should be called “taxpayer-funded art,” not public art. He noted that throughout the city there are people who have lost their jobs, and have houses that have been put into foreclosure. At this time, he said, he did not think that the city can afford the expenditure on taxpayer-funded art. The city should spend that money on people, not on producing taxpayer-funded art.

Public Art: Anglin

Anglin noted that the Percent for Art program has been voted on in the last year by the city council. On any given project, there’s a cap of $250,000, he said. He thought that the council should take a look at it by first getting a legal opinion from the city attorney about whether the program is legal. After that, we should figure out what projects we might want to have as art projects, he said. The University of Michigan should be involved, he said. He was glad for the opportunity to discuss the public art program to ease the irritation that many people have about the program.

Finance

Question: Is there a deficit in the city budget and how large is it? If cuts were to be made, how would they be made? Is citizen safety being jeopardized? Is a city income tax being considered?

Finance: Background on Budget, Income Tax

The Ann Arbor city budget for fiscal year 2012 was approved by the city council with $77,987,857 in revenues and $79,105,945 in expenditures, and drew down the fund reserves by $1,118,088 to balance the budget.

In Michigan, local municipalities have four sources of possible revenue: (1) property taxes; (2) fees for services; (3) state shared revenue – apportioned from the state sales tax; and (4) a city income tax.

The city of Ann Arbor does not levy just one kind of property tax. Ann Arbor tax bills include separate taxes to support: general operations, employee benefits, the solid waste system, debt, street repair, city parks, open space acquisition, and mass transit.

An example of fees for service is the drinking water utility – residents pay for the amount of water they use.

It’s not an option for a city to levy any kind of sales tax in addition to the state sales tax. For example, the city of Ann Arbor is not legally empowered to apply an entertainment tax that could be added to University of Michigan football tickets. Part of the rationale behind the state shared revenue system is for local municipalities to have their inability to levy extra taxes balanced out by revenue that is shared with them by the state. However, the future of state shared revenues is unclear, and local municipalities aren’t sure if they’ll continue to receive those revenues in coming years.

A feature of the Ann Arbor city charter that distinguishes Ann Arbor from other Michigan cities is the relationship between the general operations property tax and a city income tax. Per the city charter, Ann Arbor can enact one, but not both kinds of tax:

City Tax Limit SECTION 8.7. (a) … In any calendar year in which the Uniform City Income Tax Ordinance is in effect on the day when the budget is adopted, the City may not levy any part of the three-fourths of one percent property tax previously mentioned …

But if the city of Ann Arbor were to enact a city income tax, it’s only the general operations property tax that would disappear – the other city property taxes would remain.

Cities can enact a city income tax under the state statute Uniform City Income Tax, which allows an income tax of up to 1% to be levied on residents of a city, and on non-residents up to 1/2 of the percentage levied on residents. For example, if a city enacted a .5% income tax on residents, then non-residents would pay no more than .25%.

Supporters of a city income tax for Ann Arbor typically defend against tax burden arguments by pointing to the fact that the city charter stipulates that a city income tax replaces, rather than supplements, the roughly 6 mill general operations property tax for residents. [For readers who wonder how much property tax they would save, the line item, on summer tax bills, is labeled CITY OPER].

Supporters also typically point out that 40% of the real estate in Ann Arbor is not subject to property tax – due to the large city park system and the presence of the University of Michigan, whose land is not subject to property tax. So funding operations from property taxes is more challenging than in cities where a greater percentage of the property is subject to a tax.

Supporters also typically point to the large number of workers who have jobs in the city of Ann Arbor – many of them at UM – who live outside the city. That translates into larger potential revenue from an income tax than in cities that have a smaller number of commuters.

Detractors of a city income tax typically point to the potential barrier such a tax might represent to businesses choosing to locate in Ann Arbor, or to the inequity of the income tax with respect to resident renters – who may not see the reduction in their landlord’s property tax passed along to them in lower rents. Some oppose the idea on philosophical grounds, arguing that applying the tax to non-resident workers amounts to taxation without representation. Income taxes as a source of revenue are also somewhat less stable than property taxes.

