And that’s what the committee voted to do – specifically, to recommend to the city council that a letter of intent (LOI) be signed with Valiant, the developer, which could eventually lead to a development agreement. The city council will receive a presentation on the letter of intent at a work session on Monday, March 14 at 7 p.m. at the Washtenaw County Board room at 220 N. Main St.

David Di Rita of the Roxbury Group addresses the Library Lot RFP review committee. Left in the frame in the background is local attorney Tom Wieder. Right in the frame is Vivienne Armentrout, a former Washtenaw County commissioner and author of the blog, "Local in Ann Arbor." (Photos by the writer.)

In the draft of the LOI unveiled at Tuesday’s committee meeting, the city and Valiant would try to strike a development agreement no later than four months after the signing of the LOI, with construction to start 15 months after the signing of the development agreement.

Attending the committee meeting on Tuesday was David Di Rita of The Roxbury Group, which has served as a consultant to the committee. In November, Di Rita had delivered a report to the committee recommending Valiant’s proposal over a similar project proposed by another developer – Acquest.

The majority of Tuesday’s meeting time was taken up with Di Rita delivering introductory remarks – a self-described “soliloquy” – and walking the committee through the main points of the draft LOI, or responding to committee member questions.

In his introductory remarks, Di Rita distinguished between the idea of analyzing the financial viability of a specific proposal – which he stressed that The Roxbury Group had not done – and the overall economic validity of a concept.

Key points in the draft LOI are the idea that Valiant would pay for the acquisition of development rights on the property, but could use part of that payment for the design and financing of the conference center. The city of Ann Arbor would own the conference center, and would not be held liable for its maintenance and operation costs, unless Valiant were to cease holding the management agreement. The city’s ownership could, according to the draft LOI, possibly implicate payments by Valiant to the city in lieu of taxes. The draft LOI also calls for reserving no fewer than 350 daytime parking spaces in the underground parking garage, currently under construction, for the hotel/conference center.

In addition to committee members, more than 20 people attended the meeting, filling the fourth floor conference room of city hall. Attendees in the audience included Ward 1 councilmember Sabra Briere; Ann Arbor District Library director Josie Parker; and AADL board member Nancy Kaplan. Several people who attended have expressed objections to the hotel/conference center project, based on either the substance of the proposal itself or the decision-making process.

Related to complaints about the decision process, the meeting began with an adamant request from local attorney Tom Wieder to be allowed to address the committee, which was denied by the committee’s chair, Stephen Rapundalo.

Rapundalo’s refusal to allow Wieder to address the committee was supported by city administrator Roger Fraser, who also attended the meeting, and who raised the specter of asking Wieder to leave. At that point Wieder ended his persistent requests, and was allowed to stay.

Wieder based his request to verbally address the committee on the city of Ann Arbor’s policy of handling all committee meetings under the requirements of the state’s Open Meetings Act – a policy that does appear to afford members of the public at least the reasonable expectation of being able to address committees during meetings like the one on Tuesday.

Background, Review

On Nov. 5, 2009, the city council first appointed a five-member committee to review proposals in response to the city’s RFP for use of the top of the Fifth Avenue underground parking garage – the so-called Library Lot. The city-owned Library Lot is located north of the downtown library, between Division Street and Fifth Avenue. The garage, currently under construction, is a project of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

That committee consists of: Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2 city council member), who chairs the committee; Margie Teall (Ward 4 city councilmember); John Splitt (DDA board member); Eric Mahler (planning commissioner); and Sam Offen (member at large). Offen also serves on the Ann Arbor park advisory commission.

The city received six proposals in response to its RFP. Of those, the committee eventually selected two for final consideration – both were for hotel/conference center-type concepts. [See Chronicle coverage: "Hotel/Conference Ideas Go Forward"] Not included in the final mix were either of the two proposals that envisioned the lot as primarily open space. Alan Haber, who had worked with a group to advance a community commons proposal, also attended Tuesday’s meeting.

Among those attending Tuesday's meeting were attorney Susan Morrison, who wrote a letter to the RFP review committee on behalf of Ann Arbor resident Mary Hathaway, and Alan Haber, who is part of a group that had submitted a proposal for a community commons on the Library Lot.

