Mark Heusel, vice president of the board for the Humane Society of Huron Valley, with his daughter at the Feb. 15 Washtenaw County board of commissioners meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

After months of uncertainty and sometimes heated negotiations, the county approved an agreement with the Humane Society of Huron Valley through 2012, along with a strategy for a longer-term solution to the county’s animal control services.

A work group, led by the sheriff, is now tasked with determining the cost of animal control services. The work group will involve other jurisdictions in the county that have animal control ordinances – like the city of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Township – but do not currently make financial contributions to the county’s animal control services. The group will present a report to the board by Sept. 15 that recommends a final cost methodology and budget for 2013, based on an agreed-upon scope of services.

In an amendment to the resolution that was proposed from the floor, the board also created a separate task force to develop an animal control policy for the county. The policy will be used to guide the scope of services for a request-for-proposals (RFP). Meetings of the task force will be open to the public and to any commissioner who wants to participate. The task force will submit a preliminary report to the board by May 15, with a final report due by Oct. 15.

Following a lengthy discussion later in the meeting, the board also gave initial approval to an administrative restructuring proposal that included a net reduction of four positions, an estimated annual savings of $326,422, and creation of a new “cross-lateral” team of four current senior managers. The issue of pay increases – given as a result job reclassifications – prompted debate about whether the county’s current policy treats employees equitably at the low end of the pay scale.

Commissioner Ronnie Peterson voted against the restructuring. He objected to the 4% increase that will be given to the cross-lateral team, saying the raises aren’t justified in light of concessions that union employees gave in the most recent round of contract negotiations. A final vote on the proposal is expected at the board’s March 7 meeting.

In other board action, commissioners approved allocating $200,000 to the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti convention and visitors bureaus (CVBs) as part of funding for a Pure Michigan campaign focused on the Ann Arbor area. The funding comes out of revenues from the county’s accommodations tax. The Michigan Economic Development Corp. (MEDC) is developing a Pure Michigan pilot program, entitled “Sense of Place,” to combine support for tourism and economic development. The Ann Arbor/Washtenaw County area has been chosen as the first region to be featured as a partner in this program, which will include a $1 million national TV ad campaign.

The board approved several other items during the Feb. 15 meeting, including: (1) labor agreements with the final four of 17 bargaining units representing county employees; (2) a change in board rules allowing commissioners to abstain from voting; and (3) a Whitmore Lake improvement project.

Animal Control Services

At its Feb. 15 meeting, commissioners were asked to approve a $415,000 contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley that will provide animal control services for the county just through Dec. 31, 2012. The county’s previous contract with HSHV, for $500,000 annually, expired on Dec. 31, 2011. Since then, the two entities have been operating under a $29,000 month-by-month contract.

County officials said the new contract would provide time for ongoing talks to develop a longer-term solution to animal control services in Washtenaw County, including services that are mandated by the state. During the rest of 2012, the county will work with HSHV and other stakeholders to determine the cost of an “animal service unit” – that is, the itemized per-animal cost of providing animal control services. The county eventually will issue a request for proposals (RFP) to solicit bids for the next contract.

The budget approved by the county board for 2012 cut funding for animal control services to $250,000, although during last year’s budget deliberations commissioners also discussed the possibility of paying an additional $180,000 to HSHV – if the nonprofit took over work previously done by the county’s animal control officers. That brought the total amount budgeted for animal control to $430,000 in 2012. HSHV officials have said that even $500,000 wasn’t sufficient to cover costs for all the work they do.

The new $415,000 contract does not include the $180,000 that the county has budgeted for its own animal control officers. Instead, the county plans to allocate an additional $165,000 from its general fund balance, to be added to the previously budgeted $250,000 for animal control services in 2012.

Animal Control Services: Public Commentary

Mark Heusel, vice president of the board for the Humane Society of Huron Valley, said he wanted to communicate the HSHV board’s support for the resolution that the commissioners would be voting on. He noted that he had spoken to the board last fall, when the differences between the two entities had seemed very significant. [See Chronicle coverage: "Animal Issue Dominates County Budget Talks"]

The message then, Heusel said, was confidence that the county and HSHV could come together for the benefit of residents. With hard work and perhaps a little hand-wringing on both sides, he said, they’ve reached an agreement that can serve as a stepping stone for a new relationship. Heusel described the agreement as one that’s forward-thinking and based on mutual respect. He thanked the county administration, sheriff Jerry Clayton, and county board chair Conan Smith for their work, as well as commissioners who supported HSHV or kept an open mind during negotiations.

Heusel said he was confident they could strike a relationship that’s long-lasting and that moves beyond 2012. He urged support for the resolution that commissioners were considering that night, then joked that if his appeal didn’t work, he’d brought his young daughter to the meeting and she might be more persuasive.

Animal Control Services: Board Discussion

Conan Smith kicked off the discussion by thanking Heusel and other HSHV representatives for their help in crafting the contract language. He also thanked commissioners for their input, saying they’d had some good conversations over the last few weeks, and thanked county administrator Verna McDaniel, sheriff Jerry Clayton, and Stefani Carter, who’s filling in as corporation counsel while Curtis Hedger is on medical leave. Smith said he was glad to have the rest of the year to investigate the public policy side of the issue.

Animal Control Services: Board Discussion – Amendment

Leah Gunn then proposed an amendment to the resolution, saying it had nothing to do with the contract. Rather, she said, the amendment focused on the “internal machinations” of the county and how they’ll handle the process of developing a policy and RFP for future years.

The original resolution called for the creation of an animal services steering committee, led by the sheriff with members including the county administrator, four members of the board of commissioners, the county prosecutor and the county treasurer. That committee would have recommended a final cost methodology and animal control services budget for 2013, based on an agreed-upon scope of services.

Instead, Gunn’s amendment specifies a sheriff’s work group to determine cost, and a separate task force to develop an animal control policy [deletions in strike-through, additions in italics]:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners authorizes the Office of the Sheriff to develop a methodology to determine the cost of an Animal Service Unit (ASU) on behalf of the County. The Sheriff may choose the members of his work group, with the understanding that the Board of Commissioners will appoint Commissioner Rob Turner to act as a liaison. The work group’s report is due no later than September 15, 2012.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners hereby establishes an Animal Services Steering Committee (ASSC) for the purpose of reviewing the findings of the Sheriff’s process and recommending a final cost methodology and animal control services budget for 2013 to the Board of Commissioners and establishes the membership of the ASSC as the County Administrator or her designee, four members of the Board of Commissioners, the County Sheriff or his designee, the County Prosecutor or his designee and the County Treasurer or her designee.  a Task Force on Animal Control Policy. This group will exist solely for the purpose of developing an animal control policy for the county. This policy will be reflected in the RFP for a scope of services that the county will purchase. Meetings will be posted. Membership is open to any Commissioner who wishes to attend, and the report will be submitted by May 15th. Once the data from the Sheriff’s work group is published, the RFP will go out forthwith.

Ronnie Peterson wanted clarification between the original resolution and the proposed amendment. He also expressed frustration about the time it’s taken to resolve the process.

Yousef Rabhi explained that the amended resolution would create two separate entities and processes. The sheriff’s work group would focus on identifying the cost of animal services, and would make a recommendation on that. Rob Turner would be a liaison, and report back to the board about the group’s work.

The second entity – the task force on animal control policy – would look at broad issues for setting policy as the county looks toward 2013 and beyond. Rabhi said he’s in favor of separating the two groups because the sheriff’s work group is objective – collecting and analyzing data – while the policy task force will be more subjective. The policy task force will submit a report to the board of commissioners that will be reviewed at a working session before being adopted, Rabhi said.

Noting that politics is the art of compromise, Gunn said this was a good compromise. She noted that the date of Sept. 15 was set at the sheriff’s request – she had originally set it earlier in the year, but moved it back because the sheriff felt it would take longer to collect the data. That’s a fair request, she added, especially since this is a task that the board is imposing on him. Gunn observed that the board of commissioners isn’t a fact-finding entity – it’s a policy-making board. That’s why she proposed the separate policy task force. And by posting the meetings in compliance with the Michigan Open Meetings Act, they don’t need to worry about how many commissioners attend, she said.

Conan Smith said it makes sense to shift the work of determining cost to the sheriff, while creating a separate policy task force. It’s a staff function to collect and analyze data, he said, and the work is in the sheriff’s purview. The findings of that group will come back to the board and guide its budget deliberations, he said.

Regarding the policy task force, its scope should include broader issues that go beyond developing the RFP, Smith said – issues like finding additional revenue sources.

Animal Control Services: Board Discussion – Amendment (Timeline)

Conan Smith was concerned about the proposed May 15 deadline for the policy report. The policy should be informed by the data that the sheriff’s work group will be analyzing, he said, but the work group’s report won’t be done until Sept. 15, according to the proposed timeline. Smith didn’t feel the policy task force could develop an RFP without having a strong sense of the costs for animal control services. So his recommendation would be to have the policy task force report due on Oct. 15 instead – a month later than the sheriff’s work group report.

Smith also observed that without appointed leadership on the task force, he thinks that entity will struggle.

Gunn said she’d accepted the Oct. 15 date as a friendly amendment. But Barbara Bergman expressed concern about pushing back the date, saying she wouldn’t support it. She felt the policy should be determined earlier in the year.

Felicia Brabec asked for a description of the typical RFP timeline. Kelly Belknap, the county’s finance director, said the entire process – including issuing the RFP, soliciting responses, analyzing those responses, and developing a contract – can take two to three months. She noted that a new contract would need to be in place by Jan. 1, 2013.

From left: Washtenaw County sheriff Jerry Clayton, and county commissioners Dan Smith and Barbara Bergman.

Dan Smith said he’d just looked at the board’s meeting scheduled for the remainder of the year. Commissioners have only one meeting in November and one in December, he noted. Their second meeting in October is Oct. 17 – only two days after the proposed Oct. 15 task force report would be due. The board needs to keep these constraints in mind, he said, so that they don’t end up in the same position they are now. He’d rather see them set dates earlier in the year.

Peterson then spoke at length about his frustrations with the project, saying he didn’t understand why the process took so long. He indicated that the board is responsible for making spending decisions, and commissioners should be involved in that. He wondered why the board was able to eliminate Head Start and cut funding for nonprofits in one night, but needed so long to deal with animal control issues. [As part of the 2012-2013 budget process, the board did vote to relinquish its involvement in Head Start. And commissioners also initially reduced funding to human services nonprofits, though that funding was subsequently restored. However, discussions on both of those issues took place at public meetings over a period of several months last year.]

The county has a strong partnership with HSHV, Peterson said, and holds the debt for the society’s new facility. The public wants this issue wrapped up tonight, he said, and he hoped the board would move aggressively.

Peterson also expressed surprise that a resolution of this kind would explicitly name a commissioner – Turner – for a particular role, but said he supported the idea of commissioners being involved.

Conan Smith said the reason he’s suggesting a longer timeline is out of respect for the time commitment required by stakeholders, including HSHV staff and board members, and other local jurisdictions that will be involved in the policy discussion and data collection. It’s not just the county staff and commissioners who’ll be working on this, he noted. The sheriff’s work group will need several months to collect sufficient data that can provide a fair analysis of cost. It doesn’t have to be complex, Smith said, but it does take time.

Rabhi pointed to a central question: Should the cost of animal control inform the county’s policy? Or should the policy be developed independently of cost? He said he doesn’t envision that the policy task force would dissolve after they issue a report on May 15, but it’s important to have a report earlier than October.

Rabhi then proposed keeping the May 15 deadline for the policy task force report, adding that they could issue a second report in mid-October.

Gunn proposed withdrawing the friendly amendment that would have pushed the deadline for the task force report from May 15 to Oct. 15. She moved to substitute this Resolved clause instead [changes from the original amendment in italics]:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners hereby establishes a Task Force on Animal Control Policy. This group will exist solely for the purpose of developing an animal control policy for the county. This policy will be reflected in the RFP for a scope of services that the county will purchase. Meetings will be posted. Membership is open to any Commissioner who wishes to attend, and a preliminary report will be submitted by May 15th. Once the data from the Sheriff’s work group is published, the RFP will go out forthwith, and the final report of the task force will be published by Oct. 15.

Rob Turner expressed support for this amendment, saying it would put fire behind the effort and keep the task force focused on the work it needs to do.

Gunn then called the question on the amendment – a move aimed at ending discussion and forcing a vote. There was a fair amount of confusion about procedural issues at this point, but the board ultimately voted to call the question. They then took a vote on the amendment to the amendment.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved Gunn’s amendment to her original amendment, characterizing the May 15 task force report as preliminary, with a final report due by Oct. 15.

Conan Smith indicated he was still leery of the May 15 deadline, even for a preliminary report. For example, how the county funds cat-specific animal control issues is a substantive policy question, he said. [The county has contended that the state mandate for animal control does not apply to cats.] Until the county has data on the cost of providing animal control services for cats, commissioners might not be able to make a well-informed policy decision, he said.

Bergman said that many questions – like the county’s mission, mandate and types of services they want to spend money on – could be answered by May 15. It’s just a preliminary report, she said.

Outcome on amendment: Commissioners unanimously approved Gunn’s amended amendment.

