At its Oct. 16, 2013 meeting, the board had passed a resolution directing county administrator Verna McDaniel to develop a policy for evaluating future TIF proposals. The resolution stated that the policy would be developed with input from staff of the office of community and economic development, the equalization department, and the brownfield redevelopment authority. The Oct. 16 resolution was passed over dissent by the board’s two Republican commissioners, Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

Subsequently, an advisory committee was formed to help develop the policy. Members were: county commissioner Andy LaBarre (D-District 7); county treasurer Catherine McClary; corporation counsel Curtis Hedger; and finance director Kelly Belknap.

The two-page policy brought forward by McDaniel lays out a process by which the board would consider any proposed or amended Corridor Improvement Authority (CIA) or Downtown Development Authority (DDA) where the capture of county tax revenues is requested. [.pdf of TIF policy]

A final vote is expected at the board’s next meeting, on Sept. 3.

This brief was filed from the boardroom at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow.

At least 50 people attended the council meeting in support of the resolution, and four people spoke in support of the resolution during public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting.

The council has already directed the city administrator to hire a real estate broker to explore selling the rights to develop the site – above the Library Lane underground parking structure, which was completed in 2012. But there is not currently an offer from a buyer for the development rights. Estimates of the sale price have ranged from $6-10 million.

The item had been postponed at the council’s April 7, 2014 meeting.

Voting for the policy at the June 2, 2014 meeting were Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), mayor John Hieftje, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Mike Anglin (Ward 5) was absent. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) voted against it.

Details on the council’s deliberations are provided in The Chronicle’s live updates filed during the meeting.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

The policy would set the funding at the higher of two different figures: (1) the Actuarial Required Contribution (ARC) rate; or (2) the existing level of contributions adjusted for the change in general fund revenues. That would have an impact of establishing a minimum increase in funding of 2% per year.

Action came at the council’s May 19, 2014 meeting.

The operative language in the policy is:

If the General Fund revenues are projected to increase less than 2%, the city’s contribution shall increase 2%; thereby establishing a minimum increase of 2% per year.

The pension plan is currently 80.24% funded. The VEBA plan is 38.5% funded.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

KT Tomey is working on a project to develop maps for walking or running tours of public art in Ann Arbor. (Photos by the writer.)

“Arbor Winds” by Massachusetts artist Catherine Widgery features elevated, stand-alone louvered glass columns that are etched with images of trees – three on each end of the bridges, on the north side of Stadium Boulevard. The same type of louvered glass panels will also be used under the bridge along South State, affixed to the wall of the underpass – five sets on each side of South State Street. The overall project has a budget of $400,000 and has been in the works since 2011. If approved by council, it will likely be installed in 2015.

Commissioners also expressed enthusiasm for a new effort proposed by KT Tomey, who hopes to develop a mobile app for walking or running routes that highlight public art in Ann Arbor and on the University of Michigan campus. As a runner herself, she noted that people look for running routes when they visit new towns. So the app could be used to promote public art both to visitors and residents alike. Her first step is putting together .pdf maps that will be downloadable from AAPAC’s website.

Another new proposal prompted concerns about process. On the day of the meeting, John Kotarski – AAPAC’s vice chair – circulated an email to commissioners proposing that the city accept three pieces of donated art from Jim Pallas, an established Michigan artist and friend of Kotarski’s. The pieces are proposed to be located in the lobby of the Justice Center, in the atrium of city hall, and outside of city hall. Although commissioners seemed supportive of the idea, some expressed concern that the proposal wasn’t following AAPAC’s guidelines for accepting gifts of art, which include setting up a review committee.

Kotarski pointed out that Pallas is 75 years old. He noted that if artists donate artwork before they die, they can deduct the cost of materials from their taxes. But after they die, their estate is taxed on the market value of that artwork. “So these artists, at this point in their lives, have a financial incentive to find a good place for their artwork,” he said. “If we can make that process simple and easy for Jim – and pleasant – then I’m sure he’s willing to go to his friends” and encourage them to donate too.

He reported that the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority has offered a $500 honorarium to Pallas for each donated piece. Kotarski said the three pieces have a total estimated value of $100,000. He also mentioned that Pallas’ daughter, a law professor, knows city attorney Stephen Postema and that they’ve “made arrangement to resolve any legal issues necessary to facilitate this donation.”

Kotarski told commissioners that he’s tried to assure Pallas that this will work out, but “that’s why I’m a little nervous giving him these assurances, only to have this fall through at the last minute. That’s not going to be pleasant.”

Marsha Chamberlin said she recognized the benefits of encouraging Michigan artists to donate their work. “But we are a public body, and we have procedures. I just think it’s important that we observe those rules because we don’t want to make an exception for one thing, then hold someone’s feet to the fire for something else.”

Commissioners agreed that AAPAC chair Bob Miller would work with Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, to set up a gift selection committee to review this proposal and make a recommendation to AAPAC.

In other action, the commission approved its annual art plan for fiscal 2015, which begins on July 1, 2014. The plan includes projects that are already underway, as well as proposed capital projects to be enhanced with public art. The ongoing projects are: (1) artwork for East Stadium bridges; (2) public art at Arbor Oaks Park; (3) Canoe Imagine Art; and (4) the Coleman Jewett memorial. The proposed enhanced capital projects are street and sidewalk stamping, painting or stenciling in four locations to be determined, for a total cost of $30,000. The city council would need to approve these projects before they would move forward.

Commissioners also approved applying for a $10,000 National Endowment for the Arts Challenge America Fast Track grant. The money, if awarded, would require matching funds in an equivalent amount from other sources for a public art project at Arbor Oaks Park in southeast Ann Arbor, located near Bryant Elementary School and the Bryant Community Center.

Fundraising continues for the Coleman Jewett memorial at the Ann Arbor farmers market, but Canoe Imagine Art has stalled. The community art project is intended as a temporary art display in downtown Ann Arbor using old canoes from the city that would be repurposed as public art. The city had hoped that the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau would take administrative responsibility for the project, but the CVB has declined. Chamberlin, who’s taking the lead on this effort, said that if workarounds can’t be found for some of the administrative issues, “we have to kiss this project good-bye.”

East Stadium Bridges Artwork

The April 23 agenda included a resolution recommending approval of “Arbor Winds” artwork for East Stadium bridges, designed by Massachusetts artist Catherine Widgery. [.pdf of proposal]

Catherine Widgery’s rendering of her proposed public artwork for East Stadium bridges. (Image provided in the April 23, 2014 AAPAC meeting packet.)

In early August of 2013, Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass. was recommended as the artist for this project. She was picked by a selection panel from four finalists who had submitted proposals for the project, which has a $400,000 total budget. [.pdf of Widgery's original proposal]

The selection panel provided feedback to Widgery and asked that she revise her proposal before it was presented to AAPAC and then later to the city council for approval. Members of the panel were Wiltrud Simbuerger, Bob Miller, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely. [.pdf of panel feedback]

Over the past few weeks, AAPAC chair Bob Miller and vice chair John Kotarski have been presenting her revised proposed to several local public entities, including the city’s park advisory commission, planning commission, and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. They also presented to the Cultural Leaders Forum, and a public forum was held on April 21 at the downtown library to get additional feedback. [More details on the presentation by Kotarski and Miller are included in The Chronicle’s report of the Ann Arbor planning commission’s April 1, 2014 meeting.]

Widgery’s new design for the bridge features elevated, stand-alone louvered glass columns that are etched with images of trees – three on each end of the bridge, on the north side of Stadium Boulevard. The metal support structures are 7 feet tall, with the glass columns rising above that for a total height of 22 feet. The same type of louvered glass panels are also used under the bridge along South State, affixed to the wall of the underpass – five sets on each side of South State Street. The panels will be lit from below, so that the etchings stand out at night. The glass is tempered and laminated for strength.

The artwork is meant to evoke the strength and fragility of this community. From the artist’s statement:

As one drives around Ann Arbor, the gracious stands of trees stand out as a clear expression of the town’s identity so trees have symbolized this arbor town from the beginning.

On a deeper level, the trees as portrayed in the artwork Arbor Winds are a metaphor for our own paradoxical fragility and strength in the context of our life cycles. We speak of having “deep roots” or of “branching out” or of how someone is “blooming”. After a long winter, the return to life of spring is expressed above all through the return of leaves to trees. We all feel the sense of being reborn in the spring with the blossoms and leaves and, in the autumn, the somewhat wistful sadness as the leaves reach their glory of color and then fall.

Arbor Winds evokes not just trees but wind and light as expressions of the energy that surrounds us. In each panel we see the ghostly afterimage as if the wind has blown the tree; we see both moments in time simultaneously. These images etched in glass are like those etched in our memories. We walk through a forest and it is our mental “snapshots” of the branches against the sky or the texture of the thick trunk, or the dense layers of the many trunks silhouetted against the forest underbrush that remain in our memories. Indeed each of these etched images is more the memory of moments rather than a physical reality: a subtle expression of our own ephemeral existence and the light traces we leave behind.

During the April 23 meeting, Kotarski made the same presentation that he and Miller have given to other groups over the past few weeks. He explained the process that’s been undertaken, starting in 2011. “It’s been well-vetted,” he said.

Bob Miller, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission.

Kotarski noted that the question of “why not a local artist?” comes up in almost every discussion. The reason is that the city attorney has said it’s not legal to limit the proposals to local artists, Kotarski stated. There are world-class artists living in the Ann Arbor area, he noted, so outreach was done to make as many people as possible aware of the opportunity. Seven Michigan artists submitted proposals, but none were selected as finalists.

Miller noted that Widgery will be providing the LED light fixtures, and the city will be paying for the electricity. He reported that a city councilmember had asked whether the lighting will draw on solar power. That’s not a decision that’s within the purview of AAPAC, Miller said, but he liked the suggestion.

Jim Simpson asked what the general reaction has been from people who’ve seen the presentations by Kotarski and Miller. “Everyone loved it,” Kotarski replied. “I have not heard any negative comments – have you, Bob?”

“I have,” Miller said, adding that he’s only heard a couple of criticisms. One person had complained that it was an exorbitant amount to spend on artwork, and that you could buy potentially two homes for that amount. “That was his perspective, and I respected that,” Miller said. And some people just had aesthetic differences, he added. “Everybody has an opinion, and that’s really wonderful about people.”

Kotarski stressed, as he has during other presentations, that “not one single dollar of the money that goes to this artwork could possibly be used to fill potholes.” Although the money comes from the former Percent for Art program’s street millage funds, he contended that potholes are filled by funds from the state’s gas tax. “This is not a war of public art versus potholes,” he said.

Devon Akmon asked about possible glare from the lights. Miller replied that since the lights will be pointing up, they won’t be shining into traffic or nearby homes. Jokes were made about the difference between that and the University of Michigan’s large electronic billboard in the same area.

Simpson asked what happens if a panel is damaged. Would the artist fabricate a new one? Kotarski replied that Widgery will be providing a maintenance schedule, telling the city how to clean the work. She’ll also be giving the city a digital file with the images that are etched on each panel, he said, so that any damaged panel could be re-fabricated. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, said he’d already asked Seagraves to look into possible replacement costs, and “it’s reasonable.”

The recommendation will be placed on the council’s agenda for its first meeting in June – on June 2. If approved, the art would likely be installed sometime in 2015.

