In Ward 5, Democrat Chuck Warpehoski was elected over Republican Stuart Berry, winning with 10,371 votes (81.49%) compared to 2,281 votes (17.92%) for Berry. The incumbent Democrat, Carsten Hohnke, did not run for re-election.

The four other city council races, also for two-year terms, were not contested. Democrat incumbents Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) were on the ballot, along with Democrats Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Sally Hart Petersen (Ward 2). Petersen had defeated incumbent Tony Derezinski in the Aug. 7 Democratic primary. Kailasapathy prevailed in the primary over candidate Eric Sturgis. The current Ward 1 councilmember, Sandi Smith, did not seek re-election.

The 11-member city council includes the mayor and 10 city councilmembers, two from each ward.

From left: Republican Stuart Berry and Democrat Chuck Warpehoski are candidates for Ward 5 Ann Arbor city council. (Photos by the writer.)

The Ward 5 seat is currently held by Democrat Carsten Hohnke, who did not seek re-election for another two-year term. Vying for the opening are Democrat Chuck Warpehoski and Republican Stuart Berry. The two candidates answered questions about their background and vision for the community at an Oct. 10 forum organized by the League of Women Voters of the Ann Arbor Area.

Berry stressed the importance of basic services, and advocated for giving power back to the people. In general, he indicated a belief that government at all levels has overstepped its bounds.

Citing his experience as executive director of the nonprofit Interfaith Council for Peace & Justice, Warpehoski emphasized his skills as a listener and in bringing together people with different perspectives. Warpehoski also provided written answers to a set of questions on the league’s Vote411.org website. The site indicated that Berry did not participate.

Both candidates highlighted the challenge of providing services at a time when budgets are tight.

The Oct. 10 candidate forum was held at the studios of Community Television Network in Ann Arbor, and is available online via CTN’s video-on-demand service. The forum also included candidates for Ann Arbor mayor – Albert Howard and John Hieftje. The mayoral portion of the forum is reported in a separate Chronicle write-up.

Information on local elections can be found on the Washtenaw County clerk’s elections division website. To see a sample ballot for your precinct, visit the Secretary of State’s website.

Opening Statements

Each candidate was given the opportunity to make a one-minute opening statement.

Chuck Warpehoski: He thanked the league, noting that this event is important to give viewers a better understanding of the candidates. He believes he brings important skills that are necessary to serve the community. He cited the past 10 years of experience he’s had as executive director of the Interfaith Council for Peace & Justice. In that role, he said he’s gained important experience in how to listen to constituents and bring people together across their differences to address their concerns. This is an important skill for serving the community, he said. Warpehoski’s work has also given him experience in balancing a budget and meeting payroll. Those are hands-on leadership skills that a councilmember needs, he said. He directed viewers to his campaign website to learn more, and he asked for their vote on Nov.6.

Stuart Berry: He also thanked the league for hosting the forum. He first came to Ann Arbor in the late 1960s to help his father, a Scottish immigrant, deliver milk to Ann Arbor families. It was hard work – and his father worked six days a week, 52 weeks a year, but was glad to do it because he came to America knowing that hard work paid off, Berry said. During those years, Berry said he witnessed the building of many great neighborhoods, commercial areas and parks in Ann Arbor. The city was changing then to redefine itself. Now, Ann Arbor must face new realities if it is to remain great. When he returned in 1989 to live and work here for the University of Michigan city services were very good. Over the years, declining revenues have forced some tough choices, and the city council has not always been wise in making those choices, he said. The council has chosen to reduce basic services, he noted, and to fund many projects of questionable value and benefit. He looked forward to discussing his concerns and solutions.

Challenges

What are the biggest challenges that the city faces over the next two years, and how would you act on them?

Stuart Berry

Stuart Berry: The biggest challenge relates to basic services. Police and fire protection have been cut back, and it’s impacting the safety of the citizens and taxpayers, he said. Another basic service is the roads, which continue to be in poor shape. The city needs to improve the roads, he said. As he goes throughout Ward 5 knocking on doors, people are questioning why the city eliminated a fall leaf collection program, saying that many people feel that is a hidden tax – because they now have to spend money and time on it themselves. The city council needs to redefine itself so that it better provides the basic services of Ann Arbor, he concluded.

