Ann Arbor District Library trustee Nancy Kaplan cast the only vote against approving a tax-sharing agreement between AADL, Pittsfield Township and the State Street corridor improvement authority. (Photos by the writer.)

For taxing entities that participate, a portion of revenues from local taxes would be used to provide matching dollars to help secure federal funding for road improvements and other features along the State Street corridor. The CIA covers a stretch roughly between Ellsworth and Michigan Avenue.

Although other trustees indicated that they shared Kaplan’s concerns, they were persuaded to support the CIA for several different reasons. Margaret Leary said she appreciated the transparency and openness of township officials during this process. She noted that in contrast to some other TIF arrangements, the tax-sharing agreement with the CIA is clear, comprehensive and was developed in a collaborative way. [Her reference to other TIF arrangements was likely an allusion to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. See Chronicle coverage: "Library View on DDA TIF Capture: Unchanged"]

Leary also pointed out that the CIA will create a situation that could benefit the AADL, which operates a branch in Pittsfield Township. If the overall tax base increases because of improvements to the State Street corridor, she said, then tax revenues for AADL will increase too. Barbara Murphy added that the amount of AADL tax revenue that will be diverted to the CIA is relatively small – about $120,000 over 20 years – compared to some other taxing entities.

Two people addressed the board during public commentary about the CIA. Prior to the vote, Christina Lirones – a former Pittsfield Township official – urged the board to opt out. At the end of the meeting, Don Salberg said he was disappointed in the board’s decision. He had expected AADL to opt out.

In addition to Pittsfield Township and AADL, other taxing entities within the CIA are Washtenaw County, Washtenaw County parks & recreation, Huron Clinton Metropolitan Authority (metroparks), Washtenaw Community College, and Saline District Library. At its Nov. 12 meeting, the Saline library board voted to opt out of the CIA. The metroparks board also decided to opt out, with a vote at its Nov. 14 morning meeting. The Washtenaw County board of commissioners and the county’s parks & recreation commission both voted in support of the CIA. WCC trustees have not yet made a decision.

Also during the Nov. 11 meeting, AADL director Josie Parker highlighted the fact that AADL had been awarded a five-star ranking by the Library Journal – the highest ranking awarded by the journal for library use in a community. AADL is the only library system in Michigan that achieved that level, and has been awarded this designation for five consecutive years. AADL is the only library in Michigan to ever achieve five stars.

And during committee reports, Nancy Kaplan noted that the communications committee has reviewed a report from Allerton-Hill Consulting. [.pdf of Allerton-Hill report] Some of the recommendations in the report include expanding the use of social media, publishing a quarterly newsletter to keep library patrons informed, and conducting a satisfaction survey to determine the priorities and public perception of the library, and to learn more about who is using the library, and why. The administration will now determine whether and how to implement the report’s recommendations.

During public commentary, Kathy Griswold urged the board to be more open and transparent, specifically by recording its meetings for broadcast.

Pittsfield Township State Street CIA

The AADL board had discussed Pittsfield Township’s State Street corridor improvement authority (CIA) at two previous meetings – on Oct. 21, 2013 and Sept. 16, 2013. It was originally on the Nov. 11 agenda for discussion only. But at the start of the meeting, the board revised the agenda to make it an action item.

Prue Rosenthal.

Pittsfield Township created the new authority in July 2013 to help fund roughly $30 million in improvements on State Street over 20 years, roughly between Ellsworth Road and Michigan Avenue. The intent is to create a four-lane boulevard with a median, bike lanes and pedestrian pathways. Under the CIA’s tax increment financing (TIF) plan, 50% of the increase in taxable value within the CIA boundaries would be captured over a 20-year period to fund the CIA projects. [.pdf of TIF plan]

Currently, AADL receives about $8,536 in taxes from taxpayers in the proposed CIA boundaries. Over the 20 years, it’s estimated that $120,436 in AADL tax revenue would be diverted to the CIA. Details of the arrangement are laid out in a tax-sharing agreement between the AADL, Pittsfield Township and the CIA. [.pdf of AADL tax-sharing agreement]

The local tax revenues collected via the CIA will be used as matching funds to secure federal funding, which is expected to pay for 80% of costs.

Taxing entities have the option to opt out of the CIA, and have a 60-day period in which to make that decision. If the governing bodies don’t formally request that their taxes be exempt from TIF capture, then they will automatically participate in the CIA. That opt-out period began with an Oct. 9 public hearing held by the Pittsfield Township board, and will end in early December.

In addition to AADL, other jurisdictions that levy taxes within the CIA boundaries are: Pittsfield Township, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw County parks & recreation, Huron Clinton Metropolitan Authority (metroparks), Washtenaw Community College, and Saline District Library.

The Washtenaw County board of commissioners voted on Nov. 6, 2013 to approve a tax-sharing agreement with Pittsfield Township and the State Street CIA, outlining details of the county’s participation. About $3.8 million in county tax dollars is estimated to be captured during the 20-year period. The county parks & recreation commission also voted to support the CIA, which will capture about $600,000 in taxes from county parks millages.

The Washtenaw Community College board of trustees held a special meeting on Nov. 12, with a presentation on the CIA. Another board meeting is scheduled for Nov. 26, and would be an opportunity for trustees to make a formal decision on this issue. If WCC participates, about $3 million of its taxes would be captured over the 20-year period.

Also on Nov. 12, the Saline District Library board held a special meeting where it voted 6-1 to opt out of the CIA. According to Leslee Niethamer, director of the Saline District Library, the board had already voted in August to opt out. However, because the process requires that notification be given during the 60-day period that began Oct. 9, the board scheduled a special meeting to vote again on this issue. The CIA had hoped to capture about $900,000 of the library’s tax revenue over 20 years.

The director of the Huron Clinton Metro Authority, John McCulloch, sent an opt-out letter earlier this month to township supervisor Mandy Grewal. [.pdf of McCulloch letter] However, the board had not yet taken a vote following the Oct. 9 public hearing. At its morning meeting on Nov. 14, the board unanimously approved a formal opt-out resolution. The taxes at stake were roughly $181,000. [.pdf of opt-out resolution]

Pittsfield Township State Street CIA: Public Commentary

During public commentary at the start of the AADL’s Nov. 11 meeting, Christina Lirones introduced herself as a resident of Pittsfield Township, who lives in the Saline District Library’s district but who owns property in the AADL district. She passed out photographs to show improvements that have already been made on State Road, without the TIF funding from a CIA.

Christina Lirones passed out a written statement to the Ann Arbor District Library board.

The road is frequently portrayed as just being a two-lane unimproved road, she said, but developers have made substantial improvements over the years. In most areas, State Street is three lanes, she noted, and those improvements have been paid for by developers. There are traffic signals at the intersections with Morgan and Avis Drive. And at the intersection with Textile, there were major improvements paid for through a special assessment, she said. Another major road improvement was done around the Walmart complex near Michigan Avenue. “It’s not as if it’s an unimproved road,” she said.

Lirones encouraged the board to opt out of the CIA, calling the project ill-advised. It was rushed through with a lack of transparency by township officials, she contended. She noted that she had served as the township clerk from 2000 to 2004, and as treasurer from 2004-2008. She also had served for eight years on the township’s planning commission, and had held the position of chair.

Through strong planning and political will at that time, she said, the township was able to negotiate with every development to secure road improvements. “I do not want to see library millage dollars diverted into road improvements in Pittsfield Township,” she said. It’s inappropriate and unfair to developers who have already paid for improvements, she argued, and will make it difficult to get developers to pay for additional improvements in the future. She wanted to see her tax dollars collected by AADL to be used for books and other activities of the library.

Lirones also provided a written statement to the board, and her statement at the Pittsfield Township board’s Oct. 9 public hearing was included in the AADL board packet. [.pdf of Lirones' statement to AADL] [.pdf of Lirones' statement at Oct. 9 township public hearing]

Craig Lyon, director of utilities and municipal services for Pittsfield Township, attended the AADL board meeting but did not formally address the board.

Pittsfield Township State Street CIA: Board Discussion

Margaret Leary began the discussion by making a motion to approve the tax-sharing agreement between AADL, Pittsfield Township and the State Street CIA.

Margaret Leary.

Leary said she planned to support the agreement, saying it took a long time for her to reach that decision. She appreciated the openness and transparency that the township has used in this process. “In contrast to some other TIF arrangements, what we have here is clear – there’s no ambiguity about the agreement.” [Her reference to other TIF arrangements was likely an allusion to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. See Chronicle coverage: "Library View on DDA TIF Capture: Unchanged"]

It’s also a comprehensive agreement, she noted, and describes all the possible contingencies and what would happen in each case. The township was very collaborative, with representatives attending AADL meetings and answering questions. The township provided information in advance, and was willing to negotiate terms of the agreement, Leary said.

Another positive aspect was the fact that the TIF capture is 50%, not 100%, Leary said. The township is creating a situation in which the library stands to gain, she added, because the library’s tax base will increase as a result of improvements to the road and non-motorized features. It’s a project that will make the overall community better, she said.

“I think it’s good when governmental organizations can treat each other respectfully and collaboratively to make the community better for everybody,” Leary said.

Leary pointed out that each organization affected by this CIA proposal will do a different analysis – as there are different amounts of money at stake, and different benefits that might be gained. “I’m only speaking about my opinion of what I think is best for AADL,” she concluded.

Barbara Murphy agreed with Leary, and added that it was very clear what the limits are in this CIA. The library won’t be committing unknown amounts of money, she said. “That’s another reason I’m comfortable with it.”

Jan Barney Newman pointed to the terms of the agreement, which outlined what would happen if the CIA doesn’t secure sufficient funding to move ahead with the project. In that case, the AADL could get out of the agreement, she noted, “so we’re not just throwing money into a bottomless pit.”

Nancy Kaplan said it looked like she’d be the only dissenting vote. She agreed with many of the points made by Leary, and she had given it a lot of thought. She did appreciate the openness and clarity of the agreement and the TIF plan. She said it’s her understanding that Pittsfield Township was also quite cooperative and helpful during the process of building AADL’s Pittsfield branch library. However, that building is not near State Street, she noted – it’s on Oak Valley Drive.

Ed Surovell.

About $120,000 would be diverted from the library over 20 years, Kaplan said. The public voted to fund the library, she added, “and we should keep the benefit of the tax dollars with the library, and not divert them to a road project to which they did not say the funds should be diverted.” It was her view that AADL should opt out of the proposed CIA, and not set a precedent.

Ed Surovell said he’d support the CIA. He noted that he’s not the only person on this board who has served on a planning commission. [Leary also is a former Ann Arbor planning commissioner.] He was going to support Pittsfield Township’s decision to do the project “through a democratic process.” When he was a planning commissioner, he said, he would have been cranky if someone from Pittsfield had told him that an Ann Arbor project wasn’t a good idea.

Responding to Kaplan’s comments, Leary said Kaplan had identified the crux of the issue that has bothered all trustees – taking revenues from the library millage and using them for a different purpose. If that was all there was to it, Leary said she’d probably be on Kaplan’s side. But that’s not all there is to it, she added.

There’s a state statute [Public Act 280 of 2005] that makes this funding mechanism possible, Leary noted, and the township used a democratic process to set up the CIA. It’s very difficult for municipalities to get money for projects like this, she said, and the state legislature set up this CIA structure in order to address that.

The whole concept of a TIF is to take tax revenues from one source and use it for a different purpose – it’s not just this CIA that’s doing it, Leary noted. If that’s not acceptable, then the way to fix it is to tell the state legislature and have them change the statute. This CIA approach is relatively new, and provides the ability for taxing entities to opt out. Leary pointed out that the opt-out option didn’t exist when the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority was created. She said she doesn’t necessarily like that the state legislature has set things up like this, “but I don’t know what the options are when communities need to fix things.” Roads need to be repaired, and sometimes the way to do that is “just flat-out uncomfortable,” she said.

Prue Rosenthal said the proposal also had given her pause, and she had been concerned. But sometimes “you have to spend money to make money,” she said. The road improvements will probably be to AADL’s advantage in the long-run, she added. She also expressed a strong belief in the “good neighbor policy” – even though it’s somewhat awkward, she acknowledged.

Barbara Murphy.

Murphy didn’t want to lose track of how much money was involved. If the TIF would take $500,000 or so a year from AADL revenues, that would be different, she said. But it’s only about $6,000 a year, and for that amount, the library should certainly participate, Murphy said. If it were a different amount, the library might not be able to afford it, she added.

Kaplan pointed out that Pittsfield Township has previously developed that area without TIF funding. To her, it’s the principle. She thinks the tax-sharing agreement is a “model agreement,” but taking taxpayer money away from the purpose for which it was intended is something she can’t support. She also didn’t think that removing the AADL’s $120,000 “would be the death knell” for the project, if the library opted out.

Surovell argued that Pittsfield Township took money that its taxpayers had approved for something else, and instead spent it on making municipal improvements that AADL hadn’t budgeted for at the library branch site. The township did it “without so much as asking for a nickel,” he said, and they had been wonderful partners. That amount hadn’t been spread over 20 years – it had been spread over 60 days, he said. He restated his support for the CIA.

Rosenthal concluded the discussion by thanking Christina Lirones for the information she provided.

Outcome: On a 6-1 vote, the board approved the tax-sharing agreement for Pittsfield Township’s CIA, over dissent from Nancy Kaplan.

Pittsfield Township State Street CIA: Final Public Commentary

During public commentary at the end of the meeting, Don Salberg told trustees that he was very disappointed by the board’s decision not to opt out. When the proposal was first presented to the board earlier this year, “I sensed a lot of skepticism on everyone’s part,” he said. He said he’d communicated in writing to some of the board members, and none of the responses he’d received from trustees had indicated that they were supportive of the CIA. So he had expected that they would opt out.

The board is being unfair to the voters who approved the library millage, as he had done. “I did not hope to have any of this money given to other authorities,” he said, saying he’s saddened by the amount that the Ann Arbor DDA takes away from the library. It might be a relatively small amount now, Salberg noted, but as property values in Pittsfield Township increase, it will become a more sizable amount. He said that if the library needs to go to taxpayers to ask for more money, AADL will need to ask for more than they’d otherwise need, because some of it will be taken by the CIA. He also wasn’t sure what the library would be getting out of this road improvement project. People who want to get to the library now don’t need to take State Street to get there. It’s a lose-lose situation, he said.

Christina Lirones wanted to speak again, but AADL’s rules for public commentary prevent someone from speaking twice on the same topic during the same meeting.

Director’s Report

AADL director Josie Parker elaborated on items in her written report. [.pdf of November 2013 director's report]

Josie Parker, AADL director.

Highlights included a report on Halloween activities at the library, and a notice that Sherlonya Turner, AADL manager of youth and adult services and collections, would be participating in a panel discussion later this month on how the library is helping educating the public about the Affordable Care Act. It’s hosted by the Metropolitan Detroit Medical Library Group.

Parker also reported that Raphaela Muller – a librarian with a public library in Munich, Germany – arrived earlier that day and will be staying a week to learn more about AADL. Her visit coincides with International Games Day, to be held at AADL’s downtown building on Nov. 16.

Noting that it was Veterans Day, Parker reported that the library remains open on that day at the request of the local veterans administration. The library also organizes a card-writing event, with children writing cards that are taken to the VA Hospital. Over 150 cards were taken this year, she said.

Also, Parker noted that AADL regularly participates in storytimes at Mott Children’s Hospital, and she had taken part in that this month. Usually the children who attend are siblings and other family members of the children who are hospitalized, she said, and “it’s a bright spot during a difficult time for people.” In addition, Mott holds an event called the Skyline Cafe dinner, where local businesses sponsor dinner for the children and their families. AADL is part of the storytime during those dinners.

In her final item, Parker reported that the previous day she had attended a show by Bill Harley, a storyteller and musician. The library sponsors the free Sunday afternoon show, and The Ark provides a deep discount to rent its space. This year, about 175 people attended, she said.

Financial Report

Ken Nieman – the library’s associate director of finance, HR and operations – gave a brief report on the October 2013 financial statements. [.pdf of financial statements]

Through October, the library has received 95.5% of its budgeted tax receipts. It’s the high point in the library’s cash balance for the year, with $15.29 million in unrestricted cash. [The library's fiscal year starts July 1. Summer property taxes are collected in July.] The fund balance at the end of October was $8.027 million.

Six items are currently over budget, Nieman reported, but all of those items are expected to come back in line with budgeted amounts by the end of the fiscal year. The over-budget line items are: (1) purchased services; (2) communications, for an annual Internet-related payment; (3) software; (4) copier/maintenance expense; (5) library programming; and (6) circulation supplies.

There was nothing out of the ordinary during the month, he concluded.

The board had no questions.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Committee Reports

The board has six committees: communications, budget and finance, facilities, policy, director’s evaluation, and executive. Two brief committee reports were made during the Nov. 11 board meeting.

Committee Reports: Communications

Nancy Kaplan reported that the communications committee had met on Oct. 30 and received a report from Allerton-Hill Consulting to review. Copies of the report were available to the public at the meeting. [.pdf of Allerton-Hill report]

She highlighted some of the recommendations in that report:

• Expand the use of social media.
• Publish a quarterly newsletter to keep library patrons informed.
• Conduct a satisfaction survey to determine the priorities and public perception of the library, and to learn more about who is using the library, and why.

Kaplan pointed out that the recommendations dovetail with the goals that are part of AADL’s strategic plan for 2010-2015. The committee plans to meet again in two months, she said.

Rebecca Head.

Rebecca Head said she was struck by the point that Allerton-Hill made about connecting with the citizens and key constituents, and about how important that is. As someone who worked in government a long time, she said, she agreed with the perspective of connecting with the people that AADL serves – not just once, but periodically.

Kaplan noted that Allerton-Hill suggests conducting a survey every two years. It’s also important to know who is not using the library, she said, so that the library can work to reach a broader audience.

Barbara Murphy wondered what the next steps would be for these recommendations. “It’s really in Josie’s court,” Kaplan replied. The communications committee had the opportunity to respond to the report, and could have rejected the recommendations – but committee members didn’t do that, she said.

Prue Rosenthal said the library “has its work cut out for us.” All the ideas in the report are great, she said, and are all about reaching out to the public. It’ll be an interesting time for everyone to learn new ways of reaching people who haven’t been reached and to do a better job of informing people, Rosenthal said.

Head referred to “a very thoughtful article” that AADL director Josie Parker had written. [It was a column written for the Journal of Library Administration, which is available only for subscribers.] One point in the article was that libraries have “overbranded” themselves in terms of books, Head said. And while it’s nice to be branded, it doesn’t tell the whole story. Head thought a survey like the one suggested by Allerton-Hill could be helpful in doing outreach and helping people understand what the library does. The library’s future includes books but is not limited to books, she said. Head praised Parker and the AADL staff for their forward-thinking approach.

Committee Reports: Budget & Finance

Nancy Kaplan also gave the report on the board’s budget and finance committee, which met on Oct. 29. The committee got a presentation from Charles Waterhouse of United Bank & Trust. He reported that the economic outlook remains positive, she said. The library has a laddered fixed-income portfolio of government bonds and taxable municipal bonds. It’s been AADL’s practice to hold the bonds until they come due, she said. So when trustees see reports showing a loss, it’s just a paper loss, Kaplan said. “If you hold [the bonds] until they come due, you get what you signed on for,” she said, and won’t lose money. She also pointed out that the library can’t invest tax revenue in the stock market or corporate bonds. That’s prevented by Public Act 20, she said, and AADL’s investments are governed by that.

At the committee’s Nov. 12 meeting, they planned to review the 2012-13 audit.

AADL director Josie Parker noted that the full board will receive an audit report at their December meeting.

Library Stats

Eli Neiburger – AADL’s associate director of IT and product development – gave a presentation on library statistics, providing details in five categories for the month of October: Collections, users, visits, usage and participation. The data is compared to year-ago figures, when available. He began by noting that October is traditionally a somewhat slower month, and “having a wet Halloween affects numbers in a big way.”

AADL collections data: October 2013.

AADL users data: October 2013.

AADL visits data: October 2013.

AADL usage data: October 2013.

AADL participation data: October 2013.

In addition to reviewing the standard data, Neiburger highlighted data regarding visits to AADL’s website. By far, the majority of visits come from users in the United States – 154,437 during October. The second most common country was France, with 4,632 visits. When asked why, Neiburger replied: “We’re not quite sure yet.” In September, there were about 22,000 visits from France, he reported.

Regarding the origin of users within the U.S., Neiburger said it was difficult to track, calling the analysis a “dark art” because IP addresses change frequently.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Five-Star Library Status

At the end of Eli Neiburger’s presentation on library statistics, AADL director Josie Parker highlighted the fact that AADL had been awarded a five-star ranking by the Library Journal – the highest ranking awarded by the journal for library use in a community. AADL is the only library system in Michigan that achieved that level, and has been awarded this designation for five consecutive years. AADL is the only library in Michigan to ever achieve five stars.

Eli Neiburger, AADL’s associate director of IT and product development.

In its category – libraries with budgets between $10 million to $29.99 million – AADL ranked fifth nationwide. AADL’s annual budget is on the lower end of that category, at around $12 million. In this category, there are only 11 public libraries that achieved the five-star ranking nationwide.

Two other Michigan libraries also achieved star rankings: the Capital Area District Library (four stars), and West Bloomfield Township Library (three stars).

These rankings aren’t about how much money is spent or how many people the library employs, Parker said – it’s about how well the libraries are utilized in the community. Per-capita metrics include circulation, visits, program attendance, and public Internet terminal use.

In its category, AADL had the highest circulation per capita – at 53.7. Parker said she was pleased to note that a library that has always outranked AADL in terms of circulation per capita is in Flomaton, Alabama – “and I know where that is,” she joked. [Parker is from Mississippi, and attended college at Auburn University in Auburn, Alabama.]

Parker said AADL is proud of libraries all across the country that are serving the public so well. She’s proud that the Ann Arbor community uses the library year after year, and she thought it was appropriate to talk about it in the context of Neiburger’s presentation regarding data about how the library is used.

Board president Prue Rosenthal thanked Neiburger and Parker for their remarks, and started to move on with the next agenda item when Ed Surovell spoke up. “Hold on a second here,” he said. “You’ve just been told you’ve hit a home run, won the World Series, ranked No. 1 in the polls, walked on water – think about that. It’s an astonishing event.”

Parker reported that next year, the rankings will include wifi usage, “and I know for us, that will be hot.” It’s notable that AADL can maintain its ranking, she said, despite all the changes that the staff has to assimilate into its practices due to changes that technology brings. When AADL achieved its first five-star ranking, the news was posted on its website and there were a lot of comments almost immediately, she recalled. This time, it was 30 hours before the first comment was posted. However, when the news went out over social media this year, it spread quickly. “So the world has changed,” she said. “This library stays aware of the changes, adjusts to the changes, and adapts to the changes.”

Rebecca Head said she was struck by the number of people who come from other communities and who now live in Ann Arbor. They’ll talk to her about how amazing AADL is, compared to libraries in other communities, she said.

Surovell noted that he’s made his living selling into the community [through his real estate firm], and people want to live in places with good libraries and good schools. To be at the pinnacle reflects AADL’s remarkable staff and the remarkable patronage who use the library. “I’m making a lot of noise because it’s worth making a lot of noise about,” he said.

Head suggested having some kind of sign at each of the AADL buildings, noting the accomplishment. Jan Barney Newman joked that she was thinking about getting a skywriter to share the news.

Science Programs for Kids

At the Nov. 11 meeting, Sherlonya Turner, AADL manager of youth and adult services and collections, gave a presentation about AADL’s programming for kids in science, technology, engineering and math – known as STEM. Sometimes art is included in this mix, she noted, creating the acronym STEAM.

Sherlonya Turner, AADL manager of youth and adult services and collections.

The library’s role is to provide fun, hands-on activities for children in grades K-5 to engage in these topics, Turner said. Her presentation focused on hands-on programs at the library, although AADL also partners with other organizations on STEM activities.

Examples of programs include a battery lab, balloon-powered hovercrafts, rubber band cars, and kitchen science. Of all the programs that AADL offers for this age group, about 10% are STEM-related.

One of the most popular programs is called Eggcellent Engineering, Turner said. Children are given raw materials and are asked to build a contraption that will protect a raw egg from a 10-foot drop. “We have tarps on the floor for these,” she noted.

Since starting this STEM focus 18 months ago, more than 2,000 children have attended these programs, Turner said, as have over 1,100 adults who have accompanied them.

Turner shared some feedback from parents, including one woman who enhanced home-schooling science curriculum with these events.

Turner received a round of applause from board members at the end of her presentation.

Public Commentary

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Kathy Griswold began by thanking the board for having its meeting on a night when the city council wasn’t meeting.

She also reported that at the Traverwood branch, there’s a step that juts out onto the sidewalk, which she said looked like it was installed as an afterthought. It’s poor quality, she said, and water or ice collects there frequently. She recently witnessed a man who was walking his dog past the library. The dog pooped, and the man used a scooper to pick up the feces. The man then used the pooled water on the step to rinse off his scooper. “So now you’ve got dog feces getting walked on into the library, so I really wish you would take care of that step,” she said.

Kathy Griswold.

Griswold also addressed the issue of transparency. It’s been a year since the library bond proposal was defeated, and while there might not be a lot of interest in what the library does, she said, it would be helpful for the public to know what’s happening. Griswold pointed out that the boardroom where the library board holds its meetings is set up for recording, and the library does podcasts there, too. [The meetings of the Ann Arbor Public Schools and Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority boards are held there, and are recorded for broadcast.]

She said she’d heard that Celeste Choate had given a presentation about collaborating with AAPS. Although Choate has agreed to meet with her, Griswold said her first thought was that she could look at the videotape of that presentation. “But I can’t because it doesn’t exist,” she said. She encouraged the board to be as open and transparent as possible.

Near the end of the meeting, AADL director Josie Parker said she wanted to respond to the comments about the board meeting time. The library board did not change its meeting date this month, she said. “It’s on Monday night, the way it always is.” She said other municipal governments altered their meeting dates, because they don’t do business on Veterans Day. “I just wanted to make it clear that we did not change our meeting date around someone else’s.”

By way of background, the Ann Arbor city council did not change its meeting dates this month because of Veterans Day. The city council typically holds its meetings on the first and third Mondays of each month. The library board typically holds its meetings on the third Monday of each month, and some people have asked for the board to consider moving its meeting dates to eliminate the conflict with the city council schedule. However, this month the library board’s meeting was scheduled for the second Monday of the month, when the city council does not meet. The 2013 AADL meeting schedule was adopted at the board’s Jan. 21, 2013 meeting, and unspecified scheduling conflicts were cited as the reason why the May and November 2013 meeting dates were not held on the regular third Monday of the month. [.pdf of 2013 board meeting schedule]

Present: Rebecca Head, Nancy Kaplan, Margaret Leary, Barbara Murphy, Jan Barney Newman, Prue Rosenthal, Ed Surovell. Also AADL director Josie Parker.