Animal Control Services: Final Board Discussion

Saying he’d support the resolution, Dan Smith added that he was concerned because this is the second time the county recently has dipped into its fund balance. The first time was in December, when the board voted to take $257,076 from the county’s general fund balance to restore funding it had previously cut to human services nonprofits in the 2012 and 2013 budget.

Smith noted that the county faces a projected deficit in its next two-year budget cycle – for 2014 and 2015 – and that’s troubling. He said he’s very interested in the data that will be collected to determine the cost of animal control services. He had supported the county administrator’s original proposal to cut HSHV funding to $250,000 annually because of historical payments the county had made – $214,119 in 2006, and $300,000 in 2007 and again in 2008. He said he’d be interested to see if the data regarding costs is closer to those amounts, or is vastly different.

HSHV has always been the preferred provider, Smith said, but the county is facing extreme financial constraints, and that factor should be at the forefront. He said he’s not entirely pleased with how this process has unfolded, but he’s glad to see a plan in place.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. noted that another item on the board’s agenda that night – an initial vote to approve restructuring in the administration – indicated that the restructuring would result in annual savings of $326,000. He suggested using funds from those savings to pay the extra $165,000 for the 2012 contract with HSHV. He did not make a formal amendment to that effect, however.

Outcome: The resolution authorizing a new contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley and creating a work group and policy task force were unanimously approved by the board, as part of the consent agenda.

Administrative Restructuring

A restructuring of support services in administration, finance, information technology and facilities management was on the agenda for the Feb. 15 meeting. The changes are estimated to save the county $326,422 annually, and result in the net reduction of four full-time jobs – positions that are currently vacant.

The changes include creating a new “cross-lateral” team of four current senior managers: Kelly Belknap, director of finance; Greg Dill, infrastructure management director; Curtis Hedger, corporation counsel; and Diane Heidt, director of human services and labor relations. The proposal also calls for putting two positions – including the job of deputy county administrator – on “hold vacant” status. Another 11 positions will be eliminated, while nine jobs will be created. A total of seven jobs will be reclassified, and will receive a 4% salary increase. [.pdf of staff memo, resolution and job descriptions]

The four cross-lateral positions are among those getting a 4% raise, capped at $126,099. Because of the cap, Heidt’s current salary of $126,098 will remain unchanged. The salaries of the other three managers will increase from $116,758 to $121,437.

The board had been briefed about this proposal by county administrator Verna McDaniel at its Feb. 2, 2012 working session. At that meeting, McDaniel also outlined plans to seek broader restructuring of the county operations, in the wake of more than 100 county employees retiring at the end of 2011.

Administrative Restructuring: Board Discussion

Felicia Brabec noted that some staff and constituents had raised concerns over salary increases that are part of the restructuring, and she asked McDaniel to comment on that.

McDaniel said she was aware of the concerns, but she noted that these are job reclassifications, with increases set at 4% – they aren’t moving to new pay grades. McDaniel told commissioners that she’s following their directive to restructure in the wake of 117 retirements at the end of 2011, including nine retirements in administrative services.

McDaniel said she’s very sensitive to the sacrifices that employees have made, and she did take into account the county’s financial situation. [To overcome a projected two-year deficit of $17.5 million in 2012-2013, the county administration had secured wage and benefit concessions from unions representing about 80% of the county's 1,360 employees.]

McDaniel reminded commissioners that the estimated structural savings from her proposal is $326,422. It will help the fund balance, she said, and shows that the administration is practicing what they’re preaching as they ask other departments to restructure in the coming months.

McDaniel contended that this move means that Washtenaw County is taking the lead among Michigan’s 83 county governments. She promised to return in six months with a report to the board about the impact of the restructuring, both its successes and pitfalls. She also passed out additional information in a handout – which she said she’d share with union leaders – that outlined responsibilities of the cross-lateral team in more detail.

At right, Diane Heidt, the county's director of human services and labor relations, talks with Kelly Belknap, director of finance. If restructuring is given final approval in March, the two administrators will be part of a four-member cross-lateral administrative team, splitting responsibilities formerly held by the deputy county administrator.

Each member of the cross-lateral team will oversee specific areas of the organization. Hedger will handle administration and support services. Belknap will be responsible for civic infrastructure. Dill will manage public safety and justice, as well as land use and environment areas, while Heidt will be in charge of health and human services, and community and economic development. They’ll meet with McDaniel once a week, with the goal of improving communications, providing additional resources for commissioners and other elected officials, and creating a “deep bench” of leadership.

Wes Prater said it’s hard to swallow change, but it’s necessary. He said he’d prefer to keep the deputy administrator position rather than the cross-lateral team, but he would yield to McDaniel and see how things work out. Prater also said there needs to be close scrutiny of the finance staff. The restructuring will decrease the number of accounts payable jobs from three to two, he noted, and the rationale given is that the change allows for better alignment of day-to-day finance operations with the rest of the organization. It makes you wonder what was happening before now, he said. Prater said he hopes it works.

Ronnie Peterson noted that two positions – the deputy county administrator, and a maintenance technician – are on “hold vacant” status, but not eliminated. They could be filled in the future. Those positions have a maximum salary of $144,000 and $52,000 respectively, he said, and if the positions are filled, that would wipe out about $200,000 of the projected $326,000 annual savings.

Saying he respects the individuals involved in this restructuring, Peterson expressed concern about the raises. The argument is that salaries are increasing because of increased responsibilities, he noted. But most people in the workforce are seeing increased responsibilities without a bump in wages. He said he believes in leading by example – if he takes his nieces and nephews to Dairy Queen, he doesn’t buy himself a bigger ice cream cone than theirs. That’s what you do as a team, he said.

Peterson noted that someone who was attending the meeting that night, a long-time county employee who he said he didn’t want to embarrass by naming, took a significant pay cut in order to keep her job. Knowing that, he said, it would be difficult for him to vote for this restructuring. The county is facing a projected deficit in 2014-2015, Peterson added, and he doesn’t know how they’ll be able to ask employees to make concessions again in two years when the union contracts are negotiated. It’s troubling to him, and his vote on this resolution would be no. His remarks received applause from a handful of employees in the audience.

Dan Smith said he also had some concerns about the raises, which he said he’d shared with the administration. That said, he added that he supports McDaniel. The board has hired her to handle day-to-day operations, and if she feels this is the best way to move forward, Smith said, he’ll support that. If the board wants to take a more active role, that’s their prerogative. But for now, she’s operating under the guidelines they’ve given her, Smith concluded.

Yousef Rabhi noted that when this proposal was initially floated, the plan had called for each cross-lateral team member to receive a $15,000 stipend. Now, the proposal was for a 4% raise. He asked for an explanation about how that 4% figure had been set. [A similar restructuring proposal had initially appeared on the Sept. 21, 2011 agenda, but McDaniel withdrew it before that meeting after several commissioners objected to the $15,000 stipend for the cross-lateral team.]

At McDaniel’s request, Heidt responded to the question. The county has policies and procedures in place regarding job changes – these are part of the union contracts, too, and relate to pay increases for temporary assignments, permanent reclassifications and other changes. If a job is reclassified, the salary increases by 4%. If someone is promoted, they’ll generally receive an 8% increase, she said. Temporary assignments – adding responsibilities on top of an existing job – also get an 8% increase. Lateral moves are generally kept at the same salary. These apply to union positions too, she said.

Rabhi clarified with Heidt that when any position is reclassified, it’s handled in the same way. Absolutely, Heidt said.

Conan Smith said he wanted to present a different perspective that he hoped might change Peterson’s mind. Every point that Peterson made is valid, Smith said. But equally important is the consistent application of good, fair policies. The board has operated with a set of policies with regard to job changes that help keep the peace, Smith said, to ensure that people are treated fairly. But there are some employees who are asked to take on more work, yet don’t get higher wages because their jobs aren’t officially reclassified. There’s a set of employees at the lower end of the pay scale who need a different set of protections and policies. But those protections and policies aren’t in place now, he said.

Until that issue is addressed, however, the county needs to implement its current policies, Smith continued. Changing horses midstream isn’t right. The board needs to have a robust policy conversation that they haven’t had to date, he said.

Peterson replied that he had raised the policy question months ago, when the administrative restructuring had first been proposed. He said restructuring happens for a reason – some people are “weeded in,” while others are “weeded out” – and he’s seen it happen over the years. Peterson also observed that it’s different if you’re talking about someone making $40,000 or $50,000 a year, compared to someone making over $100,000. The county must find a way to make a policy that’s more inclusive of all employees, he said. That responsibility rests with the board, he added, not the administration.

Conan Smith, appearing a bit frustrated, noted that the board approves job reclassifications regularly throughout the year. There were six reclassifications as part of the 2012-2013 budget that was passed by the board late last year, he said. It’s standard operating procedure, and the 4% increase is part of that – it’s consistently applied to all reclassifications. All of those reclassifications come to the board for approval, he observed, so it’s commissioners who are making these decisions.

Felicia Brabec asked whether it was possible to have a pay decrease following a reclassification. No, McDaniel said. If your job is reclassified, you get a 4% pay increase because a reclassification is an upgrade – that’s a policy that applies to any job. If you receive a involuntary demotion, she said, your pay remains the same. If you take a voluntary demotion, your pay decreases. If you are promoted, you receive an 8% increase. The county doesn’t have divisive policies, McDaniel said. These salary practices are part of union contracts and apply to non-union employees as well.

Is there any other situation that might result in a pay cut? Brabec asked. If you’re fired, McDaniel quipped. Or if there are concessions made as part of union contract negotiations. In response to a query from Barbara Bergman, McDaniel reiterated that temporary assignments get an 8% bump – for example, if you’re asked to take over the responsibilities of your boss for a limited time. You would return to your original salary when your temporary assignment ended.

Peterson said he hadn’t planned on this being a long conversation, but felt it was important to discuss these concerns. This has been the worst economic period in the county since the Depression, he said. Peterson contended that changes tend to affect minorities and women – who are often heads of households – more than others. The board shouldn’t balance the budget on the backs of county employees, he said.

Conan Smith said his understanding of Peterson’s position is that the county has a policy that creates equality, but not necessarily equity. At the top of the wage scale, concessions don’t hurt as much, compared to an employee who’s making far less. It’s a complicated issue, Smith said, and one he’d like to tackle collaboratively with labor leaders.

Rob Turner asked McDaniel what metrics she would use to measure the performance of the cross-lateral team. McDaniel cited better communications, work on broader organizational restructuring, improved customer service and program improvements as areas that she’ll be measuring. How will those areas be measured? Turner asked. One way is through cost savings, McDaniel said. But it’s not just about money, she added. It’s also about customer service and program improvements. She said she’d provide more details on that as they move forward.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to give initial approval for the proposed administrative restructuring, with dissent from Ronnie Peterson. A final vote is expected at the board’s March 7 meeting.

Pure Michigan Campaign

As part of funding for a Pure Michigan campaign focused on the Ann Arbor area, commissioners were asked to allocate $200,000 to the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti convention and visitors bureaus (CVBs), out of revenues from the county’s accommodations tax.

The Michigan Economic Development Corp. (MEDC) is developing a Pure Michigan pilot program, entitled “Sense of Place,” to combine support for tourism and economic development. The Ann Arbor/Washtenaw County area has been chosen as the first region to be featured as a partner in this program.

The campaign will feature a $1 million national TV ad campaign. Ann Arbor SPARK, the local economic development agency, is contributing $70,000 toward the campaign, with $200,000 coming from the county, $230,000 from the two local CVBs, and $500,000 from the MEDC. Other elements of the pilot program might include an episode of HGTV’s “House Hunters” program that would focus on the Ann Arbor area, and a national digital ad campaign directing people to Ann Arbor SPARK’s website.

The $200,000 from the county will be paid from the accommodations ordinance administrative fund – an early payment that the county otherwise anticipated making in May of 2013. More than $350,000 is currently in that administrative fund, according to the county.

At the board’s Sept. 21, 2011 meeting, commissioners had voted to amend the contract for the distribution of the county’s accommodations tax. The county collects a 5% excise tax from hotels, motels, and bed & breakfasts, which is then distributed to the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti convention & visitors bureaus and used to promote tourism and convention business. The contract calls for the county to retain 10% of that tax to defray the cost of collection and enforcement. (Until 2009, the county had only retained 5% for this purpose.) The remaining funds are split, with 75% going to the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau, and 25% going to the Ypsilanti Convention & Visitors Bureau.

The contract amendment made in September 2011 addressed the process for distributing excess funds that might accumulate from the county’s 10%, if that amount exceeds the expenses required to administer and enforce compliance with the tax. Beginning in May 2013, the county will continue to retain 10% of the tax proceeds, plus 10% of any remaining fund balance. If additional funds accumulate in the fund balance, they are to be returned proportionally to the two convention & visitors bureaus – 75% to Ann Arbor, and 25% to Ypsilanti.

Several representatives from the groups involved in this campaign attended the Feb. 15 county board meeting: Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor CVB; Debbie Locke-Daniel, executive director of the Ypsilanti CVB; Elizabeth Parkinson, MEDC senior vice president of marketing and communications; and Donna Doleman, Ann Arbor SPARK’s vice president of marketing, communications and talent.

The links between the MEDC and Ann Arbor region are strong. Several MEDC executives – including Parkinson and CEO Mike Finney – are former top staff at Ann Arbor SPARK, which Gov. Rick Snyder helped launch several years prior to his election.

