The work would be funded with proceeds from the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage.

According to a staff memo, the Tincknor-Campbell House is a cobblestone farmhouse that was built in 1844. Its existing wood shingle roof was installed in 1977 and is in serious disrepair. The proposal calls for the new roof to be made of cedar shakes, with flashing done in copper.

The event barn, built in the late 1980s, is rented out for weddings, parties, business conferences, and other events. Its existing roof is over 30 years old and is also in poor condition. Because the building is not historically significant, the proposal calls replacing the roof with a recycled plastic shingle that resembles cedar, but that is less costly and more durable.

The alternative material was approved by the city planning staff who provide support to the city’s historic district commission. The Cobblestone Farm Association has also reviewed the proposal and agreed with the recommendations. The park advisory commission voted to recommend the contract at its Dec. 18, 2012 meeting.

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

Three of the leaders of the New Hope Baptist Church sign up for public commentary at the Ann Arbor park advisory commission’s Dec. 18, 2012 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Commissioners recommended that a site at West Park – next to the park’s entrance off Chapin Street – be designated as the city’s third dog park. Their action came after several members of the New Hope Baptist Church spoke during public commentary to oppose the location, which would be directly across the street from the church. Congregants cited concerns over safety, noise, “dog stink” and other issues. One speaker suggested the possibility of swapping the location with the existing Project Grow gardens, located in West Park but farther away from the road.

In response to New Hope concerns, PAC amended its original resolution to specify that parks staff and PAC would meet with church members to discuss a possibly temporary dog park at that location, and to review the status of the dog park a year after it’s in place, with particular attention to noise levels. The new dog park would need approval from the city council before being installed.

In another vote, commissioners recommended approval of the final concept design for the Ann Arbor skatepark, to be built at the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park, near the intersection of North Maple and Dexter Avenue. They were briefed on the design features by Wally Hollyday, a well-known California skatepark designer who had come to town specifically for the presentation. He had been hired earlier this year to do the design and oversee the project’s construction.

Two residents who live near Veterans Memorial Park spoke against the location during public commentary, concerned about noise, maintenance, safety and other issues that they felt hadn’t been adequately addressed.

Trevor Staples, chair of the nonprofit Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark, also spoke to PAC and noted that the group would be holding a retreat later this winter to discuss their future mission. He indicated the group would be involved in ongoing support for the skatepark. Part of the memorandum of intent with the city stipulates that 10% of fundraising for the skatepark is being set aside for future maintenance.

Construction is expected to begin in the spring of 2013, with a goal of completing the project by the fall.

Also at the Dec. 18 meeting, commissioners recommended awarding a $109,500 contract to Renaissance Restorations Inc. to replace roofs at Cobblestone Farm on the event barn and on the Tincknor-Campbell House. They also got an update from Colin Smith, who reported that the city has withdrawn its application for a state permit to build a whitewater section in the Huron River, near Argo Cascades. City staff are working with the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality to come up with a different design that would address concerns raised about the environmental impact of the whitewater feature.

At the end of the meeting commissioners bid farewell to John Lawter, whose term ends on Dec. 31. Lawter has been instrumental in moving forward plans for a new centrally located dog park.

Dog Park at West Park

For more than 18 months, the issue of a possible new dog park has periodically emerged at PAC meetings, spearheaded by John Lawter. At PAC’s Aug. 21, 2012 meeting, commissioners had voted to direct its dog park subcommittee to work with city staff and develop recommendations that could lead to additional off-leash dog parks. The city currently has two legal off-leash dog parks, at Olson Park and Swift Run. Those parks are located on the far north and south sides of the city; but there’s not a centrally located dog park.

Aerial view of proposed dog park in West Park, next to the park’s entrance off of Chapin Street.

On Dec. 18, PAC considered a resolution recommending a section of West Park, located off Chapin across from the New Hope Baptist Church, as the preferred location for a new fenced-in dog park.

The site is roughly a quarter-acre in the park’s northeast corner, where the city recently bought and demolished a house near the entrance off Chapin Street. PAC had been most recently briefed on the project at its Oct. 16, 2012 meeting.

Five potential locations were evaluated by the PAC subcommittee of Lawter, Karen Levin and Ingrid Ault, with park planner Amy Kuras. Those locations were: West Park (the new lot on Chapin Street), two sites at Bandemer Park (south of Huron River, and north of Huron River at Barton Drive), South Maple Park, and Ward Park. Criteria included location relative to other dog parks, size, parking, access to water, shade, and neighborhood buffer. [.pdf of scoring sheet and map of existing and potential dog parks]

The site at West Park emerged as the preferred location.

City parks staff reported that feedback from a public meeting held on Nov. 7 was overwhelmingly positive. But at a subsequent meeting with members of New Hope Baptist Church, none of the church members who attended were supportive of a dog park at that location.

Dog Park at West Park: Public Commentary

Ten people spoke about the dog park during public commentary at the Dec. 18 meeting, including eight members of the New Hope Baptist Church who are opposed to the location.

Tom Miree, a trustee of the church, commended commissioners for their work and for the overall condition of parks in Ann Arbor – saying they are world-class in every way. But members of the church were there to oppose the dog park location. He showed commissioners a map of the properties that New Hope owns in the neighborhood. In addition to the chapel at 218 Chapin, the church owns six other lots on Chapin and Miller, including sites for the New Hope Outreach Clinic at Miller and Chapin, and a parking lot directly adjacent to the West Park parcel where the dog park is proposed. He asked commissioners to reconsider the West Park location for a dog park.

Lawrence Brown, chair of the church’s board of trustees, strongly urged commissioners to reconsider the location. “We will be directly affected by the dog park, more than anyone else on the street.” He asked that the city be sensitive to the church’s concerns. He said he wasn’t opposed to dog parks or dogs – he loves dogs. It was simply a matter of the location. Ann Arbor is a city that really cares about the aesthetics of their land, he said, and he commended the city for renovations at West Park. It adds a lot to the area, but he strongly urged commissioners not to put the dog park there.

Sammie Hugan, chair of the church’s board of deacons, also opposed the location, citing safety concerns. He said he has a dog himself and he loves dogs. But “you know, dogs do get loose.” Sometimes dogs like to jump on people and it scares people, he said. And because the dog park would be next to the church parking lot, people might be afraid when they go to get into their cars.

A few of the congregants of the New Hope Baptist Church on Chapin Street who attended the Dec. 18 park advisory commission meeting to oppose the dog park at West Park.

Johnita Porter supported looking for other locations, and was concerned about the proximity of the proposed site to the New Hope worship facility. Children and teenagers from the church often go over to the park to play, and she was worried about their safety. She also wondered why such a small parcel of land was deemed acceptable, when the other two dog parks are so much larger. She was uncertain that the city would achieve its goals for the dog park, given its size.

Porter noted that the church has collected over 130 signatures from congregants who are opposed to this location, and they are continuing to collect signatures. She asked commissioners to reconsider it. Even moving the location more toward the park’s interior would be better, she said.

Cloyd Peters, also a church trustee, told commissioners that he grew up on a farm and liked dogs. But putting a dog park 100 feet away from the church is too close, he said, citing potential noise problems, safety concerns and the fact that people don’t always clean up after their dogs.

Charles Stroud of New Hope suggested swapping the proposed dog park location with the area in West Park that’s currently used for Project Grow gardens. That way, the church wouldn’t be faced with noise, “dog stink” and safety problems, he said.

The groundskeeper for the church also spoke, saying that he already had to clean up a lot of trash because of activity at West Park, and a dog park would only add to that work.

Another church member, who didn’t give her name, told commissioners that she was opposed to a dog park, especially in front of a church. She’s seen several other locations that would be better, including land along Stadium Boulevard. She wondered if any of the commissioners attend church, and if they did, how many of those churches had dog parks next to them. People only pick up after their dogs if someone else is watching, she said. She noted that in the past, you could call the police if a dog came into your yard. But now, the city won’t take any action for that. In Ann Arbor, she said, if you hit a dog with a stick, you go to jail. If you hit a person with a stick, the police will just come out and talk to you.

Two people spoke in support of a dog park at West Park. One man identified himself as a resident of the Old West Side, and noted that dogs are now running off-leash – saying that’s a safety issue, too. He recalled that there used to be gatherings of people with their off-leash dogs at a middle school. [He was referring to what was considered an informal dog park at Slauson Middle School.] There’s a need for a dog park on the Old West Side, he said, and West Park seems like a good fit – if not at that specific location, then perhaps elsewhere in the park. However, he wondered if the proposed site was large enough for dogs to socialize.

Virginia Gordan supported the West Park dog park. In most major cities, it’s very common to have dog parks and it creates a sense of community without causing problems or danger. In Ann Arbor, most people who use the parks have dogs, she said. Gordan said she happily votes to pay for parks, even though there are many things that she doesn’t use, like baseball diamonds. People want more dog parks so they don’t have to spend time and money on gas driving to the other city dog parks. She urged commissioners to add more dog parks, noting that the city is trying to encourage people to move downtown. But if you live in an apartment downtown, there’s no place to take your dogs off-leash. That’s not consistent with the city’s overall policies, she said. There might be another location within West Park that would be better, but in general she supported this dog park and creating additional ones as well in more neighborhoods.

Dog Park at West Park: Commission Discussion

Amy Kuras, the city park planner who’s been working on this project, reminded commissioners that she had briefed them about the proposal at their Oct. 16, 2012 meeting. The resolution notes that Chapter 107, Section 9:45 of the city code states that dog play areas are designated by the city’s community services area administrator, and approved by city council.

The original resolution had one resolved clause:

RESOLVED, That the Park Advisory Commission recommend designating a fenced off leash dog play area in West Park as identified by the Community Services Area Administrator.

Referring to the safety concerns cited by church members, Christopher Taylor clarified with Kuras that the area would be fenced and gated. Kuras explained that the fence would be about 4-5 feet high and like the city’s other dog parks, it would be double-gated. People would enter the first gate into a small corral, before passing through another gate into the main dog park.

A parking lot for New Hope Baptist Church, on the right, is separated by a row of hedges from the parcel at West Park, on the left, that’s being proposed for a dog park.

Responding to a query from Mike Anglin, Kuras said there were no specific limits to the number of dogs that the area would contain. Unlike the other two dog parks, though, it’s not intended to be a running area, she said. It’s viewed as an area where dogs can socialize off-leash.

John Lawter spoke at length about the issues that had been raised during public commentary. Of course it would be better to have a larger area, he said. But in his experience, people and their dogs tend to cluster together, regardless of the dog park’s size. Any area where dogs can be off-leash and socialize is better than nothing, he said. If it’s crowded, that’s great – it would show that there’s a need for even more dog parks.

Lawter said that in his experience, noise isn’t a problem, either. If someone brings an aggressive, barking dog, other people at the dog park will self-police and tell that owner to leave. The same thing happens with clean-up after a dog, he said – saying that if the owner doesn’t notice it, others will point it out. Nor is safety a concern, Lawter said. He didn’t know of any dogs that had escaped from the other dog parks.

To him, having more dog parks could be an opportunity to educate people about the true nature of dogs. Usually, when people are afraid of dogs they’ve had a bad experience, Lawter said. He’s witnessed parents bringing their children to a dog park to get familiar with dogs. At first the children are apprehensive, but soon they become comfortable and the joy on their faces is spectacular, he said.

Regarding the idea to switch places with Project Grow, Lawter said the lot that’s being considered for a dog park has mature trees, which is great for a dog park but not for gardening. He also noted that West Park would eventually be great for an unfenced off-leash dog park, but the city isn’t ready for that yet. Nor would it be a good idea to fence in a larger area of West Park, he said, for aesthetic reasons and because it would limit people from using the park for other purposes.

PAC’s Dec. 18 meeting was the last one for John Lawter, who has led the effort for more dog parks in Ann Arbor. He has served for two three-year terms – his current term ends Dec. 31.

Wrapping up, Lawter said if the location becomes a problem, “the city can always make [the dog park] go away.” He asked people to give it a chance, saying he thought it would be a huge amenity.

Several commissioners weighed in with their own experiences at dog parks, saying they didn’t find noise, safety or cleanup to be a problem. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, offered to organize trips to other city dog parks for people to see the situation at those locations.

Julie Grand wondered whether there could be limited hours of use, encouraging people not to use it during Sunday worship services, for example. Smith indicated that the city could post signs, but having a sign doesn’t mean that people will pay attention to the directions.

Kuras noted that it would be possible to put up temporary fencing for a period, until it’s determined that the location will work for a dog park. Smith reminded everyone that the resolution was just to recommend that the site be designated as a possible dog park location – PAC’s action wouldn’t commit the city to actually building it there, although that’s implied, he said. Temporary fencing was certainly something they could consider, Smith added.

Taylor suggested amending the resolution to specifically mention that there would be follow-up after a year, to see whether the location was suitable. Alan Jackson wanted to add a mention of checking noise levels as part of the follow-up.

Smith crafted two additional resolved clauses, which were considered friendly amendments and did not require a separate vote: (1) that parks staff and PAC’s dog park subcommittee will work with the New Hope Baptist Church to discuss locating the dog park there on a trial basis; and (2) that staff will report back on the dog park’s one-year anniversary with a status update, including information about noise levels.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the resolution, as amended, recommending West Park as the preferred location for a new dog park. The city council is expected to consider the item at its Jan. 22 meeting.

Ann Arbor Skatepark Design

Commissioners were briefed on the proposed design for a $1 million skatepark, an ambitious effort to be built at the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park. It’s a project that’s viewed as a potential regional attraction. The designer, Wally Hollyday, attended the Dec. 18 meeting to talk about his work. It incorporates a variety of features for skaters at all levels, as well as elements for the general public, suggestions for dual-purpose objects like skateable public art, and rain gardens and other landscaping features to help with stormwater management. In July of 2012, the Ann Arbor city council had authorized a $89,560 contract with his firm – Wally Hollyday Skateparks, based in Orange County, California – for the design and construction oversight of the skatepark. [.pdf of skatepark concept design]

Ann Arbor Skatepark Design: Public Commentary

At the beginning of the meeting, two people spoke during public commentary to oppose the skatepark’s location at the site in Veterans Memorial Park. Patricia Bova Boven passed out a letter to commissioners – addressed to Trevor Staples of the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark – that outlined her concerns. [.pdf of Bova's letter] She said she represented 20 homeowners and residents who live near the park, and contended that they were never brought to the table when the location was being considered. She said they never received a direct mailing about the skatepark until a notice for the design meeting on Oct. 15, 2012. The residents are calling themselves the Friends of Veterans Park and are circulating a petition, she said. The request might sound extreme, Bova said, but they’d like the skatepark to be moved to the southwest corner of the park. She reported that residents – including the owners of Knight’s Restaurant, located across the street from the park – are concerned about the impact of traffic, and how maintenance will be handled. “We’re not against the skatepark,” she said. “We’re against the location of the skatepark.”

