The new sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber, installed in the summer of 2013, includes Braille.

The council’s agenda for Thursday includes a relatively uncontroversial downtown development project. It’s also dominated by several items that relate to the way people move around inside the city. Some other agenda items relate to land outside the city.

Four different items appear on the council’s agenda related to developer Tom Fitzsimmons’ Kerrytown Place project – an 18-unit townhouse development proposed for the site of the former Greek Orthodox church on North Main Street. Nestled between Main Street on the west and Fourth Avenue on the east, the project is divided into two pieces – the Main Street frontage and Fourth Avenue frontage. Each piece of the project includes a rezoning request and a site plan proposal – and each of those constitutes an agenda item unto itself. The rezoning requested is from PUD (planned unit development) to D2 (downtown interface).

Three items relate to a piece of infrastructure closely associated with people walking as a way to get around town – sidewalks. Two resolutions involve the acceptance by the city of easements for sidewalks – one as part of a mid-block cut-through for The Varsity, a residential high-rise downtown, and the other in connection with a Safe Routes to School project near Clague Middle School on the city’s northwest side. Another sidewalk on the agenda with a school-related theme is a request for the council to approve a $10,000 design budget for about 160 feet of new sidewalk near King Elementary School, which would allow for a mid-block crosswalk to be moved to a four-way stop intersection.

More people might be able to get around the downtown and University of Michigan campus area by bicycle – if the council approves the use of $150,000 from the alternative transportation fund as requested on Thursday’s agenda. The money would provide the local match on a $600,000 federal grant obtained by the Clean Energy Coalition to establish a bike-sharing program through B-Cycle.

Getting around inside the city this fall will include the annual wrinkles due to University of Michigan move-in – and those traffic control measures are included in the council’s consent agenda. New this year will be additional traffic controls around Michigan Stadium on football game days – including the closure of Main Street between Pauline and Stadium Blvd. for a period starting three hours before kickoff until the end of the game. At its Thursday meeting, the council will be asked to give approval of the football game day traffic controls.

In matters outside the city, the council will be asked to authorize the receipt of $202,370 from the Federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP) to help the city purchase of development rights on land in Lodi Township, southwest of the city. That federal grant comes in connection with the city’s greenbelt program. The council will also be asked to confirm the nomination of John Ramsburgh to the greenbelt advisory commission.

Also on the council’s agenda is the extension of a contract for the city’s part-time public art administrator through the end of the year – to handle projects in the works at locations the Kingsley rain garden, East Stadium bridges, and Argo Cascades.

Added to the agenda late, on Tuesday, is a resolution that calls upon the state legislature to repeal Michigan’s version of a “stand your ground” law as well as to repeal legislation that prevents local municipalities from regulating the sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of firearms and ammunition. The agenda item comes in response to public commentary after the verdict in the Trayvon Martin case was handed down in mid-July.

Details of other meeting agenda items are available on the city’s Legistar system. Readers can also follow the live meeting proceedings on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network.

The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the meeting, published in this article “below the fold.” The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m.

6:54 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. Councilmembers who’ve arrived in council chambers so far are Stephen Kunselman, Sumi Kailasapathy, Sally Petersen, and Marcia Higgins.

7:08 p.m. Pledge of allegiance, moment of silence and the roll call of council. All councilmembers are present.

7:08 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Six people are signed up tonight for public commentary reserved time. Of those, three are described on the agenda as speaking on the bike share agenda item – which asks the council to approve a $150,000 expenditure from the city’s alternative transportation fund in support of a bike share initiative in downtown and the University of Michigan campus area. Speakers signed up to speak on the bike share item are listed on the agenda as Lucia Heinold, Jeff Hayner, and Lefiest Galimore. Heinold and Galimore, however, will be speaking on the resolution calling for a repeal of Michigan’s “stand your ground” law. Others who are signed up to speak on the “stand your ground” item include Mozhgan Savabieasfahni and Blaine Coleman. The sixth person signed up to speak is Meghan Clark – on the topic of surveillance and privacy.

7:12 p.m. Lefiest Galimore is now holding forth. He quotes the pledge of allegiance: “And justice for all.” He asks the council to support the repeal of “stand your ground” law. His remarks get applause from the roughly two dozen people standing in support of his remarks.

7:15 p.m. Jeff Hayner is speaking in support of the bike sharing program. He describes his participation in the first attempt at a bike sharing program several years ago, where bikes were simply provided for free, which he describes as “not turning out so well.” He argues for the bike share funding support based on the amount of grant funds that it will leverage. He allows that it doesn’t serve the outlying neighborhoods, but argues that the University of Michigan is also bearing the lion’s share of the costs. He calculates the city’s cost at about $300 per bike per year.

7:21 p.m. Blaine Coleman characterizes “stand your ground” laws as hunting licenses for black people. They should not have to appear before a city council and ask: “Please don’t shoot us,” Coleman says. He calls for the council in the future to pass a resolution calling for $1 trillion of support for the city of Detroit.

Savabieasfahni offers her perspective on racism in America. She characterizes Trayvon Martin’s death as a lynching on the streets of America. The laws of this country don’t protect people of color, she says. She describes a protest during the art fairs by University of Michigan students during which they chanted, “Racism killed Trayvon,” and many white observers responded, “No, it didn’t.” She says we’d do well do look inside ourselves and see how our laws promote racism and to change those laws.

7:24 p.m. Meghan Clark describes how a sophisticated surveillance system can be constructed for about $60. Surveillance technology is here, she says. Privacy means having input into what happens to your personal information. She’s disappointed that the council rejected the video privacy ordinance. She encourages the council to pursue the suggestion that Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had made to at least develop policy guidelines.

7:26 p.m. Lucia Heinold is now speaking in favor of the resolution on “stand your ground.” The evidence is that these laws are enforced in a disparate way, she said, with people of color convicted disproportionately.

7:27 p.m. Council communications. This is the first of three slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:28 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reports on the North Main Huron River task force. The due date of July 31 won’t be met for the final report she says. She conveys an apology from the task force. She expects it will be completed by the end of August. Briere announces a meeting of the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee next Tuesday.

7:32 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) calls attention to a survey on disabilities. Margie Teall (Ward 4) gives an update from the Ann Arbor housing commission. The weatherization at Hikone is done. The window replacements for tenants are done at Baker Commons, Teall reports. A non-smoking policy will be implemented at all the housing commission properties. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) announces an effort by a church to make the city aware of some of their concerns. City administrator Steve Powers had attended, Anglin says.

7:33 p.m. Powers reminds the public of the groundbreaking for the skatepark at noon tomorrow, at Veterans Memorial Park. Argo Cascades usage is dramatically up in July compared to July last year, Powers reports.

7:33 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Four of the five hearings tonight relate to the Kerrytown Place project being proposed by developer Tom Fitzsimmons for the location on North Main Street where the former Greek Orthodox church stood. The project is divided into two parts – the Main Street frontage and the Fourth Avenue frontage. Each part includes a request for rezoning – from PUD (planned unit development) to D2 (downtown interface) – and a separate site plan. For each rezoning request and for each site plan, a separate public hearing is held. The council gave initial approval to the requests at its July 1, 2013 meeting.

The other public hearing is on a change to the ordinance governing the employee retirement system – to reflect some recently negotiated changes to the contracts with two of the police unions.

7:34 p.m. No one speaks at the public hearing on the retirement ordinance. Thomas Partridge is not in attendance tonight.

7:35 p.m. No one speaks at any of the Kerrytown Place public hearings.

7:35 p.m. Minutes and consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. Tonight’s consent agenda includes five items, three of which relate to street closings:

• A purchase order not to exceed $85,000 with SEHI Computers for replacement of computers. The amount is to cover 60 desktops and 20 laptops for a proposed cost of $75,648. The $85,000 figure includes a contingency of 12% ($9,351).
• A $32,977 professional services agreement for testing of the road materials for the Packard Street resurfacing project (from Anderson to Kimberly). Construction is scheduled for fall 2013, from August through October.
• Resolution approving a street closure on South University Avenue between Washtenaw and Forest, for “Beats, Eats, and Cleats” – an event sponsored by The Landmark Building. The event is Friday, Sept. 6, 2013.
• Resolution approving changes to traffic patterns and parking in connection with University of Michigan student move-in – from Aug. 28-30. This is an annual approval.
• Resolution approving closure of South Main Street between Huron and Liberty, and Washington Street between South Ashley and the alley on East Washington toward South Fourth Avenue – for “Dancing in the Streets.” The closure lasts from noon to 7:30 p.m. on Sunday, Sept. 1, 2013.

7:45 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. Briere asks for separate consideration of the Beats, Eats and Cleats street closures and the Dancing in the Streets items. Briere says that she’s concerned that this street closure will be taking place on the evening before a football game. Mayor John Hieftje shares her concern.

Police chief John Seto said he wasn’t aware of a general policy, saying that they’re considered on a case-by-case basis. He noted that it’s the night before the UM-Notre Dame football game. He allowed he had some concerns, after weighing the things he knows against the things that he doesn’t know. Petersen wonders if World of Beer will be serving beer. Hieftje says he doesn’t see much difference between having a beer tent and serving alcohol at a bar. He reiterates that he has some concerns.

Kunselman asks if there’d be a difference in the police presence, if the event takes place. Seto says the sponsor of the event intends to provide private security. Kunselman asks about a comparison to Mud Bowl. Seto indicates that’s a morning event and there’s historically no street closures associated with that event. Kunselman inquires about a “pep rally.” He said that he can’t support it.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) says she appreciates everyone’s comments. She asks what “inflatable boxing” is. Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith is fielding questions. He’s not certain what inflatable boxing is. Teall says she also won’t support this street closing.

7:47 p.m. Teall is continuing to argue against the street closure based on the liability it seems to introduce. Hieftje ventures that a Tuesday night would be better. Teall allows that a different time would be better.

7:47 p.m. Outcome: The street closing for Beats, Eats, and Cleats is unanimously denied by the council.

7:49 p.m. Outcome: The Dancing in the Streets street closure is approved. The consent agenda is now dispatched.

7:49 p.m. Retirement ordinance. The council is being asked to give final approval of a change to the ordinance governing the city employees retirement system to reflect changes negotiated with two of the police unions – the police service specialists and the command officers. The staff memo accompanying the ordinance change characterizes the changes as related to “new hires, rehires and transfers between City service units before, on or after July 1, 2013 as well as grammatical corrections where appropriate.” The council gave initial approval to the ordinance change at its July 15 meeting.

7:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously without discussion to give final approval of the changes to the ordinance on the city employee retirement system.

7:49 p.m. Kerrytown Place rezoning. Final approval for two rezoning requests in connection with Kerrytown Place appear on the council’s agenda. The council gave initial approval to the requests at its July 1, 2013 meeting. The two parts of the project – one fronting Main Street and the other Fourth Avenue – are treated separately for the purposes of the rezoning request. In both cases, the requested rezoning is from PUD (planned unit development district) to D2 (downtown interface base district). The 18-unit townhouse development that developer Tom Fitzsimmons is planning to build is much smaller than The Gallery, for which the PUD zoning had originally been approved at the request of a different owner. The city planning commission gave a unanimous recommendation of approval at its May 21, 2013 meeting.

3D rendering from site plan submitted for Kerrytown Place – the view from Main Street.

On the North Main Street side, the project would include a 16-unit townhouse building with an underground parking garage, 12 carport parking spaces and 24 surface parking spaces. On the North Fourth site – now a surface parking lot – the plan calls for constructing a duplex with a 2-car garage for each unit and a 21-space parking lot. Each unit of the duplex would face North Fourth Avenue. The corresponding site plans for each part of the project have corresponding items later on the agenda.

7:50 p.m. Briere calls it an appropriate scale for the neighborhood. She encourages support for the downzoning.

7:53 p.m. Briere reiterates that it’s considered a “downzoning.” Kunselman says he’ll support it. He asks planning manager Wendy Rampson how much it’s costing the petitioner to go through the process. She looks at Tom Fitzsimmons and ventures that it might be $20,000. She’s going to look it up for him.

7:54 p.m. Briere says it’s another opportunity to approve a site plan that’s completely supported by the people who live in the area.

7:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the rezoning for the Kerrytown Place project as well as the site plans.

7:55 p.m. Appointment to the greenbelt advisory commission (GAC): John Ramsburgh. This item was postponed from the council’s July 15 meeting, which is customary for appointments to GAC. It’s one of the few boards or commissions whose members are nominated by the city council not the mayor. The usual two-step process associated with appointments – nomination at one council meeting followed by confirmation at the subsequent meeting – is mirrored for GAC appointments by postponing action on a resolution appointing a representative until the following meeting.

Ramsburgh is a development officer with the University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science & the Arts. He also is the son of Ellen Ramsburgh, a long-time member of the Ann Arbor historic district commission, and its former chair. He is filling a position previously held by Dan Ezekiel, who was term limited.

7:55 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously without discussion to appoint John Ramsburgh to GAC. Appointments to GAC are for three years.

7:55 p.m. Resolution on Michigan’s “stand your ground” law. This is a resolution added to the agenda on Tuesday, which calls upon the state legislature to repeal Michigan’s version of a “stand your ground” law as well to repeal legislation that prevents local municipalities from regulating sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of firearms and ammunition. [.pdf of Self Defense Act 309 of 2006] [Firearms and Ammunition Act 319 of 1990]

The resolution cites an “outpouring of local voices calling for the repeal of Michigan’s Stand Your Ground Law,” that were heard following the mid-July verdict in the Trayvon Martin case. That included public commentary at the council’s July 15, 2013 meeting as well as subsequent public demonstrations.

8:00 p.m. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) thanks Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) for his hard work getting the resolution ready. She references the public commentary at the previous council meeting. She says she knows what criticism people face when a national issue is brought to the city council. She reads aloud written remarks. Part of her remarks includes the statement that we don’t live in a post-racial society. She characterizes “stand your ground laws” as being used as a license to kill.

Briere thanks Kailasapathy and Warpehoski. She describes herself as someone who’s “not big on guns.” The idea that guns could be used in the way that a “stand your ground” law allows had not occurred to her.

8:06 p.m. Warpehoski thanks Kailasapathy and Briere. The more he’d looked into “stand your ground” laws, the more disturbed he was. Such laws do not reduce property crime rates, he says. He characterizes the burden on prosecutors in connection with such laws as unreasonably high.

Hieftje thanks the sponsors of the resolution for their work. He supports the second resolved clause on gun laws. Higgins says she’ll be consistent as she has been for 14 years in opposing this kind of resolution. She says it’s a much more powerful message for individuals to send the message. She doesn’t know that everyone in the city feels the same way about the resolution.

Kunselman will support it, but says that there’s a lot more going on in the world than we realize. He talks about the number of concealed weapons permits that are being processed by the county clerk’s office. He’s thought about getting a concealed weapons permit just sitting at the council table, but stresses that he has not done so.