Pure Michigan Campaign: Board Discussion

Several commissioners voiced support for the campaign. Ronnie Peterson said he’s hoped for years to see the joint promotion of tourism and economic development. Rolland Sizemore Jr. indicated that it might be possible to use some of these funds as matching funds for Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township’s participation in the Detroit Region Aerotropolis.

Barbara Bergman said if the funds were to be used for the aerotropolis, the board should get a report on that project. She said she wasn’t necessarily opposed to it, but thought it should be monitored.

By way of background, as of Feb. 18, a message on the website for the Detroit Region Aerotropolis stated that the site has been disabled. There have been no posts on the entity’s Facebook or Twitter accounts since April of 2011. Responding to a query from The Chronicle, Bryce Kelley of Wayne County EDGE – which is overseeing the project – said the site is being redeveloped, and that work on the aerotropolis is progressing. Washtenaw County joined the aerotropolis consortium in 2009, and received its last public briefing on the project at its April 21, 2010 meeting. It was more recently mentioned in a memo sent to the board in October of 2011 by Paul Tait, executive director for the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). Tait cited SEMCOG’s work on the aerotropolis as one justification for why the county should continue paying dues to SEMCOG. The 2012 and 2013 budget approved in November 2011 eliminated the county’s $125,000 annual SEMCOG membership.

Sizemore said he was simply trying to find ways to do things without spending additional money.

Leah Gunn said it had been smart of the accommodations ordinance commission to recommend setting aside funds for administration, but because it’s not needed for other purposes, the money should be used for an opportunity like this. Felicia Brabec expressed enthusiasm for the possibility of this area being featured on HGTV’s “House Hunters” program, saying that when she watches the show, she’s often interested in visiting the locations that are highlighted. [The Ann Arbor area has previously been featured on the show, most recently in 2009.]

Outcome: The board unanimously approved allocating $200,000 to the local convention and visitors bureaus for the Pure Michigan advertising campaign.

Labor Contracts

The county had previously reached labor agreements with all but four of the 17 bargaining units representing county employees. At the board’s Feb. 15 meeting, an agenda item was added during the meeting to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing labor negotiations. When commissioners emerged, they added to the agenda two resolutions to approve collective bargaining agreements with the four remaining units.

These final four bargaining units represent a total of 36 employees – the prosecuting attorneys, the prosecuting attorney supervisors, attorneys in the public defenders office, and supervisors of attorneys in the public defenders office. In total, the county employs about 1,360 workers, and more than 80% of them are represented by labor unions.

All four agreements considered on Feb. 15 were identical, covering a three-year period from Jan. 1, 2012 through Dec. 31, 2014. Because these deals weren’t struck before the deadline to comply with Section 4 of the state’s Public Act 152 of 2011, also known as the 80/20 rule regarding health care costs, union members will pay 20% of their health care premiums.

There are some significant differences between these four agreements and the 13 other union agreements that were previously reached with the county. The other agreements are for two-year periods, ending Dec. 31, 2013. Medical costs for the other union-represented employees are lower, because those agreements were reached prior to the 80/20 deadline. However, because of a “me too” clause, the overall package of salaries and benefits is on par with other labor agreements, according to Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director. So while medical expenses are higher, the agreements with these four bargaining units do not include items like reductions in longevity pay, for example.

Outcome: Without discussion, the board unanimously approved the four labor agreements.

Board Rule Changes

A resolution that was tabled from the board’s Jan. 4, 2012 meeting was on the agenda for the Feb. 15 meeting.

The resolution, proposed by Dan Smith, changed the board rules to give commissioners the option of abstaining from a vote. His resolution amended the section on board resolutions, adding the following statement: “Members may abstain from voting on any resolution expressing support (or opposition), but otherwise taking no action.” During a brief discussion at the Jan. 4 meeting, some commissioners had objected to the change, and the board had tabled the item until the second meeting in February.

At the Jan. 4 meeting, Smith did not elaborate on his reasons for proposing the change, but the issue was relevant at the board’s final meeting in December 2011. A resolution brought forward at that time by Yousef Rabhi urged state lawmakers to reject HB 4770, HB 4771 and “any legislation that codifies discrimination.” The state legislation, which was later signed by Gov. Rick Snyder, removed the ability of public employers to extend benefits to same-sex partners. During deliberations on that resolution, commissioners Dan Smith and Rob Turner had objected to bringing forward resolutions that were not focused on Washtenaw County issues – both commissioners ultimately voted against Rabhi’s resolution, though it passed with a majority of support from the rest of the board.

Prior to the Feb. 15 meeting, Dan Smith indicated to The Chronicle that he would withdraw the item if any other commissioner pulled it out of the consent agenda to be voted on separately. But that did not occur.

Outcome: Without discussion, the resolution passed, with dissent from Wes Prater.

Whitmore Lake

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to a five-year, $460,000 project to study and improve conditions at Whitmore Lake. The lake is located in Washtenaw County’s Northfield Township and Livingston County’s Green Oak Township. An initial vote on the project had been taken at the board’s Feb. 1 meeting.

The effort – focusing on removal of invasive weeds – is a continuation of a project that began in 2003, and was renewed in 2007. It’s overseen by the county board of public works. The project’s cost will be recovered through special assessments on over 800 parcels near Whitmore Lake.

Outcome: Without discussion, the board voted to give final approval to the Whitmore Lake project.

Communications and Public Commentary

There are various opportunities for communications from commissioners as well as general public commentary.

Communications: Congratulations to Joe Burke

Board chair Conan Smith congratulated Joe Burke on his appointment as judge to the 15th District Court in Ann Arbor. Burke’s appointment by Gov. Rick Snyder had been announced earlier in the day. Burke currently serves as the county’s chief assistant prosecuting attorney. Smith said that while the county is sorry to lose him, Burke will do justice as a member of the judiciary. And now, Smith joked, ”we should go bribe him.”

Communications: Road Commission, Court Renovations, VEBA

Commissioner Rob Turner gave several updates during the time set aside for liaison reports.

Washtenaw County commissioner Rob Turner.

He serves as the board’s liaison to the county road commission, and reported that revenues from the state transportation fund to the commission have increased 1.5%. It’s the first time since 2007 that there hasn’t been a decrease in state funding, he noted.

The mild winter has resulted in lower expenses for plowing and salt – $1.019 million, compared to $1.9 million a year ago. While that might seem like a windfall, Turner said, the flip side is that warmer weather means more potholes. So spending has shifted to road maintenance. Turner also indicated that the road commission is interested in working with townships to upgrade road conditions.

Turner reported that renovations at the downtown courthouse at Huron and Main are in their final phase. He said that usually by this point some surprises emerge – like unanticipated asbestos, for example – but nothing like that has arisen, and the project remains on schedule. The board had received a briefing on the project at their Feb. 2, 2012 working session.

Finally, Turner mentioned that requests for proposals (RFPs) are being developed to hire an actuary for the county’s VEBA (Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association) retirement fund. They’d need to wait until the actuarial report is complete, Turner said, but he’s concerned about the performance of the VEBA pension funds, which he said are not meeting projections.

Communications: Public Works, Head Start, Transit, Land Preservation

Yousef Rabhi also gave several liaison reports. Reporting from the most recent meeting of the county’s board of public works, Rabhi said that work on the new recycling facility being built the Western Washtenaw Recycling Authority (WWRA) is moving ahead, he said. At its Dec. 7, 2011 meeting, the board had approved issuing up to $2.7 million in bonds – backed by the county’s full faith and credit – to help pay for a $3.2 million facility, which will allow WWRA to handle single-stream recycling for communities on the county’s west side. Rob Turner noted that WWRA revenues increased by more than $400,000 in 2011. He knew that some commissioners were worried about the financial viability of WWRA and its ability to make bond payments, but the situation seemed good, he said.

Rabhi reported that the Head Start policy council is very interested in writing letters of support to federal officials, encouraging the selection of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District as the next grantee for the county’s Head Start program. The county is relinquishing management of the program later this year, after being the grantee for more than four decades.

In his report from the county’s agricultural lands preservation advisory committee (ALPAC), Rabhi said the committee is recommending the purchase of development rights on six parcels of farmland. Because the county can secure federal funding for these PDRs, the local millage dollars will spread further, he said. ALPAC makes recommendations to the county park & recreation commission, which will make the final decision on these applications. A 10-year millage renewal to support the county’s natural areas preservation program (NAPP) was approved by voters in November 2010, and a portion of millage proceeds can be used for farmland PDRs.

Rabhi said he had a great first meeting as chair of the Washtenaw Urban County last month, adding that he had big shoes to fill by following Leah Gunn, who previously served as chair. He noted that five new local jurisdictions have joined the group this year, adding to the previous 11 members. The Urban County is a consortium of local governments that receive federal funding for programs that serve low-income residents and neighborhoods.

Finally, Rabhi reported that he and Barbara Bergman – as board liaisons to Regional Partners Advocating Transit Here (R-PATH) – had attended a hearing in Lansing held by the Michigan senate’s transportation committee. Board chair Conan Smith had testified at the hearing, Rabhi said. Smith did a great job, “other than giving away one of our votes,” Rabhi joked.

The hearing related to a new regional transit authority (RTA) that’s described in legislation currently pending in the state legislature. The legislation would create a four-county region for the RTA that would include Washtenaw, Wayne, Macomb and Oakland counties. [For coverage of the proposed legislation, see "Michigan Regional Transit Bills Unveiled"] The RTA legislation as introduced would give two seats on a 10-member board to Washtenaw County – with two seats for each of the other three counties, one for Detroit, and one non-voting ex-officio appointment made by the governor.

According to a report in the Michigan Information & Research Service (MIRS), Smith told the committee that he would be willing to give up one of those seats: “Washtenaw County Commissioner Conan Smith not only supported the bills, but expressed an openness to support giving up one of Washtenaw County’s appointments on the RTA to Detroit if ‘that’s what it took” to get the bills passed.’”

Smith’s wife, state Sen. Rebekah Warren, is one of the co-sponsors of the RTA legislation.

Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge said he applauded the board for approving the acceptance of a $299,821 federal grant to fund the county’s foster grandparent program, but criticized commissioners for the administrative restructuring because it eliminated jobs. He argued that the county needs to meet the challenge of diminishing resources by putting a Headlee override on the ballot and advocating for tax reforms that will do away with the county’s reliance on property taxes.

Present: Barbara Bergman, Felicia Brabec, Leah Gunn, Ronnie Peterson, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Rob Turner.

Absent: Alicia Ping.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, March 7, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

All four agreements approved on Feb. 15 are identical, covering a three-year period from Jan. 1, 2012 through Dec. 31, 2014. Because these deals weren’t struck before the deadline to comply with Section 4 of the state’s Public Act 152 of 2011, also known as the 80/20 rule regarding health care costs, union members will pay 20% of their health care premiums.

There are some significant differences between these four agreements and the 13 other union agreements that were previously reached with the county. The other agreements are for two-year periods, ending Dec. 31, 2013. Medical costs for the other union-represented employees are lower, because those agreements were reached prior to the 80/20 deadline. However, because of a “me too” clause, the overall package of salaries and benefits is on par with other labor agreements, according to Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director. So while medical expenses are higher, the agreements with these four bargaining units do not include reductions in longevity pay, for example.

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

AFSCME Local 3052 was one of five bargaining units – out of 17 units representing county employees – that did not reach an agreement with the county by the end of 2011, when its previous contracts expired. Negotiations continue with the other four units – representing the prosecuting attorneys, the prosecuting attorney supervisors, attorneys in the public defenders office, supervisors of attorneys in the public defenders office.

The new agreement, which runs from Jan. 1, 2012 through Dec. 31, 2013, calls for a 10% retirement contribution from employees, and a 10-year vesting period for new hires. Employees will take 10 unpaid “bank leave” days in 2012 and 2013, with no furlough days imposed. Though bank leave and furlough days are similar – both are unpaid – the bank leave days do not affect calculations toward an employee’s retirement or longevity pay.

The default health care plan will comply with the state’s hard cap on costs. The cap limits the amount that public employers can contribute toward employee healthcare annually: $5,500 for single-person coverage, $11,000 for individual and spouse coverage, and $15,000 for family coverage. Employees have the option to upgrade their plans for additional annual costs of $2,724 or $1,772, based on the plan.

The agreement also eliminates longevity pay for new hires, and reduces longevity pay by 25% for current employees in 2012. Step increases will be frozen for 2013. The collective bargaining agreement stipulates that if county property tax revenues increase by at least 2% on or before Dec. 31, 2012, a 1% wage increase would become effective Jan. 1, 2013.

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

The collective bargaining agreement, which affects 13 public health nurses and nurse coordinators in the county’s health services department, was given initial approval on July 6. It’s the first of 15 union agreements being negotiated as part of the 2012 and 2013 budget cycle, and is expected to achieve an annual savings of $132,000.

In total, the county hopes to see about $8 million in labor concessions for the two-year budget cycle, to help address a projected $17.5 million deficit. [There are 17 unions representing the county workforce. In January 2011, the county reached agreements with two other unions – the Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM) and the Command Officers Association of Michigan (COAM) – for a four-year period through 2014.]