Carol Potter told commissioners that she lives on Lyn Anne Court, across from the north side of Veterans Memorial Park. She lives on a beautiful street, she said, and she’s concerned about the impact of the skatepark. Would skateboarders get off the bus and ride on the sidewalk to get to the park? What about the noise?

Ann Arbor Skatepark Design: Presentation

Later in the meeting Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, began the skatepark presentation by describing the history of the project. He recalled that Trevor Staples and other supporters had approached PAC in 2007 about the need for a skatepark. In 2008, there were two public meetings about choosing a location. Smith described the meetings as heavily attended with about 75 people, and noted that the meetings had been publicized with a mailing to residents.

Wally Hollyday, left, with two supporters of the proposed skatepark.

During 2008, the skatepark had been an item on PAC’s agenda at three public meetings, and a public hearing had been held on the project in May of 200 specifically to get input about the location on the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park, Smith said. PAC had unanimously voted to support that location, he said, and public input for it had been overwhelmingly positive.

In November of 2008, PAC unanimously recommended approval of the memorandum of intent (MOI) between the city and the Ann Arbor Skatepark Action Committee – which later became the nonprofit Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark – spelling out how the two entities would interact to design, fundraise and build the proposed skatepark.

The city council approved that MOI in December 2008, specifically citing the Veterans Memorial Park location. [.pdf of memorandum of intent] Among other things, the council stipulated that 10% of all fundraising must be set aside in an endowed fund for future maintenance. From the council resolution:

Whereas, 10% of all funds raised by the Ann Arbor Skatepark Action Committee shall be allocated to an endowed fund designated the Ann Arbor Skatepark Fund (or similar name), through the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation for operations, maintenance and future improvements to the Ann Arbor Skatepark.

The community foundation provides more details about the endowment on its website.

Smith told commissioners that the city will also tap its volunteer programs, like Adopt-a-Park, to help with the skatepark. But he stressed that the care and maintenance of the skatepark would not be on the shoulders of volunteers.

Finally, Smith reminded commissioners that grants awarded for the skatepark – from the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission, and the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund – were linked specifically to the site in Veterans Memorial Park.

Trevor Staples spoke next, as chair of the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark. [He has addressed PAC on several other occasions related to the skatepark, most recently at the June 19, 2012 meeting when PAC recommended approval of Hollyday as the skatepark's designer.]

From left: Skatepark designer Wally Hollyday, Ann Arbor park planner Amy Kuras, and Jeff Straw, deputy parks and recreation manager.

He and others have been working on this project for about five years, Staples noted, and it’s exciting to see the skatepark come to fruition. He remembered attending the public hearing in May of 2008, and recalled that the council chambers had been packed. Only one person had opposed the project, Staples said, and everyone else had supported it – it was great to get such strong community support, he said.

The original mission of the nonprofit had been to build a skatepark, Staples continued. Now that they’re close to achieving that goal, the board will be holding a retreat this winter – facilitated by the NEW Center – to shape its next mission. They’ll invite the city parks volunteer outreach staff, he said, and plan to work together. The nonprofit intends to help with all aspects of the skatepark in the future, including maintenance, upkeep and special events.

Staples thanked the skatepark supporters, PAC and the city council, but gave special thanks to Bob Tetens, director of the county parks and recreation commission, and county commissioner Conan Smith for offering $400,000 in matching funds, which was crucial in securing the $300,000 state trust fund grant. Those two grants are providing the majority of funding for the skatepark construction.

Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner, gave additional background, saying that the skatepark and the dog park have been two projects with the most advocacy and public input of any others she’s worked on with the city. She noted that even though the more recent skatepark effort dates back to 2007, the history of residents pushing for a skatepark can be traced to the 1980s.

Kuras gave an overview of the project, noting that the cluster of oak trees in the northwest corner won’t be removed, and will provide shade for portions of the skatepark. The city has also pushed to include more greenspace in the design, she said, and she’s excited about that. The location was chosen because it’s easily accessible – located on a bus line, and near the interchanges with I-94 and M-14. And Veterans Memorial is already a very active park for recreation activities, she said. [The park includes baseball diamonds, a pool and ice arena.]

Kuras said the project hopes to get stormwater funding from the city, which will help with skatepark’s budget. The design also provides barrier-free access, she noted, with a new path that connects the parking lot on Dexter Avenue to the parking lot on North Maple. Barrier-free access will also be an element of the design within the skatepark itself.

The skatepark design has been in the works for about six months, Kuras said. After getting a recommendation on the concept design from PAC, the plan is to present the design to city council in January for their approval.

The conceptual design by Wally Hollyday for the Ann Arbor skatepark at the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park.

Hollyday was on hand to walk commissioners through the elements of the design. He noted the advantage of having the skatepark on a hillside – it would help with stormwater runoff.

The design includes a wide variety of skateboarding features – including bowls and pools; banked, Hubba and cantilevered ledges; and slappy curbs. The two larger bowls, with an 8-10 foot depth, provide a lot of variety – including stairs and a “love seat.” The bowls will be popular with older skaters, he said, as well as with “punky” teen skaters – because of the retro appeal. Those bowls also provide larger transitions – the term used to described the curved surfaces, transitioning between horizontal and vertical.

The smaller bowls are easier to skate, Hollyday said, with lots of places to roll in and roll out. You can literally tear through the bowls on a wheelchair, he said. “As crazy as that sounds, I’ve seen that happen.” There are also lots of places to transfer from one bowl to another.

Looking good is important in skating culture because it’s a very social sport, Hollyday told commissioners. He said young girls are really attracted to small bowls. When his own daughter began skating, she had been put off by “the stares from the boys and the looks of ‘What are you doing here?’” It makes you very self-conscious, he said, but you can look good in the small bowls, even as a beginner.

Other features include flat banks, rocks built into walls, rollers, a quarter pipe, and several other skateable elements.

Landscaped areas and rain gardens are located throughout the park, which will also serve as stormwater management elements. It’s important to create a visual effect, Hollyday said, so there are elements like spillover areas on walls for rain water to flow down into the rain gardens, for example.

The design also includes a small stage, which could be used for skateboarding demonstrations as well as other community performances.

Ann Arbor Skatepark Design: Commission Discussion

Tim Berla said he’d expected that there would be a fence around the skatepark, but clarified with Wally Hollyday that it wouldn’t be fenced. Hollyday explained that skaters like to socialize, and in parks where there are fences, people find ways to get around them anyway. There will be guardrail fences around the large bowls, but the intent is for non-skaters to be able to walk through the skatepark, too. If it succeeds as a community center, Hollyday said, that’s even more important than succeeding as a sporting center.

Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner, had briefed planning commissioners about the Ann Arbor skatepark design at the planning commission’s Dec. 11 working session.

Amy Kuras added that the city would put up signs along the pathways to indicate that people are entering the skatepark. She noted that there will be paths going around both sides of the skatepark too, so people don’t have to go through it.

Responding to another question from Berla, Hollyday said he plans to put benches along the paths, so there will be places for people to sit. Trevor Staples recalled that when he was growing up, there were picnic tables and barbeque pits at the top of the hill in that part of the park. Now, that area isn’t well used, he said. It will overlook the skatepark, and he hoped it would again become a community gathering place. Colin Smith, parks and recreation manager, noted that there are a lot of comparisons, in that regard, to the Argo Cascades, which is also drawing the community – even people who don’t canoe or kayak.

Responding to another question, Smith said that the nearest bathrooms were in a shelter, but those will be removed during an upcoming renovation. As an interim, there will be port-o-potties in the area.

Alan Jackson asked about the durability of the materials. Are there choices that can be made to reduce future maintenance needs?

Hollyday replied that the skatepark itself will be concrete, and that the parts requiring more regular maintenance will be the landscaping elements. He noted that he’s seen city officials in other communities “freak out” when concrete gets chipped, but a popular, well-used skatepark is a good thing, he said.

Kuras pointed out that one of Hollyday’s tasks is to provide the specifications for construction so that the city can pre-qualify concrete contractors. The work is specialized, and requires more experience than most other projects that use concrete.

Jackson also asked how much of the concrete would be colored. That will depend in part on the budget, Hollyday replied. But there are less expensive ways to add color, he added – for example, adding black paint will result in a richer, charcoal gray concrete that won’t reflect light. It’s an inexpensive way to reduce glare.

Bob Galardi jokingly referred to palm trees shown in the design images, then asked how the skatepark would hold up in Michigan’s colder climate. The construction will use 4,000 psi (pounds per square inch) concrete, Hollyday said, which is “pretty strong.” There will be a lot of reinforcement and caulking in the joints, with a rebar structure and six-inch minimum thickness.

Smith noted that the terms of the MOI require that the skatepark design gets approved by city council. After that happens, the final design specifications will be completed and the city will seek bids for construction. Construction is expected to begin in the spring of 2013, with a goal of completing the project by the fall.

Outcome: The commission unanimously recommended approval of the design for the Ann Arbor skatepark. It will next be considered by city council for approval.

Cobblestone Farm Renovations

The commission was asked to recommend awarding a $109,500 contract to Renaissance Restorations Inc. to replace roofs at Cobblestone Farm on the event barn and on the Tincknor-Campbell House. It was the lowest of three bids received for the work. The contract includes a 10% contingency, bringing the total to $120,450.

The work would be funded with proceeds from the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage.

According to a staff memo, the Tincknor-Campbell House is a cobblestone farmhouse that was built in 1844. Its existing wood shingle roof was installed in 1977 and is in serious disrepair. The proposal calls for the new roof to be made of cedar shakes, with flashing done in copper.

The event barn, built in the late 1980s, is rented out for weddings, parties, business conferences, and other events. Its existing roof is over 30 years old and is also in poor condition. Because the building is not historically significant, the proposal calls replacing the roof with a recycled plastic shingle that resembles cedar, but that is less costly and more durable.

The proposal is being reviewed by the city’s historic district commission. The Cobblestone Farm Association has already reviewed the proposal and agreed with these recommendations.

Cobblestone Farm Renovations: Commission Discussion

There was little discussion on this item. Alan Jackson asked about the material being proposed. Amy Kuras reported that if the historic district commission signs off on using the recycled plastic shingle for the event barn, then it would likely last longer and cost less.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved recommending the contract with Renaissance Restorations for the Cobblestone Farm roof replacements. The item will next be considered by the city council.

Volunteerism in the Parks

Dave Borneman, manager of the city’s natural area preservation program, presented NAP’s Volunteer of the Year award to Community High School. He read a proclamation from the mayor that had been presented at the city council’s Oct. 24, 2012 meeting, which recognized the school’s students and staff for working “enthusiastically” to improve the city’s parks and natural areas, in part by participating in a bi-annual day of service focused on invasive plant removal, trail maintenance, and tree planting. Borneman noted that in the spring, 360 CHS volunteers pulled nearly 4 tons of garlic mustard and other spring invasives in the city’s natural areas.

Dave Borneman, left, manager of the city’s natural area preservation program, presented the NAP 2012 Volunteer of the Year award to Community High School. In the foreground is lead teacher Marci Tuzinsky. Also on hand were CHS students Lexi Schnitzer, Obiageri Ugwuegbu and Denny Carter.

On hand to accept the award were Marci Tuzinsky, a lead teacher at CHS, and students Obiageri Ugwuegbu, Lexi Schnitzer and Denny Carter. They received a round of applause from commissioners. Tim Berla pointed out that he was a member of the school’s second graduating class.

Borneman, who has been with the city since the NAP program began 19 years ago, now also oversees all volunteer efforts in the parks. Those programs include NAP workdays and park stewards, Adopt-a-Park and Adopt-a-Median, memorial plantings and “citizen pruner” efforts. For the overall parks system, the Give 365 initiative offers a range of volunteer opportunities, including one-day events, swim team volunteers, counselor-in-training and lifeguard-in-training programs, and golf rangers.

He then introduced a presentation by two of his staff: Tina Roselle, volunteer and outreach coordinator for the city’s NAP and Adopt-A-Park programs, and Gayle Hurn, outreach coordinator for Give 365.

Highlights of their presentation:

• Since NAP was launched in 1993, volunteers have contributed nearly 90,000 hours of work.
• More than 425 people have been trained for NAP’s volunteer crew for controlled burns.
• Volunteers work on a range of monitoring programs, including frog and toad surveys, salamander surveys, breeding bird surveys, photo monitoring, and a new turtle steward program. The turtle steward program grew out of concern by volunteers who discovered turtles nesting in the volleyball court at Scheffler Park, and a report of snapping turtles that were crossing the road near Dolph Park. Now the city has created five turtle nesting locations in various parks.
• There are 55 park stewards who work in 35 of the city’s parks.
• Twelve medians have been “adopted” by volunteers in the city’s relatively new Adopt-a-Median program.
• About half of the total volunteer hours is spent on control of invasive species.
• The number of volunteer workdays per year reached a high of 129 in 2010. Since then, the number of workdays has been decreasing, in part because staff is scheduling workdays for private groups on the same days as public workdays, in an effort to better allocate staff resources, Roselle said.
• Give 365, which launched in March of 2011, has logged nearly 12,000 hours of volunteer service. In fiscal 2012, volunteer efforts were the equivalent of $124,173 based on $20 per hour. Nearly six months into fiscal 2013, volunteer hours are the equivalent of $81,488 in hourly wages.