8:10 p.m. Petersen acknowledges Higgins point of view, but says the resolved clause about gun laws moved her. She calls it a public safety issue. Teall says she appreciates everyone’s work on the resolution and says it’s the kind of issue that had prompted her to get involved in politics 13 years ago. She expresses skepticism that it would have any effect.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) appreciates Higgins’ point of view. She says the council needs to be cautious about venturing down this path – sending messages on issues that the council was not elected to address. However, she felt differently about this one. She agrees with Petersen that it speaks to the issue of public safety. She says that local control over firearms is a good thing. So she was comfortable sending this message to the state legislature.

8:11 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to pass the resolution calling on the “stand your ground” law, with dissent from Higgins.

8:11 p.m. Acceptance of $202,370 from the Federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP). The award of FRPP money is in the context of the city’s greenbelt program, supported by a 0.5 mill tax approved by voters to acquire development rights on land to preserve open space.

At its Feb. 19, 2013 meeting, the council had approved an application to the FRPP for the purchase of development rights on two properties in Lodi Township – the 78-acre Donald Drake Farm on Waters Road in Lodi Township, and for a 90-acre property owned by Carol Schumacher on Pleasant Lake Road in Lodi Township. The city of Ann Arbor was notified recently that for the two properties, a total of $202,370 in matching dollars had been approved to fund the purchase of development rights – $50,960 for the Drake property and $151,410 for the Schumacher land.

The council is being asked tonight to authorize the receipt of the federal matching funds. Here’s a map of the properties currently protected through the greenbelt program (smaller green areas) in the context of the greenbelt boundary (larger squarish region). Lodi Township covers the southwest corner of the greenbelt boundary area.

Ann Arbor greenbelt properties. Data from the city of Ann Arbor mapped by The Chronicle on Aug. 3, 2013 with geocommons.com

8:14 p.m. Lumm confirms that the issue will come back before the council when all the funding sources are identified. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, notes that in the past, Lodi Township has contributed to the acquisition of development rights. Lumm says she looks forward to possible participation from Lodi.

8:14 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to authorize the receipt of the federal farmland protection money.

8:14 p.m. Recess. The council is now in recess.

8:23 p.m. The council has returned from recess.

8:23 p.m. Road closures for 2013 UM football games. Unlike the university student move-in traffic changes, which the council approved as part of its consent agenda, this is the first year that the council has been asked to approve street closings around the football stadium on game days.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, it’s part of an effort to increase safety by creating a vehicle-free zone around the stadium, and involves a cooperative effort with the University of Michigan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the city of Ann Arbor police department. The traffic controls would be in place for the period starting three hours before a game until the end of the game.

Traffic controls include the following: E. Keech Street between S. Main and Greene streets would be closed. Access to Greene Street from E. Hoover to E. Keech streets would be limited to parking permit holders. The westbound lane on E. Stadium Blvd. turning right onto S. Main Street (just south of the Michigan Stadium) would be closed. And S. Main Street would be closed from Stadium Blvd. to Pauline.

UM football game day street closures with detour route (purple).

8:28 p.m. Police chief John Seto gives the background on the issue. He describes it as a request that came from the University of Michigan public safety department. Seto describes how he had requested some modifications before he was comfortable with the request. He describes a community meeting on July 24 and says that many comments and suggestions had been received. Modifications had been proposed. One modification he describes proposing was that southbound lanes of Main Street would be open until one hour before the game start.

8:32 p.m. Higgins says she hasn’t seen the modified proposal. The resolution doesn’t include the modifications. Higgins says she attended the community meeting. She says the city does a great job getting people going south, but not west. Higgins won’t support the street closing. This was brought up at the time that the university renovated the stadium, and UM had decided to build out as close to the street as possible, Higgins said. She wasn’t opposed to closing the right-turn lane on Stadium Blvd. She says she’ll respect her constituents. As an argument against the proposal, she notes that the exact game start times aren’t necessarily known months in advance. She thanks Seto for coming to the meeting. But she says that there should have been a meeting held earlier than two weeks before the council needed to vote.

8:38 p.m. Briere has questions for UM representatives. Ann Arbor is not unique in hosting football games. Do other cities do that? Ohio State University and University of Wisconsin close streets, the UM DPS officer explains. Seto gives more details on game day operations in other cities. Briere confirms that those street closures are due to security concerns.

Kailasapathy asks how closing the street helps to prevent terrorism. Seto says it’s part of what can be done as a “reasonable” approach. A Homeland Security official describes how blast modeling of a small truck laden with explosives could do considerable damage. The recommended street closures were based on that blast modeling, he explains. Kailasapathy ventures that the same truck could come at the end of the game. Why is there a higher threat before the game? she asks. DPS officer explains that just before the game is when the heaviest pedestrian traffic occurs and when the most people are inside the stadium.

8:45 p.m. Seto explains that the idea is to open things up in order to dissipate the crowd as quickly as possible. For some games, he says, the crowd starts to leave early. Petersen wonders why it’s taken three years to implement the recommendations. Higgins points out that East Stadium bridges were closed at the time. Lumm says it’s significant that few complaints were received when street closures were implemented for a nighttime Notre Dame game in 2011.

8:54 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) ventures that the main threat that is supposed to be mitigated is a potential truck bomb. Seto indicates that that is part of the motivation. Taylor inquires about the possible one-hour/three-hour mix of lane closures. Seto explains the balance between asset protection and the interest in getting the crowd to dissipate. The representative from Homeland Security explains that this plan meets the national standards for security for major sporting events.

Anglin asks who pays for the extra measures. The DPS officer explains that the UM athletic department pays. Anglin asks how much the city contributes to the provision of security for football games.

8:57 p.m. Higgins is responding to Anglin’s question by explaining that signs and signals are now paid for by the university. Higgins asks who owns the barricades. The DPS officer explains that the university owns the barricades. They can be moved by two people.

9:07 p.m. Seto recalls how difficult it was to determine the end of the 2011 Notre Dame game, which included overtime periods. He describes the logistical tactics that were used. Higgins has more questions. She says there were many issues associated with the 2011 street closures, that perhaps Seto wasn’t aware of. She stresses that after the first three games the residents want a review of how well things are working. Seto assures Higgins that will be done.

Higgins asks what will happen if it turns out that the logistics aren’t working out. She ventures that the resolution should be modified to reflect that.

Briere asks public services area administrator Craig Hupy to come to the podium. She asks about increased traffic flow in neighborhood streets, citing the possibility of increased deterioration of streets due to added traffic. Hupy indicates that would be minimal compared to the amount of traffic volume over the entire life of the street. Hupy says that the concern is about diminished traffic, which could have a negative impact on the lawn parking that residents enjoy.

9:07 p.m. Lumm now wants to move to amend the resolution to make the closure of the SB lane on South Main restricted to just one hour before the game start.

Outcome on Lumm’s amendment: The amendment passes unanimously.

9:14 p.m. Warpehoski says he lived in Washington D.C. on 9/11. Many people had mourned the increased “locked down” status. Now, however, he weighs the question of “What if I’m wrong?”

Kunselman follows up on the issue of reimbursement by UM for the signs and signals work. Hupy says that when the city has billed the UM, they have been paid. Kunselman says as everyone knows, he works at the university. [Kunselman is a Planet Blue energy conservation liaison.] He calls it a public safety issue. He recalls being able to sneak in through a hole in the fence. It’s a changing world and we have to accommodate the change, Kunselman says. He’ll support the resolution.

9:14 p.m. Briere wants to review the procedures soon enough to take action at the Oct. 7 council meeting. Higgins says that she wants to add a resolved clause that following the first three football games, the AAPD will meet with the neighborhood and bring recommendations to the Oct. 7 meeting. Briere says she’ll support that.

9:22 p.m. Lumm asks Seto to come to the podium. Seto says what’s being asked is doable. He can hear concerns and make suggestions, he said, but there will be certain things he can’t fix. Hieftje asks Seto how easily things could be changed in the middle of the season. Seto expresses confidence that AAPD could be flexible. He gives the Ann Arbor marathon as an example of that. He describes how AAPD often modifies its logistical operations on the fly. Hieftje expressed some concern that the barriers might be taken down too soon. Seto describes the balance that is to be struck.

9:22 p.m. Petersen says that according to her at-home fact checker, three overtimes were not required in the Notre Dame game in 2011 as Seto had said. Instead, it was a play late in the fourth quarter.

The council is “running out the clock” while Higgins crafts amendment language that would require a report to the council at its Oct. 7 meeting.

Outcome: The amendment to include an Oct. 7 report is unanimously approved.

9:25 p.m. Teall says she can’t support the resolution. Petersen calls it common sense. She can think of 114,000 good reasons to support this resolution. She sees it as a public safety issue. The council has now been discussing this for an hour.

9:28 p.m. Lumm is now holding forth. She appreciates the modification of the closure of SB Main to be just one hour before the game start. Higgins responds to comments by Lumm and Petersen about meeting national standards for security. She says that UM needs to think about meeting those standards as it builds out its campus. She somewhat wistfully says that in the future that will be the rest of the council’s problem – an apparent reference to her loss in Tuesday’s primary election.

9:30 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the street closures around the Michigan football stadium on game days. Dissent came from Briere, Teall, Higgins, and Kailasapathy.

9:30 p.m. Bike share program: $150,000. The council is being asked to approve a $150,000 expenditure from the alternative transportation fund in support of an initiative spearheaded by the University of Michigan and the Clean Energy Coalition (CEC) to establish a bike share program on the university campus and in an area west of campus in downtown Ann Arbor. The selected vendor is B-Cycle.

In a bike share program, users get access to bicycles parked at a station by swiping their credit card or membership card. Users can then return the bicycle to another station location near their destination.

Potential specific and general bike share station locations in Ann Arbor. The program would include 12-14 bike share stations with an anticipated total of 120-140 bicycles. The contract to provide the service was won by B-Cycle.

The city’s $150,000 would provide the necessary local match for a $600,000 Federal Highway Administration Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant that the CEC has received. The CMAQ funds have to be spent on capital (bikes and stations). Operations will be supported in the first three years of the program by UM at a level of $200,000 annually for a total of $600,000.

9:34 p.m. Petersen leads off by saying that she has mixed feelings. She says she’s disappointed that there’s not a communications plan for safety in the city’s parks – she’d like more signs on mixed-use paths. She doesn’t feel like the city has the safety infrastructure to support a bike share program. Her vote, she says, will be “not yet.”

Hieftje says that the plan was never to put bike lanes on every downtown street, because the traffic moves slow enough in some places that bicycles can keep up with cars. Briere agrees with Petersen. Signage is great, but she doesn’t think that signage replaces “people paying attention.” Briere is encouraged that UM is a strong financial supporter. She says it’s not about commuting but rather about moving from State and Liberty to the corner of Huron and Main (the Washtenaw County building).

9:41 p.m. Kunselman recalls the bike share program that Jeff Hayner had described during public commentary. They were painted green and were made available, and they disappeared to the far reaches of the city, never to return to the downtown, Kunselman said. He describes the number of abandoned bikes downtown and on the campus that clutter the streets. He says that the bike share program might help to “clean up our streets.”

Kunselman talks about the carrying capacity of the environment. He’s concerned about the fact that the money is coming from the alternative transportation fund, and might be taking away from other needs. Transportation program manager Eli Cooper describes the intended use of the fund as making improvements as well as maintaining non-motorized infrastructures. Kunselman asks for examples of maintenance activities. Cooper says that if anything were to be deferred, then it would be a half-mile of bike lane including signs. That would be postponed for about a year, he said.

Kunselman clarifies that this is “seed money.” That’s right, Cooper said. It’s for capital needs. The UM is contributing operating money. CEC is working on sponsorship revenue and handling fare revenue. Cooper sketches a vision of private cooperation.

Kunselman asks about clutter on downtown sidewalks. He wants to know if the specific locations will require council approval. Cooper indicates that the right-of-way permitting program is authorized by the council, but the individual locations wouldn’t need approval.

9:48 p.m. Cooper responds to Petersen’s concern about adequate signs in the park system. Lumm reports about mishaps in the parks – pedestrians being “slammed into” by bicyclists. She feels that bicyclists are more inclined to commute by bicycle paths. She brings up bells. Hupy says he has a bell on his bike and he’s one of those people who commutes through parks.

Lumm says that obviously a lot of effort has gone into the bike share initiative. She appreciates the responses about the impact of the program on the alternative transportation program. She says it’s appropriate to Ann Arbor. But she’s now expressing skepticism, saying that the city doesn’t prioritize its transportation programs. She objects to the fact that there’s not a long-term plan for the operating expenses – saying that UM’s commitment ends after three years. Still, she says she’ll support the resolution.

9:53 p.m. Warpehoski asks Cooper about the CMAQ grant deadline. Cooper says that there’s a deadline at the end of the federal fiscal year – Sept. 30.

Briere ventures that the council will hear that some of the bicycle lanes are in bad shape. What’s being done to maintain bike lanes? Cooper says he annually does a visual inspection of the entire system. An inventory of the bike lane inspections is available online, he says – it’s part of the city’s Bicycling in A2 website. He describes the citizens request system for repairing potholes.

9:57 p.m. Petersen asks how long it will take before signs will show up in the parks. City administrator Steve Powers indicates he can provide an answer tomorrow. Petersen asks how to get a specific piece of educational literature about what every motorist should know about bike lanes. Cooper lists off various locations where it’s available and ways it’s distributed.

Higgins says she doesn’t think the city has done a good job of educating cyclists. She describes bicyclists who go through red lights. She described encountering a cyclist who was using proper hand signals and discovered that it was Chuck Warpehoski. She oftentimes sees cyclists go up on the sidewalk and use the crosswalk. She expresses concern that the city would be suddenly adding a lot of additional cyclists. “I don’t think we’re there, yet,” Higgins says. Cooper says that the bike share program is another point of contact for additional education.

10:06 p.m. Higgins says that handing someone a pamphlet doesn’t educate them about what they need to do. She thinks users of the bike share system should have to pass a test. Petersen says she’s not concerned about educating cyclists, because they know their risks. Petersen says she’s concerned about education of motorists.

Anglin says he thinks it’s a good program. Matt Sandstrom from the CEC is fielding questions. Anglin asks if helmets are required. That’s a tricky question, Sandstrom says. He points out that helmets are not the law in Michigan. Education about helmets can be placed on kiosks, he said. CEC would be pro-helmet, Sandstrom says.

Anglin asks if most of the users are anticipated to be younger. Not necessarily, Sandstrom says. Kunselman picks up the idea of education. He says that education needs to be taking place in school. He asks if anyone remembers the rule about bicycles needing to give an audible signal before overtaking a pedestrian. This isn’t about education, but rather about bike sharing, he says. It’ll be the first in the state, he says. He points out that pedestrians don’t follow the rules of the road, either.