An image by artist Catherine Widgery for artwork on the East Stadium bridge. This night view shows how the structures would be lit from below, illuminating the images of trees that are etched into louvered glass panels.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along the north side of East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery below East Stadium bridge, along South State Street.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery below East Stadium bridge, along South State Street.

A detail of the louvers designed by Catherine Widgery. The etched glass panels will be attached to a metal frame.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the project for East Stadium bridges. The recommendation will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Donated Artwork

At the beginning of the April 23 meeting, Aaron Seagraves – the city’s public art administrator – noted that an item had been added to the agenda since it was first published the previous Friday. Under new business, the item was listed as a presentation of donated artworks. Marsha Chamberlin clarified with Seagraves that it related to an email sent to commissioners earlier in the day on April 23 from John Kotarski, AAPAC’s vice chair. [.pdf of Kotarski's email]

John Kotarski, AAPAC’s vice chair.

Kotarski told commissioners that a friend of his, the artist Jim Pallas, is leaving the state and had asked Kotarski to help place his artwork. [Pallas is based in Applegate, Michigan, on the east side of the state.] Pallas had intended to sell the work, but Kotarski said he persuaded Pallas to consider donating some pieces to the city of Ann Arbor. Kotarski said this idea appealed to Pallas, particularly because Pallas thought his work featuring moons was appropriate for Ann Arbor. “To him, moons are metaphors for dreams and dreamers, and he thought: What better place to situate these moons than Ann Arbor?” Kotarski said. Pallas imagines the city is a place of “dreamers dreaming world-class dreams,” Kotarski said.

The Ann Arbor District Library has agreed to accept a piece, Kotarski reported, as has the University of Michigan North Campus Research Center. [Responding to an email query from The Chronicle, AADL director Josie Parker reported that the Ladies' Library Association has agreed to pay the costs of installing the artwork in the downtown library's garden, near the entry to the children's room.]

Kotarski described Pallas as a world-class artist, and noted that he had emailed commissioners more information on Pallas’ background, including professional references. [.pdf of references and reviews] [.pdf of Pallas resume] He said the work was valued at about $100,000.

Kotarski said he had hoped to bring forward a completed proposal, but hadn’t had time to do that. He’d made the same point in his email, which was provided to The Chronicle after the meeting by Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator. The email had included a list of people that he’s already talked with about this donation. From Kotarski’s April 23 email to commissioners:

I had hoped to bring you a donation proposal with proposed locations for artwork which was completely vetted by all stakeholders, however municipal government moves slow and Jim plans to leave the state in four weeks. Hence, the last minute addition to our agenda. I think your knowledge of the process to date and my plans moving forward is appropriate now rather than waiting for a completely vetted proposal.

…

I have kept Craig [Hupy] and Bob [Miller, AAPAC's chair] in the loop as I met with Susan Pollay, Jim Curtis, Colin Smith, and Ken Clein. My plan is to review safety, maintenance, and traffic flow with appropriate Justice Center and City Hall staff to insure all stakeholders are in acceptance of the artwork in the proposed locations. Jim’s daughter, Lydia Loren, is a law professor and international scholar in intellectual property rights who happens to have worked closely with our City Attorney, Steve Postema. Lydia and Mr. Postema have made arrangement to resolve any legal issues necessary to facilitate this donation.

Kotarski said the challenge now is how to proceed. He mentioned that commissioner Marsha Chamberlin had circulated AAPAC’s donation policy in response to his email, but indicated that he had not been aware it had existed. [The policy and process for accepting donated gifts of art, including detailed selection criteria, is included in AAPAC's guidelines, which are posted on the commission's website as a .pdf file.]

The process includes completion of a gift disclosure form and review of the proposed donation by a gift committee. Kotarski suggested that AAPAC could act as that committee, or that he could make recommendations for who would serve on the committee. He said he’s already worked to identify where the three donated pieces could be placed, and to work through any legal issues that the city might have.

Kotarski said the city staff haven’t agreed to yet to the proposed locations, which are in or near city hall and the Justice Center. Here are images of the work, provided in Kotarski’s email:

Fallen Moon by Jim Pallas is proposed to be located outside of city hall.

Luna Maggiore by Jim Pallas is proposed to hang in the atrium of city hall.

This piece by artist Jim Pallas, titled LAW, is proposed to be installed in the lobby of the Justice Center.

Kotarski said he wanted to inform AAPAC about this opportunity. The city won’t accept these pieces without a recommendation from AAPAC, he noted. He wanted to know if commissioners thought they could make that recommendation within four to six weeks. If not, he’d help Pallas place the artwork elsewhere.

Kotarski thought the work would “bring cachet to the city.” He said he’d toured the Justice Center with the building’s architect [Ken Clein of Quinn Evans Architects], and that several spots had been identified as appropriate. “He feels it’s consistent with and would enhance the building,” Kotarski said.

Marsha Chamberlin.

If the city agrees to place the artwork in the proposed locations, and agrees to pay for installation and maintenance, Kotarski said, he hoped that AAPAC would agree to recommend to council that the city accept these donations. Installation and maintenance costs haven’t yet been determined.

Chamberlin noted that much of the information needed for the gift disclosure form is already available. A gift committee would need to be appointed, she said, and that group would make a recommendation to AAPAC. Chamberlin advocated for following this process. “I just think it’s important to be consistent,” she said.

Kotarski said that UM and AADL each have a “committee of one” who makes a recommendation. “If this [AAPAC process] doesn’t mirror that, you might want to think of revising it,” he said.

The proposed locations aren’t debatable, Kotarski added. Chamberlin said that AAPAC’s role is to evaluate the artwork, not to recommend the locations.

Kotarski stressed that “I don’t want to lead Jim on. I want to be upfront with him.”

Bob Miller stated that most of the work has been done, and he thought it would be reasonable to follow the process within the timeframe of four to six weeks. When he suggested that Kotarski could appoint the gift committee, Chamberlin indicated that Kotarski had a conflict of interest. “I would feel that I had one, if I was bringing the artist forward and representing the artist,” she said. Miller replied that he didn’t think so, because Kotarski wasn’t benefiting from it.

Devon Akmon suggested that Miller, as AAPAC’s chair, and Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, should determine the committee members. Seagraves pointed out that the guidelines outline how the committee should be formed. From the guidelines:

Upon receipt of a Gift of Art Disclosure Form, AAPAC will establish a Gift Committee as a subcommittee of AAPAC. The Committee will consist of a minimum of four (4) AAPAC members including: a member of the Committee who will act as chair, an appropriate community representative, an appropriate City representative, an appropriate artist dependent upon the scope of the proposed gift. Members of the Gift Committee will serve two (2) year terms.

Kotarski wasn’t sure there was time to do this, but Miller assured him that it would be possible.

Jim Simpson indicated support for the donation. He noted that it would be a way for the city to highlight Michigan artists. “If you can move quickly and people see that, they tend to get excited about the process as well,” Simpson said. “I think it’s worth it, myself.”

City councilmember Jane Lumm attended AAPAC’s April 23 meeting but did not formally address the group.

Kotarski pointed out that Pallas is 75 years old. He noted that if artists donate artwork before they die, they can deduct the cost of materials from their taxes. But after they die, their estate is taxed on the market value of that artwork. “So these artists, at this point in their lives, have a financial incentive to find a good place for their artwork,” he said. “If we can make that process simple and easy for Jim – and pleasant – then I’m sure he’s willing to go to his friends” and encourage them to donate too.

Kotarski said he’s tried to assure Pallas that this will work out, but “that’s why I’m a little nervous giving him these assurances, only to have this fall through at the last minute. That’s not going to be pleasant.”

Again, Kotarski stressed that AAPAC has the opportunity to get artwork donated by major Michigan artists. He said the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority is willing to give Pallas a $500 honorarium for each of the three donated pieces – “which is only reasonable, to recognize this value,” Kotarski said.

Chamberlin said she recognized the benefits of encouraging Michigan artists to donate their work. “But we are a public body, and we have procedures. I just think it’s important that we observe those rules because we don’t want to make an exception for one thing, then hold someone’s feet to the fire for something else.”

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Public Art Maps

One of the newest art commissioners, KT Tomey, brought forward a proposal for feedback: Maps for walking or running tours of public art.

Detail of a draft map of public art in downtown Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan’s central campus. Links to .pdf of full map.

She’d been inspired by an “art run” that AAPAC chair Bob Miller had put together, which she had used for her running group. “It was wildly popular – people are still talking about it, wanting to do it again this summer,” she said.

In doing research to add to the next run, Tomey said she was surprised that there wasn’t one coherent map of art in Ann Arbor that people could easily access online. There’s a resource for art on the University of Michigan’s north campus, she noted, but it’s not easy to use to find out about the artwork.

Tomey first laid out what she called her “grand vision” for this project. There could be online .pdf maps with links to more information about each piece of art. But she also envisions a mobile app that people could load onto their phones, so that they could look at the map and information about public art as they’re walking or running. Eventually, she’d like to do a video tour that could be self-directed or used to train people who’d give tours in person.

The tours would serve multiple purposes, Tomey said, such as promoting art and increasing connections with the community.

As an initial modest step, Tomey said, she’d made two drafts of maps – one showing public art around downtown Ann Arbor and UM’s central campus, and another for UM’s north campus. [.pdf of Ann Arbor public art map] [.pdf of north campus public art map]

Tomey asked commissioners for feedback on the overall idea, as well as changes that might be made to the draft maps.

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, offered to provide support from the city’s GIS staff in designing the maps. He also said the city’s communications staff can help promote the project, when it’s ready.

Commissioners Devon Akmon and Marsha Chamberlin.

Commissioners expressed enthusiasm for the project. Devon Akmon suggested looking for partnerships with the UM business school or computer science department to help with the mobile app. Regarding map templates, he noted that D:hive in Detroit has developed brochures and maps that might be helpful.

Akmon also wondered whether Google might be a potential partner, as the company has an office in Ann Arbor. Public art would be a good fit for the Google Cultural Institute project, for example. Finally, he said it’s simple and inexpensive to create an audio tour mobile app, similar to ones that are used by museums. [Akmon is director of the Arab American National Museum.] You can also create .mp3 files that are easily downloadable and could be posted online. It would be amazing to hear artists or people from the community describing the public art in Ann Arbor, he said. “What it always comes down to for me is how do you make it beautiful, and how do you make a big splash.”

John Kotarski suggested contacting UM’s Council for Disability Concerns, which is interesting in making public art accessible for people with disabilities.

Marsha Chamberlin said there might be grants available to support this project from the Michigan Council for Arts & Cultural Affairs. She also thought the project might be of interest to the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau, which is funded in large part by a local accommodation tax.

Tomey said she’d thought about identifying routes of different lengths for runners – both for local residents as well as visitors. “When you visit a city, you look up the running routes,” she said, and that could be another way to promote public art to visitors.

Jim Simpson suggested taking a phased approach, starting with maps that could be put up quickly. He offered to help with implementing the project. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, said .pdf maps could be posted on AAPAC’s website.

Seagraves also recommended that the commission add this project to its list of ongoing work. Chamberlin pointed out that AAPAC no longer has available funding and that staff support is unclear after Seagraves’ contract ends on June 30. She wondered whether AAPAC would be able to get any support from the city for projects like this.