In response to a question from Alan Jackson, Hurn indicated that the city planned to work with volunteers to help with the ongoing care of the skatepark, after its construction.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks & recreation manager, noted that the Give 365 program has dramatically exceeded expectations for the number of volunteer hours they had hoped for in its initial year. Several commissioners also praised the outreach and volunteer efforts.

Communications & Commentary

Throughout the meeting there were several opportunities for communications and commentary. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Whitewater on Huron River

During his report to commissioners, Colin Smith – the city’s parks and recreation manager – reported that on Nov. 9 the city had withdrawn its application for a permit to build a whitewater section in the Huron River, near Argo Cascades. A permit was needed from the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), but letters of objection to the project had been filed by by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, the state Dept. of Natural Resources fisheries division, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the local Huron River Watershed Council. [For more details on this issue, see Chronicle coverage: “EPA, Others Object to Whitewater Project.”]

The EPA had filed its letter on Aug. 15. From that date, the MDEQ had 90 days – until Nov. 13 – to resolve the EPA’s concerns. Rather than let that period expire and possibly have the permit denied, the city decided to withdraw the application. Smith said city staff have met with MDEQ staff and are working to come up with a new design that would be acceptable. They’re looking at projects in other communities, he said, so work will continue on that.

Communications & Commentary: Appointments

Julie Grand, PAC’s chair, joked that she was continuing the commission’s long tradition of appointing people when they weren’t at the meeting – noting that she initially had been elected chair that way. Grand told commissioners that she was appointing Missy Stults, the newest PAC member, to fill the PAC position on the city’s environmental commission. Grand reported that Stults, who was absent from the Dec. 18 meeting, had agreed to serve, and that she had “more than adequate background” for the job.

Julie Grand, chair of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission.

Stults is a research scientist and doctoral student at the University of Michigan, studying urban and regional planning. She previously has worked as a sustainability analyst with Summit Energy Services in Louisville, Kentucky, and in various roles with the Boston-based ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability USA.

Also during the meeting, Grand referred to a list of PAC committees that had been discussed at the commission’s Nov. 4 retreat. The list was a summary of the committees, and the PAC members who’ll serve on them. [.pdf of committee list] There are two new committees: (1) a downtown open space committee (Ingrid Ault and Alan Jackson), to work with other entities like the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority on needs for parks and open space in the downtown area; and (2) an education committee (Missy Stults) to educate the public on issues like invasive species and other parks-related issues.

Bob Galardi, one of the newer PAC members, asked about the greenway committee. That committee’s membership includes Galardi, Stults and Grand. Grand indicated that it was an existing committee that has been “dormant”– but it’s now re-emerging because of activity related to the Allen Creek greenway. She explained that work on this and other committees is left up to the discretion of its members.

Ault reported that the downtown open space committee had held is first meeting and plans to do a walk-through of downtown sites with DDA executive director Susan Pollay. The date of that walk-through hadn’t been set, but all PAC members would be invited, Ault said.

Communications & Commentary: Ice Rink at Library Lane

During public commentary, Alan Haber told commissioners that he’d spoken to them before about the need for the Library Lane site to be a park for all the people. [Most recently, Haber addressed PAC at its June 19, 2012 meeting.] He said he was glad that PAC had made a recommendation that a park should be considered as a best use for downtown property. [Haber was referring to a resolution that PAC passed at its Sept. 18, 2012 meeting regarding the Connecting William Street project. PAC did not advocate that a particular site be turned into a park. Rather, the resolution recommends that the Ann Arbor city council seek additional evaluation of locations for a downtown park, the best mix of amenities for the population expected to use a downtown park, and the costs of developing and maintaining a new addition to the parks system.]

Haber suggested that part of the Library Lane site could be turned into an ice skating rink. A downtown skating rink would be a great community gathering place, he said, and it would give people a sense of how the area would work as a park on a permanent basis. Volunteers could build a platform for the rink and a small warming shelter, he said, using private donations. There aren’t many cars that use the surface lot now, he noted, so it’s not being efficiently used for that purpose. Turning it into a skating rink “would be very easy to do,” Haber concluded.

Communications & Commentary: Farewell to John Lawter

PAC chair Julie Grand noted that this was the last meeting for John Lawter, whose term ends on Dec. 31, 2012. She said she was thrilled that PAC had acted on the dog park at the meeting, since this had been an initiative led by Lawter. However, Grand noted that he hadn’t been a one-trick pony – “or dog, as it were,” she joked. Lawter had served as vice chair, and had always been a “reasonable voice” and advocate for parks, Grand said.

Lawter described the last six years as a “huge growth experience” for him, and that PAC had accomplished a lot during that period. He looked forward to working with the parks as a park steward and in other ways in the future.

Present: Ingrid Ault, Tim Berla, Bob Galardi, Alan Jackson, Karen Levin, Julie Grand, John Lawter and councilmembers Mike Anglin and Christopher Taylor (ex-officio). Also Colin Smith, city parks and recreation manager.

Absent: Tim Doyle, Missy Stults.

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2013 begins at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. If you’re already helping The Chronicle with some financial green, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

The millage was approved by a majority of voters in every precinct in the city, with the strongest support coming from Ward 1, Precinct 3, where 82.3% of voters supported the parks tax.  Weakest support for the parks tax citywide came in Ward 2, Precinct 2 where 53.6% of voters said yes.

The current 1.1 mill tax expires this year. The renewal runs from 2013-2018 and will raise about $4.9 million next year. The recommended allocation of revenues is 70% for park maintenance activities, and 30% for park capital improvement projects. Of that allocation, up to 10% can be shifted between the two categories as needed.

Examples of park maintenance activities include “forestry and horticulture, natural area preservation, park operations, recreation facilities, and targets of opportunity,” according to a staff memo distributed to PAC in June. Capital improvement projects would cover parks, forestry and horticulture, historic preservation, neighborhood parks and urban plazas, park operations, pathways, trails, boardwalks, greenways and watersheds, and recreation facilities. [More projects are listed on the city's website.]

There had been no formal opposition to this millage renewal. Ingrid Ault, a member of the city’s park advisory commission, formed a campaign committee (Friends of the Parks) in October  to promote the renewal.

City treasurer Matt Horning. Chief financial officer Tom Crawford in background.

On Monday night, the council unanimously adopted its roughly $78 million general fund budget – as amended to reflect new revenue items. Those new revenue items allowed the council to eliminate five firefighter positions and no police jobs. As originally proposed, the budget would have eliminated 35 fire and police positions combined.

Next year’s work will not be any easier. CFO Tom Crawford said at the meeting that he’s projecting a $5 million deficit in FY 2012.

Deliberations on the budget did not begin until late in the evening. Occupying more of the council’s time than the city’s FY 2011 budget were two issues related to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. One of those issues was a sidewalk occupancy ordinance applicable only within the DDA district. The ordinance, which legalizes the use of sandwich board signs, passed after a failed attempt by Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) to get it postponed.

The second DDA issue on the agenda involved a $2 million payment from the DDA to the city, which helped the council to amend its budget to reduce layoffs of fire and police. In approving the $2 million payment, the DDA board had included in its resolution a requirement to have a future public process for continued conversations between the city and the DDA about renegotiating a parking agreement between the two entities. From January through April of this year, conversations on that topic between the city and the DDA took place out of public view.

On Monday, the council considered a resolution thanking the DDA for the money and providing a commitment to public process for conversations about the parking agreement – parallel to the public process explicated in the DDA’s resolution. The council resolution passed – stripped of its language about open and transparent process on the grounds that it was redundant – after a brief attempt by Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) to get the resolution tabled.

In other significant business, mayor John Hieftje nominated a replacement for Ted Annis on the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board: Roger Kerson, who in 2008 contemplated a run for a Ward 5 council seat, but decided against it.

Anya Dale had been nominated by the mayor to replace Paul Ajegba on the AATA board at the council’s previous meeting. On Monday, confirmation of her appointment included one hitch – Sabra Briere (Ward 1) cast a vote against it.

Sandwich Board Signs

Before the council was a revision to the city’s sidewalk occupancy permit system that would allow the use of sandwich board signs in the DDA district. It was the second reading of the ordinance change – the first reading had been approved at the council’s previous meeting on May 3. All ordinances must be approved at two readings at a meeting of council before they’re officially passed. [Additional Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor, Give Me a Sign"]

Sandwich Board Signs: Public Hearing

DDA executive director Susan Pollay addressed the council, speaking at the request of the downtown merchant associations. She thanked the council for their work on the ordinance.

Michael Slaughter, who had addressed the council at its previous meeting during public commentary on the same subject, reviewed with the council why he felt the case for sandwich board signs was so strong. He pointed out that there would be some additional dollars for the city that they could collect right away for the sidewalk occupancy fees that would be charged. He also pointed to the higher rents that would result from the additional business that could be done on the second floor of buildings, due to increased traffic they would enjoy from the sandwich board signs. Pointing to the use of sandwich board signs in other college towns, he noted that it was not “some far-out practice.” He also raised the legal issue of commercial free speech.

Sandwich Board Signs: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said it was fortunate that the public hearing on the ordinance change had not lasted too long. She stated that the sandwich board signs are, in fact, vital to downtown. She characterized the ordinance as a “simple change” that would allow people to continue to use sandwich board signs. She asked her colleagues on the council to join her in supporting it.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) echoed Briere’s sentiments, and thanked the downtown merchants for their patience. He noted that two areas of concern had been raised. One was about accessibility for the handicapped community and the other concerned the possible proliferation of such signs. However, he concluded, the language of the proposed ordinance change had addressed both concerns.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) focused on changes that had been made to the ordinance between its approval by the council on first reading and the second reading, which they were approving that night. He noted that the first reading version had stipulated a limit of two signs per building, whereas the version they were considering that night had increased the allowable number of signs to two per entrance. Between William Street and Nickels Arcade along State Street, he observed, there were seven doors, which meant 14 potential sandwich board signs, not to mention the numerous bike racks, parking meters, and street signs along that stretch.

Kunselman stated that the change from two signs per building to two per entrance was a substantial one. He wondered if it was a substantial enough change that it would need to be considered as an additional first reading. He said he did not feel the change had been thought through very well. He was concerned that the result would be too many signs and that it would result in a pedestrian-unfriendly environment.

Kunselman also expressed specific concerns about spring-loaded, wind-resistant signs, drawing an analogy between them and branches along a trail in the woods – when the person in front of you walks ahead and pulls back branches so that they snap back.

Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city, took the podium to answer questions from Kunselman. The change from two signs per building to two per entrance, she said, had emerged as the result of a public meeting held the previous week. She gave the example of Kerrytown, which was a very large building with multiple entrances. It did not seem reasonable to limit the entire building to just two signs. She noted that there was also a limitation of one sign per business.

Speaking specifically to Kunselman’s example of State Street between William and Nickels Arcade, she noted that Bivouac has three entrances and could not – because of the limit of one per business – put a sign at each of those doors. She also pointed out that some of those doors are not primary entrances. She indicated that they had not provided updated information about the situation in other cities with respect to sandwich board signs, because they had been responding to a sense of urgency that the ordinance revision be considered in time for the summer commercial season.

When asked if the staff had met with the Center for Independent Living, Rampson indicated that they had not – meetings the previous week had been limited to stakeholders within the downtown area.

Kunselman then raised a question he’d also asked at the previous meeting of the council, about the businesses outside the DDA district contracting with a business inside the DDA district. Could an outside-the-district business place a sign using a permit obtained by an inside-the-district business? Responding to Kunselman’s question, city attorney Stephen Postema allowed that the ordinance would create “a market” for businesses to do that. He said that would have to be addressed if and when it came up.

Kunselman expressed concern about the fact that the ordinance was designed just for the DDA district and cautioned that businesses like the Pastry Peddler or Blimpie Burger would not be able to use such signs, as they are located outside the district boundary. He cautioned that the city needed to be careful with “how we play favorites.”

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) indicated that he was generally supportive of the ordinance revision, but that he had concerns. He was not so much concerned about the number of signs in and of itself, he said, but rather about the signs in conjunction with tables and chairs for sidewalk dining areas, and their location adjacent to handicapped parking spots. He did not feel that the proposed ordinance had received enough deliberation and consultation with the disability community.

He asked what the minimum regulation was for clearance as stipulated by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rampson told him it was 6 feet. Asked by Rapundalo how that requirement was policed, Rampson said it would be accomplished similarly to the way that sidewalk occupancy permits are already enforced, namely by regular walk-throughs by community standards officers. She noted that the signs are supposed to be removed from the sidewalk every day.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) noted that when the ordinance had been approved at its first reading, the council had asked specifically that the disability community be engaged and she wondered why it was being brought back before that had happened. Rampson answered that staff had felt the ADA issue had been addressed through two requirements: (i) a 6-foot clearance from the building face, and (ii) an 18-inch clearance from the curb.

Higgins indicated that she was hoping for a postponement, and Rapundalo actually moved for the postponement, saying that time should be taken to sit down with the Center for Independent Living. He asked that photographs be taken, preferably from above, and that images be superimposed with sandwich signs,  people, and tables and chairs to test out if it actually works.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated that he did not feel it was necessary to postpone consideration of the ordinance. He noted that it had been subject to considerable public discussion, and suggested that the Center for Independent Living might be consulted in a way that would “ratify” the ordinance. It was not a fresh subject, he said, and there had been opportunity for input. He observed that post-passage modification could be undertaken if the ordinance was determined to be deficient.

Hohnke stated that he felt the council had some responsibility to move things along at a reasonable pace. He noted that the ordinance as written is compliant with the ADA. He also observed that there are already sandwich boards in use [counter to existing ordinances]. He said he thought it was unlikely that they would see a significant proliferation of signs.

Like Taylor, Hohnke said they could make adjustments as necessary. He observed that any ordinance can pose potential problems, but that did not mean those problems would actually materialize. He noted that when the backyard chicken ordinance was considered, people feared that everyone would have backyard chickens, but that did not happen.

City of Ann Arbor CFO Tom Crawford confers with Marcia Higgins (Ward 2).