The Roxbury Group was hired to assist with the evaluation of the finalist proposals – from Valiant and Acquest. On Nov. 23, 2010, The Roxbury Group delivered a report to the committee recommending the proposal from Valiant as the stronger of the two. [.pdf of The Roxbury Group report]

The RFQ (request for qualifications) issued by the city of Ann Arbor, which led to the engagement of The Roxbury Group’s services, stated that the consultant should be able to “determine if the projects submitted to the City are economically viable and make financial sense in the Ann Arbor marketplace.” [.pdf of consulting RFQ].

However, Roxbury’s report indicates that it “does not include and is not intended to serve as a feasibility study for the concepts included in the two proposals … it is generally assumed that the overall concepts included in the uses for the Library Lot contained in each proposal are valid and supportable from a market and demand standpoint.”

Economic Feasibility: Committee Discussion

During his introductory remarks, Di Rita stressed that The Roxbury Group was charged with the responsibility of taking the two proposals, from Acquest and Valiant, and making a recommendation about whether to proceed with one, the other, or neither proposal.

Di Rita stressed that Roxbury had not been charged with the responsibility of evaluating the feasibility of a hotel/conference center. Later, in response to a question from committee member Sam Offen, who said he thought that feasibility was a part of the charge, Stephen Rapundalo read aloud from the RFQ for consultation services what was expected:

• Determine if the projects submitted to the City are economically viable and make financial sense in the Ann Arbor marketplace
• Determine if respondents are financially stable and have the capacity to complete their projects as proposed
• Determine what the likely timing for each proposed project might be following selection by Ann Arbor City Council, including design development, securing financing, and construction
• Help the City determine which project will provide the maximum financial return to the City
• Assist the City in working with each developer to improve their proposals and provide the City with competitive options that optimize desired features
• Help develop criteria for review, implementation and performance of proposals before and after recommendation for award
• Help the City determine which project will provide the greatest community benefits
• Help the City create a public process that encourages community input and involvement
• Provide information on the impact of similarly scaled projects in similarly sized communities
• Assist the City as needed in negotiations with the selected project team
• Attend, in an observatory role, the project interviews scheduled for January 19-20, 2010 and the evening open house scheduled for January 20, 2010

Offen allowed that the list did not specifically call out a “feasibility study,” but said he felt that Roxbury could have done more investigation to assess that the economic assumptions behind the proposals were valid and correct, instead of taking the word of the proposers. Earlier in his presentation, Di Rita had called the conversations with the developers the “beating heart” of Roxbury’s analysis.

Sam Offen enters the fourth floor conference room of city hall for the Library Lot RFP review committee meeting on March 8, 2011.

Responding to Offen, Di Rita said that the first thing to look at was the overall economic viability before asking the feasibility question. He said if the city were interested in the financial feasibility, absent a specific development deal, then there are people far more qualified to assess that than Roxbury. They wouldn’t know what to study, until they knew specifically what the details of the project are.

Roxbury had spent a lot of time on the stakeholder interviews, including meeting with representatives from the Ann Arbor District Library, the University of Michigan and Ann Arbor SPARK, Di Rita said. And there was unanimity of opinion among the stakeholders that yes, that facility would get used. What would make it a “game changing” facility would not be just that it could host a plenary session with 500-600 people, but that it could do so in the center of the city.

Rapundalo noted that the university’s conference needs are decentralized – perhaps even down to the individual faculty member. Di Rita responded to Rapundalo by saying that this potential user of the center – the university – doesn’t know its own demand or supply for conferencing services.

Di Rita concluded that the “ultimate feasibility study” is the ability of the developer to draw financing for the project. If the development agreement results in a financed project from lenders, then “the feasibility comes along for the ride,” he said.

Economic Feasibility: External Views

In the last few weeks, a November 2010 report written by Chuck Skelton, who is president of Hospitality Advisors Consulting Group, has circulated throughout the Ann Arbor community – it was conveyed to the city council at the end of January. Skelton concludes that Valiant’s conference center proposal would not be successful – based on estimated revenues of $42 per square foot against estimated operating expenses of $58 per square foot, which would lead to around a $0.5 million annual shortfall. Skelton calculates an additional $0.5 million shortfall due to debt service.

Skelton’s report has received considerable interest from Public Land-Public Process, a group opposed to the conference center proposal – opposition based partly on the grounds that they contend a conference center is not economically feasible. In a post on her blog “Local in Ann Arbor,” Vivienne Armentrout calls Skelton’s report an authoritative study.