Hupy indicated that there would be some kind of ongoing support for this project.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Annual Public Art Plan

Approval of the annual public art plan for fiscal 2015 had been on the March 26, 2014 agenda for approval, but was postponed because it included some items that several commissioners had not previously seen. The March 26 discussion also resulted in some changes to the plan, so a revised version was on the April 23 agenda for approval. [.pdf of annual public art plan]

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Commissioners had initially voted to approve a draft annual plan at their Jan. 29, 2014 meeting. They also directed AAPAC vice chair John Kotarski to work with Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, to make final revisions to the plan, based on feedback from their Jan. 29 discussion. [.pdf of draft plan discussed on Jan. 29]

The plan includes projects that are already underway, as well as proposed capital projects to be enhanced with public art. The ongoing projects are: (1) artwork for East Stadium bridges; (2) public art at Arbor Oaks Park; (3) Canoe Imagine Art; and (4) the Coleman Jewett memorial.

The proposed enhanced capital projects are street and sidewalk stamping, painting or stenciling in four locations to be determined, for a total cost of $30,000. The city council would need to approve these projects before they would move forward. City staff would be involved in developing guidelines for these installations to “ensure the artwork will meet all applicable codes, are safe for all pedestrians and are compatible with the maintenance of the infrastructure,” according to the plan.

The document also lists four objectives that the commission will work on in the coming fiscal year, which begins on July 1, 2014:

1. Make plans to use gifts, grants, crowd funding and other non-local government funds for public art in Ann Arbor, as the amended Public Art Ordinance allows.
2. Increase public outreach for long-term public art program goals, artwork selection, and artwork education and thus better carry out the duties of the Public Art Commission established by the Ordinance amendment of June, 2013.
3. Refine the selection of potential public art projects by using a project evaluation and prioritization model and base the initiation of projects on the evaluation of primary criteria.
4. Establish an open and regular channel of communication regarding public art program updates with city administration and City Council.

In addition, the plan lists three recommendations from the city council’s task force on public art, noting that the commission will support city staff in achieving these recommendations in the coming fiscal year:

1. Review the location of the arts program within the City of Ann Arbor government and evaluate the possibility of relocating the public art program.
2. Fulfill the Public Art Task Force’s recommendation of creating a position for a full-time public art staff person.
3. Review and revise the Public Art Commission’s Bylaws and Guidelines.

Discussion was brief. Kotarski thanked Seagraves for his work on this plan, saying it shows the work that AAPAC has been doing “even though juggling public criticism.” It tells the council that AAPAC has heard the city council’s charge for the commission, he said.

Seagraves noted that the plan will be sent to the council in time for their deliberations on the FY 2015 budget. City administrator Steve Powers presented a draft budget at the council’s April 21, 2014 meeting. The council will discuss and approve the budget, with possible amendments, at its May 19 meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the FY 2015 annual public art plan. It will be forwarded to the city council.

Grant for Arbor Oaks Project

The April 23 agenda included an item to approve applying for a $10,000 National Endowment for the Arts Challenge America Fast Track grant. The money, if awarded, would require matching funds in an equivalent amount from other sources for a public art project at Arbor Oaks Park in southeast Ann Arbor, located near Bryant Elementary School and the Bryant Community Center.

The effort is in partnership with the nonprofit Community Action Network, which runs the Bryant Community Center under contract with the city. The idea is to create concrete and mosaic sculptures near the five entrances to the park, to help link the school and different streets in the neighborhood. The artwork would involve residents and students at Bryant Elementary.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, described the small- to medium-sized sculptures as wayfinders. The grant application is due on May 8. Nick Zagar is the commissioner who’s taking the lead on this project. He did not attend AAPAC’s April 23 meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the application for this NEA grant.

Project Updates

Commissioners were updated on projects that are currently underway: (1) Canoe Imagine Art; (2) the Coleman Jewett memorial; (3) sculptures at a rain garden at Kingsley & First; and (4) a possible mural at Bach Elementary.

Project Updates: Canoe Imagine Art

Marsha Chamberlin, who’s been leading the Canoe Imagine Art project for AAPAC, reported that the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau has declined to be the project’s administrative “home.”

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator.

The community art project is intended as a temporary art display in downtown Ann Arbor using old canoes from the city that would be repurposed as public art. The installation of an estimated 25-30 canoes was to take place in fiscal 2015 or 2016, depending on funding. The project has received a $21,000 grant from the Michigan Council for Arts and Cultural Affairs, and organizers plan to raise additional funds from private donors.

AAPAC originally approved $10,000 in funding for the project, at its Sept. 25, 2013 meeting. It was to be used as a portion of matching funds for the state grant, with the remaining $11,000 in matching funds to be raised through donations. However, the city council voted to allocate the entire $21,000 in city funds to match the state grant. That action came at the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting.

At AAPAC’s April 23 meeting, Craig Hupy – the city’s public services area administrator – reported that the project was intended as a three-party effort involving the city, the CVB, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. “We are struggling with the other partners not wanting to administer the contract,” Hupy said. As of July 1, which is the start of the city’s next fiscal year, there won’t necessarily be funds for art administration, he noted.

Chamberlin said it wasn’t until December of 2013 that the city attorney’s office informed her that the project couldn’t use a website that was separate from the city’s website, and that an RFP process must be used for seeking artists. Also, she learned that this effort would be required to hire a project manager. At the time, they were hoping to move the project forward more quickly, and so the idea of a “triumvirate” partnership was explored. Now, however, the timeline has been pushed back, but it’s unclear who will lead the project, she said.

Jim Simpson, AAPAC’s newest commissioner.

Hupy added that if another organization takes the lead, then the city’s procurement process – including issuing an RFP – wouldn’t be required. He also noted that the state grant must be spent by the end of September 2014, and it wasn’t clear if that would be possible. And because all the funding hasn’t yet been raised, the city won’t take on responsibility for a project that it doesn’t have the ability to fund completely. “We’re trying to make it work, but I can’t even say that I’m cautiously optimistic at the moment,” he said.

Another issue, Chamberlin noted, is that the city attorney’s staff has said the artwork can’t be sold, because the city’s purchasing policies don’t allow that. The idea had been to sell the pieces after they’d been on display, as a fundraiser. The city’s purchasing policies are perfectly reasonable for typical uses, like buying a truck or generator, she said, “but public art functions differently.”

If they can’t find a workaround for some of these issues, Chamberlin said, “we have to kiss this project good-bye.”

Hupy said that city staff will continue to work to find a solution. “We understand the direness of it,” he said. “I would say as a medical metaphor, it’s on life support at the moment.”

Project Updates: Coleman Jewett

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, reported that a request for proposals (RFP) has been drafted to solicit bids for the Coleman Jewett memorial. The RFP is being reviewed by legal staff.

The memorial will be a bronze replica of an Adirondack chair made by Jewett, to be located at the Ann Arbor farmers market. Jewett was a long-time local educator who died in January of 2013. After he retired, he made furniture that he sold at the farmers market. AAPAC has committed $5,000 in city funds to the project, which now has a total project budget of $50,000 – up from its original estimate of $36,000. Other funds will be raised from private donations, including a contribution from the Old West Side Association. So far, $18,795 has been raised, not including the city’s $5,000 contribution.

Marsha Chamberlin, who’s spearheading the project, gave an update on fundraising efforts. A second mailing to solicit donations is being sent out this month. An alumni party for Tappan Middle School – where Jewett served as assistant principal – is being planned as a fundraiser, possibly at the Old German. Information will be passed out at the farmers market, although no solicitation is allowed there.

Project Updates: Kingsley Rain Garden

The installation of sculptures in a rain garden at the southeast corner of Kingsley & First will start in May. The entire project, including the rain garden, will be completed by the end of June. The artist, Joshua Wiener, will be coming to Ann Arbor during the first week in June. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, reported that Wiener will be available for a public event, likely on June 3.

Promotion for the project is being planned. As part of that, one idea is to ask the public to name the artwork, Seagraves said. The rain garden is already named after Ruth Williams. It’s considered by the city to be a “stormwater feature,” not a park.

The Denver artist is working with landscapers to incorporate public art into the new rain garden, which is in a floodplain. The project has a $27,000 budget, though the artist’s contract is for $23,380. Wiener’s sculptures show the outlines of five fish. They’re small mouth bass, in different sizes, made of white epoxy-painted steel and pointed toward the Huron River.

Seagraves reported that the original proposal called for some of the fish to appear submerged into the ground. For structural and aesthetic reasons, Wiener has altered that original design somewhat. Although some fish will appear to be diving down, they will be above ground. He provided a revised rendering:

Josh Wiener’s rendering of fish sculptures for the rain garden at First & Ashley.

Project Updates: Bach Elementary Mural

Bob Miller reported that not much progress has been made on a public art project at Bach Elementary School, on the city’s Old West Side. He’s been working with the school principal Hyeuo Min Park, the school’s art department, local artist David Zinn, the AAPS maintenance staff and others to paint a mural on a concrete wall at Bach’s playground. It’s a place that gets tagged with graffiti, he noted. Miller said it could be a pilot for other projects, if it moves forward.

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, quipped: “There’s a lot of retaining walls in the city that could be painted.”

Commissioners present: Devon Akmon, Marsha Chamberlin, John Kotarski, Bob Miller, Jim Simpson, Kristin “KT” Tomey. Also: Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator and Craig Hupy, public services area administrator.

Absent: Ashlee Arder, Connie Brown, Nick Zagar.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 at 4:30 p.m. in the basement conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our artful coverage of public entities like the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

The adoption of the policy on service equity analysis came at the board’s April 17, 2014 meeting – in the context of a 5-year service improvement plan the AAATA hopes to implement if voters approve a millage request on May 6, 2014. The AAATA is required to have such a policy as one element in a Title VI program submitted to the Federal Transit Administration by October 2014.

The policy includes a method of analyzing disparate impacts on different populations for various changes in service, including: fare increases, decreases in frequency of service, decreases in span of service, and reduction in days of service.

This brief was filed from the boardroom at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library at 343 S. Fifth Ave., where the AAATA board holds its meetings. A more detailed report of the meeting will follow: [link]

The location of the 624 Church St. project is indicated with a red pushpin. Locations of structures in Ann Arbor’s public parking system are indicated with blue Ps.

Most recently, at the Dec. 19 meeting of the DDA’s operations committee, the discussion focused on location: For which of the six public parking structures would monthly permits be sold? The developer of the 624 Church St. project would prefer that the project be allowed to buy permits in the Forest parking structure.

The Forest facility, a joint venture of the DDA and the University of Michigan, is the structure closest to the proposed residential development. According to the developer’s Nov. 28 submittal to the city, the 13-story project would include more than 80,000 square feet of new floor area with the following configuration of apartments: 11 one-bedroom; 21 two-bedroom; 33 three-bedroom; and 11 four-bedroom units. That’s a total of 76 apartments, with 196 bedrooms.

The developer, Opus Development Corp., has already won approval from the DDA’s board to satisfy the project’s parking requirement without providing onsite spaces – by instead using the contribution in lieu (CIL) program. The CIL provides an option to purchase monthly permits, but the cost is at a rate 20% higher than standard pricing.

