Of the positions on the 9-member LDFA board, the city of Ann Arbor appoints six and the city of Ypsilanti appoints three. One of the six Ann Arbor spots is for a member of the Ann Arbor city council, which had been held by Rapundalo, until he was defeated in the Nov. 8 general election by Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Taylor is thus replacing Rapundalo as the city council representative. Rapundalo’s appointment is to fill an existing additional vacancy on the board. Jacobson was also appointed to the LDFA to fill a vacancy on the board.

The local development finance authority is funded through a tax increment finance (TIF) mechanism for the same geographic district as the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti downtown development authorities. The LDFA currently receives no revenue from the Ypsilanti portion of its district. The taxes on which the increment is captured are local school taxes. The impact of the LDFA tax capture is spread across school districts statewide, due to the way that local school taxes are pooled by the state of Michigan and redistributed to local districts.

Based on data available through A2OpenBook, in fiscal year 2011, the LDFA generated $1.475 million in tax capture. The LDFA contracts with Ann Arbor SPARK to operate a business accelerator.

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

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local government and civic affairs. It’s not easy to draw perfect circles for those cartoon character heads. 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!

Stephen Rapundalo and Jane Lumm were adamant in their positions, but appeared in relatively good humor. (Photos by the writer.)

Rapundalo has made the city’s past and future a central theme of his campaign, and the Oct. 26 event amply reflected that. Rapundalo spent much of the evening trying to characterize the city councils of the 1990s, on which Lumm served, as unable to work cooperatively as a group. That contrasts with his own approach and that of the current council, said Rapundalo, which is based on consensus and cooperation, even if councilmembers don’t agree on everything.

Even as Rapundalo appealed to the past in criticizing Lumm – for supporting what he called luxurious labor contracts during her tenure of service – he also criticized what he perceives her attitude to be towards the future. He calls it a “hunker down” mentality, which he says doesn’t take into account the steps the city needs to take to ensure future generations have what they need.

For her part, Lumm tells a narrative in which city government has become, since the time she served on the council, disconnected from the priorities of residents. She wants to restore community input and open conversation back to city government, which she contends is now lacking. At the Thurston forum, she responded to Rapundalo’s criticism about her prior service as a councilmember by saying she welcomed the comparison between “the bad old days” and now. She characterized herself as a fiscal watchdog, who pressed financial issues, even if there was not the same appetite for that on the rest of the council.

Certain aspects of Lumm’s record are portrayed on Rapudalo’s campaign website in a way that could fairly be described as out of context. [A closer examination of Rapundalo's portrayals based on city council minute archival material is included in The Chronicle's write-up of the League of Women Voters forum, earlier in the campaign: "2011 Election: Ward 2 City Council"] At the Thurston forum, however, Rapundalo was right about a point of contention that emerged over whether Lumm had enjoyed a Republican majority on a city council committee. The city council archives show a 3-2 Republican majority on the labor negotiating committee in 1996.

The forum was hosted by the Orchard Hills/Maplewood Homeowners Association, moderated by Peter Mooney, who’s president of that group. Rapundalo is a member of the association, and Thurston Elementary is in Rapundalo’s neighborhood. But if there was a general leaning among the assembly, it seemed to be in favor of Lumm – based on response to a few laugh lines sprinkled throughout the forum.

The format of the event contrasted with many other similar events, in that it featured no rigid time constraints on candidate responses – just a general guideline from Mooney to try to limit responses to around three to four minutes.

Mooney took questions written by audience members on cards and synthesized them into prompts for the candidates. Paraphrased questions and responses below are summarized in the order they were given. [Campaign websites: Jane Lumm , Stephen Rapundalo]

Opening Statements

Each candidate gave an opening statement.

Opening: Lumm

Lumm began by saying it was an honor to serve on the council for three terms in the 1990s. She said she didn’t expect to run again, but felt that city government has become disconnected from the community. In financially challenging times, she said, the city can’t afford everything – it’s about choices and priorities.

Many people believe the city should be targeting tax dollars on getting basic services right, but we don’t see that happening, she said. Instead, she said, the city government had built a new municipal center and diverted precious capital dollars to public art. The council had focused on ordinances addressing issues like pedestrians in crosswalks and vehicles idling too long, instead of more pressing problems. “We deserve better,” she said.

She then described Rapundalo’s campaign strategy as tossing “a bunch of false claims and nasty accusations on the wall in the hope that something might stick.” As an example, she gave Rapundalo’s contention that she’d consistently opposed recycling, the environment and human services. She said she doubted that the local Sierra Club would have endorsed her if she were anti-recycling and anti-environment. She said she also doubted that former city human services director Eileen Ryan would be saying the positive things she was saying about Lumm if Lumm were anti-human-services.

Today, Lumm said, our elected officials don’t seem to be listening to residents, which was shown by a misalignment of priorities. She continued by saying that elected officials appear to think they “know better.” Decisions are made privately, she contended, and then publicly it becomes about “selling” the decision to the public. She said that people who remembered her previous service know that she would work hard to engage all stakeholders to ensure that all options and points of view are heard – that’s just a good government principle that she would restore to city government, she said.

Opening: Rapundalo

Rapundalo thanked everyone for their confidence and support over the last six years of his service on the council. He called it an honor to serve as representative to the council. Rapundalo said that for him, the election is about who can best lead Ann Arbor forward. Ann Arbor is facing some real economic challenges, he said, but compared with other communities in the state, the outlook is not as bad. He attributed that to the fact that the city council, during his period of service, had focused diligently on priorities for the budget, services and infrastructure improvements. It has not been easy, he said, but the council has managed it pretty well. As a result, he said, the city of Ann Arbor enjoys a good fund balance, top bond ratings, clean audits, and earns praise for its quality of life.

He said he has not adopted a “hunker down mentality.” Instead, he said, he’d tried to be strategic in his due diligence in addressing issues, so that Ann Arbor can move forward. It should not just be a question of whether things are okay for today. The question is what needs do we have for tomorrow, he said, and we need to challenge ourselves with meeting those needs.

Rapundalo said he was proud of the council’s accomplishments – replacing outdated and expensive labor contracts, with savings that can be allocated to hiring back police. More and better recycling has been established, he said, parkland has been protected, aging infrastructure has been replaced, and neighborhoods have been protected from inappropriate development. Budgets had been developed that did not raise taxes.

All this had been done, Rapundalo said, because he’d worked collaboratively with his council colleagues to reach consensus on solutions, even though they did not always share the same view on everything. In short, he said, there’s important work to be done to ensure that Ann Arbor remains the economic beacon for Michigan. His strength, he said, is as someone who runs a business that is a high-tech industry leader [the industry association MichBio], has strong analytical and management skills, and demonstrates principled leadership. Rapundalo said he is exactly what the city council needs going into the future.

Huron Hills Golf Course

Question: What are your thoughts on the future of Huron Hills golf course? Should it be kept as it is, sold, or something else?

Huron Hills Golf Course: Rapundalo

Rapundalo began by saying, “That’s an easy one!” From the get-go, he said he’d supported keeping Huron Hills as a golf course. He had never supported or contemplated that it would be sold.

As chair of the golf advisory task force, he said he had worked very hard with others to try to improve golf operations. Over the last three years, revenues have increased, he noted, not just at Huron Hills but at Leslie Park golf course as well. The hope is that the trend will continue. Various adjustments and improvements have been implemented to make that happen, but it takes a concerted effort, he said. He concluded by saying his support is completely behind Huron Hills as a golf course.

Huron Hills Golf Course: Lumm

Lumm said she’s been very involved in trying to save Huron Hills over the last six years. The course has gone through countless reviews by consultants, she said. This last summer, a request for proposals (RFP) went out and Miles of Golf was the only respondent. If the proposal from Miles of Golf had been approved, it would have commercially developed half the property.

Lumm noted that she’d spoken against the RFP – because the plan recommended by the golf advisory task force was, and is, working. [Lumm addressed the city council on the topic at its June 7, 2010 meeting.] Lumm said the situation is being grossly misrepresented. She said Rapundalo is on record as saying the operating shortfall is greater than $500,000. But later, she said, Rapundalo had acknowledged that on a cash-operating basis, Huron Hills is essentially break-even. The public perception is that Huron Hills bleeds money – but it doesn’t, she said. She said she believes in public recreation – Huron Hills turned 90 years old this year.

If Huron Hills were not already owned by the city and were under consideration by the city’s greenbelt advisory commission for acquisition, she said, she felt there’d be no doubt that the city would purchase it. Greenbelt parcels are evaluated based on eight criteria. One of those criteria is its proximity to the Huron River, she said. Another one is the number of passers-by. Huron Hills would score very high on that metric, she said. Of the city’s 12 recreation facilities (swimming pools, canoe liveries, ice rinks), Huron Hills is the No. 3 revenue generator, she said.

Huron Hills serves a municipal function, Lumm continued, pointing out that young people, as well as seniors, play there. Leslie and Huron Hills, on a fully-allocated basis, Lumm said, lose $160,000 and $100,000 respectively. The Miles of Golf proposal was eventually turned down – it was a “lose, lose, lose” for Huron Hills and the city. It would have only benefited Miles of Golf, she said.

The RFP also violated the 2008 city charter referendum on selling parkland. The charter amendment requires that if the city ever decided to sell parkland, then residents get to vote on it. What was happening with the Miles of Golf proposal was an attempt to “skirt that voter referendum,” she said. All sorts of words were used instead of “sale,” she said – “long-term leases” and “development agreements.” That happened under Rapundalo’s watch, she said.

The city got a land appraisal on Huron Hills a number of years ago – that’s not something we should do with our parks, Lumm said. If you believe in protecting city parks, you don’t turn a blind eye to activity like that, she contended. Lumm noted that the city is spending millions of dollars outside the city – through the greenbelt program – to prevent development. So why would we allow development of our own city parks? she asked.

Public Art

Question: What’s your philosophy on public art spending? What changes should be made?

Public Art: Lumm

Lumm noted that $2.2 million has been set aside so far through the city’s Percent for Art program – it’s been carved out of the parks millage, the solid waste millage, the parks capital improvements millage, utility fees and the municipal center building fund. She thinks money like that should be used in a way that any reasonable person would consider related to the source. So she would not support carving out one percent of funds from those various millages for public art. She particularly would not do that when streets and bridges are deteriorating.

Lumm said supporters of the public art program talk about the economic benefits. She said she didn’t doubt the economic benefit – her objection is based on the funding source. She noted that the city of Ann Arbor has a lot of public art – it’s been donated. The city should look at those opportunities.

Another option would be to give voters discretion – they could make a contribution to public art when they paid taxes, she said. She characterized herself as an “art lover,” having served on the Ann Arbor Art Center board for six years. It’s not about being for or against public art, she said, it’s about how it’s funded. It amounts to diverting resources to things that are “nice to have” in financially challenging times.

Public Art: Rapundalo

Rapundalo said he took a very different point of view from Lumm. He said he was in support of the Percent for Art program concept for a number of reasons. He contended there are a lot of myths and misrepresentation of what the Percent for Art program is all about.

Rapundalo contended that the program is “budget neutral.” He said you could think of the public art being “a design element in whatever [capital] project” is already funded by a source – whether the funding source is the streets millage or the parks millage or whatever. That art has to be accommodated in the project, like painting or landscaping within those projects. So the art doesn’t detract from the projects that need to get done.

He called public art an economic development tool. He said he works in the high-tech industry, and people want to be in a community that is vibrant and that offers a lot in terms of cultural arts. So to retain talent in this day and age, in this kind of community, he said, it’s important that we make that kind of investment.

He went on to contend that it’s inexpensive to make that investment with the Percent for Art program. He reiterated that the public art program is “budget neutral.” He maintained that it takes nothing from the city’s general fund, so it can’t be used for fire or police protection. He wound up by saying the public art program builds the vibrancy of the community, and it’s something that people can point to and say, “This is what Ann Arbor is all about,” and take pride in it. It’s a selling point for Ann Arbor for being a magnet for the future economy.

Unfunded Pension/Health Care for City Workers

Question: Rapundalo notes the city has a strong fund balance. But the city has an unfunded combined health care and pension obligation for city employees of $225 million. Thoughts?