Higgins countered that the Center for Independent Living had addressed the council and asked to be involved. The council had given clear direction, Higgins said, that the CIL would be involved and that had not happened. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) agreed with Taylor and Hohnke, saying that there had been adequate time for public discussion. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said he agreed with Higgins and that the council should take two weeks as a postponement, saying that he was concerned about the process. His concerns were not just on behalf of the mobility-impaired community, but also about the site- and hearing-impaired communities.

Responding to the concerns of Higgins, Rapundalo and Derezinski about the involvement of the disability community, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that when the task force had been formed to address a revision to the sign ordinance, a member of the accessibility commission had participated with that body. Although the original ordinance had been crafted to address signs, and the current ordinance was instead a revision to the sidewalk occupancy ordinance, she said, the ordinance before the council that night thoughtfully included the consideration from the sign ordinance. She offered that the sight-impaired community had not been unheard.

Rapundalo, responding to Briere, said he appreciated that kind of input, but that had been a single representative on a task force and not the Center for Independent Living or the commission on disability issues as a body.

Hohnke, responding to Derezinki’s remark about taking two weeks for a postponement, noted that the next council meeting is actually in three weeks, and that factoring in the 10-day requirement stipulated by the city charter before the ordinance could take effect, he cautioned that the summer season would be well underway.

Mayor John Hieftje agreed with Hohnke on that point, saying that they were imagining the “worst that can happen.” He indicated he was willing to let the ordinance be enacted, and was against postponement. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) also argued against postponing the ordinance, saying that the merchants had been pleading with the council for quite some time.

Outcome: The motion to postpone the sidewalk occupancy ordinance revision that would allow the use of sandwich board signs failed, with support only from Derezinski, Rapundalo, Kunselman, and Higgins. Council then continued deliberations on the ordinance.

Deliberating again on the ordinance itself, Higgins came back to the issue of enforceability. She contended that everybody knows there is not 6 feet of walkable space on the sidewalks, and she indicated she did not have a lot of confidence that the city’s handicapped citizens were going to be well served by the ordinance.

Smith said that addressing the “pinching down” of the sidewalk would be complaint driven. She then suggested that a little crowdedness might not be a bad thing, citing the wisdom of Yogi Berra, who said “Nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded.” Derezinski said he agreed with Smith, saying that he had wanted to delay the ordinance, but did not want to hold it up permanently. However he admonished his colleagues to “remember your arguments. If it goes south, we’ll get the complaints.”

Outcome: The resolution to approve the sidewalk occupancy ordinance revision that would allow the use of sandwich board signs passed, with dissent from Rapundalo and Higgins.

Mutually Beneficial Committee

Before the council was a resolution initiated by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) that acknowledged the DDA’s resolution on May 5, 2010 to pay the city $2 million. The DDA’s resolution had been the result of a term sheet that a “working group” of councilmembers and DDA board members had created to serve as a basis for the renegotiation of a parking agreement between the city and the DDA.

The “working group” approach, which began out of public view in January 2010, reflected a departure from the publicly declared mechanism that the two bodies had enacted to discuss the parking agreement – the appointment of two “mutually beneficial” committees. The fact that the discussions took place out of public view, and in a way that was inaccessible to all members of the DDA board, had sparked dissent at the DDA board meeting when the $2 million was authorized.

In the course of council deliberations on Monday, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) posed the question of whether the council even needed a DDA resolution in order to move the money to the city.

Mutually Beneficial Committee: Public Comment

Ann Arbor DDA board member Jennifer S. Hall addressed the council during public commentary time to clarify the comments she had made recently at the DDA board meeting when that body had authorized a $2 million payment to the city. [Hall voted against the payment.] Hall said she was sorry if the anger and emotion of her remarks at the DDA board meeting had obscured the reasons why she had voted against the payment. She stated that she was not opposed to the $2 million transfer. She had always contended, she said, that the payment should be made in exchange for some specific benefit to the downtown area. In addition, she said, it was important that the reason for the transfer arise out of a public discussion between the city and the DDA.

Up to this point, she said, she did not feel that either of those requirements have been met, and that was the reason she voted against the $2 million payment. Hall pointed to the framework for the public discussions that had been in place between the city and the DDA for over a year. She said that it was her expectation both as a board member and as a citizen that the city-DDA discussions would take place publicly, and that her expectations were based on specific reasons she had given at the DDA board meeting. She indicated that the response to her concerns about public process had been to place on her the burden of finding out when the meetings were to be held. [At the board meeting, fellow board member Roger Hewitt had asked Hall if she had inquired about when the meetings were to take place or had indicated any interest in participating.]

Hall continued, saying that in her view, she should not have to ask for the information but rather that the information should have been there for the taking for anyone who wanted it. She commended Briere and Taylor for bringing forward the council resolution that night, specifying that the meetings of the city council’s mutually beneficial committee would be officially noticed for the public and that meeting reports would be provided to the council.

Hall told the council that she had tried to convince the DDA’s partnerships committee to bring a resolution to the full board making more clear that the mutually beneficial committee of the DDA was a standing committee of the board, with the expectation that its activities would conform to the standard of openness enjoyed by other standing committees.

Hall’s attempt to define the DDA’s mutually beneficial committee clearly as a standing committee, she said, was intended to prevent a redefinition of what the committee actually is – it had recently been recast from a committee to a “working group.” She encouraged councilmembers to support Briere and Taylor’s resolution and said that it would help restore her trust that the city and the DDA would be able to work out a mutually beneficial arrangement.

Part of the term sheet that the city and the DDA will discuss includes a proposal for the DDA to assume responsibility for enforcement of parking codes. Currently the parking codes are enforced by community standards officers, who are members of the city’s AFSCME union.

Nicholas Nightwine, spoke on behalf of the Local 369 AFSCME union on the issue of privatization and the contracting out of work in violation of their union contract. Specifically, he addressed the possibility that parking code enforcement would become the responsibility of Ann Arbor’s DDA. It is community standards officers’ job to provide that enforcement, he said. He questioned why the council would give away union work. He cited the collective bargaining agreement for AFSCME, Article 13, which specifies that no work will be contracted out when union workers are able to perform the tasks. He stated that the possible deal with the DDA on parking enforcement is a violation of the bargaining agreement and said that the AFSCME union would fight it with all legal means. He admonished the council to respect the hard work of the community standards officers.

Mutually Beneficial Committee: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who sponsored the original resolution – and who was subsequently joined by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) in crafting the language in the resolution – led off deliberations by summarizing some of the history involved.

Over the last year, she said, the city council and the DDA had agreed it would be valuable to discuss the future of parking revenues. The city and the DDA had a contract, she reminded everyone, and that contract specified that $10 million would be paid by the DDA to the city over the course of 10 years, starting in 2005. The city had an option to withdraw up to $2 million in any given year. Over the first five years, she said, the city had withdrawn all of the money.

In that context, she said, the two bodies – the city council and the DDA – had considered it a good idea to start renegotiating the contract. The council had appointed a mutually beneficial committee and the DDA board had done the same, she said. “For reasons that escape me,” she said, “they did not meet.” And so, she continued, the contract was not renegotiated. Instead, she said, individual members from each body felt that it was imperative that the situation be addressed, and so a “working group” had come out with some talking points [the term sheet]. That had resulted in a vote at the DDA for a $2 million transfer payment.

However, the DDA’s resolution did not revise the contract into the future, which left the question open of what happens next year. That’s why the council needed to pass this resolution, she said, to re-create the mutually beneficial committee of the city council and to express the council’s desire that the committee should meet to discuss the terms of the parking agreement and that the details be worked out. It was important that the details be worked out in a timely fashion – by Oct. 31, 2010, if not by the end of the fiscal year. It was also important, she said, that the details be worked out as openly as possible. She noted that this was also what the DDA was asking for.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked Briere if she intended the resolution to appoint members of the committee. Briere indicated she felt it was the mayor’s purview to make the appointments. Taylor, for his part, said that he was pleased to bring the resolution to the council, and that he wished to emphasize the part of the resolution expressing thanks to the DDA.

Taylor characterized the term sheet as something that would be tested “through the crucible of conversation” over the rest of the year. If the provisions of the term sheet proved wise, he said, they’ll be adopted and if not, then not. The parts of the resolution that addressed open meetings and transparency, he said, were consistent with something that a constituent had told him and that had stuck with him regarding the expertise and knowledge that existed in the community. There’s so much creativity and skill in the community at large, he said, and it was unwise to leave that “on the table.”

Mutually Beneficial Committee: Redaction of Transparency

Yet Taylor expressed his view that the openness and transparency was bundled into the fact that it would be a committee and the explicit reference to openness and transparency was redundant. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), followed up by thanking Taylor for the last point about redundancy. He indicated he was generally supportive of the resolution but was concerned that the language about open and transparent meetings was redundant. He felt that it implied some kind of less-than-transparent conduct has already occurred. [Editor's note: The Chronicle has thoroughly documented that less-than-transparent conduct, in fact, did occur.] He proposed an amendment striking that language.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) asked the city’s attorney, Stephen Postema, if a council committee could be subject to the Open Meetings Act (OMA). Postema indicated to Derezinski that it was not the OMA, but rather a council resolution [from 1991] that was the “operative document.” [It requires city committees to adhere to the OMA to the best of their abilities.]

Higgins indicated that this led her to several questions, among them: What is the purpose of the committee? Was it to negotiate a contract? What was the charge to the committee? She indicated she did not see how those questions were addressed in the resolution.

Mayor John Hieftje brought the conversation back to the issue of the amendments proposed by Rapundalo that stripped out the explicit references to open meetings and transparency. Hieftje indicated he would support those amendments.

Outcome: The amendments to the mutually beneficial committee resolution that removed language referring to openness and transparency were approved, with dissent from Briere, Kunselman, and Anglin.

Mutually Beneficial Committee: Appointment of Committee, Tabling Motion

Stephen Kunselman indicated that he felt he was perhaps the most confused person of all at the table. Given the prior existence of the council’s mutually beneficial committee, he said, he wondered why Hieftje did not simply appoint the third committee member. [The council's committee consisted of Carsten Hohnke, Margie Teall, and Leigh Greden, but Kunselman defeated Greden in the August 2009 Democratic primary election.]

Stephen Rapundalo then offered his view that the council had not actually created or appointed a committee, citing some “due diligence” work he’d done examining the council’s history from January 2009. He concluded that the only action that the council had taken with respect to the negotiations with the DDA was to pass a resolution in January 2009 calling on the DDA to begin a conversation.

Sandi Smith advised Rapundalo that there had, in fact, been a committee created with Carsten Hohnke, Margie Teall, and Leigh Greden. The city clerk, Jackie Beaudry, confirmed that Smith was correct. [Screenshot of publicly accessible Legistar search of council records that citizens can perform themselves via the web.]

Conferring before the meeting were (at right) city clerk Jackie Beaudry, accounting services manager Karen Lancaster, and Mary Fales from the city attorney’s office.

Marcia Higgins pointed to the fact that the mutually beneficial committee had not been included on a list of council committee appointments [handled in November 2009 by Rapundalo] for that council year. But she characterized the failure to include the mutually beneficial committee on the council’s list of committee assignments as an “oversight.”

Based on that new understanding of the historical facts, Rapundalo offered the view that the council did not then need to create a committee if one already existed. Taylor offered his opinion that the November listing of committee assignments amounted to an “exclusive articulation” of committees. If the list didn’t include the committee, he claimed, the committee ceased to exist.

Taylor allowed that he had no problem with using language in the resolution that would indicate the council was now “re-creating” the committee. However, the language of the resolution was not altered to reflect a re-creation of the committee.

A motion was brought and passed to add the committee appointments to the language of the resolution: Hohnke, Teall and Taylor.

Having been appointed to the committee, Hohnke indicated that he was unclear about its function. Taylor said he felt that the charge to the committee was sufficiently clear, namely that it would use the term sheet as a basis for the conversations that would unfold over the next several months. Sabra Briere highlighted the next-to last resolved clause, which stressed the need for staff involvement, saying that would be important to the committee in meeting its charge.

Hohnke then made a motion to table, citing his unclarity about the specific task of the committee on which he was to serve.

Hohnke reiterated his concern that the charge to the committee was not specified in enough detail, but stressed that he also understood the importance of beginning discussions with the DDA. Taylor reiterated his view that the resolution did specify the committee’s task with sufficient clarity, pointing out that the resolution indicated there would be reports back to the council on a monthly basis as to what is going on.

Outcome: Only Kunselman and Anglin supported the motion to table the mutually beneficial resolution, and so the council returned to deliberations on the resolution. [.txt file of resolution as passed]

Mutually Beneficial Committee: The Committee’s Charge

Hieftje then sketched out the concept behind the DDA’s idea of parking enforcement. He described it as a concept akin to an “ambassador.” He offered his view, however, that he felt it would be easier to train the existing community standards officers to enforce parking codes in an ambassador-like fashion as opposed to assigning responsibility for the DDA to contract with a third party to do so.

Hieftje also expressed some concerns about expectations created by the resolution that might not be met. With regard to the monthly meetings, he noted that the DDA board does not typically meet in August. He suggested that it might be worth contemplating the substitution of the word “regular” for “monthly.” Briere responded to Hieftje by saying that the reference to “monthly” is from the DDA’s own resolution.

Higgins asked who the members of the DDA’s mutually beneficial committee were. Smith ticked off the membership: Russ Collins, Roger Hewitt, Gary Boren, and herself. Higgins then expressed concern about Smith sitting on another body’s committee that was having discussions with the city council.

Smith was quick to respond to Higgins’ remarks by indicating that if there was a strong feeling on the part of the city council, then she would resign her committee membership on the DDA’s mutually beneficial committee. However, she told Higgins that she’d thought about the issue a lot. Smith said she felt she had an opportunity to provide insight into both organizations. She also said that up to that point, she had helped the two organizations get past some historical hard feelings – she characterized it as a “clash of cultures.”

Smith said the DDA may or may not be interested in doing any of the items listed on the term sheet. Smith then floated the idea that both the city council and the DDA board would meet together as entire bodies.

Higgins picked up on Smith’s offer to resign from the committee by indicating she wanted to request that Smith not be a member of the DDA’s mutually beneficial committee. Rapundalo echoed Higgins’ request, saying he meant no disrespect to Smith. However, he said that if she were removed from that committee, he would be more comfortable.

