Leading up to the city administrator’s proposed budget in April, the city council is also holding a series of work sessions on the budget. Their typical scheduling pattern is for the weeks between council meetings. That was the case on Jan. 31, 2011 when the council held its budget work session on the community services area, which includes human services, parks and planning. Another session was held on Feb. 7, prior to the council’s regular meeting, regarding the 15th District Court. A report on the Feb. 14, 2011 session, which focused on police and fire, will follow.

At the podium is community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl. Partially obscured by the podium is councilmember Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). Leafing through the budget impact sheets that the council had been given just prior to the meeting is Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2). (Photo by the writer.)

The Ann Arbor city council’s budget work session on Jan. 31, 2011 covered a broad range of topics – from the city’s affordable housing stock, to planning and development, to parks and recreation (including golf courses), to human services funding. All these issues fall under the city’s community services area, which is led by Sumedh Bahl.

In a budget year where maintaining the same level of activity in every department is projected to result in a $2.4 million shortfall, city departments have been given reduction targets between 2.5% and 4%. Targets vary across departments depending on health care costs for employees in those departments.

So at their work session, councilmembers heard from heads of individual departments about the specific ways those targets might be met.

For example, Mary Jo Callan, who’s head of the city/county office of community development, told councilmembers that an unrealized $98,000 federal grant would pose an additional challenge. All other things being equal, Callan would meet the reduction target by reducing the city’s allocation to nonprofit human services agencies by $116,714 – from $1,275,744 to $1,159,030. The budget is planned in two-year cycles, even though it’s adopted just one year at a time, so Callan’s reduction strategy for next year’s FY 2013 budget would be to reduce the nonprofit allocation by an additional $48,700.

The planning department plans to meet its reduction target in part by charging the construction fund for 10% of the historic district coordinator’s time, factoring in projected revenue increases due to increased development activity, and leaving a rental housing inspector position vacant. The rental housing inspection activity would be maintained at appropriate levels by using construction inspectors for rental housing inspections as needed.

The city’s housing commission – which maintains more than 350 units of public housing throughout the city – is not proposing to meet reduction targets, but rather to hire what officials say are two crucially needed positions: a financial analyst and a facilities maintenance manager, which together are expected to cost an additional $154,000 per year.

Parks and recreation would meet their targets in part through savings derived from energy improvements that have been made to various recreational facilities over the past few years.

The council focused some of its session on the city’s golf courses, with a council consensus seeming to emerging that for the next two years, the council will be content to stick with the status quo – operating the Leslie Park and Huron Hills facilities as golf courses, and not changing them to other uses.

But the council was also asked to consider a question on which it could be harder to achieve consensus: Should the city continue to help fund park operations, as it has for the last four years, by tapping the city’s general fund reserve for $287,000 annually? The history of the issue dates back to the parks capital improvements and maintenance millage, which was approved in 2006, and which was followed by the council’s approval of its FY 2008 budget the next spring.

That history is rooted partly in a question that the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, addressed in a straightforward fashion at the work session: What exactly does it mean for a department to have a budget reduction target of 2.5%? 

In this report, we take a look at: (1) how the city’s financial staff define budget reduction targets; (2) how and why those targets vary across departments; (3) how reduction targets relate to the parks budget controversy of FY 2008 and the current $287,000 question; and (4) the range of work session topics discussed by the council.

What Is a Budget Reduction Target?

The city is currently in the middle of its 2011 fiscal year – which ends on June 30, 2011 – and is developing its FY 2012 budget. If the city’s chief financial officer has established a 2.5% budget reduction target, how does he check to see that the target has been met?

Percents are all about comparing numbers, so a natural inclination would be to compare this year with next year – that is, the FY 2011 budget expenses with the FY 2012 projected revenue. In more detail, you might think to calculate 2.5% of the FY 2011 expenses, subtract that number from the FY 2011 expenses and ask: Is that number equal to my FY 2012 budgeted revenue? Arithmetically:

[FY 2011 expense] — [FY 2011 expense]*.025 ?=? [FY 2012]

If that checks out, then from this year to next year, we’ve cut the budget by 2.5%, right?

But that’s not what a 2.5% budget reduction target means for the city. When the city’s financial staff calculate a reduction target of 2.5%, they’re not comparing this year’s expenses with next year’s projected revenue. They’re comparing next year’s projected expenses, with next year’s projected revenue.

At the Jan. 31, 2011 city council work session, the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, explained this concept to council members as a stepwise process:

1. Assume the same activities will be maintained next year at the same level they exist this year [staffing levels will remain the same; the same services will be provided; etc.].
2. Project to next year how much it will cost to maintain that same level of activity. [If the cost of electricity is expected to increase by 10%, that's calculated in; if union contracts stipulate that there's a 1.5% salary increase, that's calculated in.]
3. Compare next year’s projected cost with next year’s projected revenue. If cost exceeds revenue, that defines the percentage reduction the organization needs to achieve as a whole.

Arithmetically, the equation looks like this:

[FY 2012 expense] — [FY 2012 expense]*.025 ?=? [FY 2012 revenue]

By way of a made-up example, consider a perfectly balanced FY 2011 budget where expenses and revenues are $100,000. Let’s say that due to contractually obligated salary increases, overall inflation, and a rise in oil prices, it’s possible to project that the same activities/services the city obtained for $100,000 in FY 2011 will instead cost $101,000 in FY 2012. Let’s say that revenues are expected to drop in FY 2012 to $98,475. So the crucial question for the city is how to reduce $101,000 down to $98,475. On this scenario, measured in dollars, the city is looking for some way to trim $2,525. What’s that dollar target in terms of percent?

2,525/101,000 = .025

Let’s say on that scenario, the city does achieve its reduction target of 2.5%. That is, let’s say the city finds a way to cut expenses for FY 2012 down to $98,475. That would mean a reduction target of 2.5% has been met for FY 2012, even though comparing FY 2012 to FY 2011 would indicate only a 1.525% cut.

Different Reduction Targets for Different Departments

Part of the city’s specific labor strategy is to try to convince its unions to adopt a health care and pension plan that would cost the city less – by requiring greater contributions from employees. The public relations component of that strategy was reflected at the Feb. 7, 2011 city council meeting, when Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), chair of the city council’s budget committee, addressed his colleagues. He contrasted the level of health care benefits received by city union workers with benefits received by city non-union workers and by employees at institutions like the University of Michigan.

In addition to the public relations piece, the city’s labor strategy has a budgetary component. As early as the first budget retreat in December 2010, city administrator Roger Fraser and CFO Tom Crawford explained to councilmembers that this year they will align the city’s labor and budget strategies. What that means in terms of budget reduction targets is that different departments will be given different reduction targets, depending on how many employees in the department have adopted the city’s new benefits plan.

All departments have a baseline 2.5% target, with additional reductions assigned to departments depending on the extent to which employees in each department are still on the city’s old benefits plan.

In a hypothetical department where all employees were on the new heath and pension plan, the reduction target would be 2.5%. In a department with a large number of union employees who have not yet adopted the new health plan, the reduction target this year can be as high as 4%. The numbers extracted from budget impact sheets submitted by each department for the Jan. 31 work session illustrate how the percentage reduction targets vary across departments. The targets all fall between 2.5% and 4.0%:

                   Community     Plan/Dev     Planning        Parks
Projected FY 012   2,008,008    1,497,874      829,796    3,612,367
Reduction Dollars     55,521       55,182       29,613       92,083
Reduction Percent       2.76         3.68         3.57         2.55

-

Reduction Targets and the 2006 Parks Millage: $287,000

The city’s method for computing reduction targets based on next year’s projected expenses and next year’s projected revenues is not new this year – this is simply the way it’s been done. But that method of computing budget targets is inconsistent with the last-year-vs.-this-year comparison that many people are drawn to when they think about percentages. That inconsistency led to considerable controversy in early 2007 when the city council adopted its FY 2008 budget.

The controversy involved the combined parks maintenance and capital improvements millage that was approved by voters in November 2006. Before passage of the combined millage, the city levied two separate millages at 0.5 mill each – one for parks maintenance and the other for capital improvements. Now, within the combined millage, taxes are collected at a rate of 1.0 mill, but money is allocated to maintenance or capital improvements on a more flexible basis than the previous legally enforced 50-50 split that was expressed by the specialized purpose of each millage.

However, there’s not complete flexibility to allocate money to maintenance or capital improvements within the unified millage. Percentage allocation is guided by a city council resolution passed in October 2006. The resolution specifies a range of 60% to 80% for maintenance, with the remainder going to capital improvements.

Another part of that resolution was intended to address a fear expressed by some in the community at the time: Even though more money for parks might be generated through the new millage, the amount of money actually spent on parks could be reduced – if the city reduced funding for parks from its general fund. So the intent of the resolution was to allay that fear. In relevant part, the October 2006 resolution reads:

4. If future reductions are necessary in the City’s general fund budget, during any of the six years of this millage, beginning with Fiscal Year 2007-2008, the general fund budget supporting the parks and recreation system for that year will be reduced by a percentage no greater than the average percentage reduction of the total City general fund budget;

5. If future increases occur in the City’s general fund budget during any of the six years of this millage, beginning with Fiscal Year 2007-2008, the general fund budget supporting the parks and recreation system for that year will be increased at the same rate as the average percentage increase of the total City general fund budget;

By spring the following year – as the council was prepared to adopt the FY 2008 budget – objections were raised when general fund support for parks in the proposed FY 2008 budget was less than in FY 2007. Those who objected, including prominent leaders of two environmental groups, pointed to the increase in the overall general fund budget from the previous year, and contended that parks should enjoy the same increase, not a decrease. From a May 19, 2007 Ann Arbor News account, written by Tom Gantert:

Mike Garfield, director of the Ecology Center, and Doug Cowherd, chairman of the Sierra Club-Huron Valley Group, said the city should do what it said it would do in an October 2006 resolution. That resolution stated that if the city’s general fund budget increased, the parks system budget will be increased at the same rate as the average percentage of the total general fund budget.