An earlier national study from 2005 by Heywood Sanders, a professor of public administration at University of Texas at San Antonio, has also made the local rounds. [.pdf of "Space Available: The Realities of Convention Centers as Economic Development Strategy"] In Sanders’ paper, which is one of several he’s written on the topic of convention centers, he concludes that “if taxing, spending, and building have been successful, the performance and results of that investment have been decidedly less so. Existing convention centers have seen their business evaporate, while new centers and expansions are delivering remarkably little in terms of attendance and activity.”

Letter of Intent: Highlights

David Di Rita walked the committee through the 15 points of the draft letter of intent.

LOI Highlights: Project Description

Highlights included a description of the project:

(i) Core elements:

• 150 hotels units – 87,000 sq. ft.
• Conference center – 26,000 sq. ft.
• Restaurant/Retail – 6,000 sq. ft.
• Public space/Plaza

(ii) Additional elements

• Office space – up to 48,000 sq. ft.
• Residential condos – up to 22,000 sq. ft.

Given the lack of a square-footage number attached to the public plaza space, Sam Offen wondered what would guarantee that the project would have a significantly-sized plaza area. Di Rita responded by saying that the “stake in the ground” is the letter of intent, with the apparent implication that from there the two parties could eventually pin down the plaza size with more precision.

During his presentation, Di Rita had introduced the idea that the letter of intent would establish the “four corners” of the deal – the what, where, when and how. Margie Teall stated that the developer understood that the project “goes nowhere” without a significant plaza area. John Splitt noted that the underground structure design depends on a plaza area, and that if one is not included, then the underground structure would need to be redesigned. [Construction is already well underway, and such a redesign would result in significant expense and delay.]

LOI Highlights: Payments, Liabilities of Ownership

One kind of payment described in the LOI is some equivalent of property taxes to be paid to the city on the conference center, even though property taxes would not apply, given that the city of Ann Arbor would have ownership of the conference center.

In the committee discussion of payments in lieu of taxes, Offen said he thought that the University of Michigan had a payment in lieu of taxes program, to which city administrator Roger Fraser quipped, “To whom?” Fraser followed up by saying that even though UM does not currently have such a program, he thought that perhaps as late as the 1950s there was some kind of program like that in place. He noted that the idea is not to have Valiant duck taxes by having the city own the conference center.

Eric Lipson, former planning commissioner, chats with Margie Teall, who represents Ward 4 on the city council and serves on the Library Lot RFP review committee. Seated is Nancy Kaplan, board member for the Ann Arbor District Library.

In addition to some payment in lieu of taxes program, there would be some kind of payment made by Valiant to the city in consideration of the conveyance of the development rights – either to the city or a 501(c)(3) nonprofit designated by the city. But that payment could be used by Valiant to help create the conference center [emphasis added]: “The Developer will be solely responsible for the design, financing and development of the Conference Center utilizing both the consideration it will provide to the City as set forth in Section 3 and to the extent required its own funds, as set forth in the Development Agreement.”

In light of the ownership by the city of the conference center, the LOI includes language meant to address the city’s potential liability [emphasis added]: “Notwithstanding the ownership of the Conference Center, neither the City nor the 501(c)(3) will be liable in any way for any costs relating to the design, financing, development, operation or maintenance of the Conference Center so long as the Developer holds the Management Agreement.” The LOI does not address eventualities where the developer ceases to hold the management agreement.

Eric Mahler, an attorney by profession, expressed reservations about the idea of city ownership of the conference center, saying that he was leery of it – because you could not write an agreement that would cover all of the city’s liability. He made his support for the recommendation to sign the letter of intent contingent on the possibility of negotiating the ownership piece.

LOI Highlights: Timeframe, Reimbursement of City Costs, Approvals

The letter of intent sets forth a four-month timeframe from the signing of the letter of intent to the completion of a development agreement. City administrator Roger Fraser allowed that this was clearly an aggressive timeline. In order for the city to allocate the necessary time and resources to get to a development agreement within that timeframe, the letter of intent provides for a payment of up to $75,000 to the city for costs related to consultants and legal counsel. However, the letter of intent also states that the developer would not be liable for the $75,000 payment, if it fails to secure construction financing.