Hieftje noted that Smith brought a great deal of knowledge to the work. And Teall echoed Hieftje’s sentiments that Smith’s skills and knowledge would be useful. Hieftje also suggested that the work going forward should not be thought of as a negotiation but rather a conversation.

Hieftje then alluded to the recent history of how the term sheet had been brought forward – first introduced at the DDA’s operations committee, and then to the full DDA board. At those meetings, he said that comments have been made about the history of the parking agreement that were not consistent with the “recollections of councilmembers” who had participated in the negotiations in 2005. Hieftje said he just wanted to get that on the record. He characterized some of the statements made during public commentary about the history of the parking negotiations as bearing “little relationship with the truth.” [He was apparently alluding to the comments of former DDA board member Rene Greff, but did not name her. She was the public speaker at the meeting who discussed the history of the 2005 parking agreement.]

Kunselman came back to his point about the basic framework as expressed in the term sheet. In particular, he was concerned about the language referring to the DDA being given primary responsibility for enforcement of parking codes. “It creates a shadow government,” he warned. He contended that community standards officers are meeting the needs of the community.

Teall countered that it was not necessary to agree with all of the language expressed in the framework. There are details that have to be worked out yet, she said.

Kunselman clarified that it was the entire purpose of the framework that he took issue with, saying it took the city in the direction of transferring responsibility for parking enforcement throughout the city to the DDA. Kunselman declared, “I will not abdicate my responsibility to a third-party contractor for the health, safety and welfare [of our community].” The council would not be doing that on his vote, he declared.

Higgins then offered her perspective that it was not necessary to agree with everything in the term sheet. She indicated that Smith had told her that not everyone on the DDA agreed with everything in the term sheet, either. Higgins seemed to indicate that this was a natural consequence of the fact that the conversations of the working group had not been “sanctioned” by either the city council or the DDA. She indicated that she would be supporting the resolution.

Taylor, arguing for the resolution, noted that the term sheet speaks in generalities and that the specifics would get “whacked out” in the course of conversation. On Hieftje’s suggestion, the word “discussion” was inserted in place of “agreement” to indicate what the term sheet would underpin. That suggestion was accepted as a “friendly” amendment by Briere and Taylor.

Outcome: The resolution on the council’s mutually beneficial committee was unanimously approved.

Mutually Beneficial Committee: DDA as Organ of the City

While the council spends its time focus almost exclusively on the general fund budget, all of the various funds included in the whole of the city budget – from the city’s solid waste fund, to the DDA funds, to the AATA funds – total around $342 million. And when the council votes each year on the budget, it’s voting to approve that entire amount of expenditures.

During the deliberations on tabling the resolution on the mutually beneficial committee, Stephen Kunselman departed from the issue of the tabling motion that was under discussion and posed a fairly dramatic question, which can be paraphrased:

Does the city council have the authority to move money from the DDA’s parking fund to the city’s general fund, without consulting the DDA?

During deliberations, Kunselman indicated that he did not feel the DDA had a position of strength from which to tell the city what they would like to do. He stressed the fact that the city owned the parking system. He weighed in against the idea that there would be a “shadow government” run by the DDA.

Sandi Smith responded to Kunselman by indicating that the original 2002 parking agreement between the city and the DDA did, in fact, grant to the DDA the authority to manage the parking system and that there were currently five years left in the contract. [It was subsequently modified in 2005.] Marcia Higgins then wondered aloud, asking if Kunselman and Smith’s conversation really related to the tabling motion. And the council returned to the issue at hand.

While the topic of the city’s authority with respect to the DDA budget was not explored further at the council meeting, it’s worth reviewing a piece of history from 2007, when the council passed its FY 2008 budget. That year, one of the budget resolutions approved by the council reached into the DDA’s budget and reduced an allocation for capital expenditures within the DDA’s TIF (tax-increment financing) fund. [The city calls this fund 0003.] From the May 21, 2007 city council minutes:

[FY 2008 budget] Amendment 11
Resolved, that the Downtown Development Authority fund (0003) expenditure budget be decreased by $1,600,000 to reduce the appropriated reserves for future capital construction projects.

On a voice vote, the Mayor [John Hieftje] declared the motion carried with one dissenting vote made by Councilmember [Joan] Lowenstein.

Based on that vote, it appears that the city council has in the past asserted some direct control over the DDA’s budget.

FY 2011 Budget

In addition to eight separate budget amendments to the main budget resolution, the council entertained an independent resolution that replaced a previous council resolution governing how the park maintenance and improvements millage was allocated, as well as one that increased the parking fine rate schedule.

FY 2011 Budget: Parks Maintenance Millage

Added the same day as the council meeting was a resolution to replace a previous council resolution, plus several amendments that address the administration of the park maintenance and capital improvements millage.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) explained the rationale behind rescinding and replacing the entire resolution – to clean it up so that it’s more readable. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) questioned why it had not appeared on the agenda until that day. Higgins indicated that she had not yet been supplied with a software patch that would allow her to open certain documents on her computer and that the discussion had unfolded over the course of 10 days and they simply wanted to make sure they had got it exactly right. She apologized for the fact that it had appeared late on the agenda.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked what the budget impact would be of postponing the resolution for two weeks. City administrator Roger Fraser indicated that the effect is in the recommended budget. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) assured his colleagues that the park advisory commission –  on which he serves as a city council ex officio member without voting privileges – had had a full discussion of the matter.

Higgins indicated that part of the reason for considering it separately from the budget was so that people could more easily find it. Summarizing what the effect of the resolution was, Fraser indicated that the previous resolution had entailed that the natural area preservation (NAP) program would automatically be given a 3% increase in its budget each year.

The resolution before the council that night, Fraser said, removes that provision – they don’t get an increase, he said. Taylor cautioned that his understanding was that the revenue to NAP in this first year was more in the vein of a rollback and would not remain simply flat.

The text of the new resolution indicates that the 3% increases NAP has enjoyed would be eliminated, going back to the first year of the millage.

3. The Natural Area Preservation Program budget be established at a minimum of $700,000 for first year of the millage budget, and that its budget be reflective of its proportionate share of the increase or decrease in revenue recognized from the Park Maintenance and Capital Improvements Millage proceeds;

Discussion at the city’s park advisory commission meeting of April 20, 2010 also supports Taylor’s contention. From The Chronicle’s report of that meeting:

Scott Rosencrans asked how the cuts to the Natural Area Preservation program (NAP) would affect its work. When Tim Berla commented that it wasn’t really a cut – it was simply not an increase – Sam Offen clarified that it was, in fact, a cut of more than 3%. The proposal called for rolling back the 3% increases NAP has received each year since the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage was passed, so it’s actually a 12% budget reduction, he said, taking them back to their 2007 budget level of about $695,000

Outcome: The elimination of the automatic 3% increase for the natural area preservation program was unanimously approved.

FY 2011 Budget: Parking Fine Schedule

Before the council was a resolution on the parking fine schedule that had previously been postponed from the Jan. 19 and April 19 council meetings. The resolution increased the schedule of parking fines for the city. Last week, Carsten Hohnke had suggested a further revision that addressed how loading zones were handled.

Instead of pursuing an option that had been suggested by city staff to create a loading zone permitting system, the fine for improper loading zone parking would simply be increased from $35 to $45. Hohnke characterized it as a way to avoid disrupting a system that was working okay.

A discussion unfolded based on a statement by Hohnke, pointed out by Stephen Kunselman, about the difference between a discounted rate for early payment versus the end result of applying the discount. For example, if the fine is $45 with a $10 discount, that results in a discounted rate of $35. The chart used by the city includes a column head that simply indicates “discount,” which is properly interpreted as “discounted rate” not “discount.”

Outcome: The parking fine schedule was unanimously approved.

FY 2011 Budget: Amendment on Safety Services

Margie Teall (Ward 4) read the first budget amendment – it identified three major new revenue items – a $2 million payment from Ann Arbor DDA, $952,000 of state shared revenue that the city administrator’s budget did not project, and $625,000 in increased parking fine revenues. A $62,000 reduction in the fire department capital expense budget brought the total of extra money in the budget due to that amendment to $3.639 million. The first budget amendment used $1,585,783 to pay for 15 police positions that the originally proposed budget had eliminated. The amendment also used $1,509,620 to pay for 15 firefighter positions that were to be eliminated. That left five firefighter positions still to be cut.

Mayor John Hieftje called the two chiefs of the safety services departments – Barnett Jones (police) and Dominick Lanza (fire) to the podium. Hieftje elicited from Jones confirmation that the impact of the budget amendment would leave current staffing levels unchanged.

The conversation with the fire chief was somewhat less straightforward, given that the amendment still left five positions in the department that would be eliminated. However, the mayor was able to get the fire chief to confirm that even with the reduced staffing, the fire department would still be able to provide four firefighters on the scene in rapid response and could later provide 18 to the scene.

Hieftje then said that he would ideally like to see the situation worked out so that there are no actual layoffs. The fire chief indicated that with the reorganization he had in mind – he started on the job around two months ago – there would be a net loss of three positions and there were six or seven retirements that could factor into the equation. Credit for military service time was an issue that would also factor in, he said.

Rapid response standards for firefighting include putting four firefighters on the scene in four minutes – like these four Ann Arbor firefighters, who were among several attending the city council meeting. The yellow sheets are council meeting agendas. Right to left: Mark Hanselman, Rob Porter, Tilvis Bolen, and Matt Gaken.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) called the expenditure for the police and fire positions a “right and proper” use of funds that had resulted from the transfer from the DDA. He offered thanks to the council’s DDA colleagues. He said he appreciated the added flexibility that the council had, which the city administrator did not have when he prepared his budget.

Hieftje followed up on Hohnke’s comment about the lack of flexibility that the city administrator had, contending that Fraser had no way of knowing that the $2 million would be forthcoming, or that the city council would approve the parking fine increase.

With respect to the changes in state shared revenue projections that the council was using, Hieftje said the current state budget proposal in the state Senate calls for only a slight decrease in state shared revenue and the House version calls for a slight increase. Based on conversations he’s had with the city’s lobbyist, Kirk Profit, over the last few weeks, Hieftje said the council is optimistic that state shared revenues will remain constant instead of getting cut in half as assumed in the administrator’s budget. Hieftje contended that it is “with more than hope” that state shared revenue projections are thought to remain the same.

Picking up on the theme of hope, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that she was “not a big fan of speculative budgeting.” However, she allowed that there is no other way to do a budget – you have to imagine what the revenue will be and you have to imagine what the expenditures will. It’s the same situation the council is always in, she said: Many of the revenue streams are tentative. She noted that the the budget looks better than it looked two months ago. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she was pleased with the amendment.

Outcome: The amendment was unanimously approved.

FY 2011 Budget: Amendment on Human Services

The expenditure on police and fire positions dropped the amount of extra money identified in the budget to $543,587.

In the second budget amendment, also read aloud by Margie Teall (Ward 4), another $260,000 of that was expended in order to add to the human services budget. That brought human services spending in the city back to the same levels as the previous year.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) indicated that she had co-sponsored the amendment, because the two things she had heard from constituents that cause them the most concern were safety and human services issues. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) also indicated strong support for the amendment. Mayor John Hieftje pointed out that Ann Arbor is one of only two cities in the state that funds human services.

Outcome: The amendment was unanimously approved.

FY 2011 Budget: Amendment on Parks Mowing/Parking

The third budget amendment finished off all but around $500 of the extra money identified in the first budget amendment. It called for increased mowing ($138,000) and trimming ($120,000) in parks, and eliminated the possibility of football parking at Allmendinger and Frisinger parks, which reduced projected revenues by $25,000.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) was not convinced that mowing and trimming in parks was the best use of the money. She was looking ahead to another amendment that proposed to undo the proposed de-energizing of some streetlights. She said she saw it as a safety versus shagginess-in-the-parks issue. She proposed altering the amendment to eliminate the mowing and trimming expenditures, but left the idea of no parking in the parks intact. Her motion was seconded by Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated that he would not support that amendment. He said he had heard  from a lot his constituents about parks. He also pointed to the fact that he coaches a kids soccer team and quipped that there were “dandelions on the pitch!” Briere confirmed that the city was already on a 19-day cycle, which Sue McCormick, the city’s public services area administrator, said was the city’s first experience in a spring season with that long a mowing cycle.

McCormick also said that the weather this year had meant a very early spring – the city was currently already engaged in its third cycle of mowing. Smith’s proposed alteration of the amendment failed.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated that he had a vague memory about proposals for parking cars in the parks on football Saturdays and said he wanted to eliminate the idea for all future consideration. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated that it had been discussed in the past but that this year was the first time it’s actually appeared in a proposed budget. Mayor John Hieftje then contended that the city’s park advisory commission had recommended it.

In fact, the idea of football parking in Frisinger had some city council history last fall. From The Chronicle’s Oct. 5, 2009 meeting report:

Placed on the agenda on Oct. 2, with sponsorship from Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5), was a resolution that would have allowed the city to generate revenue from parking cars in Frisinger Park on home football Saturdays. Frisinger Park is just south of East Stadium Boulevard between Woodbury and Iroquois. It was pulled off the agenda on Oct. 5.

Here’s how the resolution read:

Whereas, Frisinger Park is well situated to provide special event parking, in particular for University of Michigan home football games; and

Whereas, The City is providing home football game parking at other City-owned facilities, including its facility on S. Industrial and these parking revenues are a new source of funds for the City which is striving to maintain high quality level of service for its citizens;

Resolved, That the City Administrator establish a parking program for University of Michigan home football days at Frisinger Park, including the option for pre-game/post-game tailgating.

The football parking proposal was an idea that came in the “turning over every stone” approach that Sandi Smith (Ward 1) has been taking to find a way to generate the revenue that would go missing if parking meters are not installed in certain neighborhoods near downtown, which is an assumption currently built into the budget for FY 2010 passed by city council.

In deliberations about the extension of the moratorium on installation of parking meters in neighborhoods near downtown – which came later in the meeting – Margie Teall (Ward 4) gave perhaps some insight into why the Frisinger Park parking resolution had been pulled from the agenda. She said she would simply not support football parking in Frisinger Park. The park is located in Ward 4, which she represents.