Discussion by the DDA operations committee on Dec. 19 centered around the issue of fairness: Would allowing the purchase of permits in the Forest structure give the developer of the 624 Church St. project an unfair competitive advantage in the South University area rental market? Raising the fairness issue was DDA board member Roger Hewitt, who owns Revive + Replenish, which is a tenant in the ground floor of the Zaragon Place on East University. Zaragon is a nine-story apartment building with almost 250 bedrooms, catering to the student rental market.

Other board members did not perceive the issue to be problematic, from the perspective of fairness to already-existing projects. And Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, pointed out that the decision to allow a project to purchase monthly parking permits is a tool that’s available to the DDA to help make a private development possible that otherwise would not be. In the case of 624 Church St., building parking spaces on that site isn’t feasible. Hewitt was concerned that the strategy – if the DDA allowed permits to be purchased at a structure very near to projects – might result in an incentive for developers in the future not to build any onsite parking.

The committee’s discussion was inconclusive, but committee members indicated they wanted to develop a formal policy on which parking structures would be chosen for monthly permits sold under the CIL program. The 624 Church St. project is due to come before the city planning commission on Jan. 15, so the developer would prefer to have the issue settled by then. But given the DDA’s desire first to establish a policy that would guide this and future decisions, it’s unlikely it will be finalized as early as mid-January.

Based on the committee’s discussion, capacity in the parking system does not appear currently to be a limiting factor on selling CIL permits. The committee also reviewed the latest monthly parking data, which shows continued increased usage of the new underground garage, Library Lane.

Revenues per space in the Library Lane structure are now beginning to approach those of on-street parking spaces, but are still the lowest of any facility in the system. That’s due in part to a discounted rate offered to induce holders of permits in other structures to move to Library Lane.

Also of interest at the operations committee meeting was a draft policy for holding events on top of the Library Lane structure, including the closure of the mid-block cut-through, Library Lane itself.

624 Church: Additional Background on CIL

The D1 zoning for the 624 Church St. project doesn’t actually include any parking requirements – as long as the total floor area does not exceed 400% FAR (floor area ratio). But as proposed, the project comes in at 665% FAR. And to get the extra 265% FAR as a by-right premium, the city’s requirement of 1 parking space for each 1,000 square feet of additional floor area works out to 40 parking spaces.

The DDA board had already voted, on Oct. 3, 2012, to authorize the parking spaces – somewhere in the system. It’s the first time the policy has been applied. It’s not the same mechanism that was used to provide Google an incentive to locate some of its offices in downtown Ann Arbor. Parking spaces were offered to Google on a subsidized basis. What’s at issue for 624 Church St. is the ability to purchase monthly permits by paying a premium rate.

A mechanism for new developments in downtown Ann Arbor to meet minimum parking requirements – without providing onsite spaces – has been part of the city’s downtown planning and development policy for a little more than three years. The city council adopted new zoning for the downtown on Nov. 18, 2009.

And the Ann Arbor DDA, which operates the public parking system under contract with the city, had approved its recommendation of a specific CIL policy more than two years ago, at its July 7, 2010 board meeting.

The city council then formally adopted the DDA’s recommended policy, at its April 2, 2012 meeting, with the policy’s two options: (1) purchase monthly parking permits in the public parking system for an extra 20% of the current rate for such permits, with a commitment of 15 years; or (2) make a lump sum payment of $55,000 per space. It’s option (1) that the 624 Church St. project is exercising.

Current standard pricing of permits at Forest is $145 a month. At the CIL rate, the cost would be $174 a month.

624 Church: Committee Discussion on Location

Roger Hewitt raised two issues of concern to him – fairness and the unintended consequence of giving an incentive to developers not to provide onsite parking spaces. He also felt there could potentially be a legal liability for the DDA.

On the fairness question, Susan Pollay – executive director of the DDA – indicated that the kind of judgments involved were already being made in the context of the DDA’s regular monthly parking permits program. She wondered what the legal liability could be. Hewitt responded by saying that if a developer spends millions of extra dollars to add parking spaces to a project, and a different developer in the future simply asks the DDA to purchase monthly permits, the project that’s been granted the right to satisfy parking requirements by purchasing permits could become a more profitable project.

Hewitt feared the DDA would be incentivizing developers not to build onsite parking spaces. So he floated the idea that if N spaces were required, then only some percentage of N would be provided in a structure located close to the project. For example, he said, if the project needs 40 spaces, then perhaps 10% – or four spaces – would be provided in a location close to the project, with the rest provided elsewhere in the system.

Pollay again questioned whether there was any actual legal liability. DDA board member Joan Lowenstein, an attorney, indicated she didn’t think there was a legal problem – and the matter of fairness was one that’s to be addressed through an administrative process.

Hewitt reiterated his position – he was worried that in the future, because of the availability of the monthly permit options, “nobody builds parking.” DDA board member John Splitt ventured that it’s not completely clear whether a project that satisfies its parking requirement through the purchase of monthly permits would be more profitable than one that builds onsite spaces. He said the DDA doesn’t know what the return on the investment for a private developer is – one who charges residents for the use of an onsite parking space – to build those spaces. Hewitt ventured that the return is less than building “student dorm space.”

Pollay noted that the DDA was established to encourage new development, to increase TIF (tax increment financing), and that the contribution in lieu (CIL) of parking is specifically designed to encourage residential development. She stated that the only way the 624 Church St. project could be built – due to constraints of the site configuration – is if the CIL program were available.

DDA board member Leah Gunn noted that the only open question is the location of the monthly permits – because the board had already voted to allow 624 Church St. to purchase monthly permits somewhere in the system. She wondered if it were possible to sell some of the permits in the Forest structure and some elsewhere.

The conversation circled back to the question of fairness. Pollay asked if Hewitt was worried about fairness with respect to future projects or current projects? Hewitt seemed to indicate that fairness would dictate that existing projects should also have the option to obtain permits under the CIL program. Pollay stated that projects like Landmark and Zaragon Place are already built – so she didn’t see it as a fairness problem.

Landmark and Zaragon have onsite parking spaces, and those developments are renting the spaces to their tenants, Pollay noted. So Pollay said it seemed to her like those projects built parking spaces onsite because they chose to. Lowenstein ventured that it’s a competitive market, so the availability of onsite parking could be an advantage.

On the issue of fairness, Gunn asked if it was fair for Google’s parking permits to be subsidized initially, but not the parking spaces for Barracuda Networks. She allowed that employees of Barracuda are still getting a deal, because of the discount that the DDA has applied (for anyone, not just for Barracuda) to the cost of permits in the new underground Library Lane structure.

Gunn came back to her point that the DDA had already determined that the public parking system had adequate capacity to sell 40 permits to the 624 Church St. project. The only question is where, she said. Responding to concerns voiced again by Hewitt, Splitt suggested that the question of location could require “a bit more of a deeper dive.” Splitt didn’t want the choice of location for the permits to translate into a disincentive to construct onsite parking spaces.

Pollay suggested putting off a decision and asking city planning staff for their input. She suggested forming a subcommittee. Gunn wanted clarification: Would the subcommittee focus just on the 40 permits for 624 Church St.? Hewitt stated that the subcommittee should work on a general policy on location, saying, “We need a policy to defend in public.” Splitt wondered if it might not be possible to approve the 40 spaces for 624 Church St. in a particular location without the general policy. Pollay suggested that it might be worth hearing from the DDA’s legal counsel.

Local attorney Scott Munzel, who represents the developer, attended the operations committee meeting. He told committee members that it was an interesting conversation. He felt that developers prefer to build parking spaces on site, if they can, and suspected they make money on those spaces. He felt that allowing the purchase of monthly permits in a nearby structure would not be a disincentive to build spaces on site. He pointed out that the CIL program requires the payment of a premium – 20% more than the prevailing standard cost. That 20% was not huge, he allowed, but it’s real.

Munzel suggested an approach where the DDA could agree to sell 40 permits now in the Forest structure, but reserve the right “to boot them out” to a different structure in the future. That might be a way to make people feel more comfortable, he ventured.

A question from DDA board member Keith Orr drew out the fact that the parking permit contract under the CIL program was for 15 years. Pollay indicated that the idea was that in 15 years, it was hoped that the transit system of the future would be so robust that parking requirements for new developments would be zero.

Gunn then asked Joe Morehouse, deputy director of the DDA, where he’d choose to sell the permits. Economically, Morehouse said, it would be better to sell the permits for the Forest structure – compared to the Maynard and Liberty Square structures. The $29 added to the $145 for a standard monthly permit at Forest would yield more in a year than hourly parking typically does at Forest, he said. But the location where the permits would benefit the system most would be at Fourth and William, he said.

By way of additional background, there are currently 101 monthly permits for the Forest structure assigned by the DDA. But the University of Michigan has access to one-third of the 854 spaces there. UM affiliates with an appropriate parking pass can enter the structure until the one-third limit is reached.

Munzel noted that the city planning commission would have the 624 Church St. project on its agenda on Jan. 15, 2013. The parking requirement, met through the CIL program, would be part of the development agreement, which will be part of the site plan approval process, he noted. Munzel felt that Opus Development Corp. wouldn’t necessarily “have heartburn” if the location was not settled by the Jan. 15 planning commission meeting. Munzel felt it wouldn’t be a problem to say, “The DDA is still considering it.” It would, however, be easier to say, “This is what’s been decided,” Munzel said. It would need to be decided by the time a final approval is given by the city council, he said.

Varsity: Also Asking for CIL

At the Dec. 19 meeting of the DDA operations committee, it was noted that the Varsity development is also looking for four monthly permits under the CIL program. The project, located on East Washington Street, is a 13-story, 173-unit, 178,380-square-foot apartment building for approximately 418 persons with 77 parking spaces. Construction on the project is well underway.

Roger Hewitt’s reaction to the news that the Varsity was requesting four CIL spaces was: “How’d they get almost done and then find out they needed spaces?” Amber Miller, the DDA’s planning specialist, explained that the Varsity thought it had a viable agreement with Zipcar to contract for spaces, to satisfy part of the parking requirement.

In response to an emailed query, Ann Arbor city planning manager Wendy Rampson essentially confirmed that understanding, writing that the Varsity had proposed to locate two car share spaces (Zipcar) in a surface parking lot on the property it owns west of the Varsity. One car share space is equal to four required parking spaces.

That would add eight spaces to the total provided by the Varsity, even though the Varsity only needs to provide an additional six spaces. Rampson believed that because the Varsity was not able to reach an agreement with Zipcar, the developer is now requesting four monthly permits from the DDA under the CIL program. The four permits, with the two spaces on the west parcel, add up to the six additional spaces that the Varsity needs to fulfill its additional parking requirement.

Monthly Parking Data

At its Dec. 19 meeting, the DDA operations committee received the regular report of parking revenues broken down by facility. At the Dec. 5, 2012 meeting of the full board, DDA board member Roger Hewitt indicated that the format of monthly parking reports would be changed to include more detailed data. That change has not yet been implemented. Currently, the DDA uses revenue and total numbers of hourly patrons as an imperfect proxy to gauge use of the system.

Ann Arbor public parking system: Hourly patrons in November 2012 (green trend line) showed a slight increase over November 2011, after showing a four-year low in September and mid-range numbers in October, compared to the last three years. Compared to last year, the number of parking spaces in the system has increased from 6,995 to 7,806, mostly due to the construction of the Library Lane structure, with its 700+ spaces.