Pension/Health Care: Rapundalo

Rapundalo began by saying that the questioner had not looked at the numbers very carefully. The city has assets against that liability, he noted. Percentage-wise, the pension fund is about 90% funded, he said. It was 98% funded as recently as five years ago. The retiree health care fund is about 30% funded – which Rapundalo said was one of the best in the state. It’s inaccurate and misleading to say we don’t have assets against the liability, he said.

The city is actually in relatively good shape with respect to pension and health care, but Rapundalo allowed: “That’s not to say we don’t have our work cut out for us.” That’s why he had gone after the labor contracts, which he said under Lumm’s watch were luxurious. Union members had free health care and very little pension contribution. He said he’d spent the last two years trying to roll back those benefits, whether employees are union or non-union, so people pay their fair share “just like you and I have to.” In that way, future pension fund obligations would not be as great, he said.

Pension/Health Care: Lumm

Lumm said her take on the numbers is 180-degrees opposite to Rapundalo’s. When she served on the council previously, the council had adopted the first long-term financial plan for the city. Any long-term outlook takes into consideration debt and unfunded liabilities. Today, she said, both of those have grown considerably. The most recent actuarial report, she said shows the pension obligation is unfunded to the tune of $45 million. The health care obligation is unfunded by another $170 million.

While Rapundalo talks about cleaning up the mess of 15 years ago (when Lumm served on the council), Lumm said, at that time the pension fund was $60 million over-funded, while retiree health care was underfunded by $50 million. That was a net surplus of $10 million, she said. She felt the truth is in those numbers.

Lumm pointed to a 2005 blue ribbon finance report that recommended addressing the fundamental issue of the pension benefit – but the city is still offering a defined benefit plan, not a defined contribution plan. That’s not sustainable, she said.

The changes that have been made recently by the council have been good, she said, like extending the final average compensation (FAC) period and increasing employee contributions to healthcare. But for Rapundalo to say she was the person who supported fat labor contracts, she said, “That’s laughable.” She said Rapundalo could ask his Democratic colleagues, or anyone who has any institutional memory – she was “a pain in the neck” about labor issues. However, she said, there wasn’t the appetite for it.

Lumm contended she “pushed mightily” on controlling employee pension and health care costs. She said she brought forward resolutions when the council discussed the budget, and she aired those issues not weeks but months in advance to try to get buy-in. She’d started in 1994 and was a pain in the neck about this topic until her last meeting on the city council, she said.

Fuller Road Station, Transportation

Question: What are your thoughts on the proposed Fuller Road Station and high speed transit?

Transportation: Rapundalo

Rapundalo said he’s supportive of the whole concept. He called it a “generational game changer.” Whether people appreciate it or not, it’s here today because the federal government has identified high speed rail in this corridor as a priority and a need, he said. When you combine that with local needs driven by University of Michigan employment, Fuller Road Station becomes an important component of that. In years past, the city has looked at how to move people in and out, he noted, and after looking at many different locations, the conclusion was that the spot on Fuller Road at the base of the university hospital would be the ideal location.

The concept that’s been developed involves two or three phases, Rapundalo said. The first phase would be a parking facility with commuter rail platform. The second phase would include a fully built-out high speed train station. A third phase would be an interconnector hub from North Campus and Plymouth Road southward. It would integrate rail, bus, bike, pedestrians and cars.

The first two phases won’t require any city general funds, he said. Entities like the University of Michigan, Michigan Dept. of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Rail Administration and Amtrak have committed to being full partners. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been allocated – the state of Michigan has purchased the trains and the tracks. The pieces are in place and in motion, he said. Other stops along that route – Battle Creek and Dearborn – are getting renovated. Ann Arbor is the busiest Amtrak stop on the Detroit-Chicago route, so it would behoove Ann Arbor be a part of the high speed and commuter rail link, he concluded.

Transportation: Lumm

Lumm allowed that she would sound like the naysayer, but what Rapundalo was describing sounds “utopic.” It’s an “intermodal transit station” – that sounds great. At some point it would be a wonderful amenity for the city, she said, but we need a reality check.

What we’re talking about today is the first phase, which is essentially a parking structure for the University of Michigan, she said. The city has made a commitment of $10 million in order to use 22% of the facility. The university is a wonderful employer, and the city should be partners, she said, but Ann Arbor taxpayers shouldn’t necessarily bear the expense of that project on their parkland.

The project comes with too many unanswered questions, Lumm said. She has yet to see a business plan. What will the ongoing operating costs be? If someone would share that information, she said, that would be great. As far as the claim that it will require no city general fund money, she said, “I’ll believe that when I see it.” She came back to the point that the site is located on city parkland. The project violates the spirit of the 2008 charter amendment. Voters said in 2008 that if the city is going to unload parkland, voters get to weigh in on that. Thinking the project will become a train station anytime soon, Lumm said, is not realistic.

Labor Negotiations

Question: What’s your philosophy on labor contracts? What’s the role of the council versus the role of the administration in labor negotiations?

Labor Negotiations: Lumm

Lumm said the question strikes a nerve, because she knows what she did, and she knows what has been said about what she did. She said she’d welcome anyone who can remember the history, to confirm she had pushed on pension and health care issues, for current and retired employees.

Lumm said she had served on the labor committee, and recently she’d reviewed some of the contracts from that time. She referred to a study that had been done looking at benchmarking health care costs with other communities. The committee relied on human resources staff, the city administrator and the city attorneys – they’d come to the labor committee as those staff members had negotiated the contracts. She said she’d looked at a contract from 1997 – before that contract was settled there were 14 negotiations. She allowed that some things that were being asked for were actually fairly luxurious, but she maintained that the city had held the line on things.

Lumm said  that back when she served, the council relied on professionals to guide it. Today, she said, the council is doing the work that professionals once did. The impression is, she said, that it’s the councilmembers who are doing the negotiating. She said she didn’t think that’s what is actually happening.

Labor Negotiations: Rapundalo

Rapundalo said that before he addressed the question that had been posed, he wanted to respond to some of Lumm’s comments. He noted that when Lumm served on the labor committee, she was on it when there were more Republicans than Democrats. So she had the opportunity to carry a recommendation out from the labor committee to the full council as to what they wanted to see come out of the negotiations. But he didn’t think there’s a record of that having happened.

Rapundalo stated that councilmembers don’t participate in labor negotiations – they provide parameters and the strategies by which the professionals do the negotiations. What has changed over the last five to six years, he said, is that the labor committee has put its foot down and said: The city is not going to conduct business like this any longer.

Rapundalo said that for many years, the police and firefighter unions, which are governed by the Act 312 arbitration law, would “call our bluff.” They’d say: “You’re not going to lay us off; we’ll string this out as long as we can.” But the council had gotten to the point where it said, “Enough is enough.” The city could not continue to cut other areas, he said, without looking at the largest expense, which is personnel. And the majority of personnel costs are in the public safety sector, he said. And with public safety union contracts that had no contributions to health care and minimal contributions in terms of pension, it was not fair.

So the council had said it’s time to connect the labor strategy with the budget strategy, Rapundalo explained. That meant that for units with employees who’d agreed to contracts that had higher contributions to health care and pension plans, budget reductions in those units would be correspondingly less. Most of the unions, “saw the writing on the wall,” Rapundalo said, and accommodated that strategy. Police and firefighters, however, had not, he said.

Rapundalo called it ironic that the settlement that the city had recently reached with the police officers rank and file – with greater contributions by employees to health care and pension – was the same set of conditions offered to them in May and June of this year, before the budget was approved. It was also the same set of conditions that had been offered a year ago. In their minds, he said, their contracts had already expired, so it was to their benefit to continue to work under those contracts that were more generous to them. But the police officers had finally come around, and he hoped now that those savings could be used to re-hire some of the officers.

Rapundalo called it a situation where the labor committee and the council at large had said that it was going to put its foot down, because it’s not sustainable. We’ve been living off those luxurious contracts for many years, Rapundalo said, and the rich buyouts that many people remember, back when firefighters were ending their careers with pensions in six figures, came under Lumm’s watch. At that, Lumm objected that she was not around at that time. Rapundalo insisted, “You supported it, you voted for it at the budget time, period, Jane. … You were there …”

Rapundalo’s contention was that Lumm had served on the council when the terms and conditions had been put in place that allowed for subsequent buyouts. Rapundalo continued by saying he’d spent his time on the council trying to roll back the labor contracts, and it had not been easy, because they were very entrenched. “Folks, you’re paying for these guys’ … food every day! They have written into their contract that you will pay for their coffee. I mean this is ludicrous in this day and age, let alone that they’re not paying for health care.”

The council said that “enough was enough” and had been adamant with the city administrator that it was not going to budge. And this time, if the unions called the city’s bluff, it would not work, Rapundalo said.

Council Minority

Question: (For Rapundalo) How is Lumm held responsible for what took place on the council when she served as a minority? (For Lumm) For residents who are happy with the current majority on the council, why shouldn’t they be?

By way of historical background on city council membership, ArborWiki’s entry on Ann Arbor city council membership from different periods is useful.

Annotated from the Nov. 18, 1996 Ann Arbor city council meeting minutes is the following membership for the labor negotiating committee:

Labor Negotiating Committee
Meets: As needed
Location: Guy C. Larcom Jr. Municipal Building (various rooms)
Contact: Neal Berlin, City Administrator, 994-2650
Sheldon [Ingrid Sheldon, Republican, mayor]
Lumm [Jane Lumm, Republican, Ward 2]
Kwan [David Kwan, Republican, Ward 2]
Hartwell [Stephen C. Hartwell, Democrat Ward 4]
Daley [Elizabeth Daley, Democrat, Ward 5]

Council Minority: Rapundalo

Rapundalo reiterated a point he’d made previously that evening, that there were instances where Lumm was in the majority “whether it be on the committee level, or otherwise.”

The remark drew some sarcastic laughs from the audience, likely because Rapundalo’s phrase “or otherwise” was understood to be a contention that Lumm had been a part of a Republican majority on the council as a whole, which she was not.

A brief exchange between Rapundalo and audience member Tom Wieder included, from Wieder, “Well, stop lying!” and protest from Rapundalo that the reference was to a committee [the five-member labor committee, on which Lumm had served as part of a 3-2 Republican majority].

Rapundalo continued by saying that good governance is about collaborating with colleagues to try to reach a consensus. He said that’s exactly what the councils he’s served on have tried to do – come together based on an understanding of what the issues are with a common goal. The councils of the 1990s, Rapundalo contended, were characterized by petty partisan politics and brinksmanship. It was the same sort of thing we see in Washington D.C., he said, and there’s too much of that in Congress. That’s a recipe for stagnation, he said. “The only way you’re going to get is if you give,” he said.

Council Minority: Lumm

Lumm began by saying she didn’t know where to start. She said when she served there were two Republicans on the council, three counting mayor Ingrid Sheldon. She said there’d never been any Republican majority on any committee or board. She insisted she was not a part of any majority.

Referring to the buyouts in 2000 and 2001, those buyouts had contributed to the increased pension liability, she said. There were subsequent buyouts as well, including the 2009 police buyout, which Rapundalo had voted for. She returned to her point that she had left the council by the time of the 2001 buyouts, even though Rapundalo said she was responsible.

At that time, Lumm said, the council had (without consultation with the actuary) made an early retirement proposal. Two hundred employees were eligible and 200 accepted, she said. Although she was not on the city council at the time, she said, she was curious about it. She was serving on a chamber of commerce public policy committee, so she called the actuary as an interested citizen, and the actuary reported that the city never contacted them.

Obviously, Lumm said, the buyout was far too lucrative – the FAC was based only on the last year’s compensation, she said. She noted that the current mayor, John Hiefjte, had voted for that. But she said she wasn’t around for it. That was a “golden parachute,” she said, and she wondered who wouldn’t take it. “Please don’t blame that on on me, I wasn’t around,” she said.

Commenting on her interactions with other councilmembers, Lumm returned to a point she’d made previously, saying she would float proposals not weeks but months in advance. When Rapundalo talks about brinksmanship, she doesn’t know what he means. “We had a little more diversity on council and we talked about things openly. What a concept! I think that’s a good thing.”

Today, what you see is everybody in agreement, Lumm said, with decisions having been made before the actual council meeting. Now, it seems like it’s more about selling and marketing the decisions. She said she wanted to open up the conversation to the wider community. In the 1990s, there were philosophical differences on the council, but it didn’t get personal. That’s good democracy, she concluded.