Next meeting: Monday, Dec. 16, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the fourth-floor conference room of the downtown library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor District Library board. Check out 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!

Unless the governing body of a taxing jurisdiction opts out, the CIA will capture a percentage of taxes from each public entity that collects taxes within the CIA boundaries. The new authority is expected to help fund about $30 million in improvements on State Street over 20 years, roughly between Ellsworth Road and Michigan Avenue. The intent is to create a four-lane boulevard with a median, bike lanes and pedestrian pathways. Under the CIA’s tax increment financing (TIF) plan, 50% of the increase in taxable value would be captured over a 20-year period to fund the CIA projects. [.pdf of TIF plan]

Currently, AADL receives about $8,536 in taxes from taxpayers in the proposed CIA boundaries. Over the 20 years, it’s estimated that $120,436 in AADL tax revenue would be diverted to the CIA.

The AADL board has discussed this issue at two previous meetings – on Oct. 21, 2013 and Sept. 16, 2013. Taxing entities have a 60-day period in which to make an opt-out decision. That period began with an Oct. 9 public hearing held by the Pittsfield Township board, and will end in early December.

Although other trustees indicated that they shared Kaplan’s concerns, they were persuaded to support the CIA for several different reasons. Margaret Leary said she appreciated the transparency and openness of township officials during this process. She noted that in contrast to some other TIF arrangements, the tax-sharing agreement with the CIA is clear, comprehensive and was developed in a collaborative way. [Her reference to other TIF arrangements was likely an allusion to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. See Chronicle coverage: "Library View on DDA TIF Capture: Unchanged"]

Leary also pointed out that the CIA will create a situation that could benefit the AADL, which operates a branch in Pittsfield Township. If the overall tax base increases because of improvements to the State Street corridor, she said, then tax revenues for AADL will increase too. Barbara Murphy added that the amount of AADL tax revenue that will be diverted to the CIA is relatively small, compared to some other taxing entities.

Two people addressed the board during public commentary about the CIA. Prior to the vote, Christina Lirones – a former Pittsfield Township official – urged the board to opt out. At the end of the meeting, Don Salberg said he was disappointed in the board’s decision. He had expected AADL to opt out.

In addition to AADL, other jurisdictions that levy taxes within the CIA boundaries are: Pittsfield Township, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw County parks & recreation, Huron Clinton Metropolitan Authority (metro parks), Washtenaw Community College, and Saline District Library.

The Washtenaw County board of commissioners voted on Nov. 6, 2013 to approve a tax-sharing agreement with Pittsfield Township and the State Street CIA, outlining details of the county’s participation. The county parks & recreation commission also voted to support the CIA. About $3.8 million in county tax dollars is estimated to be captured during the 20-year period.

The Washtenaw Community College board of trustees is holding a special meeting on Nov. 12, with one of its agenda items listed as the CIA. If WCC participates, about $3 million of its taxes would be captured over the 20-year period.

Also on Nov. 12, the Saline District Library board is holding a special meeting where it’s expected to vote to opt out of the CIA. According to Leslee Niethamer, director of the Saline District Library, the board voted in August to opt out of the CIA. However, because the process requires that notification be given during the 60-day period that began Oct. 9, the board plans to vote again on this issue at its Nov. 12 special meeting. The same outcome is expected. If the Saline District Library remained in the CIA, about $900,000 of the library’s tax revenue would be diverted to the CIA over 20 years.

The next meeting of the Huron Clinton Metro Authority board is Nov. 14. The full agenda for that meeting has not yet been posted.

This brief was filed from the fourth floor conference room of the downtown library at 343 S. Fifth Ave. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The version to be considered by the council on Nov. 18 would set a cap on TIF (tax increment financing) revenue for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority that would not apply at all until FY 2017. It would result in roughly $6.1 million of TIF revenue to the DDA that year, with an estimated return of $300,000 total to the other taxing jurisdictions. The city’s portion of that would be about $180,000, distributed proportionally across all its funds that get income from a captured levy, including the general fund.

It will also include a requirement that the DDA transfer $300,000 of its TIF revenue each year to its housing fund, in support of affordable housing. The definition of  ”affordable” housing would be a unit that targets someone with 50% of the area median income. That requirement was added during the Nov. 7 deliberations.

And the version to be considered by the council on Nov. 18 will also include a limit of three terms for board members. That requirement was added as an amendment during council deliberations on Nov. 7.

The first version of the DDA ordinance revision – which was tabled by the council – had been under consideration by the council since Feb. 19, 2013. The second version was the result of recommendations by a committee of DDA board members and city councilmembers that has met four times since Aug. 26, most recently on Oct. 30.

The first version, which was in front of the council for final approval, would have clarified the existing language of the ordinance regulating the DDA’s TIF capture in a way that would disallow the DDA’s preferred interpretation of a restriction in the ordinance. The restriction on TIF revenue that’s already expressed in the ordinance is defined by reference to the amount of growth in taxable value in the DDA district that’s anticipated in the DDA’s TIF plan – a foundational document of the DDA. When those restrictions are applied to the DDA’s TIF revenue, then the amount of TIF received by the DDA would be roughly $4 million in FY 2015. By way of comparison, in the current fiscal year (FY 2014), under its preferred interpretation, the DDA looks to capture approximately $4.5 million of the taxes levied by other jurisdictions.

Under the first version revision, that roughly $0.5 million difference would be proportionally divided among the taxing jurisdictions, which together levy about 27.5 mills of taxes in the DDA district. Proportionally, that translates to: city of Ann Arbor (60%), Washtenaw County (21%), Washtenaw Community College (13%), and Ann Arbor District Library (6%). So out of a $500,000 return to other taxing jurisdictions, the city of Ann Arbor would receive $300,000. That $300,000 would be distributed proportionally to the funds generating Ann Arbor’s levy. For example, part of Ann Arbor’s levy is a transportation tax that is passed through to the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. So of the $300,000 that would be returned to the city, about $40,000 of it would be passed through to the AAATA.

However, the total amount that would be returned on the first version revision is projected to rise each year from that roughly $0.5 million, to somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 million in FY 2017, based on taxes from projects in the downtown that are under construction and already in the approval process.

That contrasts with the second version, proposed by the committee, which sets a cap on DDA TIF revenue that would not apply at all until FY 2017. And that version results in roughly $6.1 million of TIF revenue to the DDA that year, with an estimated return of $300,000 total to the other taxing jurisdictions. The city’s portion of that would be roughly $180,000, distributed proportionally across all its funds that get income from a captured levy, including the general fund.

Another major difference between the first version and the committee-recommended version of the Chapter 7 ordinance change was that the first version includes revisions to governance of the DDA, which the committee-recommended version omitted. However, during the council’s Nov. 7 meeting, a limit of three four-year terms was added to the committee’s version.

The joint committee of DDA board members and councilmembers was established at the council’s July 1, 2013 meeting – after the first version achieved initial approval at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting. Representing the council on the joint committee are Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Representing the DDA are Sandi Smith, Roger Hewitt, Bob Guenzel and Joan Lowenstein.

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.

The resolution authorizes the county administrator to sign a tax-sharing agreement with Pittsfield Township and the State Street CIA, which is overseen by an appointed board. [.pdf of agreement] The agreement would allow the CIA to capture 50% of any county taxes levied on new development within the corridor boundaries, not to exceed $3,850,464 over a 20-year period, through 2033. The purpose is to provide a funding mechanism for improvements to the State Street corridor between the I-94 interchange and Michigan Avenue, as outlined in the CIA development and tax increment financing plan. [.pdf of TIF plan]

The Pittsfield Township board of trustees held a public hearing on the CIA at its Oct. 9, 2013 meeting. That started the clock on a 60-day period during which any taxing entities within the corridor can “opt out” of participation. The Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission voted to support participation in the CIA at its Oct. 8, 2013 meeting. Other local taxing entities in the corridor are Washtenaw Community College, the Huron Clinton Metro Authority, and the Saline and Ann Arbor district libraries.

On Oct. 16, Dan Smith had moved a substitute resolution. It stated that the county would not participate in the CIA. [.pdf of D. Smith's substitute resolution] He said he supported the road improvement project, but objected to the TIF funding mechanism. He noted that the county had the ability to invest directly in the project using general fund money. He also pointed out that if the county participated in the CIA, the county would have no control over how its portion of the captured taxes are spent. In addition, the decision not to participate would not necessarily be permanent, he said, because the county board could rescind this resolution at any point. Rescinding his resolution would trigger participation in the CIA.

The Oct. 16 vote on D. Smith’s opt-out resolution failed on a 2-7 vote, with support only from D. Smith and C. Smith.

On Nov. 6, Pittsfield Township supervisor Mandy Grewal addressed the board during public commentary, thanking them for their support of the CIA. Several other township officials attended the meeting but did not formally address commissioners. One opponent to the CIA – former township official Christina Lirones – spoke during two opportunities for public commentary, urging the board to opt out of the CIA.

There was minimal discussion before the final vote on Nov. 6. Dan Smith pointed out that the board was voting on the tax-sharing agreement. Procedurally, it was not an “opt-in” vote, he noted.

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

A supporter of Michigan’s Stand Your Ground law brought his gun to the Oct. 16 meeting of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. (Photos by the writer.)

About three dozen people spoke to the board about the Stand Your Ground resolution, which urged the state legislature to repeal that law. Although there were speakers on both sides of the issue, more than 20 voiced opposition to the resolution, including several who attended the meeting wearing sidearms.

It was after midnight when the board took a 5-to-4 vote to pass the resolution, over dissent from Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), Dan Smith (R-District 2), Alicia Ping (R-District 3), and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5). In support of the resolution were Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Conan Smith (D-District 9).

The following week, David Raaflaub of Ypsilanti – a former candidate for county commissioner – filed a complaint against the board in the 22nd Circuit Court. The complaint asks the court to determine two issues: (1) what authority the board has that enables it to “draw conclusions of law,” and (2) what authority the board has to represent the county in seeking changes to state law. Dan Smith has indicated that he would bring forward a resolution to rescind the board’s Oct. 16 action, if it’s determined that the county will incur additional costs – such as fees for outside legal counsel – to defend the lawsuit.

Another major debate on Oct. 16 related to an increase in the Act 88 tax levy, which funds economic development and agriculture – including activities of Ann Arbor SPARK. The board ultimately gave initial approval to increase the tax from 0.06 mills to 0.07 mills, following a long discussion and a failed attempt by Conan Smith to increase the tax even more, to 0.09 mills. His proposal for a draft policy to guide the allocation of Act 88 funds did win support from the majority of commissioners, however.

The county’s position is that it’s authorized to collect the Act 88 millage – as well as a levy for veterans relief services – without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy these taxes predates Michigan’s Headlee Amendment. During deliberations, Dan Smith raised questions about whether levying this kind of tax is constitutional. He also questions whether the language of the Act 88 statute allows the kind of general interpretation the county is using to define eligible uses of funds generated by the levy.

Dan Smith also proposed amendments for both the Act 88 and veterans relief millages in the future exempt them from capture by tax increment financing (TIF) districts or authorities in the county. Those exemptions, which were approved by the board, would apply to tax capture from a proposed State Street corridor improvement authority (CIA) in Pittsfield Township. After about 90 minutes of debate, the board gave initial approval to participate in that project, with Dan Smith casting the only dissenting vote. He had unsuccessfully proposed postponement, then floated an opt-out resolution that did not secure enough votes to pass. The board is expected to take a final vote on participating in the CIA at its Nov. 6 meeting.

In other action, the board (1) gave initial approval to a proposed brownfield redevelopment plan by the Chelsea Milling Co., makers of Jiffy Mix; (2) appointed Barb Fuller to the county road commission; (3) took an initial vote to extend the coordinated funding approach, which supports local nonprofits; and (4) authorized the annual apportionment report, with details of the 2013 taxable valuations for property in the county.

And in a vote taken after midnight, the board rejected a proposal that would have given notice to eliminate a lump-sum budgeting approach for Washtenaw County’s court system. That vote was 3-6, with support from only Dan Smith (R-District 2), Conan Smith (D-District 9) and Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Stand Your Ground

The Oct. 16 agenda included a resolution asking state legislators to repeal Michigan’s version of the Stand Your Ground law. [.pdf of resolution]

This is the fourth meeting that has included public commentary on the Stand Your Ground law – Public Act 309, the Michigan Self Defense Act, which was passed in 2006. In early September, board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) had announced his intent to bring forward a resolution urging the state legislature to repeal the law, similar to resolutions passed by the Ann Arbor city council on Aug. 8, 2013 and by the Ypsilanti city council on Aug. 20, 2013. The resolution had originally appeared on the county board’s Sept. 18 agenda, but was pulled from the agenda before the meeting when it became uncertain that it would win sufficient support to pass, given the anticipated absence of some commissioners.

Supporters of the law spoke at the Sept. 18 and Oct. 2 board meetings, and showed up again on Oct. 16. Some were affiliated with Michigan Open Carry Inc., an advocacy group based in Lansing that has been urging people to attend the Washtenaw County board meetings to protest the proposed resolution. The resolution also attracted the attention of the National Rifle Association. The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action issued an alert on Oct. 11 calling the resolution “misguided” and providing contact information for the nine county commissioners.

Stand Your Ground: Public Commentary

Thirty-two people spoke about this issue during public commentary at the start of the meeting – 20 people supporting Stand Your Ground, and 12 people opposing the state law. Many others attended the meeting, filling the boardroom to capacity with overflow into the adjacent lobby. The county had brought in two sheriff’s deputy for extra security.

From left: Lefiest Galimore and Doug Smith at the Oct. 16 county board meeting. Galimore opposes Michigan’s Stand Your Ground law, which Smith supports.

Unlike speakers at the Oct. 2 meeting who were primarily from outside of Washtenaw County, most of the 20 people who supported Stand Your Ground on Oct. 16 – and who opposed the resolution urging its repeal – said they lived in Washtenaw County, including residents of Ann Arbor, Saline, Ypsilanti and several of the townships.

Many argued that law-abiding citizens should have the right to defend themselves, and that Stand Your Ground prevented victims from being prosecuted as killers. Some stated that repealing Stand Your Ground would embolden predators and threaten the safety of residents. Others argued that this was a state issue that the county board was not in a position to address.

A couple of speakers – including Dennis Moore of the Willow Run Tea Party Caucus – pointed out that this resolution is energizing supporters of Stand Your Ground and creating common ground for people of different political parties.

Most of the 12 opponents of Stand Your Ground were from Ann Arbor, including Lefiest Galimore, who has advocated for this kind of resolution at previous Ann Arbor city council and county board meetings. He said he didn’t oppose gun ownership, but he supported the repeal of Act 309. It’s not an anti-gun movement, but it’s about protecting every citizen in the community, he said. Others who spoke in support of the resolution included two pastors, at least two members of the Interfaith Council for Peace & Justice, and two physicians – Jerry Walden and Andrew Zweifler, representing Physicians for the Prevention of Gun Violence. The majority of those speakers stated they supported non-violence, criticized the increasing prevalence of guns and America’s high murder rate compared to other countries, and argued that the law is applied in discriminatory ways against minorities.

During a second opportunity for public commentary – which occurred around midnight – six people spoke in support of the Stand Your Ground law, including some who had addressed the board earlier in the meeting.

Stand Your Ground: Initial Board Discussion

After about 90 minutes of the initial public commentary at the start of the meeting, several commissioners responded. Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) thanked everyone for coming. It was heartening to see such engagement and active democracy, he said, adding that he’d like it to extend to other issues as well.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said he appreciated that people had shown up and he noted that there would be another opportunity for public commentary later in the evening. He said there seemed to be some misunderstanding about what the resolution will do. “It does absolutely nothing,” D. Smith said.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) also thanked people for coming out and sharing their thoughts. It’s gratifying that people have spent time to understand the issue deeply. Regarding whether this resolution is within the purview of the county board, C. Smith stated that the county funds the sheriff’s department, as well as the criminal justice system – including the prosecuting attorney’s office. “So state laws that impact the operations of those functions within the county are of concern to this board,” he said. The board might not have control over the legislation, but informing state legislators “about what motivates the folks here in Washtenaw County” is important, C. Smith said, and the way that the board does that is through resolutions. The resolutions don’t have the force of law, he added, but they do communicate the board’s interests.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) agreed with Dan Smith that the resolution does nothing, and she reminded other commissioners that “we are not a lobbying organization. We are a legislative body.” This isn’t an issue in Lansing now, she said. Residents are welcome to lobby state legislators directly, she added. “We are not an intermediary.” Her statement resulted in applause from residents in the boardroom.

Stand Your Ground: Final Board Action

The agenda item for the Stand Your Ground resolution was taken up at about 12:30 a.m. Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) said she’d spent time reading and reflecting on the law, but her main concern is that the application of the law doesn’t meet its intent.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), chair of the board’s ways & means committee.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) pointed out that there are six state legislators representing the residents of Washtenaw County – including one who had attended the meeting earlier in the evening. [He was referring to state Sen. Rebekah Warren (D-District 18), who is married to county commissioner Conan Smith.] “We even have the First Constituent in Lansing, so we have a bonus in this county,” he joked. [The reference was to Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican who lives in the Ann Arbor area.] This is not county business, D. Smith said. The process is to take concerns to Lansing, and not bring them to the county board.

D. Smith noted that the county board has a lot of local business to conduct, and he observed that the board postponed discussion of the proposed budget that evening. “We need to stick to Washtenaw County business, and let Lansing do Lansing’s business.”

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) thanked residents for attending and for their patience, saying it was the longest meeting he could recall in all his years on the board. [It adjourned at about 12:45 a.m.] “It shows that government is working,” he said. The Stand Your Ground resolution is not an easy vote for him, Peterson said, and he’s talked with a lot of constituents about it. He thought the discussion had been healthy.

Everyone knows what brought this issue to the forefront, Petersen said, adding that he didn’t want to politicize it. [The reference was to the Trayvon Martin killing in Florida.] Peterson said that he hadn’t been contacted by any national organization, as some people had implied.

Peterson stated that he believes in the right to own guns, and most gun owners are decent, law-abiding citizens. He said he knows what it means to be a victim of crime. But America needs a more peaceful environment. The country is far too violent, he said, and that topic deserves more discussion.

Outcome: The resolution passed on a 5-4 vote. The five commissioners who voted in favor of the resolution were Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). Voting against it were Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), Dan Smith (R-District 2), Alicia Ping (R-District 3), and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

Stand Your Ground: Legal Action

The following week, David Raaflaub filed a lawsuit against the Washtenaw County board of commissioners over its Stand Your Ground resolution. [.pdf of board resolution] [.pdf of Raaflaub complaint]

Ian Reed Twiss, an Ann Arbor resident, talks with commissioner Alicia Ping (R-District 3). Twiss is pastor at Holy Faith Church in Saline, which is located in Ping’s district. He spoke during public commentary on Oct. 16 to support the board’s resolution about repealing Michigan’s Stand Your Ground law. Ping voted against that resolution.

The complaint, filed on Oct. 21 in the 22nd Circuit Court of Washtenaw County, asks the court to determine two issues: (1) what authority the board has that enables it to “draw conclusions of law,” and (2) what authority the board has to represent the county in seeking changes to state law.

Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, stated in an Oct. 24 email to The Chronicle that the county is in the process of retaining counsel who will respond to the lawsuit on the board’s behalf.

Reached via email on Oct. 24, Dan Smith indicated that he would bring forward a resolution to rescind the board’s previous action, if it’s determined that the county will incur additional costs – such as fees for outside legal counsel – to defend the lawsuit.

Raaflaub is a member of the Washtenaw County Republican executive committee. He was the Republican candidate for county commissioner in District 6 in the November 2012 election, running against incumbent Democrat Ronnie Peterson, who won that election.

Raaflaub’s filing indicates that the filing is “pro se” – that is, he’s representing himself. He is currently suspended by the state bar from the practice of law.

Veterans Relief, Act 88 Tax Hikes

Increases to two taxes for the upcoming 2014 budget – one for veterans relief services, and another for agricultural and economic development – were on the Oct. 16 agenda.

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to levy a 0.0333 mill tax for indigent veterans services, following an initial vote on Oct. 2. The new rate of 1/30th of a mill would be levied in December 2013 to fund services in 2014. It’s expected to generate $463,160 in revenues. The current rate, approved by the board last year and levied in December 2012, is 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. It generated $390,340 this year.

According to a staff memo, the additional revenue is needed to address rising claims, the anticipated release of current active duty soldiers, the increased cost of living reflected in claims, continued increases to demand, and an increased workload due to the Washtenaw County Veterans Treatment Court.

The county’s position is that it is authorized to collect up to 1/10th of a mill without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy this type of tax – the Veterans Relief Fund Act, Public Act 214 of 1899 – predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. The county first began levying this millage in 2008. Services are administered through the county’s department of veterans affairs. The county had held a public hearing on this tax proposal at its Sept. 18 meeting, but no one spoke.

A public hearing and initial vote were held on Oct. 16 for the economic development and agricultural tax, known as Act 88 of 1913. The proposed increase to the Act 88 millage is from 0.06 mills to 0.07 mills. The millage would be levied in December 2013 and would raise an estimated $972,635.

According to a staff memo, the funds would be allocated to the following groups:

• $423,135: Washtenaw County office of community & economic development
• $200,000: Ann Arbor SPARK
• $100,000: Eastern Leaders Group
• $52,000: Promotion of Heritage Tourism in Washtenaw County
• $50,000: SPARK East
• $50,000: Detroit Region Aerotropolis
• $82,500: Washtenaw County 4-H
• $15,000: Washtenaw County 4-H Youth Show

The enabling legislation for this tax is also pre-Headlee, and the county board levies the tax without voter approval.

Veterans Relief, Act 88: Public Commentary & Public Hearing

Two executives from Ann Arbor SPARK – Donna Doleman, vice president of marketing and communications, and Luke Bonner, vice president of business development – spoke in support of the Act 88 funding during public commentary at the start of the Oct. 16 meeting. Doleman thanked commissioners for partnering to create jobs for this region through investment in economic development.

Donna Doleman, Ann Arbor Spark vice president of marketing and communications.

Doleman highlighted SPARK’s work in business retention, expansion and attraction, saying it’s become a model for the country. She listed several accomplishments that the agency has achieved. Some of those items were included in handouts provided to the board. SPARK’s national and international prestige gives it an edge in marketing this region, Doleman said. Thirty percent of the views on a business attraction video have been international, she noted. [.pdf of SPARK handout 1] [.pdf of SPARK handout 2] [.pdf of SPARK handout 3]

Bonner echoed Doleman’s comments, saying that without the county’s support, SPARK wouldn’t be able to accomplish what it has. This year alone, he said, SPARK has helped secured $100 million in new investment and 1,200 jobs. He highlighted two examples: American Broach & Machine in Ypsilanti, and Universal Marketing Group, which is expanding its call center operation from Toledo. Bonner also described SPARK’s help in marketing the former GM property in Ypsilanti Township.

Leigh Greden introduced himself as vice president of government and community relations at Eastern Michigan University, and a resident of the district in Ann Arbor that’s represented by county commissioner Yousef Rabhi. He urged the board to approve the increase in the Act 88 millage. The low cost of just 73 cents per month for the average homeowner allows the county to support a variety of tangible projects, he said, including Ann Arbor SPARK’s initiatives, heritage tourism, and the Eastern Leaders Group. Greden noted that he serves as co-chair of the ELG along with Bob Tetens, director of the county’s parks and recreation commission. He described the ELG’s efforts, including the Live Ypsi program that encourages EMU staff and faculty to buy homes in the city, which results in more people paying taxes there. Act 88 funding also helped Michigan Ladder Co. in Ypsilanti, he said. “None of these programs would have been possible without the Act 88 millage,” Greden said. When something works, he concluded, “keep doing it.”

Doug Smith began by saying he wouldn’t give his address, contending that requiring someone to give their address violated Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. The two tax increases that the board will be voting on will push the county above the constitutional limit of 18 mills, he said. He asked the board to refrain from voting until the county has made public its legal justification for exceeding the limit. Until 2008, activities that are now funded through the veterans relief and Act 88 millages were paid for out of the county’s general fund. He read a section from the Headlee Amendment, which the state enacted in 1978:

Units of Local Government are hereby prohibited from levying any tax not authorized by law or charter when this section is ratified or from increasing the rate of an existing tax above that rate authorized by law or charter when this section is ratified, without the approval of a majority of the qualified electors of that unit of Local Government voting thereon.

It seems the county’s corporation counsel is saying that since the veterans relief and Act 88 laws allowed the levying of millages prior to 1978, that these can be levied in excess of the 18-mill cap without a vote by the county’s citizens, Smith said. He called the levies “legally dubious” and said he’s trying to do legal research to verify that. He hasn’t been able to find anything published by the county that gives a legal justification for these millages. Are any other counties using these levies above the 18-mill cap? Have the levies ever been tested in court, and is there published case law? Does it matter that the veterans relief law states “shall” and the Act 88 law states “may” levy a tax?

Doug Smith pointed out that the Headlee Amendment states that any taxpayer in Michigan shall have standing for a lawsuit in Michigan’s Court of Appeals to enforce it, so all it would take is one taxpayer willing to challenge this tax, and the county would find itself in court. He again asked that the board hold off on voting until the corporation counsel has published an opinion on the taxes for all citizens to see.

Smith also spoke during the Act 88 public hearing later in the meeting, which occurred around midnight. He pointed out that Act 88 allows for the spending of proceeds for specific purposes. From Act 88:

… for the purpose of advertising the agricultural advantages of the state or for displaying the products and industries of any county in the state at domestic or foreign expositions, for the purpose of encouraging immigration and increasing trade in the products of the state, and advertising the state and any portion thereof for tourists and resorters, and to permit the boards of supervisors out of any sum so raised, or out of the general fund, to contribute all or any portion of the same to any development board or bureau to be by said board or bureau expended for the purposes herein named.

Smith wondered whether anyone checks with Ann Arbor SPARK to ensure that those requirements are met. Referring to the example that SPARK vice president Luke Bonner had given about American Broach, Smith described it as a wholly-owned Chinese company that does all of its manufacturing in China. The local operation is for research and development, he noted. “So what exactly is the Washtenaw County product that is being advertised and promoted?” He also objected to holding public hearings after midnight, saying that it doesn’t promote participation by the public.

In response to the public commentary, Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) expressed his support for Act 88, especially for the funding it provides to the Detroit Aerotropolis, Ann Arbor SPARK, and the Eastern Leaders Group.