According to terms of the agreement with the nurses union, union members will not have raises in 2012 or 2013. The nurses will bear a greater share of health care expenses, pension contributions and retiree health care contributions. For example, the co-pay for emergency room visits will increase from $50 to $250.

Union members will now pay deductibles, and a percentage of the cost of their medical expenses, up to an annual maximum. Prescription drug co-pays will also be increased under the new agreement. In addition, the number of annual “banked leave” days – similar to unpaid furlough days – will increase from 6 to 12.

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

Key features of the contract are no wage increases and participating in the city’s health plan, which requires a contribution by employees to the cost. There are five members of the police service specialist union. They are civilians, who provide support services to police officers.

This leaves the contract with the much larger police officers union still unsettled – it expired on June 30, 2009.

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]

At right: Diane Heidt, Washtenaw County’s human resources and labor relations director, talks with Caryette Fenner, president of AFSCME Local 2733, the county government’s largest union. (Photos by the writer.)

The briefing was delivered by Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director. She told the board that they’d be discussing specific negotiation strategies at their March 3 working session – those talks will be held in a closed session, however. Heidt’s presentation last Thursday was meant to set the stage for commissioners, and to answer any general questions they had as the county prepares to negotiate with its 17 bargaining units.

Leaders of two unions attended Thursday’s working session, though they did not address the board during the meeting: Caryette Fenner, president of AFSCME Local 2733, the county government’s largest union, which represents 621 workers within its five units; and Nancy Heine, president of AFSCME Local 3052, with 56 members.

The county faces a two-year, $20.9 million deficit for its 2012 and 2013 budget years. In a “State of the County” report given to the board earlier this year, county administrator Verna McDaniel targeted $8.5 million in cuts to employee compensation and benefits as part of their strategy for tackling the projected shortfall.

Washtenaw County Labor Overview

Heidt began by giving some context regarding the laws that govern collective bargaining. Congress passed the first federal labor relations act in 1935, to protect interstate commerce from being disrupted by labor disputes or work stoppages, Heidt said. The same goals drove Michigan’s state laws that regulate labor unions for public sector employees, she said.

The specific state laws that govern collective bargaining are:

• Labor Relations and Mediation Act (Act 176 of 1939): Grants full collective bargaining rights to private sector employees. It also provides for settling representation disputes, the hearing of unfair labor practice charges, and the mediation of contract disputes and grievances. Act 176 set up the three-person Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) to administer these provisions, and to oversee the public bargaining laws.
• Public Employment Relations Act (PERA) (Act 336 of 1947): Provides for the recognition of an exclusive bargaining agent for public employees in appropriate units, and prohibits certain acts as unfair labor practices. It also prohibits strikes in the public sector. However, state employees are specifically excluded from PERA.
• Compulsory Arbitration of Labor Disputes in Police and Fire Departments (Act 312 of 1969): Provides for the compulsory arbitration of labor contract disputes between public safety employees of police and fire departments who are otherwise covered by PERA. While the MERC administers Act 312, the arbitration is carried out by private neutral arbitrators according to a MERC-sponsored selection process. Following a hearing before the arbitrator of all issues in dispute, the neutral arbitrator must make a decision, giving attention to a list of established criteria. The arbitrator is required to settle economic issues by selecting the last offer of either party which best meets the established criteria.

Heidt then explained that state law requires public entities to include certain mandatory topics as part of its collective bargaining contract negotiations. They include: (1) wages – hourly rates, shift premiums, vacation pay, time spent on union business, and fringe benefits; (2) hours – actual time worked, time spent on breaks, and overtime; and (3) working conditions – promotions, seniority, layoffs, shift preferences. “Those are the overarching areas,” she said.

Two of the county’s 17 bargaining units are covered by Act 312: The Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM), with 251 members; and the Command Officers Association of Michigan (COAM), with 32 members. The other 15 units are covered by a process known as “bargaining in good faith,” Heidt said – arriving at an agreement through a give-and-take process of proposals. If no agreement is reached, there’s a process that provides for mediation, fact-finding and ultimate resolution.

One of the most crucial parts of a labor agreement lays out the grievance process, Heidt said – “that’s the piece that helps us resolve labor disputes.” It shouldn’t be viewed as a negative, she said. Contracts are relatively short documents – 50 pages or so, with about 75 articles – and there’s no way they can address every issue that might arise during the three- to five-year period of the contracts. That’s why having a clear grievance process is important, she said.

The state, through MERC, provides guidelines that govern where particular positions fit within the bargaining units. For example, you wouldn’t have nurses and sheriff’s deputies in the same bargaining unit – their roles are too dissimilar.

Labor Overview: Bargaining Units, Non-Union Employees

Heidt then outlined the 17 different bargaining units that represent the county’s 1,044 union employees. She noted that by law, employees and their supervisors can’t be part of the same bargaining unit.

• AFSCME Local 2733 (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees): 621 total members. There are five bargaining units within Local 2733: (1) Unit A (340 members) includes all general county professional employees who have a four-year college degree or higher, excluding supervisors; (2) Unit B (176 members) includes general county employees whose job requires less than a four-year degree, excluding supervisors; (3) Unit C (53 members) includes all employees of the 22nd District Court and Friend of the Court program, excluding supervisors; (4) the Family Division/Juvenile Center (29 members) includes all employees of the Washtenaw County Trial Court’s Family Division/Juvenile Center, excluding supervisors; and (5) Juvenile Detention (23 members) includes all employees of the county juvenile detention facility, excluding supervisors.
• AFSCME Local 3052: 56 members. Includes two units: (1) for general supervisors, excluding executive and administrative employees, and (2) supervisors at the Family Division/Juvenile Center, excluding executive and administrative employees.
• Michigan Nurses Association: 14 total members. Includes two units: (1) Unit I (12 members) for public health nurses; and (2) Unit II (2 members) for public health nurse supervisors.
• TPOAM (Technical, Professional and Officeworkers Association of Michigan): 33 total members. Includes two units: 1) Unit I (24 members) includes all senior deputy district court clerks, deputy district court clerks and probation secretaries at the 14-A District Court; and 2) Unit II (9 members) includes supervisors and probation officers at the 14-A District Court, excluding magistrates and the deputy court administrator. Heidt explained that until last year, these employees had been represented by the Teamsters, but they had voted to de-certify and become certified as part of the TPOAM union instead.
• Assistant Prosecutors Association: 24 members. There are two bargaining units covering assistant prosecuting attorneys, excluding the chief assistant PA and the deputy chief assistant PA.
• Public Defenders Association: 13 members. There are two bargaining units covering assistant public defenders, excluding the chief assistant public defender.
• Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM): 251 members. Includes all general staff of the sheriff’s office, including deputies, corrections officers, communication dispatchers and support staff.
• Command Officers Association of Michigan (COAM): 32 members. Includes all supervisory staff of the sheriff’s office, including sergeants and lieutenants.

Heidt also gave a headcount for the county’s 270 non-union employees: (1) 26 elected officials; (2) 20 department heads – 18 in county units, and 2 in the trial court; (3) 181 professionals/managers – 146 in county units, and 35 in the court; (4) 34 support staff – 22 in county units, 12 in the court; and (5) nine non-union sheriff’s office employees – Heidt noted that these employees get wages and benefits matching the COAM union.

Negotiated union salary adjustments have generally been offered to non-union workers as well, Heidt said. Unlike union workers, non-union employees do not get automatic “step” increases, however, nor do they receive extra pay based on the length of time they’ve served, she said. Pay-for-performance increases for non-union employees have been on hold since 2009, she noted.

Labor Overview: Economic and Non-Economic Contract Provisions

Heidt reviewed elements of current union contracts that will be mandatory subjects of collective bargaining.

New hires are brought in at the first or second “steps” of their salary grade. With the administrator’s approval, someone can be hired at up to the midpoint of the job’s salary grade – beyond that midpoint, an offer requires board approval. On an employee’s anniversary date – typically the date of their hire – they get an automatic increase to the next step in the salary grade. Across-the-board increases for union employees are part of the contract negotiations. [.pdf of 2011 salary table for Washtenaw County]

When a union member’s job is reclassified, they’re eligible for one step increase at the new salary grade – that typically represents a 4% increase, Heidt said. For promotions, two step increases are granted at the new salary grade – generally equivalent to an 8% increase.

Longevity pay is also given to union workers, based on their length of service. These increases are distributed in different ways, Heidt said – some get the longevity pay once a year, other employees get the increases spread out as part of their regular paychecks. As part of the 2009 contract negotiations, different longevity pay scales were adopted for new hires.

Heidt then described the various retirement plans for county workers, noting that the board will hold a working session on this topic in May, with a greater level of detail. There are three plans:

• Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS): A defined benefit plan with 1,001 members, 24 deferred members, and 727 retirees or beneficiaries.
• Municipal Employees’ Retirement System (MERS): A defined benefit plan only for employees of the sheriff’s office, with 286 members, 17 deferred vested members, and 10 retirees/beneficiaries.
• Voluntary Employees’ Beneficiary Association (VEBA): A 501(c)9 trust established to pre‐fund retiree health care benefits.

Employees also receive s “healthy” package of fringe benefits, Heidt said. Those benefits include Blue Cross/Blue Shield health insurance and dental insurance, life insurance, long-term disability, overtime and paid leave, among other benefits. She noted that as part of the 2009 contract concessions, most of the unions agreed to take eight unpaid “banked” leave days, which amounted to about a 3.1% cut.

They’ll also be negotiating a raft of non-economic provisions, Heidt said. Those include the grievance procedure, working hours, leaves of absence without pay, transfers, promotions, seniority, layoffs and “bumping,” progressive discipline and discharge, performance evaluations, and management rights.

Labor Overview: Next Steps

Heidt said the unions and administration use a method called interest-based bargaining (IBB), which AFSCME requested in 2002. It’s been very successful, she said, and involves trying to find options that benefit both sides. The process includes a discussion about why the positions that you’re taking are important – it’s not just making offers and counter-offers, she said, and the approach has dramatically enhanced labor/management relations.

On the administration side, the negotiating team will consist of Heidt; finance director Kelly Belknap; Donna Sabourin, executive director of the county’s Community Support and Treatment Services (CSTS) department; Bob Tetens, director of Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation; Lisa Greco, director of the county Children’s Services department; Dan Dwyer, Washtenaw County Trial Court administrator; and Judah Garber, representing the Trial Court’s Family Division.

The negotiating team will be backed up by a “base” team, Heidt said, which has some overlapping members. That group includes: Heidt; Belknap; Dwyer; budget manager Jennifer Watson; county administrator Verna McDaniel; deputy county administrator Bill Reynolds; Joanna Bidlack of the administrator’s office; Patrick Barrie, executive director of the Washtenaw Community Health Organization; county commissioner Rolland Sizemore, Jr.; Greg Dill of the sheriff’s office; and water resources commissioner Janis Bobrin.

Heidt said that she and Watson will be looking at financial projections.  At the March 3 closed session they’ll be asking the board for some parameters to use in negotiations. The closed session will also be the time to talk about their general labor relations strategy, she said.

On March 21 and 23, members of the negotiating teams and the budget planning team will go through training sessions for interest-based bargaining. Heidt extended an invitation to commissioners to participate as well. Training will be provided by federal mediators at no charge to the county, she said. Expedited negotiations will be conducted in March and April, with the goal of reaching agreement by July 1.

It’s important to set their goals and resolve these negotiations early, Heidt said, especially in light of uncertainties at the state and federal levels. Employees are very unsettled, she noted. “The sooner we can identify our future, the better off we’ll all be.”

Labor Overview: Commissioner Comments, Questions

Conan Smith, the board’s chair, observed that the process is always trepidatious, because it concerns people’s livelihoods. It’s important to know how the board should participate, he said. Part of their role is to set goals and direction – they’ll start that process in the closed session they’ll hold to talk about the labor negotiations, he said. Smith also noted that he didn’t believe the county had sufficient back-and-forth during concession talks with the POAM and COAM. [Those two unions, which represent employees of the sheriff's office, did not give concessions during the 2009 budget cycle, but earlier this year agreed to concessions that are expected to save a total of $5.6 million over a four-year period.]

How can they ensure that there’s effective dialogue? Smith asked. Heidt responded that the negotiating team is part of the process, along with the budget planning team. She said she’d be open to suggestions about how best to update the board regarding negotiations. The worst thing that could happen, she said, is if she signed a tentative agreement with the unions, brought it to the board for approval and discovered that it wasn’t what the board wanted. The board should know what’s coming, and that it fits within the goals and budget projections they’ve established.

At left: Caryette Fenner, president of AFSCME Local 2733, talks with county commissioner Yousef Rabhi (D-District 11).

Smith joked that his general inclination is to give Caryette Fenner anything she wants. (Fenner, president of AFSCME Local 2733, the county government’s largest union, attended the working session in the audience.) He asked Heidt to describe what the role of individual commissioners should be during this process. Are there any guiding principles they should follow?

Heidt said it’s important to remember that there’s a negotiating team that represents the board. Hopefully, commissioners are comfortable with that group, she said – if not, she needs to know. The different bargaining units are also represented by members who’ve been elected to do the negotiations. While it’s important to listen to concerns from employees, she said, it’s also important that commissioners not make promises – they need to consider what impact that might have on negotiations. Communication is crucial, but should be in the form of listening, then bringing any concerns to the negotiating team members, she said.