According to the city, the general fund budget rose from $78.5 million to $80.3 million, an increase of 2 percent. Yet, the parks system budget dropped from $6.7 million to $6.0 million, a decrease of about 11 percent. To get to that 2 percent increase as the resolution states, the city would have to add about $763,000.

On the night the council adopted the FY 2008 budget, an attempted budget amendment – proposed by then-councilmember Bob Johnson – would have added $638,900 to the parks budget from the general fund reserve. But the amendment failed, receiving support only from councilmembers Johnson, Ron Suarez and Stephen Kunselman.

For that vote, the majority of councilmembers seemed persuaded that the intent and purpose of the October 2006 resolution was served by treating the parks budget targets – as they’ve been laid out in the first section of this article – the same as all other departments. At the time, an Ann Arbor News account from May 16, 2007 had Crawford explaining the apparent discrepancy this way:

But now chief financial officer Tom Crawford says the [October 2006] resolution was too simplistic and just looked at overall budget figures and didn’t follow the city budget methodology in place for several years.

For example, because the parks system doesn’t have as many employees as other departments, its budget doesn’t increase as much for rising expenses such as employee health care.

Because of problems in the ordinance language like that, Crawford said the parks would be getting more money than other larger departments that are paying for such benefits.

Crawford said the parks department was treated the same as the other departments in the city.

But later, in October 2007, Johnson brought the issue back to the council with a smaller number to be added to the parks budget from the general fund reserve – $287,000. And that resolution was passed by the council.

Originally the general fund supplement to the parks budget was supposed to be a non-recurring item from the general fund reserve in FY 2008 and FY 2009. But it recurred in the FY 2010 and FY 2011 budgets, as well.

So at the Jan. 31, 2011 council work session, community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl asked the council for guidance: Should the city simply set the parks budget at $287,000 higher, continue to tap the general fund reserve, or discontinue the supplement? Mayor John Hieftje wanted to know if the city’s park advisory commission had become more versed in how the budget targets work. Crawford told the mayor he thinks PAC understands it.

Stephen Rapundalo said this is not the first time over the years when the council has talked about tapping the reserve fund balance for recurring operational needs – it needs to stop, he said, because the council was just “kicking the can down the road.”

But Crawford was keen to stress that in general the council has been disciplined about not tapping the general fund reserve for operational expenses. The parks supplement was an old decision, he said, and now it’s time to check and see where the council’s consensus is on the question.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated that it is a decision the council would make during the budget process. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wondered how that would be achieved: Do they do that by resolution? The answer was unclear.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) noted that out of a $7.8 million community services budget, $287,000 is a relatively small order of magnitude. Rapundalo cautioned that the right number to compare the $287,000 against is just the parks portion – around $3.6 million.

Kunselman inquired when the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage is up for renewal, and Colin Smith, the city’s manager of parks and recreation, clarified that it would be on the November 2012 ballot.

Concerning the differing viewpoints on the intent of the October 2006 resolution, city administrator Roger Fraser seemed conciliatory. It was a matter of interpretation, he said, and both groups had made good arguments about whether the budget complied with the intent of voters.

Budget Impact Sheets

The Jan. 31, 2011 budget work session was oriented around budget impact sheets for each department. The city of Ann Arbor is maintaining a separate page in its online budget guide as a repository for the impact sheets. [.pdf of combined budget impact sheets from Jan. 31, 2011] The impact sheets include in detail all the items identified for savings or additional revenue, as well as any items that would increase costs.

Budget Impact Sheets: Planning and Development

Among the ways that the city’s planning and development services departments are meeting their reduction targets, Sumedh Bahl highlighted the following: making sure that staff time is being billed appropriately to other departments; and an additional $3,000 in revenue from already-implemented fee increases in the city’s historic preservation program.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said he liked the additional $10,00o in revenue from increased development activity. He wanted to know if there were more development proposals in the pipeline? Yes, answered Bahl.

In the course of questioning, Bahl went on to explain that part of their plan to meet reduction targets is to leave an inspector position vacant and to use construction inspectors for rental housing inspections. Increased efficiency in rental housing inspections is expected to yield an additional $50,000 in revenue.

In response to councilmember questions, Bahl said that regionalization of inspections – using inspectors from surrounding municipalities – is a future possibility. The city is also looking into the establishment of an administrative hearing bureau (AHB), which would help expedite dealing with nuisance properties, Bahl said. That might take around a year to establish, he said.

[Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) has, over the last several months, pointed out specific properties in his ward that he says have become nuisances, and are contributing to blight. At the budget retreats, he has also urged that the council and staff  think about ways to address the problem – money for demolition can be clawed back through a lien, for example. Establishment of an AHB is one mechanism that the state's Home Rule Cities Act makes available for dealing with such properties. The city of Ypsilanti established an AHB last year.]

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) noted that he’d made a request at one of the budget retreats for a cost/benefit analysis of doing mandatory home inspections upon sale of a property. It’s something that would generate some amount of additional revenue. Is that on the list? he asked. Bahl confirmed that looking at the issue was at the top of his list.

Budget Impact Sheets: Housing Commission

The Ann Arbor Housing Commission oversees around 350 affordable housing units across the city. The housing commission’s impact sheet did not propose to meet the reduction target. Instead, it called for hiring two new positions: a facility maintenance manager and a financial analyst.

Bahl explained that the facility maintenance position  is vacant. The job includes overseeing the maintenance of buildings, plus the mechanicals like boilers and furnaces. Bahl stressed the need to maintain equipment as a way to extend its life, which delays capital expenses.

Bahl recalled his recent experience as head of the city’s drinking water facilities. [Bahl assumed the leadership of the community services area last year when Jayne Miller left the city for another position. Before that, Bahl was head of the drinking water facilities.] His focus was always on maintenance, he said. By way of example, he described for the council how they had gas engines from 1965 and pumps from 1949 that were still in service. That’s how you prolong the life of equipment – by having a good maintenance program.

[The request for two positions for the housing commission comes in the context of a wholesale replacement of the housing commission's board last year. Additional Chronicle coverage: "Housing Commission Reorganizes," and "Investments: Housing, Bridges, Transit." Last year, the council agreed to a $138,000 allocation to the housing commission to help transition it into an operation that is less dependent on the federal HUD program. The transition included making full-time positions of the executive director and deputy director of the housing commission.]

Mayor John Hieftje asked Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) – the city council’s liaison to the housing commission – if funding would be available to perform the maintenance, if the maintenance manager position were funded.

Derezinski explained that maintenance was part of needs assessment that had been done [by Schumaker & Company]. The commission is currently “backhoeing” a lot of the deferred maintenance, he said. It’s things like changing filters. [There is also currently an open request for proposals (RFP), with a Feb. 25 deadline, to bid on replacing furnaces at many of the housing commission properties.] They need the management position to organize the staff to do it the regular maintenance.

City administrator Roger Fraser said that $330,000 had been spent on furnaces and boilers in the last year. There are two resident managers who work with people in facilities to do some maintenance, he said, but they don’t have time to look at the capital side.

Fraser reminded the council that in last year’s budget, they’d approved additional money for the housing commission – over $130,000 – but this current request is “not a repeat of that money.” For some of the capital investments necessary, Fraser said, the commission had received grants. [To match those grants, the housing commission has recently asked the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority for support, but the DDA has not yet acted on the request.]

About the maintenance issues, Derezinski compared it to opening a drawer and finding more snakes. He said the maintenance issues in the housing units are reflected in the complaints you hear at the housing commission’s board meetings. Two years ago, he said, there were a dozen people at every meeting, but that’s decreasing. The staff is now “on top of it.”

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) inquired whether maintenance could be done by third party. If you have a schedule for changing filters, could they call up someone in the phone book and have them perform that task? he wondered. Bahl allowed that some tasks could be outsourced to a third party – they take a combined approach. Some maintenance is done by staff, and some is done by contracted sources – for example, for chillers that require a worker with specialized training. But Bahl said that someone has to monitor and manage everything.

Kunselman noted that as part of the reorganization last year, the commission had eliminated two union positions for maintenance. Kunselman wanted to know how that was consistent with needing a maintenance manager. The part of the maintenance that has been outsourced, instead of using union positions, Bahl said, is done when the units turn over to a new occupant. The commission still needs someone to make sure that all the regular maintenance work is getting done.

Earlier in the work session, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) drew out the fact that there is currently $118,000 in the Ann Arbor housing trust fund. Kunselman wanted to know if that included the Burton Commons project. Mary Jo Callan, head of the combined city/county office of community development, explained that four years ago the commission had committed funds the  Burton Commons housing project. Two years ago, she said, the city told “wanted-to-be developers” it could not continue the commitment. So, where’s the money? Kunselman wanted to know. Fraser explained that it was put in back in the trust fund, and it’s been used. Smith inquired about future payments that are due to the fund by developments – specifically, the one at Plymouth Green. Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city, explained that based on the Plymouth Green development agreement, two payments of $15,000 had been made and there would be two more, at $15,000 each for next two years.