Act 88: Board Discussion – Amendment (Increase to 0.09 mills)

When commissioners reached the Act 88 agenda item, Conan Smith (D-District 9) began by proposing a policy and process for allocating Act 88 funds. However, he was told by Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, that it would need to be considered later in the agenda, as an item for current or future discussion.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

C. Smith then referred to a handout that had been provided at the Oct. 3 working session, which outlined Act 88 investment options. The handout listed items that could be funded if the millage remained at the current 0.06 mills ($819,714), or if it were increased to 0.07 mills, 0.08 mills or 0.09 mills. [.pdf of Act 88 options]

C. Smith noted that each of the options was backed by a strategic or business plan, and was built off of work that the county has been doing for several years. For example, a levy of 0.07 mills would allow for $50,000 to fund a commercial kitchen incubator for youth skills development. However, he said, that program doesn’t really thrive unless there’s also funding for a local food manufacturing project – which would require more funding and a higher millage rate.

He also expressed support for a “community capital acceleration” program, which at 0.07 mills would be funded for $10,000. But if it’s not launched with sufficient funding, he said, “we’re sort of undermining our own efforts.”

At that, C. Smith made a motion to amend the proposed 0.07 mills and raise the allocation to 0.09 mills.

Outcome: The motion died for lack of a second.

Act 88: Board Discussion – Amendment (Increase Allocations + Millage Rate)

C. Smith then moved to increase the millage rate in order to fund an increase for the community capital acceleration program  – from $10,000 to $35,000. Dan Smith (R-District 2) supported the motion, noting that his support was in order to move the item forward for debate. It didn’t necessarily mean that he supported the amendment itself.

But C. Smith decided to withdraw that motion. He indicated that there were actually three items that he felt needed an increase in funding – beyond the amounts that would be funded with an 0.07 mill tax. So he moved to increase the millage rate in order to fund increases for those specific items: the community capital acceleration program (from $10,000 to $35,000); a local business employment cooperative (from $15,000 to $50,000); and market analysis for a local food manufacturing, processing and distribution system ($50,000 – this was not funded at 0.07 mills).

He estimated these programs could be funded at his proposed level – a total of $110,000 – by increasing the millage rate to 0.0725 mills.

Outcome: That motion also died for lack of a second.

Act 88: Board Discussion – Amendment (Increase Allocations Only)

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) asked Mary Jo Callan – director of the office of community and economic development, which administers several Act 88-funded programs – to come forward and explain the itemized funding list that C. Smith was referencing. She explained that the list was intended to indicate various funding levels for several programs, based on potential increases to the millage rate.

Callan pointed out that the resolution on the board’s agenda that night did not increase the earmarks for specific projects or organizations, compared to the current funding levels. Rather, the resolution would increase the millage rate from 0.06 mills this year to 0.07 mills in 2014. The extra funding would be allocated to the office of community and economic development as a placeholder, to be subsequently allocated to specific programs in the future. She hoped that the board would eventually allocate the extra funds using the process and policy that C. Smith had drafted and shared at the Oct. 3 working session. That’s up to the board, she said.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) then proposed an amendment that would increase funding in the three line items that C. Smith had mentioned, but without increasing the overall millage rate beyond 0.07 mills.

Rabhi said he couldn’t support Ping’s amendment. The Act 88 resolution needed to move forward, he said, but the board should use C. Smith’s policy to determine priorities for allocating the excess revenues, rather than allocating some of those revenues now. There needs to be more discussion about that, he said.

C. Smith said he appreciated Ping’s effort, but he wouldn’t support it because it would shift funding away from other projects, rather than increase the overall funds. If the overall millage rate isn’t being increased beyond 0.07 mills, then he wanted to go through the process of prioritizing all the possible additional projects.

Outcome: Ping’s amendment was defeated on a 3-6 vote, with support only from Ping, Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Act 88: Board Discussion – Partnerships

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) expressed concern that some of the programs supported by Act 88 funds were duplicating efforts that other entities in the county are already pursuing. He noted that Washtenaw Community College, for example, already has a food service program, which might duplicate the proposed commercial kitchen incubator. He also wondered why hotels aren’t helping to pay for it.

Mary Jo Callan replied that OCED can explore more partnerships, in addition to those that are already in place. She said the county did an analysis of what’s available, because they don’t want to duplicate programs. Tony VanDerworp of OCED described the work that’s been done to develop the kitchen incubator proposal, including discussions with local schools. The county doesn’t want to operate it, he said, but would help facilitate the program.

Sizemore also objected to allocating $10,000 for developing the community capital acceleration program, saying there are educational institutions that have expertise that the county might be able to tap without spending money.

Act 88: Board Discussion – Amendment (Exemptions from TIF)

Dan Smith put forward an amendment calling for the Act 88 levy to be exempt from capture by tax increment financing (TIF) districts or authorities in the county to the greatest extent allowed by law.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) said he’d support the amendment, but he wondered why it was appropriate for this millage more than any other one.

D. Smith explained that this is a millage that the board votes on every year. He planned to offer a similar amendment for the veterans relief millage. These millages are levied for very specific purposes, and he thought that the millages should be exempt from as much tax capture as possible so that the revenues will be used solely for the purpose that was intended.

Outcome: The amendment was passed 8-1 over dissent from Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Later in the meeting, D. Smith made a similar amendment for the veterans relief millage. It was also passed on an 8-1 vote over dissent from Kent Martinez-Kratz. The board also gave final approval to the increase in the veterans relief millage.

Act 88: Board Discussion – Legal Opinion

Referring to issues raised during public commentary, Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) indicated that he’d like to see a legal opinion by the board’s next meeting about whether the veterans relief and Act 88 millages are overstepping the county’s constitutional authority.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Dan Smith (R-District 2) noted that the staff memo accompanying the Act 88 resolution provides some detail about the history of the Act 88 legislation, in that it predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. [.pdf of Act 88 staff memo]

But he said that despite his repeated requests to the county administrator and corporation counsel, there’s no mention in the staff memo about how the millage is allowed under Article 9, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution, or the 18-mill levy limit, or the 5.5 mill county operating millage.

D. Smith expressed concern that the Act 88 levy might be unconstitutional. Very few counties are levying Act 88, and Washtenaw County might be the only county that’s levying the veterans relief millage, he said.

Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, replied that he and D. Smith had discussed this issue, and that Hedger had provided the legal rationale. However, Hedger said he would never put a legal opinion in a cover memo unless he’s directed by the board to do so. The board is his client – not individual commissioners, he said – and he writes legal opinions under the board’s direction. If the board directs him to write a legal opinion, he’d do that and provide it to commissioners, Hedger said. Once they receive it, he added, they can do with it whatever they want. But he felt uncomfortable putting that kind of detailed legal analysis in a cover memo.

D. Smith noted that the memo points to another state statute as justification for the levy. “I’ve told corporate counsel repeatedly: ‘Convince me that this is indeed a legal levy,’” D. Smith said. If it’s legal, then there would be opportunities to consider a levy under Act 283, and it would give townships the opportunity to consider levies under Act 51. [Act 283 of 1909 and Act 51 of 1951 both address tax levies for road construction and repair.] If those are legal statewide, he added, then there would be over three-quarters of a billion dollars available for roads that could be levied and managed locally. “So I am more than willing to be convinced about these levies and how we are allowed to exceed the very clear constitutional limits,” D. Smith said.

However, he added, Hedger seems to be taking bits and pieces from different statutes “to suit the outcome that’s desired, and I completely disagree with it.” He said he wasn’t asking for a formal legal opinion, but rather for “casual discussion” similar to what’s already in the staff memo, which mentions the Headlee Amendment. There are already specific references to state legislation in the memo, he noted, and he was asking for additional commentary of that nature.

Act 88: Board Discussion – Policy

Later in the meeting, C. Smith put forward a draft policy and process for allocating Act 88 revenues. [.pdf of Act 88 policy] [.pdf of Act 88 process]

Ronnie Peterson supported it, saying he’d like to see something similar for the coordinated funding program, which allocates dollars for human services. He said the Act 88 policy is essential to move forward along with the resolution on setting the Act 88 millage.

Yousef Rabhi said it was up to the board to decide whether to adopt the policy, but he supported it. Andy LaBarre didn’t think the board could come up with a better process than the one C. Smith put forward. He thanked C. Smith for developing it.

Outcome: The Act 88 policy and process was given initial approval with little discussion, over dissent from Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5). A final vote on that policy will likely occur on Nov. 6.

Veterans Relief, Act 88: Board Votes

Outcome on Act 88: An initial vote on levying Act 88 at 0.07 mills passed on an 8-1 vote, over dissent from D. Smith. A final vote is expected on Nov. 6.

Outcome on Veterans Relief: A final vote on levying 0.0333 mills for indigent veterans services passed unanimously.

Pittsfield State Street CIA

On the agenda was a resolution to approve participation in Pittsfield Township’s State Street corridor improvement authority (CIA).

David Sarns, a member of the State Street corridor improvement authority board in Pittsfield Township, attended the Oct. 16 county board meeting. He did not formally address the board.

The resolution would authorize the county administrator to sign a tax-sharing agreement with Pittsfield Township and the State Street CIA, which is overseen by an appointed board. [.pdf of agreement] The agreement would allow the CIA to capture 50% of any county taxes levied on new development within the corridor boundaries, not to exceed $3,850,464 over a 20-year period, through 2033. The purpose is to provide a funding mechanism for improvements to the State Street corridor roughly between the I-94 interchange and Michigan Avenue, as outlined in the CIA development and tax increment financing plan. [.pdf of TIF plan]

The Pittsfield Township board of trustees held a public hearing on the CIA at its Oct. 9, 2013 meeting. That started the clock on a 60-day period during which any taxing entities within the corridor can “opt out” of participation. The Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission voted at its Oct. 8, 2013 meeting to participate . Other local taxing entities in the corridor are Washtenaw Community College, the Huron Clinton Metro Authority, and the Saline and Ann Arbor district libraries. The Ann Arbor District Library board discussed the issue at its Oct. 21, 2013 meeting.

In total over the CIA’s 20-year period, the plan anticipates capturing about $14 million in local tax dollars. That amount would provide about a local match to be used to secure federal funding for the bulk of the estimated $30 million project.

Pittsfield State Street CIA: Board Discussion – Postponement

Dan Smith (R-District 2) began deliberations by noting that in 2011 and 2012, the board spent considerable time discussing the county’s involvement in an authority “that wasn’t going to cost us anything.” [He was referring to a countywide transit initiative, spearheaded by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, that ultimately failed to garner support throughout the county. It attempted to create a new transit authority under Act 196, but did not involve TIF financing.]

D. Smith recalled that the first public discussion of the transit authority was in April 2011, with the first vote on it over a year later – on July 17, 2012.

In contrast, the county’s participation in the State Street CIA will cost about $3.85 million over 20 years, he noted. The board was first presented with this proposal at a working session 13 days prior to the Oct. 16 meeting, D. Smith said, and commissioners need more time to sort through concerns.

D. Smith then moved to postpone the item until Nov. 20.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) said this is an issue where time is of the essence, and the board should discuss it that night.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) wondered why D. Smith hadn’t tried to get his questions answered before proposing to postpone. Sizemore also pointed out that there will be two weeks before the board takes its final vote, on Nov. 6. There will be plenty of time to get questions answered. Sizemore noted that several Pittsfield Township officials were attending the meeting and could answer questions.

Outcome: The motion to postpone failed on a 2-7 vote, with support only from D. Smith and Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Pittsfield State Street CIA: Board Discussion – Substitute Resolution

D. Smith then moved a substitute resolution stating that the county would not participate in the CIA. [.pdf of D. Smith's substitute resolution] He said he supported the road improvement project, but objected to the TIF funding mechanism. He noted that the county had the ability to invest directly in the project using general fund money – which is allowed by Act 119 of 2011.

Dan Smith (R-District 2).

He also pointed out that if the county participates in the CIA, the county board would have no control over how its portion of the captured taxes are spent. For example, if certain aspects of the project turn out to be more expensive than anticipated, the CIA board might decide to cut back on items in the plan, such as non-motorized pathways.

The CIA mechanism also only addresses a specific problem in Pittsfield Township, D. Smith noted. There are many parts of the county that can’t use a CIA. For example, North Territorial Road in his district needs improvement, but there’s not enough development along that road to make a CIA viable, he said.

D. Smith also pointed out that the board has not developed any policies or procedures regarding TIFs, to help guide the board’s decisions. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) stated that he supported developing such a policy.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) observed that the board has been working to align its general fund investments with its strategic priorities. One way to make those strategic investments is through direct appropriations. Another way is through tax expenditures of DDAs, TIFAs and CIAs that capture dollars that would otherwise go to the general fund, but that are redirected to specific projects. In this particular case, there’s nothing wrong with the proposed State Street project, C. Smith said. But the board hasn’t been investing in road projects as a priority – as those are handled by the road commission. The CIA will capture dollars that won’t be used for investments that the board has set as priorities. Right now, C. Smith said, he’s not comfortable taking money that he thinks should go toward human services, and instead putting those funds into a road project.

C. Smith advocated for developing a rubric to help the board decide whether to invest in road projects, and if so, what specific road projects should be prioritized.

Another concern is that a lot of anticipated revenue for the State Street CIA is rooted in potential future development, C. Smith noted. Some projects would be built regardless of whether improvements are made to the corridor, he said, and those new tax dollars should be going toward priorities like human services. It’s also unclear how much future development will materialize.

These are complicated issues, and that’s why he supported postponement, C. Smith said. Short of that, he thought the county should not participate at this time.

D. Smith pointed out that the decision not to participate would not necessarily be permanent, because the county board could rescind this resolution at any point. Rescinding his resolution would trigger participation in the CIA.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) wondered if the county board could specify how its portion of the TIF capture is allocated within the CIA. That is, could the county earmark its TIF capture for non-motorized transportation elements? Dick Carlisle, the planning consultant who’s been hired by Pittsfield Township to work on this project, replied that in a sense the money is already earmarked. That’s because the non-motorized paths and bike paths are already in the CIA plan. The project wouldn’t be able to proceed without these elements being included, Carlisle said. Mandy Grewal, the township’s supervisor, pointed out that the township zoning requires that new roads be built using Complete Street principles.

Rabhi noted that the county board wouldn’t be adopting the CIA plan, but would be voting on the agreement with Pittsfield Township regarding the CIA, which doesn’t specifically address elements of the plan. Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, confirmed that the CIA will decide how the money is spent. Rabhi floated the idea of amending the agreement to include more details about how the county’s money should be spent.

Commissioners Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

Saying that her patience was wearing thin because of the length of the meeting, Alicia Ping (R-District 3) said there’s nothing that irritates her more than when Lansing tries to tell the county what to do. Now that’s what the county is trying to do to Pittsfield Township, she said. “I think that’s completely out of line.”

Anyone who’s driven through Pittsfield Township will know that it’s radically different now, she said, with better roads and non-motorized paths. These are competent people running the township, she said.

Ping said that the CIA is the best model for this project, because if there’s no growth, the county won’t lose any revenue. “I think we’d be foolish not to support this,” she said. Ping hoped the board would look at the bigger picture.

C. Smith replied, saying it was wrong of Ping to insinuate that his perspective on this is foolish or poorly thought out, or that he didn’t care about people in this community, or that it’s not worth it to talk about more than $3 million in county dollars. This isn’t similar to Lansing telling the locals what to do, he said. This is about what to do with county-generated revenue, he said – whether the board will put it toward priorities that commissioners have articulated over the years, like helping poor people, or whether it will fund a road. “That is an important conversation for us – that’s not foolish,” C. Smith said. “This is about our priorities. So I’m frustrated that it would be just dismissed.” To get brushed off like that is wrong – it’s rude, he said.

Later in the meeting, Ping indicated that she thought she’d said that Pittsfield Township wouldn’t bring a foolish plan to the board. If she’d said something differently, she hadn’t intended to. C. Smith replied by saying that he loved her.

D. Smith noted that this issue isn’t about trust or distrust of Pittsfield Township officials. It’s about a 20-year plan. It’s unlikely that county commissioners will be around in 20 years, and the same is true for members of the Pittsfield Township and CIA boards, he said. The issue is that the county board should properly look out for the $3.8 million in county revenues for the best interest of everyone in the county. “We only have one chance to get out of the CIA and out of TIF capture,” he said. The board would have the chance to join the CIA later, if that’s what commissioners decide after sorting out all these other issues. But once they join the CIA, the control is out of the county’s hands, he said.

Outcome: The vote on D. Smith’s opt-out resolution failed on a 2-7 vote, with support only from D. Smith and C. Smith.

Pittsfield State Street CIA: Board Discussion – Original Resolution

Discussion continued.

D. Smith pointed out that municipalities around the county have found other ways to pay for roads. Ypsilanti Township is using bonds. Scio Township is in the process of levying $85 per parcel in a township-wide special assessment district to fund road repair. The city of Ann Arbor has a 2 mill tax for streets. Superior Township dedicates a significant portion of its general fund budget for roads. Salem Township took money out of its general fund reserves to invest in road repairs on North Territorial. His point was that municipalities have found ways to pay for roads without coming to the county for TIF funding, he said.

The Pittsfield Township board seems to be set on using this mechanism and no other, D. Smith said. He understood their rationale: If the township can get $3.8 million from the county, why should they levy an additional tax on Pittsfield Township residents or use a special assessment? He said that at the Oct. 9 public hearing of the Pittsfield Township board, supervisor Mandy Grewal had claimed that the CIA was the only tool that was available for State Street repair. However, there are other tools available, D. Smith noted.

Pittsfield Township clerk Alan Israel and treasurer Patricia Scribner were among the township officials who attended the Oct. 16 meeting of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

D. Smith again stated that he had no problem with this project, but objected to the funding mechanism. There are other ways that the county can participate, which would allow the board to have more control. If the county joins the CIA, then dollars that the taxpayers approved for natural areas preservation would be used for roads. He wasn’t sure how many people would be willing to renew that millage when they find out that the dollars are being used for a different purpose. The same is true for the parks millage, he said.

D. Smith reported that the people who spoke against the CIA at the Oct. 9 public hearing outnumbered supporters. He said Grewal had later characterized opponents of the CIA as her political opponents. He pointed out that in the 2012 election, the entire township board had been unopposed. He said he had serious concerns about the proposal, though he’d like to support the project with a different funding mechanism.

Several other commissioners expressed support for the project, calling State Street an important transportation artery. Yousef Rabhi said that all the concerns he raised at the board’s Oct. 3 working session had been addressed in the agreement that Pittsfield Township brought forward.

Rabhi said it would have been good if commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) had been appointed to the CIA board, because her district covers Pittsfield Township. Jim Fink, an attorney representing the township, noted that the CIA board is appointed by the township supervisor and the state statute doesn’t prohibit appointing a county commissioner. Rabhi said he wouldn’t push the issue of a board appointment, but he hoped it would be considered in the future.

D. Smith clarified with consultant Dick Carlisle that the county’s EECS tax (enhanced emergency communication system) would be exempt from capture, based on the agreement that the county board would be voting on that night. Carlisle also confirmed for Smith that the tax capture would apply to increases due to inflation as well as increases resulting from new development.

In total, the board debated the issue and asked questions of Pittsfield Township representatives for about 90 minutes. Questions were fielded by supervisor Mandy Grewal, consultant Dick Carlisle, attorney Jim Fink, and Craig Lyon, the township’s director of utilities and municipal services.

Outcome: Commissioners voted 8-1 to give initial approval to participate in the CIA, with dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2). A final vote is expected on Nov. 6.

Pittsfield State Street CIA: TIF Policy

Near the end of the meeting, Yousef Rabhi brought forward a resolution directing county administrator Verna McDaniel to develop a policy for evaluating future tax increment financing (TIF) proposals. The resolution stated that the policy would be developed with input from staff of the office of community and economic development, the equalization department, and the brownfield redevelopment authority.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) indicated she would not support this, because each TIF proposal is unique.

Outcome: The item passed on a 7-2 vote with dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

Washtenaw County Court Budget

On the Oct. 16 agenda was an item giving final notice to eliminate a lump-sum budgeting approach for Washtenaw County’s court system.

Donald Shelton, chief judge of the Washtenaw Trial Court.

The issue had arisen this summer, when commissioner Alicia Ping (R-District 3) had brought forward a resolution to give notice to the courts. She did that at the board’s June 5, 2013 meeting in a move that caught some commissioners by surprise, although for several weeks during earlier budget deliberations Ping had expressed concerns over the county’s approach to funding the court system. Voting in favor of initial approval on June 5 were Ping, Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Andy LaBarre and Kent Martinez-Kratz. Voting against the proposal initially were Yousef Rabhi, Ronnie Peterson, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Felicia Brabec.

Then at the county board’s July 10, 2013 meeting, when the item was on the agenda for final approval, the board had voted to postpone a final vote until Oct. 16. The rationale was that it should be coordinated with approval of the 2014 budget.

Ping had stated that her goal wasn’t necessarily to cut funding for the courts, but rather to be more transparent about where the money goes. Giving a notice to terminate the agreement would have given the board the option to end it.

The courts have historically been in favor of a lump-sum approach, rather than the line-item budget provided by most other units of county government. The courts operate under a memorandum of understanding with the board of commissioners. The board unanimously approved that MOU on Jan. 19, 2011, replacing one that had been in place since 1990. [.pdf of memorandum of understanding] The agreement states that the county will provide “lump sum” funding to the courts, allocated to: (1) the trial court – an entity that includes the 22nd Circuit Court, court clerk services, juvenile court, Friend of the Court, and probate court; (2) 14A District Court; and (3) a portion of the county’s child care fund. The county does not have line-item budgeting authority, but the courts agreed to submit a bi-annual line-item budget, and to provide quarterly financial projections.

From the general fund, the lump-sum payment to the courts in 2013 totals $19,155,029 – with $13,353,110 for the trial court and $5,801,919 for district court. In addition, state funding for certain trial court operations – the Friend of the Court and child care fund – totals $4,977,047.

On July 10, Ping reported that chief judge Donald Shelton had provided a detailed document regarding the court’s budget, and that he had indicated a willingness to meet with commissioners and the administration about this issue. She said she wanted to give commissioners time to digest the additional information, and to hear the county administrator’s budget proposal for the general fund. County administrator Verna McDaniel and her finance staff presented a four-year budget proposal for 2014-2017 at the board’s Oct. 2, 2013 meeting.

Washtenaw County Court Budget: Board Discussion

The board reached this item on the agenda after midnight. Dan Smith (R-District 2) began deliberations by noting that on Oct. 15, a state Senate committee had voted on HB 4704, which would change the law about who can bring lawsuits against the county. The bill has already passed the House and will be taken up soon by the Senate. Given that, he moved to postpone the county board resolution until Dec. 4.

The legislation was described in an email sent to the board from the Michigan Association of Counties:

The bill will encourage countywide elected officials to work budget issues out with the county board of commissioners, rather than threaten or file a lawsuit. In addition to requiring the parties to talk, there are three main changes to current law. The bill provides an assumption that the appropriated amount is at a “serviceable level,” so the burden of proof is on the countywide elected official who chooses to sue. In addition, the bill requires the court to take into account the county board’s “ability to pay” in deciding the lawsuit. Finally, the bill requires that the countywide elected NOT spend over the budgeted amount prior to a decision in the case. These changes will help make sure that when a case occurs it is warranted, and it will help cut down on threats and frivolous filings.

Previous discussions about the court system’s budget have been tempered by the fear that the court might sue the county, if the board of commissioners didn’t provide adequate funding.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) noted that chief judge Donald Shelton and court administrator Dan Dwyer had been waiting all night. He wanted to show them respect, he said. He noted that the bill would still require further action in the state legislature – noting that it may or may not be signed into law.

Shelton spoke briefly to commissioners, saying he welcomed an opportunity to continue the collegial relationship between the board and the courts, and he didn’t think a postponement would help with that relationship.

Outcome on postponement: It was defeated on a 1-8 vote, with support only from Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Outcome on main item: The final vote to eliminate lump-sum budgeting failed on a 3-6 vote, with support from only Dan Smith (R-District 2), Conan Smith (D-District 9) and Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Coordinated Funding

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to an extension of the coordinated funding approach for human services, as well as to some changes in that funding model.

No dollar amounts were allocated, but the resolution authorized the allocation of children’s well-being and human services funding for 2014 through 2016. It authorized the continued management of those funds through the county’s office of community & economic development, using the coordinated funding approach – with some modifications.

The county is one of five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners are city of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010; this is the second time that the program has been extended.

The coordinated funding process has three parts: planning/coordination, program operations, and capacity-building. The approach targets six priority areas, and identifies lead agencies for each area: (1) housing and homelessness – Washtenaw Housing Alliance; (2) aging – Blueprint for Aging; (3) school-aged youth – Washtenaw Alliance for Children and Youth; (4) children birth to six – Success by Six; (5) health – Washtenaw Health Plan; and (6) hunger relief – Food Gatherers.

Last year, TCC Group – a consulting firm based in Philadelphia – was hired to evaluate the process. As a result of that review, several changes were recommended. Those recommendations would also be authorized as part of the county board’s overall coordinated funding resolution, as described in a staff memo:

The County’s Human Services and Children’s Well-being funding will continue to focus on critical services for early childhood, aging, housing/homelessness, safety net health, school-aged children and youth, and food security/hunger relief. Under this proposal, this funding will not necessarily be allocated to these six priority areas in proportional amounts consistent with historic trends. Allocations to these six priority areas will be based on identified community-level outcomes, the strategies that align with them, and how each are prioritized.

1) Under this proposal, the application pre-screening process will be broadened to better accommodate smaller non-profit organizations. New types of financial documentation will allow smaller agencies to illustrate their viability in the absence of an independent audit. 2) Capacity-building grants would be available to target smaller agencies that need to improve their governance or financial structure to be eligible for the application process, with the goal of expanding the opportunities for all agencies providing human services in the County in an equitable fashion.

Recommendations for specific funding allocations will be made to the county board in April 2014, for funding to start on July 1, 2014. In addition, the RNR Foundation – a family foundation that funded TCC Group’s evaluation of the coordinated funding approach – will now be an additional funder in this process. One of the goals of coordinated funding is to attract more partners, such as private foundations.

Coordinated Funding: Public Commentary

Tom Partridge introduced himself as a write-in candidate for Ward 5 Ann Arbor city council. He called for the county to go beyond the coordinated funding proposal and provide more extensive affordable housing, public transportation, and health care, and to end homelessness. He objected to the coordinated funding approach of giving money to multiple nonprofits, each with an executive director. He urged commissioners to put a countywide millage on the ballot for human services.