The pre-negotiation process includes information-sharing, Smith said. In the past, commissioners have heard from employees that they weren’t happy with the information they received – employees didn’t have faith that it was accurate and complete. Was there a process to ensure that this year, everyone’s on the same page?

Heidt said the administration is providing a range of information to the unions, including a survey of salaries and benefits in other communities that she’d just distributed earlier that day. The comparatives looked at the city of Ann Arbor and several other counties, including Ingham – where Michigan State University is located – as well as Oakland, Kalamazoo and Jackson counties, among others. [Excel spreadsheet of salary/benefits community comparatives]

A fringe benefits workgroup had met, looking at the costs associated with various benefits. That information was useful, Heidt said. The county’s budget and finance staff are also collecting information, including budget projections. In general, they’ll be giving unions whatever information union leaders request, Heidt said. That’s an aspect of interest-based bargaining, she noted – to be open, and ensure that they’re all “singing from the same hymnal.”

Smith said he’s impressed by both management and union leaders, who are committed to arriving at an outcome that’s best for the county, working as part of the same team. He said that earlier in the day, county administrator Verna McDaniel had characterized it this way: They’re all on the same plane. Smith joked that he hopes the plane doesn’t drop from the sky. Camaraderie was an important part of the previous budget discussions, he said, and he stressed his commitment to a process that’s as open, fair and inclusive as possible. “This will be as tough as it ever is, if not tougher,” he said, adding that he’s looking forward to the conversations.

Wes Prater asked several clarification questions. He noted that Heidt had indicated there are 1,287 employees in the pension system – he thought there were about 100 more employees than that. She replied that the number had been updated on Jan. 1. Employees who work less than full time aren’t included, she said.

Prater said he was also trying to figure out the number of supervisors compared to non-supervisory positions. He wanted to look at the organization’s “span of control” – the number of non-supervisors per supervisor. He thought the standard was 7 to 1, and he wondered what the county’s ratio was. McDaniel said the standard was more like 4 to 1. Heidt said she’ll gather that information.

Alicia Ping asked whether the comparative data that they’d collected on salaries and benefits had included non-union employees. Heidt said that this initial information looks at across-the-board salaries and benefits. As a part of the negotiation process, they’ll also be collecting comparables on specific positions, she said.

Responding to a question from Yousef Rabhi, Heidt clarified that there are 17 bargaining units, but that some of them work together for parts of the negotiation. There are five AFSCME units, for example – they usually work together for the broader issues, then split off talks separately for issues that concern just their specific unit.

Rabhi also asked for clarification about how the banked leave days work. Heidt explained that the majority of unions have banked leave, while non-union employees have furlough days. The main difference is that banked leave doesn’t affect retirement or longevity calculations, whereas furlough days do have an impact on retirement. She said they borrowed the plan from one that’s used by the state of Michigan, which was brought forward by the county unions several years ago.

Present: Leah Gunn, Kristin Judge , Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Conan Smith.

Absent: Barbara Levin Bergman, Ronnie Peterson, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Dan Smith, Rob Turner.

Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, erases "code enforcement" from the list of term sheet items the DDA wants to see discussed further. (Photos by the writer.)

And later in the afternoon, the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority met for a retreat to give direction to its own “mutually beneficial” committee.

The two committees are charged with the task of redefining the agreement between the city and the DDA that allows the DDA to manage the city’s parking system.

From the city councilmembers’ perspective, the ball was in the DDA’s court. They were hoping that the DDA’s retreat later in the day would reduce the items on the term sheet that is supposed to underpin the city-DDA conversation.

At their retreat, the DDA board did eliminate an item on the term sheet – code enforcement, other than parking regulations, was not something for which they wanted to assume responsibility. The remaining three term sheet items – parking enforcement, provision of services, and development of city-owned property – stayed on the white board. The clearest consensus among board members seemed to be around the idea that the DDA should focus on development.

But a couple of additional items were added into the mix – issues related to Village Green’s City Apartments project. That project, located at First and Washington, has previously seen its site plan approval option to purchase extended through June 30, 2010. City council action would be required in the next month, if it’s to be extended again.

Downtown police beat patrols were also left on the board as an additional item of discussion.

At Friday’s retreat, the board heard the same message from Susan Pollay, the DDA’s executive director, that she’d conveyed at a partnerships committee meeting two weeks earlier – the reason for the DDA’s existence was to spur private investment in the downtown.

But as a group, there was an uneven embrace of that message. Some board members preferred to identify “development” as meaning something broader than building new infrastructure, suggesting that a more general “economic development” approach might also be appropriate for the DDA.

And one other idea was thrown up on the white board, but did not stick: altering the DDA district boundaries.

Parking Agreement: Term Sheet and Basic Background

The term sheet that the DDA board whittled down at its Friday afternoon retreat is to be the basis of future discussions between the city and the DDA about a revision to the contract under which the DDA manages the city’s parking system. The hoped-for outcome of that discussion is a new parking contract between the two entities, signed by Oct. 31, 2010.

The contract had been revised in 2005 to provide for a $1 million-per-year parking facility rental payment by the DDA from 2005 through 2015. The contract included a provision allowing the city to draw up to $2 million in a given year, provided the total over 10 years did not exceed $10 million. The city elected to draw $2 million in each of the first five years, leaving the city without a right, under that contract, to any payment from the DDA starting next fiscal year (FY 2011), which begins July 1, 2010.

Already in July 2009, both the city and the DDA had created and appointed committees to undertake the discussion that was to result in a new parking agreement. That new revised agreement was intended to be in place in time for the city to plan its FY 2011 budget. No long-term revision was reached by then, but a one-time $2 million payment was authorized by the DDA last month, which allowed the city to incorporate an additional $2 million into its roughly $80 million annual general fund budget for FY 2011.

The committee structure that had been set up to address a revision to the parking agreement was not used, however. Instead, city councilmembers and DDA board members elected to form a group that worked out of public view over the first four months of this year. That group produced a term sheet of items that is intended to underpin more detail-focused conversations on a longer-term contract revision.

The creation of the term sheet was enough to convince a 7-member majority of the 12-member DDA board that it should pay an additional $2 million to the city – effectively a one-time unilateral revision to the parking contract. The language of the DDA’s resolution authorizing the payment, passed in early May, calls on the future conversations to be publicly accessible.

For its part, the city council created its second mutually beneficial committee at the council’s May 17, 2010 meeting, and appointed as members Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). All city committees, including sub-committees of the city council, are required – by city council resolution – to conform to the conditions of the Michigan Open Meetings Act.

Teall and Hohnke were already members of the council’s mutually beneficial committee appointed in July 2009. The third member appointed at that time was Leigh Greden, but he was defeated by Stephen Kunselman in the August 2009 Democratic primary.

Term Sheet Items

Starting with the existing parking agreement as a baseline, the term sheet covers four broad topics as points of discussion for working out details for a contract revision that would provide the city with a continuing revenue stream from the parking system. Over the last five years, that revenue stream has amounted to $2 million each year.

Parking Enforcement [...]
Throughout the City, the DDA will have primary, but non-exclusive, responsibility for enforcement of public-parking-related rules and regulations, including without limitation, expired meters, parking structure rule compliance, loading zones, and established residential parking permit zones (“Parking Codes”). [...]

Community Standards Code Enforcement in the DDA [...]
Within the DDA, the DDA will have primary, but non-exclusive, responsibility for enforcement of City ordinances now generally enforced by community standards officers, including without limitation, ordinances related to sidewalk clearance, debris, graffiti, and alley upkeep (“Community Codes”). [...]

Services in the DDA [...]
Within the DDA boundaries, the DDA will have primary, but non-exclusive, responsibility for delivering the preliminary list of services identified on “Exhibit 1”, attached. The DDA will deliver the identified services with at [sic] the identified service levels and frequencies. Generally, these are all services delivered currently delivered [sic] by the City within the DDA boundaries, excluding public safety, street clearing, and other services as identified in “Exhibit 1”. [...]

Development of City-owned Property Within the DDA District [...]
The working group envisions that the DDA would serve as a visioning, initiation and implementation engine for development of City-owned property within the DDA district. The nature and extent of this role will be discussed, considered and, if approved, implemented in parallel to any omnibus agreement, but would not be part of that agreement. [...]

Since the term sheet has been made public, some negative statements have already been heard from city councilmembers and DDA board members alike about the idea that the DDA would assume responsibility for enforcement of parking or community standards codes. On the city’s side, mayor John Hieftje and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) have expressed their confidence that city officers are already able to implement a “customer service” approach to parking enforcement without assigning responsibility to the DDA. Kunselman has expressed his concerns about setting up a “shadow government.”

And at the DDA board retreat on Friday, the overwhelming sentiment was against pursuing DDA responsibility for community standards enforcement. So that won’t, from the DDA’s side, be a topic for future discussions.

In that regard, Friday’s DDA retreat will be counted as progress by the city’s mutually beneficial committee. They were anticipating a reduction of items on the term sheet to help focus the future conversation. [.pdf of complete term sheet]

Friday Morning: City Council Mutually Beneficial Committee

On Friday morning, May 28, the council’s committee – Christopher Taylor, Margie Teall and Carsten Hohnke – discussed little of substance, focusing instead on procedural and scheduling matters.

Public notification of their first meeting experienced a minor glitch. The posted location of the meeting in the lobby of city hall indicated the committee would meet on the second floor, but the city’s online Legistar system indicated it was to be held on the third floor. The meeting turned out to take place on the third floor in the conference room right across from the elevators.

City Council MBC: Hope for a Reduction in Term Sheet Items

Taylor reported that the term sheet had elicited some “atmospheric” discussion from city councilmembers and DDA board members – there’d been satisfaction expressed with some items and dissatisfaction expressed with others.

So Taylor figured there’d be a “winnowing” of issues on the part of the DDA board, just as there would be a similar winnowing on the part of the city council if a conversation like the DDA board’s retreat were to take place. Teall indicated that she was unaware that the DDA was having a retreat. So Taylor introduced the possibility of a city council working session to get a better sense of what city councilmembers felt about the term sheet items.

After the two bodies had reduced the number of issues to be discussed, Taylor said, the two committees would have a better starting point to put together a more formal document. Teall wondered what the three of them could accomplish that morning – she felt like there wasn’t a lot they could do until they heard a response from the DDA.

City Council MBC: Which Term Sheet Items Are Most Challenging?

Hohnke suggested that it might be possible to rank order the issues in terms of how difficult they might be to tackle – based on educated guesses about what the DDA and the council might leave on the term sheet.

For example, services in the DDA area – tree trimming, tree watering, and graffiti removal, he said, would involve small costs. He thought most councilmembers would think it made sense to transfer that to the DDA.

But Hohnke wondered if it would make the most sense to use their fresh energy on the most challenging of the items or to knock out the easiest items first.

Teall characterized the DDA board at their partnerships committee meeting on May 12 as “divided” on many of the issues. With respect to services, for example, there was more of an interest in using the city to provide services on State Street than on Main Street. On Main Street, she pointed out, a business improvement zone (BIZ) has recently been approved [with support from the DDA and approval by the city council] to provide services like graffiti removal and snow clearing.

City Council MBC: Guesses About What the DDA Wants

Within the topic of development, Teall said there was also some division on the DDA board. Executive director Susan Pollay suggested that the DDA should focus on development, but some board members were not certain they wanted to do that, Teall said. For her part, Teall said she felt the DDA had the expertise, energy and drive to push development forward – she favored that.

Teall said she supported an idea that DDA board member Russ Collins had expressed at one of their previous meetings that there should be an “ombuds-person” to guide development. Teall noted that the item addressing the role of the DDA in downtown development hadn’t been fleshed out very much on the term sheet, but that there was considerable interest in that expressed at the May 12 DDA partnerships committee meeting.

As far as trying to rank order the items by how challenging they are, Teall noted that the term sheet itself already reflected a preliminary assessment of difficulty – parking enforcement was estimated to take 6-12 months to transition to the DDA, whereas community standards enforcement was projected to take 12-24 months. But Taylor indicated that this was an estimation of how much effort it would take to implement after an agreement. Hohnke was focused on how much work it would take to reach an agreement.

On the question of parking system responsibility, Taylor cast the issue against the background of the parking meters that the city had proposed to install outside the DDA area as part of last year’s budget proposal for FY 2010. That had happened without – as far as he understood the situation – a fulsome discussion with the DDA. So a hypothetical example of a specific point that could be part of the agreement, Taylor suggested, would be that the DDA would be given the authority to set the times for meter enforcement, with the city council having the authority to override decisions.

After brief speculation about what the DDA board’s retreat might yield in the way of results, Hohnke suggested that really the ball was to some extent in the DDA’s court. Taylor supported that view, saying the ball was “entirely” in the DDA’s court.

City Council MBC: Scheduling, and Does the DDA Have a Committee?

So Taylor suggested that the two bodies – the DDA and the city council – could identify areas of interest on the term sheet that they want to focus on and that there would be areas of overlap for the two committees to take forward. Teall then questioned whether the DDA board had their own “mutually beneficial” committee. Hohnke said he thought that the DDA board had such a committee, with Taylor saying he believed the DDA board had a committee, but he did not know for sure.