Underground Parking Structure

Question: The underground parking structure currently under construction on Fifth Avenue includes foundations that are capable of supporting a 12-story hotel, when the future use of the parcel has not yet been determined. Also, how do you justify building the underground garage when popular opinion is against it?

Underground Parking Structure: Lumm

Lumm said it was not possible to turn back the clock on the parking garage. It was built to support a much larger structure on top, she noted. So going forward, the conversation is more about what’s going to go on top. It’s a very valuable piece of property, she said. So the discussion about what goes on top needs public input, but not in a check-off-the-box kind of way. We’re talking about everybody’s tax dollars, she said, so we need to open things up to all conceivable stakeholders. It’s a vitally important parcel in the downtown area.

There’s one group of citizens that has come up with some guiding principles, which she supported. They want to see a public art component, green space and “it’s not all or nothing … it’s a really balanced set of guiding principles.” One of them is that it should be tax-producing, as well as an enhancement to the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown location. Another factor is the nearby Blake Transit Center. She said she wanted to see a robust community discussion about it.

Underground Parking Structure: Rapundalo

As far as justifying construction of the underground garage itself, Rapundalo noted that the need for the capacity was identified by the DDA by sitting down and projecting forward 10 or 20 years. The city has lost a number of lots and structures, he said, so that underground garage is really trying to make up for some of the loss.

For last five or six years, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the city council have been adamant in supporting the notion that there’d not only be an underground parking garage, but also a mixed-use development above that. As a result, the foundations included reinforced steel to accommodate something bigger, he said, but not specifically for a hotel. The question of what would go on top was purposely left open, he said.

Reviewing the set of proposals the city had received for the Library Lot RFP, Rapundalo said it was interesting that three had a hotel component, and of those, two had a conference center component. The job of the committee he’d chaired was to shepherd the proposals through a review process and bring a recommendation to the city council. His frustration, Rapundalo said, was that the council was not able to complete that process. [The council voted to terminate the process.]

For what it’s worth, Rapundalo said, the project that the committee had selected as its preferred option was, in its final version, not going to cost the city any money – it was going to be completely private. Rapundalo said he found it ironic that Alan Haber, who’d championed one of the responses to the city’s RFP that had called for parkland, has now come forward supporting something more akin to what the council has always said about the parcel – it should be mixed use with a large public component. “We’ve come back full circle,” Rapundalo said. He noted that the future of the lot is now in the hands of the DDA, which is looking at not just that site, but at other city-owned surface parking lots as well.

Heritage Row, City Place

Question: Explain what happened that resulted in the City Place development going forward – which will knock down seven historic houses – when the Heritage Row plan was turned down.

Heritage Row, City Place: Rapundalo

Rapundalo called the situation very frustrating. He said he was on the side supporting the Heritage Row PUD (planned unit development), which in its initial version would have torn down the seven older houses – which he contended were not “historic,” even though they were old. The first version of the project was to be a “very quaint” brownstone row house-type development, which he described as a very nice project. [At that time, the PUD was called "City Place," but subsequently the name "City Place" would be attached to a matter-of-right project, not a PUD.] After the brownstone version, the PUD then evolved into the Heritage Row project most people are familiar with, Rapundalo said. That one would have preserved the seven houses and also built something more contemporary behind the row of houses.

The majority of council supported Heritage Row, but neighbors took various steps to try to prevent its approval, Rapundalo explained. One tool was to file a petition with the city to force the council to achieve a supermajority of eight votes. The council was not able to muster that supermajority, and as a result Heritage Row failed on a 7-4 vote. So the developers came in and offered City Place, which was a project that was proposed to meet all the zoning codes, but would definitively remove the old houses. Rapundalo called it an “inferior project,” but the council was not in a position to say no, because the project met the zoning regulations. Saying no would have meant putting the city at risk of litigation and almost a certain loss in that litigation, he said.

There were several attempts to reconsider that vote on Heritage Row, Rapundalo said. However, the four councilmembers who’d voted against the project refused to budge on that. In the context of the most recent attempt in the last few weeks, the project had been sold to a new developer. And when the numbers were crunched by the new developer, long story short, he said, the numbers didn’t add up for the new developer. So the Heritage Row proposal was withdrawn.

Rapundalo said that in the next few weeks, he expected that demolition permits would be issued and the houses would come down, to make way for a project that will likely become student housing. Rapundalo called it unfortunate and it saddened him. There were many opportunities to make it right, he said. He said he can’t speak to why some councilmembers chose to prolong their opposition to a project that was at least reasonable. [For the latest City Place news, see "City Place: ZBA Appeal Filed"]

Heritage Row, City Place: Lumm

Lumm said nobody is happy with the outcome. She suggested that the situation could have been averted, if elected officials had moved forward with the review of the R4C zoning districts. A committee was formed, she said, to address questions about this zoning classification. If that had proceeded along a path where recommendations could have been made, it’s possible that the recommendations could have been in place in time to steer things in a direction that everyone was hoping for – Heritage Row.

Now, there’s speculation about whether the original developer had calculated the true cost accurately. Lumm ventured that he would know better than anyone. The new developer contends the Heritage Row development was not feasible. She said she just didn’t understand why those questions weren’t worked out and discussed. She said she hoped there’d now be an effort to get the R4C zoning review completed. The City Place project is student housing in a near-downtown neighborhood and she wondered how viable it would be, but she hoped it would be fully occupied. She said the council “played chicken” too long. She said people should have locked themselves in a room and figured it out. But she allowed it was easy for her to say – she didn’t live through it.

Sidewalk Millage

Question: If the sidewalk millage is not approved, will there need to be cuts?

[This item was presented in conjunction with a question about a possible city income tax, but are separated here, because the two are really two separate issues.]

Sidewalk Millage:  Lumm

Lumm said she was personally not supporting the sidewalk millage. Those feelings have been strengthened by knocking on doors during the campaign, she said. She’d been walking on some nice, newly-repaired sidewalks that residents had paid to have fixed under the recent five-year sidewalk replacement program. By way of full disclosure, she said, there are no sidewalks adjacent to her property.

People Lumm has talked to say they just spent a lot of money getting their sidewalk slabs replaced, and wonder about the coincidental timing of the millage proposal. She said a lot of people are not embracing that idea. Addressing the question of whether something would need to be cut, she called it an “unnecessary add,” because $540,000 had been carved out of the street millage for the public art program, when the sidewalk millage is projected to raise around that same amount – $560,000.

Lumm also called the 25% that is needed for administrative overhead excessive – “That’s insane,” she said. She’d attended a meeting of the Main Street Area Association, where members had discussed the use of the sidewalk millage inside the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district. Commercial property owners would all be paying the the millage, she said, but based on the original city council resolution of intent for the use of the sidewalk millage, it would not be used inside the DDA district except for single-family and duplex residences.

The expectation was that the DDA would handle the sidewalk repair inside the district, using only the tax increment from the millage already captured by the DDA TIF district. [The council's resolution of intent was subsequently modified to provide the DDA with all proceeds from the millage inside the DDA district, provided that the DDA agreed to take responsibility for sidewalk repair.] The original resolution was discussed by the council, but nobody bothered to discuss it with the DDA, she said.

Sidewalk Millage: Rapundalo

Rapundalo described the sidewalk millage ballot proposal as coming about due to feedback from voters over the five years that the replacement program has been in place. Many people had to replace slabs, go through the rigamarole of hiring contractors, or teaming up with neighbors to find economies of scale, Rapundalo said. And what councilmembers had heard from people was that they really didn’t want to deal with all that.

The 1/8 mill tax roughly translates to $15 a year, Rapundalo explained. From the monetary side of things, it’s less than having to pay $120-130 per slab. One of the reasons the city has the current model of the five-year inspection program is due to the reduced administrative costs. If you chose to ignore the citation from the city and opted to have the city do the work, the per slab cost was more expensive. If the sidewalk milage doesn’t get approved, he said, the city will continue with the current model on another five-year program cycle.

City Income Tax

Question: What are your thoughts on a city income tax?

City Income Tax: Lumm

Lumm said she does not support a city income tax, noting that Rapundalo calls it “revenue restructuring.” She said she hears all the time from the mayor and other councilmembers, like a mantra, that we’re experiencing the worst recession since the Great Depression. But when times are tough, she said, this is not the time to raise taxes.

There’s a lot more that can be done in terms of government consolidations, Lumm said. So far, we’ve only nibbled at the edges of government consolidation, she said. She said the city didn’t collaborate with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, the Ann Arbor Public Schools, the University of Michigan, or Washtenaw County when the city built the $35 million maintenance facility [Wheeler Center]. She said when she served on the city council, she’d brought forward a resolution that called for cooperation with those other units of government, if a maintenance facility were to be built.

Until those kinds of collaborative options are explored, the city government should not be thinking about asking taxpayers for more money. An income tax, she said, is not revenue neutral and would be highly volatile. Up until two or three years ago, tax revenues had been increasing at roughly twice the rate of inflation. Suddenly things have slowed, she said, with respect to property tax growth. She called it “a panic reaction,” to appeal to a revenue restructuring plan. She felt there are many more ways the city can be more efficient in providing basic service delivery.

City Income Tax: Rapundalo

Rapundalo allowed that on the income tax, Lumm is right – he’s in favor of having a dialogue about revenue restructuring. He does not think the city can rely on cost-cutting alone. We’ve already cut and cut and cut, he said, and we’re at or near the bone.

Rapundalo said it’s foolish not to examine the revenue side of the equation. That’s particularly true in light of the reduced amount of state shared revenue that cities have received from the state, he said, and given the legislature’s contemplation of eliminating the personal property tax. By way of illustration, Rapundalo said Pfizer was previously a company that was very personal-property intensive, because of high-tech capital instruments it had. If the city lost that personal property tax revenue for all companies, it would have a huge impact and would not be easily replaced.

Before the personal property tax is eliminated, Rapundalo cautioned, it behooves us to think about whether the revenue model that’s in place is the best one: Is the burden fairly distributed among users of city services – property owners and people who just work here? A Headlee override is also an option, he pointed out. [A Headlee override would reset taxes up to their original rate before they were rolled back by the state's Headlee Amendment.] He wanted to stack the different revenue models against each other and ask what they would prefer.

He contended that Lumm misrepresents the income tax as an “additional tax.” Under the Ann Arbor city charter, Rapundalo said, it’s not possible to have both an income tax and property tax. [This is true for the general operating millage levied by the city of Ann Arbor for its general fund revenues, which is currently just over 6 mills. Other property taxes, levied for parks maintenance, solid waste, open space preservation and the like, could and would still persist, even if an income tax were enacted. Rapundalo's point is that the general operating millage property tax (6 mills) and an income tax are, in fact, either-or propositions. ]

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority

Question: Some say the DDA has so much power, it’s ruining Ann Arbor. What’s your vision for downtown? What are three things you’d do to improve downtown?

Ann Arbor DDA: Rapundalo

Rapundalo said that the DDA had generated a lot of discussion, and a lot of points of view have been brought to bear on the question. He said there are two extreme views. One is that the DDA is not independent enough and the city council is trying to impose its will on the DDA. The other extreme view is that the city council doesn’t have enough control over the DDA. He said that one of his council colleagues has proposed the city get rid of the DDA entirely, and that the city take over the management of the city’s public parking system, which the DDA now operates.

For his part, Rapudalo described the city-DDA relationship as a balancing act. He said it’s important to remember that the DDA is enabled by state legislation, but the city is responsible for the DDA’s assets. So if the DDA were to disappear, the city could get stuck with both the liability and the assets. It’s only prudent, therefore, that the council exercise some control, he said. That control is exercised primarily through the appointments to the board, he explained. At the same time the council can’t be so overbearing that the council prevents the DDA from doing what it’s supposed to do – make decisions that are in the best interest of the downtown. The city council has tried to walk that line, he said.

Rapundalo does not support eliminating the DDA, because he said that would have dire consequences. At the same time he didn’t think the city council should be so overbearing as to “cuff the hands” of the DDA. On the DDA board there are some dedicated people, he said, who have the best interests of the downtown at heart. As a show of good faith, he said, the city had turned over the entire management of its parking system to the DDA, as well as the planning for city-owned parcels. The council is trying to walk a fine line, he said.