The letter of intent includes language to the effect that the various standard approvals required of the project would be those in effect on March 8, 2011, which was coincidentally the date of the committee meeting. That was an artifact of a previous expectation that the city council would have already acted, at its meeting on March 7, to authorize signing the letter of intent. Mahler insisted that the date would need to be changed – he assured his committee colleagues that as chair of the planning commission, he could say that several things in the city’s set of development requirements might change in the future. As a specific example, he cited the introduction of the new design guidelines for new downtown buildings, which the planning commission’s ordinance review committee is now working on.

The letter of intent also mentions a “dedicated representative” of the city to help coordinate the approval process. Mahler got clarification that this essentially followed the usual practice of assigning someone on the planning staff to shepherd the project through the process. Mahler joked that he just wanted to make sure it was not the city administrator who would be the dedicated representative.

LOI Highlights: Parking Space Reservation, Other Legal Issues

The letter of intent calls for 350 daytime spaces and 250 nighttime spaces to be reserved in the new underground parking garage in support of the hotel/conference center project. Offen wanted to know how many total spaces the underground garage would offer. Susan Pollay, executive director of the Downtown Development Authority, told the committee that the new garage would have roughly 650 spaces.

Executive director of the DDA, Susan Pollay, exchanges documents with Stephen Rapundalo, who represents Ward 2 on the city council and chairs the RFP review committee.

The number of spaces allocated to the hotel/conference center is relevant to the financing of the underground parking garage. Why? The nearly $50 million in bonds used to finance the parking garage were federal Build America Bonds. In an April 14, 2010 letter to the city council, Noah Hall, then executive director of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center, outlined federal restrictions on how the bond proceeds can be used. Those restrictions could have an impact on the city’s ability to allocate more than a small percentage of spaces to a non-public use.

Other possible legal issues are outlined in a March 8, 2011 letter to the RFP review committee from Susan Morrison, an attorney for Ann Arbor resident Mary Hathaway. Those issues include a possible argument that Valiant’s desired subordination of rent payments to Valiant’s construction mortgage could violate the Michigan Constitution. A second possible argument is the idea that the arrangement with Valiant would constitute a “business enterprise” under Michigan’s Home Rule City Act, which would require voter approval before proceeding.

Next Step: City Council Work Session

Near the conclusion of the meeting, Rapundalo raised the question of whether the committee needed to take any formal action. Fraser told him it would be helpful to have a recommendation from the committee for the city council to consider the draft letter of intent – if the council recommends changes, they can be made as appropriate. Teall concurred with that sentiment.

Offen said he’d like to see somewhere a brief description of the financial benefit to the city, given that the tangible financial benefits were a major criterion for selection of the proposals.

It was Splitt who made the recommendation that the city sign the letter of intent with appropriate amendments. During the brief discussion, Offen said he’d support the motion, but only because the previous request by Valiant that the city issue bonds to support the project had been removed. Mahler wanted to make sure that the ownership of the conference center by the city was something that could be negotiated. Rapundalo expressed his support by saying that the letter of intent resets further dialogue under a framework. He allowed that financial feasibility would become a question.

Outcome: The committee voted unanimously to recommend that the the city council consider the letter of intent.

There will be a city council work session on Monday, March 14, 2011 at the Community Television Network (CTN) studios, 2805 S. Industrial Highway Washtenaw County board room at 220 N. Main St., dedicated to the topic of Valiant’s letter of intent.

Christine Stead and Deb Mexicotte discuss a draft of the RFP from search firms to help with the hiring of a new superintendent. (Photos by the writer.)

Board treasurer Christine Stead had offered to draft an RFP for board review at the last regular board meeting. Monday’s meeting was an opportunity for the rest of the board to review her work, and suggest changes. Most of the recommended changes were accepted without objection, but others led to some reflective discussion that revealed priorities for the board.

One of the changes made to the RFP was to add a pre-bid meeting for the purpose of answering clarifying questions about the RFP. The pre-bid meeting will be held on Friday, Sept. 3 at 10 a.m., at the Balas Administration Building, 2555 S. State Street. Any interested bidders are invited to participate in person or via teleconference. The deadline for submitting responses to the RFP is Friday, Sept. 10 at 10 a.m.