The three councilmembers then discussed the scheduling of a possible working session of the council, and considered the usefulness of meeting with the DDA’s committee beforehand to help set the agenda for that working session. Teall said she felt it would definitely be useful to hear from the DDA’s committee about the outcome of the retreat before setting the working session agenda. The outcome of the retreat, she said, could turn out to be that the DDA doesn’t want to do anything except for the development piece.

Hohnke suggested that based on what survived from the term sheet, city staff could be asked to develop presentations for the working session.

Tentatively, the committee decided to try to schedule a “mini working session” for Monday, June 21 starting at 6 p.m., which would provide a fixed end time of 7 p.m. when the council’s regular meeting starts. It would be primarily for information distribution and perhaps some conversation.

They decided that a June 21 working session would mean that a meeting of the two mutually beneficial committees of the DDA and the city should be scheduled for the following week [May 31 - June 4] and that they should try to meet again as a committee before the meeting with their DDA committee counterparts.

Taylor summed up the committee’s work for the morning by declaring, “The meeting to schedule the meetings has occurred.”

DDA Retreat Part I: Structure, Enforcement, Services

Entering the DDA board meeting room on Friday afternoon, Leah Gunn cheerily declared that she’d put two-hours worth of money in a parking meter and that they’d need to wrap things up in under that time. The scheduling of the retreat had been done on short notice, so several board members were not able to be there at the start. Eventually eight out of 12 members appeared. Missing were John Hieftje, Jennifer S. Hall, Gary Boren and Russ Collins. Hieftje and Hall’s attendance was not expected due to family circumstances.

If parking enforcement was effective in downtown Ann Arbor on Friday, then Gunn returned to her car to find a ticket on her windshield – the retreat went roughly two and a half hours. The report below is organized partly based on the term sheet items. But there were other more general topics introduced as well.

In this section we handle all term sheet items other than the assignment of a stronger role for development to the DDA. That includes general issues related to the parking agreement, parking enforcement and community standards enforcement.

DDA Retreat Part I: Overall Parking System, Length of Contract

The overall term of the agreement was not determined, said Roger Hewitt, but he wanted the term of the eventual agreement to be fairly long. That was essential for long-term planning, he said, and would also eliminate the haggling every few years and finally “put things to rest.” He did not want the parking agreement opened up every time there was a budget crisis.

Right out of the gate, however, Newcombe Clark questioned whether that kind of long-term arrangement was possible, given the fact that the city could take revenues from parking facilities not covered in the agreement – the Fifth & William (old YMCA) surface lot and the 415 W. Washington St. lot, for example. In addition, Clark said, the city could take lots currently in the agreement and remove them. How could the DDA runs its budget under those circumstances?

Hewitt clarified that a key idea not necessarily indicated as a separate item on the term sheet was that the DDA would assume responsibility for the entire parking system of the city. The city would not be “in the parking business,” Hewitt said.

There would be a need, Hewitt acknowledged, for the DDA to have more flexibility to adjust parking rates in order to implement the dynamic pricing associated with demand management strategies. There would be different rates for different times of day, varying by location.

As far as the revenue stream to the city from the parking system, Hewitt reported that one way it had been discussed was to make it a fixed percentage of gross revenue, but that there were a variety of ways to approach it. Clark observed that a fixed percentage of gross revenue would be difficult to budget against.

Hewitt suggested putting the issues of money and the length of the agreement aside and focusing on the structure of the agreement. Clark said he wanted to identify the areas of divergence between what the city council was thinking and what the DDA was thinking, and identify them early. He was concerned with the philosophy of the contractual mechanisms that had not been in place up to then, he said.

For example, Clark wanted to know if the mechanism of the payment would be a rental agreement, in which the DDA was paying rent to use city-owned assets – that is, parking structures and lots. Hewitt confirmed that this was his understanding.

At one point, when Sandi Smith mention a $2 million figure, Clark asked if they were now talking about payments in addition to the one they’d just authorized – were they talking about a $10 million deal? Susan Pollay brought that discussion back to the issue of finding a benefit to the downtown in the new agreement. The money that the DDA is paying to the city needs to be connected to some benefit in the downtown. Some operations, Pollay said, that could be performed “better” by the DDA, and which would benefit the downtown. It would be a qualitative benefit rather than a quantitative benefit.

DDA Retreat Part I: (Term Sheet) Parking Enforcement

Roger Hewitt characterized the parking enforcement as the most straightforward of the term sheet elements. It included writing tickets for expired meters, loading zone violations, no-parking violations, fire-hydrants – a function currently performed by the city’s community standards officers. Hewitt said that the idea, which had been discussed for a number of years, was to put the DDA in charge of all that. The idea was that the philosophy of enforcement could transition from revenue generation as a goal, to one where compliance is achieved with “more carrots and less stick.”

Something that really upsets visitors to the downtown, Hewitt said, is getting a parking ticket for an expired meter. Sandi Smith agreed with Hewitt, saying that receiving a parking ticket made people feel like they were breaking the law, when they were not intending to do that. It’s the most frequent time that an average citizen is going to cross with the law, she said, and they don’t need to cross with the law.

Leah Gunn noted that with respect to visitors, the important point was that the city wanted to keep them coming back. Joan Lowenstein pointed out that every place in the whole world has parking tickets, so she suggested it was an over-sensitivity to the idea of getting a parking ticket. Smith suggested it was worth being sensitive to the over-sensitivity, because there are other options to shop and dine, where there are acres and acres of parking with no threat of a parking ticket [Briarwood Mall, for example].

Newcombe Clark suggested that the idea was to transition parking enforcement to a “service.”

With respect to both enforcement issues – parking and community standards codes – John Mouat expressed concern about how the DDA might staff the operation. Smith said the idea was to have a “kinder, gentler approach.” Worrying about who would do it was something that had not been sorted out. Mouat questioned the assumption that the DDA would do it better than the city. Hewitt explained that the key to that was understanding the definition of “better.” For the city, he said, “better” meant more net revenue. For the DDA, he continued, it meant happier people coming downtown and coming back downtown.

Mouat said he questioned the assumption that the DDA could really do a better job than the city at parking enforcement. He said that “Ann Arbor just loves to dump on the city for doing such a bad job at everything,” but that in his experience over the years, the city staff actually did a really good job at most things.

Keith Orr stressed that it was very important that the enforcement and the management of the parking system be coordinated by one entity, so that the goals of demand management could be met. And Hewitt summarized by saying that the DDA would not do a “better” job but rather a “different” job than the city.

Hewitt noted that community standards officers are part of the police department and their concern is primarily public safety. But parking enforcement – aside from parking next to a fire hydrant and the like – was not so much a public safety issue, Hewitt said. He noted that enforcement was a logical piece to fit in with parking management, which the DDA already did.

Smith wondered if there were some sort of hybrid, where the city would provide the service – with the DDA’s input and guidance. Clark expressed some frustration with the level of conversation at that point, saying, “We have to get out of the plane and look at this flood, we can’t just keep circling around.”  The basic issue: They were talking about privatizing enforcement in the same way they already did with other functions through Republic Parking. Can it be competitively bid? Is the DDA even allowed to do that?

Smith acknowledged that there was an AFSCME union concern that had already been expressed to the city about conversion of those enforcement jobs to non-union positions. [The city jobs of collecting the meter money had previously been converted to private jobs, through a contract with Republic Parking, when the city agreed to allow on-street parking revenues to flow to the DDA.] She said it was not possible for enforcement to be transitioned to private positions under the current AFSCME contract.

Smith told Clark the current AFSCME contract ran through June 2011. Clark said the key issue for him was whether the DDA could really run enforcement more efficiently than the city. In addition, he said that as a downtown resident he liked knowing that he could call the police if someone was parked blocking his garage.  Would he need to call Republic Parking in the future?

For Mouat, a key question was whether Republic Parking – or some other private contractor – could be contracted to do the job. He was concerned about implications for staffing at the DDA.

Susan Pollay said it was her understanding that the DDA could contract with Republic to perform parking enforcement – it would not have a dramatic effect on DDA staffing levels, she said.

Hewitt indicated that however the details were worked out, the Ann Arbor police department would still have the authority to issue tickets if they chose to do so. That had been very clear, he said. The city could not give up the right to issue tickets.

Pollay noted that within the city, parking enforcement is under a patrol area within the police department, and that’s under the city administrator, who in turn reports to the city council. That meant a lot of layers between policy and implementation, she said. Gunn echoed Pollay’s sentiment by saying that the DDA would be “closer” to parking enforcement and would thus do a better job.

Sandi Smith, DDA board member and Ward 1 city councilmember, arrived at the meeting on crutches.

Smith went back to the idea that “seaming together” the enforcement with the operation of the parking system was a No. 1 goal. She called for a straw poll on the issue of combining enforcement and operation. Gunn said she supported that idea. And she said there needed to be assurance that the city would suffer no net loss due to the way the parking system is enforced.

Smith suggested that it should be thought of as a “soft landing.” If the demand management strategy works, she said, then there will be fewer and fewer tickets issued, because there will be less opportunity to break the law. It would be a “weaning” process from fines as a revenue source, she suggested.

Hewitt raised the possibility that in the future it might be possible to simply charge people for the time they actually used an on-street spot – through sensor technology – and remove over-the-limit tickets from the set of possibilities. People would pay a graduated rate – it would simply be very expensive past a certain time. The revenues would shift from fines to charges. A ticket upsets people more than a charge on their credit card, Hewitt ventured.

Smith noted that the fine revenues had already shown decreases over the last couple of years.

Clark alluded, however, to a projection that Tom Crawford, the city of Ann Arbor’s CFO, had made that suggested sooner rather than later, parking enforcement would cost more than it generated in revenue through fines.

Clark also came back to the idea that enforcement without the ability to set the fines was “toothless and meaningless” to the DDA.

Smith moved the retreat towards wrapping up the parking enforcement discussion by asking people to reflect on the issue as related to the DDA’s capacity and its mission – did they want to leave it on the board or wipe it off?

The straw poll showing of hands was summarized by Hewitt as “pretty unanimous” for leaving parking enforcement on the board.

The result of a straw poll on the DDA taking responsibility for parking enforcement (from far right, counterclockiwse): John Mouat, Keith Orr, Susan Pollay, Sandi Smith, John Splitt.

A voice of some dissent came from Clark, who said, “Just because I can have a baby, I probably shouldn’t – that’s my concern about all this.” The discussion paused while people got their laughter worked out.

Turning more serious, Clark asked for direction from Pollay: “When do the horns need to be louder? When do we need to say a little louder that parking enforcement might be a good idea, but we have to remember these other mission issues?”

Pollay indicated she’d provide the direction Clark asked for. Parking, she said, had been used up to then to support the mission of the downtown – from supporting development downtown to enabling special events to happen.

Outcome: Parking enforcement stayed on the list.

DDA Retreat Part I: (Term Sheet) Code Enforcement

Roger Hewitt described community standards code enforcement as the “outside codes” – sidewalk ordinances, trash removal, sandwich boards, cafes. It’s now enforced on a complaint basis. The idea is that if the DDA were in charge, there’d be more proactive work to get compliance from business owners instead of just calling them up and telling them they’re going to get a $500 ticket.

Many of the concerns about parking enforcement blended into the discussion about community standards. Joan Lowenstein clarified that even if the DDA took responsibility for community standards enforcement, the city would still need community standards officers for the area outside the DDA district.

Hewitt confirmed that there were certain areas that the DDA had “no desire whatever to be involved in.” For example, if someone doesn’t mow their lawn, the grass gets too tall, and someone calls in a complaint – the last thing the DDA wanted to do was to send someone out to tell them to cut their grass. The DDA would do code enforcement only inside its boundary, Hewitt said.

Keith Orr expressed concerns that the DDA didn’t have a history with the city on code enforcement the way it did with parking system management. Also, he said, code enforcement set up the DDA to be “the bad guy” in ways that were counter to the DDA’s mission. He gave as a specific example the case of sandwich sign boards – the DDA viewed them as positive, but the city’s ordinance prohibited them. [The city's ordinance on sidewalk occupancy was just recently revised to allow sandwich sign boards.]

John Mouat identified as a concern possible confusion among the public about who to call for a code violation. Leah Gunn said she’d prefer to think of the DDA as in the “service business,” not the “enforcement business.” She thought it would be more useful for the DDA to help businesses get their graffiti removed than to write tickets for graffiti.

When the brief discussion on community standards code enforcement looked like it would quickly be moved to a straw poll vote, Hewitt asked for an opportunity to elaborate. He cited his experience as the owner of downtown businesses in the campus area, which have problems that other parts of the downtown don’t have. He identified “eyes on the street” as essential, but that wasn’t happening.

Lowenstein suggested that DDA parking enforcement contractors could call police in the event of code violations, as well as infractions like aggressive panhandling. Code enforcement was much different from parking enforcement, Lowenstein said. In legal terms, she said [Lowenstein is an attorney], you just needed someone to write a ticket, and if somebody doesn’t pay, the fine goes up. With code enforcement, she said, there’s a warning and then a 24-hour period, and they can go to court and challenge it. It starts getting “legally much messier” than the parking enforcement.

Keith Orr mentioned that some of the more ambitious visions of the Main Street BIZ (Business Improvement District), which had included eyes-on-the-street people, had to be scaled back because the size of the district was relatively small.

On the question of code enforcement, there was no support indicated on the DDA board for leaving the item on the white board – Hewitt joked that he’d abstain.