Coordinated Funding: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked how needs are being determined, and when applications for funding would be coming to the board for approval.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Mary Jo Callan, director of the office of community & economic development, reminded commissioners that this vote would authorize continuation of the coordinated funding process. This wasn’t a vote to allocate specific dollars. She reviewed the history and approach that’s being used, as well as the review that was funded by the RNR Foundation.

Peterson said he was concerned about the direction that the county was taking, in terms of delivering services to those most in need. The board needed to make sure that its issues are addressed, and other entities should do the same, he said.

Callan explained that the request for proposals (RFP) is released in January, and the staff will bring back recommendations in April or May. Peterson said he hoped the board would have a discussion about priorities before the RFP is issued.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said he agreed with Peterson, in that the board needs to set clear priorities for funding. What are the outcomes that the board expects from its funding? He thought the board should vote on metrics that the staff recommends – but that’s not happening, he said.

Callan disagreed, though she acknowledged that there seems to be a feeling that the board wasn’t consulted. She noted that during the last funding cycle, the staff brought to the board specific priorities and funding amounts for approval, before any dollars were distributed.

Callan said this next cycle will include further developing of community outcomes, much like the county board is doing for its budget priorities. It’s important to know whether investments are making a difference in the community, she noted. So there will be specific community outcomes developed for each of the six priority areas in the coordinated funding model. The outcomes will be developed using data and best practices, working with people who are out in the community doing this work.

C. Smith confirmed with Callan that she’ll be bringing back these outcomes and metrics to the board before the RFP is issued.

Outcome: Commissioners voted 8-1 to give initial approval to the coordinated funding program. A final vote is expected on Nov. 6.

2014-2017 Budget

No one spoke at a public hearing on the proposed 2014-2017 Washtenaw County general fund budget, which took place after midnight.

County administrator Verna McDaniel and board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

County administrator Verna McDaniel and her finance staff had presented the budget on Oct. 2, 2013.

The $103,005,127 million budget for 2014 – which represents a slight decrease from the 2013 expenditures of $103,218,903 – includes putting a net total of 8.47 full-time-equivalent jobs on “hold vacant” status, as well as the net reduction of a 0.3 FTE position. The recommended budgets for the following years are $103,977,306 in 2015, $105,052,579 in 2016, and $106,590,681 in 2017. The budgets are based on an estimated 1% annual increase in property tax revenues. [.pdf of draft budget summary]

McDaniel had previously indicated that the county would need to find $3.9 million in structural savings in 2014. On Oct. 2, she reported that $4.13 million in operating cost reductions had been identified.

An item on the Oct. 16 agenda called for continued discussion of the 2014-2017 budget. However, by the time the board reached that point in the agenda, it was about 11:30 p.m. Dan Smith (R-District 2) moved to postpone discussion until Nov. 6.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to postpone discussion of the 2014-2017 budget until Nov. 6.

Apportionment Report

On the Oct. 16 agenda was a resolution to approve the 2013 apportionment report – giving details of the 2013 taxable valuations for property in the county, broken down by municipality. The report also includes the amount of millages levied and the dollar amounts collected in taxes. December tax bills will be mailed out to property owners based on these calculations. [.pdf of 2013 apportionment report]

In April, the county’s equalization department produces an annual report describing Washtenaw County’s total equalized (assessed) value of property. The report is part of a state-mandated equalization process, and gives an indication of how much revenue the county will receive from property taxes in the coming year. [See Chronicle coverage: "Equalization: Washtenaw Property Values Rise."]

From left: Equalization director Raman Patel and commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Later in the year – in October or November – the equalization and property description department presents an apportionment report, which gives details of the taxable valuations for property in the county, by municipality. The report also includes the amount of millages levied and the dollar amounts collected in taxes. Like the equalization report, the board is required by state law to vote on adopting the apportionment report.

This year, all the taxing entities in Washtenaw County will be levying in total an estimated $629.608 million in property taxes – an increase from $621.687 million in 2012. It’s also an increase from $622 million in 2011, but has not yet regained ground to the level of $639 million in 2010.

The county alone will levy an estimated $80.669 million, including millages for the general fund, parks & recreation, and Huron Clinton Metroparks.

Apportionment Report: Board Discussion

Raman Patel – who retired from his position as the county’s equalization director in late 2011 but remains in that job on a contract basis – presented the report and fielded questions from commissioners. He noted that an outstanding item needed to complete the report was the board’s decision to set the rate for the veterans relief and Act 88 millages. He also suggested that the board indicate whether those millages are subject to capture by local tax increment financing (TIF) districts, like downtown development authorities.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked whether Patel could forecast the tax revenue out three or four years. Patel replied that it’s much more difficult to predict tax revenues now, recalling how several years ago the property values tanked within a six-month period. “So you don’t know what the market is going to do,” Patel said.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) noted that Patel’s cover memo indicated that the equalization staff had reviewed all the millages levied in the county to make sure that they’ve complied with Article 9, Section 31 of the state constitution. Smith wondered if a similar evaluation was done with Article 9, Section 6 regarding the millage limits that are specified. That section states, in part:

Except as otherwise provided in this constitution, the total amount of general ad valorem taxes imposed upon real and tangible personal property for all purposes in any one year shall not exceed 15 mills on each dollar of the assessed valuation of property as finally equalized. Under procedures provided by law, which shall guarantee the right of initiative, separate tax limitations for any county and for the townships and for school districts therein, the aggregate of which shall not exceed 18 mills on each dollar of such valuation, may be adopted and thereafter altered by the vote of a majority of the qualified electors of such county voting thereon, in lieu of the limitation hereinbefore established. These limitations may be increased to an aggregate of not to exceed 50 mills on each dollar of valuation, for a period of not to exceed 20 years at any one time, if approved by a majority of the electors, qualified under Section 6 of Article II of this constitution, voting on the question.

Yes, Patel said – that’s the responsibility of his department too. There are about 75-80 different millages levied in Washtenaw County, he explained, and his staff has to make sure that each millage complies with the state law. “It’s not a small task,” he noted. Patel reviewed some of the history related to this issue. Of all the municipalities in Washtenaw County, only three cities don’t levy at the maximum rate allowed without voter approval: Saline, Milan and Chelsea.

In response to another query from D. Smith, Patel said he didn’t think any municipality would reach the 50 mill aggregate limit in his lifetime. He noted that after Proposal A, school millages are no longer calculated as part of that total.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the 2013 apportionment report.

Chelsea Milling Brownfield

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to a proposed brownfield plan by the Chelsea Milling Co., makers of Jiffy Mix. [.pdf of brownfield plan] A public hearing was also scheduled for the Oct. 16 meeting.

The plan relates to a renovation of an abandoned 77,700-square-foot warehouse at 140 Buchanan in the city of Chelsea. The company plans to invest more than $4 million in the project, according to a staff memo that accompanied the Oct. 16 resolution.

If the project is given brownfield status, it would allow the company to be reimbursed for up to $376,805 in eligible activities through tax increment financing (TIF). The total amount to be captured through TIF over 16 years is $580,677, which includes fees paid to the county brownfield program administration and the county’s local site revolving remediation fund.

Chelsea Milling Brownfield: Public Hearing

The public hearing took place after midnight and only one person – Lara Treemore Spears of ASTI Environmental, a representative from the project – spoke briefly. She indicated that two company officials had been at the meeting but left around 11:30 p.m. She thanked the board for considering the plan, and briefly described the investment planned by the company.

Chelsea Milling Brownfield: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) pointed out that the plan lists several previous owners, including the city of Chelsea. None of those entities are responsible for cleanup, so he wanted to know how Washtenaw County got “stuck with the bill.”

Nathan Voght, the county’s brownfield program coordinator, explained that in general, the state’s previous approach of going after the original polluters to get them to pay for cleanup didn’t work. So in 1996 the state enacted Act 381 – the brownfield redevelopment financing act. The act provides a funding mechanism to help new entities redevelop a contaminated site. Voght said the idea is that since society allowed this to happen, communities should pitch in to help clean it up.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Responding to another question from D. Smith, Voght noted that environmental laws are stronger now than decades ago, and that will help prevent similar contamination in the future.

D. Smith then pointed to a table in the brownfield report that listed eligible activities totaling $376,805. Most of those activities relate clearly to cleanup, he noted. But it also includes demolition – at $221,550. That seems to be in a different category, D. Smith said, and he asked Voght to explain why it was also eligible for funding. Voght said a brownfield site doesn’t just include contaminated ground. It includes everything that’s an impediment to development, and oftentimes that includes old buildings or factories, which might include asbestos.

D. Smith then highlighted a table that listed out the amount of taxes that would be captured from each taxing entity, as part of the brownfield plan. [.pdf of tax capture table] He noted that another item on the agenda – a proposal from Pittsfield Township for a State Street corridor improvement authority – would exempt some taxes from capture. He asked if similar exceptions were possible for the brownfield project. Voght replied that there are no exemptions for brownfield projects, nor are there opt-out provisions, as there are for the CIA.

Responding to a question from Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), Voght reported that in general, tax capture in Washtenaw County comes from about 24 mills in state taxes, and from local millages ranging from 25 to 35 mills. Depending on where a project is located, about 40% of the tax capture is from state taxes, and 60% from local taxes.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to give initial approval to the brownfield plan. A final vote is expected on Nov. 6.

Road Commission Appointment

The appointment of Barb Fuller to the Washtenaw County road commission was on the Oct. 16 agenda. She was nominated by board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) to fill a seat vacated by Ken Schwartz when he took over as supervisor for Superior Township on Oct. 1. The position is for the remainder of a six-year term, through Dec. 31, 2016.

The appointment had originally been on Oct. 2 agenda, but Dan Smith (R-District 2) raised the question of whether Schwartz had officially resigned. So on Oct. 2 the board voted 6-3 to postpone her appointment, over dissent from Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

This item was considered after midnight at the Oct. 16 meeting. There was minimal discussion. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) raised concerns about the process for soliciting applications. Rabhi and Pete Simms of the county clerk’s office both described ways in which the vacancy had been publicized, including ads in print publications and in media reports. Rabhi indicated that another person who had applied had missed the deadline.

Fuller, who lives in Manchester, previously served as deputy supervisor in Pittsfield Township from 2008-2012. She provides organizational management and consulting services, and has served in a variety of leadership roles for groups including the Washtenaw Community College Foundation Women’s Council and the Montessori School Board. She is the first woman to serve on the road commission since Pam Byrnes was appointed in 2000. Byrnes had been the first woman ever to serve on the road commission, but resigned before the end of her six-year term, when she was elected to the Michigan House of Representatives in 2004.

Other current road commissioners are Doug Fuller (no relation to Barb Fuller) and Fred Veigel, who also is a member of the county’s parks & recreation commission. The salary for road commissioners, which is set by the county board, is $10,500 annually.

Barb Fuller takes the position as the county board explores possible changes to the road commission. At its Oct. 2, 2013 meeting, the board created a new seven-member subcommittee to “explore partnerships and organizational interactions with the Washtenaw County Road Commission.” Members include four county commissioners – Alicia Ping (R-District 3), Conan Smith (D-District 9), Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) – and three township supervisors: Mandy Grewal of Pittsfield Township, Ken Schwartz of Superior Township and Pat Kelly of Dexter Township.

Outcome: Barb Fuller’s nomination was confirmed on an 8-1 vote. Dan Smith (R-District 2) cast the only dissenting vote.

Dog License Civil Infraction

Commissioners held a public hearing at their Oct. 16 meeting on a proposed ordinance that would allow the county to issue municipal civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog. The proposal would also establish that the county treasurer’s office would be the bureau for administering these infractions, and would set new licensing fees.

No one spoke on the hearing, which was held after midnight.

About a year ago, at the county board’s Nov. 7, 2012 meeting, commissioners approved a civil infractions ordinance that gave the county more flexibility to designate violations of other county ordinances as a civil infraction, rather than a criminal misdemeanor. For example, enforcement of the county’s dog licensing ordinance is low because the current penalty – a criminal misdemeanor of 90 days in jail or a $500 fine – is relatively harsh. The idea is that enforcement would improve if a lesser civil infraction could be used. The civil infraction fines are $50 for a first offense, $100 for a second offense, and $500 for a third or any subsequent offense.

An increase in the enforcement is expected to result in an increase in the number of dog licenses, which would provide additional revenue to be used for animal control services.

However, the county board hasn’t yet taken the additional step of authorizing the issuance of a civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog. There was no agenda item put forward for a vote on this issue at the Oct. 16 meeting, nor was there any resolution on the agenda regarding a new fee structure for dog licenses.

The county treasurer’s office is proposing to lower the current dog licensing fee from $12 to $6 per year for spayed or neutered dogs and from $24 to $12 per year for dogs that aren’t spayed or neutered. There would continue to be a discount for a three-year license. More information about current dog licenses are on the county website.

After the Oct. 16 meeting, county staff emailed a copy of the draft ordinance to The Chronicle. [.pdf of dog license ordinance] [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Present: Felicia Brabec, Andy LaBarre, Kent Martinez-Kratz, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Nov. 6, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

View looking north toward the city-owned Library Lot, taken from the fourth floor of the Ann Arbor District Library building. (Photos by the writer.)

The idea for a new park was among several recommendations approved by the commission at its Oct. 15, 2013 meeting, to be forwarded to the city council for consideration. The AADL was specifically mentioned in the Library Lot recommendation: “In order to adequately address issues of safety and security, the Ann Arbor District Library must also be strongly represented in the planning process.”

AADL director Josie Parker stressed that neither she nor board president Prue Rosenthal had indicated that the library is in any way capable of advising the city regarding security and safety of a park. They had attended a meeting of the downtown park subcommittee, she said, and had related the library’s experiences regarding a range of security issues at the downtown building. Parker reported that so far in 2013, the library has made police requests to its downtown building on average every 3.5 days.

Trustees generally expressed caution and noted that many questions remained about whether a downtown park at that location would be viable, without adequate oversight and additional development. Parker planned to relay the board’s concerns to the park advisory commission.

Another major item of discussion at the Oct. 21 meeting related to Pittsfield Township’s proposed State Street corridor improvement authority (CIA). Craig Lyon, director of utilities and municipal services for Pittsfield Township, and Dick Carlisle of Carlisle Wortman Associates were on hand to answer questions, as was CIA board member Claudia Kretschmer of Gym America. Trustees asked a range of questions, covering other financing options, the process for receiving federal funds, and the procedure for opting out of this new tax increment financing (TIF) authority.

If the board decides that AADL will opt out, a resolution would need to be passed. Taxing entities have a 60-day period in which to make an opt-out decision. That period began with an Oct. 9 public hearing held by the Pittsfield Township board, and will end in early December. The only AADL board meeting currently scheduled before then is on Nov. 11.

In its one main action item on Oct. 21, the board authorized a $40,000 adjustment to AADL’s 2013-14 budget to cover costs of repairs and testing of the downtown library roof. The adjustment transfers $40,000 from the library’s fund balance to the repair and maintenance line item. According to the most recent financial report, the library had a fund balance of $8.03 million as of Sept. 30, 2013.

During her director’s report, Parker highlighted some of the niche services that the library provides – such as hosting a Minecraft server and a recent Oculus Rift Hackathon. She said she wanted the board to think about the things that go beyond just lending books – services that are important to some but completely irrelevant to others. “The combination of it all is what makes the Ann Arbor District Library the amazing library system that we all know it is,” Parker said. “It’s the sum of all these parts, not one aspect or service.”

During committee reports, Nancy Kaplan noted that the communications committee hopes to receive a report later this month from Allerton-Hill Consulting to review. The consultants were hired earlier this year to conduct a communications audit for the library – a move that’s been criticized by some residents who believe the work is positioning AADL for another bond proposal to build a new downtown library.

For the first time in several months, no one spoke during public commentary at the board meeting.

Library Lot Park

Added to the agenda at the start of the Oct. 21 meeting was an item to discuss recent recommendations made by the city’s park advisory commission.

From left: AADL board president Prue Rosenthal and director Josie Parker.

By way of background, a subcommittee of the commission has been meeting since early 2013 to explore the possibilities for a new downtown park. They delivered a set of recommendations to the full commission at its Oct. 15, 2013 meeting. After minor amendments, the commission approved those recommendations, which will be forwarded to the city council. [.pdf of full subcommittee report]

The eight recommendations of PAC’s downtown park subcommittee are wide-ranging, but include a site-specific recommendation to develop a new park/open space area on the top of the Library Lot underground parking structure. Now a surface parking lot, the site is owned by the city and is situated just north of the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown building. The recommendation calls for only a portion of the site to be used for a new park/open space, and stresses that AADL should be involved in the planning process.

Specifically, that recommendation states:

8. Based on the aforementioned criteria, the Downtown Parks Subcommittee recommends that a park/open space be developed on the Library Lot that takes advantage of the flexibility offered through temporary closures of Library Lane. The size of this space should exceed the proposed allocated open space in the Connecting William Street study (5,000 square feet). However, the subcommittee is strongly in favor of a mixed-use vision for the Library Lot that utilizes the city’s investment in development-ready foundation and infrastructure. Development of the site and adjacent parcels, including the accompanying increases in activity, is essential for the future success of this site. In order to adequately address issues of safety and security, the Ann Arbor District Library must also be strongly represented in the planning process.

At the AADL board’s Oct. 21 meeting, director Josie Parker told trustees that she had asked for this agenda item to be added, because she thought that the park advisory commission report warranted a statement from the library. Earlier this year, Parker and board president Prue Rosenthal had been invited to attend a subcommittee meeting. They had shared that the downtown library employs four full-time security staff to deal with issues related to security, drug use, alcohol use, loitering and aggressive behavior between patrons, Parker said. No one has been aggressive to the staff to date, she added.

Parker and Rosenthal had told the subcommittee that they had concerns about adding a large open space adjacent to the downtown library. They also said that in concept, it sounds like a park would complement the library, but without continuous security, a high level of maintenance, and continuous programming, they were concerned that the space would “create a venue for behavioral issues we currently experience on a daily basis at the library,” Parker told the board. “We stand by that statement today.”

Parker reported that so far in 2013, the library makes police requests to its downtown building on average every 3.5 days. “That is relatively frequent,” she said.

While she appreciates the interest that the park commission is showing for the public library, Parker stressed that she and Rosenthal did not intend to indicate that the AADL is in any way capable of advising the city regarding security and safety of a park.

Barbara Murphy referred to a different section of the report that discusses problems with the Library Lot site. It states:

Placemaking principles raise a number of concerns regarding the Library Lot site. Currently, the space is poorly activated, facing the backs of buildings on Liberty, William and Division Streets, Fifth Street traffic, and the windowless side of the Library. This lack of eyes on the space raises a number of concerns regarding safety and the promotion of positive behavior. A sizeable park space in this location would require significant financial investment for enhanced security, daily maintenance, and staff dedicated to year-round programming.

The subcommittee’s own comments about the site lay out all the problems, Murphy noted. “It’s almost as if they’re saying it would be a good idea, but we can’t do it for all these reasons.”

Parker said she couldn’t speak for anyone at the city, but she wanted to make it very clear that she and Rosenthal did not intend to give the impression that the library would be able to give advice on safety and security in a public park.

Margaret Leary observed that there was a lot she could say about this report, but she wanted to keep her remarks focused on the library. In the past, when the library has been involved with discussions about the underground parking structure, library officials have clearly said that what should be located at the site is a very active, completely developed set of activities that would generate a lot of street traffic, 24/7. It needs to be controlled by someone – whether the police or the property owner – but it should be well taken care of, Leary said. To designate it as a park “seems to be putting the cart before the horse” before resolving the question of what else will be located there, she said.

Leary also wanted to know what the police experiences are in Liberty Plaza – the existing park at the southwest corner of Liberty and Division. Why isn’t the city fixing Liberty Plaza before developing a new park? How much will a new park cost, and who’ll pay for it? Which existing parks will suffer if resources are shifted to a new park? “I just think there are a lot of questions,” Leary said.

She added that she couldn’t find an answer in the report to the question of whether there should be more downtown parks. There wasn’t much of an analysis of that question, she said, unless you count the 1,608 people – out of the roughly 116,000 residents of Ann Arbor – who responded to a survey “that was only known about by people who wanted a park there, pretty much.” The survey appears to be the basis for the entire recommendation, Leary said, when in fact there are a lot of other ways that opinions could have been gathered.

AADL trustee Barbara Murphy.

Jan Barney Newman said she couldn’t agree more with Leary, and that she didn’t know how to respond – other than to state that the library isn’t equipped to give advice regarding park security. Newman said she had talked to one of her neighbors who had been very enthusiastic about a park at the Library Lot site. But when Newman enumerated the problems that could likely occur, she said her neighbor changed her mind. Newman joked that unfortunately, she couldn’t talk to all 1,608 people who took the survey. The board needs to figure out how to communicate that this isn’t a productive use of the space, she said.

Nancy Kaplan said the report indicated that a downtown park should be publicly and privately financed, with buildings around it to have eyes on the site. There’s definitely concern that the responsibility for safety and well-being, and things like the use of bathrooms, should not belong to the library, she said. “This report is a start, but it’s only a start – and it raises many, many questions.”

A lot of work needs to be done, Kaplan added, but a large percentage of people who took the survey did indicate they’d like to see a downtown park.

Newman responded, saying that the idea for Library Lot had been to develop it, with a park as part of a development. “It was not to have a park, then hope that you could find a commercial entity to be responsible for it,” she said. “It just doesn’t make sense.”

Kaplan felt it should happen at the same time – with development as part of any park on the site.

Rebecca Head said she didn’t see the recommendations as being strong. The park commission did the best that they could, she said, but she feared that people would cherry-pick exactly the recommendation that they wanted – rather than to take the set of recommendations and caveats as a whole. “It’s not clear here,” she said.

Murphy thought the report wasn’t asking the library for security advice, but was just acknowledging that the library should be consulted as part of the planning process, whenever that might happen. She added that she wasn’t worried about anything happening soon. “It’s Ann Arbor,” she said.

Rosenthal thought the recommendations were ambiguous, “and I think it’s fair enough on our part to be wary of it.”

Leary pointed out that it’s not the library’s responsibility to figure out how to plan a park on that site. She wasn’t sure it was good for AADL staff to spend time on it “because it’s not our problem.”

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Parker indicated that she’d be contacting Ingrid Ault, chair of the park advisory commission who also chaired the downtown park subcommittee, to communicate the board’s reaction to this report.

Pittsfield State Street Corridor Improvement Authority

Craig Lyon, director of utilities and municipal services for Pittsfield Township, and Dick Carlisle of Carlisle Wortman Associates attended the Oct. 21 meeting to answer questions about the township’s proposed corridor improvement authority (CIA) for State Street, south of Ann Arbor. They had made a presentation about the project at the board’s Sept. 16, 2013 meeting. The CIA would entail capturing a percentage of taxes from several local entities, including the Ann Arbor District Library.

The new authority is expected to help fund roughly $30 million in improvements on State Street over 20 years, roughly between Ellsworth Road and Michigan Avenue. The intent is to create a four-lane boulevard with a median, bike lanes and pedestrian pathways.

The library’s Pittsfield branch is located in the township, and a portion of the AADL district is included in the northern part of the proposed CIA. Under the CIA’s tax increment financing (TIF) plan, 50% of the increase in taxable value would be captured over a 20-year period to fund the CIA projects. The captured taxes would otherwise go to the entities that levy those taxes. Currently, AADL receives about $8,536 in taxes from taxpayers in the proposed CIA boundaries.

Dick Carlisle, a planning consultant for Pittsfield Township, and Claudia Kretschmer of Gym America. Kretschmer also serves on the board of the State Street corridor improvement authority.

In introducing the topic on Oct. 21, AADL director Josie Parker reported that she attended a recent CIA board meeting as well as the Oct. 9 public hearing held by the Pittsfield Township board of trustees. That hearing started the 60-day period during which taxing authorities in the proposed CIA have the opportunity to opt out.

Lyon introduced a CIA board member who also attended the Oct. 21 meeting: Claudia Kretschmer, founder and co-owner of Gym America. Kretschmer described Gym America, located at 4611 Platt Road, as a gymnastics school that has been in business for 34 years. They’re looking to expand and move to a location on Hines Drive off State Street. The school currently has about 700 students with another 200 on a waiting list. So they expect about 900 to 1,000 students when they open their new facility, she said.

The school will add a lot of traffic to State Street, she said, and the bulk of their business is at 4:30-5 p.m. Kretschmer noted that a lot of instructors are University of Michigan students, who would be able to ride the bus to Gym America when it’s located on State Street, after improvements are made. She also highlighted the competitions that are held by the school, which draw even more people to that area. The competitions are typically held at Saline High School.

Barbara Murphy asked if Gym America would be moving to Hines Drive if the CIA didn’t happen. It’s definitely a factor in choosing that location, Kretschmer replied. They haven’t yet closed the deal, she said. Other options include less expensive property in a more industrial location. No matter what, the school will expand, she said. They’ve been asked to consider locating to the Jackson Road area, and there’s more land available on that side of town, she said. But they want to stay in Pittsfield Township, because they’ve invested a lot in that community.

Lyon said that township officials have been asked why they need a TIF. He described it as a regional effort. The students who attend Gym America, for example, aren’t only coming from Pittsfield Township, he noted. They’re coming from all around Washtenaw County and beyond. Carlisle added that Kretschmer’s experience isn’t unique. In the State Street area, there are 40 companies that employ about 5,000 people. That’s a significant employment based for local residents, he said.

“We’ve been presenting this as a road project, but it’s really much more than that,” Carlisle said. “It’s really an economic development project that’s being facilitated by the improvement of road infrastructure.” He noted that improvements along the Jackson Road corridor in Scio Township brought a great deal of economic development to the township, school district and county at large – a more than 300% increase in taxable value since 1990. That’s the same thing that Pittsfield Township is trying to do, he said.

Pittsfield State Street CIA: Board Discussion – Opting Out

Jan Barney Newman asked if all the other taxing authorities have decided whether to be involved. [The jurisdictions that collect taxes within the CIA boundaries are: Pittsfield Township, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw County parks & recreation, Huron Clinton Metropolitan Authority (metro parks), Washtenaw Community College, Saline District Library, and Ann Arbor District Library.]

None of the other entities have dropped out, Carlisle replied. He noted that the county board of commissioners gave initial approval to join the CIA at their Oct. 16, 2013 meeting, with a final vote expected on Nov. 6. The WCC board hasn’t made a decision, Lyon reported, and will be discussing it at their first meeting in November.

Josie Parker asked how the formal opt-out process works. Carlisle said that passing a board resolution would be sufficient. That must be done with 60 days, starting with the Oct. 9 public hearing. So the last day to opt out would be Dec. 9.

Margaret Leary wondered what the Saline District Library has decided to do. Carlisle reported that the library board hasn’t made a formal opt-out decision at this point.