Smith noted that Avalon Housing is a nonprofit organization in town similar to the housing commission, and Avalon Housing has divested itself of smaller, single-unit housing. Did the needs assessment for the housing commission include consideration of the type of housing stock? She pointed out that it could be a question of replacing 100 furnaces versus one.

Derezinski said that the furnaces that had been replaced were in smaller units. He also said that the question of an appropriate mix of housing stock was receiving attention from the commission. They’d looked at the mix in the Grand Rapids housing commission’s collection of housing, for example.

Fraser wrapped up the discussion of the housing commission by noting that he’d been in public service long enough to see the federal government essentially get out of the business of domestic spending on housing. A lot of the housing we’re dealing with now, he said, dates to the late ’60s and ’70s. The units had 30-year mortgages to guarantee affordability. Fraser noted that the council had previously discussed multi-family units going to market rate. The pressure has rolled downhill to the smallest units of government closest to the people, he said, and the dilemma is only going to get worse.

Fraser pointed to President Obama’s remarks during his state of the union speech, and the new leadership in the U.S. Senate and House, as well as Michigan’s own legislature – all of them have been targeting domestic spending for cuts, he said, and we’ll have to live with it.

Budget Impact Sheets: Community Development

Mary Jo Callan, the director of the combined city/county office of community development, delivered a grim picture for human services allocations to nonprofits. She would meet the budget reduction target in FY 2012 by reducing allocation to nonprofits that provide human services by $116,714 – from $1,275,744 to $1,159,030. Callan’s strategy to meet the target for next year’s FY 2013 budget would be to reduce the nonprofit allocation by an additional $48,700.

Councilmembers appeared slow to grasp the full significance of the numbers on the budget impact sheets. Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked: How did you come up with that number? Where will it hit?

Callan explained that she did not yet know which specific nonprofits would be affected. She said that her department is in the process of gearing up for the new coordinated funding process, beginning July 1, 2011.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) remarked that it was a significant percentage cut, with Teall chiming in that it was greater than 2.5%.

Callan explained that her department had anticipated receiving a $98,000 federal grant from HUD the previous year, to cover administrative costs incurred from city finance and administrative staff. The grant had not materialized – HUD requires documentation that is fairly specific, she said. In a followup email in response to a Chronicle query, Callan described the documentation issue in more detail:

The documentation requires not only the amount of time spent on a specific grant (e.g. CDBG, HOME, CDBG-R, NSP), but also the specific project worked on (e.g. single family demolition, 701 Miller rehab, human services). Community Development has our whole finance and time tracking system set-up to accommodate this documentation threshold, since the vast majority of our funding comes from these sources. City finance and administrative staff however, do not track their time in this detailed way, since the vast majority of their work relates to the general fund.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) mistakenly concluded from Callan’s remarks that the $116,000 reduction did not mean reduction in nonprofit allocations after all – the reduction would be $116,000 minus the $98,000, he ventured. That would make it more palatable in terms of actual service agency cuts, he concluded.

But Callan clarified that they would not be subtracting $98,000 from anything. Rapundalo sought to clarify why support to nonprofits would be reduced if the $98,000 was originally intended to support administrative staff.

City administrator Roger Fraser sought to bring some clarity to the situation by saying that if administrative staff is reduced, the city loses capacity to administer the program. The office of community development had tried to keep the allocations to nonprofit agencies stable, he said. The city’s recommendation is consider the trade-off: What does it take to run the operation, and how much direct support to nonprofits can be provided? The city is trying to figure out how to pay for staff to run the program at the same level, while continuing to provide direct support to programs.

Rapundalo ventured that the budget impact sheet was not a specific proposal for allocating the cut between administrative staff and direct support to programs. Fraser replied that the city was suggesting a balancing act: “These are the adjustments we think are necessary.” Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) zeroed in on the significance of the numbers the council had been given: “So it really is a direct reduction?” Yes, said Callan. She continued by saying her department is a lean organization: “We don’t bring this to you lightly.”

Hohnke summarized the situation by saying that one way the city had been working to maintain funding was to identify federal funding opportunities – the proposed cut reflects the fact that federal funding didn’t materialize.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) characterized the situation as Callan believing the department is as lean as it can go and it has gotten what revenue is gettable – the only way to meet it is to reduce funding to human services agencies.

Fraser stressed that there was no effort yet to balance the choices in human services funding against other choices in the city’s organization. The office of community development was asked to meet the reduction targets just like every other department, and it was presented in “raw form.” In the proposed budget in April, he said, they might propose a different scenario, but the impact sheet simply recognizes that $98,000 is gone.

Budget Impact Sheets: Parks and Recreation – Basics

Among the dollars identified at the work session by Sumedh Bahl for savings in parks and recreation was $65,083 in energy savings due to improvements done at facilities. He also pointed to $10,000 saved in materials and supplies used for upkeep in facilities. Upgrades in facilities means that for a certain time, there’ll be a reduction in maintenance costs, he said. Additional budget savings would result from adjusting water charges to reflect what actual usage is. And they’re eliminating some software licenses. Some of the software, Bahl said, isn’t used by the staff that much, “so we’re taking it away from them.”

Bahl also pointed to an additional $52,000 in anticipated revenue, starting in FY 2013, from new kayaking and tubing, resulting from the planned construction of the Argo Dam bypass, which was recommended by the city’s park advisory commission and approved by the city council last year.

Mayor John Hieftje wondered about a proposed increase in fees at the city’s outdoor pools for FY 2013 – $4 to $5 for adults and $3.50 to $4 for youth and seniors – which the budget impact sheet showed would generate an additional $40,000 in revenue in FY 2013.  He noted that historically, fee increases had caused revenue to drop. Bahl said he felt the prices would still be pretty competitive.

Colin Smith, manager of the city’s parks and recreation program, allowed that fee increases leading to less patronage and lower revenues had happened – but that was a number of years ago, he said. At that time, he said, the increase had been for season passes and it was extraordinary. During the last fee adjustment cycle, the prices on season passes were raised by 10% and the city didn’t get any “hard feedback” on that, he said.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wanted to know: What’s “hard feedback”? Smith explained that this meant negative public input about the increase.

But Higgins noted that this is the first year that the city would see the impact of the 10% fee increase – this spring. She clarified that these are additional fee increases planned for the following year. Smith confirmed that’s the case – he didn’t want to implement two kinds of fee increases at once.

Budget Impact Sheets: Parks and Recreation – Huron Hills

Included in the materials provided to city councilmembers was a memo that outlined various options for Huron Hills golf course. [The city also owns the Leslie Park golf course.]

[Last year the city issued an RFP to privatize of some the operations at the course, but ultimately decided not to accept either of the proposals that were made – one from Miles of Golf and the other from a citizen group that envisioned turning the course operations over to a nonprofit.]

Bahl summarized the result of the implementation of recommendations made by a consultant – Golf Convergence, hired by the city in 2007 – to improve patronage at the city’s two golf courses. All of the recommendations have now been implemented:

Rounds Played
Season  Huron    Leslie
2007    13,913   21,857
2008    15,558   27,078
2009    21,150   30,973
2010    22,500   32,000

-

Bahl noted that there’d been a dramatic improvement in the number of rounds played, but there are signs that it’s flattening out.

A memo provided to the council outlines the financial impact of various options for use of the Huron Hills land, including continuing to operate the golf course. In summary strokes, the options for Huron Hills and their costs over the next four years would be:

• Golf course: $162,000-187,000 annually
• Walking trails: $68,000-$309,000 annually
• Naturalization: at least $500,000 annually, falling to around $100,000 after seven years
• Soccer fields: no cost estimate
• Disc golf: no cost estimate
• Farming: no cost estimate

There’s a wide range of cost estimates for the walking trails option. By way of explanation, Bahl noted that for non-golf scenarios at Huron Hills, it’s necessary to include the “legacy costs” for two people currently employed at Huron Hills, both in union positions – one AFSCME and one Teamster. By union contract, he said, those employees cannot be laid off if the city has any temporary, seasonal, or contract worker employed at the city. And the city relies heavily on these types of workers, so laying off the two union workers at Huron Hills is not a realistic option. The net cost to the city of replacing seasonal workers with the Huron Hill’s workers would be around $175,000, Bahl said. Also in the mix is $42,000 in municipal service charges and $24,000 in IT charges that the golf enterprise fund accounting currently pays from the enterprise fund into the general fund.

The lower range of cost reflects a scenario in which the two Huron Hill’s union workers can be placed elsewhere in the city, while the higher cost in the range is a scenario where neither worker can be placed elsewhere.

Colin Smith, manager of the city’s parks and recreation program, stressed that under the walking trails option, the result would not be a natural area, but rather an “unkept golf course.” Converting it to a natural area would require considerably more investment – listed out as a separate option. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) confirmed with Smith that under the walking trails option, there was money factored in for mowing of the 8th and 9th hole areas that are used for sledding in the winter. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) drew out the fact that there is not money in that option for mowing areas where people might cross-country ski.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wondered why the parks capital improvements and maintenance millage could not be used for non-golf options. Smith’s answer was that because maintenance would be mowing, which must be paid out of the city’s general fund.