Kunselman asked if the amendment could be altered to explicitly direct the city administrator to forgo any further future contemplation of parking cars in the parks. The city attorney’s opinion on the matter was that such an amendment would seek effectively to bind the hands of future councils. Picking up on Hieftje’s comment about the park advisory commission, Higgins asked how the commission had the ability to change the use of a park.

Addressing Kunselman’s question about the future of proposals for football parking in the city’s parks, Hieftje said he thought that Fraser had gotten the message. Taylor then repeated a defense of the park advisory commission that he had given at a previous meeting – the commission had had a difficult task and they had suggested that the football parking be only on a pilot basis. He said he did not think that a single one of the commissioners was enthusiastic about the idea – it had been the result of the severe budgetary constraints. [Taylor serves, along with Mike Anglin, on the park advisory commission as an ex officio non-voting member.]

Outcome: The amendment was approved, with dissent from Smith.

FY 2011 Budget: Construction Contractor Fees

The fourth budget amendment addressed fee increases, with proceeds going into the construction code fund. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) had proposed the amendment. She said the test for fee increases was whether they provided an increased benefit. She’d been told the fee increases provide increased revenues, but that all by itself she didn’t feel this was a worthy enough reason. She indicated that the construction fund balance was not high due to a lack of construction activity. The fee increases wouldn’t result in improving things for contractors, she said.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) asked Sumedh Bahl, the interim community services area administrator, about the history of the fund balance in the construction code fund was and what it paid for. Bahl clarified that it pays for construction inspections.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) would later elicit the history of the construction code fund. It had been established in the wake of a lawsuit filed by the Home Builders Association. The outcome of that lawsuit was that the city isolated all the costs and expenses for construction activity services. It was established in 2005 and in that year a $650,000 transfer was made into the fund. The fund balance that year was $1.1 million.

In 2006, a $260,000 transfer was made and the fund balance was $1.3 million. Thereafter, $100,000 transfers from the general fund have been made. The $100,000 transfers will continue at least through 2014. In 2007, the fund balance was $1.6 million and in 2008 it was $1.875 million. From this, Sabra Briere concluded that the code fund did not “stand alone.” The fact that the construction code fund balance stood at $0.8 million at the end of 2009 indicated to her that it’s a fund that fluctuates.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5)  indicated that he would not support the amendment because he felt it was “not burdensome” to contractors. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) agreed, pointing to the current rate of $1 per year paid by plumbing contractors.

Outcome: The amendment failed, with support only from Briere, Kunselman, Anglin.

FY 2011 Budget: Rental Housing Inspection Fees

The fifth budget amendment proposed would have eliminated increases in rental housing inspection fees. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) offered the amendment, saying she took to heart the idea of not using prior year’s fund balances to offset increases, which the amendment would do. But she noted that planning services did not intend to invest the additional revenues from the proposed increases in increased levels of service for rental housing inspection.

Briere noted that fees had been increased last year as well as the year before. She observed that rental housing inspections are required by law on a 30-month cycle and she indicated that the quality and the number of the inspections would not be affected by the increases. The purpose of the increases as they had been explained to her, she said, was simply to generate additional revenue. She indicated that the fees are meant to reflect the cost of doing business.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she had spoken with representatives from the Home Builders Association and said they were actually quite pleased with the level of service for rental housing inspection, which had been increased. Mayor John Hieftje suggested that the idea was perhaps not to add to the level of service but simply to maintain it. The city administrator, Roger Fraser, said that in general the city took the position that the fees needed to recover the cost of providing service, and that historically the general fund had been subsidizing rental housing inspection activities.

Outcome: The amendment failed, with support only from Briere and Kunselman.

FY 2011 Budget: Tax Administration Fee

An amendment proposed by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) would have changed the rate at which the tax administration fee for the city is assessed. He reviewed the history of an increase made in 2007 for the FY 2008 budget from 0.81% to a full 1%.

He noted that a request had not been made by the city administrator in the proposed budget for that year. He observed that property owners would benefit. He suggested that the council send a few dollars back to the taxpayers, allowing that the average amount worked out to something like $9 per parcel, which he characterized as “not big bucks.”

As far as the principle of finding revenue to take up the resulting shortfall from the decrease in the administration fee, Kunselman observed that the city administrator had proposed a budget that already dipped into the city’s general fund reserve for $1.5 million.

Kunselman pointed out that the increase made for the FY 2008 budget was not designed to fill holes in the financial services unit budget. In fact, he said, there had been no changes in staffing levels in that unit from 2008 to now – eight FTEs in the assessor’s office and 5.3 FTEs in the treasurer’s office in 2008, compared to eight FTEs in the assessor’s office today and 4.7 FTEs in the treasurer’s office. Now, Kunselman contended, was an appropriate time to send a few dollars back to the taxpayers.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) indicated agreement with Kunselman in general terms, saying he thought it would be a good, albeit symbolic gesture. However, he said he would argue that the level of activities in the financial services office had, in fact, increased due to increased numbers of reviews and appeals. He said he was worried that reducing the fee would not account for the true cost of administering the property tax collections. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) got confirmation from city administrator Roger Fraser that of the cities statewide that assess the fee, without exception they assess at the 1% level.

Mayor John Hieftje indicated that he would be willing to let his $9 sit there – he compared the amount to three ice cream cones at the Washtenaw Dairy.

Outcome: The amendment failed, with support only from Briere, Kunselman, and Anglin.

FY 2011 Budget: Parking Fine Schedule

The basis for one of the budget amendments had been created when council approved the parking fine schedule earlier in the evening. It had provided for an increased fine for improper parking in a loading zone, instead of implementing a new loading zone permitting system.

The amendment eliminated the loading zone permitting program and increased the projected revenue budget line for parking fines by $25,700. City treasurer Matthew Horning confirmed that he was quite confident in the projected additional revenues of $25,700 – it was based on FY 2008 and the actual number of tickets written.

Outcome: The amendment was unanimously approved.

FY 2011 Budget: Streetlights

An amendment proposed by Sandi Smith (Ward 1) called for the city to abandon its plan to de-energize some of the city’s streetlights. The move to turn off some of the lights is intended to save $120,000. Smith said she talked to a DTE representative who had said they would tag every pole and put a sign on it saying that it had been de-energized by order of the city council.

She said she had tried to find savings in the budget. Her attempt earlier in the meeting to swap trimming/mowing in the parks for streetlight funding was not supported by the majority of her colleagues.  She suggested that one place savings might be found would be in the LED streetlights the council had authorized for purchase earlier in the evening. Multiplied by 800 lights, $107 per light resulted in more than $80,000 savings, she said.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) worried about the possibility of de-energizing streetlights. He thought it was perhaps a highway exception to general governmental immunity. Public services area administrator Sue McCormick noted that there was variability in lighting already – some residential areas have no lighting, some of them had lighting just at the street corners. She also noted that the areas where the de-energized lights were proposed were already lighted at twice the standard. Mayor John Hieftje asked if it was possible to get a demo.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he was apprehensive about the designation of certain areas as “overlit.” He indicated that there were certain areas of the city classified as overlit that he did not find to be overlit. Hieftje indicated he would not support the amendment but would support a demonstration. He said he was concerned about the $120,000 that would need to come out of the city’s reserve, if the city did not go through with turning off some of the streetlights.

Outcome: The amendment to keep all the streetlights on failed, with support only from Briere, Derezinski, Kunselman, and Smith.

FY 2011 Budget: Coda – What About FY 2012?

In some concluding remarks about the budget, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said the council would probably feel pretty good about what they’ve done, having saved jobs. But he wondered what the projected deficit might be for FY 2012. Responding to the question, chief financial officer Tom Crawford put that number at $5 million. After the meeting, Crawford clarified for The Chronicle that the projected deficit of $5 million for FY 2012 includes as assumptions: (i) an additional $2 million from the Ann Arbor DDA, and (ii) reductions in the state shared revenue for FY 2011 and FY 2012 of $1 million each year.

Tom Crawford, the city’s CFO, sits at the ready for council questions.

If the city council’s optimism on state shared revenues are borne out, and those revenues from the state stay at the FY 2010 level, that would translate into just a $3 million deficit for FY 2012, all other things being equal.

Kunselman confirmed with city administrator Roger Fraser that the city’s capital improvements plan did not include a runway extension of the Ann Arbor municipal airport.

Kunselman expressed his thanks to Fraser, city attorney Stephen Postema, and all the staff still in the room, who he said had worked hard to make the budget happen.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he felt the budget as amended was healthy and fiscally responsible. He thanked citizens for their help in particular with the task forces that had kept the Ann Arbor Senior Center and Mack Pool open.

Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Board

Terms of two AATA board members expired on May 1, 2010 – Paul Ajegba and Ted Annis. At the council’s previous meeting, mayor John Hieftje had nominated a replacement for Ajegba: Anya Dale, a Washtenaw County planner who also serves on the city’s environmental commission.

AATA Board: Public Commentary

Speaking to many of the same themes that he had addressed at the most recent meeting of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s board, Tim Hull stated that the AATA did an overall decent job operating the bus system. But he criticized the AATA for having few avenues for public input beyond what is required by law. He called for the creation of a public advisory body for the fixed route system, analogous to the advisory body that advocates for handicapped people – the local advisory commission (LAC).

Hull noted that there is not a single bus that runs after 6:45 p.m. on weekends. He suggested that candidates for the AATA board should answer three questions: (i) Are you committed to expanding input from the community with an advisory board? (ii) Are you committed to using taxpayer funds, paid by Ann Arbor property taxpayers, for transportation services for Ann Arbor taxpayers, not commuters? (iii) Are you in favor of exploring the expansion of night and weekend service? Hull told the council members that they needed to ask these questions.

AATA Board: Council Deliberations

In a final business of the evening, mayor John Hieftje asked for confirmation of Anya Dale to replace Paul Ajegba on the AATA board. Ajegba did not seek re-appointment. Hieftje had nominated Dale at the previous council’s meeting. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that Dale’s position with the county as a planner creates a possible conflict. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that he had received emails on Dale’s nomination with concerns about the number of different commissions on which Dale serves. He added that he felt the process for the nomination should become more transparent.

Chronicle file photo from a recent city council public hearing on The Moravian: Anya Dale

Hieftje indicated that he hoped that Dale would use her position on the environmental commission to create a synergy. Anglin agreed that having expertise and experience with two different bodies would be useful, and gave the example of Sandi Smith (Ward 1) wearing “two hats,” serving on both the city council and the DDA board.

Anglin said he would support this specific nomination, but said he would like to see the council ask in a more effective way: Who would like to serve? Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) weighed in with his support for Dale as a nominee based on his experience when he’d crossed paths with the city council’s liaison to the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS).

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked when the next AATA board meeting was – it’s not until towards the end of June. He asked if it was not possible to postpone the confirmation and have both Dale and Roger Kerson, who was also being nominated that night, come to the council and introduce themselves. [Kerson, who was nominated to replace Ted Annis, is public relations director with the United Auto Workers (UAW). He'd entertained a run for a Ward 5 city council seat in 2008, but ultimately decided not to run.]

Responding to Kunselman on the suggestion to delay, Hieftje conveyed some irritation and said that he would like to see the nomination of Dale confirmed that evening and have a process followed that the council had used for years. He added that Dale rides the bus.

Outcome: Dale was confirmed, with dissent from Briere. Rapundalo left before voting. The nomination for Kerson will come for confirmation at the council’s next meeting.

Liquor Licenses

Before the council was a resolution to approve issuance of a downtown development district liquor license to the New York Pizza Depot. It came before the council on a 2-1 vote from the council’s liquor license review committee. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who chairs that council committee, indicated that he had been the dissenting vote and would not be supporting the issuance of the license. He noted that such licenses are meant to be an economic development tool and that he had tried to make his decisions on such licenses consistent across applications.

Specifically, such licenses are meant to provide a benefit to the community. In the case of the New York Pizza Depot, he contended, the petitioner could not show any anticipated growth in employment due to the issuance of the license. In addition, Rapundalo said, a consideration for issuance was the location – is it unique? The existing density of licenses in the area, he said, did not indicate to him a dire need for an establishment of that kind.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who also serves on the council’s liquor committee, said that Rapundalo had accurately depicted what he’d said at the committee’s meeting. However, he and the council’s other committee member, Mike Anglin (Ward 5), saw the situation differently. Having the license would allow the business to grow, he said, and the applicant had said they did not know if it would result in an increase in the number of employees. He characterized the applicant statement as “candid.”

Derezinski said one reason to grant a license was so as not to disadvantage their establishment in contrast to others. He adduced the analogy of a small town with one lawyer, who starves, but with two lawyers, they both get rich.

Anglin said the applicant had met the criteria for issuance of the license, by making a $75,000 investment in their establishment. Rapundalo allowed that no doubt a license would benefit their business, but reiterated the basis of his concerns, which had to do with consistency in application of the standards. The criteria that Anglin referenced, he said, was for minimum requirements – just because they meet the minimum requirement does not mean they get a license. Rapundalo contrasted New York Pizza Depot with other applicants, who had been able to demonstrate an increase in estimated employment.

Outcome: The issuance of a downtown development district liquor license to New York Pizza Depot was approved, with dissent from Rapundalo.

Water Fund

Funding for maintenance of Argo Dam is paid for out of the city’s drinking water fund. Councilmembers, including the mayor, and city staff have indicated over the course of the last several months that the issue of  dam maintenance funding would be addressed during the normal budgeting process. [Chronicle coverage of  dam maintenance funding was included in the report from the May 16, 2010 Sunday night caucus.]

But the city administrator’s proposed budget kept the funding of dam maintenance in the drinking water fund. Asked by The Chronicle via email to clarify what had happened with the intention to shift the funding of recreational dams out of the drinking water fund, Hieftje wrote in reply:

I have been busy working on solving the Safety Services issues and I am probably not alone on council in having expected the suggestion to move the funding out of water would come from staff. I can think of two reasons it did not.

The departure of Jane [sic] Miller and the settlement with the DNRE that has set discussion of Argo Dam issues on their own timetable. I expect funding sources will be coming up when the issue comes back to council.