Pittsfield State Street CIA: Board Discussion – Funding Options

Nancy Kaplan wondered what other funding options are available. Lyon characterized other options as “few and far between.” A city like Ann Arbor receives Act 51 funds, which are generated by the state’s gas tax. Townships don’t receive those funds, he said. Townships rely solely on the county road commission.

AADL trustee Margaret Leary.

For major expansion projects like the State Street effort – increasing from two lanes to four lanes, adding bike lanes and pedestrian amenities – the federal government gets involved, which would generally fund 80% of the project, along with a 20% local match. Pittsfield Township approached the road commission and asked if the road commission’s Act 51 dollars could be used for a local match, Lyon said. But the road commission decided not to participate.

In 2005, the state legislature created the CIA as a mechanism for funding regional projects like the State Street improvements, Lyon explained.

Kaplan said she understood that Walmart had paid for road improvements near its new store in Pittsfield Township. Has there been any thought of asking companies that will directly benefit from these improvements to kick in? Lyon noted that one reason why the CIA improvements aren’t going all the way to Michigan Avenue is that improvements there have already been made. The road commission required traffic studies from both Walmart and Costco, located on Ellsworth, and ultimately required those businesses to make improvements in the road infrastructure. Costco, for example, was required to fund a portion of the roundabout at State and Ellsworth. Looking ahead, traffic studies for new development will continue to be required, he said, and that might result in additional road improvement funding.

Carlisle noted that the township isn’t trying to attract retail businesses along the State Street corridor. Companies like Walmart and Costco are looking for locations near population centers, and are generally willing to pay a reasonable amount to get their projects at those sites. But the kinds of businesses in the corridor are those that are being recruited by other Michigan communities and states, he said – research, industrial and high-tech companies that could easily go somewhere else, if the environment is more attractive. So other forms of financing, like a special assessment district (SAD), would be a disincentive for companies to locate there, he said. It would also be difficult to use a SAD because you have to prove that the cost is proportional to the benefits that a particular parcel receives. Another factor is that many parcels – about 40% of the corridor – are currently vacant, he noted.

The library would benefit from improvements to the taxable value of land in the corridor, Carlisle pointed out, while not having to provide additional services – because the development would not be primarily residential. “It’s a potential windfall for some of the special taxing jurisdictions, such as libraries and county parks,” he said.

Leary wondered why a bond couldn’t be used to fund the project. Carlisle noted that there has to be a way to pay off the bond. The township wouldn’t be able to take out a general obligation bond, he said, because it wouldn’t make sense for them “to pay the whole freight.” Leary questioned that response: “They wouldn’t do it? Or it wouldn’t make sense?” It’s doubtful that the township could do it, Carlisle replied – because the township likely wouldn’t have the resources to bond against its general obligations.

However, when the CIA is in place, there might be the opportunity to bond against TIF revenues, he said. But it would need to be structured to ensure that the bonds could be paid off.

Parker posed a scenario in which TIF funding occurs, but the federal funding isn’t secured. Would the township bond against the TIF in anticipation of federal funding? Lyon said the current approach is to make the improvements in a phased approach over 20 years, using the TIF funds that are available, with a construction phase every 5-7 years. Bonding would make the overall expense of this project much greater, he pointed out, because of additional interest costs. So even with low-interest bonds of 3-4%, you’d end up spending almost double the cost of the project. Limiting the bonding is a preferred approach, he said.

Parker wondered when the township will know whether the federal funding is being awarded. Lyon said the township recently received approval from the state for a FONSI (finding of no significant impact). Carlisle explained that this means the federal government has signed off on an environmental assessment, which found that these proposed improvements won’t affect the environment. “That’s a huge step toward securing federal road funding,” he said. It’s not a slam-dunk, he added, but it’s now in the queue for funding.

A view showing the northern portion of the proposed corridor improvement authority (CIA) for State Road in Pittsfield Township, starting at the I-94 interchange. The red parcels indicate land that’s developed. Yellow parcels are undeveloped land. (Image links to .pdf file showing entire corridor boundaries.)

Lyon reported that when the township applies for federal funds, it will be asked about the revenue source for local matching funds. That’s when it will be important to show that the township has a CIA structure in place and money in the bank, he said. Securing federal funds could happen quickly, or it could take several years, he noted.

Parker asked what would be a reasonable time to wait for federal funding, before deciding to dissolve the CIA and refund the TIF money to the taxing jurisdictions. Lyon said that if nothing is done in the first 10 years, township officials will have to look at why the project isn’t moving forward. But all indicators show that the funding will likely be available, he said.

Carlisle felt there was a lot of momentum for this project. Ann Arbor SPARK has endorsed it, and the road commission has made a major commitment – even though it isn’t investing directly, he said. The roundabout at State and Ellsworth was essentially the first phase of this project, he said. Carlisle added that he’d be very surprised if they didn’t have at least initial funding lined up in 5-6 years.

Lyon noted that an annual report will be provided to the CIA board, the township board of trustees, and to each taxing jurisdiction. So each year they’ll review the status of the work.

Leary wondered if the state enabling legislation put any limit on the time that can pass before securing federal funding. Not beyond the sunset date in the plan, Carlisle said – a 20-year timeframe, through 2033.

Parker said the AADL’s concern is that the plan could result in the township banking TIF funds for 20 years, even if the road improvements don’t occur.

Lyon said he’s never seen a project like this not get funded. Carlisle added that the township could provide assurance that they will apply for federal funding. If the library board is looking for next steps in terms of providing federal funding, the township could provide that, he said. But they can’t provide assurances about when the funding might be secured.

Pittsfield State Street CIA: Board Discussion – Other Issues

Leary wondered how this project would be coordinated with Ann Arbor South State Street corridor plan, which was recently added to the city’s master plan. [.pdf of State Street corridor plan] Carlisle and Lyon indicated that aspects of the work – such as non-motorized paths – will line up with similar improvements in Ann Arbor’s portion of State Street. The township and city coordinate regularly, Carlisle said. He noted that there are coordinated planning provisions under Michigan law that require the sharing of planning documents. The two jurisdictions are also among the four entities that are working on Washtenaw Avenue improvements. Lyon reported that the roundabout at State and Ellsworth required coordination among Pittsfield Township, Ann Arbor and the county road commission.

Kaplan cited Carlisle’s comments about the increase in taxable value along Jackson Road. She wondered what Pittsfield Township was expecting. Lyon replied that the township is estimating a 250% increase in taxable value. The Jackson Road corridor improvements resulted in a 375% increase. All of the Pittsfield Township projections have been conservative, he said. Carlisle added that you don’t want to over-promise and under-deliver.

Kaplan also asked about tax abatements that are given to some businesses in Pittsfield Township. She noted that she had attended the township board meeting when the public hearing was held, and other agenda items included awarding tax abatements. Carlisle confirmed that when abatements are awarded, that results in less money for the CIA. He said this is a discussion that the township officials are having – the impact of abatements on the CIA. “It would ultimately be counterproductive for this,” he said.

Rebecca Head asked about the Ann Arbor airport: Would that contribute to the CIA? Lyon noted that the airport isn’t part of the CIA because as public land, no property taxes are paid on that property.

Barbara Murphy noted that there’s been a lot of talk about expanding the airport. How would that impact the plans for the CIA? Carlisle didn’t think it would be an issue, in part because it’s not possible to expand the airport toward State Street, where the CIA boundaries would be affected.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

2013-14 Budget Adjustment

The AADL board was asked to authorize a $40,000 adjustment to AADL’s 2013-14 budget to cover costs of repairs and testing of the downtown library roof.

The adjustment transfers $40,000 from the library’s fund balance to the repair and maintenance line item. According to the most recent financial report, the library had a fund balance of $8.03 million as of Sept. 30, 2013. The line item for repairs and maintenance that was approved as part of the 2013-14 was $302,000 for the entire fiscal year, which began on July 1, 2013. The board approved the budget at its May 6, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of 2013-14 budget summary]

AADL trustee Jan Barney Newman.

Ken Nieman, AADL’s associate director of finance, HR and operations, reminded the board that during budget discussions, they’d talked about using reserves for any big projects that might emerge during the year. It would be possible to pay for it out of the current budgeted line item for repair and maintenance, he said, but later in the year the library would likely deplete that budgeted amount and need to return to the board for a budget adjustment anyway.

Three repairs need to be completed before the winter, he said. The canopy over the entryway needs work, as does the roof that transitions between the second and third floors. Also, some metal work needs to be done on the atrium over the stairwell. The contractor would return in the spring to do more work, including tests to check the condition of the entire roof.

In response to a question from Prue Rosenthal, Nieman said the roof over the newest portion of the building was put on in 1990. Portions over other parts of the building are likely older. Margaret Leary said she thought it made sense to do the work now.

Repair and maintenance of the downtown facility has been an issue at recent meetings. At the board’s meeting on Aug. 19, 2013, Leary reported that the board’s facilities committee had given AADL director Josie Parker the go-ahead to get cost estimates for renovating the entry of the downtown library, including replacement of the front doors. It’s not yet clear if the project would require board approval.

The library board and administration had hoped to build a new downtown library, but a bond proposal to fund that project was defeated by voters in November 2012.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the budget adjustment.

Financial Report

Ken Nieman – the library’s associate director of finance, HR and operations – gave a brief report on the September 2013 financial statements included in the board packet. [.pdf of financial statements]

The unrestricted cash balance was $14.6 million as of Sept. 30, 2013. By the end of September, the library had received 81.7% ($9.353 million) of its budgeted tax receipts. [The library's fiscal year starts July 1. Summer property taxes are collected in July.] The fund balance at the end of September was $8.03 million.

Nine items are currently over budget, Nieman reported, mostly due to large payments made during the first quarter of the fiscal year. The items are expected to come back in line with budgeted amounts by the end of the fiscal year. The over-budget line items are: (1) employment costs related to merit increases paid in July; (2) purchased services; (3) utilities; (4) communications, for an annual Internet-related payment; (5) software; (6) building rental – for summer taxes and common area maintenance (CAM) charges at the Westgate branch; (7) copier/printer maintenance; (8) supplies, for new self-check stations; and (9) circulation supplies.

It was generally a normal month, he concluded.

There was one clarificational question, but otherwise no board discussion on this item.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Committee Reports

The board has six committees: communications, budget and finance, facilities, policy, director’s evaluation, and executive. Three brief committee reports were made during the Oct. 21 board meeting.

Committee Reports: Communications

Nancy Kaplan said the communications committee would be meeting next week, and hoped to have a report from Allerton-Hill Consulting to review.

Committee Reports: Executive

Prue Rosenthal, AADL board president, reported that the executive committee met “to discuss some of the issues that have been going on around the library, and we did not come to any particular conclusions and we will continue to discuss them and come back to you in November.” She did not elaborate.

Committee Reports: Policy

Barbara Murphy told the board that the policy committee met earlier this month. The staff had reviewed the policy manual and prepared a list of updates and proposed changes. It was a long meeting, she said, and the committee reviewed the staff’s suggestions. Staff members will now be incorporating the committee’s feedback into a new draft, which the committee will review at its next meeting.

Prue Rosenthal and Nancy Kaplan praised the staff for its work on this project. Kaplan said she was struck by the library’s generosity, as reflected in its policies.

Director’s Report

AADL director Josie Parker gave highlights from her written report. [.pdf of October director's report] She noted that she’d met with a group of people earlier in the day and it was mentioned that the library has a Minecraft server. For people who know about Minecraft, “it’s a really big deal,” she noted. The library does a lot of things that fall into that category, Parker added – things that unique and discrete groups really appreciate and identify with. That’s part of what makes the library as good as it is, she said, but it’s also part of the problem, in that not everyone knows everything that happens at AADL.

The Ann Arbor District Library board got an update on services for educators and students from associate director Celeste Choate, who is standing at the podium.

Parker said she thought about this when she read the first sentence of her director’s report: “The Oculus Rift Hackathon was held on the weekend of October 11-13th.” Three months ago, Parker said, she didn’t know what an Oculus Rift Hackathon meant. She wanted the board to think about these things that are important to some and completely irrelevant to others. “The combination of it all is what makes the Ann Arbor District Library the amazing library system that we all know it is. It’s the sum of all these parts, not one aspect or service.” Usually most people think about the library’s main service as the lending of books, Parker said. AADL still does that, she added, but there are so many other things as well.

Parker explained that Oculus Rift is a virtual reality game that requires wearing a head-mounted device. She likened it to the Star Trek holodeck. Prue Rosenthal asked if anyone could play it. In the absence of Eli Neiburger – AADL’s associate director of IT and product development who was in New Zealand – the questions were fielded by Kip DeGraaf of the library’s IT staff. He described Oculus Rift as a way of interacting with other games. Tim Grimes, AADL’s manager of community relations and marketing, explained that the hackathon entailed people developing new programs for this virtual reality system.

Board members asked several more questions about Minecraft. The library’s server is limited to creation activities, not war or violence, Parker said. People are challenged “to create an Ann Arbor that they’d like to live in.” She told board members that if they’d like to experience it, that could be arranged. Rosenthal reported that her son is taking her grandson to a Minecraft conference later this month.

Margaret Leary asked whether the use of the Minecraft server shows up in the AADL’s monthly statistics report. DeGraaf replied that those statistics haven’t yet been incorporated into the report. Leary wondered whether the virtual Ann Arbor being created by Minecraft would be of interest to local policymakers.

Other aspects of Parker’s report included ways that AADL interacts with University of Michigan students, and a presentation that Mariah Cherem made at EarthFest 2013. Parker also reported that a recent presentation made by Sherlonya Turner at the Michigan Library Association is receiving positive feedback. Also receiving a positive response was an MLA presentation by Celeste Choate about medical research and information.

The library also recently hosted an event with Bill Minutaglio, author of “Dallas 1963″ about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Parker reported that a man who attended the event had been in the honor guard that stood with JFK’s coffin. The event was well-attended, she said.

AADL Educational Services

The meeting concluded with a presentation about the range of AADL services for educators and students.

Sherlonya Turner, manager of youth and adult services and collections.

Celeste Choate – associate director of services, collections and access – noted that the library issues library cards to educators of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District and Ann Arbor Public Schools instructors who don’t live within the AADL district. You can also get a card if you’re a tutor, with a letter from your tutoring agency. She talked about the types of outreach that’s done to contact educators about this service. There are 24 cards issued to tutors, and 99 cards for non-resident instructors.

The library tries to attract educators through some of AADL’s new collections, Choate said. Those include digital microscopes, dinosaur kits, and musical instruments.

Sherlonya Turner, manager of youth and adult services and collections, talked to the board about the annual second-grade visit program, which has been taking place for many years. In 2012, 1,278 second-grade students from AAPS and charter schools came to the library. The Friends of the Library subsidizes the cost of busing students for this program. As a result, AADL gave out over 500 library cards.

The library staff also goes out into the schools every May to promote AADL’s summer game. In 2012, the staff visited 18 of 21 elementary schools, as well as all five AAPS middle schools and four private schools. There are also a variety of other outreach programs, Turner said. In addition, the staff develops curated lists of reading materials for students, and provides homework services like Brainfuse, which is offered online, as well as on-site tutors.

Terry Soave, manager of outreach and neighborhood services, talked about outreach to non-traditional students. AAPS adult education offers free GED classes at the Mallets Creek library branch, for example. Numbers are increasing, from 48 students in 2010-11 to 57 students in 2012-13.

Soave also described the Widening Advancements for Youth (WAY) program, an online public high school program. Part of the requirement is that students have to attend an on-site learning lab a minimum of two days a week, and AADL’s downtown library serves as one of the two locations in Washtenaw County for these labs.

The final program that Soave highlighted is called Library Songsters, coordinated by Ira Lax. It brings together local musicians – including Mr. B and Peter Madcat Ruth – with students who collaborate to write a song related to a theme that’s being studied in the schools. The presentation concluded with a video of fifth-grade students at Lawton Elementary who were studying core democratic values. They worked with their music teacher, Cynthia Page-Bogen, and musician Joe Reilly on a song about democracy.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Present: Rebecca Head, Nancy Kaplan, Margaret Leary, Barbara Murphy, Jan Barney Newman, Prue Rosenthal. Also AADL director Josie Parker.

Absent: Ed Surovell.

Next meeting: Monday, Nov. 11, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the fourth-floor conference room of the downtown library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

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

From left: Consultant Dick Carlisle and Craig Lyon, director of utilities and municipal services for Pittsfield Township, attended the Sept. 16, 2013 meeting of the Ann Arbor District Library board, which was held at the Malletts Creek branch on East Eisenhower. The men gave a presentation on a proposed State Road corridor improvement authority in the township. (Photos by the writer.)

Planning consultant Dick Carlisle and Craig Lyon, director of utilities and municipal services for Pittsfield Township, described the new authority and the roughly $30 million in improvements it would fund between the I-94 interchange and Michigan Avenue. The intent is to create a four-lane boulevard with a median, bike lanes and pedestrian pathway.

The library’s Pittsfield branch is located in the township, and a portion of the AADL district is included in the northern part of the proposed CIA. Under the CIA’s tax increment financing plan, 50% of the increase in taxable value would be captured over a 20-year period to fund the CIA projects. The captured taxes would otherwise go to the entities that levy those taxes. Currently, AADL receives about $8,536 in taxes from taxpayers in the proposed CIA boundaries.

In responding to questions from trustees, Carlisle alluded to ongoing controversy related to the TIF capture by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. He said that’s why Pittsfield Township is offering to enter into specific agreements with each taxing jurisdiction “that will carefully spell out the limitations on what will actually occur here. So this way, there is no blank check. It is very specific that what we are saying here is exactly what we are going to do.”

A two-year disagreement has persisted over the way the Ann Arbor DDA  calculates its TIF capture, which includes capture of AADL taxes. For the latest Chronicle coverage on this issue, see: “Library View on DDA TIF Capture: Unchanged.”

When the Ann Arbor DDA was formed in the early 1980s, the state enabling legislation for DDAs did not allow for taxing jurisdictions to opt out of participation. However,  CIA legislation includes an opt-out provision. AADL and other taxing entities will have a 60-day period to make that decision. That period is expected to begin when the Pittsfield Township board holds a public hearing about the CIA proposal on Oct. 9.

Based on questions from AADL trustees, they may be skeptical about whether participating in the CIA would be a wise move for the library.

The CIA presentation was the library board’s main agenda item on Sept. 16. The board also reviewed data for the month of August in five categories: Collections, users, visits, usage and participation. In addition, associate director Eli Neiburger presented highlights from the AADL summer game, which wrapped up last month.

During her director’s report, Josie Parker noted that AADL recently released an archive feature on the history of the Ann Arbor Garden Club. It’s part of a broader archiving effort on local history, which includes architecture, cooking, the Ann Arbor police department and several other organizations and topics. Parker said AADL staff would be pleased to talk to anyone who’s interested in archiving the history of other local organizations online.

Parker also told trustees that she’s been invited by the Journal of Library Administration to serve on its editorial board and to write a quarterly column. The journal has historically been limited to administration in academic and specialty libraries, but the new editor and review board wanted to add a public library administrator’s voice to the publication. “I’ve been invited to be that voice, and I’ve accepted,” Parker said.

Items raised during public commentary on Sept. 16 related to a Freedom of Information Act request regarding the 2012 library bond campaign, as well as a plea to renovate the front entrance of the downtown library “from bunker chic to pedestrian friendly.” A topic mentioned at the AADL board’s Aug. 19, 2013 meeting was replacement of the front doors to the downtown library, and possibly undertaking broader renovations at the entrance.

Pittsfield Township Corridor Improvement Authority

Craig Lyon, director of utilities and municipal services for Pittsfield Township, and Dick Carlisle of Carlisle Wortman Associates made a presentation to the AADL board about the township’s proposed corridor improvement authority (CIA) for State Road, south of Ann Arbor.

Carlisle Wortman Associates is the planner for this project, as well as the township’s overall planning consultant. Lyon gave a brief introduction, explaining that the project extends from the I-94 interchange with South State, down through the intersection at Ellsworth and continuing south on State Road to Michigan Avenue. He traced the project’s impetus to 2006, when the Washtenaw County road commission began studying the corridor and determined that there was heavy traffic congestion, and that the road can’t provide the level of service that’s needed. It impacts businesses and residents, Lyon noted. “Going down there at about 4:30 in the afternoon is a lot of fun,” he joked, referring to the congestion at rush hour.

A view showing the northern portion of the proposed corridor improvement authority (CIA) for State Road in Pittsfield Township, starting at the I-94 interchange. The red parcels indicate land that’s developed. Yellow parcels are undeveloped land. (Image links to .pdf file showing entire corridor boundaries.)

Carlisle expanded on details of the project, which would be phased over a 20-year period. South of Ellsworth, State Road currently is two lanes, and has been inadequate for the amount of traffic since well before 2006, he said. It’s a major conduit between Ann Arbor and communities in southern Washtenaw County, including Pittsfield Township and the city of Saline. He noted that part of Pittsfield Township is in AADL’s district. The corridor also is a major center for economic activity that benefits all the taxing jurisdictions, Carlisle said, including AADL. That economic activity could be jeopardized and stifled because of inadequate road infrastructure, he noted.

Most of the township’s major employers are located near State Road, and over 40% of land near the corridor is zoned for businesses, primarily research & development, light manufacturing and other industries that provide “quality jobs” for people in the county, Carlisle said.

The first step in this kind of project is to conduct an environmental assessment, Carlisle said, to qualify the project for federal funding. The environmental assessment identified the preferred design for State Road as a boulevard style – a four-lane road with a central median, similar to the section of Eisenhower Parkway that also intersects with State to the north. The design would also accommodate non-motorized transportation, with bike lanes and a 10-foot pathway for pedestrians. Roundabouts would be added at Morgan, Textile and Old State Street, similar to the roundabout at Ellsworth.

When completed, traffic flow and safety will be improved, Carlisle said, and the corridor will accommodate all types of users, including vehicles, pedestrians, mass transit and bicyclists. He noted that Pittsfield Township has been involved in efforts to try to expand transit options in the county. The improved corridor would also promote economic development, Carlisle said, noting that 40% of the property in that area is now vacant.

The project is estimated to cost $30 million, in 2012 dollars. The challenge for any local government, especially townships, is the fact that townships don’t have a separate funding authority to pay for roads, Carlisle said. To qualify for federal funding, the township has to raise 20% in matching funds, he noted. He said the county road commission won’t invest in road capacity projects like this.

A corridor improvement authority (CIA) is a mechanism to raise the money, Carlisle explained. It would affect the AADL because the library levies taxes on a small portion of the proposed CIA, he said, on the northern end.

The CIA allows the township to raise money through tax increment financing (TIF). The first step to do that is to create a development and tax increment financing plan, which the Pittsfield Township board voted unanimously to receive at its Sept. 11, 2013 meeting. The township board would still need to vote to adopt the plan at a later date. [.pdf of Pittsfield Township CIA development and TIF plan] At that same Sept. 11 meeting, the township board adopted the CIA’s bylaws and rules of procedure. [.pdf of Pittsfield Township CIA bylaws and rules]

The TIF plan establishes a base year – in this case 2013. Eligible taxing jurisdictions would retain all tax revenues from the base year taxable value. By law, a TIF authority could capture 100% of the increase in taxable value over that base year, or it could capture just a portion of that increase. Pittsfield Township is proposing to capture 50% of the increase in taxable value.

AADL board members listen to a presentation about the proposed Pittsfield Township corridor improvement authority (CIA), given by Dick Carlisle and Craig Lyon.

So AADL would keep the amount of taxes in the base year, Carlisle said, plus 50% of any increase in tax revenues that is tied to the increase in taxable value of property in the CIA. This TIF capture would be in effect throughout the 20-year span of the CIA, he said.

The jurisdictions that collect taxes within the CIA boundaries are: Pittsfield Township, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw County parks & recreation, Huron Clinton Metropolitan Authority (metro parks), Washtenaw Community College, Saline District Library, and Ann Arbor District Library.

Any of the jurisdictions have the ability to opt out of the CIA, Carlisle noted. That decision must occur within 60 days of the township’s public hearing on the development and TIF plan. He said the township was sensitive to the fact that other taxing jurisdictions would want as much information as possible in order to make a decision, and that’s why he and Lyon were making presentations in advance of the point at which a decision must be made.

TIF funds can only be spent in the CIA district, and only on projects that are included in the development plan, he said. Pittsfield Township’s plan is very specific and focused just on the roadway and associated improvements, he noted. “There are no hidden projects within this particular proposal,” he said.

The township will hold a public hearing on the CIA on Oct. 9. That starts the 60-day clock for taxing jurisdictions to decide whether to opt out. If the library board takes no action, that means the AADL would be participating for the CIA’s 20-year period.

The AADL would be affected in the following ways, Carlisle said:

• The base year (2013) taxable value for the AADL within the CIA district is $5.507 million.
• Currently, AADL receives about $8,536 in taxes from taxpayers in the CIA boundaries.
• For the CIA’s 20-year duration, AADL would continue to receive its base year tax revenues. For any incremental increase in taxable value, the library would retain 50% of tax revenues. Carlisle estimated that in total over the 20-year period, that would amount to $120,436 for AADL.

Carlisle concluded by reiterating the benefits expected from the CIA: improved traffic operation and increased safety, an accommodation of different modes of transportation, and an increase in economic development that results in increased tax revenues for all jurisdictions.

Pittsfield Township CIA: Board Discussion

Margaret Leary asked for confirmation that the underlying state statue enabling a CIA – as opposed to a downtown development authority (DDA) – allows for a 50% split in tax capture, as well as an opt-out provision. Yes, Carlisle replied. Leary, retired director of the Law Library at the University of Michigan Law School, then asked for the specific statute that enabled the CIA. Carlisle said he didn’t have that information on hand, but he could provide it later. [The statute is Act 280 of the Public Act of 2005.]

AADL trustee Margaret Leary.

Carlisle offered to paraphrase the statute. It states that the CIA can capture all or a portion of the tax increment from the eligible taxing jurisdictions. The statute is also very specific in stating that this is not something that can be imposed on the taxing jurisdictions, he said. “You have the ability to opt out.”

Carlisle also alluded to ongoing issues related to the Ann Arbor DDA. “We’re aware of some of the issues that have occurred elsewhere regarding tax increment financing,” he said. It’s understandable that there are concerns, so Pittsfield Township is offering to enter into specific agreements with each taxing jurisdiction “that will carefully spell out the limitations on what will actually occur here,” Carlisle said. “So this way, there is no blank check. It is very specific that what we are saying here is exactly what we are going to do.”

[By way of brief background, a two-year disagreement has persisted over the way the Ann Arbor DDA  calculates its TIF capture, which includes capture of AADL taxes. For the latest Chronicle coverage on this issue, see: "Library View on DDA TIF Capture: Unchanged."]