10:09 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the $150,000 allocation over two years to support the bike sharing program. Dissent came from Petersen and Higgins.

10:09 p.m. Waldenwood sidewalk design budget: $10,000 The council is being asked to approve a design budget for a sidewalk to fill in a gap from the northeast corner of Penberton Court and Waldenwood northward to connect to the path leading the rest of the way to the King Elementary School.

In its form, the resolution is similar to other sidewalk design budgets the council has been asked to approve in recent months. [For example, the council has approved similar design budgets for a sidewalk on Barton Drive at its July 15, 2013 meeting, a sidewalk on Newport Road at its Jan. 22, 2013 meeting and for a sidewalk on Scio Church Road at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting.]

However, the sidewalk gap near King School includes a history of advocacy by nearby resident and former Ann Arbor Public Schools board member Kathy Griswold dating back to 2009. For students crossing Waldenwood from the west to attend school, the segment of sidewalk would allow them to make the crossing at the intersection, where there is a four-way stop – instead of crossing the street using a mid-block crosswalk. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, “The Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS) Transportation Safety Committee has agreed the use of a new crosswalk at this stop controlled location would be preferable over the existing mid-block crossing at the school entrance.”

Waldenwood sidewalk gap. Green indicates existing sidewalks. Red indicates a sidewalk gap. Blue stars indicate signers of a petition in support of the sidewalk.

From the fall of 2009 through the spring of 2010, Griswold addressed the council on at least nine occasions on the topic of the King School crosswalk and the related sidewalk gap. The construction of a sidewalk had been met with opposition by the immediately adjoining property owners. The funding of new sidewalks – as contrasted with repair of existing sidewalks – is typically achieved at least partly through a special assessment on adjoining property owners. Sidewalk repair – but not new construction – can be paid for with the city’s sidewalk repair millage. In the case of the Waldenwood sidewalk, it’s located to the rear of the residential properties – and the city does not typically special assess properties to finance sidewalks to the rear of a property.

10:17 p.m. Petersen says she’s happy to see this come to the council. It has been debated since 2009, she says. Petersen says that the AAPS safety committee minutes from that era don’t indicate clearly that the group endorsed moving the crosswalk from mid-block to the four-way stop. City traffic engineer Pat Cawley is recalling the specific meeting for Petersen.

Kailasapathy asks public services area administrator Craig Hupy to the podium. She asks if the project comes to a halt if the property owners object. Hupy says that if the council approves the resolution, then the city staff would meet with the community and then come back for the second resolution in the special assessment process. Kailasapathy confirms that it’s a council decision, not one determined by the adjoining property owners. Hupy indicates there are three chances to kill the project along the way. Kunselman confirms that the property owner can’t kill the project.

10:20 p.m. Lumm thanks staff for their work. She asks how residents will be notified for the next step. Hupy says that they’d be mailed a meeting notice. He ventures that there could be more than one meeting. Lumm noted that it would have made sense to undertake the sidewalk construction when Waldenwood was recently repaved. She indicated that she was glad that this is going through a formal process.

10:26 p.m. Briere asks for the approximate timeline for the project. Hupy says he can’t speak to exact details. It’s a relatively simple project from an engineering and design perspective. The time-consuming part for this project would be the public engagement portion of the project. He ventures that it could come back to the council in late winter or spring of 2014.

Briere ventures that the sidewalk could be constructed by the start of school in the fall of 2014. Hupy allows that might be possible. Petersen said she thought that the property owners wouldn’t be special assessed because it’s on their rear lot lines. Hupy says that Petersen has picked up on the fact that there’s likely not anything that will be assess-able in the project.

10:26 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the design budget for the Waldenwood sidewalk. It needed an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council, because the council’s action altered the city’s budget.

10:27 p.m. Public art administrator contract extension: $18,500. The council is being asked to appropriate funds to pay for public art administrator Aaron Seagraves’ contract through the end of 2013. The amendment brings his total compensation for the period from June 11, 2011 through Dec. 31, 2013 to $48,900. The specific projects mentioned in the resolution, which require administrative work, are the Kingsley rain garden, Argo Cascades, and the East Stadium Blvd. bridges.

10:29 p.m. Briere says she can imagine people asking why the city has a public art administrator, if the city doesn’t have a Percent for Art program. There’s the old business of Kingsley rain garden, Argo Cascades, and Stadium bridges. There’s also a need to address the new business of integrating the new public art program into the capital improvements program.

10:32 p.m. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy explains to Briere that the reason that the contract extension goes through the end of the year is to allow for a bridge between the old Percent for Art program and the new program.

Kailasapathy notes that an issue had come up when she and Lumm had attempted a budget amendment to refund the money for public art to the funds of origin. She says she really has a problem with the resolution, so she won’t support it.

10:35 p.m. Lumm also says she has a problem with the resolution. She says that she’s tried at every point to discontinue the public art program. Instead of returning the $800,000 in unspent funds, the council had decided to maintain a public art “slush fund,” she says. She doesn’t think that the council should continue to “throw good money after bad.” She won’t support the continued spending on Percent for Art projects.

10:42 p.m. Higgins asks why $18,500 is being appropriated for compensation, but $20,500 is the amount in the resolution. Hupy describes miscellaneous supplies as accounting for the $2,000. Hupy points out that the information was provided in answers to the council’s caucus questions.

Petersen says she’ll support the resolution – because she wants the area around the Dreiseitl sculpture to become ADA compliant. Kailasapathy asks why a public art administrator would be handling ADA compliance. City administrator Steve Powers says that hasn’t been decided yet.

Anglin calculates that the public art administrator is being paid only $20/hour. He calls that a bargain. Kunselman says he’ll support it, because it’s a small amount. But he cautions that he might not vote to support spending the money on the remaining Percent for Art projects in the pipeline. He says the pressure is on the public art commission to bring forward a high quality piece of art. He said he could say right now that he’s not going to vote to spend money on “anything that’s hanging from a light pole.” That’s a reference to the recommended project for the East Stadium bridges location, proposed by artist Catherine Widgery and recommended by a task force.

10:47 p.m. Briere asks what would happen if the council voted not to spend the money on the East Stadium bridges location. Would the money revert to the public art fund? City administrator Steve Powers says that’s for the council to decide. The council could say, “Try again,” he says. Briere points out that the council would still need to amend the city’s public art ordinance in order to return public art funds to their funds of origin.

Hieftje supports the resolution, saying that it’s necessary to have administrative support for the art program. Teall reiterates that point, that a successful art program requires an administrator. Teall says that residents do see the value of public art, and having an administrator is vital.

10:48 p.m. Taylor says that there was a common understanding, if not unanimous, that a transition would need to be funded. He calls for honoring the effort that’s gone into this.

10:48 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract extension for the public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, over dissent from Lumm and Kailasapathy.

10:48 p.m. Easement: AATA water main. The council is being asked to accept an easement from the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority for a water main – related to the bus garage expansion at the AAATA’s headquarters at 2700 S. Industrial Hwy.

10:48 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the easement for the water main.

10:49 p.m. Easement: sidewalk at 2760 Nixon. The council is being asked to accept an easement from property owners Byron Bunker and Amy Bunker for construction of a sidewalk related to the Safe Routes to School initiative for Clague Middle School.

10:49 p.m. Lumm offers a brief statement of support, noting that it’s a part of the Safe Routes to School program for Clague Middle School.

10:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to accept the sidewalk easement from the Bunkers.

10:50 p.m. Easement: sidewalk at 425 E. Washington (The Varsity). The council is being asked to accept a sidewalk easement on the east side of The Varsity building, which will connect Huron Street with Washington Street. It’s part of the development agreement.

10:50 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the sidewalk easement from The Varsity.

10:51 p.m. Appointments. The council was asked to confirm mayoral nominations made at the previous council meeting on July 15: Sue Perry to the Elizabeth Dean Fund committee; and Evan Nichols to the zoning board of appeals.

10:51 p.m. Nominations. Highlights from nominations for boards and commissions added on Aug. 6 include Rishi Narayan to replace Leah Gunn on the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Narayan is founder and managing member of Underground Printing, which offers screenprinting of apparel in more than a dozen cities nationwide. Narayan made the Crain’s Detroit Business “Twenty in their 20s” list in 2010 as a 28-year-old.

Jack Bernard is being nominated to the board of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. When the AAATA articles of incorporation were changed recently to add the city of Ypsilanti as a member, the board was expanded from seven to nine members. One of the two additional seats is appointed by the city of Ypsilanti. Gillian Ream was appointed to that spot. Bernard’s appointment would fill the additional slot appointed by the city of Ann Arbor. Bernard is a lecturer in the University of Michigan law school and an attorney with UM’s office of the vice president and general counsel. He is also currently chair of the university’s council for disability concerns. Given the nature of wrangling over Eric Mahler’s recent appointment to the AAATA board, Bernard’s chairship of that group could be a key qualification. Some councilmembers objected to Mahler’s appointment, arguing that someone who could represent the disability community should be appointed instead.

10:51 p.m. Originally slated on the agenda to replace Newcombe Clark on the board of the Ann Arbor DDA was Al McWilliams. However, the most-recently updated version of the agenda does not include his name. Al McWilliams is founder of Quack!Media, an ad agency located in downtown Ann Arbor. Quack!Media lists the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority on its website as one of its clients. McWilliams has written advocacy pieces for bicycling on his blog.

Originally slated for nomination to serve on the public art commission was Jeff Hayner. But the most-recently updated version of the nomination list did not include his name. He has filed petitions to run for the Ward 1 city council seat. The Ward 1 city council ballot for November will include incumbent Democrat Sabra Briere, and independents Hayner and Jaclyn Vresics.

10:51 p.m. Public Commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

10:52 p.m. No one speaks.

10:52 p.m. Closed session. The council has voted to go into closed session under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act to discuss pending litigation.

11:08 p.m. The council has emerged from its closed session.

11:08 p.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

A sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chambers gives instructions for post-meeting clean-up.

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

The agreement came after the Ann Arbor city council passed a resolution at its Aug. 15, 2011 meeting directing its city administrator not to provide traffic control services unless the university reimbursed the city for those costs in the same way the university reimburses costs for police and fire protection on game days.

However, the agreement will mean a reduced level of service. For example, the city will not provide traffic control before the games or manual operation of traffic signals at major intersections like State Street & Eisenhower or State & Briarwood. The city’s press release warns that increased traffic congestion might result, compared to what people have historically experienced.

An exception to the reduced level of service is one game on Sept. 10, for which Ann Arbor will provide the full level of service that the city has provided in the past. That’s the date of the game against Notre Dame, which will be played at night.

Interim city administrator Tom Crawford had indicated at the council’s Aug. 15 meeting that his discussions with the university included the possibility of reimbursement for last year’s service. The estimated cost per year of the traffic control service given at the meeting was $100,000. Update: Via city communications manager Lisa Wondrash, according to interim city administrator Tom Crawford, the reduced level of traffic control services provided by the city will be reimbursed by the university at a level of $2,800 per game.

The press release issued on Aug. 26 does not include dollar figures for the reduced level of service that the university has agreed to reimburse the city, nor any information about whether the agreement is retroactive. [.pdf of press release]

Ann Arbor city council chambers on Aug. 15, 2011. Despite appearances, the city of Ann Arbor does not currently have a balloon payment due that will put the city up against its debt ceiling. (Photo by the writer).

The city council originally gave its approval to the selection of Village Green as the purchaser of the city-owned First and Washington lot back in 2006. To make up for the fact that the First and Washington deal has not yet been finalized, on Monday the council approved a $3 million inter-fund loan from its pooled investment fund. The money is needed to pay construction bills for the city’s new municipal center.

A year earlier, in 2005, the city received a recommendation from a blue-ribbon task force to change the composition of the board of trustees for its retirement system – to a mix on the board that is less heavily weighted towards members who are beneficiaries of the system. And on Monday, the council approved the Nov. 8 ballot language that will ask voters to change the city charter, which specifies the composition of the board.

A year before that, in 2004, the city council gave direction to city staff to develop an ordinance that would regulate idling vehicles. On Monday, the city council formally received – but took no action on – a resolution from its environmental commission recommending a draft anti-idling ordinance.

Likely dating back even earlier was an agenda item that addresses a point of ongoing friction between the city and the University of Michigan: reimbursement for the costs associated with traffic control during home football games. On Monday, the council approved a resolution that sets Aug. 25 as a deadline for completing a contract that reimburses the city for those costs. Otherwise, the city administrator is directed not to provide the signs and signals operations during home games.

In other business, the council gave final approval to the reapportionment of the five city wards, which will take effect after the Nov. 8 election. The council also set the application fee for medical marijuana business licenses at $600. The city’s medical marijuana licensing legislation, approved in June, takes effect later this month. Mayor John Hieftje also announced nominations for four of the five slots on the newly-established medical marijuana licensing board.

The mayor also announced nominations to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board. Joan Lowenstein and John Mouat were nominated for reappointment, while Gary Boren, recently elected as chair of the board for the coming year, was not.

At the meeting, the DDA was also highlighted during public commentary by the owner of Jerusalem Garden, a restaurant adjacent to the construction site of the Fifth Avenue underground parking structure, which the DDA is managing. The restaurant has seen revenues drop during construction. He reiterated some of the points he’s made previously when addressing the council and the DDA board, and this time called on the council to think about how to apply lessons learned from the current situation in the future.

Economic development was also part of the council meeting in the form of a resolution the council passed that urges the Washtenaw County board of commissioners to levy a tax to fund economic development. The tax is based on Act 88 of 1913 and does not require voter approval.

The proposed Fuller Road Station maintained a presence during council proceedings in the form of public commentary, as well as a reminder from the council to the mayor that he’d previously indicated a council work session would be scheduled on the project.

Inter-fund Loan for Municipal Building

The council was asked to approve the temporary loan of $3 million from its pooled investment fund (Fund 0099) to the building fund for its new municipal center (Fund 0008), which is nearing completion. The municipal center is located at Fifth and Huron.

Inter-fund Loan: Background

The loan is needed because the sale of the city-owned First and Washington property to Village Green for its City Apartments development has not yet been finalized.

As a historical point, the city council approved the selection of Village Green as the buyer of the First and Washington property at its Aug. 10, 2006 meeting. On that occasion, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) cast the sole dissenting vote.

The new municipal center’s financing plan included $3 million in proceeds from that sale. The loan from the city’s pooled investment fund will allow the construction bills to be paid.

The city’s pooled investment fund includes all eligible cash across all city funds – interest earned on the pooled funds is apportioned back to each fund based on the relative amount of cash from that fund in the pool.

The building fund will incur a cost of 1.93% annual interest on the money lent from the investment pool. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, on a short-term basis the inter-fund lending approach is more desirable than borrowing money from a lending institution, because of lower transaction costs, lower interest rates and no prepayment penalties.

The short-term financing strategy of lending the building fund $3 million from the pooled investment fund will not have an impact on the city’s general fund, if the land sale is finalized. However, the short-term financing strategy does not eliminate the risk to the general fund, if the land sale does not go through.