The only other official business conducted at Monday’s meeting was the passing of a motion to entertain Roberts’ suggestions for interim staff, which he will bring to the next board meeting.

A Review of the Draft RFP

Board president Deb Mexicotte opened the meeting by simply stating that its purpose was to review the RFP drafted by Christine Stead for the purpose of selecting an executive search firm to help the board choose the next AAPS superintendent. Mexicotte also pointed out that the board does not usually issue RFPs directly, and she thanked Dave Comsa, the district’s assistant superintendent for human resources and legal services, for attending the meeting in case the board had any human resource or legal questions.

Stead began by reviewing the RFP she had written for the board’s review, stressing its status as a draft: “Every part of this can change – the content, the order, the timeline.” She then presented an RFP with the following seven sections:

1. RFP Milestones
2. Firm Background Information Required
3. Scope of Work
4. Search Process – Anticipated Milestones
5. The Context of Our Search
6. District Goals Relevant for the Search
7. Submission Requirements

The RFP milestones suggested by Stead reflected the timeline discussed at the last board meeting, which would result in a search firm being selected at the Sept. 29 board meeting.

The firm background section is essentially the list of questions to which the firms will be expected to respond in their proposals. Stead explained that this section asks the firms to highlight their capabilities and demonstrate that they have been successful in similar searches. “Here,” she said, “is where we’ve asked for price estimates, duration, and proposed search timeline.”

The scope of work, Stead described, are the exact specifications of this project. “We are asking for assistance in a particular way,” Stead said, “We want to understand how they develop search criteria, how they identify candidates, and how they identify community priorities.” Stead pointed out that while the scope of work indicates that community engagement is a requirement for the selection of a permanent superintendent, AAPS does not specify how to involve the community. “That would be up to the search firm to propose.”

The search process/anticipated milestones section includes the following key dates:

• Sept. 29, 2010: search firm selected
• Oct. 27, 2010: interim superintendent selected
• Nov. 15, 2010: interim superintendent start date
• May 4, 2011: permanent superintendent selected
• July 1, 2011: permanent superintendent start date

The milestones section also states that modifications to the timeline can be recommended by the search firm. Stead noted that she reviewed the board meeting calendar to come up with the dates, and that the two months between the hiring and start date of the permanent superintendent were built-in time for transition activities. For instance, Stead suggested, they could allow the new superintendent to “get to know our folks while getting things wrapped up in his or her own district.”

The next two sections – the context of the search and the district goals – are “somewhat subjective,” according to Stead. She explained that she had intended the context section as a past-oriented section used to express that the board “has had a lot going on,” as well as to present the culture of leadership the district has experienced under Roberts. The district goals section is future-oriented, and describes the main focal points of the district’s work this year. It includes sections on: updating the strategic plan, continuing resource challenges facing the district, the district’s challenge to close its achievement gaps among students, and maintaining community engagement.

Stead then closed by pointing out that the submission requirements call for eight hard copies, one for each trustee, plus one for the board office. She also suggested that each firm submit a copy of its proposal electronically, in case the board wants to more widely distribute it for some reason. With that, Stead opened the floor for suggested changes.

Suggested Changes to the Draft RFP

Mexicotte thanked Stead for putting together the RFP for the board’s review. Over the next two and a half hours, trustees made suggestions, and Stead amended the RFP in real time, so that by the time they were finished, the document was complete, pending technical proofreading and review by legal counsel. Most suggested changes drew no objections from other board members, but in a few cases, there was some discussion.

RFP Changes: Diversity

The first of the items requiring any discussion was brought by trustee Simone Lightfoot, who said she was looking for the word “diverse” throughout the document. Mexicotte asked where would be a good place in the RFP to speak to the board’s diversity concerns. Lightfoot suggested amending both the firm background and scope of work sections in order to reflect the board’s concerns that the firm has experience identifying a diverse and competent pool of superintendent candidates, as well as successfully placing them. Mexicotte supported Lightfoot’s suggestions.

RFP Changes: Unanticipated Events

There was some discussion of how to handle questions about unanticipated events during the search. Lightfoot suggested that the firms be required to describe conditions under which the search time frame could be modified. Board secretary Glenn Nelson asked why Stead had included a requirement for the firm to describe what they would do if a candidate leaves the search.