With respect to his vision of downtown, he noted that he works in the high-tech industry in biosciences, and works with economic development agencies, including Ann Arbor SPARK. We have to maintain the vibrancy of downtown, he said. He would like to see more density in downtown, either through commercial or residential development. He said he could imagine some kind of mid-sized corporate headquarters downtown. There are opportunities with companies currently located on the fringes, he said.

It boils down to creating more density – to increase tax revenue and to allow for a flourishing retail sector, he said. Up to now the downtown has been able to forestall the introduction of big box stores and maintain a nice mix of local and mom-and-pop type of retail, Rapundalo said. By the same token, the city has never really developed a retail attraction and retention strategy. He’d like to see the city set out some economic development priorities so that they could be coordinated and integrated with the efforts of Ann Arbor SPARK.

Ann Arbor DDA: Lumm

Lumm contended that in many respects, the DDA has lost its independence. Rapundalo has talked about the extreme views – that it should be wholly independent versus the idea it shouldn’t exist. When she served on the council, the DDA was an independent body, but it’s not today. She felt like the city council had subsumed the DDA.

She contended that former councilmembers serve on the DDA board, and she noted that the mayor of course [by statute] also serves on the board. When she served on the council, the DDA board was composed mostly of downtown property owners – their mission was solely focused on the downtown. They were not susceptible to pressure to assist the city financially. But today, the DDA is paying $500,000 per year on a 30-year loan for the new municipal center, Lumm noted. That money could be used on other downtown investments.

She described the DDA as being in a “compromised position” now. She pointed to the contract under which the DDA manages the city’s public parking system – the city receives 17% of the gross parking revenues. She took issue with the idea that the city had “given” the DDA the management of its public parking system. What came with that “gift,” she said, was the obligation of roughly $2.7 million a year provided by the 17% of gross revenues in the contract. That money is needed to fill the holes in the city’s operating budget, she said.

Lumm said that despite Rapundalo’s desire not to “cuff the hands” of the DDA, in many ways the city did that. Now a discussion is unfolding about the possibility that hours of parking enforcement will be extended and rates might be raised. [Extension of hours of enforcement has recently been taken off the table, at least for now.] This was predictable, she said. As the city kept going back to the “DDA trough” saying, “Give us more money,” Lumm noted, some members of the DDA board had indicated that parking rates would need to be raised, if the trend continued.

The DDA board is accountable to all of us, she said, and they need to be allowed to have a laser focus on the downtown. Her vision for the downtown, she said, is a vibrant downtown – who doesn’t want that? The DDA has been stretched beyond what their traditional mission was, she said. The downtown is the core of the city and we need to work collaboratively with the DDA so that it remains a strong economic driver.

Closing

Each candidate gave a closing statement.

Closing: Rapundalo

Rapundalo offered that what attendees at the forum had heard is a fundamental difference in how he and Lumm approach the role of a councilmember. What they’d heard from Lumm was a “hunker down” mentality, where we batten down the hatches and say no to everything. He did not accept that, he said. There are times to say no, no doubt. But time doesn’t stand still. It’s important to ask: What are the needs of tomorrow? What do our kids need? We need to think about those questions now, he said. It’s what defines being strategic and it’s what defines leadership.

In his tenure on the budget committee and the labor committee, he said he has challenged other councilmembers about priorities. The council sets priorities at budget retreats, which sets the tone for everything. The council has done a good job of establishing the things that are important, he said, and figuring out what accommodations have to be made in the budget to make those things happen. He said that Ann Arbor is actually doing pretty well. It has good bond ratings, he noted, which allowed the city to embark on needed infrastructure improvements, when bond rates were lowest and when construction costs were lowest. That was exactly the right time to do some of those projects, he observed.

Rapundalo said he would not sit back and accept the status quo. We should always ask if the status quo is okay. If it’s okay, then great. But if it isn’t, then we had better be working on the next steps, he said. It’s about investing in our future, prioritizing safety, and accelerating road repair and economic development to shore up our tax base.

The conversation has to include revenue restructuring, Rapundalo said. It’s not enough to cut costs, because when you try to prioritize, everybody thinks that everything is important. That’s why we have to talk about revenues, he said.

There’s important work to be done, Rapundalo said. He brings a varied skill set to the table, he said, and will continue to bring his due diligence that he’s always brought. He said he would be fair, equitable and mindful of people’s input and bring that into the decision-making at the council table.

Closing: Lumm

Lumm thanked the organizers for hosting, and Rapundalo for his service, and the forum attendees for coming out on a night when the weather was bad. She said it had been great to hear all the questions and to hear what’s on people’s minds.

She ventured that people likely had a sense of what her campaign is about: refocusing spending priorities to reconnect neighborhoods to city hall. She said she wanted to make sure tax dollars are deployed consistent with residents’ priorities. She felt the city has taken its eye off the ball – that’s why she is running.

She allowed that public art is valuable, but the city shouldn’t sacrifice basic services to pay for it. Although Rapundalo said prioritizing public safety is a priority, she said that over the last six years, during Rapundalo’s service, public safety has been cut by 24%. She said she’s no expert, but she’s talked to experts – people who served at senior levels in the Ann Arbor police department – and they are very concerned. If they’re concerned, she said, so was she.

Lumm said that when she hears that we’ve cut to the bone and around 50% of the head count is in public safety, that tells her there are other opportunities for reductions, too. Maybe the city needs fewer attorneys or accountants, she ventured. The city needs to look at cuts strategically. She called for having the community assist in building the city’s budget. She didn’t think the city government’s priorities are the community’s priorities. She welcomed the comparison between the time she served on the council and now. She said she’d worked hard to contain costs and limit taxes. She was known as a “fiscal watchdog,” she said, and would do that again. She asked people to consider when they felt safer and when the roads and streets were in better condition – now or then.

Lumm said she is running as an independent, but is honored to have both Democrats and Republicans supporting her. She hopes that going forward there’ll be other independents who run for city council, and said that maybe the city council elections can become non-partisan.

Lumm said she feels a sense of unity as she goes door to door, and with the group that has come together to support her. They share the belief that city government must reconnect with the people, she said.

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

Magenta dots indicate addresses of donors to the campaign of Ward 2 independent Jane Lumm. Overridge Drive is Lumm's home street, located near Huron Hills golf course, visible to the north in this image.

In an uncontested Ward 1 race, documents filed with the Washtenaw county clerk’s office show Democratic incumbent Sabra Briere raised $3,640 from 48 donors since the primary election (which for her was also uncontested).

In the contested Ward 3 race, Democratic incumbent Stephen Kunselman raised an additional $20 from one donor, bringing his total to $4,045 for this year’s election cycle. Kunselman prevailed in a three-way primary in August. Kunselman’s Republican challenger David Parker filed a waiver request – which is allowed if a candidate expects to spend less than $1,000.

In Ward 4, Democratic incumbent Marcia Higgins raised $1,075 from seven donors, compared with no contributions raised by her Republican opponent Eric Scheie. Scheie filed a negative balance (–$1,173.73), which earned him a notice of error from the county clerk’s office – the source of funds used to pay for expenditures must be given, even if it is a loan by the candidate to the campaign.

In Ward 5, Democratic incumbent Mike Anglin, who also had a contested primary, raised an additional $185 from three donors to bring his total this year to $7,405. Anglin’s Republican challenger Stuart Berry filed a waiver request.

In Ward 2, filing documents for Stephen Rapundalo show he raised an additional $4,420 since the primary, which was a contested race for him, bringing the total indicated on his paperwork for this year’s campaign to $8,505. [The Chronicle's arithmetic calculates $4,380, not $4,420, for this filing period.]

Independent challenger Jane Lumm, who of course did not participate in a partisan primary, outpaced all other candidates’ combined totals since the primaries by raising $18,950 from 193 donors.

After the jump we break down the Ward 2 contributions with charts and maps.

Ward 2: Who and How Much?

For Rapundalo, the pattern of contribution size was similar to the trend shown for his primary campaign – most contributions fell in the $50-$100 range.

About a third of contributions to Rapundalo’s campaign came from current or former elected or appointed officials, including Janis Bobrin (Washtenaw County water resources commissioner), Jean Carlberg (former planning commissioner and former city councilmember), Eunice Burns (former DDA board member), Christopher Taylor (Ann Arbor city councilmember), John Hieftje (mayor), Jan Barney Newman (Ann Arbor District Library board), John Splitt (DDA board member), Margie Teall (city councilmember), Brian Mackie (Washtenaw County prosecutor), and Joan Lowenstein (former city councilmember and current DDA board member).

Inspire Michigan also contributed to Rapundalo’s campaign, listing its address as that of Ned Staebler, who was appointed to the Local Development Finance Authority at the city council’s last meeting. The resolution appointing Staebler was sponsored by Rapundalo.

Former city of Ann Arbor community services area administrator Jayne Miller is also listed among Rapundalo’s contributors. [Miller took a job as superintendent of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation board a year ago, but the campaign contribution filing lists her Ann Arbor address.]

Chart A: Count of contributions for Rapundalo by category. Total of 33 donors, averaging $133 per contribution and a median of $100. Largest donation was $500.

The distribution of size among donations to Lumm’s campaign was skewed slightly lower than for Rapundalo – the highest frequency category was the $26-50 range.

Lumm’s contributors also include former city officials and past council candidates: Ingrid Sheldon (former mayor), Leslie Morris (former city councilmember), Peter Fink (former city councilmember), Stew Nelson (former Ward 2 candidate), Edwin Amonsen (former Ward 2 candidate), Emily Salvette (former Ward 2 candidate), Debra Bourque (spouse of Tom Bourque, a former Ward 2 candidate), John Floyd (former Ward 5 candidate), Vivienne Armentrout (former Ward 5 candidate), Ethel Potts (former council candidate and former planning commissioner) and Ed Shaffran (former DDA board member).

Chart A: Count of contributions for Lumm by category. Total of 193 donors averaging $98 per contribution and a median of $100. Largest donation was $1,000 (from Lumm and her husband).

Ward 2: Where?

In the maps we’ve created below, the light blue shaded area is Ward 2, with the city boundary shown in yellow. The magenta dots locate addresses of people who made donations. The size of the dots is uniform – they’re not sized to depict the amount of a donation. [link to dynamic Google Map with .kml file for Rapundalo's contributions] [link to dynamic Google Map with .kml file for Lumm's contributions]

For Rapundalo, no real patterns are evident. His support comes from inside and outside the ward.

Contributions to Stehen Rapundalo's campaign for the general election filing period. (Links to larger image.)

For Lumm, there’s a clear pattern of strong support in the southern part of the ward, Lumm’s home neighborhood, inside the loop formed by Washtenaw Avenue to the south, Huron Parkway to the east, and Geddes to the north. Another cluster of support inside the ward is evident in the middle of the ward, in the Glazier Way neighborhood.

Outside the ward, there’s a cluster of support in the Lawton neighborhood in the southwestern part of the city, as well as in the downtown area.

Contributions to Jane Lumm's campaign for the general election filing period. (Links to larger image.)

Historically, Ward 2 candidates running against Rapundalo have had relatively stronger showings at the polls in the same areas where Lumm is drawing financial support. [See Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Elections: Past Voting Patterns" and "Incumbents Win Ann Arbor Dem Primaries"] However, he’s managed to prevail based on his popularity in his own neighborhood in the northern tier of the ward.

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

Additional Chronicle coverage of the local 2011 general election races includes reports from the League of Women Voters candidate forums for city council and Ann Arbor Public Schools board.

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

Independent Jane Lumm (left) and Stephen Rapundalo (right) before the start of the League of Women Voters Oct. 5 forum. They're vying to represent Ward 2 on the Ann Arbor city council. (Photo by the writer.)

The forums on Oct. 5, 2011 were held for all four of the city’s five wards that have contested races. Replays are available via Community Television Network’s video on demand service. [Ward 2 CTN coverage]

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

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

Of the four contested races this year, the Ward 2 contest likely poses the greatest chance for a challenger to take an incumbent’s seat. Lumm previously served on the city council in the 1990s, has been active in the community, enjoys good name recognition and has achieved a broad coalition of support across party lines. She served previously on the council as a Republican. Lumm’s supporters include some who previously supported Rapundalo as recently as in the August Democratic primary.