The city bonded for about $47 million for the municipal building project. The yearly bond payments of $1.85 million can be broken down roughly as follows: $508,000 in TIF (tax increment finance) capture pledged by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority; $490,000 in revenue from antenna rights; $455,000 in elimination of leases for space at other locations; $175,000 in elimination of utilities for leased space; $225,000 pledged by the 15th District Court facility fund.

The council had been advised by interim city administrator and chief financial officer Tom Crawford at its Aug. 4, 2011 meeting to expect some kind of short-term financing proposal on the Aug. 15 agenda. And more than a year earlier, at a city council work session in April 2010, the council discussed the city’s contingency plan of taking out short-term financing in the event the land sale did not materialize.

With respect to the land sale, at its Aug. 4 meeting, the council extended a purchase option agreement with the developer Village Green for the First and Washington site, where the developer plans to build Ann Arbor City Apartments. It’s a 9-story, 99-foot-tall building with 156 dwelling units, which includes a 244-space parking deck on its first two stories.

The land deal was originally set at $3.3 million, but was reduced by the council at its June 6, 2011 meeting to $3.2 million. The reduction in price approved at the council’s June 6 meeting was based on a “bathtub design” for the foundation that is intended to prevent water from ever entering the parking structure, eliminating the need for pumping water out into the city’s stormwater system. However, the Aug. 4 purchase option extension came with a charge by the city to Village Green of $50,000.

The parking deck portion of Village Green’s City Apartments project is being developed in cooperation with the Ann Arbor DDA, which has pledged to make payments on around $9 million worth of bonds for the project, after the structure is completed and has been issued a permit for occupancy.

According to the staff memo accompanying the Aug. 4 resolution, Village Green still hopes to break ground on the project in the 2011 construction season.

As a historical point related to the planned use of the sale proceeds for the new municipal center construction, the council defeated a resolution on March 17, 2008 to extend the Village Green purchase option agreement for First and Washington. At the council’s following meeting, on April 7, 2008, the measure was brought back for reconsideration, and the council voted unanimously to extend the agreement. The key difference was the addition of a “resolved clause,” which stated: “Resolved, that the proceeds from this sale shall be designated to the general fund, Fund 010.”

Inter-fund Loan: Council Deliberations

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) confirmed with the city’s chief financial officer and interim city administrator Tom Crawford that the $3 million loan transfer was part of the municipal center construction cost. Anglin asked why the city would not simply look to the general fund itself to cover the cost. Crawford explained that approach would result in a lower investable fund balance in the general fund, which would be a detriment to the general fund.

The financing the city is proposing, Crawford said, is structured so as not to be a detriment to the general fund. It’s the building project fund that pays the interest, he said. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) characterized the financing essentially as establishing a line of credit. Crawford confirmed that the investment pool is reinvested and reevaluated on a daily basis.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to approve the inter-fund loan to the municipal center building fund from the city’s pooled investment fund.

Charter Amendment: Retirement Board Composition

The council considered a resolution to place before voters on Nov. 8 a charter amendment to alter the composition of the board of trustees for the city’s retirement system.

Retirement Board Composition: Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retirement Board Composition: Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) introduced the proposed ballot language asking voters to amend the city charter and described how the state attorney general’s office – after back and forth with the city – had provided approval of the ballot language at 4:55 p.m. that day.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) scrutinized the proposed ballot language, which resulted in single word deletion from the language [deleted word indicated with strikethrough]:

For the purpose of adding two additional citizen trustees, removal of the City Administrator as a member of the Board, and decreasing the number of elected general member trustees, shall Section 17.2 (a) of the Charter be amended to restructure the composition of the nine-member City Employees Retirement Board of Trustees to a membership of 5 appointed citizen trustees, one elected trustee each for general City general members, fire members, and police members, along with the continued membership of the City Controller?

Based on the interaction between Rapundalo and assistant city attorney Mary Fales, the inclusion of the first instance of “general” was erroneous. It was stricken as an administrative amendment on which the council did not vote.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) wanted to know what the nature of the issue was that had caused the delay in the attorney general review. Higgins explained that it had to do with the terminology of “chief financial officer” versus “controller.” Higgins thanked the city attorney’s office staff for its work, which Rapundalo echoed.

Rapundalo noted that the issue had been going on for a number of years. The change to the charter should go a long way to establishing a board that has a little bit more independent oversight, he said. And by virtue of that, it would provide more transparency and reduce the perception of conflict of interest for those sitting around the retirement board table, he said. Higgins added that the city’s unions will need to ratify the language as well, even if the charter amendment passes.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to approve the placement of the retirement board charter amendment on the Nov. 8 ballot.

Anti-Idling Law?

Although it originally appeared in the slot designated for board/commission-initiated business, an anti-idling item was moved on the agenda to the section for written communications from the city administrator. The council formally received the communication from its environmental commission: a resolution approved by the commission in February 2011 that refers a draft anti-idling ordinance to the city council. The ordinance would aim to reduce instances of unnecessary idling by internal combustion engines of all types when not “doing work.”

The resolution approved by the city’s environmental commission makes reference to the city council’s direction to city staff to develop the ordinance, but does not mention the date when the council passed a resolution giving that direction – July 6, 2004.

Examples of unnecessary idling cited in the draft resolution are “warming up a vehicle, dropping off or picking up children at school, loading or unloading cargo, pulling over to take a cell phone call, or waiting in line at a drive-thru window.” However, the draft ordinance explicitly exempts “vehicle queues for drive-through goods and services.” [.pdf of whitepaper including draft ordinance]

Councilmembers addressed the issue during one of the communications slots on the agenda. Margie Teall (Ward 4) thanked Sabra Briere (Ward 1) for tracking down the resolution passed by the council seven years ago that gave direction to city staff to develop an ordinance. It had gone to the city attorney’s office and other city staff, including the city’s environmental coordinator Matt Naud, and back to the environmental commission.

Teall, who serves on the environmental commission, observed that the item had accidentally landed initially on the wrong part of the agenda – but said that the communications items are often overlooked. Teall noted that it’s the city environmental commission’s resolution and the city council will be looking at it in the near future. Teall said she’d welcome comments and discussion and perhaps a city council working session on it.

Teall invited Naud to the podium. He described how 50-100 cities have such an ordinance. He traced Ann Arbor’s effort on the topic to a resident of The Armory – a residential development at Fifth and Ann streets – who was concerned about school buses idling in front of the Hands-On Museum. The museum is immediately adjacent to The Armory. Naud allowed that it had taken a long time (since 2004), but reported that the city had also accumulated a lot of good data. He suggested that this was now an occasion to open up a community discussion.

Outcome: The city council did not take any action on the item – it was ultimately listed on the agenda as simply a communication from the city administrator.

University of Michigan Football Traffic Controls

Before the council for its consideration was a resolution stating that no traffic controls for University of Michigan home football games will be provided starting this season, unless the university reimburses the city for costs associated with erecting barricades and changing traffic signals to facilitate efficient movement of traffic.

University of Michigan Football Traffic Controls: Background

The cost of providing these signs and signal services is around $100,000 per year. The university already reimburses the city for police and fire services associated with home football games.

From the resolution: “Resolved that the City Administrator shall not provide Signs and Signals services to UM for Special UM Events unless: UM and the City execute a contract prior to August 26, 2011, that provides for the full reimbursement to the City of all direct and allocable costs associated with the provision of Signs and Signals services to UM for Special UM Events.”

Michigan’s home opener this year, against Western Michigan, falls on Sept. 3.

Left to right: interim city administrator Tom Crawford, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

The issue is a persistent point of frustration on the city council, because traffic control for football games is a dollar cost to the city, but the city has limited leverage with the university to extract payment. That’s due in part to the fact that traffic control is seen not as merely a matter of convenience, but rather of public safety.

From a March 2010 city council budget work session report: “Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked how much of [football traffic control] was an issue of convenience versus public safety. Chief of police Barnett Jones stated that it was all safety-related. Without the combination of cars, barricades and signals, he said, ‘it would be a major malfunction.’”

From a January 2011 city council budget retreat report: “Some councilmembers seemed to suggest that concessions from the university could be won by withholding city consent when the university wanted something from the city. The university’s desire to include Monroe Street as part of the UM Law School campus was cited as a specific example. [City administrator Roger] Fraser, though, counseled that each situation should be evaluated unto itself. He pointed to the planned Fuller Road Station as an example of the importance of that principle.”

From a March 2011 city council budget work session report: “Responding to councilmember questions, [public services area administrator Sue] McCormick said the city did not send the university invoices for the regular home football games, because the university has made it clear that it will not pay. McCormick said when she’d notified UM of the city’s intention of invoicing for the Big Chill, the response she gotten was, ‘We really don’t know how we’ll fund that.’ There was little recourse for the city to take, she said, and in the end the city would have to write it off.”

University of Michigan Football Traffic Controls: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) introduced the resolution, acknowledging that it had been added late to the agenda. By way of explanation for the lateness, he offered the fact that the city and the university had been involved in ongoing conversations that were progressing well, but he hoped the resolution would improve things. He noted that football Saturdays are “a very big deal” for the university and the city community.

Taylor went on to say that the city cooperates with the university to ensure the efficient and safe operation of large university events. It includes police and fire services as well as traffic management services. The costs for the police and fire services are reimbursed by the university, he explained. However, up to now, the traffic management services have not been reimbursed. The city is currently having a conversation about the university’s possible reimbursement of the traffic control costs, Taylor said.

In every good conversation, Taylor continued, it’s sometimes useful for there to be clarity about the position of the parties, and the resolution was intended to provide that clarity.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) expressed concern about the timing. He asked for clarification about the time pressure, given that the football season was fast approaching. Taylor said the conversations had been progressing well, but there was some lack of clarity about whether the city will continue to provide traffic control services in the absence of reimbursement.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) then stated that UM can contract with some other organization to provide the service. However, interim city administrator Tom Crawford made clear that’s not actually the case, saying that police and fire services are already reimbursed and that the signs and signals work involves the city’s staff, working with city assets – it can’t really be done by some other organization.

Crawford went on to say that other communities sometimes contacted the city to learn how the city manages to provide the level of services it does provide in connection with football crowds. [Michigan Stadium, located at Main and Stadium with a capacity of 109,901, is the largest in the country.]

Mayor John Hieftje said that the proliferation of games has made it a real burden on the city staff and he felt it was appropriate to have a contract.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) brought up another point for clarification – was this a matter of looking forward, or also about asking the university to pay for past years of traffic controls? Crawford said he was in the middle of fruitful discussions that included last year as well as upcoming years. He called it an issue that still needs to be resolved.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to approve the resolution that directs the city administrator not to provide traffic controls for university football games, unless the university agrees to reimburse the city’s costs.

Ward Boundary Changes

The council considered final approval to minor changes in the apportionment of its five city wards, made in response to population changes revealed by the 2010 census. The changes will not take effect until after the Nov. 8 general election. According to the city charter, city wards must have the general shape of a pie-shaped wedge, with centers of the tips lying at the center of the city. The council had given the boundary changes initial approval at its Aug. 4 meeting.

The council had postponed the issue at its July 5 meeting, but not before unanimously agreeing to alter the timing of the boundary changes, which had originally been recommended by the city attorney’s office to come between the primary elections for city council, which were held Aug. 2, and the general election to be held Nov. 8.

While the minor changes to the boundaries themselves had not been met with strong objections, the timing had been controversial. So at their July 5 meeting, councilmembers agreed to move the effective date of the boundary changes to Dec. 1, 2011.

The staff-recommended tweaks, given initial approval at the Aug. 4 meeting, showed minor differences from the changes recommended on July 5. All changes involve the way the tips of the pie-shaped wedges come together.

In the July 5 version, Ward 5 was bounded by Huron Street to the north and Madison Street to the south as it came towards the city center. In the Aug. 4 version, the Ward 5 northern boundary was dropped to Liberty Street, and to compensate the Ward 5 pie tip extended farther to the east.

In the July 5 version, the boundary between Wards 3 and 4 was aligned to Packard Street. But in the Aug. 4 version, the existing protrusion of Ward 4 across Packard, between Arch and Wells streets, was preserved. And to compensate, Ward 4 was pushed back from South University, with the result that Monroe Street, east of State Street, is a part of Ward 3. [.pdf of staff-recommended tweaks from Aug. 4] [.pdf of staff-recommended tweaks from July 5.]

Ward Boundary Changes: Public Hearing

Because the ward boundary changes reflect a change to the city’s ordinances, a public hearing was required.

Only one person spoke. Thomas Partridge called on the council to take into account the socio-economic status of residents in the reapportionment of the wards. Is there anyone on the council who represents the middle class of Ann Arbor? he asked. Are there students or disabled people who come from lower income brackets? He called on the council to give additional consideration to how each ward is represented. He suggested having an at-large representative on the council.

Ward Boundary Changes: Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje asked that someone explain what was going on and why the reapportionment was happening. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) explained that the 2010 census showed that Ward 1 gained population since the previous census in 2000, relative to the other four wards. The easiest way to restore the balance was to look at the densest part of the city near the downtown.

Each boundary is changing, but only slightly, Briere said, and in the end all five wards are all close to balance. Hieftje elicited from the city clerk, Jackie Beaudry, that residents in affected areas, whose wards are changing, would by law receive a new voting card. Briere reminded everyone that the new boundaries don’t become effective until after the Nov. 8 election – on Dec. 1.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to give final approval to the ward boundary changes.

Medical Marijuana License Application Fees

A resolution was on the agenda to establish an application fee of $600 for licenses to operate a medical marijuana dispensary in the city. The fee covers a total of approximately nine hours of work by staff in the city clerk’s office, police department, planning department, and the attorney’s office.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) talks with Dennis Hayes before the city council's Aug. 15 meeting started.

The licenses were established by a city ordinance given its final approval at the council’s June 20, 2011 meeting. The ordinance distinguishes between an “application fee” and a “license fee.” The license fee, according to the city’s ordinance, is to be reviewed by a licensing board, with members to be appointed by the mayor.

The ordinance becomes effective Aug. 22, which is 60 days after its date of legal publication, on June 23. Applicants who were already in business before the city council enacted its Aug. 5, 2010 moratorium have 60 days after the effective date to apply for a license.

The city’s communications to this point with prospective applicants has not been perfectly smooth. A letter sent out by Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city, was met with objections because of the city’s insistence that “proof” be provided that a business was in operation before Aug. 5, 2010 – beyond an affidavit attesting to that effect. The city’s ordinance appears to empower the licensing board, not staff in the city attorney’s office or the planning department, with evaluating the merits of license applications.