Carlisle told AADL trustees that details would be stated in an intergovernmental agreement between the township and each taxing jurisdiction. That agreement is in a draft form for the AADL board, administration and legal counsel to review. [Carlisle did not provide a copy of the draft agreement during the meeting, nor did he have on hand a copy of the draft development & TIF plan. Those were later sent to AADL administration and the board.] [.pdf of draft intergovernmental agreement] [.pdf of draft development & TIF plan]

As a board member, Leary said, she’d like to see such an agreement before she voted on whether to opt out.

Leary also asked for Carlisle’s comments regarding common criticisms of TIFs: (1) that TIFs take money that voters thought would go to AADL, and would allow the CIA to use that money for other purposes without the permission of taxpayers; and (2) that TIFs also take responsibility out of the hands of elected officials, like the AADL board, for determining how that money is spent.

Carlisle argued that the CIA’s TIF wouldn’t be taking responsibility out of the AADL board’s hands, because the AADL board would be entering into an agreement about how the TIF money would be spent. If that agreement isn’t followed, the board would have means to seek remedy, he said. Leary asked what the remedy would be. Anything that’s outlined in the intergovernmental agreement, Carlisle replied.

Lyon explained that the agreement will clearly state that the funds generated through the TIF can only be spent on items identified in the development & TIF plan. The AADL board would have control by making a decision upfront on how the TIF money will be spent over a 20-year period, he said.

Leary then observed that it seemed the remedy, if this agreement is violated, would be for the library to sue the township. Carlisle replied that there could be other means of remedy identified in the agreement, but he did not give any example of what such an alternative might be.

Regarding Leary’s question about taxpayer intent, Carlisle characterized it as the largest philosophical debate surrounding the TIF concept. The question is whether the taxing jurisdictions would receive the benefit of an increased tax base, if the improvement weren’t made. “I would suggest you would not,” he said. As evidence, Carlisle pointed to the Jackson Road boulevard project in Scio Township, which began in 1987. That has resulted in over a 300% increase in taxable value there, he said. He didn’t think anyone would say that the economic development there would have occurred if Jackson Road had remained a two-lane road. “We believe the same thing is going to be true on State Road,” he said.

The nature of the development on State Road will likely be different, Carlisle continued, because it will be more of an employment corridor for high tech and other businesses. But it won’t happen without an improvement to State Road, he said.

AADL trustees Ed Surovell and Nancy Kaplan.

Nancy Kaplan wondered what would happen if not enough of the taxing jurisdictions agree to participate. Carlisle replied that the township board would have to decide whether to continue. That’s one reason why he’s advising the township board not to adopt the development and TIF plan until after the 60-day opt-out period. If there’s not a critical mass of participating jurisdictions, the township board will need to decide if there are enough participants to proceed.

Some of these issues could be covered in the intergovernmental agreement, Carlisle said.

AADL director Josie Parker asked what would happen if it’s just a straight TIF proposal, with no separate intergovernmental agreement. Carlisle said that if the AADL doesn’t opt out, “then you are in.” Responding to another query from Parker, Carlisle said that the law requires a development and TIF plan, and that the plan must identify projects to be paid for with TIF revenues. If the projects are never implemented, “then the law requires that the money is returned to the taxing jurisdictions,” he said.

Leary asked for clarification about the opt-out process. Carlisle explained that the township will hold a public hearing about the CIA on Oct. 9 – the 60-day opt-out period begins at that point. The township board won’t adopt the development & TIF plan until after the opt-out period, but the plan won’t change during that time, he said.

Lyon said that the township board would likely vote to adopt the plan at their Dec. 11 meeting. Between Oct. 9 and Dec. 11, an agreement would be developed between AADL and the township. Starting in 2014, the CIA would capture the TIF revenues. The first phase of construction wouldn’t likely begin until enough funds are accumulated through the CIA, which would probably take 5-6 years, Lyon said.

Prue Rosenthal wondered what would happen if only a couple of the taxing jurisdictions participated. Carlisle replied that the project would have to be scaled back to fit the available financing.

Kaplan asked why the township was pursing the CIA approach, rather than issuing bonds for this project. Carlisle described a TIF as the most equitable way to finance a project that benefits more than just the township. With a bond, it would only be the taxpayers of Pittsfield Township who would pay, he added. He noted that Pittsfield Township will be participating too, in that 50% of its tax revenues within the CIA district will be captured for the project.

Kaplan then asked if Pittsfield Township paid for the environmental assessment. Lyon replied that federal funds helped pay for that.

Leary wondered what other options the township has for raising this money. “Nothing,” Lyon replied. Carlisle added that the township could pay for it with its own tax revenue, “at the peril of all other services.” He reiterated that bonding would require payment by the township’s taxpayers, even though the project would benefit a much broader constituency.

Leary pointed out that the effect would be to raise Pittsfield Township’s tax base. Yes, Lyon said, but it would raise the tax revenues for other taxing jurisdictions too, including AADL. He noted that one of the main differences between Pittsfield Township and the city of Ann Arbor,  or any city, is that the township doesn’t capture any Act 51 (gas tax) dollars from the state. If the township could get Act 51 money, then “the dynamics of this scenario would completely change,” Lyon said.

All of the township’s roads are under the jurisdiction of the Washtenaw County road commission, Lyon explained. And the road commission has indicated that it won’t participate in this project, because it’s a capacity-building project, not a road maintenance project.

Prue Rosenthal, AADL board president.

Parker asked if that was an arbitrary decision made by the road commission. No, Carlisle said, not if you consider the diminished funding that the road commission has received. Like all road commissions in that state, he added, “they’re generally scrambling just to try to maintain what they have.”

Parker got clarification that the road commission does, in fact, have discretion to do this kind of project. Carlisle replied that the road commission could do it, but it would take away from other road improvement projects in the county.

Kaplan wanted to know if the township was going to use the power of eminent domain to take property in order to widen the road. Carlisle said there will be “some necessity for right-of-way acquisition.” However, condemnation is the last resort, he said, although the CIA does have that authority.

When asked who specifically will be making the decisions for the CIA, Lyon replied that the CIA has its own board, which includes the township supervisor, Mandy Grewal. Other members are Claudia Kretschmer (business representative), Roger Jackson (business representative), Bill Linfield (business representative), Bill Reminder (township resident), and David Sarns (business representative), who serves as chair. Lyon is a liaison between the CIA board and the township board, which appointed the CIA board members.

Leary asked when the AADL board could get copies of the interlocal agreement and the development and TIF plan. Carlisle told her that he could provide those the following day. [.pdf of draft interlocal agreement] [.pdf of development & TIF plan]

In describing her view toward the CIA, Leary said she could understand how an entity like the county parks & recreation commission might embrace it, because the CIA’s goals mirror many of the goals in the parks & rec strategic plan, like improving non-motorized transportation and increasing pedestrian access. Therefore, the parks & rec commission has a motive to financially support the CIA, because it would otherwise spend its own money on projects that are part of the corridor improvements.

However, Leary added, “I’m struggling because [the library is] not here to provide transportation.” Leary said she understands how the improvements would benefit AADL and she understands how tax increment financing works. But she was struggling with how to justify taking $120,000 out of the library’s revenues – or whatever the amount will turn out to be. She noted that no one knows how much could be involved, because it depends on the economy and other factors. It would be less than $120,000 – or more. Participating in the CIA would take that money away from books, speakers, building improvements – “all of the things that we were authorized by the voters who elected us to do,” Leary said.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Financial Report

Ken Nieman – the library’s associate director of finance, HR and operations – gave a brief report on the August 2013 financial statements included in the board packet. [.pdf of financial statements]

The unrestricted cash balance was $13.75 million as of Aug. 31, 2013. That’s mainly due to the receipt of taxes collected in July. By the end of August, the library had received 65.2% ($7.465 million) of its budgeted tax receipts. [The library's fiscal year starts July 1. Summer property taxes are collected in July.] The fund balance at the end of August was $8.056 million.

Four items are currently over budget but are expected to come back in line as the year progresses, Nieman reported. The over-budget line items are: (1) employment costs related to merit increases; (2) purchased services; (3) communications, for an annual Internet-related payment; and (4) software.

There was nothing out of the ordinary, he concluded.

Financial Report: Board Discussion

Nancy Kaplan pointed out that at last month’s meeting, a member of the public [Lyn Davidge] had asked that explanations be given for any major financial items, such as claims. Kaplan asked Nieman to report on variances for two line items in the budget – materials and LCards/circulation cards. [Materials through Aug. 31 had been budgeted at $145,833 and the actual amount in that line item is $92,210. For LCards, the budgeted amount of $6,000 is unspent so far.]

Nieman said those items reflect timing issues. For materials, more money will be spent later in the year when new releases come out. Spending on LCards usually comes in “big chunks,” he said, because large amounts of library cards are ordered whenever the library is close to running out of them. Orders are typically $5,000. So the amounts can fluctuate, depending on when the need to order arises.

There was no additional discussion, nor any discussion about the August disbursements, which require board approval. [.pdf of August disbursements]

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the August 2013 disbursements.

Director’s Report

AADL director Josie Parker highlighted several items from her written director’s report. [.pdf of September director's report] She noted that associate director Celeste Choate had been invited to make a presentation at the National Institutes of Health Partners in Research 6th annual Clinical and Translational Science Award conference in Bethesda, Maryland. The conference theme was “Science of Community-Engaged Research,” which is something that Choate has been working on for several years, Parker said.

Parker reported that a photo from AADL’s participation in the 2010 Top of the Park will be included in a slideshow by the American Library Association titled “60 Ways to Use Your Library Card,” as part of ALA’s National Library Card month.

Also, AADL has scanned issues of the Ann Arbor Sun, which will be included in Independent Voices, a collection of alternative newspapers, journals and magazines. Independent Voices is published by Reveal Digital, based in Saline. It’s part of a broader effort– including the licensing work that associate director Eli Neiburger described to the board at its Aug. 19, 2013 meeting – to get as much information out to the public as possible, Parker said. It demonstrates what open access can do, she noted, without violating anyone’s copyright.

Parker also reported that on Sept. 11, AADL released an archive feature on the history of the Ann Arbor Garden Club. It’s part of a broader archiving effort on local history, which includes architecture, cooking, the Ann Arbor police department and several other organizations and topics. Parker said AADL staff would be pleased to talk to anyone who’s interested in archiving a local organization’s history online.

Parker told trustees that she’s been invited by the Journal of Library Administration to serve on its editorial board and to write a quarterly column. The journal has historically been limited to administration in academic and specialty libraries, but the new editor and review board wanted to add a public library administrator’s voice to the publication. “I’ve been invited to be that voice, and I’ve accepted,” Parker said. She received a round of applause from the board.

Finally, Parker highlighted a Sept. 5 article in the Michigan Daily by Noah Cohen: “Literati story continues to unfold.” It’s about bookstores and reading, but the article includes the Ann Arbor District Library as part of the conversation, Parker said, “because it’s that important of a place, like bookstores, for readers and reading.” From the article:

Even on dates, since I never had a car, I’d just say, “Meet me in Borders; I’ll be in the young adult section.” That was what downtown meant — Borders, Shaman Drum, Michigan Book & Supply, Dawn Treader, Vault of Midnight, David’s Bookshop and the Ann Arbor Public Library. Not a coffee shop nor a park; not a pub nor an arcade. We had those, but they couldn’t be home base. They didn’t have the magic gravity.

Library Stats

At the board’s Aug. 19, 2013 meeting, trustees had received a briefing on a new format for presenting AADL statistics. On Sept. 16, Eli Neiburger – AADL’s associate director of IT and product development – continued with this approach, providing details in five categories for the month of August: Collections, users, visits, usage and participation. In addition, Neiburger reviewed highlights from the AADL summer game. The data also includes comparisons to August 2012, when available.

AADL collections data: August 2013

AADL user data: August 2013

AADL visits: August 2013

AADL usage data: August 2013

AADL participation data: August 2013

AADL Summer Game data: August 2013

AADL Summer Game data (badge awards): August 2013

Neiburger provided highlights of the statistics from each category, and fielded a wide variety of questions from trustees. In the usage category, for example, 9,592 documents (.pdf files) were downloaded from the AADL website in August 2013, representing a 10.3% increase compared to the previous year. Documents include, for example, full versions of heritage cookbooks in the Ann Arbor Cooks collection – “the things with the squirrel recipes,” Neiburger said.

Ed Surovell, who collects rare books, joked that where he grew up, people still eat squirrels. Neiburger noted that at one point, the library had received a complaint from a member of the public, who felt that the cookbooks “were not being fair to Ann Arbor’s furry friends.” Margaret Leary asked if there were groundhog recipes. Neiburger ventured that there probably were – or he imagined a squirrel recipe would probably work pretty well as a substitute.

Regarding the summer game, AADL director Josie Parker noted that library staff contributes to ideas for “badges,” which can be earned by completing specific tasks and accumulating points. She offered trustees the opportunity to come up with their own ideas for badges next year, if they’d like. “I came up with one, so you can do it too!” she said. Players could earn Parker’s badge – called Josie’s Catfish – by going to her office and finding the game code in the mouth of a stuffed toy catfish.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Committee Reports

The board has six committees: communications, budget and finance, facilities, policy, director’s evaluation and executive. Board president Prue Rosenthal reported that none of the committees had met since the August board meeting, so there were no reports.

Public Commentary

During public commentary at the beginning of the Sept. 16 meeting, Don Salberg told the board that he was speaking on behalf of Libby Hunter, who had asked him to read a statement because she couldn’t attend the meeting. She had sent a Freedom of Information Act request earlier in the day asking for emails and all written documents between AADL staff, the board and consultants regarding the 2012 library bond campaign, from Jan. 1, 2012 through Sept. 16, 2013. Salberg read the letter that Hunter had sent to AADL director Josie Parker to make the FOIA request.

Staff and members of the public at the Sept. 16 AADL board meeting, held at the Malletts Creek branch.

Lou Glorie also addressed the trustees. She noted that issues related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including projects that might impact accessibility, were discussed at the AADL board’s August meeting. At that meeting, she said, it was reported that the library is largely in compliance with ADA, and that the downtown building is accessible to users with disabilities even in areas where compliance isn’t possible. “But of course, we can do better,” she said. Since it appears that AADL will be making renovations to the downtown library’s entrance, it’s a good time to make that building more accessible.

Glorie hoped that at least one door could be widened, “and the horrible jumble of concrete fronting Fifth Avenue can be made less hazardous.” She urged the board to think about how the multiple levels of the sidewalk along Fifth Avenue would be experienced by patrons with visual impairments – for example, someone who uses a walker who is dropped off in front of the building.

Even if that area is legally compliant with ADA rules, it’s still not easy to use “and is certainly not attractive,” Glorie said. Last month, she noted, Ken Nieman – the library’s associate director of finance, HR and operations – reported that the library had an unrestricted fund balance of $7.8 million. “I’m not saying blow it all on a fancy entrance,” she said, but she hoped the board would think about improving that area of the property to help move that section of Fifth Avenue “from bunker chic to pedestrian friendly.” The sidewalk improvements would likely be paid for by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, she said, but the library should start the process by incorporating a sidewalk renovation into whatever repairs happen at the entrance.

Glorie also remarked on another issue raised at the August board meeting. She said the board president had needed to formally clarify statements recorded in the minutes. She said she understood that Prue Rosenthal would not want to claim authorship of those comments. It’s often difficult for people to sort through minutes and get things right, Glorie said. One way to avoid this problem is to have the board and committee meetings recorded and broadcast by Community Television Network (CTN), Glorie noted. There would then be an unambiguous record of what was said, and by whom. Openness and transparency benefit not only the public, Glorie concluded, but also governing bodies acting in good faith.

[The clarification to the minutes had been made by Margaret Leary, a former AADL board president, not Rosenthal. Leary was clarifying a section of the minutes that transcribed public commentary from Bob Rorke, who read excerpts from email exchanges that the Protect Our Libraries political action committee obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. At the time of the email exchanges, Leary served as board president.]

Present: Nancy Kaplan, Margaret Leary, Jan Barney Newman, Prue Rosenthal, Ed Surovell. Also AADL director Josie Parker.

Absent: Rebecca Head, Barbara Murphy.

Next meeting: Monday, Oct. 21, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the fourth-floor conference room of the downtown library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor District Library board. Check out 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!

Since the city of Ann Arbor joined the Washtenaw County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (WCBRA) in 2002, brownfield projects located in the city must receive approval by the county board. The state’s brownfield program offers incentives for redevelopment of property that’s contaminated, blighted or “functionally obsolete.”

The 544 Detroit St. project is seeking brownfield status so that it will be eligible for brownfield tax increment financing. The site plan calls for a three-story “flatiron-style” building, located at the triangle tip of Detroit and North Division, just southwest of the Broadway bridge – the site of a long-abandoned gas station in the Old Fourth ward Historic District. The new building would include offices on the first floor and residences on the upper two floors.

According to a staff memo, up to $698,773 of local and state taxes will be captured for eligible activities, administrative costs, and the Washtenaw County brownfield redevelopment authority local site remediation revolving fund over an estimated 25-year period. The county’s annual millage revenues on that site is estimated to increase from about $277 now to $6,150 after the period for brownfield tax increment financing is completed. [.pdf of 544 Detroit St. brownfield plan]

For Packard Square, located at 2502-2568 Packard St., approval related to an amendment to the project’s original brownfield redevelopment plan, which the county board approved after much debate on May 18, 2011. At that same meeting, the board approved a $1 million grant application to the state Dept. of Environmental Quality for brownfield cleanup at the proposed $50 million development. That grant was later awarded to the project. The project entails building more than 200 apartments and 20,000 square feet of commercial space at 2502-2568 Packard Street.

The amendment to Packard Square’s brownfield plan would add two eligible activities that qualify for brownfield tax increment financing: underground parking and urban stormwater management infrastructure. Those activities are now eligible for TIF, following changes by the state legislature to the Brownfield Redevelopment Act 381 in December 2012. According to a staff memo, the total TIF-eligible activities will now be $3,582,222. Over the 14-year period of the plan, up to $5,840,557 of local and state taxes will be captured for eligible activities, administrative costs, and the Washtenaw County brownfield redevelopment authority local site remediation revolving fund. This amount is unchanged from when the plan was initially adopted.

County millage revenues from the property will increase from about $8,701 annually to $64,138 after the period for brownfield tax increment financing is completed. [.pdf of Packard Square brownfield plan amendment]

Both plans had been recommended for approval by the county’s brownfield development authority at its June 6, 2013 meeting.

Public hearings were held for both projects at the county board’s meeting on July 10. In addition to representatives of the developers, the only other speaker was Thomas Partridge.

Commissioner Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) raised some procedural concerns about the approval process. He felt the public hearing should be held prior to the initial vote at the board’s ways & means committee meeting. Peterson also objected to taking the final vote on the same night as the initial vote. [Typically, an initial vote is taken at the ways & means committee – on which all board members serve – followed by a final vote at the regular board meeting two weeks later. For most of the year, the ways & means committee and regular board meetings are held every two weeks, in back-to-back sessions on the same night. During the summer, those meetings are held only once a month.]

To protest the process, Peterson cast the sole vote against both brownfield plans on the initial vote at the ways & means committee meeting, but joined all other commissioners in supporting the plans in the final vote at the board meeting.

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

Mayor John Hieftje at the April 15 Ann Arbor city council meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Conversation amongst audience members at the meeting – as well as subsequently in the community – described the effort as a “citizens filibuster.” The result of all the commentary: Two significant items on the agenda were postponed until the council’s May 6 meeting.

One of those items was the site plan approval for 413 E. Huron. Postponement of a decision on that project was lumped in with the general motion to postpone all remaining action items on the agenda until May 6. It was not necessarily expected that the council would postpone the 413 E. Huron site plan that evening, even if it was hoped by opponents that councilmembers would put off the decision – for a third time.

But there was a reasonable expectation that another significant item would be postponed – the council’s final action on a proposed revision to the city ordinance governing the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. It was during the often acrimonious debate on that decision that the council ultimately opted to postpone all of its remaining action items until May 6.

The acrimony stemmed in part from the fact that the stated intention of Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) at the start of the meeting was to postpone a final decision – and that was the expected outcome. The fact that this expected outcome was called into question heightened the tension in an already emotional debate. The tension was heightened by the fact that deviation from the anticipated postponement was made possible mainly by the absence of two councilmembers – Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

By the time the council reached the DDA ordinance on its agenda, the hour was approaching 2 a.m. And by then Higgins and Kailasapathy had needed to leave the council meeting. Both of them had supported the ordinance changes in the 7-3 vote taken at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting. But for the final reading on April 15, neither of them were at the table when the debate on the DDA ordinance began.

Kailasapathy described herself to The Chronicle as on the verge of physical exhaustion when she left – having had little sleep over the several days leading up to the meeting. She earns her livelihood as a certified public accountant, and tax season is a time of peak workload.

So apparently recognizing that the absence of Kailasapathy and Higgins would mean defeat for the ordinance change – if it were voted up or down, instead of being postponed – mayor John Hieftje led an effort to force an up-or-down vote on the issue. And councilmembers who were willing to put off the issue were not unified in their view about the parliamentary procedure to use to achieve that delay. So the council voted on two different options – postponing until a date certain (June 17) or tabling the issue. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) provided a crucial vote against postponement, but voted in favor of tabling.

Kunselman argued for the postponement by pointing out that because the sequence of the roll-call vote that evening allowed him to vote last, he could simply assess how the tally stood, and vote accordingly with the prevailing side. That would give him the right to bring back the vote for reconsideration at the council’s subsequent meeting. But Kunselman’s argument was not persuasive to a six-vote majority.

Without a six-vote majority in favor of either tabling or postponing, the council was left to deliberate on the actual ordinance amendments. As some attempted amendments failed – clearly due to the dynamic that had resulted from the absence of two councilmembers – Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) eventually proposed adjourning the meeting until the following Monday, when the meeting could continue. However, after a brief recess it was decided that the council would simply postpone all remaining voting items until its May 6 meeting, and put an end to the April 15 meeting.

After approving the motion to postpone the action items, councilmembers ticked through the remaining “housekeeping” items on the agenda, which largely included various reports and communications. Of those, one highlight worth noting was the nomination by Hieftje of Eric Mahler to replace David Nacht on the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.

The public commentary at the April 15 meeting exceeds The Chronicle’s capacity to report in its customary way. Still, some accounting of the meeting is important for the archives.

This report provides: (1) a summary of votes taken; and (2) a summary of actions that will now appear on the May 6 agenda as a result of the April 15 postponement. In addition, this report begins with details of the deliberations on the proposed DDA ordinance revisions.

DDA Ordinance Revisions

During the April 15 meeting, the council undertook some amendments to the proposed ordinance revisions governing the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. [.pdf of DDA ordinance as it will appear on the council's May 6, 2013 agenda] Background is presented first, followed by details of the deliberations.

DDA Ordinance Revisions: Background

Several revisions to Chapter 7, a city ordinance governing the Ann Arbor DDA, had received an initial approval by the city council at its April 1, 2013 meeting. The revisions would result in roughly $500,000 in additional annual revenue for the city of Ann Arbor – compared to what it would receive under the DDA’s current interpretation of the ordinance.

The revisions ultimately postponed by the council on April 15 fell roughly into two categories: (1) those involving board composition and policies; and (2) calculation of tax increment finance (TIF) capture in the DDA district.

In the first category, the revisions to Chapter 7 that have received initial approval by the council included: a new prohibition against non-mayoral elected officials serving on the DDA board except by agreement with the other taxing jurisdictions; term limits on DDA board members; and a new requirement that the DDA submit its annual report to the city in early January.

More significantly, the changes include revisions to Chapter 7 that would clarify how the DDA’s TIF tax capture is calculated. While the interpretation of the language is disputed, it’s generally acknowledged that the ordinance language doesn’t provide explicit and clear guidance on the calculations.

The “increment” in a tax increment finance district refers to the difference between the initial value of a property and the value of a property after development. The Ann Arbor DDA captures the taxes – just on that initial increment – of some other taxing authorities in the district. Those are the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Community College and the Ann Arbor District Library. For FY 2013, the DDA will capture roughly $3.9 million in taxes.

The ordinance revisions clarify existing ordinance language, which includes a paragraph that appears to limit the amount of TIF that can be captured. The limit is defined relative to projections for the valuation of the increment in the TIF plan, which is a foundational document for the DDA. The result of the clarification to the Chapter 7 language would mean in the neighborhood of $300,000 less TIF revenue for the DDA in FY 2014 – compared to the $3.933 million shown in the DDA’s adopted budget for that year. For FY 2015, the gap between the DDA’s budget and the projected TIF revenue – using the proposed clarifying change to Chapter 7 – would be around $70,000 according to one projection.

However, the total increment in the district on which TIF is computed has shown significant growth. And under the proposed clarification of Chapter 7, that growth would result in a return of TIF money to other taxing jurisdictions (that would otherwise be captured by the DDA) totaling $931,000 each year for FY 2014-15. The city of Ann Arbor’s share of that would be roughly $500,000, of which about $300,000 would go into the general fund. The city’s general fund includes the transit millage, so about $60,000 of that would be passed through to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.

The amount of TIF capture that’s returned to the other taxing jurisdictions is tied to growth in the valuation by the Chapter 7 language. Under Chapter 7, if the actual rate of growth outpaces the growth rate that’s anticipated in the TIF plan, then at least half the excess amount is supposed to be redistributed to the other taxing authorities in the DDA district. In 2011, the DDA for the first time returned excess TIF capture to other authorities, when the existence of the Chapter 7 language was reportedly first noticed. At that time, the DDA made repayments of TIF monies to other authorities of around $400,000, which covered what was owed going back to 2003. When the DDA calculated the amounts owed in 2011, the city of Ann Arbor waived its roughly $700,000 share.

In 2011, the DDA used a year-to-year interpretation of the Chapter 7 language instead of computing rate of growth against the base year in a cumulative fashion. That is a point that the Chapter 7 revisions would clarify.

Before giving initial approval on April 1, but postponing its vote on April 15, the council had previously postponed voting at its March 18, 2013 and March 4, 2013 meetings.

DDA Ordinance Revisions: Financial Impact

Some of the discussion has focused on what the impact of the ordinance clarifications would be on the DDA’s finances. Chart 1 below summarizes the impact. As amended at the April 15, 2013 meeting, the impact of the clarification would not be felt until FY 2015. From FY 2015 forward, the difference between the revenue planned for by the DDA (red) and that provided by the calculations made explicit in the ordinance revisions (blue) is minimal. What’s at stake is the TIF revenue level for which the DDA has not been planning – shown by the yellow line. That level of revenue has resulted from recent new construction in the downtown area.