Outcome: Code enforcement was wiped from the list.

Later in the retreat, Newcombe Clark suggested adding downtown police patrols to the list. The ensuing discussion focused on the fact that it might fall into the general category of code enforcement or services. The conversation did not gel around any particular perspective, and it was allowed to stay on the board, but given the unclear status of sentiment on the issue, Keith Orr called it “on the list but in suspended animation.”

DDA Retreat Part I: (Term Sheet) City Services

Roger Hewitt described these services as largely having to do with park-type maintenance activities – tree watering, pruning and the like. These are the kinds of activities that are easy to curtail when budgets are under stress.

Sandi Smith introduced as relevant to the issue of service provision the newly created Main Street BIZ, which would be providing some level of additional service – primarily in the form of sidewalk snow and trash removal, and graffiti removal.

John Mouat wanted to know how much the downtown cost the city for services, compared to other areas of the city. Susan Pollay told Mouat there’d been an effort in 2005 to analyze that – it was the source of the estimates included for various activities on the term sheet. However, Pollay said, it had been asked in terms of cost per area, not cost per resident. The cost for trash pickup – at five days a week – sounds expensive, she allowed, but with 2,800 downtown residents, that was actually less expensive than providing trash pickup once a week out in the area near Weber’s Inn, where she lives.

Leah Gunn noted that it wasn’t just downtown residents who needed to be factored in – there were also commercial establishments who paid taxes as well. Pollay supported Gunn’s point by saying that there were, in addition to 2,800 people who lived downtown, 10,000 people who worked there.

Mouat framed the question as whether the DDA wanted to fight the city to provide the downtown’s fair share of services, or if they wanted to just give up on that and pay for it themselves. He wondered if it meant the DDA would take over the services or “enhance” the services that the city already does.

Hewitt noted the idea was that if there were savings to the city, that amount would be deducted from whatever agreed-upon amount the DDA paid the city as part of the parking agreement.

Noting that the cost of all the services being contemplated was $100,000 a year, Gunn said that as her good friend Karl Pohrt would say, “This is chump change.” If it can be done and done right, is it worth the investment?

John Splitt asked if the idea was to reimburse city staff for doing the work or if they would contract with Republic Parking to do the work. Pollay indicated that she’d have to hire a landscaping contractor. Smith indicated that this, too, would be a union issue, because there were already city workers who performed those tasks. Joan Lowenstein indicated it was a somewhat different issue, and “more surmountable” because the tree trimming activities took place throughout the city.

Mouat asked Pollay directly if she felt that taking on the responsibility was within her world and her staff model. In response, she said the DDA had capacity to do things like install a whole row of new trees. That was something the DDA has capacity to do and they had done it well. Ongoing maintenance, however, was something the DDA had no current capacity for. There is no mechanism in the organization that provides a way  to monitor whether trees are getting watered.

Gunn asked about Republic Parking and their landscaping. Pollay replied that she wrote a check to Republic Parking and she did not do anything beyond that. Lowenstein said that conceivably the DDA could contract with a landscaping company – something that Pollay had already mentioned. Pollay said she was responding to the question that Mouat had asked, which was whether the DDA had the capacity to take on ongoing maintenance.

Pollay said the DDA is far better equipped to take on one-time capital improvements than it is for ongoing maintenance. Gunn didn’t agree, saying they were already doing wonderful landscaping through their parking contractor. Pollay countered by saying this was limited to the areas adjoining the parking structures. Gunn suggested that it would just mean expanding the role of Republic Parking. Pollay replied that she would have to manage it. She indicated that she would do anything the board asked her to, but that managing it, she didn’t feel, was a good use of her time.

Lowenstein pointed out that Pollay didn’t have to worry about the parking, because Republic Parking handled that. Similarly, the landscaping contractor would take care of it and report to the board every month.

Mouat noted that the additional challenge would be to make sure that the contractor was doing its job by walking around and looking at the work.

Lowenstein said she thought that there was some model they could find to make that work. Landscaping was the kind of thing that people mention – dead trees on Washington Street, for example. If it’s feasible, she said, they should find a way to do it.

The issue of the “hold harmless” language for services the DDA would provide generated some discussion. Elsewhere in the term sheet, there’s language that says the city will be held harmless with respect to parking fine revenue – that is, the city wouldn’t receive less than it does now. In the services section, it’s the DDA that is to be held harmless with respect to the cost of the additional services the DDA would provide.

Smith noted that an important question was whether the amount would be calculated based on the cost savings by the city or the cost to the DDA. The city, she said, would argue that their costs wouldn’t go down by as much as the DDA was spending, because the city already had the employees and equipment in place.

Newcombe Clark emphasized it was important that there be some financial consideration established with respect to the amount spent on services subtracted from payments that the DDA makes to the city.

Mouat suggested that it was perhaps not an issue important to the parking agreement, but rather could be added to the DDA’s capital improvements committee work list.

Outcome: The results of the straw poll was to leave services on the white board as term sheet items.

DDA Retreat Part I: Village Green

In addition to the main term sheet items, other items were added to the white board at Newcombe Clark’s request. Clark  noted that the obligation the DDA had to the Village Green City Apartments project at First & Washington – which has not moved forward yet – had a significant impact on their budget. [The DDA is supporting the project with a $9 million bond.] With the need for the city council to extend the site plan approval coming up, there was an opportunity, Clark said, to either abandon or renegotiate the extent of the DDA’s obligation.

In addition, Clark wanted to look at permit fees and bond issuance fees that the city charges the DDA for its projects.

Clark characterized the situation with Village Green as a “grant that doesn’t expire.” He said he was in no way saying “go away” to Village Green – he’d like to see the building built. Right now, however, there was no fire under them to build it. Instead, he said, Village Green was building elsewhere [Minneapolis and Chicago] because they’d not been pushed to build here.

Based on a phone interview with The Chronicle earlier in the week with Village Green, the Minneapolis and Chicago projects could move forward due to the fact that financing is easier there than in Michigan – even factoring in the positive impact Ann Arbor itself has. Village Green will be meeting with city officials in the coming weeks to talk about getting an extension to the City Apartments site plan.

Clark suggested that the money that’s due to come from the DDA could be switched from indefinite status to the DDA’s standard two-year time limit on such grants. The DDA’s contribution supports the construction of a parking deck integrated into the building which will be, in part, accessible to the public.

Clark said the DDA would be building a deck that it didn’t actually like, plus have to bond for the money, plus pay the city’s bond issuance fee, and permitting fees. All that, Clark said, “just gets my goat,” as far as better financial planning. This was a “weird arrangement” that had now been extended a couple of times without adjusting the key element that could be used as a negotiating tactic. It needs some deadline, said Clark.

John Mouat asked what the impact of not having the parking in that part of town would be. Susan Pollay noted that it was a functioning parking area already – the parking structure there had been demolished and is now used as surface parking. A lot of the issue would be that the apartments themselves would create additional demand. She said she did not feel it addressed a critical need for parking in that area of town.

Roger Hewitt said that the west part of downtown was not an area that had any shortage of parking and that he’d personally never been “wild” about building parking there. “We don’t like the design and we’re not in charge of building it,” he said.

Pollay noted that the goal of the parking for Village Green was not parking per se, but rather for the 146 new apartment units with the 250 new downtown residents it would bring.

Pollay said she didn’t see it to be part of the mutually beneficial arrangement, but that given there would be a point of contact between the city and the DDA, it could be brought up.

Clark countered that he felt it was a part of the mutually beneficial conversation, because it would “buy some consideration” for the city to fix the problem of the uncertainty that the DDA had in its budgeting due to Village Green.

Pollay clarified that the issue was to add a deadline.

Mouat noted that there was a lot of interest among property owners along the block to see the whole block redeveloped. He said he felt that there was something better out there than Village Green. Keith Orr commented that there’s no way they could think about something else unless there was a “sunset” on the DDA’s commitment.

Pollay, noting that there were members of the press in the audience, said she wanted to bring the conversation back to what she knew the board members really wanted to say: There’s been a process and a very good developer had been selected from a whole list of others. It is a project with substance and that the neighbors feel good about, with a site plan approval. It was a project the DDA also felt very happy about, she concluded.

Clark confirmed that he wanted Village Green to happen. And Orr concurred, saying it was a matter of a deadline helping to make sure that it did happen.

Outcome: Village Green as an issue stayed on the white board, as did the general issue of how bond issuance fees and construction permitting fees were calculated for DDA projects.

DDA Retreat Part II: General Mission, Boundaries, DDA Role

The item on the term sheet generating the most interest was the part that would establish the DDA as the entity responsible for developing city-owned land in the DDA area. In addition to the term sheet item itself, the board members covered topics like their general mission and where boundaries should be.

DDA Retreat Part II: Mission vs. Capacity

Roger Hewitt suggested that the DDA had the ability to do things in four main areas:

1. capital improvements, construction
2. operational things – e.g., running parking structures
3. grants and organizational support
4. planning and development

Sandi Smith asked: “Is this what we do, or where we’re going?”

Out of some brief conversation emerged the idea that these points described the DDA’s capacity – what it was capable of. That, Susan Pollay said, was different from a description of the DDA’s mission. “‘What is the purpose of us?’ is different than ‘What are we capable of?’” said Pollay. Why were we created? she asked. The answer was to attract new private investment and to strengthen the downtown, she said. She’d printed out the DDA’s mission statement and tacked it to the wall before the retreat had started:

The mission of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority (DDA) is to undertake public improvements that have the greatest impact in strengthening the downtown area and attracting new private investments.

Later in the meeting, Pollay said that the DDA had “the capacity to do a whole lot of things,” but she wasn’t sure the DDA should do a whole lot of things. They needed to do everything in connection with the downtown.

Newcombe Clark reacted by saying, “We were created to build One North Main.” Pollay responded to Clark saying, “We also built Tally Hall at the same time, so we’re a lot more than that.” The DDA is here to attract private re-investment, she stressed. The question, she said, was not whether the DDA had the capacity to do code enforcement. The bigger question was why would they do anything of these things. The idea was to get an outcome with a stronger downtown that has more buildings, more people, more businesses, more economic development.

DDA board members Leah Gunn and Roger Hewitt.

Clark suggested that the metric for that was to grow the tax increment finance capture (TIF). Pollay rejected that as the only measure. Investment was the key, she said, which included an existing building that now has a new tenant when it previously sat empty. Clark suggested that it did, however, have to do with growing the value of downtown in a financial sense in a general way, even if TIF was not the measure of that.

Joan Lowenstein characterized the TIF as a “means to an end.”

Clark brought the discussion back to the “hold harmless” language in the term sheet that required the agreement to hold the city harmless with respect to revenues. If the DDA was striking an agreement just to save the city of Ann Arbor some money or to save politicians some political capital, then that did not necessarily grow the financial value of the downtown. Spending more money than they were bringing in was counter to that.

John Mouat said he didn’t think it was as simple as growing the TIF or just economic development. It had to do with vibrancy and attracting young people and making Ann Arbor the best place it can be – a cool downtown, he said.

Mouat suggested that the right focus was to ask what the DDA was able to do and what its strengths as an organization were. He said he felt that the DDA’s strength was that it was a small organization, with a high quality staff and board. He felt that the DDA fit into a niche and the question was how to use that effectively. Leah Gunn picked up Mouat’s thread and said she’d describe the DDA as “nimble.” As an example, she gave the on-street bike racks that the DDA had just done and now they’re jammed full, and “it’s cool, and people like it.” It was a small example, she allowed, but it added to the quality of life downtown.

At one point Pollay characterized as one of the DDA’s strengths that it was a very “flat” organization – there were not layers and layers of bureaucracy.

Mouat echoed Gunn’s idea that the subjective, quality-of-life issues were a big part of what the DDA could address.

But Clark questioned whether the DDA board – as non-elected officials – had the ability to make subjective, quality-of-life judgment calls. It might be more appropriate to approach it objectively: How do you build a building? What do the data show? There are some people, he said, who “like Ann Arbor a little dingy.” So if the downtown is a “whitewashed and Disneyland downtown,” he said, they’ll say that’s not the Ann Arbor they want. He called the claim of responsibility or capacity to make community value judgments “dangerous territory.”

Gunn indicated that was not what she meant. And Pollay noted that the DDA had been around for 20 years and had done things like transition State Street to two-way traffic, put in new sidewalks, and they were currently undertaking the Fifth and Division streetscape renovations. None of that, Pollay said, had taken place in isolation from community conversation and conversation with the city council. If the DDA had not been there, she suggested, downtown Ann Arbor would look a lot like Lowertown does today. [Its significant feature is an empty undeveloped lot.]

DDA Retreat Part II: Change Boundaries?

Clark picked up on the reference to Lowertown by saying that the Ypsilanti DDA looked at its district boundaries every few years to evaluate whether they were in the right place. He asked if Pollay thought the Ann Arbor DDA could re-evaluate its district boundaries. Pollay told Clark that if he felt the DDA was finished with the district it had, then it should absolutely be on the list.

Pollay asked Clark if he wanted the boundary issue added to the white board. Gunn kidded Pollay, “Oh, don’t you dare!” Clark responded immediately by saying, “That’s the problem we have here, right? For the first time in our history, we have tied our zoning to our [TIF] district. And our district was basically made to deal with racial steering issues in the 1970s and what happened in that [northeast] corner up there.”