Stead explained that what AAPS would like to hear is that the firm has had some experience with a lead candidate withdrawing from the search. Mexicotte agreed: “We could ask for an example. Everybody’s had a search fall apart.” Roberts asked if the firm will think they fulfilled their contract if the search does not yield a viable candidate. Stead asked Comsa under what conditions the contract must be paid, and Comsa confirmed that AAPS must pay the search firm for its work, even if the outcome is initially unsuccessful. Wording was added to the RFP to make it clear that AAPS would not consider the search successful until a candidate accepts the position of permanent superintendent.

RFP Changes: Setting and Negotiating a Contract Price

The board had some discussion about how to set and negotiate the contract price. Because the RFP mentions that the firm might help with both the interim and permanent superintendent searches, trustee Susan Baskett said she’d like to ask firms to itemize their proposed costs for the two searches. Mexicotte confirmed that she would like to structure the RFP as requiring the permanent superintendent search, with the interim superintendent search priced as an optional piece of the proposal. This is sometimes called an “alternate bid.” Roberts suggested stressing that the main task is the permanent superintendent search.

Nelson asked if the board would be locked into a price as a result of the RFP, and requested that room be added to negotiate the price. Stead explained that setting the price would be a process. The firms will submit an estimate in their proposal, she said, but that could change once the board meets with them. “We might decide to be more articulate, and that we want 70 community meetings, not one,” she quipped, “so that could change their estimate.” Comsa asked that the board email their final draft to him so that he could add required legal wording. As an example, Comsa said he would add phrasing such as, “The board can accept any bid (not necessarily the lowest), reject any or all bids for any reason, … and that AAPS will select one firm and one alternative, in case we cannot work out pricing.”

Lightfoot asked if the board could speak openly yet about whether or not there was a price they did not want to go over. “Do we have a firm price?” she asked. “I’ve heard it could cost up to $80,000.” Mexicotte asked what it cost to hire a firm last time they did a superintendent search, and when no one on the board answered, David Jesse, an education reporter from AnnArbor.com, chimed in to say that the last search cost the district roughly $13,500.

Mexicotte said that the market would help to determine a price, but that the search may cost in the range of $20,000 to $35,000. Roberts added that it depends on the firm, and Mexicotte pointed out that the board may choose a higher bid if that firm will deliver a better service. Baskett argued that it may sound like a lot, “but the cost of not doing it right is just enormous.”

RFP Changes: Timeline Modifications

The board discussed the anticipated search process milestones. Mexicotte asked if the wording could be softened to make it easier for search firms to modify the timeline, and suggested that it would currently be difficult for a firm to shorten it. The front end of the timeline is the most ambitious, Mexicotte said, and then there is a long break until May. Baskett commented that she did not want to see the timeline extended past June 30. In response to Mexicotte, Roberts confirmed that his start date at AAPS had been July 1, but that he had gone back and forth between AAPS and his former district [Birmingham] a few times during a transition period. Comsa suggested adding some wording to require that if the firm wants to modify the timeline, any extensions need to be made in writing 60 days ahead of time.

RFP Changes: Student Achievement

Lightfoot suggested adding a student achievement bullet point to the context section, in addition to the discussion of student achievement in the district goals section. “I’m interested in whoever they bring us having had experience in working with student achievement,” she said. Baskett suggested saying that the district was committed to the “relentless pursuit of achievement for all students,” but Lightfoot wanted the statement to be more specific. “I’m talking about the gap,” she said. Mexicotte and Nelson stepped in to craft a statement that spoke to the “yin and yang” of community expectations regarding student achievement. On one hand, they said, excellence is achieved in many respects, while the achievement of students of color and students from lower-income households continues to require extra focus and resources.

RFP Changes: Roberts, Superintendent, or District?

The lengthiest discussion on possible changes to the RFP centered on whether the context section should be focused on the work of the superintendent specifically or the district more generally. Within that conversation, there was some debate among trustees about the degree to which Roberts should be named rather than referred to as “the superintendent.”

Lightfoot began by questioning the multiple specific references to Roberts throughout the context section. Nelson agreed, suggesting that perhaps it would be better to “change the tone from ‘Todd Roberts did these things,’ to ‘The district did these things.’” Baskett concurred as well, saying, “This has truly been a collaboration.”