Chart 1: Impact on DDA finances compared to DDA 10-year planning document. Data from city and DDA sources, chart by The Chronicle.

[.pdf of DDA 10-year planning document]

DDA Ordinance Revisions: Initial Communications

During the initial slot on the agenda set aside for communications from councilmembers, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated he would be asking his colleagues for postponement of the vote regarding changes to the DDA ordinance. His remarks came about an hour into the meeting. He said the reason he was asking for the postponement was that after the council’s initial approval of the ordinance changes on April 1, there had been a lot of misrepresentation about what the changes meant.

There had also been political intimidation, Kunselman said, and “outright character assassination” of those councilmembers who had been trying to work hard to bring clarity to the DDA TIF calculation process. “I’ve always intended that the DDA budget be maintained whole,” he said, so that the DDA could still meet existing obligations. During the deliberations on that initial vote, he pointed out, the threat had been heard that the DDA board might rescind its resolution that granted $8 million to the city of Ann Arbor – paid in installments of roughly a half million dollars each year – for the new police courts building/Justice Center.

There had also been reports in the press, Kunselman stated, that DDA board treasurer Roger Hewitt had indicated there would be no “sacred cows” when it came to the DDA’s reevaluation of its budget. Kunselman said he had interpreted Hewitt’s remarks as a threat. Kunselman then implicitly introduced the issue of a possible conflict of interest on the part of Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), whose wife Nancy Shore is director of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s getDowntown program.

Because the DDA funds the getDowntown program, the last thing Kunselman would want to have on his hands, he contended, was cutting that program – when a council colleague’s spouse could lose her job. And he knew that would happen if funding from the DDA to the getDowntown program were cut off – because he had spoken with Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, about that. According to Kunselman, Ford had assured him that if the DDA funding were to be cut, then Shore’s position would have to be cut as well. That had never been Kunselman’s intent, he said.

By way of background, The Chronicle had previously inquired about the getDowntown program budget and its funding sources. Based on information provided by AATA to The Chronicle, it appears that the federal funding component of the getDowntown budget exceeds the salary and benefits paid to Shore. [.pdf of 5-year getDowntown budget numbers] Based on Kunselman’s remarks, The Chronicle emailed Ford during the April 15 meeting and received a reply:

I recall the question being the funding for the program [federal] CMAQ funding which supports elements of the program and funding for employee positions – I don’t recall the specific question of just DDA funding impacting employee positions.

AATA director of communications Mary Stasiak had previously told The Chronicle in a phone interview that the existence of Shore’s position was not contingent on the existence of getDowntown’s go!pass program – which is where the bulk of the roughly $600,000 worth of funding from the DDA goes. And she’d explicitly said that Shore’s position was not contingent on the DDA’s funding of the getDowntown program.

From left: Councilmembers Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Kunselman said he had also heard a lot of talk about a desire for collaboration. “I am willing to try to collaborate,” he stated. And that is why he wanted the postponement, he said. He wanted a chance to reach out to the DDA’s treasurer and to the mayor to find out if there’s something that could be done to address the TIF capture methodology. On Jan. 27, 2012 – over a year ago – Kunselman continued, mayor John Hieftje had received from the executive director the Ann Arbor District Library, Josie Parker, a letter that as far as Kunselman knew had never received a written response from Hieftje.

Kunselman read aloud the closing paragraph from the letter: “Based on the city’s recognition that its own ordinance requires excess TIF to be distributed to the taxing authorities, the library fully expects that it will continue to receive TIF refunds in the future. From this point forward, however, the library would ask for consultation with the city so that a calculation method can be agreed upon before any refund checks are issued.”

The purpose of this exercise, Kunselman said, was to bring some responsibility back. So he would be asking for a postponement when the council reached that item on the agenda, he concluded.

Five and a half hours later the council reached the DDA ordinance on its agenda.

DDA Ordinance Revisions: Deliberations – Postponement

Kunselman led off discussion by re-iterating his desire to see the second and final vote on the question postponed. He asked that the postponement be until the council’s second meeting in June, which falls on June 17. Kunselman indicated that he had already spoken with DDA board treasurer Roger Hewitt about meeting and discussing with him some of the issues that had been raised by the DDA and the community. “I hope that you can indulge… the fact that we are looking for a postponement,” he said. Kunselman’s motion to postpone was seconded by Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

Margie Teall (Ward 4) indicated that she would not be supporting a postponement that evening – because she did not support the ordinance revision as it was brought forward. She appreciated that Kunselman would like time to work on the question, and to start in a more collaborative manner. But she felt that the current draft before the council needed to be voted down. She pointed out that around 50 people had appeared before the council that evening to speak.

Teall allowed that there was concern and confusion about the nature of the TIF calculation, which she allowed probably does need to be examined, to clarify it. She felt that it would best be addressed, however, by the city administrator, the chief financial officer, and the DDA staff working together to bring recommendations forward to the council. She had an alternative resolution prepared, which she indicated she was prepared to pass around. But she would not support a postponement because she wanted the question to be voted on that night.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) indicated she would support the postponement. She liked the spirit of collaboration that Kunselman was bringing forward in connection with the postponement. The council had heard a lot about the value that the DDA offers to the downtown area, she said, and about the DDA’s contribution to the support of affordable housing. She did not feel that any of that was in question in connection with the changes to the ordinance.

In the short term, Petersen allowed that there was “a little bit of a hit” to the DDA. But in the long term, she said, there would be an uptick in the DDA’s fund balance as a result of the ordinance amendments. She noted that there have been a lot of spreadsheets floating around in the last several weeks, and lots of versions of the DDA’s 10-year planning document that she has seen. The postponement would give everyone a chance to really take a look at the numbers, and what it means to the bottom line for the DDA. She was not convinced that there was a uniform understanding across the council of the impact of the ordinance changes on the DDA’s budget planning. That really needs to be clearly understood, she stressed. So for that reason she supported the postponement.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated that she would support the postponement as well. She thanked the city’s chief financial officer Tom Crawford, who had provided some very helpful spreadsheets, she said. She described one of the pages that had been provided as particularly helpful – which lays out the impacts on the DDA’s revenues over the next 10 years. She felt there had been a lot of confusion about the actual financial impact of the ordinance changes on the DDA. The community, she felt, needed some time to absorb the same information the city council had been provided. She felt the added time would be helpful in that regard.

Mayor John Hieftje indicated he would not support the postponement. “I think this was bad legislation from the day it was proposed,” he stated. He reiterated his view that he thinks that the ordinance amendments represent a threat to the city’s general fund. He claimed that he could show that over and over again. The work that the DDA does is very vital, he said. He added that “we have caught the DDA with this at exactly the wrong time,” and contended that the DDA had anticipated an increase in TIF revenue.

The DDA had spent down its fund balances for the largest projects if it had ever undertaken, Hieftje continued, and he did not know why the council would continue down the road with something that could be harmful to the city’s general fund and to the city’s ability to put police officers on the street. He also contended that light posts on Main Street were falling over when the wind blows, and that the project to replace those light posts might be delayed if these ordinance amendments were undertaken. “It’s almost as if we’re trying to punish the DDA for excellence …, ” he contended.

Margie Teall (Ward 4). In the background is Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Teall expressed her view that she did not think that clarity of the ordinance language could be achieved within the timeframe of the postponement. CFO Crawford took the podium to respond to Teall’s questions. When the council’s audit committee had met, Teall said, committee members had discussed the TIF calculations. As Crawford stood at the podium, she told him that at the audit committee meeting he had expressed the view that there needed to be an overhaul, or a look at the TIF calculations.

Teall asked Crawford if there was any confusion about how the TIF is to be calculated. Crawford allowed that he did not actually remember the specific conversation to which Teall had alluded – because there had been so many conversations on the topic. He did feel that the existing ordinance language is not clear. He expressed the view that the DDA has the ability and the right to interpret the ordinance language. The fact that there are so many questions about it is something that staff and the DDA are trying to work through, he said. “I’m not sure what I can say to help.” Crawford alluded to the last spreadsheet that Lumm had mentioned, saying he felt it addressed some of the areas that had previously been confusing.

Crawford noted that there is an interest in trying to understand the impact to the DDA. But he stressed that it’s important to understand the basis from which that impact is measured. Is the impact measured against the DDA’s assumed 10-year planning document, or is it measured against the new projections that the city has now? Crawford indicated that he’d attempted to flesh all that out in the last spreadsheet, which was as close as it comes to achieving clarity, he said, based on the questions that staff had been hearing.

Teall asked Crawford if he thought it would help if there were more clarity in the language. Crawford hoped that regardless of what the council’s decision is, at some point some clarity in the language can be achieved. Teall indicated that she didn’t think if the question came back to the council in June that clarity would exist.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked Kunselman directly if Kunselman’s intention was to bring the ordinance back in substantially the same form, or if he imagined through the collaborative process that there would be significant revisions to the proposed ordinance. Kunselman indicated that he was open to significant revisions – whatever it took to make sure that clarity is achieved. Kunselman felt that everyone was trying to reach clarity, which he said had been his original intent from “the get-go.”

Kunselman found it interesting that there is now interest in clarity from those who had opposed the effort initially, and who had called it bad legislation. He’d been working with the city staff to provide clarity to the language on the TIF calculation. “Are there other ways of doing it? I’m sure there are. Am I open to them? I very much am so.”

If the collaborative effort – among Hieftje and the DDA board treasurer and the city staff – results in significant revisions to the ordinance language, then those would come back at the second meeting in June, Kunselman said. But if that can’t be achieved by the second meeting in June, then the intent would be to postpone again, he said. He wanted to get the clarity that’s necessary so that everyone can understand the TIF calculations. And he allowed that could result in a need to restart the ordinance amendment process by introducing the revisions at first reading.

If the result was a first reading at the second meeting in June, Warpehoski wondered what the advantage would be of doing that. Warpehoski’s implication seemed to be that the council could vote down the ordinance revisions that night and start from scratch with a new first reading at the second meeting in June – if sufficient clarity had been achieved at that point.

Kunselman responded by saying that it was possible that the proposed amendments as they currently stood already did a pretty good job of achieving the kind of clarity that was sought. Kunselman pointed out that of all the speakers during the public hearing, no one had actually talked about the language of the TIF calculation and the council’s effort to keep the DDA’s budget whole. “It’s like nobody actually read the draft language” that was given initial approval by the council, Kunselman said. For all we know, Kunselman ventured, that could be the clearest language available.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Kunselman if he would consider a tabling instead of a postponement until a date certain. “It’s not that I don’t want this brought back up off the table,” she contended. She noted that she and Kunselman had talked about the need to achieve some clarity on the financial issues. She was not certain that clarity had yet been achieved. She had talked with city staff about some ideas to make her more secure in the clarity of the language. She did not feel she could even discuss it effectively that night.

From left: Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Kailasapathy had to leave the meeting before it concluded.

Briere ventured that it might not be useful to tie things to a tight timeline – saying that it might require six months. She told Kunselman she did not think that he would necessarily need six months, but that’s the maximum time for which an issue can be tabled, she pointed out. She wanted to see that the collaborative effort was not tied to a rigid timeline – especially during the month of May [when the council is focused on approving the budget for the next fiscal year]. She did not figure that people would have a lot of flexibility during the month of May. Kunselman told her that he was not interested in tabling for six months.

At that point Kunselman laid out the parliamentary options, in an effort to encourage his colleagues to postpone the question, as he had asked. He pointed out that he could simply vote with the affirmative side and bring the question back for reconsideration at the next meeting. He noted that the council was, at that point in the evening, missing a couple of councilmembers who would be likely to be supportive of the postponement. Kunselman characterized the choices as “playing games” or just postponing. He confirmed with city clerk Jackie Beaudry that Kunselman was last in the roll-call sequence that night. [The roll call starts with a different councilmember each meeting, rotating around the table.] “All’s I’m asking for is a postponement until the second meeting in June,” Kunselman concluded.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) indicated that in the brief conversations he’d had with members of the DDA board, they were willing to engage in further discussion. And that was exactly what Kunselman had been intending, Anglin said. He pointed out that the initial vote of the council on the question had been 7-3 in favor of having the matter go forward for discussion. He felt that postponing is exactly what the council should be doing. It was never a proposal that was meant to hurt the DDA, he said. Everyone at the table at the previous meeting had praised the work of the DDA, but they wanted further clarifications.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) noted that he hadn’t attended the previous council meeting. So he contented he was not fully apprised of what was said, or how it was said. But he ventured that, “If an earnest and polite conversation was intended, then that is what would have been requested.” He was happy that the council was moving in that direction. He allowed that Kunselman had raised a proper procedural point about voting last and being able to vote in the affirmative, putting Kunselman in a position to bring back the vote for reconsideration at the next meeting.

Still, Taylor felt that tabling was a more proper thing to do in this context. He agreed with Briere that the effort would require a conversation that would extend beyond the council’s second meeting in June. He felt the conversation should move the end result far away from the one that’s in the current resolution.

Taylor allowed that the resolution in front of the council would not be the “death knell of the DDA.” But he claimed it would “do harm and violence to the long-term plans of what I think has been demonstrated here to be a organization that is not broken and not in need of fixing.” He called the DDA an excellent steward of the downtown and the city’s collective resources. “They’re a credit to us all, and they do great work,” he said. On the postponement, he felt that a tabling would be best.

Warpehoski noted that Kunselman had expressed a desire not to play games. He hoped that what comes back in June would be significantly different from what is currently proposed and a fresh start can be achieved. He did not feel that arguing about tabling versus postponement was a good thing to be doing at 2 a.m. So Warpehoski supported a postponement to a date certain, to just keep it moving. He hoped that a different proposal would come back with language that did a better job with the governance and financing aspects. And if it did not, Warpehoski indicated he would be ready with amendments to try to put forward his vision.

DDA Ordinance Revisions: Postponement – Politics

Hieftje weighed in again: “Frankly, and since we’re being frank, I think that this started out with a very large political component.” So Hieftje wanted to postpone the question out beyond the council primary election date. [This year, the primary will be held on Aug. 6.] That would remove some of the political component, Hieftje contended. That way, good policy to be made without individual councilmember’s political goals being included, he said.

Hieftje felt that a postponement leaves an organization hanging that has been a very strong partner to the city. The last 10 or 12 years had been the worst in history since the last Great Depression, Hieftje said. Many cities across the state and across the nation had raised taxes to cope with it, he said, but the city of Ann Arbor has a millage rate that today is slightly less than it was back in the year 2000. When the city went to the DDA and wanted to renegotiate the parking agreement, the DDA did not have to do that, Hieftje said.

The DDA is a freestanding organization, he said, quickly adding that he had always maintained that the DDA is an “arm of the city.”

The DDA had “stepped up to the table” and renegotiated the contract under which the DDA manages the public parking system, Hieftje said. Now there is over $3 million a year that comes back to the city under terms of the parking contract, he noted. When the city was told by the Washtenaw County government that the city needed to move the 15th District Court out of the county courthouse, the DDA was there, and had granted the city $508,000 a year.

Hieftje did not want to keep the DDA “on the hook and hanging.” He thinks the process should have started out with a conversation with the DDA. “How come we didn’t want to do that to begin with?” Hieftje characterized the proposed ordinance revision as a “command-and-control” approach that he wanted to get off the table. Hieftje said he wanted to go back and have a sober conversation with the DDA.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) then responded to Hieftje’s remarks:

I wasn’t going to go here but you sort of forced this issue, Mr. Mayor. Councilmember Kunselman has raised these issues for as long as I’ve been around. And you all know that. To suggest that they are simply politically motivated as you did at the last meeting, Mr. Mayor, does no credit to you or your role. You tried that with me once as well, and I think you would be better served to simply argue the merits of your position rather than attempt to personally discredit those who may occasionally disagree with you. I think it’s unfortunate that the rhetoric has risen to such an uncivil level, with personal insults and accusations. And frankly it appears that if any councilmember who has a view that may be different from the status quo, then it is either ‘politically motivated’ or ‘ill-informed.’ Perhaps there may be a different view, a different sense of priorities. I wish we could recognize and honor that reality in a much more civil manner on the council and as a community.

Lumm also pointed out that there were two councilmembers absent because they had to go to work in a few hours – so it was understandable why they needed to leave the meeting earlier. Lumm thought the council owed it to Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) to give them an opportunity to vote on this.

On the question of postponement versus tabling, Lumm didn’t support tabling. “That’s basically shelving it,” she said. She pointed to the stack of written materials in front of her, saying that half of the notebooks were Q&As the council has received back from the staff. “We have flogged this thing,” Lumm said. And there has been a lot of interaction with the DDA. Lumm said, “We all know that this is not the catastrophic neutering of the DDA that is being portrayed.”

Lumm called herself a staunch supporter of the DDA – but she stressed that what she supported was an independent DDA. The ordinance change would help clarify the question about the TIF refund, Lumm said. It clearly needs to be clarified. So she didn’t understand the logic behind tabling it. Lumm appreciated that the postponement had been proposed for the second meeting in June and she thought that was fair, and so she would be supporting it.

Kunselman noted that the council had received the city administrator’s budget presentation that evening. So the council would be adopting the city budget with the DDA’s budget as a component unit of that budget – without changing it. No one is talking about changing the DDA budget for fiscal year 2014, Kunselman said. The reason he wanted to try to pursue action by the second meeting in June is that it’s the end of the fiscal year and the tax bills start going out. It’s his hope that as the tax bills go out, there would be new language about the TIF capture methodology. But he stressed that the city council would not be amending the DDA budget, regardless of what the ordinance revisions might be. The intent has never been to cut the DDA’s budget or to put the DDA in a position where the DDA has to cut programs. Kunselman pointed out that what’s at stake are new additional tax dollars.

Kunselman agreed with Lumm that the “scare talk” that Hieftje had used was not well-founded. Kunselman was willing to put some of the other things aside – an apparent allusion to the governance issues in the ordinance – in order to focus on the TIF capture methodology.

Kunselman addressed Hieftje directly, telling him that the Ann Arbor District Library had sent a letter to Hieftje, but Kunselman had not heard that Hieftje ever responded to it. Kunselman said he’d been criticized because he was standing up and trying to help out the library – which has a budget of roughly $12 million compared to the DDA’s budget of over $20 million. Who cares about the library? he asked, adding that he did. The library is an institution of our community, he said, but he thought the library’s thoughts on the issue are being squashed.

The idea that the city and the DDA don’t care what the library thinks and that the TIF capture will be calculated in accordance with whatever is best in the judgment of the DDA and the mayor shows arrogance, Kunselman said.

Kunselman observed the late hour and pled for a postponement. “It’s not about playing politics,” he stated, but “we can make it that way, if you want to keep talking about it that way.” Kunselman noted that he’d explicitly asked for collaboration. Kunselman contended that the interest in collaboration now on the part of opponents of the ordinance revisions would not have been shown, if the council hadn’t actually voted for the ordinance changes at first reading. The reason it had reached this point, Kunselman said, is that Hieftje had not addressed the issue for over a year: “And now you’re complaining about the fact we got a first reading?”

Kunselman returned to the parliamentary point about being in a position to assess the vote tally and vote with the prevailing side, giving him the opportunity to bring back the question for reconsideration at the next council meeting: “I’m the last vote. If you want to play the game, we can do that. … Or we can be kind and considerate at two o’clock in the morning and just please vote unanimously, and we’ll postpone it until the second meeting in June.”

Kunselman continued by saying that he would not push for a vote up or down at the second meeting in June, if there was not sufficient clarity in the language. “And you have my word that if we don’t have the language, … [I won’t] force a vote up or down in order to score political points. That’s not my intent. That’s exactly why I didn’t want to force the vote tonight.” He didn’t want to force the vote before the filing deadline for council candidates, he said, because the potential existed to create candidates based on that vote. [The filing deadline for the primary election is May 14.]

Kunselman said he did not want political intimidation – because that doesn’t yield good public policy. This is about public policy, not about scoring points, he said. “If you want to make it that way, then that seems how you want it to be. I’m sitting here taking the heat, taking the character assassination … I’m not going to back down just because you don’t want to be nice.”

DDA Ordinance Revisions: Postponement – Calling the Question

Warpehoski appeared to attempt to strike balance by noting that there are both public policy and political issues at play. “Let’s be honest about that,” he said, “It’s being played on all sides.”

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Warpehoski believed that Kunselman had serious policy issues that he was pursuing honestly. But Kunselman had also had been quoted in the media as saying that it was 100% political and that councilmembers were all politicians and that people who supported his opponents need to understand that there are consequences for their actions.

But Warpehoski also noted that it was 2 a.m. He then “called the question” – a parliamentary move that is intended to end debate. Warpehoski pointed out that it was not a debatable motion and required a super-majority to pass. As some councilmembers sought clarification about the effect of Warpehoski’s motion, he said: “I’m saying let’s shut up and vote on … postponement.”

Outcome: The vote on calling the question was deemed to have failed, with Hieftje and Taylor voting against it. Higgins and Kailasapathy were absent.

The motion was deemed to have failed because it did not have eight votes, which is the number typically associated with a “super-majority” of the council. However, the council rules make a motion to call the question contingent on a 3/4 majority of those present, not of those members serving:

A motion to call the previous question (call for cloture) immediately ends all discussion and shall be out of order until all members have had an opportunity to speak twice to the question on the floor, and shall require a concurring vote of 3/4 of the members present.

On a vote of 7-2, Warpehoski’s motion to call to the question should have succeeded, and the council should have voted on the postponement at that point.

DDA Ordinance Revisions: Postponement – More Deliberations

Discussion continued on the postponement of the question until June 17. Hieftje asked if the council would consider postponement until Sept. 30. Between tabling and a postponement until Sept. 30, Hieftje indicated he supported postponement until Sept. 30. He noted that the conversations between the city and the DDA about the new parking contract had taken a year.

Speaking to Kunselman, Hieftje began: “If you really want to have a conversation, if it’s genuine this time, if you want to actually collaborate with the DDA… ” then Hieftje felt that Sept. 30 was a date that would be appropriate. Kunselman responding by reiterating his desire to have clarity before the tax bills go out. The money will get dispersed, he said, and if the DDA receives it, then the city may never get it back. So the purpose is to try to get it done.

“We’re talking some very simple language from everything I understand,” Kunselman said. Given the two months he was asking for, Kunselman ventured that it would be possible to work something out. “You have my word: If we don’t have it worked out by the end of June, I will not request or force a vote on a second reading.”

Briere admitted that Kunselman’s idea about what happens at the beginning of the fiscal year and disbursement of taxes left her confused. She asked for some explanation of what exactly happens with the summer taxes. Crawford indicated that taxes are levied and collected – which means the treasurer collects all the money and settles with the county to make sure that everything is correct, and then the funds are distributed to the various entities. He confirmed for Briere that it’s the FY 2014 taxes that are being collected. The fiscal year begins July 1.

Some back-and-forth between Crawford and Briere established that the city’s role in dispersing TIF money to the DDA would stay the same, regardless of any ordinance change. An ordinance change could affect how the DDA calculates a possible refund, however. Crawford told Briere he would have to double-check to see if an August change in the ordinance could affect July distributions. He thought that as long as you stay within the fiscal year, a change can be made.

Outcome: The final tally on the postponement was 4-5 in favor. Voting no were Teall, Hieftje, Briere, and Taylor. Voting yes were Warpehoski, Anglin, Petersen and Lumm. Voting last was Kunselman, who counted the tally at 4-4 and voted no so that he would be on the prevailing side. This put him in a position to bring back the vote for reconsideration at the council’s next meeting, on May 6.

DDA Ordinance Revisions: Tabling

With the motion to postpone having failed, Briere moved to table the item. And she asked the city administrator, the mayor, Kunselman, the city’s CFO, and the DDA representatives to begin meeting. It’s a double motion, she allowed, but she was doing it because it was in the interest of time.

Hieftje invited further discussion on the tabling. There was none. [Under Robert’s rules, a motion to table is in any case not supposed to be subject to debate.]

Outcome: The motion to table failed on a 5-4 vote – because it did not have a six-vote majority. Voting for tabling were Teall, Warpehoski, Hieftje, Briere and Taylor. Voting against tabling were: Anglin, Petersen, Lumm and Kunselman.

At that point Lumm got clarification that the council would in fact be voting on the issue that night.

DDA Ordinance Revisions: Amendment – Delayed Enactment

Petersen then proposed a possible amendment to the ordinance. She proposed that the clarification of the calculations would be enacted starting in fiscal year 2015 instead of fiscal year 2014, as originally called for. The benefit, she said, is that it would be consistent with the other timing issues that are mentioned in connection with implementing the DDA board governance changes. From a financial perspective, it would also eliminate the impact of the ordinance clarification’s $363,000 shortfall to the DDA in FY 2014. After that, Petersen, said, the shortfalls were, in her mind, minimal and actually became windfalls.

Teall responded to Petersen’s proposed amendment by questioning why the postponement Petersen had voted for could not have been proposed for longer – past the second meeting in June. She wondered why the ordinance revision couldn’t be postponed until next fall. Petersen replied that the postponement had been voted down. Petersen also indicated that she would rather have postponed the issue – but given that a vote appeared imminent, she wanted to set about to amend the ordinance.

Petersen indicated that she would rather have used the postponement to allow Kunselman and the DDA to come up with something that was mutually agreeable. But because the postponement did not get approved, she was simply looking for a different option that might be agreeable to the DDA and might make everyone feel a little bit better that the DDA would not be taking a “hit” in fiscal year 2014. Petersen had been hoping that this was something that Kunselman could have led the DDA to agree to, but in the absence of that possibility, she was proposing it herself.

Hieftje asked for deputy director of the DDA Joe Morehouse to come forward and walk the council through a version of the DDA’s 10-year planning document. Hieftje got confirmation that in FY 2015 and FY 2016, the DDA’s TIF fund balance was planned to be $441,060 and $264,816. Hieftje questioned whether it would even be possible for the DDA to undertake TIF projects with fund balances that low. Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, indicated that the concern would be about leaving the DDA with a zero fund balance. Pollay indicated that in a previous year, the auditor had highlighted a deficit in the DDA’s parking fund. Hieftje pointed to streetlight replacements on Main Street and curb ramp replacements as projects that might not happen if the ordinance amendments were to be enacted.

At that point, Kunselman had gotten out of his seat and moved down the table to talk with Petersen. Hieftje objected, saying, “We don’t usually have side conversations during the debate.” Hieftje continued by saying that it was hard for him to understand how people could say that this was not going to harm the DDA or its ability to do projects.