Chuck Warpehoski: Many of the challenges will be budget-related, he said. It isn’t always a choice between a good thing and a bad thing, he noted. Often it’s a choice between multiple good things, or the difficult choice of making cuts. The city has faced significant challenges. It lost property tax revenue when Pfizer left town, he said. Property values have declined, so the revenues from property taxes have declined. The city has lost several million dollars in state revenue-sharing, he said. So continuing to provide services and balance the different needs of constituents is a vital challenge.

Warpehoski said there are a couple of things he can bring to meet that challenge. With his background in listening and bringing people together, his goal is to have a participatory process that will bring people into that discussion. As they move forward in that process – having made cuts in the past – part of the challenge is how to look for alternative revenue sources to help fund community needs, he said.

Relationship with the DDA

Are you satisfied with the relationship between the city and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority? What are your thoughts about the DDA’s Connecting William Street project?

By way of background, in 1975 the state legislature authorized the Downtown Development Authority Act (Act 197 of 1975), which enabled cities to set up DDAs with the purpose of protecting and revitalizing their downtowns. The Ann Arbor DDA was established in the early 1980s, and renewed by city council in 2003 for another 30 years. It is governed by a board that’s appointed by the city council, based on nominations by the mayor, who by statute also serves on the board. The DDA is funded by tax increment financing (TIF) – that is, it “captures” a portion of the property taxes in a specific geographic area that would otherwise be collected by taxing authorities in the district. The tax capture is only on the increment in valuation – the difference between the value of property when the district was established, and the value resulting from improvements made to the property. In Ann Arbor, the DDA also operates the public parking system under contract with the city.

Earlier this year, the city council also directed the DDA to embark on another project – now called Connecting William Street – focused on developing a plan for five city-owned properties along William Street, between Ashley and Division. Four of the parcels are surface parking lots; the fifth is a parking structure at Fourth & William. For more background, see Chronicle coverage: “PAC: Downtown Park, More Input Needed” and “Planning Group Briefed on William St. Project.”

Chuck Warpehoski: The downtown is part of what makes Ann Arbor great – that, plus the city’s dynamic neighborhoods, he said. As he hears people discuss the downtown and the DDA, he hears that some people are unhappy with the DDA’s administration, that it’s taking too many resources. But he also hears people argue on the other side – for example, that the DDA gave too much away when it negotiated with the city for the most recent contract to manage the city’s parking system, and that as a result the DDA is not able to fully fulfill its mission. He thinks the DDA is important for maintaining the downtown’s vibrancy. There are continuing discussions about how they can best do that. He hears a lot about the importance of making the community accessible to all residents. When the DDA puts in ADA-compliant curbcuts downtown, that’s a good investment, he said. The downtown is important, but it’s also important to make sure that the partnership with the DDA works for the community as a whole, he added.

Stuart Berry: He agrees that the downtown is very vibrant. People come in and spend their money, and pay a lot of money for parking, Berry said. The money that the DDA handles is, in effect, taxpayer money, he said, and the DDA’s board is unelected. He’d rather see more oversight over the DDA, because that’s the role of the city council – to make sure that the money collected by the DDA is properly handled. Ultimately, the city council is responsible for those dollars, he said, because councilmembers are the ones who are elected.

Traffic & Population Growth

Is the city’s planning for traffic growth keeping up with plans for the growth in population, with respect to parking, safety and other aspects?

Stuart Berry: Traffic in any city is a real concern, especially in Ann Arbor. The city is growing, but the infrastructure is shrinking, he said. The city is on a path to put all the pedestrians, bicyclists and cars in the road at the same time. It’s a prescription for a bad thing – and he’s concerned about that. The city has to find a way to get people into Ann Arbor, to move around safely, then get them out of Ann Arbor if they’re not residents here. Ultimately, the city needs more people and businesses to move in so that the city can grow, he said. To do that, the traffic situation needs to improve.

Chuck Warpehoski: Having a balanced and multi-modal transportation system is very important. Over the last five years, the city has seen almost a doubling of bicycle use, he said. So they need to look at a variety of factors when trying to manage mobility. Some people will drive to shop or work downtown, so the city needs to provide those driving and parking options. Some people will take the bus. Expanding options like park-and-ride lots will get people to the edge of the city so that they can take the bus, which will result in less congestion and less demand for new parking. It’s important to make sure that roads are safe for pedestrians, and that the city’s pathways are safe for cyclists. “It’s a matter of balancing all of these factors.” Overall, the city’s transportation planning has been good, Warpehoski said, given the constraints. Can it do better? Absolutely, he said – and he’s looking forward to helping find options for all of the city’s transportation needs.