Ann Arbor public parking system: Revenue continues to show higher levels than last year in the same month – due at least in part to higher rates, hourly billing instead of half-hourly, and around 800 additional spaces in the system compared to last year. Revenues from October to November this year showed a slight downward trend, as they have in each of the last three years.

Ann Arbor public parking system: Revenue per space in structures. The Forest structure (yellow trend line) is historically somewhat volatile, as it’s subject to the rhythms of the University of Michigan academic schedule. That’s the structure where the 624 Church St. project would like to purchase 40 monthly parking permits, instead of building the spaces on site. Library Lane (black trend line) showed continued increases in usage, with revenues per space approaching those of the on-street parking spaces (gray trend line).

Ann Arbor public parking system: Revenues per space in surface lots. Revenues at the old Y lot at Fifth and William (purple trend line) reflect the onset of Library Lane construction, which removed the surface parking there, and later, the opening of the new Library Lane parking structure.

Ann Arbor public parking system: Revenues per space. Systemwide (heavy black trend line) the system showed a slight decline from October to November in revenues per space, as it has in past years.

Events on Top of Library Lane

At its Dec. 19 meeting, the operations committee was also provided with a draft of ideas for a policy on special events at the Library Lane mid-block cut-through and the top of the Library Lane parking garage.

The preamble to the draft includes the expectation that the site would eventually include a building with public open space:

The structural component of the underground Library Lane structure was designed to anticipate the construction of a future building and a future public open space area. In the meanwhile, until such time as these elements are designed and constructed, the DDA is supportive of community groups using the Library Lane surface parking lot and the adjoining Library Lane for events, public gatherings and meetings.

In the draft, the main bureaucratic requirement is approval by the city of Ann Arbor for a special events permit, which currently costs $34. There would also be an insurance requirement and the need to agree in advance to pay for any damages. Event organizers would not be allowed to drive stakes into the surface of the site. Trash is required to be removed from the site after an event. No water is available, and the use of power generators would not be allowed.

In some of the smattering of conversation on the issue, DDA board member Keith Orr ventured that he thought it’d be interesting to see a Bottom of the Park-type event, hosted on the lowest level of the underground garage – a play on the name of the Ann Arbor Summer Festival‘s “Top of the Park.”

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

From left: Washtenaw County commissioners Dan Smith and Conan Smith, and Pete Simms, management analyst with the county clerk's office.

Their work is laying a foundation for soliciting proposals later this year – possibly by September – for an entity to handle the county’s animal control services. The county currently contracts with the Humane Society of Huron Valley for that work.

A separate work group, led by sheriff Jerry Clayton, is developing a cost structure for those services. A preliminary cost analysis has already been drafted, but a more detailed report is being prepared that will give estimates for different service levels that might be offered.

The policy task force and cost work group were created by the county board at its Feb. 15, 2012 meeting, when commissioners also approved a $415,000 contract with the HSHV to provide animal control services for the county through Dec. 31, 2012. The task force and work group will likely come together at a July 25 meeting, another step toward setting a new scope of services tied to costs.

The July 25 discussion is expected to include representatives from other communities that have their own animal control ordinances, including Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township. Commissioners also plan to invite county prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie to the table as well – his office has purview over prosecuting animal cruelty cases and other legal issues related to animal control, which have an impact on expenses.

At the June 29 meeting, there was some discussion about issuing a preliminary request for proposals (RFP), to get responses about costs for a minimum level of service. However, it’s not clear whether that idea has traction. Rob Turner, the county board’s liaison to the cost work group, said he was shocked that such an approach might be considered, given the amount of work that’s being done to develop a policy and cost structure as the basis for issuing an RFP. Conan Smith, the board chair who is spearheading this effort, indicated it was not his intent to sideline the existing process.

Throughout the June 29 meeting, commissioner Barbara Bergman was vocal in her support of keeping costs to a minimum and in sticking to the county’s mandated services. She said her compassion is for human beings who don’t have food or shelter, and she doesn’t want to be considered uncompassionate just because she wants the county’s funding to be spent on humans.

A representative from the Humane Society of Huron Valley – Jenny Paillon, HSHV director of operations – told commissioners that ideas for generating new revenue are also being developed, and could be presented at the July 25 meeting. That meeting is scheduled from 8-10 a.m. at the lower level of the county administration building, 200 N. Main in Ann Arbor.

All of these meetings are open to the public and are being facilitated by members of the Dispute Resolution Center. Information related to this process – including meeting minutes and materials provided to commissioners – are also posted on the county’s website.

Timing – A Preliminary RFP?

The June 29 discussion began with a question about when to issue a request for proposals (RFP). Conan Smith noted that the board had originally planned to issue an RFP in September of 2012, but if it could be done sooner, that would be better. He said it might be possible to issue a “preliminary” RFP prior to the main RFP, to get responses about a baseline level of service.

Barbara Bergman said she had proposed this approach to Smith. By September, there are only three months left in the year, she said, and it’s cutting the time too short. Bergman told the others at the meeting that she had attended the first task force meeting on May 9, but not the other meetings – as she felt the work was being done too late. But Smith had convinced her to come to this meeting, she said. [At the May 9 meeting, the only commissioners to show up were Bergman and Smith, so the meeting had been canceled. Since then, two other meetings had been held in addition to the one on June 29 – on May 23 and June 13. Bergman did not attend either of those.]

Bergman wanted to send out a preliminary RFP as fast as the county’s procurement staff could issue it. That would send the message that the county isn’t complacent about this process, she said, and that they have a fairly tight budget.

Smith said he’d follow up on that idea, but he wanted to talk to the procurement staff to see if it made sense from a purchasing perspective. Based on that feedback, he said, it might be possible to bring a preliminary RFP for board approval at the July 11 board meeting, he said. [As of July 9, there is no RFP for animal control services on the July 11 agenda.]

Rob Turner said he was shocked. Two groups have been working on this issue – the task force on policy, and a separate work group led by the sheriff to develop specifics about costs. Now, even before these groups finish their tasks, the county is going to issue an RFP for minimum service levels? “I’m really lost,” he said. Turner said commissioners were still trying to determine what level of service they want to provide, and what they could afford.

From left: Washtenaw County commissioner Barbara Bergman and Belinda Dulin, executive director of the Ann Arbor-based Dispute Resolution Center. Four DRC facilitators have been attending these policy task force meetings.

Smith clarified that a preliminary RFP would not set a scope of services. He then said that maybe the term “RFP” isn’t the right one to use. It’s almost like a pre-bid process, he said. Smith also cautioned that he’d had only a very brief conversation with Bergman about this approach the previous day, but hadn’t yet talked with county administrator Verna McDaniel or other key county staff about it. They might give the advice that this isn’t the best approach to use, he said.

Smith stressed that he wanted to honor the process that the board and staff had laid out – he’s not interested in sidelining that.

Bergman noted that there might be other people who can provide services, not just the Humane Society of Huron Valley. And if the county board doesn’t get that kind of information about other service providers, she added, then they’re just “whistling in the wind.” HSHV is satisfied to provide a certain level of service at a certain price, Bergman said. But the county might be able to get the service at a lower cost. If they don’t get that information before September, she said, then they’ll have nowhere to turn except HSHV.

At this point, McDaniel walked into the room and delivered a cup of coffee to Bergman, joking that it was “anti-grouch juice.”

Rolland Sizemore Jr. described the situation as a mess. In preparing the 2012 budget, the county administration hadn’t discussed how much to cut back on the HSHV payment before making the budget proposal late last year, he said.

By way of background, until Dec. 31, 2011, the county had paid HSHV $500,000 annually. The 2012 budget approved by the county board in late 2011 cut funding for animal control services to $250,000, although commissioners also discussed the possibility of paying an additional $180,000 to HSHV – if the nonprofit took over work previously done by the county’s animal control officers. That brought the total amount budgeted for animal control to $430,000 in 2012. HSHV officials rejected that contract offer, saying that even $500,000 wasn’t sufficient to cover costs for all the work they do.

Through mid-February 2012, the county and HSHV operated under a $29,000 month-by-month contract, while trying to reach a new agreement. At the county board’s Feb. 15 meeting, commissioners approved a $415,000 contract with HSHV that will provide animal control services for the county through Dec. 31, 2012. [.pdf of current HSHV contract] The intent was to give the county time to develop and issue a request for proposals (RFP) later this year to solicit bids for the next contract.

At the June 29 meeting, Sizemore said he didn’t want to rush things. He noted that the county had already looked for outside service providers, but didn’t find any that could do the work of HSHV. Smith pointed out that Sizemore was referring to the county’s search for an interim service provider – the county didn’t issue an RFP for taking over the animal control work permanently.

Sizemore then complained that not enough commissioners are involved in this discussion – that’s part of the problem, he said. [The only commissioners who have attended the three full meetings of the policy task force are Conan Smith, Rob Turner and Wes Prater. Others who have attended at least one of the meetings: Barbara Bergman, Felicia Brabec, Ronnie Peterson, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Dan Smith. Leah Gunn and Alicia Ping have not attended any of the three full task force meetings, which have been held on weekday mornings.]

Sizemore stressed that HSHV provides the best quality service. He again stated that he didn’t want to rush things.

At this point, Conan Smith told the group that he wanted to sidebar this conversation. He could hear the tension around the table, and he vowed to have a “fulsome” discussion with all commissioners. The sheriff’s work group is developing a cost structure, Smith noted. When the policy task force has finished its work, that policy information will be sent to the sheriff’s work group so that the group can provide a cost estimate for each level of service. That will provide a standard from which the board of commissioners can make its decisions, he said.

Levels of Service

Belinda Dulin, executive director of the Ann Arbor-based Dispute Resolution Center, told commissioners that she appreciated the passion she heard around the table. Their task today was to finish the serviceability matrix that they had started to develop at the June 13 meeting, she said. [.pdf of serviceability matrix]

The intent is to identify different levels of potential service, from a baseline minimum or mandated service (Level 1), through increased levels of service that the county might want to provide beyond its state mandate. Level 3, for example, would be the best level that could be provided, if cost were not a factor. The mandated level is based on research by Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, who has summarized the county’s mandates in a memo to commissioners. [.pdf of Hedger's memo]

Dulin noted that at the next meeting (on July 25) the group is planning to tackle the issue of cost for those different serviceability levels.

Levels of Service: Discussion at June 13 Meeting

The matrix includes three categories of services and duties: (1) the county’s general legal obligations; (2) mandated services/duties; and (3) non-mandated services/duties. Line items within each category are:

General Legal Obligations:

• Licensing of dogs
• Licensing of kennels
• Duty to hold unlicensed dogs (4 business days), licensed dogs (7 business days) and dogs, cats, or ferrets (10 business days if suspected of rabies)
• Euthanize abandoned strays

Mandated Services/Duties:

• Dangerous animal to be held pending the outcome of legal proceedings – owner is financially responsible.
• Any law enforcement officer can bring a dog-fighting animal to a shelter at any time.
• Any animal found in an animal cruelty case must be held for a minimum of 14 business days, following an initial 72 hours during which an owner can claim the animal.