One measure of Rapundalo’s own perception that Lumm poses a significant threat is the tenor of his campaign – as reflected in his website as well as his closing comments at the LWV debate. In those comments, he attempted to paint Lumm – and the city councils of the 1990s – as having created a mess that he’s had to clean up. Specific votes cast by Lumm are described and criticized by Rapundalo on his website without their full context. The context for some votes by Lumm – votes that are cited and criticized on Rapundalo’s website – reveal a kind of garden-variety fiscal conservatism that Rapundalo is also known for.

Topics addressed by the two candidates, presented in chronological order below (annotated to include historical context), include the proposed Fuller Road Station, the retirement board charter amendment, street repair millage, finance, human services, public art, and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

Opening Statements

Each candidate had a minute to give an opening statement.

Opening: Rapundalo

Rapundalo began by thanking Ward 2 residents for their confidence in him and their support over the last six years. He said he’s seeking re-election because now more than ever the city needs strong fiscal leadership to address the challenges of the future and to move Ann Arbor forward. He said he’d been responsive to Ward 2 residents on a wide range of issues.

Rapundalo said he is proud of his accomplishments, which he said include leading the effort to replace outdated and expensive labor contracts, to provide more and better recycling, establish and protect neighborhood parkland, rebuild aging infrastructure, defend neighborhoods from inappropriate development, and ensure quality city services. Most important, he said, was to develop city budgets that do not put those services at risk. He said he had worked collaboratively with his council colleagues, despite occasional policy differences.

Opening: Lumm

Lumm began by thanking Rapundalo, the LWV and CTN. She said that in today’s nationally challenging environment, the city needs to make responsible, but difficult choices – the city simply can’t afford everything.

Lumm said the guiding principle should be to align city spending with what people value and are willing to pay for. Unfortunately, she said, this alignment is not there. She said the city needs to refocus its priorities on basics like police, fire, streets and infrastructure. The more discretionary and visionary items like public art and transit stations will just have to wait, she said. To her, she said, public safety is job one.

Lumm was honored, she said, that people across many different political persuasions had united in their support of her campaign. Their common concern is that elected officials have lost touch with the community and its needs and priorities. That needs to change, she said, and it’s time to get back to basics to reconnect Ann Arbor’s city government with its residents.

Transportation

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

Transportation: Fuller Road Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transportation: Lumm

Lumm said the long-term vision is that it’ll be a multi-modal station. And that could be in Ann Arbor’s best interest, she said. But now the only thing on the table is a parking structure with a significant city funding commitment, she said, estimated at around $10 million. She felt she could not support the proposal right now, because there are way too many unanswered questions.

The main question that remains unanswered, Lumm said, are estimates of ongoing operating costs. Also the city hasn’t shared details of the operating or capital plan. If these plans exist, they should be shared in a completely transparent discussion with the community, she said. Before embarking on any such proposal, we need to understand what the financial commitments are, she said. In addition, she said, the location is a park. If the Fuller Road Station is as solid a proposal as the city says it is, it should pass muster with voters, Lumm concluded.

Transportation: Rapundalo

Raundalo said he was quite supportive of the project. For him, Fuller Road Station would be a “game changer” for the city and its future. The station is part of an effort to move people in and out of the city right next to the largest employer the city has [the University of Michigan]. We need to think about the future and what our kids and grandkids need and how they are going to move around in an increasingly dense community, he said.

Rapundalo said the idea of multi-modal transportation is exactly the kind of forward thinking the city needs to do now, not later, when it’s going to be too late and more costly. The city has the funding for the first phase, and funding for the next phases is evolving, he said.

Retirement Board Charter Amendment

Question: On the Nov. 8 ballot, voters will be asked to approve a city charter amendment that removes the city administrator, currently Steve Powers, from the city retirement board of trustees. Explain the purpose of approving this amendment.

Retirement Board Charter Amendment: Background

The composition of the nine-member body as currently set forth in the charter is as follows: “(1) The City Administrator and the Controller to serve by virtue of their respective offices; (2) Three Trustees appointed by the Council and to serve at the pleasure of the Council; (3) Two Trustees elected by the general city members from their own number (general city members being members other than Policemen and Firemen members); and (4) Two Trustees elected by the Policemen and Firemen members from their own number.”

The proposed change would retain nine members but would distribute them differently: (1) the city controller; (2) five citizens; (3) one from the general city employees; and (4) one each from police and fire.

If the measure passes on Nov. 8, it will still need to be ratified by the city’s collective bargaining units in order to take effect.

In 2005, a “blue ribbon” commission – tasked to make recommendations about the city’s retirement board and the city’s pension plan – had called for a change in the board’s composition to be a majority of trustees who are not beneficiaries of the retirement plan and, in particular, to remove the city administrator’s position from the board.

In 2008, a member of the retirement system’s board of trustees, Robert N. Pollack, Jr., resigned from the board in part due to the city’s failure to enact recommendations of the blue ribbon panel. [.pdf of blue ribbon panel report] [.pdf of Pollack's resignation letter]

Under the terms of new city administrator Steve Powers’ contract, he will not be a beneficiary of the city’s retirement plan, but will instead have a 401(a) plan.

The city’s retirement program is supported in part by the levy of a retirement benefits millage [labeled CITY BENEFITS on tax bills], currently at a rate of 2.056 mills, which is the same rate as the city’s transit millage. A mill is equal to $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value.

Retirement Board Charter Amendment: Rapundalo

Rapundalo described that particular charter proposal as “years in the making.” It goes back, he thought, six years to a blue ribbon task force that was put together to study elements of the pension board and how it conducts its business. The task force had identified a number of issues related to the perceived conflict of interest and the lack of true independence on the board.

The idea is to remove the city administrator and a number of the other city beneficiaries from the board, Rapundalo said. Instead of those positions, he said, at-large citizens would be installed, who have the right skill sets to deal with the issues of pension allocations and dispersements.

Retirement Board Charter Amendment: Lumm

Lumm thought it was a good move. The recommendation had come over six years ago, and she said the community should vote for it.

But Lumm said it was unfortunate the way it was presented. Another one of the recommendations made by the task force was to improve communication between the pension board and the city. But the trustees on the pension board found out about the ballot proposal only after the city council voted to put it on the ballot, Lumm said. The executive director of the pension board didn’t find out about it until the day the council voted on it, she said.

When she previously served on the council, the council met with the pension board regularly, Lumm said. Now the city council does not meet even annually with the pension board, she said.

Street Repair Millage

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

Street Repair Millage: Background

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

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

The ballot language for the street repair millage will read:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Street Repair Millage: Past Perspective on Voter Choice and Millages

This year, the basic strategy with the street and sidewalk repair millage is to separate out a basic millage renewal from consideration of an increase in the millage rate. The city is asking for a renewal of an existing millage at 2 mills and an increase of 0.125 mills as separate questions.

This is the same kind of strategy that Lumm supported in 1997, when she sponsored a resolution to present voters with the same kind of choice for parks maintenance – a renewal and an increase as separate ballot propositions. From city council minutes:

DEFEATED
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MILLAGE PROPOSALS FOR .3654 Mill and for .1071 MILL FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR RESOLVED, That the Ann Arbor City Council propose that the City Charter be amended by amending Section 8.22 which shall read as follows: Funds for MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF PARK FACILITIES SECTION 8.22.
…
RESOLVED, That if one or both of the amendments are adopted, they shall take effect on January 1, 1998; provided, however, that the amendment to authorize a tax and levy of .1071 mill shall not take effect unless the amendment to authorize a tax and levy of .3654 mill also is approved by the voters.
Councilmember Lumm moved that the resolution be adopted. On roll call the vote was as follows:
Yeas, Councilmembers Hartwell, Putman, Lumm, Kwan, 4;
Nays, Councilmembers Kolb, Vereen-Dixon, Carlberg, Herrell, Mayor Sheldon, 5. Mayor Sheldon declared the motion defeated. [.pdf of Aug. 18, 1997 Ann Arbor city council minutes]

Having lost the bid to split the proposal, Lumm then joined the rest of her colleagues in voting unanimously for a single ballot proposal that asked voters to approve the millage with the increase, for a total of .4725 mills.

Rapundalo’s campaign website points to a vote of Lumm’s at the council’s previous meeting, on Aug. 4, 1997, against putting the single millage proposal before voters. On that basis, Rapundalo claims Lumm “voted against allowing Ann Arbor residents to vote on the parks and maintenance millage, which fund the City’s park maintenance.” In fact, the vote on Aug. 4, 1997 had come after an unsuccessful attempt by Lumm to get the measure postponed, so that an alternative, split proposal could be developed. [.pdf of Aug. 4, 1997 Ann Arbor city council minutes]

And when there were not enough votes to postpone, or for the other side to push through the single proposal, the ballot proposal was defeated at the Aug. 4, 1997 meeting. That gave Lumm the opportunity to put together the split proposal for the following meeting on Aug. 18, which ultimately did not succeed. The historical record of council minutes does not support a contention that Lumm was against allowing residents to vote on a parks maintenance millage.

Street Repair Millage: Lumm

Lumm said she supports the street millage. Updating the city’s basic infrastructure is a financial challenge, she said, and maintaining streets is a basic service that taxpayers value and are willing to pay for. However, she does not support earmarking those “precious capital dollars” for public art. To date, she said roughly $2.2 million had been diverted to public art.

In the budget deliberations for fiscal year 2012, Rapundalo had a chance to change that percentage earmarked for public art, chose not to do so, Lumm said. The sidewalk millage would generate another roughly $560,000, she said, and she was not supportive of that. She cited the administrative costs associated with the sidewalk repair program as the reason for her opposition to the millage.

Street Repair Millage: Rapundalo

Rapundalo said he also supports the street repair millage. Since 1984, it has been renewed on a five-year renewal cycle, he said. Clearly that is a basic service that many residents want to see provided.

Regarding the sidewalk millage, he said, it’s something the council had voted to put on the ballot because of the feedback the council received from residents all over the city. The current model is to have residents pay for repair of sidewalk slabs in front of their property. But many residents have said that the city should take care of it directly. So this millage addresses that feedback, he said. [Rapundalo did not indicate whether he supported the sidewalk repair millage as a voter.]

Finance

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

Finance: Background on Budget, Income Tax

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finance: Income Tax – Previous Discussions

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

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

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

Finance: City Income Tax – More Recent Discussions

Through the city council and mayoral election season in 2010, the idea of a city income tax received some discussion as an issue. During his campaign, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) in particular expressed support for the idea. He’s now part of a working group on the council, which also includes Taylor and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), that is taking a closer look at revenue questions.

At the Dec. 4, 2010 budget retreat, former city administrator Roger Fraser had expressed the same sentiment he’d conveyed to members of the budget committee back in February 2010: He thought he had an obligation to ask the citizens to consider the income tax question before cutting services. Fraser’s sentiment is one that Rapundalo has supported during his service on the council and during the current campaign.

Finance: Council’s Approach to Budgeting – Public Safety Unions

Part of Rapundalo’s current campaign is an attempt to characterize the city councils of the 1990s, which included Lumm, as having been irresponsible with respect to spending, in particular with respect to labor contracts, which Rapundalo has repeatedly characterized as “rich.”

However, up until this last year, the councils of the 2000s have essentially pursued the same kind of labor strategy as the councils of the 1990s. They have essentially bargained under the constraints of the state’s Act 312 legislation, while at the same time maintaining a defacto no-layoff policy. In 2009, the council elected to offer an early retirement buyout to police officers instead of imposing layoffs. At that time, 34 officers qualified for the retirement incentive – at least 26 of them accepted it, which cost the city over $5 million. The cost of the buyout was covered with the general fund reserve.

In early 2010, the council injected some drama into the budget discussion that year, by treating a $2 million payment from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority as if were uncertain. As a result, the council raised the specter of police and firefighter layoffs. When the DDA authorized the $2 million payment, it was spent partly to prevent the layoff of public safety officers.

Finance: Council’s Approach to Budgeting – Amendments

On his campaign website, Rapundalo cites minutes of council meetings from the 1990s in his criticism of Lumm’s performance on the city council. Those minutes show that the council’s basic approach to the city budget was similar in the 1990s to what it is now. Specifically, the budget proposed by the city administrator underwent any number of amendments put forward by councilmembers, some of which succeeded and some of which failed.