Commenting on the legacy costs, mayor John Hieftje noted that if positions elsewhere in the city opened up, they could be held open for the Huron Hills workers. City administrator Roger Fraser allowed that this would be the city’s strategy, but could not guarantee that positions would open up.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) noted that the walking trails options outlined a range of possibility, but he wanted to know what the range of likelihood is. Bahl told Taylor that chances of finding an opening for the AFSCME employee are better, because of the relatively large pool of such workers. On the Teamster side, the pool is smaller. Summarizing the city’s best realistic estimate for the legacy costs for non-golf options, Colin Smith said it’d be $150,000 and above in the first couple of years.

Higgins stated that the city had committed to five years before evaluating the success of the Golf Convergence recommendations – when does that end? she wondered. Colin Smith clarified that the five-year evaluation period ends in 2013 – there are two years left.

City administrator Roger Fraser weighed in, saying the staff was not suggesting the council had to implement changes before two more years is up. It’s a matter of considering what a sustainable approach to city services is. When the city talks about community engagement to solve problems for the city’s future, the different scenarios for Huron Hills should be a part of the discussion, he concluded.

There seemed to be little enthusiasm from councilmembers at the work session for contemplating anything but a golf course at Huron Hills for the next two years.

Sue McCormick, the city's public services area administrator, showed the city council a map of streetlights during Monday's meeting. (Photo by the writer.)

On Monday, Sue McCormick, public services area administrator, was front and center, describing for council how the public services budget “lives within the general fund.” The basis for the discussion was budget impact sheets prepared for the public services area, which she distributed.

Councilmembers had several questions for her about a possible special assessment district (SAD) to fund streetlighting, with much of the discussion centered around what it means for an area to be “overlit.” A streetlighting SAD would require property owners to pay for streetlights.

Also generating a fair amount of discussion among councilmembers was the $100,000 annual cost for traffic control on University of Michigan football game days and the city’s plan to reduce that cost through judicious rescheduling of personnel to avoid overtime expenses.

McCormick also pitched to the council the idea of relaxing the constraints of the “box” defining how the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage is administered. The proposal would have the council rescind the part of a previous resolution that requires millage funding for natural area preservation to increase by 3% every year. That savings, McCormick said, could be put towards hand-trimming of grass in the parks. Reduction of hand-trimming, she said, would have a negative visual impact on the parks – they’ll look “fuzzy.”

Also related to yard-waste type issues, McCormick briefed the council on the idea of eliminating collection of loose leaves in the fall, and moving to an approach requiring leaves to be put into containers. She also told them about  a proposal that would be coming before them in the next 30 days to transition the city’s composting facility to a merchant operation, similar to the city’s materials recovery facility (MRF) for recyclables. That proposal was met with strong criticism from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Councilmembers also heard from McCormick that residents will face a 3.88% increase in water rates, unless council directs that more budget cuts be made.

Towards the end of the meeting, city administrator Roger Fraser warned that accounting services manager Karen Lancaster and chief financial officer Tom Crawford would put them to sleep with an explication of how the city’s municipal service charge (MSC) works. However, Lancaster and Crawford were unable to make good on Fraser’s threat.

Streetlights and Parking

Sue McCormick, the city’s public services area administrator, began by establishing that the main challenge in the field operations area was coming up with a way to replace anticipated revenues from  parking meters – which were to have been installed over the last year in neighborhoods near downtown. Their installation had been part of the FY 2010-11 budget plan (the current year), but was met with opposition from residents in those neighborhoods.

Parking Meters

After adoption of the FY 2010 budget in the spring of 2009, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) convinced her council colleagues to establish a moratorium on the parking meter installation. With support from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Smith worked to find additional revenues to offset the losses that would result from not installing meters as planned near certain neighborhoods downtown. A timeline overview:

• June 15, 2009: The city council approves a moratorium until Oct. 5, 2009 on installation of some parking meters in neighborhoods near downtown. The meter installation was planned as a part of the FY 2010 budget. The council also approves raising the rates at the 415 W. Washington parking lot, with all net proceeds to be directed to the city’s general fund, not split with the Downtown Development Authority. [link]
• July 1, 2009: The DDA board approves a rate increase and the redirection of 415 W. Washington parking revenues to the city. [link]
• Oct. 5, 2009: The city council extends the moratorium on installation of parking meters until Dec. 21, 2009. [link]
• Dec. 21, 2009: The city council passes a resolution suspending plans to install its own city meters in connection with a request from the DDA for a report on parking strategies. Part of the resolution is approval to redirect net revenues from the Fifth & William parking lot (aka the old Y lot) to the city. [link]
• Jan. 6, 2010: The DDA board approves redirection of the net revenues from the Fifth & William lot to the city, with the provision that it be a minimum of $100,000. [link]

On Monday, McCormick painted a grim parking picture for the council. A 7.5% targeted reduction in the $1,327,102 field operations budget – a percentage every service unit was asked to achieve by the city administrator  –  translated to $99,533. Without the $551,733 in revenue that had been planned, based on parking meter installation, field operations was starting with a $651,266 deficit it needed to make up.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) zeroed in on the fact that the additional revenue from the two parking lots – 415 W. Washington and Fifth & William – did not seem to be included in the calculation. [It's about $170,00 per year for the two lots combined.] McCormick deferred the question, but CFO Tom Crawford would later clarify that the revenue from the two lots was not yet incorporated into the budget – it would be, he assured Smith.

Smith also wondered where the offset for the procurement costs of parking equipment was recorded. McCormick told Smith that it was included in this year’s FY 2010 budget, not FY 2011.

Smith noted that residential parking permit fees were slated to increase by $5 – to $55. That does not cover the cost of administering the program, which is over $100 per permit. Smith noted that the going rate for a parking spot behind someone’s house is $75 a month, so she felt that there was some untapped value in the residential parking permits. Smith allowed that a residential permit for street parking did not provide a specific space for a driver’s use, but she felt there was more value than what the city was charging.

On residential permits, McCormick explained that she’d worked with three councilmembers to arrive at a $105 cost, a longer-term goal for the rate, which would be achieved through incremental adjustments.

With respect to some new loading zone permits – which are listed in the budget impact statement as projected to increase revenue by $20,000 – Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wondered if meters might be more effective. McCormick said she was working with the DDA on that question – one of the challenges is the variable size of the vehicles, which could take up anywhere from one to three spaces.

Streetlights: Background

As it turns out, the added $170,000 of revenue to the city from the 415 W. Washington and Fifth & William parking lots would just about cover the field operations deficit to its reduction target ($158,286) – after implementing a streetlighting assessment district (SAD) that targeted just those areas of the city that are “overlit.”

The idea of implementing a SAD for streetlights was floated at the council’s December 2009 budget retreat, and McCormick’s discussion on Monday was a follow-up to that. But it’s not a new idea.

As recently as 2007, the idea of a street lighting special assessment district has been proposed. On that occasion, the Ann Arbor DDA paid the city about $630,000 to delay and reduce a street light tax that would have been assessed on downtown property owners. That tax would have generated around $170,000 annually. The DDA money was used to begin an LED retrofit program for downtown streetlights.

From the June 6, 2007 DDA resolution:

…
Whereas, DDA approval of this Committee recommendation would provide the necessary funds so that a downtown special assessment would not be necessary; RESOLVED, The DDA approves a grant to the City’s Energy Fund in the amount of $630,000 to the City of Ann Arbor to be used to retrofit all downtown globe streetlights with more energy efficient LED fixtures.
RESOLVED, In providing this grant the DDA respectfully asks City Council to consider dissolving the downtown lighting assessment district given the energy cost reduction the City will see from this retrofit project.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) alluded to that episode on Monday when mayor John Hieftje reported that some of the more sophisticated energy-savings technologies available with the LED bulbs – like dimming them to 50% or 20% – did not actually result in cost-savings to the city. DTE bills the city based on the wattage of the bulbs – it’s based on estimated usage, because the lights are not metered. “[Bulb dimming] works just fine, but we wouldn’t get credit for it,” said Hieftje.

Smith, who serves on the DDA board currently and who served on it when the LED conversion funding was approved, called the inability of the city to translate the full energy-savings capability of the LED bulbs into cost savings as “unfortunate.” The rationale behind the DDA funding was to avoid the establishment of a SAD, she noted. She asked McCormick if there would be additional pressure applied at the state level through the Michigan Public Service Commission to push for reform. McCormick assured Smith that there would be additional pressure applied.

According to Michigan Public Service Commission spokeswoman Judy Palnau, the MPSC issued an order on Jan. 11, 2010 that required DTE to file an application with MPSC seeking approval of rates on un-metered streetlights that would accommodate newer lighting technologies. The deadline for submission was Feb. 10, 2010. However, the issue of these LED rates is still pending at the MPSC.

Some savings is realized through LED retrofits, due to the reduced frequency of bulb replacement – 7-8 years compared to every 3 years.