Non-Mandated Services/Duties:

• Urgent medical attention
• Palliative care
• Cruelty investigation
• Long-term care
• Ownership identification
• Emergency identification
• Respond to nuisance complaints
• Adoption

The commissioners who attended the June 13 – Conan Smith, Felicia Brabec, Wes Prater and Rob Turner – had already worked through a portion of the matrix related to mandated services. The following is a summary of the general consensus reached at that meeting.

For licensing, Level 1 was described as the current service, with licenses required for all dogs older than six months. The proposed Level 2 would allow animal owners to buy licenses from veterinarians, in addition to local government offices. Level 2 would also entail the county increasing its enforcement efforts to ensure compliance with dog licensing. For Level 3, the county would require that cats and exotic animals be licensed, in addition to dogs.

For the licensing of kennels, the current level is the baseline – if you operate a kennel, you come to the county for a license. Conan Smith had argued that Level 2 should entail enforcement, to ensure that all kennels are complying. Level 3 could be inspections of licensed kennels.

For the mandate to hold a stray animal, Level 1 is the base requirement for dogs – four business days if unlicensed, or seven business days if licensed. For dogs, cats or ferrets, the law requires holding for 10 business days if they are suspected of having rabies. Commissioners discussed setting Level 2 as a more robust information-sharing approach to help owners locate strays, as the HSHV currently does by posting information about found animals online. Level 3 could entail keeping all animals until they are adopted.

Regarding the euthanization of abandoned strays, the county at minimum has a mandated duty to euthanize if strays are not claimed by their owners. There did not seem to be a clear consensus among commissioners at the June 13 meeting about higher levels of service – that is, how long should the county pay to hold strays before they are euthanized. Conan Smith advocated for euthanization to be the last resort, but Wes Prater was concerned about cost.

At the June 13 meeting, the group also discussed the non-mandated services of urgent medical attention, with the first level being to address the immediate emergency medical needs of an animal, such as dealing with a broken leg or open wound. There were no other levels in this category.

Levels of Service: Non-Mandated Services

At the June 29 meeting, Crystal Collin of the Dispute Resolution Center facilitated the discussion and started with items related to non-mandated services. She began with the first item that had been addressed at the June 13 meeting – urgent medical attention.

Barbara Bergman, who had not attended that meeting, asked for clarification about what urgent medical attention means. If a leg needs to be amputated, for example, is that done? Jenny Paillon, HSHV director of operations – who has attended all the meetings as an observer – told commissioners that HSHV provides palliative care, but only takes extra measures if the owner comes forward. Conan Smith noted that an extra level is required in animal cruelty cases as well.

Bergman wanted more information about what would trigger specific kinds of emergency attention, and what it would cost. ”There are only so many body parts, and only so much you can do to an animal,” she said.

Levels of Service: Non-Mandated Services – Animal Cruelty

Barbara Bergman wanted to know what happens if an animal cruelty investigation doesn’t result in prosecution – does the county still bear the cost of that investigation? Yes, Conan Smith replied. Jenny Paillon of the HSHV noted that the animal cruelty law provides a definition of animal cruelty. [.pdf of Michigan animal cruelty statutes]

Bergman expressed concern about how to determine whether to investigate. It would be possible to investigate “ad nauseum,” she said. Rob Turner pointed out that the sheriff’s work group has been provided with a breakdown of information related to animal cruelty calls. [.pdf of animal cruelty data] He noted that only 5% of cases lead to prosecution.

Jenny Paillon, director of operations for the Humane Society of Huron Valley.

In that case, Bergman said, that’s a lot of investigative service that she didn’t think the county should be paying for. She did not want to pay to educate the public about what constitutes cruelty, for example. The Humane Society has endowments and donors for such things, she said. Conan Smith replied that it’s a question of the minimum level of service, compared to additional services that the county might want. Paillon later noted that many of the HSHV donor funds are designated for particular programs, and can’t be used to pay for county mandated services.

Commissioners talked about the need to bring county prosecutor Brian Mackie into the conversation, to talk about what triggers prosecution. Smith noted that if an owner is prosecuted, that person is obligated to cover the costs associated with the case. Recovery of those costs can be difficult, however.

Smith said that the Level 1 service for animal cruelty is to cover the cost of prosecution – that’s a state mandate.

Bergman again stressed that the county shouldn’t pay for education. Rob Turner pointed out that in the long run, educating people about how to care for their animals might be cheaper than covering the cost of an investigation. Paillon clarified that HSHV doesn’t hold classes or anything like that. Rather, if they get a call about a possible animal cruelty case, they go out and talk to the owner to see if the animal is getting proper care. If it’s a borderline case, she said, they’ll give the owner a chance to correct the situation rather than immediately pursuing prosecution.

Wes Prater said that nowhere in the animal cruelty law does it mention education. The issue is one of law enforcement, he said.

Smith also wanted to clarify what triggers an investigation. Is it just a phone call from someone, or does a formal complaint have to be filed? There’s a question of volume, he said.

Levels of Service: Non-Mandated Services – Long-Term Care

Conan Smith said that long-term care is an issue that relates to more than just palliative care, which he described as Level 1. The second level could be to determine a certain amount of time during which the county would invest in helping an animal recuperate. Level 3 could be bringing an animal to full health and caring for it until adoption, he said.

Barbara Bergman pointed out that the state mandate relates only to dogs. What about cows, for example – how would that be handled? she asked. Where would the county house a herd?

Smith noted that animal cruelty laws apply to all animals, not just dogs. That’s why the question of forfeiture is so important, he said. The owner is supposed to bear the cost, but in fact it becomes the county’s cost because the owner often doesn’t pay. “So we have to take care of Bossy and her sisters?” Bergman asked. Yes, Smith said, until the owner forfeits ownership. At that point, though, the county’s mandate ends, he said.

Rob Turner had framed it well at the May 23 task force meeting, Smith said – saying the issue is finding balance between the mandated duty and the county’s moral duty of compassion.

Bergman replied that her compassion is for human beings who don’t have food or shelter. She doesn’t want to be considered uncompassionate just because she wants the county’s funding to be spent on humans. Smith agreed, saying the conversation needs to include a variety of interests.

Levels of Service: Non-Mandated Services – Owner Identification

The county doesn’t have a mandate to identify the owners of stray animals. The task force seemed to reach a consensus that a Level 2 of service would be to support online efforts to identify owners. Jenny Paillon of the HSHV indicated that the web-based approach is the best option, so the group did not identify additional levels of service beyond that.

The item of emergency identification was eliminated, as it seemed to overlap with owner identification.

Levels of Service: Non-Mandated Services – Respond to Nuisance Complaints

After a brief discussion, commissioners decided to eliminate this item, as it seemed to relate to law enforcement rather than animal control.

Levels of Service: Non-Mandated Services – Adoption

Barbara Bergman felt that the county had no obligation to be involved in adopting out animals. Conan Smith argued that if a stray animal is adopted out fast, the county will pay less because the animal won’t be held as many days. Jenny Paillon of the HSHV added that adopting out an animal also eliminates the cost of euthanizing it – those costs work out to about $40 per animal, depending on its size. “But it might take forever” to adopt, Bergman replied.

The group seemed to arrive at a consensus that Level 2 would provide for holding an animal longer than the minimum number of days required by law, with the hope that it would be adopted. Level 3 would be that every animal is held until it is adopted.

Levels of Service: Mandated – Dangerous Animals

Commissioners also addressed items in the mandated category that had not been covered at the June 13 meeting. Dangerous animals are required to be held pending the outcome of legal proceedings, and the owner is financially responsible. Conan Smith said county prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie should be involved in this conversation. The mandate requires that the county hold the animal for at least 72 hours, but unless the owner forfeits the animal, the county is required to hold the animal until the end of legal proceedings.

If the county can develop a policy with Mackie so that Mackie’s office would regularly request forfeiture, “it opens up our options,” Smith said.

Rob Turner noted that this issue was also discussed at the sheriff’s work group. There could be huge costs savings with the approach that Smith described, he said.

Barbara Bergman brought up the example of cows again – where would a herd of cows be housed, and who would pay for that? That’s when different levels of service would be triggered, Smith replied. He joked that if someone is a “destitute cow abuser” and can’t pay for housing the herd during legal proceedings, then the county has to decide what it’s willing to pay for.

Wes Prater pointed out that this isn’t a county board decision – because the law leaves it entirely up to the county prosecutor to determine whether to request forfeiture. Smith said he thought Mackie would be amenable to developing a policy with the board.

Next Steps

As the June 29 session wrapped up, Belinda Dulin of the Dispute Resolution Center noted that there were a few issues that had been tabled but that would need to be addressed at some point: (1) how to identify other potential service providers; (2) how to determine indirect costs; and (3) reaching out to the county prosecutor and judges to include them in this discussion.

Washtenaw County commissioner Wes Prater and county administrator Verna McDaniel.

Conan Smith stressed the importance of including county prosecutor Brian Mackie and county treasurer Catherine McClary into the conversation, saying they have tremendous influence over cost and recovery issues.

Rob Turner said the sheriff’s work group will pull together a document to identify costs for the levels of service that are described by the policy task force. Members of the work group then could meet with the policy task force to review those costs. Barbara Bergman noted that Jenny Paillon of the HSHV had been very helpful, but Bergman didn’t want to expand the meetings to include people who aren’t part of the task force or work group. She noted that the meetings were open to the public, and anyone could come to observe.

Smith suggested that at the July 25 meeting, both groups would merge into one for the remaining discussions, to talk about costs and scope of services.

Paillon said that HSHV is also working on ideas for generating new revenue, and those ideas could be presented at the July 25 meeting.

County administrator Verna McDaniel noted that some of the other municipalities with animal control ordinances have requirements and services that are different than the county. “We need to respect that,” she said. Smith told commissioners that they had been given copies of those ordinances to review – for the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and Ypsilanti Township. [.pdf of Ann Arbor animal control ordinance] [.pdf of Ypsilanti animal control ordinance] [.pdf of Ypsilanti Township animal control ordinance]

Present: Barbara Bergman, Felicia Brabec (arrived at 8:40 a.m.), Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi (arrived at 9:20 a.m.), Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith (left at 9 a.m.), Rob Turner. Also from the county administration: Verna McDaniel, Greg Dill.

Next meeting: Wednesday, July 25, 8-10 a.m. in the lower level of the county administration building, 200 N. Main St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date and location]

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

At the May 23 meeting of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners' task force on animal control services, commissioner Rob Turner discusses the different service levels the county could provide. Turner is also the board's liaison to a work group led by sheriff Jerry Clayton that's developing a cost analysis of animal control services. (Photos by the writer.)

It was the second meeting scheduled. The first one – on May 9 – was canceled after only two commissioners showed up. The intent is to set policy that will guide a request for proposals that the county plans to issue later this year, for its next contract to provide animal control services. Those services are currently handled by the Humane Society of Huron Valley (HSHV), in a contract that expires at the end of 2012.

The wide-ranging discussion revealed tensions between the push to control costs – a point that’s been driving these changes – and a desire by some to provide a higher level of service than what’s mandated by the state. There seemed to be at least some initial consensus that while the state mandate focuses on stray dogs and animal cruelty, the county should support a broader range of animal control services, depending on the cost.