Nonpartisan Elections

Should Ann Arbor follow the lead of many other municipalities and abandon partisan tags for mayor and city council, particularly to take top vote-getters in a nonpartisan August primary and into the November general election?

For background on this issue, see “Column: Ann Arbor – A One-Party Town” and “Column: Let’s Put Life into City Elections.”

Chuck Warpehoski

Chuck Warpehoski: There are arguments on both sides, he said. He noted that The Ann Arbor Chronicle published a column on this issue that made some good points. A proposal for nonpartisan elections might be something to bring to the voters. The advantage of a partisan election is that the party label gives voters an indication of things, he said. In the Nov. 6 election there are a lot of races. The League of Women Voters has been doing a great job of helping to educate voters, he said. But it’s very difficult to give attention to all the ballot initiatives, and all the races, to make sure people are really informed. The advantage of the current system is that when people go to the polls for the primary election – which ends up being the real race  for many elected positions in Ann Arbor – there has been a lot of attention specifically on that race. The challenge of getting more attention for the general election and creating an educated populace is something that needs to be worked on, if the city moves forward with nonpartisan elections, he said.

Stuart Berry: Nonpartisan elections would be a very good idea for Ann Arbor, Berry said. The town has a majority of Democrats, so running as a Republican, Berry said it’s hard for him to get his points across to voters on their doorsteps. Many Democrats don’t want to listen to what a Republican has to say. But the ideas in Ann Arbor are not necessarily Republican or Democrat, he said. We need to work toward improving the city, and the way to do that is to have all ideas heard. With partisan elections, the real election is in the August primary. It tends to bring out the more partisan part of the voting block, he noted. It would be very good to move from partisan elections to nonpartisan elections.

Long-Term Goals

Looking ahead 10-20 years, highlight one or more projects that you’d like to initiate or support now to achieve your future vision of Ann Arbor.

Stuart Berry: He’d like to see city council devote more time to basic services. The council has gotten too far afield in addressing all sorts of issues that are not necessarily the jurisdiction of the government, he said. There are a lot of things that the council does that they could investigate “transitioning back to the people.” Churches, community organizations and fraternal organizations used to be very strong, he said. As the government takes hold of all the services in the community that those organizations used to provide, those organizations tend to suffer. The church he attends is always looking around for things to do, he said, but there are not as many avenues for them as there were in the past. “Let’s transfer the power back to the people.”

Chuck Warpehoski: As he looks ahead 10-20 years, Warpehoski said he certainly would not want to erode Ann Arbor’s social safety net or try to cut funding for those services that make sure the community is responsive to all of its members. One thing that would really strengthen the community is to take a more regional approach to transportation, he said. The Ann Arbor Transportation Authority concluded its 30-year master plan after extensive listening and feedback from community members, elected officials and others across the county to help create a vision, he said. Nationally, communities that have the strongest transportation systems are also those that have the strongest job growth. It’s good for the economy. For him, as a Democrat, he cares deeply about our national heritage. Public transportation is good for the environment. And as someone who’s concerned about people who can’t drive because of income, disability or other reasons, he thinks it provides more opportunity for them.

Open-Ended Question

What question wasn’t asked tonight that you’d like to address?

Chuck Warpehoski: As he’s been going door-to-door, one question he’s heard a lot is about shaping the future of downtown. People are on both sides of the issue. The city has taken important steps in trying to envision what the downtown should look like, he said, but there’s still more work needed. He’s heard some concerns about some of the designs of buildings that are going up. There’s an existing downtown design process, he noted. Does that meet the city’s needs? Is it giving us the quality of buildings that the city should expect in a great community like ours? If not, how can that process be strengthened? Ann Arbor is a great town and should expect great buildings, he said. The city’s zoning and design process should give us that.