Streetlights: How a SAD Would Be Implemented

McCormick mentioned more than once at Monday’s meeting that a SAD would require four council resolutions to be implemented. The Chronicle has identified three resolutions in the city’s ordinances, plus one in the city charter:

• Code Chapter 13 1:286 “By resolution the city council shall approve the plans and specifications for the improvement; determine that the cost shall be paid by special assessment upon the property especially benefited; designate the district or land and tax parcels upon which special assessments shall be levied; and direct the Assessor to prepare a special assessment roll in accordance with the city council’s determination.”
• Code Chapter 13 1:288 “… Upon receipt of a special assessment roll the City Council shall order it and the information presented to the City Council by the City Administrator pursuant to Section 1:284 filed in the office of the City Assessor for public examination; shall fix the time and place when it will meet and review the roll.”
• Code Chapter 13 1:191 “After the hearing and review, the council may confirm the special assessment roll with the corrections as it may have made, if any, …”
• Charter SECTION 10.3 “No control or expenditure … shall be made for any public improvement, the cost of which is to be paid by special assessment upon the property especially benefited thereby, until the Council has passed a resolution determining to proceed with such public improvement.”

Streetlights: What Kind of SAD?

McCormick briefed the council on five different options for creating a special assessment district for streetlights. Based on the budget impact statements, which mention only two of the five options, one that appears unlikely to be implemented is to purchase streetlights from DTE and install LED bulbs. DTE owns around 5,200 of the 7,200 streetlights in the city. DTE has told the city that they would need to be paid to develop estimates for the work of selling and removing lights from their system.

Also not included in the budget impact statement is a SAD targeting just the city-owned streetlights. The third option not included in the statement is one that would not create a SAD, but would rather  “de-energize” DTE-owned streetlights – which would entail turning off power to the light. DTE bills those de-energized lights at a rate equal to 60% of the standard rate. De-energizing half of the 3,000 DTE-owned streetlights outside of downtown would save $120,000 annually.

The two options included on the budget impact statements for field operations are: (Option I) a SAD targeting areas in the city that are “overlit” – this would generate $370,000 annually; (Option II) a SAD for all streetlight expenses – it would generate $1.7 million at an average cost per parcel of $52 annually.

Streetlights: Overlighting

The notion of “overlighting” prompted a great deal of discussion among councilmembers. Part of the confusion resulted from the term itself, which is suggestive that “too much” lighting is being provided – on analogy with scores of other words like overbill, overreact, overeducate, overemphasize, overgeneralize or … overanalyze.

Based on that understanding, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) questioned why more lighting was currently being added in an area that was already “overlit,” namely, the Stadium Boulevard corridor between Pauline and 7th streets. The 24 cobra-head lights in that corridor, which a map provided by McCormick indicated was currently “overlit,” is being supplemented by 67 LED lampposts.

McCormick explained that this was driven by input from the community – the neighbors had opted for more lighting at public forums on the Stadium Boulevard re-surfacing project. Higgins responded by saying that she’d attended those meetings and that no one had asked for 67 additional light fixtures. She pointed out that the issue was somewhat urgent, given that the corridor is under construction.

McCormick characterized the issue of “overlighting” as a good policy question that the council needed to contemplate: Should the city “overlight” in any area where it was requested, or rather only in those areas where a SAD was established?

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) elicited from Cresson Slotten, who’s a senior project manager with the city, the fact that the “Orange Book” with the city’s lighting specifications has been in place for 23 years, and was developed by the city. That is, it’s not a set of state or national standards. Hohnke stated that it would  be useful to look at comparable standards in other communities to get a clearer idea of what “overlighting” means.

City administrator Roger Fraser then tackled the question of what “overlighting” means. He cautioned councilmembers that just because the amount of lighting in an area was over the minimum Orange Book standard did not mean that the amount of lighting was “excessive.” An area might be lit so that it becomes a comfortable place to be and a place that people are attracted to. Even if an area is “overlit,” he said, it still might be smart to light it that way. The notion of “overlighting,” Fraser said, should be interpreted in the context of the minimum standard specified in the Orange Book.

To get an idea of how an overlighting-based SAD would work, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked McCormick if the following would be a fair summary: If people in an area wanted additional lighting above the minimum standard, the city will say “It’ll cost more,” and that area will be a SAD. McCormick confirmed that this would be roughly how it would work. She cautioned, however, that it would not be like ordering out of a catalog.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) noted that many overlit areas were close to schools, and that “it should be that way.” He said a SAD was a way of “demanding payment,” which he quickly revised to “requesting payment.”

McCormick stated that the cost of operating streetlights – around $1.7 million – was significant enough that the city needed to “do something.”

Fraser characterized it as a matter of some parts of the community getting a higher benefit from lighting than others. The issue of whether the city should change to a SAD strategy to reflect that different benefit was a policy question. He noted that part of the consideration was how to deal with a situation that was in part simply “inherited.”

Reflecting out loud on the fact that the term “overlighting” was somewhat of a misnomer and that streetlighting is a public benefit that is somewhat flexible – there are various interests with respect to more or less lighting – Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) wondered if it were an option to make the assessment based on “what exists.” That was essentially the first option outlined in the cover memo, McCormick told him. [Note that Option I in the budget impact statement is the overlighting-based SAD. The cover memo's first option shows up as Option II in the budget impact statement.]

Streets

Public services includes not just streetlighting, but also the streets themselves.

The city divides streets into categories of major and local streets. That’s consistent with the way that money in the Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF) is distributed to municipalities. The MTF was established by Act 51, and its monies are collected as motor fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees. The city’s major street fund [Fund 0021] and local streets fund [Fund 0022] are projected in FY 2011 to have budgets of $7 million and $1.75 million, respectively.

The MTF money is used for snow plowing, pothole repair, crack sealing and the like. Actual reconstruction of streets is paid for out of the city’s street repair and reconstruction millage.

With respect to activity in these funds, results of a recent unscientific online survey administered by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) showed that around 55% of the more than 700 respondents felt a reduction in snow plowing was “not at all unacceptable not at all acceptable.” [.pdf file of survey summary results]

Streets: Non-Motorized Transportation

Act 51 requires that 1% of MTF funds distributed to municipalities be invested in non-motorized facilities. On May 19, 2003, in approving the city’s FY 2004 budget, the Ann Arbor city council passed an amendment that bumped Ann Arbor’s expenditures of Act 51 money on non-motorized facilities from 1% to 5% every year, targeting an increase in the number of bicycle lanes, focusing particularly on areas near the University of Michigan campus. Any of the 5% not spent in a given year was to be deposited in an alternative transportation fund.

In deliberations on that budget amendment, which addressed not just that fiscal year’s budget, but all future years, then-councilmember Mike Reid offered an amendment that specified the 5% allocation would extend just for 10 years. The amendment received support only from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). Reid was then the lone dissenter on that amendment to the budget.

The timeframe was likely a moot point – budget resolutions must be approved every year, so there is a “baked in” opportunity for the council to reassess the 5%. If anything, the 2003 budget amendment was a direction to the city administrator to prepare budgets incorporating the 5% allocation to non-motorized facilities. Whether the council approves that aspect of the budget in any given year is not constrained by the council’s own prior budget resolution for FY 2004.

If a budget were presented without that 5% allocation, the council could choose to approve it, contrary to the expressed intent of the FY 2004 budget resolution.

Based on the budget impact statements for next year, FY 2011, that seems to be what happened for FY 2010. The impact sheets indicate a reduction from 5% to 2.5% in the Act 51 allocation to alternative transportation for FY 2010, with the same 2.5% reduction planned for FY 2011.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) raised the issue of reducing the Act 51 allocation to alternative transportation at the council’s December 2009 budget retreat. However, when the council met in late February for its third meeting of the year focused just on budget issues, when mayor John Hieftje read the item off the list, the topic had no takers.

With the Act 51 line item laid out in front of them on the budget impact statements provided at Monday’s meeting, councilmembers did not discuss the issue.

Streets: Traffic Control for UM Football

An item on the budget impact sheets that did receive a great deal of discussion on Monday was a $101,043 cost savings that could be achieved by eliminating traffic control for University of Michigan football games. Part of that game-day operation involves converting Sout Main Street to one-way leading out of town and providing manual control of traffic signals to accommodate pedestrian build-ups. The signals are also manually controlled to prevent vehicles at the I-94 off-ramp at Ann Arbor-Saline road from backing up onto the interstate.

McCormick noted that simply not implementing the traffic controls would make chief of police Barnett Jones “pull his hair out.” The alternative to that, she said, was to use a strategy to avoid overtime pay for the nine people required to handle the signs and signals on a football Saturday. The idea would be to schedule only two of them on the Monday before, leaving the rest with a Tues.-Sat. work week with no overtime.

The scheduling shift, said McCormick, would save around $45,000. Craig Hupy, head of systems planning for the city, clarified for Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), that the signals could, in fact, be controlled from a remote location by one person, but that tactic would not give the needed ability to change the signals based on the needs of the dynamically changing situation. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked for confirmation from Hupy that failure to implement traffic controls would mean “a real mess.” Hupy replied by saying that if the council gave that direction, then he had some vacation days he would like to use.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) inquired about the possibility that the University of Michigan would foot the bill for traffic controls: Had they been asked? Hupy said that UM had said no. Higgins suggested that if the city did not implement the controls, UM would hear from its alumni about that. McCormick said that the university’s rationale was that the benefits to the community that derive from the event compensate for the cost.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked how much of it was an issue of convenience versus public safety.  Chief of police Barnett Jones stated that it was all safety-related. Without the combination of cars, barricades and signals, he said, “it would be a major malfunction.”