Medical Marijuana Application Fees: Public Commentary, Hearing

Dennis Hayes addressed the council at Monday’s meeting, having appeared around a dozen times over the course of the last year as the council debated the medical marijuana ordinances. Hayes told the council it was nice to be back again. He said he appreciated how the city council had responded quickly to questions about implementation of the law. He encouraged the council to approve the fee, noting that the city would incur substantial expenses any time there’s something new. He felt the Ann Arbor law would be a productive example for the rest of the state.

During the public hearing on the fee, Thomas Partridge spoke in favor of placing restrictions on access to medical marijuana.

Medical Marijuana Application Fees: Council Deliberations

During the scant council deliberations, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) stressed that the fee the council was approving was an application fee, not a licensing fee.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to approve the $600 application fee for medical marijuana licenses.

Medical Marijuana: Licensing Board Nominations

Nominations to the medical marijuana licensing board were also made later at the Aug. 15 meeting: Patricia O’Rorke, James Kenyon and John McKenna Rosevear. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) was nominated as the city council representative. The five-member licensing body is to consist of one member of the city council, one physician, and three other Ann Arbor residents.

Still needed is a physician to serve on the board. The nominations will be confirmed at the council’s next meeting.

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority

The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority came up in two ways at the council’s Aug. 15 meeting. First, nominations for re-appointment to the DDA board were announced. And second, the owner of the Jerusalem Garden restaurant, Ali Ramlawi, again addressed the council about his frustration over the underground parking garage construction project, which the DDA is managing.

Ann Arbor DDA: Nominations

Appointments to the DDA board are made by the mayor, subject to confirmation by the city council. Mayor John Hieftje nominated John Mouat and Joan Lowenstein for reappointment, but Gary Boren, who was elected this July by his colleagues as chair of the DDA board for the coming year, was not reappointed. Nominated to replace Boren was Nader Nassif, a local attorney. Boren is also an attorney.

In an email sent late Monday to The Chronicle, after the nominations appeared late on the council’s agenda, Boren wrote that Hieftje had met with him a few weeks ago and at that meeting the mayor had told him he was not inclined to reappoint Boren. Boren acknowledged that he and the mayor had philosophical differences about the role of the DDA. About the decision not to be reappointed, Boren wrote that “I am disappointed, but not surprised – and not at all bitter.”

The four-year terms of all three DDA board members – Boren, Lowenstein and Mouat – had actually expired on July 31. The mayor’s appointment of Bob Guenzel to the DDA board last year also came late, after Jennifer S. Hall’s term had expired.

At the DDA’s annual meeting early this July, DDA board member Newcombe Clark provided a chance for the mayor to announce publicly any intention not to reappoint Boren, when Boren’s name was put forward as a candidate for chair of the board for the coming year. Clark asked if Boren’s term would be renewed. The mayor declined to respond to Clark’s question. From The Chronicle’s DDA meeting report of July 6, 2011:

Newcombe Clark asked if Boren’s term was being renewed – that is, would he be reappointed by the mayor to serve on the board? By way of background, outgoing chair Joan Lowenstein’s term on the board ends on July 31, 2011, as do the terms for Gary Boren and John Mouat. Boren has been a vocal proponent of the idea that the DDA is an independent corporate body and not an arm of the city of Ann Arbor.

Last year, Clark had pointedly abstained from voting in the officer elections over the lack of information about reappointments to the board. From Chronicle coverage of the July 7, 2010 DDA annual meeting:

Abstaining from each of the officer votes was board member Newcombe Clark.

Clark explained to The Chronicle after the meeting that there’d been no indication from the mayor whether the two board members whose appointments are expiring July 31 – Jennifer S. Hall and John Splitt – would be reappointed. Clark said he could thus not be certain of the full range of choices for board officers.

Splitt was reappointed; Hall was not. Bob Guenzel was appointed instead of Hall.

In response to Clark’s question this year, Lowenstein said they did not know that yet. Mayor John Hieftje, sitting at the board table, did not offer any statement about whether he planned to nominate Boren for the city council’s approval for reappointment.

At its first meeting in September, the DDA board will presumably elect a new chair. The board’s pattern historically has been to select its vice chair as the next chair. Elected vice chair in July was former Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel, who joined the DDA board a year ago.

Outcome: The council will not vote on the confirmation of DDA appointments until its first meeting in September. Those appointments will presumably not include the kind of public hearings that Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) suggested during his communications at the council’s Aug. 4, 2011 meeting. However, allocation of the 10 public commentary reserved time slots at the beginning of every council meeting gives preference to those speakers wishing to address agenda items – and the confirmations will be on the agenda.

Ann Arbor DDA: Construction Complaints

During public commentary, Ali Ramlawi reminded councilmembers that he had also addressed them last month. He’s the owner of the Jerusalem Garden restaurant, located next to the construction site of the underground parking structure being built along Fifth Avenue. He expressed frustration about reading the response by Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, to his previous criticisms – a response that was published in AnnArbor.com.

Ramlawi characterized Pollay as claiming that the DDA had provided trash pickup, snow removal and lighting. He said those are ordinary city functions, which the city has “delivered flawlessly” since 1987 when the restaurant opened. With respect to the snow removal, he said he had to call several times this past winter because of the build-up of snow obstructing pedestrian walkways. He felt like he was a “cop on the beat” on the corner, because he had to call and complain about trash, lighting and snow removal.

He alluded to the expense of the DDA’s wayfinding sign project, saying that for an organization that had spent $1 million on some signs, its efforts to place signage indicating that the restaurant was still open have been “poor.” Two years into the project, he said, the DDA had not delivered any kind of signage. The problem is not confined to Jerusalem Garden, he said – people come in wondering where the library and the post office are.

He asked the city council to review the situation and use this as a learning lesson. He also called for a complete review of the DDA board appointment process – noting that appointed officials were making important decisions. He concluded by saying that to give credit to the DDA for the success of downtown Ann Arbor is like giving Al Gore credit for inventing the Internet.

By way of additional background,  construction-orange-style signs about businesses have been in place in two locations in connection with the parking garage construction project since it began. At the intersection of Fifth Avenue and Washington Street, a sign placed on the left side of the street facing the one-way traffic heading south on Fifth Avenue indicates generically that businesses are open – no businesses are named. And at the next intersection of Fifth Avenue, at Liberty, a sign facing southbound Fifth Avenue traffic is placed with the names of businesses still open. No signs for eastbound or westbound Liberty Street traffic appears to have been placed.

That signage is actually required as part of a settlement agreement in connection with a lawsuit filed against the city of Ann Arbor about the project, to which Ramlawi was a party. From the settlement agreement:

Throughout the construction process, the City agrees to provide signage that directs customers to Herb David and Jerusalem Garden. Such signage will be similar to what the City has provided in the past as part of other City construction projects.

Act 88 Economic Development Tax

Before the council for its consideration was a resolution urging the Washtenaw County board of commissioners to use Act 88 of 1913 to levy a tax to support economic development in the county.

Act 88 Economic Development Tax: Background

For the last two years, the county board has levied the tax – at a rate of 0.043 mill. (One mill is $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value.) The council resolution was brought forward by Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Because Act 88 predates the state’s Headlee legislation, the board does not need to put the issue before voters in order to levy the tax. The county board could, by the Act 88 statute, levy such a tax up to 0.5 mills, or more than 10 times the amount it has chosen to levy the last two years.

Last year in November, the county board approved the Act 88 tax with just a six-vote majority on the 11-member board. Kristin Judge, Mark Ouimet and Wes Prater dissented. Jessica Ping abstained, and Rolland Sizemore Jr. was absent from that Nov. 3, 2010 meeting.

For 2011, the allocation of the roughly $611,266 raised by the countywide Act 88 tax broke down as follows: $200,000 to Ann Arbor SPARK; $50,000 to SPARK East; $100,000 to the Eastern Leaders Group; $144,696 to the county’s department of economic development and energy; $15,000 to fund a Michigan State University Extension agricultural innovation counselor for Washtenaw County; $27,075 to fund horticulture programming for the Washtenaw MSUE horticulture educator; $59,229 for 4-H activities, including allocation to the Washtenaw Farm Council for operating the Washtenaw County 4-H Youth Show & 4-H agricultural programming for the 4-H extension educator; and $15,000 to support the work of the Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP).

SPARK is also supported by Ann Arbor taxpayers through a contract with the city of Ann Arbor for business development services. At its June 20, 2011 meeting, the city council authorized the city’s annual $75,000 contract with SPARK. That translates to the rough equivalent of 0.017 Ann Arbor city mills. (Each mill levied within the city of Ann Arbor translates to roughly $4.5 million.) Together with the countywide Act 88 millage, direct Ann Arbor taxpayer support of economic development translates to the equivalent of at least .06 mills (0.043 + 0.017) or roughly $270,000.

Ann Arbor SPARK is also the contractor hired by the city’s local development finance authority (LDFA) to operate a business accelerator for the city’s SmartZone, one of 11 such districts established in the early 2000s by the Michigan Economic Development Corp. (MEDC). The SmartZone is funded by a tax increment finance (TIF) mechanism, which in the current fiscal year captured around $1.4 million in taxes from a TIF district – the union of the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Downtown Development Authority districts, though revenue is generated only in Ann Arbor’s district. The specific taxes on which the increment since 2002 is captured are the school operating and state education taxes, which would otherwise be sent to the state and then redistributed back to local school districts.

Act 88 Economic Development Tax: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) introduced the resolution. He noted that the question of whether to levy the tax will soon be before the county board of commissioners. [A public hearing on the millage is set for the board's Sept. 7 meeting.] Taylor portrayed the millage as costing the owner of a $250,000 house about $5.38 a year. He encouraged the council to support the resolution, in light of the utility of the money that the millage would generate countywide.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) echoed Taylor’s sentiments. He also noted that the county had recently reorganized itself by merging three departments, including its economic development department. The merger will present a greater challenge to the county staff, Hohnke said, but it will be able to leverage the Act 88 millage that much more efficiently. He mentioned the idea of promoting heritage tourism.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked what happens if the county board doesn’t approve the levy of the millage. What are the effects on economic development at the county level if it doesn’t pass? she asked.

Expressing some hesitancy, Hohnke said he didn’t know, but offered some thoughts. The millage brings in around $600,000 and is deployed in a number of ways in partnership with other organizations, including Ann Arbor SPARK. In some activities, Hohnke said, it’s the county that takes the lead, and he ventured that you’d see a scaling back of those activities if the millage were not levied.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to adopt the resolution urging the county board’s passage of the Act 88 millage.

West Park: Flooding, Tennis Courts

Councilmembers heard from a resident about flooding related to a stormwater project in West Park, and they used the occasion of a construction contract for tennis courts in the park to talk about some of those concerns.

West Park: Public Commentary on Flooding

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Daniel Marano introduced himself as a resident who lives on the west side of town, on Maple Ridge. He reported a severe flooding problem on his street that he said seems to be tied to the engineering failure of the West Park drainage and stormwater system.

Maple Ridge, looking south.

By way of background, the city undertook major renovations to West Park using federal stimulus funds and revolving loans facilitated by the county’s water resources commissioner. [Chronicle coverage: "West Park Renovations Get Fast-Tracked"]

In February 2011, Craig Hupy – head of systems planning for the city of Ann Arbor – reported to the park advisory commission on the status of a failed swirl concentrator, which had collapsed, and seven other swirl concentrators that were in some state of failure.

Swirl concentrators are underground vessels that help remove particulates from stormwater before it flows into the stormwater system. Based on an August 2011 city staff memo, the situation is being analyzed as a problem with both the project design and the product’s manufacture. The city is expecting to recover costs from multiple parties. The memo acknowledges upstream flooding that was experienced during project construction, which took place during the summer of 2010:

During the construction of the project, flooding was experienced upstream of the work area during one of the several large storms experienced in the summer of 2010. In addition, in October of 2010, after the stormwater work had been completed, one of the swirl concentrators on the north branch collapsed, creating a sinkhole near the northwest corner of the park. … In response to the upstream flooding, the weir plates that served to divert flow into the swirl concentrator units were removed due to concerns over their effect on upstream flooding. … Currently, the weirs are still removed, leaving the below ground sewer system to function essentially as it did prior to the 2010 construction,

The street where Marano lives is upstream from West Park – Maple Ridge runs north-south, parallel to (and one block west of) Seventh Street, which is West Park’s western boundary.

Marano described a phenomenon where a collection of several feet of water appears out of nowhere, lasts for about an hour or so, followed by a “catastrophic emptying” of the entire street. It’s like two giant bathtub drains, he said, that drain the street in a matter of minutes. There’s a real possibility of danger to people, pets, and children, he said. He said he had about a foot of water in his car on Tuesday morning, which is when he realized the extent of the flooding. This type of flooding has never happened before in any neighbor’s memory, he said. The first time it happened was last year, on Aug. 10, 2010.

Marano said that when he’d reported it to the city, he was met with derision, and the claims were ignored. It’s a lot more than just standard runoff, he said. He concluded by saying it’s a safety risk.

West Park: Tennis Courts

Before the council for its approval was a $216,331 contract with ABC Paving Co. to renovate the tennis courts at West Park. It’s a contract that the city’s park advisory commission had discussed at its June 21, 2011 meeting and that had been approved by the city council at the council’s July 5, 2011 meeting. However, the resolution had contained a typographical error, and the contract had only been approved for $166,331. So it was back before the council for re-approval.

The council did not discuss the paving contract. However, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) expressed their concern about the West Park stormwater renovations that had been raised during public commentary by Daniel Marano. [The tennis courts at West Park are situated off Huron Street, considerably above the plane of the park where the stormwater improvements were undertaken.]

Hohnke stressed that the contemporaneous flooding and construction work events were not conclusive with respect to establishing a cause-and-effect relationship. However, he allowed that the timing was suggestive of such a relationship, and he asked that the interim city administrator look into the issue. Anglin expressed his hope that a good resolution to the issue could be found and acknowledged the stress on the residents who live in the affected area.

The flooded neighborhood is in Ward 5, which Anglin and Hohnke represent.

Outcome: The council approved the contract with ABC Paving Co.

Fuller Road Station

Fuller Road Station was brought up during public commentary, as well as by councilmembers.

Fuller Road Station: Public Commentary

Nancy Shiffler spoke on behalf of the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club. She said that on reviewing a recent letter sent to the community by mayor John Hieftje, she was pleased that the letter attempted to address questions that have arisen about the project. She first reiterated her basic objection of using a portion of Fuller Park for the construction of a parking structure.

She noted that the letter indicates the University of Michigan will pay all upfront costs for the construction and that the city’s portion of the cost would be made up over time. [The memorandum of understanding between UM and the city on the planned Fuller Road Station specifies a 78%-22% split for the cost-sharing arrangement.]

The portion of the mayor’s letter to which Shiffler was referring reads:

Although the University of Michigan and the City of Ann Arbor will share usage of the parking structure/bus station portion, the University will pay almost all upfront costs to construct Phase 1 of the Fuller Road Station. Under the plan that is still being worked out, the City will own FRS and the City’s portion of the costs will be made up over time from funds generated by parking spaces.