Stuart Berry: He believes in the power and creativity of the people. Government at all levels should allow the people to do what’s necessary to create community and keep that community thriving. He doesn’t put as much credence in an elected body to plan and design and make sure a city goes from A to B. It’s the people who should do that. “We know what needs to be done. We’re out in the neighborhoods and in the downtown every day.” The city government needs to allow an atmosphere where people can come and take risks with their capital to improve what’s going on. That’s what really brings people to Ann Arbor, he said – the creativity and talent of the people. “We, the people, make that happen.”

Closing Statements

Each candidate had the opportunity to make a two-minute closing statement.

Chuck Warpehoski: He thanked the league and viewers, and said he’s running because he wants the opportunity to serve the community he loves. He has a small daughter, and wants to make sure that the community she grows up in is one that’s as great as it can be. The city has tremendous assets – a fantastic parks system, wonderful neighborhoods, a downtown that draws people from all over. The challenge facing the city council now and in the future is how to keep this community great. For him, an important part of that process is listening. That’s what he does every day with his work at the Interfaith Council for Peace & Justice – figuring out how to bring together people from different backgrounds and perspectives. That’s a commitment to listening, inclusion and bridge-building that he said he’d also bring to city council.

Warpehoski described himself as a proud Democrat, and he holds those Democratic values of an inclusive community with a strong social safety net and strong environmental protections – he’d bring those values to his council service too. He thinks those resonate with Ann Arbor voters. Finally, he believes he has the leadership experience serving as a nonprofit director, handling the difficult balancing act in his day job or at council, whether it’s budget deliberations, how to use public lands, or other decisions. He asked for people’s vote on Nov. 6, and pointed viewers to his campaign website for more information.

Stuart Berry: Thanking the league, Berry said the “good people of Ann Arbor deserve more than the city council has been giving us.” He’ll focus on improved basic services – police and fire protection, good roads, timely snow removal, maintaining city parks. He said he’d provide oversight of how hard-earned taxpayer dollars are spent. He’d work for a climate change that promotes business growth in Ann Arbor. The growth he witnessed while lugging milk to Ann Arbor families was good for the city at that time, he said. Today, it appears to him that private-sector growth is resisted and blocked at too many opportunities. The paradox is that taxpayer-funded development is promoted at every opportunity, he said.

The purpose of the government is to do the things that citizens should not do – because those things are either too hard to do, or too dangerous. Examples of things that are too hard are building roads, sewer and water systems, or trash pickup. Examples of duties that are too dangerous are police and fire protection. He endorses a refocus of the city council onto its managerial role. Council has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that tax dollars are spent wisely and appropriately. When he’s on doorsteps, he said he often gets asked “What are they doing, and when will it end?” He’ll promote a council that devotes its time and energy to serving the citizens of Ann Arbor, not on how it can expand. “I have no special interests and no hidden agendas. I support liberty, freedom, and responsible, limited government.”

He told viewers that they can help bring equitable, enthusiastic, efficient leadership to Ann Arbor, and he asked for their vote. He looked forward to representing everyone in the Fifth Ward. “I want to let Ann Arbor be what it can be, not what a few think it should be.”

The Chronicle would not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local government – we hope you elect to subscribe. 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!

Democratic incumbent Mike Anglin (left ) and Republican challenger Stuart Berry (right) before the League of Women Voters forum on Oct. 5. The two men are vying for a seat on the Ann Arbor city council representing Ward 5. (Photo by the writer.)

This report focuses on the forum for Ward 5, where Republican Stuart Berry is challenging Democratic incumbent Mike Anglin. A replay of the forum is available via Community Television Network’s video on demand service. [Ward 5 CTN coverage]

The 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.

Although the election in Ward 1 is not contested – Democratic incumbent Sabra Briere is unopposed – voters in that ward will have a chance to vote on three ballot proposals along with other city residents. The first two ballot questions concern a sidewalk/street repair tax; the third question concerns the composition of the city’s retirement board of trustees.

Ballot questions were among the issues on which LWV members solicited responses from candidates. Other topics addressed by the two Ward 5 candidates, presented in chronological order below, included the proposed Fuller Road Station, high-rise buildings, human services, public art and finance.

Opening Statements

Each candidate had a minute to give an opening statement.