Although it was not discussed at the work session, a recent (unscientific) survey administered online by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) included one football Saturday-related item: Of the more than 700 respondents, 90% found a reduction of investigation in underage drinking on football Saturdays to be either “completely acceptable” or “somewhat acceptable.” [.pdf file of survey summary results]

Parks Maintenance

The parks maintenance and capital improvements millage was authorized in November 2006. It combined what had previously been two separate millages. Sue McCormick described the various constraints built into the administration of the millage as a “box.” She ticked through the sides of the box in a way that was consistent with previous Chronicle coverage ["Budget Round 2: What's the Big Idea"]:

Before November 2006, the city levied two separate millages at 0.5 mill each – one for parks maintenance and the other for capital improvements. Within the combined millage, taxes are collected at a rate of 1.0 mill, but money is allocated to maintenance or capital improvements on a more flexible basis than the previous 50-50 split that was legally enforced by the specialized purpose of each millage.

However, there’s not complete flexibility to allocate money to maintenance or capital improvements within the unified millage. Percentage allocation is guided by a city council resolution passed in October 2006. The resolution specifies a range of 60% to 80% for maintenance, with the remainder going to capital improvements.

But there are some “hold harmless” clauses in the resolution as well. The resolution also calls for any reduction in the overall general fund to be reflected no more severely in parks programs supported by the general fund than in other general fund activities. For example, if the general fund were to suffer a 7.5% reduction, then parks programs supported by the general fund would suffer no greater a reduction than 7.5%.

Subsequent to the passage of the millage, in preparation of the FY 2007 budget, the city initially calculated the baseline for general fund parks activity without the Leslie Science and Nature Center – which had been spun off by the city as an independent nonprofit. The reasoning was that the item itself was no longer in the general fund, so it was not a matter of the general fund being reduced. However, in response to public criticism, funding was put back into parks programs to bring funding to the level it would have been with the Leslie Science and Nature Center as a part of the calculation.

Another “hold harmless” clause in the resolution on the administration of the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage affects the city’s natural area preservation program (NAP).

3. The Natural Area Preservation Program budget be established at a minimum of $700,000 for first year of the millage budget and that it receive a minimum 3% annual increase for each of the subsequent five years of the millage to enhance the stewardship of increased acreage of natural park areas;

It’s likely that the clause was intended to ensure that funding for NAP kept pace with funding increases to other areas, as millage revenues increased due to increased property values. But the effect of the clause now, as millage revenues decline, is to hold NAP harmless – and even to increase NAP’s budget.

The distribution of funds to various park-related tasks – which is specified in Attachment A accompanying the resolution – includes the stipulation that mowing and snow removal for parks be funded exclusively out of the general fund. The millage fund, then, is “held harmless” against mowing and snow removal costs.

At Monday’s meeting, McCormick stated that staff had pushed the allowed ratio to its maximum allocation for maintenance – 80%. The 20% designated for capital improvements, McCormick said, was focused exclusively on rehabbing existing facilities, not building anything new – refurbishing paths, for example.

Asked by Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) what the bill for mowing and snow removal was for parks, McCormick gave figures of $1.25 million and $355,000, respectively.

The part of the “box” McCormick recommended that the council consider was the requirement that NAP’s allocation be increased every year by 3%. The specific recommendation was to reduce NAP’s budget by $81,000.

McCormick explained that the $81,000 could be put towards hand-trimming of grass in the parks. The rationale she offered involved the planned reduction in frequency for mowing in the parks. This spring the average frequency will drop from once every 14 days to once every 19 days, she said. And with the start of the fiscal year on July 1, 2010, that would drop again to once every 23 days. “The public will visually notice the difference,” McCormick said.

It’s the reduction in hand-trimming that becomes apparent most quickly, she said. “Things get fuzzy.”  So the $81,000 of NAP money would restore some of the hand-trimming.

Results of a recent unscientific online survey administered by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) showed that around 20% of more than 700 respondents would find reduction in park maintenance to be “completely acceptable” and an additional 55% would find it to be “somewhat acceptable” [.pdf file of survey summary results]

Grass and Leaves

Trimming of grass and the generation of other yard waste was a topic that arose also in a residential context.

McCormick began by noting that the solid waste millage sees the same kind of reduction in revenues that other property taxes are now showing, due to the overall reduction in property values associated with the down economy. McCormick said that the reduction in the solid waste budget would be around $450,000.

The solid waste millage can be enacted by the city council under state enabling legislation – it appears as “CITY REFUSE” on Ann Arbor property tax bills.

Leaf Collection

Among the ideas recorded on the budget impact statements is the elimination of the collection of loose leaves in the fall. The current leaf collection program organized by the city entails notifying residents of the day their neighborhood is scheduled for pickup and asking them to rake leaves into the street the day before they’re scheduled for pickup.

The budget impact sheets indicate a $104,000 savings would come from eliminating the loose leaf collection program in favor of collecting them as part of the city’s containerized yard waste collection program. Residents can either put their yard waste in paper bags or use a city-issued brown cart, which can be emptied via an automatic arm operated by a driver from inside the collection truck.

The amount of savings that would come from requiring containers for leaves, said McCormick, assumes that residents would put out the same volume of leaves as they do with the loose leaf collection program. But she expected that the actual volume would decrease – for some residents it would be somewhat easier to compost and mulch on site than to put their leaves in containers for pickup.

Christmas Trees

McCormick also indicated that eliminating the curbside Christmas tree pickup would save $28,500. Results of a recent unscientific online survey administered by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) showed that around 85% of more than 700 respondents would find the elimination of that service to be “completely acceptable” or “somewhat acceptable.”

At Monday’s meeting, Briere asked where residents could take their holiday trees for pickup. McCormick said they could talk about that. The city has a drop-off station, and another possibility was to establish locations in parks, where the trees could then be chipped right in the park.

Conversion to Merchant Composting Operations

McCormick’s budget impact statement for solid waste also indicates a net gain of $150,000 for the possible transfer of the city’s composting facility to a merchant operation. That gain was due to a one-time capital recovery for the sale of equipment to the successful bidder on the request for proposals (RFP). The city’s RFP for the composting operations indicates that the equipment would include items like front-end loaders, light-duty trucks, and tub grinders.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) inquired about any implications for the city’s labor agreement. McCormick told him there were two full-time positions at the city that would be lost – a mechanic and a supervisor – but that the city had held vacancies open for them in other parts of the organization.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wondered what would happen if the city contracted with a merchant, then elected to decide against that contractor based on performance and then opt for a different contractor. McCormick indicated that the city had received four strong responses to the RFP.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) was clear about his opposition to the the proposed conversion to merchant operations: “I’m really opposed to this,” he said. At the second round of budget talks he had already expressed skepticism about the idea.

Kunselman’s opposition is based in part on an inherent skepticism about the viability of yard waste compost as a commodity, along the lines of recyclable material. [The city uses a merchant operation for its materials recovery facility.] Because it’s not a commodity that can be reliably sold in large quantities, said Kunselman, the city would essentially be providing the merchant with tax-free land to store compostable material, until it could eventually be moved on the market. He said he did not imagine that they would be able to sell the material in 50-pound bags at Lowes.

Kunselman’s opposition is also based on the idea that there’s a built-in assumption that the merchant operation will accept yard waste from other surrounding communities – even while the city is trying to encourage its own residents to “keep it home” and reduce the amount of yard waste that is hauled from one place to another. [The elimination of the loose leaf collection program is one example.] Conversion to merchant operations, he said, was a way of subsidizing yard waste collection for surrounding suburban communities. Promoting the idea of trucking and hauling yard waste, Kunselman said, is “going in the wrong direction.”

Kunselman also noted that the composting facility was located in the southeast part of the city – his ward – and he did not want to see additional truck traffic on the roads in that part of town.

In response to Kunselman, McCormick indicated that the council would be receiving the merchant operation proposal in the next 30 days.

McCormick also told the council that the subject of privatization of residential trash collection would would be one for the following year’s FY 2012 budget, not this coming year.

Water

The budget impact statements for the water supply system show a decrease in revenue of $1 million, for a $22.5 million budget. The drop is due to a decrease in consumption of water, plus a decrease in connection charges that are applied to new construction. In FY 2009, there was only $100,000 collected in such connection charges, McCormick said, whereas an average year might bring in $1.5 million.

The decrease in revenues due to decreased consumption, McCormick explained, was partly offset by a decrease in costs for treatment of the water.

Still, without additional cuts beyond purchase delays of heavy equipment and elimination of software updates indicated on the budget impact statements, McCormick said a rate increase of  3.88% could be expected.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) clarified with McCormick that the 3.88% increase in water rates would be requested, if no other cuts were made. McCormick told Higgins that if the council wanted to see a smaller increase, then she needed direction sooner rather than later.

Municipal Service Charge

The water fund provided a question from Stephen Kunselman that segued to the presentation from accounting services manager Karen Lancaster and chief financial officer Tom Crawford on how the municipal service charge (MSC) works.

Why, asked Kunselman, did the MSC for the water fund drop from roughly the same levels of $535,548 in FY 2008 and $548,940 in FY 2009 down to $404,902 in FY 2010?

Similarly, he wondered, why did the solid waste fund’s MSC increase from roughly the same levels of $192,588 in FY 2008 and $197,400 in FY 2009 to $274,851 in FY 2010?

MSC: True Cost Concept

It’s worth distinguishing between the idea behind the municipal service charge compared to an internal service fund charge, like the charge for information technology (IT). Charges from the IT department to other funds are based on specific purchases and use of services – a new computer, with software and support services, installed at a desk, for example.