Based on earlier estimates, she said, the city’s portion to be made up over time would be around $10 million. With 220 parking spaces available for the city’s use, and depending on the users to whom the spaces are allocated, Shiffler estimated that it would take 30 years to repay the $10 million – if the rate for use of those 220 spaces were charged at the maximum rate used by UM in its parking system.

Later in the letter, Shiffler noted, Hieftje states that revenues from user fees for the parking spaces would go to the park system. Will the revenue go to make up for the upfront construction costs, or rather to the park system? Shiffler pointed out this is not clear. She said it appeared the sources of funding are being cobbled together behind the scenes. She wondered what relevance the parking structure has to the rail station. She asked that the city council have all details and disclose them to the public and have public hearings before taking a vote on the project.

Fuller Road Station: Council Commentary

During council communications, after the public commentary, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the council had heard from a speaker about Fuller Road Station. She allowed that it was a moving target, but said she wanted to remind the mayor that everyone would benefit from a working session on the topic of Fuller Road Station. Hieftje said that as soon as there’s some new information, a working session could be put together.

Previously, at the council’s June 6, 2011 meeting, Fuller Road Station had received extensive public commentary, despite the lack of any item on the agenda related directly to the project.

Partly in response to that commentary and to remarks from Mike Anglin (Ward 5), at that meeting Briere had pushed for a city council working session on the project. From The Chronicle’s report of that meeting:

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) anticipated mayor John Hieftje’s reaction to Anglin’s comments [Hieftje has pushed hard for the project] by telling the mayor that she knew he had a lot of thoughts about Fuller Road Station. But she thought the council should have a working session, so that councilmembers can become more knowledgeable about the issue. Hieftje indicated that he would look into adding something to the calendar.

Then, at the council’s June 20, 2011 meeting, the council revised its calendar for the year to include a work session scheduled for July 11, apparently to accommodate the desire to discuss Fuller Road Station.

Mayor John Hieftje. That kind of hammer, or course, works on a totally different kind of nail.

However, at the council’s July 5 meeting, Hieftje responded to remarks from Mike Anglin (Ward 5) about the upcoming work session on Fuller Road Station by indicating there was no work session on the topic scheduled. He did not acknowledge his earlier explicit assurance that he would look into scheduling one.

At the Aug. 15 meeting, Anglin said he was glad Shiffler had brought up the issue of the parkland. He said he still had concerns about the status of the parkland and that he continued to receive emails about it. He said that in 2008, when voters approved a charter amendment requiring a voter referendum on the sale of any parkland, they thought they were protecting their parks. The legacy of the parks is an important part of the community, Anglin said. When a national environmental group [the Sierra Club] is speaking against it, he said, that should suggest something is amiss.

Anglin said the details are not yet clear enough to sign a contract. During tough times, he said, there are other needs that are more paramount. The project doesn’t seem to have much benefit for citizens, he said.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) suggested that the city’s park advisory commission take a look at the practice soccer field adjacent to the proposed Fuller Road Station site and perhaps partner with the public art commission to develop something for that space that’s designed to inform people about the Huron River.

Smith said she’d love to see an exploration of some lower-maintenance use of the land that people can enjoy. She asked that the suggestion be conveyed to PAC by the council representatives to that body. Smith mentioned an upcoming RiverUp! event, which Hieftje said he appreciated. He noted that the Wolfpack group of the National Wildlife Federation, of which he is a member, had raised $30,000 for that project. [PAC had been briefed about the project at its July 2011 meeting. See Chronicle coverage: "RiverUp! Focuses on Revitalizing Huron River"]

Green Communities Grant

The council was asked to consider accepting a $50,000 Michigan Green Communities Planning grant from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE).

The money will be used in part to enhance a peer learning network of Michigan local government and university staff who are working on sustainability issues. The grant funding also supports holding an annual conference in 2011 and 2012 among Michigan Green Community members. A third activity the grant will support is development of challenge grant opportunities with local governments and Michigan foundations.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to approve the receipt of the grant.

Small Claims Policy

On the council agenda was a resolution to approve a policy describing which city staff may represent the city in small claims court and under what circumstances. Small claims issues are limited in dollar amount to $3,000. Under Act 236 of 1961, the city may not be represented in small claims court by an attorney.

So under the policy, city employees who are not attorneys may appear on the city’s behalf, subject to the constraints of the policy, which requires that employees who appear in small claims court have “… direct and personal knowledge of the dispute” and that the city administrator and the city attorney approve in writing the appearance by an employee in small claims court on behalf of the city, for each individual case.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to approve the small claims policy.

Water Supply Bonds

Before the council for its consideration was the issuance $7 million worth of revenue bonds for its water supply system. The money will be used by the city to finance improvements to the city’s water distribution system, including portions of the Arbor Oaks subdivision water mains replacement project, the Catherine Street 16-inch water main, the Dover Court/Collingwood water main replacement, physical security enhancements, and Barton Dam concrete repair projects.

Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias explained at the meeting that because the ordinance does not change the city code, it does not require a second reading and public hearing.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to approve the issuance of the water supply bonds.

Recision of CUB Requirement

The council was asked to vote on the recision of a resolution passed at its Nov. 16, 2009 meeting, which required execution of Construction Unity Board (CUB) agreements by contractors and subcontractors with the Washtenaw County Skilled Building Trades Council as a condition of award for all city construction contracts. The resolution also required inclusion of the requirement in all construction bids issued by the city.

The resolution was rescinded because Act 98 of 2011 – which became effective July 19, 2011 – prohibits municipalities from including as a requirement in a construction contract anything that would either require or prohibit contractors from entering into agreements with collective bargaining organizations. The act also prohibits discrimination against contractors based on willingness or non-willingness to enter into such agreements.

At the council’s Aug. 4 meeting, interim city administrator Tom Crawford had alerted councilmembers that they would likely be asked to consider the measure at the Aug. 15 meeting.

The item was included as part of the council’s consent agenda – a collection of items on which the council votes “all in one go,” but councilmembers have the option of separating out any items they’d like to discuss separately. That’s what Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) did with the CUB agreement item. He had sponsored the original resolution that was being rescinded.

He noted that the new law prohibits CUB agreements  so the city’s previous action would be illegal. That’s why it’s in the city’s best interest to rescind it, he said, because it brings the city in line with state law.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to rescind its previous resolution on CUB agreements.

Pedestrian Easement on Liberty

The council was asked to grant an easement to the owner of 115 W. Liberty St. – Dotcom 115 LLC, which lists its resident agent as local developer Peter Allen. Cost of the easement was set at $2,500.

Local developer Peter Allen and Ann Arbor public art commission chair Marsha Chamberlin, talking before the Aug. 15 council meeting started.

Allen is planning to sell the third floor condo unit in the building and needed the easement to ensure legal access to the entryway on the south side of the building.

Allen attended the meeting – he was also the recipient of a Golden Paintbrush Award presented by Ann Arbor’s public art commission.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to approve the easement.

Rezoning of Annexed Property

Before the council for its consideration was a request to rezone the property at 2562 Newport to R1A (single-family residential district.) At the public hearing, Thomas Partridge called on the council to amend the rezoning to require an equal amount or more of affordable housing access in the city. It’s something that Partridge typically calls on the city council to do, any time there is a public hearing on a rezoning of land.

Mayor John Hieftje expressed some irritation with Partridge by saying that Partridge was aware that the property is being annexed into the city and that the kind of resolution he was suggesting could not be done legally.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously without discussion to approve the annexation-related rezoning.

Communications and Comment

Every city council agenda contains multiple slots for city councilmembers and the city administrator to give updates or make announcements about issues that are coming before the city council. And every meeting typically includes public commentary on subjects not necessarily on the agenda.

Comm/Comm: Remembering Gary Lillie

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) called the council’s attention to the recent death of Gary Lillie, a Vietnam War veteran and a local realtor who was killed by an alleged drunk driver. He called it one of those tragedies that reminds us of the tender nature of life. He said that Lillie deserved a moment of recognition at the city council meeting for the life he gave and the life he lived.

Comm/Comm: Golden Paintbrush Awards

At the start of the meeting, Marsha Chamberlin presented the Ann Arbor public art commission’s Golden Paintbrush awards. Chamberlin, who chairs the public art commission, is also president of the Ann Arbor Art Center.

In August in front of Blimpy Burger, which received a Golden Paintbrush award: 'sno bears now, but Snow Bears later.

The awards had been previously announced at the most recent meeting of AAPAC in July.

This year, winners are: (1) Krazy Jim’s Blimpy Burger, for the Snow Bears sculptures that Rich Magner builds each winter in front of the business at Packard and South Division; (2) Mary Thiefels and TreeTown Murals for the mural outside the Alley Bar along West Liberty; and (3) Peter Allen & Associates, for rock sculptures on North Main Street, a project initiated by Steve Zobeck.

Comm/Comm: Sidewalks

During public commentary time, Kathy Griswold told the council that based on a Craigslist ad, a school crosswalk guard costs $30/day plus benefits, or $5,400 annually. She said that the money would be better spent on other activities. Griswold has long advocated for moving the mid-block crosswalk in front of King Elementary School to the four-way-stop intersection, which would eliminate the need for a crossing guard at that location. The barrier to moving the crosswalk is the need to construct a section of sidewalk that would link the corner where children would cross to a path leading the rest of the way to the school.

On a positive note, Griswold said, she reported that although nothing had been promised, it was possible that the city might be able to provide an alternate location for the Kiwanis Club’s warehouse sale [now located at 415 W. Washington St. instead of the current location W. Ellsworth at Airport Blvd Building #837].

Comm/Comm: Recall Snyder

Thomas Partridge spoke during public commentary time, saying it’s necessary to pursue the recall effort of Gov. Rick Snyder and the leaders of the Republican legislature, who have “turned and glowered into the faces” of people who need vital services. He also called on President Barack Obama to do something or step aside. We need to protect Ann Arbor’s disabled residents and seniors, Partridge said. We need an agenda for progress, he said – housing, transportation, healthcare and education should all be affordable.

Present: Stephen Rapundalo, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Carsten Hohnke.

Next council meeting: Tuesday, Sept. 6, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [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!

From the resolution: “Resolved that the City Administrator shall not provide Signs and Signals services to UM for Special UM Events unless: UM and the City execute a contract prior to August 26, 2011, that provides for the full reimbursement to the City of all direct and allocable costs associated with the provision of Signs and Signals services to UM for Special UM Events.”

Michigan’s home opener this year, against Western Michigan, falls on Sept. 3.

The issue is a persistent point of frustration on the city council, because traffic control for football games is a dollar cost to the city, but the city has limited leverage with the university to extract payment. That’s due in part to the fact that traffic control is seen not as merely a matter of convenience, but rather of public safety.

From a March 2010 city council budget work session report: “Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked how much of [football traffic control] was an issue of convenience versus public safety. Chief of police Barnett Jones stated that it was all safety-related. Without the combination of cars, barricades and signals, he said, ‘it would be a major malfunction.’”

From a January 2011 city council budget retreat report: “Some councilmembers seemed to suggest that concessions from the university could be won by withholding city consent when the university wanted something from the city. The university’s desire to include Monroe Street as part of the UM Law School campus was cited as a specific example. [City administrator Roger] Fraser, though, counseled that each situation should be evaluated unto itself. He pointed to the planned Fuller Road Station as an example of the importance of that principle.”

From a March 2011 city council budget work session report: “Responding to councilmember questions, [public services area administrator Sue] McCormick said the city did not send the university invoices for the regular home football games, because the university has made it clear that it will not pay. McCormick said when she’d notified UM of the city’s intention of invoicing for the Big Chill, the response she gotten was, ‘We really don’t know how we’ll fund that.’ There was little recourse for the city to take, she said, and in the end the city would have to write it off.”

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

Sue McCormick, the city's public services area administrator, showed the city council a map of streetlights during Monday's meeting. (Photo by the writer.)

On Monday, Sue McCormick, public services area administrator, was front and center, describing for council how the public services budget “lives within the general fund.” The basis for the discussion was budget impact sheets prepared for the public services area, which she distributed.

Councilmembers had several questions for her about a possible special assessment district (SAD) to fund streetlighting, with much of the discussion centered around what it means for an area to be “overlit.” A streetlighting SAD would require property owners to pay for streetlights.

Also generating a fair amount of discussion among councilmembers was the $100,000 annual cost for traffic control on University of Michigan football game days and the city’s plan to reduce that cost through judicious rescheduling of personnel to avoid overtime expenses.

McCormick also pitched to the council the idea of relaxing the constraints of the “box” defining how the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage is administered. The proposal would have the council rescind the part of a previous resolution that requires millage funding for natural area preservation to increase by 3% every year. That savings, McCormick said, could be put towards hand-trimming of grass in the parks. Reduction of hand-trimming, she said, would have a negative visual impact on the parks – they’ll look “fuzzy.”

Also related to yard-waste type issues, McCormick briefed the council on the idea of eliminating collection of loose leaves in the fall, and moving to an approach requiring leaves to be put into containers. She also told them about  a proposal that would be coming before them in the next 30 days to transition the city’s composting facility to a merchant operation, similar to the city’s materials recovery facility (MRF) for recyclables. That proposal was met with strong criticism from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Councilmembers also heard from McCormick that residents will face a 3.88% increase in water rates, unless council directs that more budget cuts be made.

Towards the end of the meeting, city administrator Roger Fraser warned that accounting services manager Karen Lancaster and chief financial officer Tom Crawford would put them to sleep with an explication of how the city’s municipal service charge (MSC) works. However, Lancaster and Crawford were unable to make good on Fraser’s threat.

Streetlights and Parking

Sue McCormick, the city’s public services area administrator, began by establishing that the main challenge in the field operations area was coming up with a way to replace anticipated revenues from  parking meters – which were to have been installed over the last year in neighborhoods near downtown. Their installation had been part of the FY 2010-11 budget plan (the current year), but was met with opposition from residents in those neighborhoods.