Lumm countered by asking Crawford to confirm what the impacts are of the ordinance changes on the DDA. She felt that the rhetoric had escalated and that the council was now hearing how catastrophic an impact this is going to have on the DDA. Lumm began her recitation of the financial information. For FY 2013, Lumm noted, there is no TIF refund planned. For FY 2014 as a result of new developments, the gross TIF is projected to grow by $650,000 or 17%, to $4.5 million and then to grow by roughly $100,000 a year. “So far so good?” she asked Crawford. Yes, he replied.

But under the ordinance amendments, Lumm continued, in FY 2014 there would be a $930,000 refund to the various taxing entities, of which the city would receive $490,000. The DDA would retain $3.57 million, which represents a $280,000 reduction compared to the current year, she said. So what folks are characterizing as “the sky is falling” and dismantling the DDA is all about a $280,000 year-to-year reduction to the DDA’s revenues compared to this year, which is equivalent to a 1% reduction for a $25 million annual operation, she concluded. The city of Ann Arbor would receive $490,000 more, she continued. Under the ordinance revisions, she said, TIF revenue to the DDA is projected to reach $4.6 million by 2023. That’s 19% higher than the FY 2013 level, Lumm said.

Crawford had two comments on Lumm’s remarks. After FY 2014, he said, the city had used the standard DDA assumption for growth. [That means that those numbers don’t assume completion of major new construction like 624 Church St., which has been approved by the council, or 413 E. Huron, which might be approved.]

The numbers that have been discussed also don’t include the reduction due to the elimination of the personal property tax, Crawford noted. That amounts to about $175,000 a year, he said. Lumm countered by saying that the personal property tax would be eliminated regardless of the ordinance change.

Outcome: Petersen then asked if her amendment might be accepted as “friendly,” which meant that no vote would be needed. Petersen’s amendment was accepted as friendly.

DDA Ordinance Revisions: Disclosure

Warpehoski at that point said he wanted to take the opportunity again to disclose that his wife, Nancy Shore, is the director of the getDowntown program, which is funded in part by DDA parking revenue funds. His understanding of Shore’s funding was that it was not the case that her job would be in jeopardy. He said if anybody had questions about the ethics of his voting on the item, they could excuse him from voting. He wanted to make sure that that was on the table.

Warpehoski read aloud the bulk of the relevant city charter passage.

The charter has two parts that address voting duty and recusal of councilmembers:

Except as otherwise provided in this charter, each member of the Council present shall cast a “yes” or “no” vote on each question before the Council, unless excused therefrom by a vote of at least six members.

A member of the Council shall not vote on a question in which the member has a financial interest, other than the general public interest, or on any question involving the member’s own conduct. If a question is raised under this section at any Council meeting concerning the eligibility of a member of the Council to vote on any matter, such question shall be finally determined by the concurring vote of at least six members of the Council, not including such member

No one responded to Warpehoski’s disclosure and no vote was taken to determine the issue.

DDA Ordinance Revisions: Governance

Lumm continued by characterizing the impacts of the ordinance amendments on the DDA as “not that significant,” once you get past the hyperbole about dismantling the DDA. The goal is to define the funding formula for the DDA, which would result in improved fiscal discipline, accountability, and controls, she said. She did not think that could be inappropriate.

Lumm began to turn the conversation toward the governance aspects of the DDA ordinance amendments. She supported a strong and autonomous DDA, and contended that today Ann Arbor does not have an arm’s-length, independent DDA. Instead, Lumm continued, the DDA is currently an extension of the mayor and the city council. She felt the best interests of the DDA, the downtown, and the city would be better served by more independence and fresh eyes, so for those reasons she supported the governance aspects of the proposal.

Those governance issues include term limits and some guidelines with respect to appointing elected officials to the DDA board. The result was that significant funding decisions are made outside the regular budgeting process, Lumm said. With little or no accountability, the DDA awards around $2 million in grants annually. She wasn’t saying those grants have been inappropriate, but the decision about whether to use a half-million dollars a year to pay for debt on the new city hall/Justice Center (as the DDA does) or to fund public safety personnel should be a decision made inside the budget process, not outside, she said.

So Lumm supported the elements of the ordinance revisions that more clearly defined TIF capture and how much the DDA retains and how much is refunded to the original taxing entities. She did not feel it represented a hardship to the DDA. Clarifying the funding represents a positive step forward in terms of transparency, accountability, and control and ultimately results in an equitable sharing of revenues, she said. By passing the ordinance revisions, she felt that the council would be taking a step toward re-establishing a high-performing, autonomous DDA, coupled with the appropriate levels of controls and accountability. She concluded that she would be supporting the amendments.

DDA Ordinance Revisions: Amendment – Capital Budget

Briere said she wished she felt as confident as Lumm did that the proposed language change provides the clarity that she seeks. So she offered an amendment that would add language:

The authority shall submit their capital budgets to incorporate them into the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The authority shall at the time they submit their budget for Council approval identify that portion of the budget which is operating and that which is capital projects.

The purpose of the change, Briere said, was to reflect a concern she had heard over the years. The concern was that the city had repeatedly asked the DDA to undertake projects on behalf of the city, and that the DDA had always said yes. The DDA has allocated its funds to undertake those projects, but they are never in the city’s capital improvements plan, because the DDA is an independent organization, she said.

While the city council approves the DDA’s budget, the city council does not approve the DDA’s allocations. So by having the DDA provide the city with a list of proposed capital improvements at the same time that the city council looks at the capital improvement plan, and by breaking the budget into capital improvements versus operating funds, that would allow the council to ask questions about the DDA’s intended capital improvements. If some people felt that the DDA had spent its money carelessly without council approval, her goal was to begin to address that, Briere said.

Hieftje wondered what added clarity Briere’s amendment achieved. Briere noted that when a project springs forth as full-blown, people might have the impression that they’ve never heard of it before. This is an attempt to guard against that, she said.

Outcome: Briere’s proposed amendment passed on a unanimous vote.

DDA Ordinance Revisions: Amendment – Term Limits

Hieftje then indicated that he had a particular point he wanted to make – but someone else would need to move the amendment, which related to the term limits set forth in the ordinance changes. He noted that the DDA works on long-term projects, saying that the South Fifth Avenue underground parking structure was in the making for about 10 years. He attributed the idea to former DDA board member Rob Aldrich.

Currently on the DDA board there are five members who are in their second term, Hieftje said. Three members are in their first term. One member is in his third term. And one member [Leah Gunn] has served many terms. Hieftje indicated she would be retiring from the board this year. He did not see a need for term limits on the DDA, saying that they had not turned out well for the state of Michigan in the legislature – something he felt was acknowledged by most people. He thought there could be at least two members who did not wish to be reappointed this year, which meant there would be two vacancies coming up. So he asked if there was someone who would be willing to offer an amendment to strike the term limits from the ordinance change. The proposal was moved by Teall and seconded by Warpehoski.

Lumm indicated that she would not support the elimination of term limits. She felt that most organizations have bylaws that cover term limits. She called term limits “a positive” and felt they were appropriate. She described the DDA board as composed of many current and former elected officials. Some have joked that the DDA board has become like a kind of “retirement home for former councilmembers,” Lumm said. It needs greater independence, she contended.

Under mayor Ingrid Sheldon, Lumm said, term limits for all boards were the norm. The expectation at the time – of both Democrats and Republicans who served with Sheldon – was that there would be term limits, and there was a lot of turnover. She felt there was little turnover on many of the city’s boards and commissions. She felt the term limits would help strengthen the DDA as an organization. She wanted the board composition to be more reflective of the downtown community. She did not want it to be an extension of the city council – which is what she felt like it was today.

Lumm questioned why the DDA had pledged $508,000 a year to pay for the new police/courts building. If she owned a downtown business, she would ask the question: How does that help my downtown business? Actions like that are taken by the DDA because the makeup of the board makes it an extension of “this group sitting here,” and that’s not healthy, Lumm contended.

Responding to Lumm’s question about the DDA’s support of the police/courts building, Hieftje noted that public buildings are one of the things that the DDA is enabled by state statute to spend money on. Hieftje also cited David DeVarti and Leah Gunn – long-time former and current members of the DDA board – as a counterexample to Lumm’s contention that there had been defacto term limits imposed under Sheldon.

Taylor noted that a broad base of business leaders in the downtown and in Ann Arbor had voiced their wholehearted support for the DDA, emphasizing the “it-ain’t-broke aspect of the organization.” So he supported the amendment to strip out the term limits.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Kunselman told Hieftje that he was willing to support stripping out the term limits “if you’re going to tell us right now before we go too much further that you’re willing to support this ordinance amendment, if it contains the TIF capture methodology that has recently been amended [in a friendly way]…” Kunselman continued: “It’s three o’clock in the morning. If you give us your word that you’re going to vote on amending the ordinance with regards to the TIF capture, then we can get through this. Otherwise we’re going to go through all this …”

At that point, Hieftje interrupted Kunselman by saying “Absolutely not!” Kunselman sighed: “Well, then, here we go.”

Warpehoski supported the stripping out of term limits. He felt that boards need both renewal and historical memory. He felt that a small staff of four people, which the DDA has, is not adequate to provide the kind of living memory that a long-term board member can provide.

Warpehoski stressed that if the council did not want to re-appoint someone, it was a matter of lining up the votes to accomplish that. Petersen indicated she did not support stripping the term limits out, because she felt it’s helpful to have some planned turnover. Anglin felt like term limits might help reinvigorate some boards. Some people are intimidated from applying to boards because they feel like they would not fit in, he said.

Outcome: The vote on stripping out term limits failed on a 5-4 vote, because it did not get the needed six-vote majority. Voting against term limits were: Teall, Warpehoski, Hieftje, Briere, and Taylor. Voting for term limits were Anglin, Petersen, Lumm, and Kunselman. Higgins and Kailasapathy were absent.

DDA Ordinance Revisions: Denouement

After the failed outcome of the attempt to amend the ordinance revision, Warpehoski noted the dynamic that had evolved from the absence of two councilmembers. He also pointed out the lateness of the hour. “We’re not getting anything done. We’re not thinking straight.” He moved to adjourn the meeting until Monday, April 22, at which time it would continue.

After a brief recess, the council came back and Warpehoski’s motion was to postpone all remaining agenda items until May 6, the next regular meeting, thus ending the April 15 meeting.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone all remaining items on its agenda until May 6. [.pdf of DDA ordinance as it will appear on the council's May 6, 2013 agenda]

April 15 Actions

The council did take action on a limited set of items at the April 15 meeting. Some of them were moved ahead on the agenda at the start of the meeting, because they were pressing matters or else needed eight votes to pass – like items involving land acquisition. The agenda changes reflected an implicit recognition that some councilmembers might need to leave before the meeting concluded.

Action: Wastewater Treatment Pumps

The council was asked to consider a $122,595 contract with Hubbell, Roth & Clark Inc. for replacement of “secondary effluent pumps” at the city’s wastewater treatment plan. One of the pumps had failed catastrophically. At the council meeting, wastewater treatment facility manager Earl Kenzie told the council that an assessment was made of the other five pumps to determine if the one pump should simply be replaced or if all of them should be replaced. That assessment, Kenzie said, showed that the other five pumps, which are over 30 years old, are in similar shape.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the contract with Hubbell, Roth & Clark Inc. for the pump replacement.

Action: Bridge Maintenance Program

On the council’s agenda was an application for funding under the state and federal local bridge program, which the city hopes will fund up to 95% of eligible construction costs. The remaining 5% would need to be paid by the city of Ann Arbor. The city is also responsible for design, construction engineering and testing costs.

The three city bridges that would have preventative maintenance done with funding from the program would be: the Fuller Road bridge over the Norfolk Southern Railroad tracks; the Maiden Lane Bridge over the Huron River; and the East Medical Center Drive bridge over the Norfolk Southern Railroad.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the funding application for the local bridge program.

Action: MDOT Application for 721 N. Main St.

The council was asked to approve an application to the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) and the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) for funding through the transportation alternatives program (TAP) to support future city work on its property at 721 N. Main St.

During the brief discussion by the council, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the city had been awarded $150,000 by Washtenaw County parks & recreation for the 721 N. Main site, which is contingent on approval of a $300,000 grant that the city has requested from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund. Briere expressed her hope that the TAP money could be another grant that will bring amenities to the city property, including pathways and a wetland.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the grant application to MDOT and SEMCOG for the 721 N. Main property.

Action: Land Purchase Near Ruthven Nature Area

The council considered a resolution to purchase another parcel within the city limits adjoining an existing nature area. The purchase price for the roughly 8-acre vacant parcel owned by Windy Crest Partnership – located just east of the Ruthven Nature Area – was $110,000. The parcel fronts on Meadowcreek Drive.

The parcel purchased by the city lies mostly within the floodplain or floodway as this image shows.

The city’s share of the purchase price is $82,500, with the remaining $27,500 contributed from Washtenaw County parks & recreation. Including the $13,000 in closing and due diligence costs, the city of Ann Arbor’s share amounted to $95,500, which will be paid from the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage proceeds.

The parcel is mostly in the floodway, as Millers Creek runs through it. Future costs associated with maintaining the site will include management by the city’s natural area preservation staff, who will conduct ecological burns and remove non-native species.

Purchase of the Meadowcreek Drive property marks the third similar acquisition by the city in about the last seven months, using funds from the open space and parkland preservation millage. At its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, the council authorized the acquisition of a parcel on Hampstead Lane, adjoining the Kuebler Langford Nature Area. And at its March 4, 2013 meeting, the council authorized the acquisition of a roughly 0.357-acre piece of vacant land located on Orkney, adjoining the Bluffs Nature Area.

During the brief council deliberations, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she was pleased to see the item on the agenda. She ventured that sometimes people forget that the greenbelt and open space millage was conceived of having a two-thirds to one-third split between land purchased outside and inside the city. She noted that the parcel is in Ward 2, which she represents. She called the acquisition a high value investment of the millage proceeds.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to purchase the parcel.

Action: Riverside Easement for DTE

The council considered an easement between the city of Ann Arbor and DTE Energy – for land in Riverside Park where utility poles are located.

The easement had been recommended for approval by the Ann Arbor park advisory commission at its March 19, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of easement agreement]

DTE Energy Buckler substation site plan. (Links to larger image)

The easement agreement is needed so that DTE can remove old utility poles and install new poles and overhead lines – generally in the same location as existing poles and lines at Riverside Park. The easement allows DTE to provide maintenance on those poles and lines. DTE requested the easement in relation to an $8 million new electrical substation that the energy firm is building on land adjacent to the park. The Buckler substation’s site plan was approved last year by the city’s planning commission on June 5, 2012. It did not require city council approval.

The overall project entails building the substation in the utility company’s Ann Arbor service center – to provide a way to distribute an increase in electrical power to the downtown area due to increased demand for electricity. The project includes two 15.5-foot tall electrical transformers and related electrical equipment on raised concrete pads, and a new power delivery center (PDC) – a 630-square-foot, 12.5-foot tall steel structure. The source of power will be transmitted through underground sub-transmission cables in an existing manhole and conduit system.

The project also needed a variance to the 15-foot conflicting land use buffer requirements along the east side property line, adjacent Riverside Park. DTE requested a variance that would allow the firm to plant 23 trees along the far western side of Riverside Park instead of on DTE property. PAC recommended approval of that variance at its Feb. 28, 2012 meeting. It was subsequently authorized by the zoning board of appeals on June 27, 2012.

In addition to planting trees in the buffer, DTE plans to remove 15 trees along Canal Street, which will be replaced by 50 trees in other parts of the park. As stipulated by city ordinance, DTE also will be required to pay the city a “tree canopy loss” fee. According to the city’s urban forestry website, the current canopy loss rate is $186/inch for shade trees and $172/inch for ornamental trees. For this project, DTE will pay $23,800, which will be earmarked for future improvements to Riverside Park.

Construction on the substation will take place during the summer of 2013.

Outcome: Without discussion, the council unanimously approved the easement.

Action/Postponement: Summit Townhomes

The site plan and necessary zoning for the Summit Townhomes project both appeared separately on the council’s agenda. But the council reached only the zoning question before voting to postpone everything.

Both the site plan and zoning request previously had been postponed by the council at its March 18, 2013 meeting. The property is located at 2081 E. Ellsworth Road.

The parcel for the Summit Townhomes development (shaded yellow). The blue line is the boundary between the Malletts Creek and the Swift Run watersheds.

The developer plans to build 24 attached residential units in four separate buildings, with each building between 80 to 160 feet in length. Each of the 24 units would have a floor area of about 1,300 square feet, and an attached one-car garage. The plan includes two surface parking areas on the east and west sides of the site, each with 12 spaces. To do this, the property needs to be zoned as R3.

March 18 had been the first time the site plan had been before the council. But the R3 (townhouse district) zoning for the property, annexed from Pittsfield Township, had been previously considered by the council, and referred to the planning commission for re-review. The planning commission then confirmed its original recommendation for R3 zoning.

In more chronological detail, the zoning item had first appeared on the city council’s Jan. 7, 2013 agenda, when it received initial approval. However, at its Feb. 4, 2013 meeting, the council heard from about a half dozen people who spoke during the public hearing, in opposition to the zoning – citing concerns about congestion and overcrowding. So councilmembers voted unanimously to refer the zoning issue back to planning commissioners for another look. The council indicated interest in hearing more detail on drainage issues, and the level of recreational services offered in that general area of the city, as well as information about public safety issues.

At their Feb. 21, 2013 meeting, planning commissioners voted again to recommend that the site be zoned R3 (townhouse district) – the same zoning they had previously recommended at their Nov. 20, 2012 meeting.

The project has been working its way through the city’s approval process for several months. The site plan had been postponed by planning commissioners in June of 2012 and again on Nov. 20, 2012, but was ultimately recommended for approval at the commission’s meeting on Jan. 3, 2013.

Before recommending the site plan, planning commissioners had previously recommended approval of annexation and zoning of the site in 2012. At their June 19, 2012 meeting, commissioners had approved annexing the 2.95-acre site, just east of Stone School Road, from Pittsfield Township into the city of Ann Arbor. The annexation was subsequently authorized by the city council.

On the zoning question, council deliberations consisted of just some brief remarks by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). He observed that the issue had been postponed on a number of occasions, and at this point he was willing to let it go forward. Residents in the area had spoken persuasively about a number of concerns involving density and traffic congestion. But Taylor felt that residents recognized that the differences between the various options were marginal – even though those differences had been large enough that the question had merited further inquiry.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the R3 (townhouse) zoning, but did not reach the site plan approval before voting to postpone everything on its agenda. So the site plan will return to the council’s May 6 agenda.

Postponement: Theta Delta Chi Site Plan

On the council’s agenda was a site plan for the expansion of the Theta Delta Chi house at 700 S. State. The property is located at the southwest corner of State and Monroe streets.

Aerial view of Theta Delta Chi property, at Monroe and State streets.

The city planning commission had recommended the project for approval at its Feb. 21, 2013 meeting. Commissioners also granted a special exception use for the building.

The proposal includes expanding the square footage from 12,386 square feet to 14,752 square feet by making an addition at the rear of the fraternity house. The property is zoned R2B (two-family dwelling district and student dwelling district), and the size of the lot would allow for occupancy of up to 50 people. However, the fraternity is not proposing to increase its current occupancy of 33 residents.

The new addition will include an expanded restroom and shower facilities, common space, a resident manager’s apartment, and a bike room with nine bicycle spaces. According to a staff memo, the project entails moving the driveway, which is accessed off of Monroe Street, about five feet to the east. To do this, the fraternity will need to enter into an agreement with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and shift two on-street parking meters a few feet to the east.

The project also will require several variances from the city’s zoning board of appeals, including: (1) permission to alter a nonconforming structure (due to height and setbacks); (2) variances from Chapter 59 (off-street parking) to reduce the number of parking spaces required and allow one parking space in the front open space; (3) a variance from Chapter 47 (streets) to reduce the drive opening width; and (4) a variance from Chapter 62 (landscape and screening) to reduce the conflicting land use buffer width.

Other changes planned for this project include converting a yard on the south side of the house into a large patio. That area is currently used for parking. A new shed for a dumpster, recycling carts, and bike storage is proposed near the southwest corner of the site.

The fraternity is adjacent to apartment buildings and across the street from the University of Michigan law school.

Outcome: The council did not reach the Theta Delta Chi site plan on its agenda before deciding to postpone every item. It will appear on the council’s May 6 agenda.

Postponement: Privacy Law

The council was asked to consider a new ordinance regulating the use of public surveillance cameras. [.pdf of ordinance as presented to the council on April 15, 2013] This was to have been the first reading of the ordinance. All ordinances require readings at two separate meetings of the council before they can be enacted.

The proposed video privacy ordinance would not apply to CTN cameras like this one mounted in the Ann Arbor city council chambers.

The new ordinance would apply only to a limited range of cameras – those used by the city of Ann Arbor “to monitor human activity without the physical presence of an operator, including cameras on remotely operated aerial vehicles.” The ordinance would not apply to a range of city of Ann Arbor cameras, for example: cameras used to improve traffic design, security cameras operating in jails, prisons, water treatment facilities, public housing facilities, or the Ann Arbor Airport and other governmental facilities.

The new ordinance would allow for public surveillance cameras to be installed for 15 days or less at the discretion of the city administrator if the purpose is to address a specific criminal problem.

A period of longer than 15 days would require two-thirds of nearby residents to give written permission. Regardless of the period of the installation, on-site notice of the camera’s presence would be required. If a private residence is in the public surveillance camera’s range, then the residents of that property would have to give written permission for the installation.

A public surveillance camera could not be used for live-monitoring, except in emergencies, and audio recording would not be permitted. Access to the recorded images would be limited to “employees of the police department and attorneys involved in criminal proceedings.” After 90 days, surveillance recordings would be deleted unless they are part of an ongoing investigation. A report on the effectiveness of a camera would be published on a public website after its removal.

The council had been alerted to the forthcoming ordinance proposal nearly four months ago, when Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) told his colleagues at their Dec. 20, 2012 meeting that he and wardmate Mike Anglin would be bringing a proposal forward.

At that meeting, Warpehoski said the Ann Arbor police department doesn’t currently use that surveillance technique, but there had been some concerns in other communities.

By way of additional background, the ordinance has been long in the works but has been delayed. Former Ward 1 councilmember Sandi Smith had announced at a council meeting over a year ago, on Aug. 4, 2011, that she’d be bringing a video surveillance ordinance for consideration at the council’s Sept. 6, 2011 meeting. And a year before that she’d indicated the human rights commission would be working on the issue.

Outcome: The video privacy ordinance was not reached on the agenda before the council decided to postpone everything remaining on the agenda. The video privacy ordinance will be added to the council’s May 6 agenda.

Postponement: 413 E. Huron

One of the major agenda items of the April 15 meeting was the site plan application for 413 E. Huron – a proposed 14-story, 216-apartment building at the northeast corner of Huron and Division streets.

From the site plan application for 413 E. Huron. Critical root zones of landmark trees are shown by the dashed circles. The root zones were a focus of much of the questioning by councilmembers on March 18, and was a focus of public commentary on April 15.

The project was presented to the council as a “by right” project, which means that in the judgment of the city planning staff, it met all the zoning requirements.

The Chronicle counted 51 speakers during the public hearing on the 413 E. Huron site plan.

The council had previously postponed a site plan decision on April 1, 2013 and on March 18, 2013.

Consideration of the site plan came after the council had considered and postponed, then finally voted not to impose a possible moratorium on site plan applications in the D1 (core downtown) area.

Instead, the council voted on March 18 to give the planning commission direction to review the city’s D1 zoning. The scope of that review and a deadline of Oct. 1 was given at the council’s April 1 meeting.

A new public hearing on the project was started at the April 1 meeting, and held open so that it could resume on April 15. That public hearing will continue on May 6.

Images for the proposed 413 E. Huron project, at the northeast corner of Huron and Division. On the left is an early rendering provided by the developer. On the right is an updated version presented to the city council on March 18, 2013.

During council communications time, mayor John Hieftje took the opportunity to repeat a point that has been made during public commentary at previous meetings. The point was that the 2009 A2D2 rezoning, which designated as D1 (downtown core) the parcels where the 413 E. Huron is intended to be built, imposed a height limit of 150 feet, where no height limit had previously existed.

Hieftje continued by noting that the density allowed under the D1 zoning was only slightly higher than the previously-allowed density.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) thanked Hieftje for making the point. She also pointed out that the previous zoning would have allowed only for a single use. It could not have been built as a multi-use like the proposed 413 E. Huron project and still met the code. Whether anybody would have built a commercial building that tall is something that “we’ll hopefully never know,” she said.

Outcome: The council did not reach the 413 E. Huron site plan on its agenda before deciding to postpone everything remaining. The site plan will appear on the council’s May 6 agenda.

Postponement: Misc.

A number of other agenda items were subject to the wholesale postponement of everything remaining on the council’s April 15 agenda. Those included the following:

• The appointment of Stephanie Buttrey as a member of the greenbelt advisory commission (GAC). Nominations to GAC are somewhat different from most other boards and commissions, in that nominations are made by the council as a body, not the mayor. Buttrey is being nominated to serve out the remainder of Liz Rother’s term – through June 30, 2014. Rother resigned the position. The resolution to appoint Buttrey was slated to be effective May 6 – which reflects the council’s typical practice of placing the resolution on the agenda as a “nomination” but then postponing the vote until the next meeting. In that respect the pattern is consistent with appointments for which the mayor places nominations before the council at one meeting, with a council vote taking place the following meeting.
• Confirmation of nominations to boards and commission made at the council’s April 1 meeting. Those included Sheila Steinman to the commission on disability issues and a reappointment of Ingrid Ault to the housing and human services advisory board. On April 1, Nickolas Buonodono had been nominated to replace Leigh Greden on the Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC) board, after Greden had reached the end of a term. However, that nomination was not on the council’s April 15 meeting agenda for confirmation. According to AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall, who spoke to The Chronicle in a telephone interview, Greden may seek reappointment for a second term if he can accommodate his schedule to the meeting times.
• An amendment to an emergency purchase order for $7,500 with Waste Management Inc. for the Dexter Avenue improvements project. The council had previously authorized an emergency purchase order for $45,000 to remove contaminated soil discovered during excavation. It turned out there was more contaminated soil than initially thought.
• Establishment of a contingency budget of roughly $10 million for the facilities renovations project at the wastewater treatment plant. The council had previously awarded a roughly $10.8 million contract with Malcolm Pirnie Inc. (MPI) for engineering services. And the council had approved the tentative award of a roughly $93 million construction contract with Walsh Construction Company II LLC.
• Approval of $262,000 in payments to Ultimate Software Group over the next two fiscal years. The city uses the software for human resources and payroll services.

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sumi Kailasapathy, Sally Petersen, Stephen Kunselman, Christopher Taylor, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Chuck Warpehoski.

Next council meeting: Monday, May 6, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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!