Calculation of an MSC is not an attempt to bill for products and services, but rather an attempt to distribute the burden of “administrative and overhead” costs to those parts of the city’s operations that cause the existence of those costs.

For example, take the city council, which could be considered a parade example of an administrative and overhead cost. The city council and mayor are paid a salary, which is an expense that is a direct dollar cost to the city. But what about the additional costs the council drives that are not necessarily reflected in a dollar amount in a city checkbook?

Those costs will probably vary, depending on the people who serve on council at any given time. An active city council that is constantly asking the city attorney’s office for analysis and feedback on various ordinance revisions causes more work for the city attorney’s office. The city attorney does not bill the city council for that work. But if the goal is to measure the true cost of the city council to the organization, then the cost of that work needs to be factored in.

Last year, for FY 2010, the city council’s “true cost” was calculated to be an additional $284,711 beyond the salaries of councilmembers. So the MSC listed out in last year’s “budget book” is $284,711. The bulk of that additional cost – $204,000 worth – was attributed to work done by the city attorney.

This “true cost” calculation does not attempt to accommodate various ways in which city councilmembers might conceivably save the organization money – by helping staff to identify more efficient ways to provide service, or by handling a constituent concern without burdening city staff.

Once the “true cost” of an entity like the city council is determined – along with various other administrative and overhead-type costs that are borne inside the city’s general fund – it’s then possible to consider the city’s departments that live outside the general fund. How do departments that exist outside the general fund benefit from the existence of those centralized administrative services supported by the general fund?

Take the water fund as an example. The city’s water department benefits from the centralized payroll services of the city and the city attorney’s office in ways that are fairly clear. It even benefits from the city council. For example, the water rate increases that will be requested this year will need to be weighed, considered and approved by the city council.

There is a lag in the calculations, because the calculations are based on actual costs. A study is performed every two years by an outside consultant – the city uses a firm called Maximus – which corresponds to the city’s two-year budget planning cycle. For the first year of a budget planning cycle, the city uses the numbers from the consultant’s study. For the second year, the city applies an inflationary adjustment of 2-3%.

MSC: Water and Solid Waste

Here’s a breakdown of the calculation for the way the water fund and the solid waste fund were charged the “true cost” of centralized administrative services in FY 2008, and how it was budgeted in FY 2010. The numbers in the columns correspond to the consultant’s report on FY 2006 – used for the FY 2008 budget – and the consultant’s report on FY 2008 – used for the FY 2010 budget.

Water Fund
                              Actual  Budget
                             FY 2008 FY 2010
Building Depreciation              0       0
Equipment Depreciation             0       0
Mayor & Council               34,658  49,185
City Administrator            50,738  49,972
Facility Management                0       0
Human Resources               99,621 110,353
Procurement                        0       0
City Attorney                137,866  47,754
City Clerk                    21,858  42,129
Finance Administration        29,426  48,054
Accounting                    99,837 103,819
Assessor                           0       0
Treasurer                      7,465  10,137
Non-Department Expenses        5,437   8,386
Community Development              0       0
Public Svcs Redistribution       318     543
Public Svcs Gen Fund Retiree       0       0
Parks & Recreation Admin           0       0
Parks & Rec Gen Fund Retiree       0       0
Community Svcs                     0       0
Building Dept Redistribution       0       0
Utilities Redistribution      30,666  30,078
Customer Service Call Center       0       0
Environmental Coordinator     17,661       0
Total Allocated              535,551 404,902 

=====

Solid Waste Fund
                              Actual  Budget
                             FY 2008 FY 2010
Building Depreciation            361       0
Equipment Depreciation             0       0
Mayor & Council               17,688  33,957
City Administrator            25,177  27,921
Facility Management                0       0
Human Resources               62,154  68,406
Procurement                    3,208   7,353
City Attorney                 16,415  11,951
City Clerk                    11,155  29,094
Finance Administration        15,019  33,186
Accounting                    33,340  50,378
Assessor                           0       0
Treasurer                      4,879   7,717
Non-Department Expenses        2,986   4,856
Community Development              0       0
Public Svcs Redistribution         0      22
Public Svcs Gen Fund Retiree       0       0
Parks & Recreation Admin           0       0
Parks & Rec Gen Fund Retiree       0       0
Community Svcs                     0       0
Building Dept Redistribution       0       0
Utilities Redistribution           0       0
Customer Service Call Center       0       0
Environmental Coordinator          0       0
Total Allocated              192,589 274,851

-

So Kunselman’s question about the differences in the MSC for these funds can be given the first part of an answer by looking at this breakdown. For the water fund, the decrease in MSC can be attributed primarily to an increase decrease in the amount attributed to the city attorney: a drop from $137,866 to $47,754.

For the solid waste fund, there are increases across several services, perhaps most notably the doubling of the amounts attributed to the city council and to finance administration.

MSC: Why Do It?

At Monday’s council meeting on the budget, Karen Lancaster stressed that the idea behind the MSC was about cost recovery to the general fund. In FY 2008, the total amount of administrative and overhead costs identified in the general fund budget for FY 2010 and FY 2011 – the current two-year cycle – was about $12 million.

Out of that $12 million, around 75% of it goes to support general fund activities. So it’s only a little over $3 million that is recovered to the general fund from outside the general fund.

Other funds besides the general fund get their revenue in various ways. Some funds, like the solid waste fund, have their own dedicated millage. Other funds, like the water fund, get their revenues from fees.  For funds that are fee-based, it’s reasonable to want the rates that are charged to be an accurate reflection of the true cost of providing the product. The idea is that rates should be high enough so that consumers of city water are paying an accurate price for the water they use, without an administrative subsidy from the general fund.

To the extent that a consumer of city water is also a property taxpayer to the general fund, there might be a reasonable expectation that delivery of water is a core city service. That is, the property taxes that someone already pays – and has no way to influence up or down through one’s day-to-day behavior – could be expected to pay for administration and overhead costs of the water fund, so that property tax payers can enjoy a slightly reduced rate for their water.

On the other side, not all consumers of city water support the general fund through property taxes.

In FY 2009, the University of Michigan used – and paid for – about $7.3 million in water and sewer services from the city. But UM does not pay property taxes. Without an MSC that allows the general fund to recover the cost of administration, general fund property tax payers would, in effect, be subsidizing a part of UM’s water bill.

At the Sunday Ann Arbor city council caucus, from left: Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). Also attending the caucus from the city council were Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and John Hieftje (mayor). (Photo by the writer.)

Due to receive its first reading on Monday night at the council’s regular meeting is The Moravian – a  five-story residential and work/live space planned unit development (PUD) along the 500 block of Fifth Avenue and the 200 block of East Madison. The project was given a recommendation for approval from the city’s planning commission on a 7-1 vote in January 2010. [Chronicle coverage: "Moravian Moves Forward Despite Protests"]

At Sunday’s caucus, some residents said they were keen to see a substantive discussion at The Moravian’s first reading, but councilmembers cautioned that the first reading was typically not the time when they argued a particular position. Residents indicated that they’d gathered enough signatures from surrounding land owners to meet a city code threshold that would force an 8-vote super-majority – out of 11 votes – at a second reading of the PUD proposal.

Also receiving a first reading on Monday will be a proposed ban on cell phone use while driving. The ban had already received approval on first reading at the council’s last meeting, but due to subsequent significant revisions to the ordinance language, it will be heard again Monday as a first reading. The council’s agenda indicates that the public hearing, generally held along with an ordinance’s second reading, has been canceled. That will be rescheduled to coincide with the second reading.

A budget directive – reducing all non-union staff salaries by 3% – had been postponed from the last council meeting and will be considered by the council on Monday in a slightly revised form. As a council resolution – as opposed to an ordinance – it will require just one reading. A key revision in the intervening postponement: It’s now a minimum 3% cut that’s specified, which leaves the door open for even greater cuts.

Background: First, Second Readings and Petitions

Why do ordinances require two readings before city council in order to be enacted? It’s a requirement of the city charter:

SECTION 7.3.
…
(b) Each proposed ordinance shall receive two readings, which may be by title only, unless ordered by the Council to be read in full or in part. After the first reading of a proposed ordinance, the Council shall determine whether it shall be advanced to a second reading. The second reading shall not be given earlier than the next regular Council meeting.

The Moravian, as a planned unit development (PUD), requests a change in the city’s zoning – zoning districts are a part of the set of city ordinances and are recorded in Chapter 55 of the city code.

The zoning of parcels surrounding The Moravian also came up in discussion at Monday’s caucus, because those parcels factor into a calculation for protest petitions that can be filed against a PUD. Chapter 55 Article XI, Section 5:107 (5) specifies that [emphasis added]:

(5) A protest against any proposed amendment to this chapter may be presented in writing to the City Clerk at or before the public hearing thereon. Such protest shall be duly signed by the owners of at least 20% of the area of land included in the proposed change, or the owners of at least 20% of the area of land included within an area extending outward 100 feet from any point on the boundary of the land included in the proposed change, excluding any other publicly owned land. Following the filing of a valid protest petition, adoption of an amendment to this chapter shall require at least 8 affirmative votes of the Council at the second reading on the ordinance.

Beverly Strassmann, who is president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association, contended at Sunday’s caucus that the city clerk’s office had thus far declined to accept the petition that had been prepared against The Moravian – apparently on the grounds that the first reading on The Moravian had not yet taken place. Strassmann was concerned that the petition would not be accepted in time to have an impact. Councilmembers at caucus assured her that they’d check into the petition submission issue.