Opening: Berry

Berry began by thanking the LWV and introducing himself as a Ward 5 candidate. He first came to Ann Arbor in the late 1960s to help his father deliver milk on one of his routes. He described it as hard work – six days a week, 52 weeks a year, year after year. But he was glad to do it – his father had immigrated to the U.S. from Scotland, because he knew hard work paid off. He knew then Ann Arbor was a special place and it remains special today, he said.

Ann Arbor has great neighborhoods and schools, a terrific park system, and a competent, dedicated group of public employees, Berry said. But the world has changed and Ann Arbor has to face new realities, he said. When he returned to Ann Arbor in 1989 to work for the University of Michigan, the levels of services were very good. Declining revenue has forced tough choices, he said. The council has not always been wise about making those choices. The council has chosen to reduce basic services, he said.

Opening: Anglin

Anglin said that we all stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. He was honored to follow in the footsteps of local leaders who have left a legacy for Ann Arbor – a park system, a public safety system, a vibrant downtown and livable neighborhoods. Those are the things that make it a special city, he said. Ann Arbor’s greatest resources are its people and their personal commitments to the community, he said.

As an elected official, Anglin said he would continue to nurture and maintain the relationship between taxpayers and voters. Respect for constituents will result in a continued legacy of progress. He said he was honored to serve Ward 5 and would continue to lead, with voters’ help.

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: Anglin

Anglin said he is in favor of the street repair millage. The streets need to be maintained better, he said. Periodically, every five years, the city requests support for that through a millage, he noted. On the second proposal, on sidewalk repair, he said he would only reluctantly urge people to vote for it. He wanted the accounting to be thorough – he wanted a “real good tabulation of those charges.” He was sorry so many people in the last five years had to pay to replace the sidewalks adjacent to their property. He described it as an inequitable system, and said he had no response to that, except to say he was sorry it happened that way.

Street Repair Millage: Berry

Berry said his concern is that we pay a lot of property tax already. He had to wonder why it is that we’re asked to pay for streets, when we already pay so much for general taxes. He said he’d have to study that proposal more.

As for the sidewalks, he would vote against it, Berry said. In his neighborhood, people had to pay to have their sidewalks replaced. To fund that from taxes is unfair to people who already had to pay for it themselves, he said.

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: Berry

Berry said he was opposed to the Fuller Road project, and was opposed to turning parkland into a parking structure. The city charter says you can’t take parkland out of the system without a vote of the people, he said, and the project amounted to an “end run” around the city charter. The University of Michigan is going to get a benefit, he said, so it’s important that the university should pay its fair share of maintenance and upkeep.

Transportation: Anglin

Anglin described the Fuller Road project as a complicated problem. It was presented to the city council as a two-phase project. The second phase includes a train station. But the first phase is simply a parking structure, Anglin said. The city is really good at building parking structures, he said, but he has no interest in doing that. The university has enough land and they it can figure out the solution to the parking problem itself, Anglin said.

In the second phase, Anglin said, there would be fast trains between Ann Arbor and Detroit and Kalamazoo. He was glad that the federal government is pumping money into the rail line, but he felt the city should use the train station it has.

High-Rise Buildings

Question: What is the current acceptable standard for building height in the central city? Do you know if the student enrollment has substantially increased or is there simply an appetite for luxury apartment living? Please speak to the occupancy rate in university dormitories, older housing and new units coming on the market. Do you think the numbers are working to fill the buildings?

High-Rise Buildings: Background

By way of background, the D-1 zoning for core downtown allows for buildings as tall as 180 feet. That was enacted as part of the city’s A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown) rezoning initiative. That resulted in final approval by the city council in November 2009. [For Chronicle coverage, see "Downtown Planning Process Forges Ahead." For a timeline of the process, see also "Ann Arbor Hotel First to Get Design Review?"]

High-Rise Buildings: Berry

Berry said he sees it as a question of building up or out. The university is the largest employer in Ann Arbor, Berry said, and Ann Arbor needs to accommodate the university’s growth if the city wants to grow with the university. He described Buenos Aires as a city with a lot of variety – tall buildings next to short ones. At first it appears disjoint, because you don’t see a lot of conformity, but it works very well, he said. Berry said he’s in favor of allowing people to develop, as long as they adhere to the local zoning ordinances.