Miscellaneous

Typical for any city council meeting are a range of public commentary and communications from councilmembers that do not fit into a neat category.

National Guard and Reserve

For the second successive council meeting, an item has appeared on the council’s agenda that affirms the city’s support of the Michigan Committee for Employer Support of the National Guard and Reserve. And for the second successive meeting there was no representative to receive the proclamation. Hieftje elected to go ahead and read the statement of support. It included a recognition of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.

Uniting Michigan

During his public commentary, Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a Washtenaw County Democrat residing in the 18th state senate district, who had formally filed as a candidate for that seat. He described the 18th district as including the city of Ann Arbor and more than half of Washtenaw County. He stressed the importance of uniting the city itself as well as other cities in Washtenaw County and the entire state of Michigan. He said we must join together to protect society’s most vulnerable populations – senior citizens and the handicapped. He called on the city council to work cooperatively with each other and with other municipalities – not in competition – to bring about true progress by providing jobs and economic development. He stressed the goals of transportation, afffordable housing, healthcare, and education.

Legitimacy of Israel

Henry Herskovitz spoke on the issue of the legitimacy of the state of Israel. He cited remarks made by Rabbi Robert Dobrusin of Ann Arbor’s Beth Israel congregation in 2003 about the right to reject conversation from those who were not willing to predicate discussions on an assumption that the state of Israel was legitimate. Herskovitz also cited a 2007 op-ed piece by Dobrusin published in the Ann Arbor News, that made a similar point. He posed the question of why the rabbi would want to make that question of Israel’s legitimacy off limits. Herskovitz contended that the rabbi could not defend it, and he therefore chose to take it off the table. Herskovitz encouraged people to attend the presentation by BBC correspondent Alan Hunt Hart the following evening at the first United Methodist Church at 7 p.m. and to read Hunt’s book, “Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews.”

Future of Library Lot

Alan Haber told the council that the Community Commons was still on his mind. [Haber, with Alice Ralph, helped co-author a proposal for the future of the Library Lot downtown, called the Community Commons.] He noted that the “heart of Ann Arbor” remains undeveloped. He wondered why the committee charged with the task of overseeing the site’s future had not met recently, and he wondered if the consultant – which the DDA had allocated money for – had been hired.

Parks and Volunteers

During her communications from council, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) recognized all the people who had helped out on the previous Saturday’s Adopt-a-Park program. She indicated that she had participated at Allmendinger Park hauling mulch. She thanked all the volunteers who had helped. Mayor John Hieftje noted that there had been a record turnout.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) alerted the public to the fact that the park advisory commission had been brought up to date about some art to be installed in the Huron River. [Recent Chronicle coverage of William Dennisuk's project and installation.] Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) complimented the residents along Iroquois for being creative in taking it upon themselves to take over trash removal and mowing for a summer for one of their neighborhood parks. She thanked them for their efforts.

In news from the parks and recreation programs, city administrator Roger Fraser told the council that the three city pools were set to open on Saturday, May 29, and at that season passes could be purchased before the opening date at a special rate. On May 12, he reported, the stop log had been removed from the Argo Dam headrace, and it was being gradually refilled.

Local Food

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted that Gov. Jennifer Granholm had declared that week “local food week” and she asked the city to challenge itself to have a look at its procurement processes to see if there were opportunities to source food locally.

Bridges, Trains, Streets

Mayor John Hieftje reported that the deputy U.S. Secretary of Transportation and Congressman John Dingell had paid a visit to Ann Arbor. During a morning meeting, local officials and city staff had shared information with the deputy secretary about the Stadium Boulevard bridges and had made a field trip to the bridges. He noted that the deputy secretary had remarked that there were bridges like that all over the United States, highlighting the fact that federal funding in the form of TIGER 2 grants was extremely competitive.

Nevertheless, Hieftje said, he felt the city had made a strong presentation. Hieftje also reported that at an afternoon meeting they had been joined by Congressman Mark Schauer, representatives of Amtrak and Norfolk Southern railroad as well as the mayor of Dearborn to discuss commuter rail and high-speed rail. Congressman Schauer, Hieftje noted, is on the House transportation committee. Improvements to the railroad tracks that would facilitate high-speed rail, Hieftje pointed out, would also benefit commuter rail.

City administrator Roger Fraser, during his communications to the council, ticked through a number of street resurfacing projects that would be starting soon.

Fraser also called the public’s attention to the meeting on June 8, 2010, on the connector feasibility study. There would be an additional meeting on the Fuller Road Station, with its date not yet certain, he said.

In his progress report on the construction of the new municipal center, Fraser noted that most of the exterior work is done and that radon abatement equipment has been deployed.

Free Speech Not Abridged

In his communications, Hieftje passed along a compliment from the American Civil Liberties Union about the way the city had handled free speech and expression during the May 2 visit to Ann Arbor by President Obama, for the University of Michigan commencement exercises. The ACLU, he said, had had 11 legal observers on site and had complimented the Ann Arbor police department and the Ann Arbor city attorney’s office for ensuring the safety of the 500 demonstrators at Frisinger Park, as well as those at other locations.

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

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

Gwen Nystuen, center, passes out copies of a draft resolution to Karen Levin and David Barrett, her colleagues on the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. Nystuen is proposing that PAC form a subcommittee to review the impact of the Fuller Road Station. (Photos by the writer)

The proposed budget would keep all of the city’s 157 parks open, but would cut back maintenance – mowing and snow removal – on 17 parks. The budget also proposes keeping open Mack Pool and the Ann Arbor Senior Center, which had previously been slated to close. A handful of supporters for those two groups who attended Tuesday’s meeting applauded when commissioners approved the budget.

Only one commissioner – Gwen Nystuen – voted against recommending the budget, citing objections to a proposed rollback of funds for the city’s Natural Area Preservation (NAP) program.

Nystuen also floated a proposal to form a subcommittee that would review the impact of the Fuller Road Station. That project, which is jointly funded by the city and the University of Michigan, would initially include a large parking structure and bus station on city-owned land that’s designated as parkland. Nystuen has been vocal about her concerns over setting a precedent with this project, and frustrated that PAC hasn’t taken a more active role on the issue.

Commissioners also got a brief update on the status of an RFP being drafted by city staff for the possible privatization of the Huron Hills Golf Course, and heard from an organizer of the Ann Arbor skatepark during public commentary, who invited commissioners to an April 25 design workshop.

Recommendations for Fee Increases Approved

Commissioners unanimously passed a resolution recommending that city council approve a raft of fee increases within the parks system. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, described this as a standard part of the budget process. The 19 pages of proposed fee changes were provided in the PAC board packet and are part of the budget material being considered by city council. The information includes comparative data on fees charged by other municipalities. [.pdf file of proposed fee increases]

If approved by council, hourly rental rates at the city’s ice arenas will be raised, as will season passes at outdoor pools and at Fuller Pool for the master’s swim program. Smith noted that rental fees at Veterans ice arena haven’t been raised since 2005, or at Buhr since 2007. Both arenas have received capital improvements in the past few years. Rates at Buhr for multiple prime-time hourly rentals would increase from $150 to $165 for residents. Veterans rates would jump from $186 to $205. By comparison, the Ann Arbor Ice Cube charges $275 an hour.

Outdoor pool passes haven’t been raised since 2006. Adult residents will be charged $140 for a season pass, up from $125. Youth and senior resident rates would increase from $100 to $110.

For canoe rentals, the parks staff is proposing a new $10 third-person fee, which Smith described as an industry standard. The new fee would not be charged to children 12 and under.

Several new fees, as well as some double-digit fee increases, are recommended for Mack Pool and the Ann Arbor Senior Center. Smith noted that these fees were approved by the task forces that have been working to save the pool and senior center, which had previously been slated to close. The senior center, for example, will start charging an annual membership fee – $25 for individuals, $35 for couples.

Commissioner Gwen Nystuen thanked Smith and the parks staff, saying they had achieved a balance between charging fees that reflect the current financial needs, but not so high that it would be a burden and prevent people from using the parks facilities. “We appreciate the effort,” she said.

Sam Offen, who chairs PAC’s finance committee, agreed. He said the fees were fair, very competitive and appropriate, since they hadn’t been raised in several years.

Commissioners unanimously approved the new rates. City council will make a final decision on the changes, as part of its approval of the FY 2011 budget. If approved, the new rates would take affect at various points throughout the year – Smith said they didn’t want to change rates mid-season.

Fiscal 2011 Parks Budget

Colin Smith, who manages the city’s parks and recreation unit, gave a presentation to commissioners outlining highlights of the budget for fiscal year 2011, which begins July 1. He noted that this will be the second year of a two-year financial plan, which was adopted in May 2009. Typically there would be only minor adjustments in the second year, he said. “That is basically not the case this year.”

At left: Colin Smith, the city's parks and recreation manager, talks with Sam Offen, a member of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission who chairs its finance committee.

The budget process hasn’t really stopped, because of uncertain economic conditions, Smith said. Last year, the city administration revised its FY 2010 budget forecast to reflect a $3.3 million revenue decrease. For FY 2011, an additional $5.4 million revenue drop is projected for the general fund.

To address the FY 2010 decrease, the parks system – as well as other units funded by the city’s general fund – cut its budget by 3%. Measures included extending the mowing cycle from 14 to 19 days, reducing the amount of hand-trimming, and shifting the expense of stump removal and tree planting to the city’s stormwater fund. The parks unit also realized $28,000 in energy savings during the year, Smith said, and the golf courses outperformed their forecast, requiring less of a subsidy from the general fund.

For the coming fiscal year, another 7.5% budget cut is needed, Smith said. For parks and recreation, that’s an additional $262,000 cut; for parks forestry and operations, it’s a $272,000 cut.

To reach those goals, Smith outlined several proposed cuts:

• $55,000 in staff costs, by leaving vacancies unfilled and reallocating some staff time to other units;
• $40,000 by using a Community Development Block Grant to pay part of the $145,000 contract with the Community Action Network to run the Bryant Community Center;
• $35,000 from reductions in computers and software applications;
• $15,000 from cuts to the seasonal employee budget;
• $14,000 from shifting advertising from print to the web;
• $12,500 from buying fewer canoes and kayaks;
• $7,000 in energy savings.

Those cuts will be coupled with revenue increases in several areas, including rink rental ($24,000), outdoor swimming passes ($10,000), third-person canoe fees ($25,000), athletic field rates ($25,000) among other areas. Additional parking revenue is expected from leasing spaces to the University of Michigan at Riverside Park ($10,000) and from charging for parking at Allmendinger and Frisinger parks on football Saturdays ($25,000).

Mack Pool and the Ann Arbor Senior Center are still expected to operate at a loss – $21,000 and $31,000, respectively – but those are lower amounts than originally projected, Smith said. The budget also projects a $28,000 drop in revenue from instructional skating, he said.

A job that’s currently vacant for a park planner will be retooled as a volunteer outreach coordinator, Smith said. And as the staff prioritizes capital improvements, they’ll look for projects that will cuts costs, such as ones that increase energy efficiency, for example.

Additional changes will be made to the parks forestry and operations unit:

• $112,000 saved by extending the mowing cycle from 19 to 23 days;
• $142,000 from shifting the cost of stump removal and tree planning to the stormwater fund;
• $52,000 from eliminating maintenance (except for right-of-way) in 15 parks..

[Later in the meeting, Matt Warba, the city's supervisor of field operations, clarified that 17 parks would be experiencing some level of reduced maintenance. They are: Ellsworth, Foxfire East, Fuller Triangle, Garden Homes, George Washington Park, Glazier Way, Manchester Park, Pittsview Park, Rose White Park, South University Park, Bader Park, Stone School Park, Berhshire Berkshire Creek Nature Area, Devonshire Park, Dicken Park, Douglas Park, Eisenhower Park.]

In addition, the proposal calls for eliminating a 3% annual automatic increase in the budget for the Natural Area Preservation program, which is funded by a parks maintenance and capital improvements millage passed in 2006. That would yield $81,000, which would be used instead to pay for hand trimming in the parks. Because the 3% increase is mandated by a city council ordinance, the change would require council action, Smith said.

Public Commentary: Parks Budget

At the start of the meeting, one of the two speakers during public commentary focused on the budget. Ed Sketch, a member of the task force formed to help save Mack Pool, said he was pleased with the work that the task force had done to help reduce the deficit. He welcomed the fact that funding remained in the budget for Mack Pool, and urged the commission to support that aspect of the proposed FY 2011 budget.

Commissioner Discussion: Mowing & Maintenance

Gwen Nystuen asked for more clarification about park maintenance. Matt Warba, the city’s supervisor of field operations, said the weather would affect the impact of the mowing changes. If it’s a dry season, the changes won’t be as noticeable. But if it’s warm and wet, causing the grass to grow quickly, people will likely notice the difference. Their intention is to mow all the areas they can, he said. During the winter, they also put wood chips around the trees, to reduce the impact of cutbacks in hand trimming. If there are playground areas, those will be maintained, Warba said.

For the parks in which maintenance will be eliminated, Warba said there isn’t any recreational programming planned. And they’ll keep the right-of-way clear and won’t let weeds grow so high as to violate the city’s weed ordinance, he said. If they need to make adjustments during the season, they will, he said.

In a follow-up email to The Chronicle, Warba wrote that nine of the 17 parks will have some level of snow removal on paths reduced, and most will have a reduction in mowing. Birkshire Creek Nature Area will have a reduction in snow removal only, because the parks staff does not currently mow there.

David Barrett asked whether the city was protected legally, if someone slipped and fell because snow hadn’t been removed from the park path. Warba said they would post notices indicating that the paths won’t be maintained – they already do this in Mary Beth Doyle Park, he said. If they plow, Warba said they feel obligated to keep the paths ice-free. But if the area is clearly posted with signs informing the public that the paths won’t be plowed, the city should be covered. Christopher Taylor clarified with Warba that this would affect only internal park paths, not sidewalks around the perimeter.