Also discussed was the need to bring more communities into the conversation – at least those that have their own animal control ordinances, including Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township. Representatives from those municipalities are participating in a separate work group, led by sheriff Jerry Clayton, that’s developing a cost structure for animal control services. The hope is that other communities will also give financial support to HSHV, or possibly another service provider.

Four additional task force meetings are scheduled: on June 13, July 25, Aug. 22 and Sept. 12. All meetings are open to the public and will provide an opportunity for public commentary. They’ll take place from 8-10 a.m. at the county’s Learning Resource Center, 4135 Washtenaw Ave., and are being facilitated by representatives of the Dispute Resolution Center.

Animal Control Services: Background

When it developed the 2012-2013 budget, the county board decided to reduce funding for animal control services, which it has handled through a contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley (HSHV). Until Dec. 31, 2011, the county had paid HSHV $500,000 annually. The budget originally approved by the county board in late 2011 cut funding for animal control services to $250,000, although commissioners also discussed the possibility of paying an additional $180,000 to HSHV – if the nonprofit took over work previously done by the county’s animal control officers. That brought the total amount budgeted for animal control to $430,000 in 2012. HSHV officials rejected that contract offer, saying that even $500,000 wasn’t sufficient to cover costs for all the work they do.

Through mid-February 2012, the county and HSHV operated under a $29,000 month-by-month contract, while trying to reach a new agreement. At the county board’s Feb. 15 meeting, commissioners approved a $415,000 contract with the HSHV that will provide animal control services for the county just through Dec. 31, 2012. [.pdf of current HSHV contract] The intent was to give the county time to develop and issue a request for proposals (RFP) later this year to solicit bids for the next contract.

Also at that Feb. 15 meeting, the county board passed a resolution creating two entities – a policy task force and a work group –  to work through issues related to animal control services. [.pdf of Feb. 15 resolution] The work group, led by sheriff Jerry Clayton, is tasked with developing a methodology to determine the cost of providing animal control services. The work group includes representatives from HSHV, the county, and other municipalities that have animal control ordinances.

The task force was created for county commissioners to develop a policy that would guide the work group. Commissioners had set a May 15 deadline for an initial report from the task force, but that goal was not met. The first meeting of the task force, on May 9, was canceled after only two commissioners showed up – board chair Conan Smith, who had organized the meeting, and Barbara Bergman.

At the May 23 task force meeting, turnout was better – five commissioners attended: Smith, Ronnie Peterson, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi and Rob Turner. The meeting was also attended by four people affiliated with the Dispute Resolution Center, as well as county administrator Verna McDaniel and deputy county clerk Peter Simms, who took minutes. One member of the public was present: Kate Murphy, an HSHV volunteer. There was opportunity for public commentary at the end of the meeting, but by then Murphy had left.

Smith had prepared a binder with 115 pages of documents related to animal control issues. [.pdf of binder documents] He started the discussion by describing the focus of the task force: to identify the county’s mandated animal control services, and their minimum level of serviceability. That’s a level that might not be the amount of service the county wants to provide, he said, but it’s what Washtenaw County has to provide. The decision of the policy task force will be communicated to the work group that’s led by the sheriff, Smith continued, which will report back to the board regarding what it would cost to implement the policy and provide those services.

Smith noted that the county’s labor negotiations have been using interest-based bargaining for several years. It’s an approach that’s widely used at the federal level, he said, but generally it hasn’t been embraced by state or local governments. He said it can be a powerful tool for developing public policy, and it’s a technique that the Dispute Resolution Center uses – that’s why he asked the DRC to help with this task force work.

Animal Control: What’s the Goal?

Belinda Dulin, executive director of the Ann Arbor-based Dispute Resolution Center, was one of four DRC facilitators who attended the May 23 meeting. She told commissioners that the DRC would be a neutral facilitator – the center had no horse in this race, she said. Dulin noted that this isn’t a new discussion for commissioners, and she asked them to start by describing their ideal outcome.

County administrator Verna McDaniel began by saying she’d like the board to set a policy to guide what animal control services the county buys. While county officials should be clear that in an ideal world they’d like to provide full services, she said, there is also the need for cost containment. The services that the county has been receiving from the Humane Society of Huron Valley are excellent, McDaniel said – there’s no doubt about the quality. But the county is now in an era that requires defining those services and having a plan on how to pay for them. A policy would be very helpful in making budget projections, she said, as well as in monitoring the quality and level of services provided.

McDaniel concluded by saying she’d like the outcome of these discussions to be a clear determination of what services the county is purchasing, and projections of the costs and levels of those services.

Yousef Rabhi said he agreed with everything McDaniel said. The reason this conversation is happening is because of the county’s budget situation, he said. It’s not because commissioners don’t care about animals. The county board needs to know what they’re buying and how to budget for it, based on the levels of service they want to provide. He said his stance on the mandate is based on months of discussion by the board, and by a comprehensive report that the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, has provided regarding the mandate and minimum serviceability levels as required by state law. He noted that HSHV representatives had given input to the document, and it’s quite comprehensive. It should be their guiding document, Rabhi said. [.pdf of Hedger's memo]

The memo summarizes the county’s legal obligations in this way:

The County is responsible for the housing of stray dogs under the Dog Law of 1919. The County must pay for those dogs to be boarded for the statutory holding period of 4 days if the dog has a collar, license or other indicia of ownership or 7 days if it does not have such evidence of ownership. After this holding period, the dog could be euthanized and the county would have no further responsibility for the animal.

The County has no similar financial responsibility for other stray animals. While a county may, by ordinance, create an animal control agency to address the handling of these other species, Washtenaw County has never adopted such an ordinance and thus is not generally responsible for these animals.

The County has no financial responsibility for animals boarded under the Dangerous Animal or Fighting Dog laws as the acts specifically allocate the cost of boarding any animals under those laws, to the animal’s owner.

The County would have financial responsibility to pay for animals boarded under the general animal cruelty law found in MCLA 750.49-53. However, the two main sections involving animal cruelty, MCLA 750.50 and MCLA 750.50b both provide a process for the animal to be forfeited to the animal control or protection shelter. In addition, each of these acts encourages judges to assess boarding costs against the animal’s owner.

Finally, under the Public Health Code, the county would be responsible for holding certain animals suspected of having come into contact with a rabid animal for a period of time up to 10 days depending upon whether the animal was a stray, had indicia of ownership etc.

Rabhi said that after the cost of those minimum levels of service is determined, then the county can see what additional services they can afford.

Sally Brush of the Dispute Resolution Center takes notes during the May 23 meeting of the county board's animal control task force. She was one of four people from the DRC who helped facilitate the meeting.

Ronnie Peterson was brief in stating his desired outcome: How can the county go beyond its mandate, and keep its reputation for providing excellent services.

Wes Prater began by saying he was learning things he hadn’t heard before. The document from Hedger was very informative, he said. [Although other commissioners told him that Hedger's memo had been distributed last fall, Prater contended that he hadn't previously received it.] The mandate is the minimum, Prater said, though he added that he agreed with Peterson – they should also look at levels of service that have been historically provided.

Residents need to understand that revenues are shrinking, Prater said: “That’s just the way it is, and we have to live with what we’ve got.” Yet Prater also wanted to see what HSHV believes are the appropriate levels of service. For example, although mandates relate to dogs and not cats, the county has a significant feral cat problem, he said. [HSHV has a program to help manage the feral cat population by capturing, neutering, then returning the cats to their original habitat.]

Rob Turner noted that he serves as the board’s liaison to the work group that’s developing a cost structure for animal control services. He said there are three questions commissioners need to answer: (1) Are they looking at animal control from a state-mandate perspective? (2) Are they looking at it from the perspective of cost structure? (3) Are they making decisions based on their conscience?

The county must be safe for its residents and humane to its animals, Turner said, but the definition of “humane” is open to interpretation. Ultimately, the county also has to live within its budget, he said. The mandate for the work group is to determine the cost of current services – that report is supposed to be ready in mid-June. Does that influence the board’s policy? he asked. Can the county only afford its mandate? Or does the board follow its conscience – and at what cost?

Developing a Cost Structure

Although it’s the sheriff’s work group that is charged with developing a detailed cost analysis for animal control services, much of the discussion at the May 23 task force meeting centered on this issue, too.

Rob Turner noted that the Humane Society of Huron Valley is working on an itemized list of costs, similar to the costs that were detailed for a police services unit. [For background on that effort, see Chronicle coverage: "Washtenaw OKs Price for Police Services"] With an itemized list, he said, the board can see what it can afford, and make decisions based in part on that. He noted that the police services costs were itemized down to the price for ammunition in a gun. With a list like that, he said, the county would have flexibility to make choices.

Conan Smith observed that the itemized cost report is due on June 12, and could be discussed at the June 13 meeting of the policy task force. Task force members could give their feedback on it, he said, and that feedback could be communicated to the work group.

Turner cautioned that the June 12 date might be overly optimistic – it’s been asked for, but it wasn’t clear if it would be delivered. He said that when he initially requested the itemized costs, Tanya Hilgendorf, HSHV’s executive director, had said it couldn’t be done. When he told her it had to be done, Turner said she “begrudgingly agreed.” Unless sheriff Jerry Clayton holds the HSHV’s feet to the fire, Turner said he was afraid that the county would end up where it has in the past – with a generalized cost estimate, but not an itemized list of costs. Turner said it was important to have an accurate cost analysis, because that ultimately will determine the county’s policy for years to come.

Yousef Rabhi noted that an itemized list would be helpful so that the county could identify appropriate funding sources. For example, if a certain amount is used for gas in HSHV vehicles, the county might be able to fund that item from its fuel purchasing account, rather than the general fund.

Turner said that HSHV regularly brings up the animal cruelty case at a Salem Township horse farm late last year, as an example of expenses that the organization incurs and that the county is mandated to cover. But he said that’s an anomaly, like the mid-March tornado that struck the Dexter area. “Sure, you’ll have a cow every once in a while,” he said, but it’s something you just have to deal with when it happens – it can’t be built into a budget.

County commissioner Wes Prater.

Rabhi replied that animal cruelty cases fall under the state mandate, and are the county’s responsibility. That’s true, Turner said, but how do you budget for that kind of emergency?

Wes Prater suggested having a line-item for emergencies, based on the county’s best guess. Ronnie Peterson noted that HSHV should expect reasonable compensation for its work.

Peterson asked how the work group’s cost analysis would impact the deliberations of the task force. Smith said that he and Clayton have talked through the roles of each group and how the two entities interact. There needs to be a lot of information-sharing, he said. The task force is heavily dependent on the HSHV for information about costs, and the work group will be guided in part by the board’s policy. At some point, the two groups will need to merge, Smith said.

Another factor is that the scope goes beyond just the board of commissioners, Smith added. More members of the executive branch of county government need to be involved, he said – the treasurer and county prosecuting attorney, in addition to the sheriff. [The treasurer administers dog licenses. The prosecuting attorney's office handles animal cruelty cases.]

For example, Smith said, he wasn’t sure whether the county prosecuting attorney, Brian Mackie, regularly requests the release of animals from their owners in animal cruelty cases – asking the court to require that the animals be turned over to HSHV. The judges need to be part of the conversation too, he said. In animal cruelty cases, the law says the burden of cost – for the boarding and care of animals during the case – is on the owner. But often the owners don’t have the means to pay, he noted. Prater observed that judges have a lot of leeway in assessing fees, if the owner has the wherewithal to pay.