For example, an amendment proposed by then-councilmember Peter Fink for the fiscal year 1996 budget stipulated that a business plan be put forward for the recycling drop-off station. Rapundalo’s 2011 campaign website characterizes Lumm’s vote in support of a business plan and a prohibition against a staff increase as being against recycling. From the council minutes:

Councilmember Fink moved that the resolution be amended by adding the following two “Resolves” regarding the recycling drop-off station with each clause to be voted on separately:
RESOLVED, THAT THE STAFF BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN TO COUNCIL WITH A TOTAL BUSINESS PLAN FOR THE RECYCLING DROP-OFF STATION SHOWING PROPOSED NET SAVINGS FROM SUCH A PLAN AT THE SAME TIME AS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS ARE BROUGHT FORWARD;
On roll call on the first part of the motion, the vote was as follows:
Yeas, Councilmembers Fink, Lumm, Nicolas, Kolb, Mayor Sheldon, 5 Nays, Councilmembers Hanna-Davies, Carlberg, Smith, Daley, 4
Absent for the vote, Councilmember Hartwell, 1
The Mayor declared the motion defeated.

The question under consideration was the following language:
FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT IN NO CASE SHALL THE PLAN FOR THE DROP-OFF STATION REQUIRE ANY NET INCREASE IN CITY STAFF;
On roll call, the vote was as follows:
Yeas, Councilmembers Fink, Lumm, Nicolas, Mayor Sheldon, 4
Nays, Councilmembers Carlberg, Smith, Kolb, Daley, 4
Absent for the vote, Councilmembers Hanna-Davies, Hartwell, 2
The Mayor declared the motion defeated. [.pdf May 25, 1995 Ann Arbor city council minutes]

Another vote of Lumm’s characterized by Rapundalo as against recycling was an omnibus amendment to the 1998 fiscal year budget. Among many other things, it included a cap on expenditures on commercial recycling. From the council minutes:

Councilmember Lumm moved that the following spending reductions be incorporated into the proposed budget: SAVINGS IMPACT ON 1997/1998 DEPT. PROPOSED BUDGET Reductions Required to Avoid Tax Increase $1,200,000 POSSIBLE REDUCTIONS

• Reduce temporary pay in Admin. Svcs., Admin. Svcs. $275,000 Parks & Rec., and Solid Waste to project- Parks & Rec. ed 1996/1997 levels plus 3%; reduce Solid Waste temporary pay in Parks an additional $75,000 to reflect permanent hiring of temporaries
• Reduce Police Dept. total budget Police $100,000 (Dept. discretion — possibly by deferring capital spending or reducing overhiring)
• Limit growth in vehicle fleet, maintenance Public Svcs. $100,000 costs, and/or acceleration of equipment re-purchase schedule
…
• Offset increase in Fire Dept. overtime Fire $50,00 (Dept. discretion)
…
• Limit spending on new commercial Solid Waste $30,000
recycling program to $30,000
…
The question being the proposed spending reductions, with the exception of the increase in Building Department fees, on roll call the vote was as follows:
Yeas, Councilmembers Lumm, Kwan, Putman, 3;
Nays, Councilmembers Hanna-Davies, Vereen-Dixon, Carlberg, Herrell, Hartwell, Kolb, Daley, Mayor Sheldon, 8.
The Mayor declared the motion defeated. [.pdf of May 28, 1997 Ann Arbor city council minutes]

Finance: Rapundalo

Rapundalo began by saying the general fund has to be balanced and the city has done that consistently. For the last number of years, since he had served on the council, councilmembers have worked diligently at retreats at the end of the calendar year to begin setting priorities for the upcoming budget discussions. He said it’s important to do that and it’s become even more important given the tough economic times that we’re going through.

There has been priority placed on public safety, he said, but public safety services have not been immune to cuts. He pointed out that cuts made this year could have been totally mitigated if unions had come on board – their health care plans have been too rich for too many years, he said. In Rapundalo’s closing remarks, he said he felt that the council owed it to the community to talk about revenue restructuring [i.e., a city income tax] and not just cost cutting.

Finance: Lumm

Responding to the question about the amount of the deficit, Lumm pointed out the city had used around $1 million in its fund balance this year in order to achieve a balanced budget. This is a situation, Lumm said, where elected leaders have not aligned spending priorities with the community’s priorities. Protecting public safety should be the priority of any local government.

Lumm said she felt those public safety cuts have been too severe. She described the budget as having been approved year after year with non-strategic, mindless, across-the-board reductions. The council can direct the administrator and staff to reduce costs in administrative areas more and with less reduction in police and fire.

Human Services

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

Human Services: Recent Background

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

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

Human Services: Past Background

Part of Rapundalo’s campaign has included the assertion that Lumm consistently opposed funding human services during her service on the city council in the late 1990s, when she served on the council as a Republican. (Rapundalo ran unsuccessfully as a Republican for mayor in 2000.) In May 1997, Lumm joined her Republican Party colleagues on the council on a party-line vote opposing the use of general fund dollars to create a new fund for human services contingencies [caps in original]:

RESOLVED, That a Housing and Human Services Contingency Fund of $100,000 be created in the Non-departmental Budget for 1997-98. Council unanimously agreed that the last paragraph of Councilmember Carlberg’s proposed language be amended as follows:
RESOLVED, That a Housing and Human Contingency Fund of $100,000 be created in the Non-departmental Budget for 1997-98 FROM GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCE.

The question being Councilmember Carlberg’s proposed language as amended, on roll call vote the vote was as follows:
Yeas, Councilmembers Hanna-Davies, Vereen-Dixon, Carlberg, Herrell, Hartwell, Kolb, Daley, 7;
Nays, Councilmembers Lumm, Kwan, Putman, Mayor Sheldon, 4.
The Mayor declared the motion carried. [.pdf of May 28, 1997 Ann Arbor city council minutes]

Regarding an expectation that the human services area provide objective data on positive outcomes, in order to justify their funding, Lumm’s position on human services while on council in the 1990s appears consistent with the position championed by Rapundalo during his service dating from the mid 2000s. Rapundalo is fairly credited with much of the work that went into the current scoring matrix used to allocate and prioritize city funding to nonprofits. It’s an approach that has won widespread praise as a more equitable manner of making human services funding allocations.

An attempted amendment to the fiscal year 1996 budget – which was supported by Lumm, but which failed – called for an increasingly objective standard for evaluating community services. However, the resolution gives direction that is not nearly as fine-grained as the development of a scoring matrix to determine funding allocation. Instead, it simply directed city staff to reduce the number of different human services agencies funded by the city. From the council minutes:

Councilmember Fink moved that the resolution be amended by adding the following language:
RESOLVED, TO INCREASE THE EFFICIENCY OF STAFF TIME AND THE WORK OF NON-PROFITS THEMSELVES AND TO QUANTIFY AN EXISTING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT “‘CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTOR”, AN ADDITIONAL “MEASURE OF SUCCESS” FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WILL BE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF NON-PROFIT CONTRACTS BY 2% PER YEAR FOR THE NEXT 5 YEARS. (THIS DOES NOT SPEAK TO THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF FUNDING, ONLY TO THE NUMBER OF NON-PROFITS.);
On roll call the vote was as follows:
Yeas, Councilmembers Fink, Lumm, Nicolas, Mayor Sheldon, 4
Nays, Councilmembers Hanna-Davies, Carlberg, Smith, Kolb, Daley, 5 Absent for the Vote: Councilmember Hartwell, 1
The Mayor declared the motion defeated. [.pdf May 25, 1995 Ann Arbor city council minutes]

Human Services: Lumm

Lumm felt there are things that can be done budget-wise and priority-wise. There’s no question it’s important to address human services needs, she said. When she looks at how the city spends money – a beautiful city hall and the new maintenance facility – those are “nice to have,” she said. Those projects are in the past, she said, but accountability matters. There are ways to allocate finite resources, she said.

If the community feels that human services funding is a priority, then so be it, Lumm said. We need to engage citizens in assessing what their priorities are and how they want their money to be spent. She said she did that when she served on the council previously and she would do that again.

Human Services: Rapundalo

Rapundalo said he’d spent a lot of time over the last number of years working on human services funding. What had been in place previously was based on a “tugging of sleeves.” He said he’d tried to reform that kind of approach so that it’s based on performance and impact.

Rapundalo said that whether the city could cover some of the losses that the Delonis Center homeless shelter might encounter due to the county is left to the “peer review process.” That process would determine if the city had the money and whether the shelter deserves it based on performance and the impact that they have on the community. He said there is a good system in place now to engage the public and social services agencies, and to use all that information in a disciplined review process.

Public Art

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

Public Art: Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Art: Rapundalo

Rapundalo said he was a strong supporter of the public art program. He allowed that there’s been frustration at the pace of implementation. But any time there is a brand new program with such complexity, he said, it takes a while to get things off the ground. And things are now off the ground. The previous night, he said, there was a spectacular demonstration of that with the unveiling of the Dreitseitl fountain at the municipal center. There were well over 200 people in attendance, he said.

Rapundalo contended that the public art program doesn’t take any general fund dollars and thus does not impact things like police and fire protection. It’s been proven over and over again, he claimed, across 90 communities in 26 states that public art is an effective economic development tool. It contributes to the economic base and to the quality of life that is perceived in Ann Arbor. Public art draws talent and keeps people here, he said. That’s the kind of vibrancy that we want in our community, he concluded.

Public Art: Lumm

Lumm stated that her position is different from Rapundalo’s. She said she was certainly not opposed to public art. It boils down to this, she said: Is it an appropriate allocation of resources? Comparing it to Maslov’s hierarchy of needs, she said that if people are hungry and freezing, they don’t focus much on self-actualization. The city diverted $2.2 million to public art funding, she said.

Lumm said she begged to differ with Rapundalo about his contention that general fund money was not used for public art. She noted that the municipal center building fund was created out of the general fund reserves. Those are local tax dollars. It’s a good example of the unwillingness of the city to focus spending on basic services. And it’s a good example of the inconsistency of the use of the “bucket” analogy to talk about fund-based budgeting. When we want to spend money on something, magically the flexibility is there, she said.

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority

Question: The city has recently moved towards greater transparency with its A2OpenBook. What about the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority? Please explain the relationship between the city council and the DDA, and between the DDA and the Ann Arbor voters. Beyond increasing downtown parking rates, how does the DDA impact the lives of Ann Arbor citizens? What is their contribution to the community?

Ann Arbor DDA: Background

The Ann Arbor DDA has been the focus of heavy Chronicle coverage over the last year. One reason for that focus is the recently renewed contract between the city and the DDA, under which the DDA manages the city’s public parking system. It was ratified in May 2011.

However, the DDA’s raison d’être is not to administer the public parking system, but rather to make “public improvements that have the greatest impact in strengthening the downtown area and attracting new private investments.” The streetscape improvements that are currently nearing completion on South Fifth and Division in downtown Ann Arbor are one example of the kind of projects the DDA can undertake.

The funding mechanism for those improvements is tax increment finance (TIF) capture in the downtown district. In broad strokes, the taxes on an increment – between the initial value of a property and the value after new construction – are captured by the DDA, instead of being distributed to the authorities that levy the taxes. Those taxing authorities include the city of Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw County and Washtenaw Community College.

This spring, city staff noticed that the ordinance establishing the Ann Arbor DDA appears to provide a kind of cap on the amount of taxes that the DDA is allowed to capture in its TIF district. Up to this year, that cap had not been observed. When that aspect of the ordinance was highlighted, it resulted in a repayment by the DDA of over $400,000 to other taxing authorities. In the future, a need to return TIF captured revenue to other taxing authorities could continue or be eliminated, depending on how the ordinance is interpreted. [See Chronicle coverage: "Column: Tax Capture is a Varsity Sport"]

After making repayments to other taxing authorities earlier this year, the DDA board subsequently took the position, at a special meeting held July 27, 2011, that the repayments it had made were not actually required.

The repayments, plus the conditions of the new parking agreement – which calls for transferring 17% of gross public parking revenues to the city of Ann Arbor – have put the DDA under considerable financial stress.

DDA board members are nominated to four-year terms by the mayor, and must be confirmed by the city council.