Mexicotte partially disagreed. “Speaking to the strength of our superintendency is important. I like the tone of it because of what it says about us. It’s fine to take Roberts’ name out, but it should reference the superintendency.” Stead suggested that leaving in such specific references would help the firms self-select.”These are big shoes to fill,” she asserted.

Lightfoot asked what the purpose of the context section was, and Stead answered that it was to give national context to the current work of AAPS, in case an out-of-town firm wants to bid. Part of that context, she argued, is that AAPS has benefited from having a strong leadership team led by Roberts. Lightfoot continued, “It reads as though we’re hero-worshipping Dr. Roberts, and that the district was in dire straights before he came.” Baskett asked what would matter to a new superintendent in terms of the context: “Does it matter to a new person that it was [Roberts] who built the leadership team,” or just that AAPS has strong leadership? Baskett suggested that the proposed wording would be more appropriate if they were writing a farewell speech to Roberts, but was unnecessary in the RFP.

After staying quiet up until then, Roberts spoke up at this point in the discussion in favor of de-personalizing the context section. Instead of bullet points, he suggested turning the section into a narrative with the focus, “This is what you’re coming into.” When the trustees balked at the work involved in condensing and re-writing the section, Roberts advised, “I’d suggest just taking my name out, and using ‘superintendent’ where needed.”

The board decided to go through the context section bullet by bullet and examine each reference to Roberts individually in order to fine-tune its intended meaning. Most of the references were generalized to “the district” or “superintendent” but a few were kept specific to Roberts. In the end, on the last two bullet points of the section, the board was split 50-50, with vice-president Irene Patalan abstaining [she had missed the early part of the discussion, and did not feel like she could form an informed opinion], so it fell to Mexicotte to choose the final wording.

RFP Changes: Pre-Bid Meeting

Baskett asked whether the board wanted to hold a pre-bid meeting, at which potential bidders could ask questions of a committee made up of trustees and AAPS staff. There was general agreement that holding such a meeting would be a good idea, and Comsa advised the board that three or fewer board members should attend, so that they do not have quorum.

Mexicotte asked Nelson and Baskett if they would be willing to attend. They agreed to represent the board, and Baskett suggested that Comsa and Robert Allen, deputy superintendent of operations, attend from the administration in order to be able to answer any legal or financial questions that may be raised.

Board members reviewed the timeline, and selected Friday, Sept. 3 as an appropriate date for the pre-bid meeting. Comsa suggested it begin at 10 am. Baskett suggested firms could tele-conference or Skype if necessary.

Outcome: Patalan made a motion to hold a pre-bid meeting on Friday, Sept. 3, at 10 a.m., place TBD [later set as the Balas Administration Building, 2555 S. State St.] The motion was seconded by Nelson. Baskett offered a friendly amendment to add the pre-bid meeting to the RFP milestones chart in the RFP. The pre-bid meeting was approved by all present in a roll call vote.

RFP Changes: Friendly Amendments

In addition to the suggested changes that led to discussion, several amendments were offered by trustees, as indicated in parentheses, and accepted in straightforward fashion:

• Added flexibility to the wording of RFP milestones dates, allowing steps to be completed early (Baskett);
• Streamlined wording to be more concise (Nelson);
• Re-worded request for references to say that they should emphasize districts similar to AAPS (Lightfoot);
• Reduced required board attendance from “all” to “required” meetings (Nelson);
• Added a request that the firm help the board set an appropriate compensation package (Nelson);
• Added a description of the launching of the district preschool in the context section (Nelson);
• Clarified that the work of the special education millage renewal will fall largely within the scope of work of the interim superintendent (Nelson);
• Included community partnership in the context’s community engagement section (Baskett);
• Deleted the demographic description of Ann Arbor (Mexicotte);
• Clarified the expectation that the search would be national in scope (Roberts);
• Changed Amy Osinski’s title to be accurate (Nelson); and
• Defined “successful candidates” as “effective educational leaders” (Lightfoot, Nelson).

RFP Changes: Rejected Amendments

The vast majority of suggestions from trustees, as well as from Roberts and Comsa, were incorporated in the final RFP. A few, however, were not.

Lightfoot asked whether the board should specify that the firm should seek candidates from districts similar to AAPS. Baskett answered that during a prior search, one of the best candidates came from a small town with a total of only 3,000 students. Stead and Mexicotte suggested that such a suggestion would be appropriate to discuss when setting search criteria for the permanent superintendent with the chosen firm, but did not need to be included in the RFP.