Finance: Income Tax – Previous Discussions

Two years ago, at the Ann Arbor city council’s January 2009 budget retreat, then-councilmember Leigh Greden advocated for an exploration of replacing the general operating millage with an 1% city income tax. The budget retreat discussion resulted in the dissemination of a previous, 2004 city income tax study. The 2004 study had been preceded by a 1997 city income tax study.

In July 2009, the city released a more current study. But in August of that year, it became clear at a city council work session that there was no enthusiasm on the part of councilmembers to place the issue on the ballot in the fall.

Yet at that year’s budget retreat on Dec. 5, 2009, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) again raised the issue of exploring a city income tax. And at a Feb. 16, 2010 meeting of the city council’s budget committee, which included [and still includes] Taylor, members gave then-city administrator Roger Fraser the green light to conduct a survey of voter attitudes on the city income tax.

Finance: City Income Tax – More Recent Discussions

Through the city council and mayoral election season in 2010, the idea of a city income tax received some discussion as an issue. During his campaign, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) in particular expressed support for the idea. He’s now part of a working group on the council, which also includes Taylor and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), that is taking a closer look at revenue questions. At the Dec. 4, 2010 budget retreat, former city administrator Roger Fraser had expressed the same sentiment he’d conveyed to members of the budget committee back in February 2010: He thought he had an obligation to ask the citizens to consider the income tax question before cutting services.

Finance: Anglin

Anglin said he would not want to consider a city income tax. He said it sends a negative message and has a negative impact on the lower end of the work force. When we talk about the budget, he said, it’s the general fund we’re talking about – that funds safety services. We need to step up funding for police and fire, he said. We should look at administrative costs as an area to cut. We should also look for concessions from unions, he said.

Finance: Berry

Berry said that city finances is always a hard topic. The majority of funding comes from taxes and fees, he said. That brings up the question of what the priorities are of government. He believed the role of government was to provide basic servies that people can’t reasonably provide for themselves individually. When times are tough, the council has to cut programs that aren’t a part of basic services. He said hoped that cuts made to police and fire have not jeopardized safety. He said he was opposed to a city income tax.

Closing Statements

Each candidate had two minutes to give a closing statement.

Closing: Anglin

Anglin thanked the LWV and its continued efforts to educate the public about the candidates. In 2007 when he first ran, Anglin said, he was determined to reflect the desires of his constituents. As he went door-to-door, he said he developed a sense of what voters valued. They support parks and active recreation. When Huron Hills was threatened, he said, he worked hard to make sure that Huron Hills remained a golf course. He said he believed in a healthy community through recreation, for all ages and ability levels.

As a city council representative to the city’s park advisory commission, Anglin said he worked to save Ann Arbor’s parks, which make the city a destination. It’s taken 150 years to create the park system, he said. Another issue he’s heard from voters is the need for the city of Ann Arbor to be more fiscally responsible. The city has limited resources, and even though others felt they wanted to build more buildings, he felt the city could not afford it, without reducing services. He said he did not vote for either the new municipal center to house the police and courts building, or the new underground parking garage currently under construction downtown. He said he encouraged more communication with residents.

Closing: Berry

Berry thanked the LWV for the invitation to come. He said the good people of Ann Arbor deserve more than what they’ve been getting. If elected, he would work for more police and fire protection, good roads, timely snow removal, maintenance of city parks and other basic services. He said he’d work for change in the business climate that promotes business growth.

Berry’s vision of Ann Arbor is one that leads the nation as a safe, affordable city, known for efficient, responsive government. He wants a government that lets entrepreneurs know they can do business in Ann Arbor without arbitrary intervention. He said he supports liberty and freedom. He would work on returning Ann Arbor to its core greatness and letting Ann Arbor be what it can be, not what somebody thinks it should be.

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

Summary plot of all local contributions to six candidates in Ann Arbor Democratic primary elections. The light blue areas are the wards in which the elections are contested. Each magenta circle indicates a contribution, placed on the map based on the address of the contributor and sized based on the amount of the contribution.

Six candidates filed the necessary paperwork, which is available from the Washtenaw County clerk’s office website. [Type in the candidate's last name for links to scanned .pdf files of campaign finance reports.]

For itemized cash contributions listed on Schedule 1-A, The Chronicle has compiled the data for all six candidates into a single Google Spreadsheet – in order to get a statistical overview of the candidates’ respective contributions and to map out the distributions of contributions geographically.