Parking Meters

After adoption of the FY 2010 budget in the spring of 2009, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) convinced her council colleagues to establish a moratorium on the parking meter installation. With support from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Smith worked to find additional revenues to offset the losses that would result from not installing meters as planned near certain neighborhoods downtown. A timeline overview:

• June 15, 2009: The city council approves a moratorium until Oct. 5, 2009 on installation of some parking meters in neighborhoods near downtown. The meter installation was planned as a part of the FY 2010 budget. The council also approves raising the rates at the 415 W. Washington parking lot, with all net proceeds to be directed to the city’s general fund, not split with the Downtown Development Authority. [link]
• July 1, 2009: The DDA board approves a rate increase and the redirection of 415 W. Washington parking revenues to the city. [link]
• Oct. 5, 2009: The city council extends the moratorium on installation of parking meters until Dec. 21, 2009. [link]
• Dec. 21, 2009: The city council passes a resolution suspending plans to install its own city meters in connection with a request from the DDA for a report on parking strategies. Part of the resolution is approval to redirect net revenues from the Fifth & William parking lot (aka the old Y lot) to the city. [link]
• Jan. 6, 2010: The DDA board approves redirection of the net revenues from the Fifth & William lot to the city, with the provision that it be a minimum of $100,000. [link]

On Monday, McCormick painted a grim parking picture for the council. A 7.5% targeted reduction in the $1,327,102 field operations budget – a percentage every service unit was asked to achieve by the city administrator  –  translated to $99,533. Without the $551,733 in revenue that had been planned, based on parking meter installation, field operations was starting with a $651,266 deficit it needed to make up.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) zeroed in on the fact that the additional revenue from the two parking lots – 415 W. Washington and Fifth & William – did not seem to be included in the calculation. [It's about $170,00 per year for the two lots combined.] McCormick deferred the question, but CFO Tom Crawford would later clarify that the revenue from the two lots was not yet incorporated into the budget – it would be, he assured Smith.

Smith also wondered where the offset for the procurement costs of parking equipment was recorded. McCormick told Smith that it was included in this year’s FY 2010 budget, not FY 2011.

Smith noted that residential parking permit fees were slated to increase by $5 – to $55. That does not cover the cost of administering the program, which is over $100 per permit. Smith noted that the going rate for a parking spot behind someone’s house is $75 a month, so she felt that there was some untapped value in the residential parking permits. Smith allowed that a residential permit for street parking did not provide a specific space for a driver’s use, but she felt there was more value than what the city was charging.

On residential permits, McCormick explained that she’d worked with three councilmembers to arrive at a $105 cost, a longer-term goal for the rate, which would be achieved through incremental adjustments.

With respect to some new loading zone permits – which are listed in the budget impact statement as projected to increase revenue by $20,000 – Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wondered if meters might be more effective. McCormick said she was working with the DDA on that question – one of the challenges is the variable size of the vehicles, which could take up anywhere from one to three spaces.

Streetlights: Background

As it turns out, the added $170,000 of revenue to the city from the 415 W. Washington and Fifth & William parking lots would just about cover the field operations deficit to its reduction target ($158,286) – after implementing a streetlighting assessment district (SAD) that targeted just those areas of the city that are “overlit.”

The idea of implementing a SAD for streetlights was floated at the council’s December 2009 budget retreat, and McCormick’s discussion on Monday was a follow-up to that. But it’s not a new idea.

As recently as 2007, the idea of a street lighting special assessment district has been proposed. On that occasion, the Ann Arbor DDA paid the city about $630,000 to delay and reduce a street light tax that would have been assessed on downtown property owners. That tax would have generated around $170,000 annually. The DDA money was used to begin an LED retrofit program for downtown streetlights.

From the June 6, 2007 DDA resolution:

…
Whereas, DDA approval of this Committee recommendation would provide the necessary funds so that a downtown special assessment would not be necessary; RESOLVED, The DDA approves a grant to the City’s Energy Fund in the amount of $630,000 to the City of Ann Arbor to be used to retrofit all downtown globe streetlights with more energy efficient LED fixtures.
RESOLVED, In providing this grant the DDA respectfully asks City Council to consider dissolving the downtown lighting assessment district given the energy cost reduction the City will see from this retrofit project.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) alluded to that episode on Monday when mayor John Hieftje reported that some of the more sophisticated energy-savings technologies available with the LED bulbs – like dimming them to 50% or 20% – did not actually result in cost-savings to the city. DTE bills the city based on the wattage of the bulbs – it’s based on estimated usage, because the lights are not metered. “[Bulb dimming] works just fine, but we wouldn’t get credit for it,” said Hieftje.

Smith, who serves on the DDA board currently and who served on it when the LED conversion funding was approved, called the inability of the city to translate the full energy-savings capability of the LED bulbs into cost savings as “unfortunate.” The rationale behind the DDA funding was to avoid the establishment of a SAD, she noted. She asked McCormick if there would be additional pressure applied at the state level through the Michigan Public Service Commission to push for reform. McCormick assured Smith that there would be additional pressure applied.

According to Michigan Public Service Commission spokeswoman Judy Palnau, the MPSC issued an order on Jan. 11, 2010 that required DTE to file an application with MPSC seeking approval of rates on un-metered streetlights that would accommodate newer lighting technologies. The deadline for submission was Feb. 10, 2010. However, the issue of these LED rates is still pending at the MPSC.

Some savings is realized through LED retrofits, due to the reduced frequency of bulb replacement – 7-8 years compared to every 3 years.

Streetlights: How a SAD Would Be Implemented

McCormick mentioned more than once at Monday’s meeting that a SAD would require four council resolutions to be implemented. The Chronicle has identified three resolutions in the city’s ordinances, plus one in the city charter:

• Code Chapter 13 1:286 “By resolution the city council shall approve the plans and specifications for the improvement; determine that the cost shall be paid by special assessment upon the property especially benefited; designate the district or land and tax parcels upon which special assessments shall be levied; and direct the Assessor to prepare a special assessment roll in accordance with the city council’s determination.”
• Code Chapter 13 1:288 “… Upon receipt of a special assessment roll the City Council shall order it and the information presented to the City Council by the City Administrator pursuant to Section 1:284 filed in the office of the City Assessor for public examination; shall fix the time and place when it will meet and review the roll.”
• Code Chapter 13 1:191 “After the hearing and review, the council may confirm the special assessment roll with the corrections as it may have made, if any, …”
• Charter SECTION 10.3 “No control or expenditure … shall be made for any public improvement, the cost of which is to be paid by special assessment upon the property especially benefited thereby, until the Council has passed a resolution determining to proceed with such public improvement.”

Streetlights: What Kind of SAD?

McCormick briefed the council on five different options for creating a special assessment district for streetlights. Based on the budget impact statements, which mention only two of the five options, one that appears unlikely to be implemented is to purchase streetlights from DTE and install LED bulbs. DTE owns around 5,200 of the 7,200 streetlights in the city. DTE has told the city that they would need to be paid to develop estimates for the work of selling and removing lights from their system.

Also not included in the budget impact statement is a SAD targeting just the city-owned streetlights. The third option not included in the statement is one that would not create a SAD, but would rather  “de-energize” DTE-owned streetlights – which would entail turning off power to the light. DTE bills those de-energized lights at a rate equal to 60% of the standard rate. De-energizing half of the 3,000 DTE-owned streetlights outside of downtown would save $120,000 annually.

The two options included on the budget impact statements for field operations are: (Option I) a SAD targeting areas in the city that are “overlit” – this would generate $370,000 annually; (Option II) a SAD for all streetlight expenses – it would generate $1.7 million at an average cost per parcel of $52 annually.

Streetlights: Overlighting

The notion of “overlighting” prompted a great deal of discussion among councilmembers. Part of the confusion resulted from the term itself, which is suggestive that “too much” lighting is being provided – on analogy with scores of other words like overbill, overreact, overeducate, overemphasize, overgeneralize or … overanalyze.

Based on that understanding, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) questioned why more lighting was currently being added in an area that was already “overlit,” namely, the Stadium Boulevard corridor between Pauline and 7th streets. The 24 cobra-head lights in that corridor, which a map provided by McCormick indicated was currently “overlit,” is being supplemented by 67 LED lampposts.

McCormick explained that this was driven by input from the community – the neighbors had opted for more lighting at public forums on the Stadium Boulevard re-surfacing project. Higgins responded by saying that she’d attended those meetings and that no one had asked for 67 additional light fixtures. She pointed out that the issue was somewhat urgent, given that the corridor is under construction.

McCormick characterized the issue of “overlighting” as a good policy question that the council needed to contemplate: Should the city “overlight” in any area where it was requested, or rather only in those areas where a SAD was established?

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) elicited from Cresson Slotten, who’s a senior project manager with the city, the fact that the “Orange Book” with the city’s lighting specifications has been in place for 23 years, and was developed by the city. That is, it’s not a set of state or national standards. Hohnke stated that it would  be useful to look at comparable standards in other communities to get a clearer idea of what “overlighting” means.

City administrator Roger Fraser then tackled the question of what “overlighting” means. He cautioned councilmembers that just because the amount of lighting in an area was over the minimum Orange Book standard did not mean that the amount of lighting was “excessive.” An area might be lit so that it becomes a comfortable place to be and a place that people are attracted to. Even if an area is “overlit,” he said, it still might be smart to light it that way. The notion of “overlighting,” Fraser said, should be interpreted in the context of the minimum standard specified in the Orange Book.

To get an idea of how an overlighting-based SAD would work, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked McCormick if the following would be a fair summary: If people in an area wanted additional lighting above the minimum standard, the city will say “It’ll cost more,” and that area will be a SAD. McCormick confirmed that this would be roughly how it would work. She cautioned, however, that it would not be like ordering out of a catalog.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) noted that many overlit areas were close to schools, and that “it should be that way.” He said a SAD was a way of “demanding payment,” which he quickly revised to “requesting payment.”

McCormick stated that the cost of operating streetlights – around $1.7 million – was significant enough that the city needed to “do something.”

Fraser characterized it as a matter of some parts of the community getting a higher benefit from lighting than others. The issue of whether the city should change to a SAD strategy to reflect that different benefit was a policy question. He noted that part of the consideration was how to deal with a situation that was in part simply “inherited.”

Reflecting out loud on the fact that the term “overlighting” was somewhat of a misnomer and that streetlighting is a public benefit that is somewhat flexible – there are various interests with respect to more or less lighting – Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) wondered if it were an option to make the assessment based on “what exists.” That was essentially the first option outlined in the cover memo, McCormick told him. [Note that Option I in the budget impact statement is the overlighting-based SAD. The cover memo's first option shows up as Option II in the budget impact statement.]

Streets

Public services includes not just streetlighting, but also the streets themselves.

The city divides streets into categories of major and local streets. That’s consistent with the way that money in the Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF) is distributed to municipalities. The MTF was established by Act 51, and its monies are collected as motor fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees. The city’s major street fund [Fund 0021] and local streets fund [Fund 0022] are projected in FY 2011 to have budgets of $7 million and $1.75 million, respectively.

The MTF money is used for snow plowing, pothole repair, crack sealing and the like. Actual reconstruction of streets is paid for out of the city’s street repair and reconstruction millage.

With respect to activity in these funds, results of a recent unscientific online survey administered by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) showed that around 55% of the more than 700 respondents felt a reduction in snow plowing was “not at all unacceptable not at all acceptable.” [.pdf file of survey summary results]

Streets: Non-Motorized Transportation

Act 51 requires that 1% of MTF funds distributed to municipalities be invested in non-motorized facilities. On May 19, 2003, in approving the city’s FY 2004 budget, the Ann Arbor city council passed an amendment that bumped Ann Arbor’s expenditures of Act 51 money on non-motorized facilities from 1% to 5% every year, targeting an increase in the number of bicycle lanes, focusing particularly on areas near the University of Michigan campus. Any of the 5% not spent in a given year was to be deposited in an alternative transportation fund.

In deliberations on that budget amendment, which addressed not just that fiscal year’s budget, but all future years, then-councilmember Mike Reid offered an amendment that specified the 5% allocation would extend just for 10 years. The amendment received support only from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). Reid was then the lone dissenter on that amendment to the budget.

The timeframe was likely a moot point – budget resolutions must be approved every year, so there is a “baked in” opportunity for the council to reassess the 5%. If anything, the 2003 budget amendment was a direction to the city administrator to prepare budgets incorporating the 5% allocation to non-motorized facilities. Whether the council approves that aspect of the budget in any given year is not constrained by the council’s own prior budget resolution for FY 2004.

If a budget were presented without that 5% allocation, the council could choose to approve it, contrary to the expressed intent of the FY 2004 budget resolution.

Based on the budget impact statements for next year, FY 2011, that seems to be what happened for FY 2010. The impact sheets indicate a reduction from 5% to 2.5% in the Act 51 allocation to alternative transportation for FY 2010, with the same 2.5% reduction planned for FY 2011.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) raised the issue of reducing the Act 51 allocation to alternative transportation at the council’s December 2009 budget retreat. However, when the council met in late February for its third meeting of the year focused just on budget issues, when mayor John Hieftje read the item off the list, the topic had no takers.

With the Act 51 line item laid out in front of them on the budget impact statements provided at Monday’s meeting, councilmembers did not discuss the issue.

Streets: Traffic Control for UM Football

An item on the budget impact sheets that did receive a great deal of discussion on Monday was a $101,043 cost savings that could be achieved by eliminating traffic control for University of Michigan football games. Part of that game-day operation involves converting Sout Main Street to one-way leading out of town and providing manual control of traffic signals to accommodate pedestrian build-ups. The signals are also manually controlled to prevent vehicles at the I-94 off-ramp at Ann Arbor-Saline road from backing up onto the interstate.

McCormick noted that simply not implementing the traffic controls would make chief of police Barnett Jones “pull his hair out.” The alternative to that, she said, was to use a strategy to avoid overtime pay for the nine people required to handle the signs and signals on a football Saturday. The idea would be to schedule only two of them on the Monday before, leaving the rest with a Tues.-Sat. work week with no overtime.

The scheduling shift, said McCormick, would save around $45,000. Craig Hupy, head of systems planning for the city, clarified for Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), that the signals could, in fact, be controlled from a remote location by one person, but that tactic would not give the needed ability to change the signals based on the needs of the dynamically changing situation. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked for confirmation from Hupy that failure to implement traffic controls would mean “a real mess.” Hupy replied by saying that if the council gave that direction, then he had some vacation days he would like to use.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) inquired about the possibility that the University of Michigan would foot the bill for traffic controls: Had they been asked? Hupy said that UM had said no. Higgins suggested that if the city did not implement the controls, UM would hear from its alumni about that. McCormick said that the university’s rationale was that the benefits to the community that derive from the event compensate for the cost.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked how much of it was an issue of convenience versus public safety.  Chief of police Barnett Jones stated that it was all safety-related. Without the combination of cars, barricades and signals, he said, “it would be a major malfunction.”

Although it was not discussed at the work session, a recent (unscientific) survey administered online by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) included one football Saturday-related item: Of the more than 700 respondents, 90% found a reduction of investigation in underage drinking on football Saturdays to be either “completely acceptable” or “somewhat acceptable.” [.pdf file of survey summary results]

Parks Maintenance

The parks maintenance and capital improvements millage was authorized in November 2006. It combined what had previously been two separate millages. Sue McCormick described the various constraints built into the administration of the millage as a “box.” She ticked through the sides of the box in a way that was consistent with previous Chronicle coverage ["Budget Round 2: What's the Big Idea"]:

Before November 2006, the city levied two separate millages at 0.5 mill each – one for parks maintenance and the other for capital improvements. Within the combined millage, taxes are collected at a rate of 1.0 mill, but money is allocated to maintenance or capital improvements on a more flexible basis than the previous 50-50 split that was legally enforced by the specialized purpose of each millage.