Ann Arbor DDA: Lumm

Lumm began by saying that she valued the DDA and what they do. She felt the DDA is a truly independent body. The DDA looks out for the best interests of the downtown, she said. Having a vital downtown is critical for a community, Lumm said. Unfortunately, she said, over the years the DDA has become a “piggy bank” for the city.

Under the new contract, the city will receive 17% of the revenue from the public parking system for the next 11 years, Lumm pointed out. That’s around $3 million a year, she said. The DDA also provides debt service of around $0.5 million per year for the city’s municipal center. Unfortunately, Lumm said, downtown merchants and residents are seeing the impact of these unwise allocations that Rapundalo has supported over the years. The council has not focused on the things they should be doing with that money, she said. She felt everyone could agree that the parking fund should be used to maintain the parking system. She described the DDA as “pretty much tapped out.”

Ann Arbor DDA: Rapundalo

Rapundalo described the downtown as the heart and soul of any community. The DDA is the independent authority that must oversee infrastructure and improvements to ensure vitality. He said he respected people who have served and continue to serve on the DDA board. They have brought great skill sets to the table to address many complex issues, not the least of which is parking, he said. The DDA has demonstrated its ability to do that, he said.

Rapundalo continued by saying the downtown has shortages in parking, so there’s a need to put additional facilities in place. The DDA has been forward-thinking in addressing the needs of the future and implementing solutions now instead of later, when the need is too great. The DDA is a body that has done a very good job of reaching out to community, he said, and being open and transparent about how they function and the decisions they make in the public interest.

Closing Statements

Each candidate had two minutes to give a closing statement.

Closing: Lumm

Lumm again thanked the LMW. She also thanked Rapundalo for his service to the city. She said she was honored to represent Ward 2 on the city council for three terms in the 1990s. She said she did not expect to ever run again. But she cares about Ann Arbor, she said, and thinks that the council has lost touch with the community and the community’s priorities.

So Lumm said she’s back trying to earn voters’ support to accomplish two goals. The first goal is to refocus city spending on basic services. Second, she wants to reconnect Ward 2 with city government.

As she walks Ward 2, Lumm said, she’s hearing over and over a genuine frustration from neighbors that elected officials are not listening to them, or think they know better. Residents recognize the many challenges faced by the city, she said, and they want to see focus on the basics, like public safety. Residents say they don’t see that happening, Lumm said, and they’re right.

During the six years Rapundalo had been in office, Lumm said, the percentage reduction in public safety is three times that of other areas of the budget. The city has hired a public art administrator, but is laying off police, she said. That doesn’t reflect the community’s priorities, she said, nor are they hers. Residents also expect elected officials to maximize efficiency, she said.

Rapundalos’s campaign literature states that the city should consider “revenue restructuring” alongside cost containment, Lumm noted. Before asking taxpayers for more, she said, the city must address structural cost issues, and pursue an acceleration of intergovernmental consolidation. While on the city council she worked hard to engage all the stakeholders, she said, and to ensure all options and points of view were heard in open dialogue. That’s essential to good government, she noted, but missing today. She said she knew that the city could do better and she would bring those principles back to the council table.

Closing: Rapundalo

Rapundalo again thanked voters for their past support. He said he’s seeking reelection because the city needs strong, principled leadership to address future challenges and to move the city forward. Cities across Michigan are facing the biggest crisis since the Great Depression, he said, and in the face of that, he’d helped lead a budget process that focuses on priorities. Those budgets did not raise taxes, and made city government more efficient, he said. The budgets had reformed outdated and expensive labor contracts that Lumm had supported in the 1990s, he said. Today, Rapundalo said, the city has 25% fewer employees, but has more and better recycling and waste pickup, lower crime, more parkland, and has rebuilt infrastructure like the new wastewater treatment plant.

Rapundalo said he was focused on maintaining the investment for the future, while prioritizing safety services, reconstruction of the East Stadium bridges, and economic development. He felt that the council owed it to the community to talk about revenue restructuring [i.e., a city income tax] and not just cost cutting. The community needs to have a conversation about what revenue model can work best and better spread the burden of all users of the city’s infrastructure and services. Rapundalo said that Lumm had a voting record that showed she consistently voted against recycling and human services, ignored needed infrastructure improvements and even pushed for cutting the police budget while supporting their unsustainable and expensive labor contracts.

Rapundalo said it had taken 15 years to “clean up that mess.” The city councils of the 1990s were characterized by brinksmanship and inaction, he contended. We see enough of that in Congress, Rapundalo said. The future of Ann Arbor can’t afford that approach to governance, he said, and residents don’t want that. They want public servants who lead through collaboration, even when they don’t agree on everything, which he’d done consistently. He wrapped up by thanking the LWV.

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

The email was sent not long after news broke that Lumm had filed the necessary petitions to qualify as an independent candidate for the Ward 2 race. That race will now be contested between Lumm and Stephen Rapundalo, who won the Aug. 2 Democratic primary against Tim Hull. No Republican filed petitions to appear on the Ward 2 ballot. Both Lumm and Rapundalo have previously run for office as Republicans.

Shaffran’s support for Lumm is somewhat significant, because he previously had urged support of Stephen Rapundalo in the Democratic primary. However, in Shaffran’s email he makes clear that he stands by his earlier positive statements about Rapundalo. About Lumm, he writes: “She and her husband John have been long-time friends and I’m not one to turn my back on a friend as the players on the field have changed and I’m behind Jane.”

Top: Stephen Rapundalo. Bottom: Tim Hull. (Photos by the writer)

Because no Republican challenger filed by the May deadline, the winner of the Ward 2 Democratic primary will likely be the Ward 2 representative to the city council. Some uncertainty surrounds that conclusion, however, because the filing deadline for non-partisan, independent candidates is not until Aug. 15. And Ward 2 has a recent election history that includes write-in candidate Ed Amonsen’s effort in the 2007 general election, which nearly won him a seat on the council. Amonsen’s write-in campaign earned him 790 votes (48.4%) to Rapundalo’s 843.

In their opening and closing statements, the candidates reprised the themes they’d introduced at a previous forum hosted by the Ann Arbor Democratic Party in June. Rapundalo stressed his experience and leadership as essential in trying economic times to find solutions in the area of cost containment and “revenue restructuring.” Rapundalo is president and CEO of MichBio, a biosciences industry trade association. First elected in 2005, Rapundalo is seeking a fourth two-year term on the city council.

For his part, Hull focused on budgeting that is based on community needs, not politics, and stressed that he would protect those things that make Ann Arbor unique. Hull is a programmer at the University of Michigan’s Center for Computational Medicine and Bioinformatics. He serves as a member of the city’s taxicab board.

The two candidates dealt with the full range of topics covered by LWV questions – from public safety cuts to their thoughts on the hiring of the new city administrator.

The LWV forum was filmed at the Community Television Network studios on South Industrial Highway. After the break, The Chronicle presents paraphrases of questions posed to the candidates and their responses to them, as well as some highlights from the candidates’ remarks broken down in a bit more detail.

Do You Golf?

As put forward by the LWV moderator, the topic of the city’s parks included a specific question: Are city parks to be parks in perpetuity, or are they available for sale and lease?

Stephen Rapundalo was first to field that topic, and did so with a laugh: “That’s a loaded question!” Given the history of Ward 2 politics, Rapundalo’s assessment of the question was understandable.

That Ward 2 history also accounts for  the explicit and implicit emphasis in Tim Hull’s responses on the preservation of Huron Hills as a golf course. Hull’s general campaign talk (at the LWV event, as well as at a previous Ann Arbor Democratic Party event in June) includes his commitment to that which gives Ann Arbor it’s unique character – its neighborhoods, its parks and its natural beauty. That can be understood as an implicit version of the explicit statement he also makes as part of his campaign: He’s committed to preserving Huron Hills as a golf course.

In 2007, the perception among some Ward 2 residents that Rapundalo and other members of the council might be willing to sell either Huron Hills or the Leslie Park golf course nearly led to a loss by Rapundalo in the general election – against a write-in candidate. Ed Amonsen received 48% of votes, with Rapundalo avoiding defeat only through a decisive majority in his own neighborhood. That year, Amonsen’s nearly-successful write-in campaign was based in part on the fact that the city had hired a consultant to evaluate the city’s two golf courses, and one of the possibilities floated by the consultant was to sell one or both of the courses.

[The context of that year's Ward 2 election results is included in a recent Chronicle article, "Ann Arbor Elections Past: Voting Patterns." An understanding of  the geography of the ward and the golf courses as well as the result of the Rapundalo-Amonsen election can be gained from a Google Map of those election results.]

In an attempt to counter the perception that the sale of the courses was a realistic possibility, just before the election in late October of 2007 the city council passed a resolution asserting that “all the properties commonly known as the Leslie Park and/or Huron Hills Golf Courses will not be sold either in whole or in part for private development …”  The resolution approved by the council that year also included in a “whereas” clause the assertion that [emphasis added], “Some residents continue to misrepresent the facts and insist that a sale of golf course properties is imminent …” [.pdf of October 2007 city council resolution]

Accusations that people were misrepresenting facts on that issue continued the next year as part of the 2008 Democratic primary between Stew Nelson and Tony Derezinski. They were contesting the Ward 2 seat left open by Joan Lowenstein, who chose not to see re-election on the council. In an interview a few weeks after the August 2008 primary, which Derezinski won, Nelson described an off-camera Ward 2 candidate forum where mayor John Hieftje (not a Ward 2 resident) stood up and leveled an accusation at Nelson that Nelson had been misrepresenting facts:

… and somebody asked me a question – they asked me about the problem when the City was trying to sell part of Huron Hills Golf Course. And I gave them an answer, and I said, Yeah, I was very active in that. I said, I used to ride my horse over there on that property. …

I gave my explanation, and the mayor stood up and here’s what he said. And I’m going to quote the mayor. We thought he was going to ask a question. Folks, he said, I have been listening to this and I just have to say that what I have heard, the only word that I can use to describe it is, it’s a crock. And I thought, Well, okay. And he looked at me, and he said, Stew, you’re a smart guy, why do you continue to spread falsehoods? Well, there’s 40 people there in the room, and I used my best airline pilot cool, pretended like I had an engine failure …

… So I used my airline pilot cool and I just sort of sat there and smiled and listened. And once the mayor stopped beating up on me, then Derezinski got a little nasty, and then the moderator said, I thought he was asking a question, I probably should’ve slammed the gavel down on him. But he didn’t. Then they said maybe we better give Stew a chance to respond. …

And so I said, Mayor, we are going to disagree on this, but I have an aerial photograph that shows parcels of Huron Hills for sale, that we got from the City. I said, I have a copy of the appraisal that you had for the land appraised back there for sale. I have e-mails from Matt Warba, who is the head of golf courses, to Karla Henderson, who is second in command of Public Services, talking about the appraisal, and the sale of parts of land back there. And then when the golf course consultant was studying uses of that land there, we asked that they take off for consideration the sale of any land. And you and Councilmember Rapundalo adamantly refused to take it off.

And I said, What am I to assume? And I walked out the door.

In late 2010, the city ended an RFP process that had asked outside entities to handle golf operations at Huron Hills, ultimately deciding that the proposal selected as a finalist, from Miles of Golf, not be pursued further. In broad strokes, the city’s two golf courses have been performing somewhat better than projected over the last couple of years, based on implementation of a range of recommendations made by the golf consultant dating back to 2007. According to the city, the courses are not self-sustaining at this point.

Letters of support for Hull in this campaign imply that Rapundalo continues to be perceived by some residents as not committed strongly enough to the future of Huron Hills and Leslie Park as golf courses, despite serving on the committee that rejected the Miles of Golf proposal for further consideration.

What Is Your Experience?

Rapundalo has made his experience and his record of service a theme of his campaign. He can count his current service on council committees like the liquor license review committee, the budget committee, and the labor committee as examples, as well as past service as chair of the city’s park advisory commission before he was elected to the city council.

For his part, Hull is relatively new to public service, but does have the start of a record. His mayoral nomination to the city’s taxicab board came at the Oct. 4, 2010 city council meeting. Before that he had addressed the council and the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority during public commentary time on a range of topics, including the need to hold the AATA more accountable. Hull cites his taxicab board experience on his campaign website, but didn’t make it a point of emphasis at the Ann Arbor Democratic Party candidate forum or at the LWV event.

Opening Statements

Each candidate was given a chance to make an opening statement.