Mexicotte suggested adding two sections to the context section, one on the climate work being done by the district, and one on the district’s marketing and enrollment efforts. Nelson said that those pieces were not needed for the firm to be able to bid, and suggested that that board should really think about how long it would take a firm to answer this RFP. Roberts responded that the firms will mostly be responding to the background and timeline sections, and that typically firms have a standard response. He suggested that the sections Mexicotte had proposed might be more appropriate to discuss with the selected firm when it is going out in search of candidates.

Baskett asked whether the board wanted to include a rubric in the RFP to give firms a sense of how they would make their final selection. It could help the firms focus their responses, she said, “and at some point, we need to decide on our rubric.” Mexicotte said she liked the idea of having a set of criteria for selection, but that they could be decided later, and that she would want to leave the weighting of those elements to individual trustees.

RFP Approved

Comsa said that there is some standard, legal wording he needed to add to the document. Nelson asked if the board could delegate to the president, in consultation with legal counsel, getting the document in final form. Mexicotte asked informally if it was the “board’s pleasure that Dave does what he needs to do, and then I OK the final copy, making only the most technical of changes?”

Everyone expressed agreement that Mexicotte pull together the final copy.

However, Comsa interjected, saying that the board needed to make a motion in open session to accept this document barring technical and formatting changes. So, Mexicotte asked for a formal motion.

Outcome: Stead made a motion, which Lightfoot seconded, to approve the RFP as written and amended, pending review by legal counsel, to be distributed by Aug. 27, 2010. It was approved unanimously by roll call vote of Patalan, Baskett, Nelson, Stead, Mexicotte, and Lightfoot.

Distribution of the RFP

In a follow-up discussion with Mexicotte, The Chronicle asked how the board would distribute the RFP. Mexicotte said the board will be sending the RFP to search firms recommended by the Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB), and might also seek firm recommendations from other school districts that have recently engaged in a superintendent search. She said that the finalized RFP will also be posted on the AAPS website by Friday.

Mexicotte said her hope was that the RFP would result in the receipt of at least five to seven quality bids.

Roberts to Suggest Interim Appointments

Near the end of the meeting, Mexicotte asked the trustees if they would be “willing to entertain Superintendent Roberts’ suggestions for both interim superintendent candidates as well as other academic appointments that might then need to be backfilled.”

Noting that Roberts is “thoughtful and mindful,” Patalan said she would absolutely like to hear his suggestions. Lightfoot and Baskett agreed. Baskett added that she would also like Roberts to recommend compensation for such positions.

Outcome: Stead moved, and Patalan seconded, hearing Roberts’ recommendations regarding an interim superintendent and other academic offices at the next regular board meeting. The measure was approved unanimously by Lightfoot, Patalan, Baskett, Nelson, Stead, and Mexicotte.

Agenda Planning

Mexicotte told the board she would still like to meet with the executive committee to look at longer-range calendar issues. She would like to look for a date for the committee to meet just after Labor Day.

Public Commentary

Kathy Griswold, former AAPS board member, addressed the board regarding transportation concerns, a topic she has addressed previously at several prior meetings.

First, Griswold said Roberts should send a letter to the city in support of the new crosswalk proposed in the King Elementary School neighborhood for which Griswold has been advocating. Secondly, she responded to board members’ comments at the last regular board meeting regarding the delay in the Thurston driveway project.

Griswold said she had been called out at the last meeting for delaying the project by filing a complaint with the state, but that, if anything, she had speeded up the process by letting AAPS staff know that the state was lacking in necessary paperwork.

Finally, Griswold read a statement from a University of Michigan professor stating three concerns with the Thurston driveway project: 1) separating cars and buses should not be a top priority since it’s not the main source of risk; 2) the proposed design resembles airline drop-offs, which might not work for K-5 students; and 3) adding more pavement is expensive, and might not solve the congestion problem.

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice president Irene Patalan (arriving at 7:45 p.m.), secretary Glenn Nelson, treasurer Christine Stead, and trustees Susan Baskett and Simone Lightfoot. Also present as a non-voting member was Todd Roberts, AAPS superintendent.

Absent: Trustee Andy Thomas.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 15, 2010, 7 p.m. at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 4th floor board room, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]