However, there’s not complete flexibility to allocate money to maintenance or capital improvements within the unified millage. Percentage allocation is guided by a city council resolution passed in October 2006. The resolution specifies a range of 60% to 80% for maintenance, with the remainder going to capital improvements.

But there are some “hold harmless” clauses in the resolution as well. The resolution also calls for any reduction in the overall general fund to be reflected no more severely in parks programs supported by the general fund than in other general fund activities. For example, if the general fund were to suffer a 7.5% reduction, then parks programs supported by the general fund would suffer no greater a reduction than 7.5%.

Subsequent to the passage of the millage, in preparation of the FY 2007 budget, the city initially calculated the baseline for general fund parks activity without the Leslie Science and Nature Center – which had been spun off by the city as an independent nonprofit. The reasoning was that the item itself was no longer in the general fund, so it was not a matter of the general fund being reduced. However, in response to public criticism, funding was put back into parks programs to bring funding to the level it would have been with the Leslie Science and Nature Center as a part of the calculation.

Another “hold harmless” clause in the resolution on the administration of the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage affects the city’s natural area preservation program (NAP).

3. The Natural Area Preservation Program budget be established at a minimum of $700,000 for first year of the millage budget and that it receive a minimum 3% annual increase for each of the subsequent five years of the millage to enhance the stewardship of increased acreage of natural park areas;

It’s likely that the clause was intended to ensure that funding for NAP kept pace with funding increases to other areas, as millage revenues increased due to increased property values. But the effect of the clause now, as millage revenues decline, is to hold NAP harmless – and even to increase NAP’s budget.

The distribution of funds to various park-related tasks – which is specified in Attachment A accompanying the resolution – includes the stipulation that mowing and snow removal for parks be funded exclusively out of the general fund. The millage fund, then, is “held harmless” against mowing and snow removal costs.

At Monday’s meeting, McCormick stated that staff had pushed the allowed ratio to its maximum allocation for maintenance – 80%. The 20% designated for capital improvements, McCormick said, was focused exclusively on rehabbing existing facilities, not building anything new – refurbishing paths, for example.

Asked by Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) what the bill for mowing and snow removal was for parks, McCormick gave figures of $1.25 million and $355,000, respectively.

The part of the “box” McCormick recommended that the council consider was the requirement that NAP’s allocation be increased every year by 3%. The specific recommendation was to reduce NAP’s budget by $81,000.

McCormick explained that the $81,000 could be put towards hand-trimming of grass in the parks. The rationale she offered involved the planned reduction in frequency for mowing in the parks. This spring the average frequency will drop from once every 14 days to once every 19 days, she said. And with the start of the fiscal year on July 1, 2010, that would drop again to once every 23 days. “The public will visually notice the difference,” McCormick said.

It’s the reduction in hand-trimming that becomes apparent most quickly, she said. “Things get fuzzy.”  So the $81,000 of NAP money would restore some of the hand-trimming.

Results of a recent unscientific online survey administered by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) showed that around 20% of more than 700 respondents would find reduction in park maintenance to be “completely acceptable” and an additional 55% would find it to be “somewhat acceptable” [.pdf file of survey summary results]

Grass and Leaves

Trimming of grass and the generation of other yard waste was a topic that arose also in a residential context.

McCormick began by noting that the solid waste millage sees the same kind of reduction in revenues that other property taxes are now showing, due to the overall reduction in property values associated with the down economy. McCormick said that the reduction in the solid waste budget would be around $450,000.

The solid waste millage can be enacted by the city council under state enabling legislation – it appears as “CITY REFUSE” on Ann Arbor property tax bills.

Leaf Collection

Among the ideas recorded on the budget impact statements is the elimination of the collection of loose leaves in the fall. The current leaf collection program organized by the city entails notifying residents of the day their neighborhood is scheduled for pickup and asking them to rake leaves into the street the day before they’re scheduled for pickup.

The budget impact sheets indicate a $104,000 savings would come from eliminating the loose leaf collection program in favor of collecting them as part of the city’s containerized yard waste collection program. Residents can either put their yard waste in paper bags or use a city-issued brown cart, which can be emptied via an automatic arm operated by a driver from inside the collection truck.

The amount of savings that would come from requiring containers for leaves, said McCormick, assumes that residents would put out the same volume of leaves as they do with the loose leaf collection program. But she expected that the actual volume would decrease – for some residents it would be somewhat easier to compost and mulch on site than to put their leaves in containers for pickup.

Christmas Trees

McCormick also indicated that eliminating the curbside Christmas tree pickup would save $28,500. Results of a recent unscientific online survey administered by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) showed that around 85% of more than 700 respondents would find the elimination of that service to be “completely acceptable” or “somewhat acceptable.”

At Monday’s meeting, Briere asked where residents could take their holiday trees for pickup. McCormick said they could talk about that. The city has a drop-off station, and another possibility was to establish locations in parks, where the trees could then be chipped right in the park.

Conversion to Merchant Composting Operations

McCormick’s budget impact statement for solid waste also indicates a net gain of $150,000 for the possible transfer of the city’s composting facility to a merchant operation. That gain was due to a one-time capital recovery for the sale of equipment to the successful bidder on the request for proposals (RFP). The city’s RFP for the composting operations indicates that the equipment would include items like front-end loaders, light-duty trucks, and tub grinders.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) inquired about any implications for the city’s labor agreement. McCormick told him there were two full-time positions at the city that would be lost – a mechanic and a supervisor – but that the city had held vacancies open for them in other parts of the organization.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wondered what would happen if the city contracted with a merchant, then elected to decide against that contractor based on performance and then opt for a different contractor. McCormick indicated that the city had received four strong responses to the RFP.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) was clear about his opposition to the the proposed conversion to merchant operations: “I’m really opposed to this,” he said. At the second round of budget talks he had already expressed skepticism about the idea.

Kunselman’s opposition is based in part on an inherent skepticism about the viability of yard waste compost as a commodity, along the lines of recyclable material. [The city uses a merchant operation for its materials recovery facility.] Because it’s not a commodity that can be reliably sold in large quantities, said Kunselman, the city would essentially be providing the merchant with tax-free land to store compostable material, until it could eventually be moved on the market. He said he did not imagine that they would be able to sell the material in 50-pound bags at Lowes.

Kunselman’s opposition is also based on the idea that there’s a built-in assumption that the merchant operation will accept yard waste from other surrounding communities – even while the city is trying to encourage its own residents to “keep it home” and reduce the amount of yard waste that is hauled from one place to another. [The elimination of the loose leaf collection program is one example.] Conversion to merchant operations, he said, was a way of subsidizing yard waste collection for surrounding suburban communities. Promoting the idea of trucking and hauling yard waste, Kunselman said, is “going in the wrong direction.”

Kunselman also noted that the composting facility was located in the southeast part of the city – his ward – and he did not want to see additional truck traffic on the roads in that part of town.

In response to Kunselman, McCormick indicated that the council would be receiving the merchant operation proposal in the next 30 days.

McCormick also told the council that the subject of privatization of residential trash collection would would be one for the following year’s FY 2012 budget, not this coming year.

Water

The budget impact statements for the water supply system show a decrease in revenue of $1 million, for a $22.5 million budget. The drop is due to a decrease in consumption of water, plus a decrease in connection charges that are applied to new construction. In FY 2009, there was only $100,000 collected in such connection charges, McCormick said, whereas an average year might bring in $1.5 million.

The decrease in revenues due to decreased consumption, McCormick explained, was partly offset by a decrease in costs for treatment of the water.

Still, without additional cuts beyond purchase delays of heavy equipment and elimination of software updates indicated on the budget impact statements, McCormick said a rate increase of  3.88% could be expected.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) clarified with McCormick that the 3.88% increase in water rates would be requested, if no other cuts were made. McCormick told Higgins that if the council wanted to see a smaller increase, then she needed direction sooner rather than later.

Municipal Service Charge

The water fund provided a question from Stephen Kunselman that segued to the presentation from accounting services manager Karen Lancaster and chief financial officer Tom Crawford on how the municipal service charge (MSC) works.

Why, asked Kunselman, did the MSC for the water fund drop from roughly the same levels of $535,548 in FY 2008 and $548,940 in FY 2009 down to $404,902 in FY 2010?

Similarly, he wondered, why did the solid waste fund’s MSC increase from roughly the same levels of $192,588 in FY 2008 and $197,400 in FY 2009 to $274,851 in FY 2010?

MSC: True Cost Concept

It’s worth distinguishing between the idea behind the municipal service charge compared to an internal service fund charge, like the charge for information technology (IT). Charges from the IT department to other funds are based on specific purchases and use of services – a new computer, with software and support services, installed at a desk, for example.

Calculation of an MSC is not an attempt to bill for products and services, but rather an attempt to distribute the burden of “administrative and overhead” costs to those parts of the city’s operations that cause the existence of those costs.

For example, take the city council, which could be considered a parade example of an administrative and overhead cost. The city council and mayor are paid a salary, which is an expense that is a direct dollar cost to the city. But what about the additional costs the council drives that are not necessarily reflected in a dollar amount in a city checkbook?

Those costs will probably vary, depending on the people who serve on council at any given time. An active city council that is constantly asking the city attorney’s office for analysis and feedback on various ordinance revisions causes more work for the city attorney’s office. The city attorney does not bill the city council for that work. But if the goal is to measure the true cost of the city council to the organization, then the cost of that work needs to be factored in.

Last year, for FY 2010, the city council’s “true cost” was calculated to be an additional $284,711 beyond the salaries of councilmembers. So the MSC listed out in last year’s “budget book” is $284,711. The bulk of that additional cost – $204,000 worth – was attributed to work done by the city attorney.

This “true cost” calculation does not attempt to accommodate various ways in which city councilmembers might conceivably save the organization money – by helping staff to identify more efficient ways to provide service, or by handling a constituent concern without burdening city staff.

Once the “true cost” of an entity like the city council is determined – along with various other administrative and overhead-type costs that are borne inside the city’s general fund – it’s then possible to consider the city’s departments that live outside the general fund. How do departments that exist outside the general fund benefit from the existence of those centralized administrative services supported by the general fund?

Take the water fund as an example. The city’s water department benefits from the centralized payroll services of the city and the city attorney’s office in ways that are fairly clear. It even benefits from the city council. For example, the water rate increases that will be requested this year will need to be weighed, considered and approved by the city council.

There is a lag in the calculations, because the calculations are based on actual costs. A study is performed every two years by an outside consultant – the city uses a firm called Maximus – which corresponds to the city’s two-year budget planning cycle. For the first year of a budget planning cycle, the city uses the numbers from the consultant’s study. For the second year, the city applies an inflationary adjustment of 2-3%.

MSC: Water and Solid Waste

Here’s a breakdown of the calculation for the way the water fund and the solid waste fund were charged the “true cost” of centralized administrative services in FY 2008, and how it was budgeted in FY 2010. The numbers in the columns correspond to the consultant’s report on FY 2006 – used for the FY 2008 budget – and the consultant’s report on FY 2008 – used for the FY 2010 budget.

Water Fund
                              Actual  Budget
                             FY 2008 FY 2010
Building Depreciation              0       0
Equipment Depreciation             0       0
Mayor & Council               34,658  49,185
City Administrator            50,738  49,972
Facility Management                0       0
Human Resources               99,621 110,353
Procurement                        0       0
City Attorney                137,866  47,754
City Clerk                    21,858  42,129
Finance Administration        29,426  48,054
Accounting                    99,837 103,819
Assessor                           0       0
Treasurer                      7,465  10,137
Non-Department Expenses        5,437   8,386
Community Development              0       0
Public Svcs Redistribution       318     543
Public Svcs Gen Fund Retiree       0       0
Parks & Recreation Admin           0       0
Parks & Rec Gen Fund Retiree       0       0
Community Svcs                     0       0
Building Dept Redistribution       0       0
Utilities Redistribution      30,666  30,078
Customer Service Call Center       0       0
Environmental Coordinator     17,661       0
Total Allocated              535,551 404,902 

=====

Solid Waste Fund
                              Actual  Budget
                             FY 2008 FY 2010
Building Depreciation            361       0
Equipment Depreciation             0       0
Mayor & Council               17,688  33,957
City Administrator            25,177  27,921
Facility Management                0       0
Human Resources               62,154  68,406
Procurement                    3,208   7,353
City Attorney                 16,415  11,951
City Clerk                    11,155  29,094
Finance Administration        15,019  33,186
Accounting                    33,340  50,378
Assessor                           0       0
Treasurer                      4,879   7,717
Non-Department Expenses        2,986   4,856
Community Development              0       0
Public Svcs Redistribution         0      22
Public Svcs Gen Fund Retiree       0       0
Parks & Recreation Admin           0       0
Parks & Rec Gen Fund Retiree       0       0
Community Svcs                     0       0
Building Dept Redistribution       0       0
Utilities Redistribution           0       0
Customer Service Call Center       0       0
Environmental Coordinator          0       0
Total Allocated              192,589 274,851

-

So Kunselman’s question about the differences in the MSC for these funds can be given the first part of an answer by looking at this breakdown. For the water fund, the decrease in MSC can be attributed primarily to an increase decrease in the amount attributed to the city attorney: a drop from $137,866 to $47,754.

For the solid waste fund, there are increases across several services, perhaps most notably the doubling of the amounts attributed to the city council and to finance administration.

MSC: Why Do It?

At Monday’s council meeting on the budget, Karen Lancaster stressed that the idea behind the MSC was about cost recovery to the general fund. In FY 2008, the total amount of administrative and overhead costs identified in the general fund budget for FY 2010 and FY 2011 – the current two-year cycle – was about $12 million.

Out of that $12 million, around 75% of it goes to support general fund activities. So it’s only a little over $3 million that is recovered to the general fund from outside the general fund.

Other funds besides the general fund get their revenue in various ways. Some funds, like the solid waste fund, have their own dedicated millage. Other funds, like the water fund, get their revenues from fees.  For funds that are fee-based, it’s reasonable to want the rates that are charged to be an accurate reflection of the true cost of providing the product. The idea is that rates should be high enough so that consumers of city water are paying an accurate price for the water they use, without an administrative subsidy from the general fund.

To the extent that a consumer of city water is also a property taxpayer to the general fund, there might be a reasonable expectation that delivery of water is a core city service. That is, the property taxes that someone already pays – and has no way to influence up or down through one’s day-to-day behavior – could be expected to pay for administration and overhead costs of the water fund, so that property tax payers can enjoy a slightly reduced rate for their water.

On the other side, not all consumers of city water support the general fund through property taxes.

In FY 2009, the University of Michigan used – and paid for – about $7.3 million in water and sewer services from the city. But UM does not pay property taxes. Without an MSC that allows the general fund to recover the cost of administration, general fund property tax payers would, in effect, be subsidizing a part of UM’s water bill.