Commissioner Discussion: Natural Area Preservation

Scott Rosencrans asked how the cuts to the Natural Area Preservation program (NAP) would affect its work. When Tim Berla commented that it wasn’t really a cut – it was simply not an increase – Sam Offen clarified that it was, in fact, a cut of more than 3%. The proposal called for rolling back the 3% increases NAP has received each year since the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage was passed, so it’s actually a 12% budget reduction, he said, taking them back to their 2007 budget level of about $695,000

The impact includes a 44% reduction in the budget for temporary staffing. Warba noted that rather than using Manpower for temp staff, NAP will be hiring temporary employees directly – that means that they won’t be paying Manpower’s administrative markup, so they’ll be getting more bang for their buck, he said. Because of that, Warba estimated the reduction in actual temp staff levels would be more like 30%.

Mike Anglin, an ex officio member of the park advisory commission who also represents Ward 5 on city council, talks with supporters of Mack Pool before the start of PAC's Tuesday meeting.

Gwen Nystuen said it was important to note that revenue from the millage was declining, due to lower property taxes from the struggling economy. Her concern was about taking funds from NAP and shifting them to operations – when the millage was passed, this was something that city officials had vowed not to do.

The shift is predicated on two actions that must be taken by city council, Offen said. First, they’ll need to revoke the automatic 3% budget increase to NAP, he said. They’ll also need to approve the use of millage funds to be used for operations – namely, hand trimming in the parks. The city council has been informed that it will need to take those actions, he said.

Smith said that when the millage was passed, the expectation was that the city would be acquiring more land for its natural areas program. The 3% increase for NAP was tied to that, he said, to cover costs tied to caring for the additional land. [Land acquisition is funded by through the open space and parkland preservation millage, which also funds the city's greenbelt program.] Smith noted that out of the roughly 1,200 acres of city-owned natural areas purchased so far, only 38 acres have been purchased with millage funds are natural areas. That’s less than 3% annually, he said, so it’s fair to say that rolling back the budget shouldn’t dramatically affect NAP’s ability to maintain the city’s natural areas.

Nystuen said that it would affect NAP’s ability to do some innovative things that they might like to do.

Later in the meeting, Tim Berla brought up the fact that several years ago, residents had been dissatisfied with upkeep of the parks system. A big selling point of the 2006 millage had been to get the city back up to an acceptable level. He wondered whether they were going to slide back, because of the cuts.

Smith said that one thing they heard from residents when they proposed the 2006 millage was that people wanted the city to take care of existing parks. The city has done a good job of that, he said, upgrading several facilities over the years. The fact that they’ll be keeping all the parks and recreation facilities open, despite budget cuts, speaks well for that commitment, he said. Smith also pointed to Mack Pool and the Ann Arbor Senior Center, which are being kept open as well.

The most visible thing that people will notice is longer grass, he said, and some people won’t like it. In general, the situation with the parks boiled down to this, he said: “We can still play in them – it really is, in some ways, that simple.”

Commissioner Discussion: Misc. Comments and Questions

David Barrett wondered how all of these changes would be communicated to the public – assuming that everyone wasn’t going to be watching the Community Television Network broadcast in the wee hours of the morning, he joked.

Colin Smith said that after the city council approves the budget, he planned to put information up on the city’s website and post notices at parks facilities. He also will send out an email through the city’s email alert system, which reaches about 35,000 people, he said.

Gwen Nystuen asked whether Smith felt comfortable with the amount of revenue the city was getting from the University of Michigan for leasing parking spaces at Riverside Park. He said that getting $12,000 annually for 10 spaces was market rate, and that the spots were used at off-peak hours.

Karen Levin asked for clarification about the projected decrease in revenue from skating instruction. The budget projection for FY 2010 had been too aggressive, Smith said. In general, enrollment is declining. It’s still a large program, he said, and staff will work to get the numbers back up. But they felt that to reflect reality, they needed to adjust the revenue forecast downward.

Nystuen commented that since Smith stepped into the manager’s job, budget forecasting has improved dramatically.

Tim Berla raised the issue of the new volunteer coordinator position. It’s important to monitor it over time and set specific goals and expectations, he said. Smith clarified that it would be a full-time position funded by the millage, not the general fund. It would replace a currently unfilled park planner job. Next week he and deputy parks and recreation manager Jeff Straw will meet with Jason Frenzel, who handles volunteer outreach for the Natural Area Preservation program, to create the job description and talk about how to measure success. NAP does things like track volunteer hours and opportunities for educational interaction with volunteers, Smith said. He cautioned that developing a volunteer program takes time.

Offen asked when they planned to fill the position. Smith said he couldn’t post the job until the city council approved the budget – they’re expected to vote on that in May. He said he wanted to make sure they found the right person for the job, which might lengthen the hiring process.

Berla also asked whether the closing of the headrace at Argo Dam had been factored in to projected revenues for the Argo Livery. At this point, it’s not possible to take the river trip between Argo and Gallup parks, he noted.

Smith said the operating budget assumes that the headrace will be open again, but that they also have a contingency fund to make up for a shortfall if it doesn’t reopen. Berla jokingly referred to it as a slush fund – Smith said it’s called a contingency.

In a follow-up phone call with The Chronicle, Smith said the contingency of $66,086 is an estimate of about half of the projected revenues for Argo’s spring 2011 season, through June 30, 2011. It could be tapped if the headrace remains closed, either because of repairs to the Argo Dam or if the city doesn’t receive permission from the state to remove the stop log, which is currently in place.

A long-running dispute between the city and the state over the stability of Argo Dam resulted in the headrace being closed last year. The headrace is a passage that’s used by canoers and kayakers to bypass the dam as they travel on the Huron River.

Commissioner Discussion: Proposed Amendment and Vote

Gwen Nystuen said she supported everything except the rollback of NAP funding, because it breaks with the resolution that city council passed regarding the allocation of millage funds.

Offen objected, saying that if they kept the increase for NAP, they’d have to go back and change the budget, which used those funds to pay for hand trimming.

Christopher Taylor, an ex officio PAC member who represents Ward 3 on city council, said that PAC was simply giving advice to council – it wasn’t PAC’s budget to alter, he said. By removing support for the NAP rollback, he said, PAC would simply be removing its imprimatur from that portion of the budget. Responding to a question from David Barrett, Taylor said that council had not yet taken action regarding a change to NAP funding.

Tim Berla asked Nystuen to be more specific about her objections. She said the budget would be shifting funds away from NAP to be used for general maintenance, and she didn’t think it was worth making that sacrifice. It also breaks with what voters were told when they approved the millage. The council resolutions – which were passed in August 2006, before the November vote – were meant to assure voters that the millage funds would be used in certain ways, she said.

Berla said they couldn’t have anticipated how things would change, such as the amount of land they’d acquire and the downturn in the economy.

Scott Rosencrans asked how the parks would be impacted, if the $81,000 from the millage wasn’t reallocated for hand trimming. Matt Warba, the city’s supervisor of field operations, said there’d be no hand trimming in the parks, other than in response to the city’s weed ordinance. It would have a “monuental” visual impact, he said.

There was some discussion over how best to make the amendment that Nystuen suggested. Doug Chapman proposed adding a new resolved clause that would remove PAC’s support of the changes to NAP.

Saying he was a supporter of NAP’s work, Rosencrans said he wouldn’t support the amendment. At a time when other parts of parks and recreation are taking a hit, NAP needs to do its share. He noted that the staff at NAP had made the suggestions about how to cut their budget, and he thought it was a fair adjustment.

The amendment failed to pass, with only Nystuen voting for it.

Mike Anglin, a Ward 5 councilmember and ex officio member of PAC, asked when the parks millage would be up for renewal. Smith said there was another 2.5 years remaining on the six-year millage.

Outcome: The resolution to recommend the parks budget to city council passed, with dissent from Gwen Nystuen.

New Leadership for PAC

Tuesday was the last meeting for Scott Rosencrans, the commission’s chair, who has decided not to seek a second term on PAC, citing personal and professional reasons. He said he’s been honored to serve, and that the group had accomplished “a lot that we can be proud of.”

From left: John Lawter, Scott Rosencrans and Christopher Taylor. Lawter is vice chair of the park advisory commission. Tuesday was the last meeting for Rosencrans, who has been PAC's chair, but is stepping down from the commission as his term ends. Taylor is an ex officio member of PAC and represents Ward 3 on city council.

Gwen Nystuen nominated Julie Grand – the only commissioner who was absent on Tuesday, due to illness. Nystuen and several others assured Rosencrans that Grand had been consulted and had agreed to serve.

No others were nominated. Even so, the commissioners voted by secret ballot, writing their votes on slips of paper. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, read the ballots, noting that only seven had been cast – Rosencrans had forgotten to weigh in. After Rosencrans handed over his vote, Smith revealed that Grand had been elected unanimously. John Lawter remains vice chair.

Rosencrans clarified that PAC’s bylaws require officer elections in September, so elections for all officers will be held again at that time.

Fuller Road Station

Toward the end of the meeting, Gwen Nystuen proposed a resolution to form a subcommittee that would focus on Fuller Road Station, a joint city of Ann Arbor/University of Michigan project. If approved by PAC, the subcommittee would review the environmental, financial, legal, operational and visual impacts of the project, as it relates to the city’s parks and recreation program, Fuller Park, and the Huron River valley.

In 1993, Nystuen noted, there were no surface parking lots in that area, other than those around the pool at Fuller Park. Today there are several lots, including those that are leased by UM. “What are we doing?” she asked. “This is awful.” Though the city’s stated goals are to develop parks along the Huron River, she said, “we seem to be filling the space up with a big parking lot.”

The Fuller Road Station, a structure which will have about 1,000 parking spaces but the capacity to eventually contain 1,700 spaces in eight levels, poses legal questions because it’s being proposed on city land that’s designated as parkland, Nystuen said. She also cited financial concerns about how the city would pay for its share of the project. Additionally, she wondered why alternative designs – like one shown at PAC’s March 16, 2010 meeting by architect Peter Pollack – weren’t being considered.

Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, has made two presentations to PAC, but Nystuen said commissioners just listen and ask questions – they’ve taken no action. It’s been brought to them as though it’s all done, she said. Her proposal for a subcommittee would allow PAC to take a more active role in evaluating the project’s impact on parks.

Nystuen proposed that commissioners read her resolution and then discuss it at an upcoming meeting of PAC’s land acquisition committee (LAC), on which all park commissioners serve. LAC next meets on May 4 from 4-6 p.m. in the second floor city council workroom. The meetings are open to the public, but are not televised.

Rosencrans deferred action to PAC’s next chair, saying “Commissioner Grand, if you’re watching at home, that’ll be one of your first orders of business.”

Huron Hills Golf Course RFP

At the end of the meeting, commissioner Sam Offen asked for an update on the RFP (request for proposals) that the city plans to issue for the Huron Hills Golf Course. The commission had received its most comprehensive update at its Feb. 23, 2010 meeting. From Chronicle coverage of that meeting:

Commissioner Julie Grand gave a report on the city’s golf advisory task force, on which she serves. The group met the previous week, she said, and had a heated discussion about the possible privatization of Huron Hills Golf Course. At this point, it’s just an idea, she said – no RFPs (requests for proposals) have been issued. [The RFP was discussed at city council meetings 0n Jan. 25 and Feb.8, 2010, and city administrator Roger Fraser indicated at the Febrary meeting that city staff will work on development of such an RFP.]

The task force has been directed to look for ways to get additional funding for Huron Hills, Grand said, and they hope to get clarification on a number of questions, such as how the city’s municipal service charges – fees paid by every department for shared services, such as information technology and legal services – factor into the budget.

Colin Smith added that the city has been approached by a private vendor interested in alternative uses for Huron Hills – splitting the course into a driving range and learning center on one side of Huron River Parkway, and a 9-hole course on the other. City staff will develop an RFP over the summer, he said, which will be put out for bids. There will then be a review process of the proposals submitted, including a look at proposed financial returns. “It is not a foregone conclusion, that’s for sure,” he said.

The RFP will likely be broad, Smith said, to allow for more creative proposals. Before being put out to bid, it would be reviewed by the task force as well as PAC. He likened it to the Library Lot process, in which the city issued an RFP for development on top of an underground parking structure. There would likely be a committee formed to review responses to the Huron Hills RFP, Smith said, and a lot of opportunity for people to know what’s going on.

On Tuesday, Smith told commissioners that city staff were still working on a draft of the RFP. When they had finished, it would be reviewed first by the city’s golf advisory task force to take advantage of their expertise and insight, he said. Then it would be brought to PAC for review and input, probably in June. The RFP would likely be issued this summer – Smith said he expected it would entail a process similar to the one being used for the Library Lot RFP, in which a committee is convened to review responses to the RFP.

Public Commentary: Skatepark

Trever Staples, a lead organizer for the effort to build a skatepark in Ann Arbor, gave an update to commissioners during public commentary at Tuesday’s meeting. He noted that the organizing group was now called Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark. They’ll be holding the second of two design workshops on Sunday, April 25. The event, which is open to the public, starts at 4 p.m. at Slauson Middle School, 1019 W. Washington.

Staples said PAC had been instrumental in moving the project forward, noting that the skatepark organizers had signed a memo of intent with the city to use land at Veterans Memorial Park almost two years ago. They’ve been meeting with park planner Amy Kuras and Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, to develop an RFP (request for proposals) for the skatepark’s design.

They’ve also been in fundraising mode, Staples said. He noted that last month, Washtenaw County’s parks and recreation commission had approved up to $400,000 in matching funds for the project. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Offers $400K Match for Skatepark"] Staples said city councilmember Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) was instrumental in putting together a letter of support for the county, signed by councilmembers. The skatepark group will hold its next fundraiser on May 15 at the Vault of Midnight, 219 S. Main St.

Staples thanked commissioners for their ongoing support. “We’ll come back with a more formal presentation soon,” he said.

Present: David Barrett, Tim Berla, Doug Chapman, John Lawter, Karen Levin, Gwen Nystuen, Sam Offen, Scott Rosencrans, Mike Anglin (ex-officio), Christopher Taylor (ex-officio)

Absent: Julie Grand

Next meeting: Tuesday, May 18 at 4 p.m. in the Washtenaw County administration building boardroom, 220 N. Main St. [confirm date]

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.