Rapundalo’s Opening

Rapundalo thanked the league for the opportunity to speak. In making the case for himself, he stated: “Experience matters, as does leadership.” He argued that in the face of challenging economic times those are two key attributes. He said he’d been forging solutions to real problems for the last five years, and that he’d been doing so in a reasonable and disciplined manner. The key issues that he wants to continue to focus on relate to fiscal responsibility – cost containment and revenue restructuring.

[By "revenue restructuring," Rapundalo was referring implicitly to a city income tax. That's an idea that has surfaced from time to time, as recently as the city council's budget retreats in late 2010 and early 2011. See Chronicle coverage: "Engaging the FY 2012 Budget"]

He cited the importance of gaining concessions from labor unions on health care and retirement benefits for cost containment. He also said he wanted to work on delivery of better services. He concluded by saying he wanted to focus on economic development and smart growth.

Hull’s Opening

Hull began by saying that Ann Arbor is a great place to live. He said he wants to continue to improve the level of services and to focus on the things that matter most – public safety is not something to be sacrificed, he said. Budget priorities should be based on community needs, not politics. The possibility of short-term economic growth shouldn’t cause us to sacrifice Ann Arbor’s unique character, he said, and that can be seen in Ann Arbor’s neighborhoods, parks and natural beauty. Hull said he would fight to preserve what makes Ann Arbor unique. He said that at times the council is too caught up in politics to respond to the needs of the community, but that doesn’t have to be the case. He promised to be responsive to residents’ concerns.

How would you improve communication?

Question: [The LWV moderator referred to an article reporting that most Ann Arborites are still not following a new city ordinance that mandates stopping at crosswalks when pedestrians are present.] Taking this only as an example, would you please explain how the population is to know what laws have been passed or changed or what decisions have been made, without communication from the city to its citizens? What will you, as a member of the Ann Arbor city council, do to improve this?

By way of additional background, the pedestrian ordinance in question was given final approval at the council’s July 19, 2010 meeting. A further revision to the new ordinance was prompted on that evening of deliberations by a suggestion from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). She suggested replacing somewhat vague language (“yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield,”) with the clearer directive to motorists to “stop and yield.”

Pedestrian safety traffic controls have been an ongoing issue at one intersection located in Ward 5, at Seventh and Washington streets. Upon installation of a traffic island and sign, motorists initially tended to drive right over the island and the sign. In recent months, reports of the sign’s recurring demise have ceased.

In Ward 2, a crosswalk issue was raised by resident Kathy Griswold over the period of a year starting in the fall of 2009 – she unsuccessfully lobbied the council and Rapundalo as Ward 2 representative to move the mid-block crosswalk in front of King Elementary School to the end of the block, where cars must already stop for the 4-way stop intersection.

Hull on Communication

Hull said engaging constituents regularly is important – through newsletters, public forums with councilmembers, advertising campaigns. The city should make use of the Internet, and perhaps revamp the city’s website. Community engagement is key, he said, and the connection between councilmembers and constituents is important.

Rapundalo on Communication

Rapundalo said the crosswalk ordinance is an interesting example, because he was driving the previous day down Plymouth Road, and noticed that some of the new crosswalks don’t have signage that says, “Stop for Pedestrians.” So the first step, he said, is to make sure that all the crosswalks have appropriate signage making it clear to drivers that they’re supposed to stop at those crosswalks for pedestrians.

He said that as Hull had pointed out, the city needs to engage the public better. The city’s already award-winning website could be improved. Engaging residents at the neighborhood level at association meetings is important, he said. Finding a means to get the information out through social media and other technology-based approaches is important, too, but it starts with the physical signage, he concluded.

City Parkland

Question: As a member of the Ann Arbor city council, how would you view and manage parkland? Are parks available for lease or sale as needed? Also, what are your thoughts on the quality of park safety and maintenance? How important is that, and whose responsibility is it?

Rapundalo on Parks

Rapundalo responded to the question with a laugh, saying, “Well, that’s a loaded question!” He stated that the fact of the matter is that the state statute and city ordinance are clear: parkland can’t be sold without putting it to a vote of the electorate. He said he didn’t think any current or future councilmember would contemplate doing that, especially for any of the city’s major parks. Parks are there for many generations to come. The issue of park maintenance is complex, he said, and that’s rooted deeply in the budget. But it starts with priorities – the council, the staff and the public need to decide what are the most important aspects of the park system to maintain.

Hull on Parks

Hull said he thinks parkland is public land that belongs to the public. It should not be sold or leased long-term without the consent of the voters. It’s definitely important to see what voters want from parks and to look at budget priorities. He called for taking a holistic approach and seeing where the parks fit into that. [The reference to long-term leases is likely an allusion to the proposed Fuller Road Station – the topic of the next question.]

Fuller Road Station

Question: Some very well-situated Ann Arbor parkland is being considered for the Fuller Road Station, which right now looks to be a very large parking structure on Fuller Road. The primary occupier of the proposed space is the University of Michigan. Please explain the current status of the Fuller Road Station project to our viewers and your arguments for or against its continued development.

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

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

The transit station is envisioned as directly serving east-west commuter rail passengers. A day-trip demonstration service that was to launch in October 2010 never materialized. But a recent announcement earlier this year, that some federal support for high-speed rail track improvements would be forthcoming, has shored up hopes by many people in the community that the east-west rail connection could become a reality.

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

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

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

The city’s park advisory commission has expressed some objections to the project, and has asked that the advisory body be kept informed as the project moves along.

Hull on Fuller Road Station

Hull described the project as a kind of a partnership between Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan – the city is paying 22% and UM is paying 78%, based on the split of the parking spaces to which each entity will have access. Phase 2 is supposed to be a transit hub with trains. But it is parkland, even though it’s been a parking lot for a while. The parking lot arrangement was intended to be temporary.

Hull said he thinks it needs a public vote. Also from a cost-benefit analysis, what benefit does Ann Arbor get from it? He also wondered about the likelihood of the trains starting expanded service using the station. He described himself as somewhat skeptical – he didn’t want to rush into it, without doing due diligence and getting public feedback.

Rapundalo on Fuller Road Station

Rapundalo noted, as Hull had pointed out, the land has been used as a parking lot and involved a land swap with the University of Michigan “way back when.” The whole discussion about a transit hub has been ongoing, he said, for a couple of years, and has not emerged just in recent months. There’s quite a bit of discussion that’s gone into it, he said.

A multimodal transportation hub is important for Ann Arbor’s future, Rapundalo said. That coincides with an image of Ann Arbor as a progressive city. We need to be able to move people around, particularly in proximity to the largest employer that the city has, he said, referring to the university and its large medical complex near Fuller Road. There’s already funding in place at the federal level, he contended, for many stages of the project and it “should be a go.”

Public Safety

Question: Budget cuts have also led to cuts in public safety – police and firefighters. How is tolerable risk determined? How can voters feel confident that their taxes are taking care of them, their children and their property?

Rapundalo on Public Safety

Rapundalo said that every member of council puts public safety as a highest priority. The question is how the city should deliver public safety services – do they have to continue with past service models or can they do it with other creative ways, where the same level of service can be provided more efficiently with less personnel?

Rapundalo said that despite budget cuts, the number of street cops has been maintained, so people should feel secure that the city is doing everything it can to ensure that they are safe. However, he said that costs have to be cut in all departments and not just in non-public safety departments. There is no more fat to cut, and public safety is 51% of the budget – and most of that 51% is personnel, he said.

Hull on Public Safety

Hull said the city needs to have a discussion about staffing levels. The police chief and the fire chief need to be active in that discussion. He said we can look at it in a better way. We need to take a broader view. There are so-called buckets, he said, and we need to look at which buckets can be changed in order to free up funds. We need to look at creative solutions working with the unions to reduce costs, he said.

Why you?

Question: What qualities and accomplishments make you the better councilmember for Ward 2? You’re running against an incumbent (or as an incumbent). Why have you chosen to do that? What advantages would you bring?

Hull on why he’s running

Hull said obviously there’s an incumbent. Even though people might be from same party, they might have a different perspective, or have different views. He’s running because he feels like he offers a different, fresh perspective for voters. He wants to be more active in seeking community input and looking to what the community wants. He said he would think outside box, and not get stuck in the council’s current way of thinking.

Rapundalo on why he’s running

Rapundalo came back to his remarks made in his opening statement – it comes down to experience and leadership. He described the breadth of his professional career and the kind of managerial skills he could bring and the kind of knowledge he’s accumulated over the years. He pointed to his service as past president of a neighborhood association, past chair of the of city’s park advisory commission, current chair of the city council’s labor committee. He concluded that the breadth and depth of his background is superior to Hull’s and is best suited to bring his skills to bear on the challenges that continue to face the city.

New City Administrator

Question: The city is hiring a new city administrator. The two finalists are two non-local candidates. Have you met them? Do you have a favorite? What difficulties will they face?

By way of additional background, the city council voted at its July 18, 2011 meeting to offer the position to Steve Powers, currently county administrator for Marquette County, Michigan.

Rapundalo on the New City Administrator

Rapundalo said he’d met both candidates – he participated in both sets of interviews that had concluded earlier that day. He described them both as competent and said they could both fulfill the role. At the work session following the interviews, he said, the councilmembers had highlighted strengths for both candidates – it’s a question of fit with the city’s sense of values, he said. There’s a frontrunner in his mind, but he would continue to ponder the choice.

Rapundalo on the New City Administrator

Hull said it’s definitely an important thing to think about – the city has to replace the outgoing city administrator. He had some concerns about the process, he said. The city brought in an outside search firm. People have cited issues with that search firm’s previous experience. He felt that maybe we should think about how that process was selected. We need to consider the candidates who are the finalists, but Hull wondered if the search firm could have produced a better candidate? The city has have gone through searches before and abandoned them when they don’t like the candidates.

What are the strengths and challenges of Ward 2?

Question: What challenges do you see as unique to the Second Ward? How do you propose to address them in the primary and general election campaigns, and then later as a member of the city council?

Hull on Ward 2 Specifics

Hull said there are a lot of issues. Some are shared across the city – like public safety. Others are more pertinent to Ward 2. Fuller Road Station may not be fully in Ward 2 – it’s right on the edge of Wards 1 and 2. Huron Hills golf course is right in the heart of Ward 2, he said, and that golf course is important to many people. He said he wanted to make sure it stays a golf course for public use. Ward 2 is quite diverse, with residents ranging from students to retirees. There’s dense housing and less-dense housing. He said he’d been talking to lots of people and getting different perspectives.

Rapundalo on Ward 2 Specifics

Rapundalo said that going back to when he was president of the Orchard Hills/Maplewood Homeowners Association for 10 years, in some respects not much has changed. [Rapundalo's immediate neighborhood has been crucial to his success in past elections.] Some issues will always be there. As Hull pointed out, Rapundalo said, the ward has some unique assets.

Rapundalo said he was in favor of preserving Huron Hills as a golf course, but no matter what, it will always be open space. The ward’s other big asset is the former Pfizer site – that’s two million square feet of real estate, which the university bought and is starting to re-populate. There’s opportunity for economic growth there, he said, particularly with the inclusion of private companies in an entrepreneurial environment. As that happens, he said, the traditional issues of traffic flow and neighborhood stability will arise.

Closing Statements

Each candidate was given the opportunity to make a closing statement.

Hull’s Closing

Hull told the audience he hoped the forum had given them a chance to get to know him better. Even though the economic times may be tough, we can weather the storm together, he said. Difficult budget decisions will be less painful, if we adequately prioritize what’s most important for the community.

As a councilmember, Hull said he’d work diligently to make sure that residents’ interests are represented in city decision-making. He said he’d work to protect Ann Arbor’s unique character – neighborhoods, parks and a sense of community. He allowed that he might be young, but contended that he has the resolve and dedication to work on the issues that matter to voters, so that Ann Arbor continues to be a great place to live.

Rapundalo’s Closing

Rapundalo returned to his earlier points on experience and leadership. He said his five years on the city council and his professional career have allowed him to bring a breadth and depth of skill sets that are needed at the council table. He said he’d assumed leadership roles on a number of issues and he would continue to do that. Given the number of issues facing the city, this is not the time to be facing a steep learning curve, Rapundalo said. He added that he’s a good listener and seeks input from all stakeholders.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statistical Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mapping

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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