Smith reminded the group that the issue of cost recovery is a topic for the July 25 meeting of the task force – it’s a big issue. Prater disagreed, saying there are very few cruelty cases to deal with. Smith replied that although there might be a small number of cases, the issue is complex.

In terms of revenue, Turner noted that licensing is another source. He said the balance needs to be just right, however – if a license costs too much, people won’t pay. He also floated the possibility of licensing cats, which prompted Prater to respond: “Hold it right there! If you want to license cats, you’re opening the barn door.” Belinda Dulin of the DRC noted that the general topic of revenue is part of the focus of the task force’s July 25 meeting.

Tom Brush with the DRC asked whether the board conducts this kind of process for each of its funding decisions. Prater noted that it was used for resolving issues with police services, but that took several years to develop and only really got started after sheriff Clayton was elected. Rabhi added that the animal control process is slightly different, in that there are two groups – a policy task force, and cost work group – that are on parallel tracks.

What Type of Services?

In addressing the question of service levels, Conan Smith returned to Rob Turner’s earlier framing of the issue – cost and conscience. County administrator Verna McDaniel had indicated that the county needs a blend of the two, Smith said.

Wes Prater observed that everything hinges on revenue – “that’s where the rub’s gonna be,” he said.

Smith continued by noting that the state mandate breaks the county’s responsibilities into two areas: stray dogs, and animal cruelty. For him, there are a handful of questions that the board needs to answer related to serviceability in those areas. How long does the county keep an animal? The law isn’t clear about that, Smith said. In animal cruelty cases, some animals are held more than a year – that goes beyond the mandate, he said.

Turner noted that in animal cruelty cases, the county is required to keep the animal until the trial or the case comes to completion, or until the owner signs over the rights to the animal – which in many cases, the owners won’t do, he said. Otherwise, the number of days for holding animals is laid out (between 4-7 days) but that’s where the difference between mandate and mission emerges, Turner said. If the Humane Society’s mission is to hold animals longer than that, then that’s the nonprofit’s responsibility.

Or that could be the conscience piece of the county’s policy, Smith added. True, Turner replied, but conscience comes with a cost. It’s sad to say, but there needs to be cost controls on conscience, he said. So until the board gets information on cost, they can’t make a final decision about policy.

Prater observed that the difference between his conscience and someone else’s “might be miles apart.” That’s true with the 11 commissioners, and even more so with citizens throughout the county. “And I don’t know where to go with that one,” he said.

When the 1919 dog law was passed, stray dogs were the big issue, Ronnie Peterson said. But today, he added, animal control should be broader than that.

Mission vs. Mandate

Wes Prater suggested that the board step back from the Humane Society of Huron Valley. Instead of talking about HSHV, they should be asking what the scope of service would be for the RFP (request for proposals).

Rob Turner countered that HSHV is a big piece of the discussion. The county in the past has made a big commitment to the organization – helping secure financing for its new facility, and contributing a lot of money to that. And until the latest budget cycle, the county has given HSHV the funds it has requested, he said.

County commissioner Ronnie Peterson. In the background is Kate Murphy, a volunteer with the Humane Society of Huron Valley who attended the meeting as an observer.

Ronnie Peterson argued that HSHV volunteers and donors are the people who help keep costs down – that makes a big difference. The only other organization that comes close might be the homeless shelter, he said. [The Delonis Center in Ann Arbor, run by the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, was a project spearheaded by the county.]

The relationship between the county and HSHV is a two-way partnership, Peterson said, and it saves the county money. The board needs to look at the benefits that HSHV brings to the county, he added. That needs to be a factor as they develop an animal control policy.

Conan Smith said he appreciated Peterson’s comment. The county’s state mandate is for dogs, but the community mandate is likely broader, he said. If the county were to start an animal control department from scratch, Smith said he’d ask: (1) What do we want to do? and (2) What revenues do we have? Donors could be one revenue stream, he noted, and it’s important to embrace the fact that revenues from donors contribute to animal control.

Prater again said the conversation should move away from HSHV – a dog pound is required by the state, but that’s very different from the mission of the HSHV.

County administrator Verna McDaniel noted that the HSHV has a unique goal of achieving a 100% save rate, and that’s commendable, she said. On the other hand, the county’s mandate is to protect the health and safety of residents. To marry those two perspectives is virtually impossible, she said, from the standpoint of the county’s budget. So what middle ground can they find that’s satisfactory to both?

The county doesn’t have any business trying to change the mission of the HSHV, McDaniel said. But the county does have a responsibility to all its residents. These are rugged times. Every time you turn around, you face erosion of another revenue source, she said. Many things are beyond the county’s control, she added, but somehow the county needs to figure out a policy that allows them to meet their goals.

Everyone recognizes the value of the excellent services provided by HSHV, McDaniel continued, and the county would like to see HSHV continue providing those services. “The problem is the cost,” she said.

Smith said he was thinking about the issue politically, too. There’s a divide among commissioners – some believe the county should only provide the minimum mandated services, while at least one commissioner would spend any spare dime to provide animal welfare. The board needs to articulate the minimum level of service as a starting point, he said, then have a conversation about how far above the minimum they should go. If commissioners can agree on a minimum level of services and the cost of those services, at least they’ll know what the floor is for budgeting purposes.

Turner observed that the HSHV is a tool for determining costs to help guide the county in determining its policy and writing an RFP for services. But the policy that’s developed should not specifically reference HSHV, he said. “It has to be a generic policy.”

Turner also noted that most of the animals that come to the HSHV aren’t brought in by the county’s animal control officers. Most animals are brought by people off the street, he said. “If someone brings in a box of kitties they found on the side of the road, is that our responsibility?” If it’s not, he observed, that cuts the county’s costs in half.

Prater said there are two different issues – a state-mandated dog pound, and the HSHV’s mission of taking care of animals. He said he’s as passionate about taking care of animals as anyone, but the question is whether that’s the county’s role.

Belinda Dulin of the DRC suggested that it might be helpful to start using the term “service provider” rather than HSHV.

Ronnie Peterson said he didn’t understand how the county could look at other service providers aside from HSHV. How can commissioners use a formula to value the hundreds of donors and volunteers that HSHV brings to the table? The police services discussion didn’t have that element, he said.

Smith replied that HSHV has now agreed to work with the county’s finance staff, and he was sure they could come up with a cost structure that reflects in-kind contributions. If that’s the case, Peterson said, then perhaps it also could be used as a model for funding other agencies – like human service nonprofits – that the county supports financially.

Bringing Others to the Table

Belinda Dulin of the DRC asked about the other partners in this process, in addition to the county board. Verna McDaniel noted that the city of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Township both have animal control ordinances, but haven’t historically paid the HSHV for animal control services. Conan Smith said the city of Ypsilanti also has an animal control ordinance. [.pdf of Ann Arbor animal control ordinance] [.pdf of Ypsilanti animal control ordinance] [.pdf of Ypsilanti Township animal control ordinance]

Belinda Dulin, executive director of the Dispute Resolution Center, moderated the discussion at the May 23 task force meeting.

McDaniel said she sees these communities as partners, and there might be others. The county has been paying HSHV for animal control services, and has also budgeted for two animal control officers in the sheriff’s department. Costs have been approaching $1 million annually, she said. Other communities with animal control ordinances are significant stakeholders in this process, she said – that’s one reason why the county wanted to use the police services model to develop a cost structure. [Representatives from communities that contract with the county for sheriff deputy patrols were involved in developing the cost model for that service.]

Smith noted that two-thirds of the animals brought to HSHV come from communities with animal control ordinances.

Ronnie Peterson argued that if the county sees these communities as a major resource, then representatives from those communities should be at the table to develop an animal control policy. And in fact, he said, all communities in the county have a stake – everyone should be at the table. Resources should come from each community in the county, he said.

Wes Prater pointed out that it’s the county’s mandate to take care of stray dogs and animal cruelty cases. They’ll have a hard time convincing other communities to help pay for that, he said.

That’s why clarifying the mandate is so important, Smith replied. The mandate goes to a certain level, but many community ordinances go beyond that, so those communities should share the costs. But no one can have a conversation about that until a mandated level of service is determined, he said.

Turner noted that Ypsilanti Township and the cities of Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor each have a representative on the sheriff’s work group. Peterson said all communities should be involved in that group, too.

Further, Peterson said communities that don’t have animal control ordinances should adopt them, and come to the table with resources. Prater wondered how those communities could be enticed to do that.

Next Steps

Conan Smith suggested that he work with county administrator Verna McDaniel and corporation counsel Curtis Hedger to develop a draft statement outlining the county’s minimum level of responsibilities. That would be brought to the next task force meeting, on June 13.

Rob Turner said he was interested in seeing court rulings on this issue, noting that the HSHV has argued that the 1919 legislation mandating animal control has been modified by the courts since then. Smith replied that there are just two applicable court cases and a handful of attorney general opinions – and most of them date back several decades. The courts have not spoken clearly, he said, so it’s incumbent on local units of government to interpret the mandate. [.pdf of 1919 dog law legislation] [.pdf of court rulings] [.pdf of attorney general opinions]

The board can determine the minimum, Smith said, so the next step should be figuring out what to do beyond that. Turner said the question is based on conscience, and the public will help inform the answer. The board needs to find out the community’s collective conscience regarding animal welfare, he said, and make policy decisions based on that. Some say it should be based on just the mandate, while some feel much more should be done, he said. Turner characterized his own views as in the middle.

Ronnie Peterson felt they should at least keep the current level of service provided by HSHV.

Wes Prater cautioned that the board shouldn’t just listen to the people who come and speak during public commentary. [In the past, HSHV supporters have been vocal in their support, attending county board meetings and demonstrating outside of the county administration building.] The public at large should be included, he said. A lot of people – including his wife, who thinks their cat is a person – are supportive of a higher level of service, he said, but a lot of others aren’t. He reminded commissioners that thousands of Washtenaw County residents don’t have health insurance, and many live in poverty.

Peterson said he didn’t think he would attend future meetings of the task force. Everyone knew his position, he said. Belinda Dulin of the DRC told him she hoped he’d reconsider.

Four more meetings of this policy group are scheduled from 8-10 a.m. at the county’s Learning Resource Center, 4135 Washtenaw Ave.:

• June 13: Preferred serviceability levels
• July 25: Revenue and cost recovery options
• Aug. 22: Scope of services and revenue recommendations
• Sept. 12: Final recommendations and RFP

All meetings are open to the public and will be facilitated by members of the Dispute Resolution Center.

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

At its Aug. 3, 2011 meeting, the board had held a public hearing and subsequently approved an interlocal agreement with the Southeast Michigan Energy Office Community Alliance (SEMRO). The Ferndale-based nonprofit (SEMRO) provides technical services to the county in identifying and implementing federal Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant projects. [.pdf of interlocal agreement]

The energy office is a division of the Michigan Suburbs Alliance. County commissioner and board chair Conan Smith is CEO of the alliance. The board voted initially to join the energy office at its March 17, 2010 meeting. Smith abstained from that vote. Smith was absent from the Aug. 3 meeting.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor, where the board of commissioners holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]