Aerial view of The Moravian, looking northeast. A computer-generated image of the proposed project is located in the center of this picture – the U-shaped building. The South Main Market complex is in the foreground; Perry School, now used as offices by the University of Michigan, is to the upper right. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Strassmann’s other concern about the petition was that the University of Michigan-owned building across Fourth Avenue, east of the proposed The Moravian, was inappropriately zoned as M1, which is “limited industrial district,” not PL, or “public land.”

If it were zoned as public land, she said, it would not factor into the land area calculation for the protest petition, making it easier to meet the 20% threshold – on the assumption that UM would not sign. [Editor's note: The Chronicle's reading of the code requirement on the protest petition is that the university property would properly be excluded, because it is "publicly owned." The code requirement on petitions does not say "zoned as public land."]

On the issue of whether the university-owned building was currently improperly zoned as M1, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) weighed in saying that actual land use was different from zoning – the zoning might well be different from the land’s actual use.

Kunselman queried Strassmann as to whether she had enough signatures even without the UM property, and she indicated that she did. However, she was not able to give an estimate of what percentage had been achieved.

Past Protest Petitions: City Place

About a year ago, the same kind of protest petition had an impact on the City Place PUD north of Packard on Fifth Avenue, but in the same general neighborhood as the The Moravian. [Chronicle coverage: "Residents Organize to Defeat City Place"]

The petition not only raised the number of votes necessary for approval to eight – the fact of the petition caused councilmembers who’d been inclined to vote for the project to change their thinking. At a Sunday caucus on July 19, 2009, some months after the City Place vote in January, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) allowed that he’d come to the City Place vote inclined to support the project, but the fact of the petition had given the neighborhood opposition to the project greater clarity.

The vote against City Place was thus 10-0 – the council had had six likely votes in favor of the project, but not the eight needed to make it stick. [Sandi Smith (Ward 1) did not attend that meeting.]

The Moravian: Due Process and Deliberations at First Reading

At Sunday’s caucus, Beverly Strassmann, president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association, asked the council not to approve The Moravian for a second reading but rather to send the developer back for a public participation meeting. Why? In January 2009, an ordinance took effect that the council had approved, which requires developers to hold a meeting with neighbors of proposed developments and submit a report on that meeting with their site plan submission.

It was that report that Strassmann had a problem with. She contended that the representations in the report were “fraudulent” and thus could not possibly satisfy the ordinance requirement. She said she took issue with the characterization of herself as “verbally abusive” and reported that other residents at the meeting also felt that their comments had been misrepresented by the developer. One of the meetings described in the report, Strassmann said, took place on Dec. 23, 2008. [Chronicle coverage of the Dec. 23 meeting: "The Madison Redux"]

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) commented that this was the nature of the public participation ordinance – it was up to the developer to hold the meeting and to write the report. Kunselman said he wasn’t so concerned about the he-said-she-said aspect. Rather, his main question was whether the objections of Strassmann and others to the content of the report had been established as a part of the public record. Strassmann indicated that at least one resident, Walt Spiller, had registered his objections at the planning commission’s public hearing, but she was uncertain whether that had been included in the commission’s minutes.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) used his laptop computer to retrieve the minutes and read aloud:

Walt Spiller, 548 South Fifth Avenue, adjacent homeowner to the north, asked that appropriate buffering be provided between his property and this project. He believed the petitioner’s representation of his comments were a misinterpretation, adding that he told the petitioner he would not bring this up in a public forum if the petitioner would redact the entire statement under his name. It was not done, he said. His main opposition to this proposal was that it was out of scale and character with the existing neighborhood.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who had helped push forward the passage of the still relatively new public participation ordinance, noted that it was due for an annual review and that the issue of a report’s content should be included in its review. [The ordinance took effect in January 2009.] The question of when additional meetings are triggered is also something she said should be reviewed – city staff were interpreting the ordinance’s reference to “amended planned unit development zoning district” in a way that didn’t include all changes, she said. [Related Chronicle coverage: "Heritage Row Redux: Process Clarified"]

Jack Eaton, responding to Strassmann’s use of the word “fraud,” suggested that the council focus attention away from that word and instead focus on the idea that the public participation ordinance should be taken seriously. He suggested that one way to achieve that at Monday’s first reading would be to ask the developer to amend the report on the public participation meeting to reflect residents’ comments accurately.

At Sunday’s caucus, many of the same concerns  were expressed about The Moravian that neighbors had conveyed at the planning commission’s meeting: the building was out of scale with the neighborhood; the building would create shadows on surrounding buildings; 5th floor terraces should not count as open space. Strassmann summarized the way she felt the planning commission had treated the developer: “Planning commission has coddled the developer as if he was breastfeeding.” [In early 2006, the city council passed a revision to Chapter 112 of the city code that makes explicit a mother's right to breastfeed in places of public accommodation.]

Briere, responding to concerns raised by Strassmann that there was no actual brownfield on The Moravian site, told Strassmann that brownfields did not necessarily require that there be pollution – “urban blight” was sufficient. And someone could decide that there was “urban blight,” Briere said, even though you might not agree that it was blighted. Briere drew upon her experience with a proposed development near her neighborhood – the Lowertown development near Broadway – in providing the explanation to Strassmann.

The Moravian is an almost 75,000-square-foot, four-story building over one level of parking containing 62 dwelling units, with a combined total of 150 bedrooms, and 90 off-street parking spaces. Twelve of the 62 proposed dwelling units are to be affordable to lower-income households.

Ethel Potts, a resident of Ward 5, expressed her hope that the council would use their deliberations at the first reading of The Moravian to give the public “some clue” as to how they were thinking about the project. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that she tried to keep a really open mind at first reading and avoided getting to an actual decision until “the last possible moment.” She also told Potts that she felt the council had done a better job recently of discussing things at first reading.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated that The Moravian looked to him to be very similar to The Courtyards, a development near UM’s north campus at 1780 Broadway.

Mayor John Hieftje compared the process to the evaluation a jury makes and that it was important not to make a decision until all the evidence was in.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), a former state senator, said that was a similar pattern in the state legislature. The first reading, said Derezinski, basically alerts the public that the issue is now before the public body.

Cell Phones: Back to First Reading

At their last regular meeting on Feb. 16, 2010, the city council approved at its first reading a ban on cell phone use while driving. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) noted that the discussion at their deliberations and feedback from residents – he’d received at least 40 emails – had reflected the usefulness of the first reading. Since then, the ordinance has undergone significant and numerous revisions, so that on Monday, it comes before council again as a first reading. [.txt file of original cell phone ordinance; .txt file of revised cell phone ordinance].

Mayor John Hieftje said that some of the revisions, allowing exceptions involving public emergency drills, had been prompted by resident input. From the revised ordinance:

(e) the person uses the electronic device while performing his or her duties as a volunteer in the Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES) created by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Federal Communications Commission and as provided for in Title 47, Part 97, Subpart E, Section 97.407 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Budget

Caucus conversation touched on a number of budget-related issues.

How Is This Paid For?

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the Monday agenda provided a number of “opportunities to spend money.” So she floated the idea to her council colleagues that the fund from which the money would be drawn be included on the agenda, so that the public would have a clearer understanding of where the money came from. Mayor John Hieftje said he thought that was not a bad idea.

The 3% Budget Directive

Postponed from the council’s last regular meeting, on Feb. 16, 2010, and now coming before the council on Monday, is a resolution directing the city administrator to cut non-union salaries by 3%. The resolution has been revised in the interim. [.txt file of original budget directive; .txt file of revised budget directive].

At Sunday’s caucus, Briere characterized a key difference between the two versions as the requirement that the cut be a minimum of 3%, which highlights the possibility that the cut could  be greater than 3%. In a “budget white paper,” circulated to residents, Briere has suggested specifically that for top management positions, the amount of the cut could be greater – as much as 10%. [.pdf file of Briere's budget white paper]

The Municipal Service Charge

Leslie Morris attended caucus and reflected on her service on the Ann Arbor city council from the mid-’70s through the early ’80′s and subsequently on the city’s park advisory commission. She told councilmembers that she was there to talk about golf,  though she had never been a golfer. She recalled how a park open space plan from 1966, in its first sentence, had identified a new golf course as the city’s greatest park need. She noted that there was no supporting material or data in the plan for that statement. She attributed it to the fact that the Leslie family was interested in selling the land to the city that is now the Leslie Golf Course – on “very favorable terms” to the city, she said.

Mayor John Hieftje clarified that for the land where the Leslie Science and Nature Center is located, it was a donation, and that for the golf course it was $1,000 per year.

Morris noted that during her period of public service, they had always felt that golf should pay its own way. But sometime in the ’90s, she said, golf was separated from the general fund, with the result that there were charges made “to ourselves” for golf that were not applied to other recreational activities. She characterized the situation that the city had gotten itself into as not quite fair.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that the municipal service charges made to different service units was what Morris meant by “charging ourselves.” He said that unclarity on this charge was one reason the council had asked city staff to explain it more clearly at an upcoming meeting on the budget, on March 8.

Hieftje said that when he was first elected to city council in 1999, he had heard that the reason the golf courses were separated out from the general fund was to “protect” them. Kunselman agreed that this rationale was based on the idea that if the golf courses were making money, then they would be “milked.” Kunselman suggested that the city’s municipal service charge was, in fact, a way of “milking” the golf courses.