Ward 5 incumbent Mike Anglin’s total of $6,850 was the largest of any candidate. His challenger Neal Elyakin filed $5,923 worth of contributions.

In Ward 3, Ingrid Ault has raised $4,031, compared to incumbent Stephen Kunselman’s $2,750. According to Washtenaw County clerk staff on Tuesday morning, Ward 3 candidate Marwan Issa had not filed a contribution report by the Friday deadline. He’d also not submitted a waiver that can be filed if contributions total less than $1,000. The fine associated with not filing is $25 per day, up to a maximum of $500.

In Ward 2, incumbent Stephen Rapundalo filed $2,950 worth of contributions compared with $2,075 for challenger Tim Hull.

Collectively, the six candidates recorded $24,579 on their statements.

After the jump, we chart out the contributions to illustrate how candidates are being supported – through many small-sized donations, or by a fewer larger-sized donations. We also provide a geographic plot, to illustrate how much financial support candidates enjoy in the wards they’re running to represent.

Statistical Overview

Comparing the dollar-amount distribution of campaign contributions, incumbents Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) show a similar pattern. Both candidates draw much of their support from contributions that are $50 or less. Anglin’s contributions show this more dramatically, with the $0-25 category receiving the most contributions of any category. All other candidates received the most contributions in the $51-100 category.

It is also striking that Anglin’s 91 contributions are nearly double the number of contributions of challenger Neal Elyakin and around triple (or more) the number of contributions of candidates in other wards.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) received 91 contributions, averaging $75. Around half were $50 or less.

Neal Elyakin (Ward 5) received 48 contributions, averaging $123. About half were $100 or more.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) received 27 contributions, averaging $102. About half were $50 or less.

Ingrid Ault (Ward 3) received 35 contributions, averaging $115. About half were $100 or more.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) received 21 contributions, averaging $140. About half were $100 or more.

Tim Hull (Ward 2) received 14 contributions averaging $148. About half were $100 or more.

Mapping

In each of the maps presented below, the magenta circles are centered on the address of a contributor. The size of the circle is proportional to the size of the contribution. The yellow border is the Ann Arbor city limit. The light blue area is the ward for which the candidate is seeking election.

The handful of addresses recorded as post office boxes were mapped to the center of the city – we did not attempt to identify a more precise location. The mapping of addresses to coordinates and the data plotting was done with GPS Visualizer. [Editor's note: GPS Visualizer depends in part on voluntary contributions to maintain the mapping tools as freely accessible and to make improvements to those tools. The Chronicle encourages its readers to support GPS Visualizer.]

Contributions from non-Ann Arbor addresses (typically from family members or business associates) are not depicted in the maps. We summarize non-Ann Arbor totals in the captions to each map. Incumbent Stephen Rapundalo in Ward 2 and challenger Neal Elyakin in Ward 5 each drew a bit more than one-third of their dollars from non-Ann Arbor addresses.

In terms of the amount of support within the ward to be represented, the mapped data shows that Ward 5 incumbent Mike Anglin enjoys more support inside his own ward than any other candidate. But he also has support throughout the city. In terms of relative amount of support inside the home ward compared with outside it, Ward 2′s Tim Hull appears to have an edge over other candidates.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) 2011 Democratic primary campaign contribution plot. Of Anglin's $6,850 contribution total, $250 came from non-Ann Arbor addresses.

Neal Elyakin (Ward 5) 2011 Democratic primary campaign contribution plot. Of Elyakin's $5,923 contribution total, $2,250 came from non-Ann Arbor addresses.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) 2011 Democratic primary campaign contribution plot. Of Kunselman's $2,750 contribution total, $200 came from non-Ann Arbor addresses.

Ingrid Ault (Ward 3) 2011 Democratic primary campaign contribution plot. Of Ault's $4,031 contribution total, $686 came from non-Ann Arbor addresses.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) 2011 Democratic primary campaign contribution plot. Of Rapundalo's $2,950 contribution total, $1,000 came from non-Ann Arbor addresses.

Tim Hull (Ward 2) 2011 Democratic primary campaign contribution plot. Of Hull's $2,075 contribution total, $150 came from non-Ann Arbor addresses.

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