High-Rise Buildings: Anglin

Anglin said further discussions are necessary to develop a healthy relationship between the city and the university. The city is essentially powerless, he said, with respect to the university’s nibbling away of the tax base by acquiring land within the city. Anglin said that 50% of the houses are rental properties. He would like to see more student housing put up. He noted that the university is starting to do more renovation of student dorms.

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: 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: Anglin

Anglin said it’s a difficult problem, because services are combined with the city and county, and collaboration is being requested. The fundamental problem is that when someone volunteeers with an organization, they’re supporting the mission of that organization specifically – people who volunteer for the Family Learning Institute or Kiwanis are volunteering to support those specific organizations, he said. He worried that collaboration might threaten the volunteer base. We need the private sector to come in and help, he said, because the city’s funds were not adequate.

Human Services: Berry

Berry said he spends time down at the shelter periodically and knows that many people down there are not from Ann Arbor. They come from all over the county and all over the state or outside the state. He sees the solution in providing jobs to people who are down at the shelter. Many of them are looking for work, but can’t find work, he said. If the city fosters an environment that helps job creation, then people who happen to be unfortunate at this time can get off that system, so that they don’t have to rely on the goodwill of taxpayers.

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: Berry

Berry said that public art is always an issue for discussion. For the sake of clarity, he said, it should be called “taxpayer-funded art,” not public art. He noted that throughout the city there are people who have lost their jobs, and have houses that have been put into foreclosure. At this time, he said, he did not think that the city can afford the expenditure on taxpayer-funded art. The city should spend that money on people, not on producing taxpayer-funded art.

Public Art: Anglin

Anglin noted that the Percent for Art program has been voted on in the last year by the city council. On any given project, there’s a cap of $250,000, he said. He thought that the council should take a look at it by first getting a legal opinion from the city attorney about whether the program is legal. After that, we should figure out what projects we might want to have as art projects, he said. The University of Michigan should be involved, he said. He was glad for the opportunity to discuss the public art program to ease the irritation that many people have about the program.

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.

Finance: Anglin

Anglin said he would not want to consider a city income tax. He said it sends a negative message and has a negative impact on the lower end of the work force. When we talk about the budget, he said, it’s the general fund we’re talking about – that funds safety services. We need to step up funding for police and fire, he said. We should look at administrative costs as an area to cut. We should also look for concessions from unions, he said.

Finance: Berry

Berry said that city finances is always a hard topic. The majority of funding comes from taxes and fees, he said. That brings up the question of what the priorities are of government. He believed the role of government was to provide basic servies that people can’t reasonably provide for themselves individually. When times are tough, the council has to cut programs that aren’t a part of basic services. He said hoped that cuts made to police and fire have not jeopardized safety. He said he was opposed to a city income tax.

Closing Statements

Each candidate had two minutes to give a closing statement.

Closing: Anglin

Anglin thanked the LWV and its continued efforts to educate the public about the candidates. In 2007 when he first ran, Anglin said, he was determined to reflect the desires of his constituents. As he went door-to-door, he said he developed a sense of what voters valued. They support parks and active recreation. When Huron Hills was threatened, he said, he worked hard to make sure that Huron Hills remained a golf course. He said he believed in a healthy community through recreation, for all ages and ability levels.

As a city council representative to the city’s park advisory commission, Anglin said he worked to save Ann Arbor’s parks, which make the city a destination. It’s taken 150 years to create the park system, he said. Another issue he’s heard from voters is the need for the city of Ann Arbor to be more fiscally responsible. The city has limited resources, and even though others felt they wanted to build more buildings, he felt the city could not afford it, without reducing services. He said he did not vote for either the new municipal center to house the police and courts building, or the new underground parking garage currently under construction downtown. He said he encouraged more communication with residents.

Closing: Berry

Berry thanked the LWV for the invitation to come. He said the good people of Ann Arbor deserve more than what they’ve been getting. If elected, he would work for more police and fire protection, good roads, timely snow removal, maintenance of city parks and other basic services. He said he’d work for change in the business climate that promotes business growth.

Berry’s vision of Ann Arbor is one that leads the nation as a safe, affordable city, known for efficient, responsive government. He wants a government that lets entrepreneurs know they can do business in Ann Arbor without arbitrary intervention. He said he supports liberty and freedom. He would work on returning Ann Arbor to its core greatness and letting Ann Arbor be what it can be, not what somebody thinks it should be.

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!