DDA board member Newcombe Clark.

By way of background, the northeast corner of the Ann Arbor DDA’s TIF district includes the Ann-Ashley parking structure, built in part to provide parking for One North Main residents. Many of the residents who lived in the houses that were removed to make way for the parking structure were African American.

Clark grew up near that neighborhood. He reported at the retreat that he remembered being four years old and watching all his neighbors get kicked out their houses, so that the Ann-Ashley parking structure could be built. He noted that no one remembers that. He called it hurtful and sad – but it had happened and now the city has Ann-Ashley and One North Main, and “… we’ve moved on. Cities rise and fall and shake and burn and flood.”

“Things are better where we spend our money, but when we put [boundaries on the white board list], people are going to freak out,” he said. “Ypsi and other DDAs look at it every couple of years.”

Pollay allowed that it was a valid question. When she’d been in Milwaukee attending a conference, she said that the question had come up: What if the DDA had expanded its boundaries into the Lowertown area? Every wonderful downtown she’d seen lately, she reported, really cherishes its river – the river is a great asset and they’d done a good job with that in Milwaukee. It was a “what if” conversation, she said, and people immediately thought of the controversy that would ensue. Even thinking of expanding boundaries was only possible, she said, because they had been outside of Ann Arbor and were not concerned about the politics.

John Mouat characterized the Lowertown area and the North Main stretch as really exciting from a design point of view. [Mouat is an architect.] He characterized the potential of those areas as unrealized.

The boundary issue came up again when Clark wondered whether providing different levels of service inside the DDA district boundary would prompt property owners to ask to have the boundary lines redrawn, so that their businesses could be included in the district. That was the difficulty, he said, and people would “freak out” if there was discussion about redrawing the boundary.

Gunn addressed Clark’s concern by saying that if the boundary were to be redrawn, then any municipal authority that had its taxes captured by the DDA’s TIF would have to have a new district boundary approved by their governing bodies. Gunn ticked through the other entities whose taxes get captured and when she mentioned the Ann Arbor District Library, she nodded towards Josie Parker, director of the AADL, who was seated in the audience.

Parker’s an interested party to the DDA conversations, not just because of the library’s downtown branch. To the extent that payments by the DDA to the city could involve revenues from the DDA’s tax-increment finance district, Parker told The Chronicle before the meeting, she wanted assurance that any excess TIF revenues were distributed proportionally, according to state statute, to all the taxing authorities whose tax levies were “tiffed” – that is, captured by the DDA. The Ann Arbor District Library is one of those taxing authorities, along with the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Community College and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.

Gunn said she did not think that the other taxing authorities would embrace the idea in the current economic climate of giving the DDA additional taxes.

DDA Retreat Part II: (Term Sheet) Downtown Development

Roger Hewitt described the section of the term sheet addressing development as purposely vague. But the point there, he said, was to focus on city-owned surface parking lots in the DDA district. There’s a desire on the part of the city and the DDA in seeing those lots developed in some manner or other. The city, however, had not been very successful in doing that, Hewitt said. The reason was that the city did not have the personnel or the expertise to do development, and they wound up reacting to situations. He described the city staff as not having RFP experience in this sort of thing.

The idea on the term sheet was that the DDA would be the primary public entity in charge of ensuring that downtown surface parking lots would be developed. The DDA would be in charge of the planning process, the public hearings, the RFP process. All of this would need the city council’s approval – it was clear, Hewitt said, that the city council was unwilling to just turn over the whole process to the DDA and walk away from it.

The DDA would come up with an overall master plan of what should happen on those lots and what should take place. Over a period of years, they execute that plan – all with city council approval on a step-by-step process. Although the details of how that would work would not be included in the parking agreement, Hewitt said that it could be addressed in the shorter term by an accompanying resolution from the city council requesting that the DDA undertake those activities.

Leah Gunn noted that every idea they’d received from developers over the years had included using either tax money or parking money from that development. When developers come in to build what they want to build, they want to use public money – and that had been a difficulty for her, she said.

Hewitt said that in the past they’d taken a one-site-at-a-time approach. With a master plan for all the sites, it would be possible to distribute the goals for the community across the various sites, instead of cramming everything all on one site – whether those goals are for open space or affordable housing.

Susan Pollay reviewed some of the history related to the DDA’s past role in downtown development when it was far more active than it is today. For the Ashley Mews project, she said, the DDA had facilitated the development of the RFP and the interview process. The city had had a strong interest in redeveloping the property at Main and Packard [site of the Ashley Mews project]. The city had wanted to see a good sale price for the land as well as some affordable housing units. The DDA had played a functional role for process, and towards the end of the process, she said, the DDA had helped with some gap financing to allow the developer to be successful and the city to meet the goals it had set out for the project.

For First and Washington, Pollay said, the DDA had previously developed an RFP that had foundered on height restrictions, and the developer was not able to make the project work on a smaller scale.

The DDA had also played a role in developing the strategic economic modeling that went into the analysis of the Kline lot as part of what’s called the 3-Site Plan. If the DDA wanted to see a ground-level grocery store, what would a developer want to see on the floors above that? At that time [the early 2000s], Pollay recalled, “retail condominiums” were seen as a possibility for keeping rents affordable. That economic modeling went into the formulation of the RFP for the 3-Site Plan.

In the last five years, however, Pollay said that the DDA’s role had been more passive and reactive. She cited several development efforts for city-owned property that the DDA had not led – none of which have resulted in a built project. The DDA had not played a role with 415 W. Washington. They had not played much of a role with the former YMCA lot at Fifth and William [William Street Station – a project that the council eventually pulled the plug on]. And now the DDA was playing a very limited role with the development of the Library Lot. They’d been told that development needed to be a city function – she said she accepted that and called it appropriate.

But what had been lost along the way, she said, was the idea of someone “owning” the process. For the city, it was one of many, many things on their plate, whereas this had been the one thing that the DDA could focus on. “You know how you guys are, ” she said, “you want to build a parking deck, you guys do it.”

What’s been lost in the last five years is someone to follow through and own the outcome of the process, Pollay concluded.

Sandi Smith said she’d like the DDA to map out the critical assets the city has and create a sophisticated set of GIS overlays, that include the historic districts, the public land and all the rest of the information that developers might want to see. Where are transportation nodes and telecommunications fiber conduits? That would be a great tool that would precede readiness, to say to the city that the DDA was ready to look at development. The idea, she said, was to create something publicly consumable by developers. [Some of this mapping material is available as a part of the city's online Data Catalog.]

Newcombe Clark said that his whole head was into that – and the conditions changed every six months, he said. Take the Palio lot, he said. It was currently worthless with respect to the code requirements of an 8,000 square foot lot, which will never be developed, unless it’s subsidized. So an easy way to approach the development issue would be to start buying lots from the city or the county. Just spend DDA money on buying the land and building something, he said. The public process had already determined the zoning for the lots.

Clark suggested that the city council could then just tell the DDA which lots they were willing to sell or which ones would be the most politically tenable. Clark suggested that if the DDA managed to build the Palio lot into “something cool” and put it on the tax rolls, then the city council might say, “Oh, the DDA is actually good at that.” And then maybe the city council would sell the Kline’s lot to the DDA, or the YMCA lot.

Smith questioned whether it was necessary for the DDA to actually own the property.

Clark replied that he was trying to establish financial consideration [in order to create a binding contract between the city and the DDA]. Smith questioned whether financial consideration needed to be a goal. Smith came back to the “mutually beneficial” nature of the arrangement. Financial consideration did not need to come from each and every item on the term sheet list, she said.

Gunn picked up on Smith’s suggestion of mapping data, and summarized it by saying it was an investment in aggregated information, which would not be proprietary: “We would say to one and all, ‘Here it is, bring us your ideas.” If that was what Smith was talking about, Gunn said, she thought it was “brilliant.”

John Mouat said he liked that idea because it took the burden off of each developer to do all the due diligence.

A larger challenge, Mouat said, was the difficulty of undertaking development in Ann Arbor – the community opposition was always a factor. He was skeptical that the DDA could do a better job than the city. He said he felt it was important to approach it in a totally different way. The fundamental flaw was thinking of the parcels in terms of developers – developers were not necessarily the people to get ideas from.

DDA board member John Mouat.

Mouat suggested that they marshal their energies in the area of “economic development” – attracting businesses, attracting the next Google, and other start-up companies. Mouat said he felt like it would be a more exciting and palatable way to approach development. The vision should go beyond a building being built. A developer putting up a building on speculation had not been very successful in Ann Arbor. He suggested banding together with SPARK – the area’s economic development agency – and other organizations and figuring out what niche the DDA might fill in that world.

Gunn came back around to the idea that it would be not just physical assets, but quality-of-life assets that were aggregated into the information set.

Pollay wanted to know if they were talking about just attracting companies to existing buildings or if they saw this as a way of promoting the construction of new buildings. Mouat said it didn’t matter to him if it meant that a property would be occupied or if a new building got built. He saw it as a downtown-centric overlay to what SPARK did.

Pollay characterized that as business recruitment, as opposed to downdown development. At that point, Mouat said that’s what he felt development meant – buildings were simply an outcome of what people want to do. He wanted the DDA to become more people-centric, not infrastructure-centric.

Mouat also said that downtown development in the form of constructing new buildings would happen only when there was demand. Clark assured him that there was plenty of demand – that was a unique “problem” faced by Ann Arbor, that people actually wanted to invest here.

Mouat replied that there would need to be more “sex appeal” to a project than just a building. He came back around to integrating with SPARK’s efforts and included the University of Michigan’s Business Engagement Center as well. Gunn pointed out that SPARK was funded in part through tax money, so they would be a logical partner.

Hewitt said he was favor in doing something fairly dramatic. But whether it’s amassing a large amount of data or partnering with SPARK or developing master plans, it took a huge amount of staff time and effort. The important point, Hewitt said, was that it was a huge new direction – but before he finished that thought, Pollay interjected, “No, it’s an old direction.” The question Hewitt then asked was, “Do we have the capacity?”

Pollay answered Hewitt by saying, “I think that’s what I do best – and I haven’t been doing much of it.” She gave the example of the transportation and parking plan that the city had asked to the DDA to complete recently and which she and her staff had turned around in about four months. It was higher-level work – not walking around making sure that trees were getting watered. That management of higher-level work, and getting the best work out of the board, was the value she felt she added to the organization. The committment of time for working on development did not feel like a burden to her, she said, because it was central to the reason why the DDA existed.

Clark followed up on Pollay’s comments by naming some past board members who were more a part of the development world: “It was a lot easier with [Fred] Beal, [Rob] Aldrich, and [Ron] Dankert, and [Ed] Shaffran, who brought to the table an immense amount of knowledge,” he said. It was not coincidental, Clark said, that it was during their tenure on the board when some buildings got built.

There was no control over the constitution of the board, Clark said, without intense lobbying of city council. [The DDA board positions are nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the city council.] Clark said he did not think the current board had the skill set to take on development as a central task.

Pollay suggested that the mayor had a good ear for what was needed. So she felt if they told him that they needed someone with development strengths or a finance background, the board appointments could go in that direction. Gunn rejected the idea that appointments were the approriatate purview of the DDA board – that was the mayor and the council’s decision.

Keith Orr said that the development part of the term sheet was worth everything else. The mechanisms to do that – purchasing land, creating information systems – those are all different aspects of it.

Hewitt came back to the point that the development piece would not be part of the parking agreement contract, but that there was support from city council for the concept.

Joan Lowenstein asked what specficially the DDA was asking for with respect to the development item on the term sheet. The ensuing discussion suggested that it would mean the DDA would be in charge of any RFP process for the development of city property.

Outcome: The result of the straw poll for leaving the development item in the mix for future discussion was a clear consensus to keep it.

Miscellaneous

Some people who attended the DDA board’s retreat but who did not address the board included: Josie Parker, director of the Ann Arbor District Library; Sabra Briere, Ward 1 city council representative; Maura Thomson, executive director of the Main Street Area Association; and Kyle Mazurek, vice president of government affairs at the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce.

The $2 million payment was based on a term sheet that a “working group” of councilmembers and DDA board members had put together out of public view over the first four months of the year. The term sheet was adequate to convince a 7-member majority of the 12-member DDA board that the $2 million should be paid by the DDA to the city in advance of a long-term revision to the city-DDA contract, under which the DDA manages the city’s parking system.

The parking contract was most recently renegotiated in 2005 and provided for a maximum payment by the DDA to the city of $10 million over the period from 2005 to 2015. The city drew $10 million in the first five years and had requested in January 2009 that the DDA open discussions to renegotiate the contract.

With the term sheet now out in the open, it’s clear that its content is problematic for councilmembers and DDA board members who were not part of the working group that produced it. Several councilmembers and DDA board members alike have expressed strong opposition to one of the key ideas in the term sheet – that the DDA would assume responsibility for parking violations and other code enforcement.

But based on the term sheet discussion at the May 12 meeting of  DDA’s partnerships committee, the piece of the term sheet of most interest to DDA board members is one that is also the most politically controversial: The DDA would be acknowledged as the engine for developing city-owned land in the DDA district.

The DDA partnerships committee conversation on May 12 came against the backdrop of recent questions raised by the mayor and the city council about what kind of legal authority a DDA has in the context of the city’s system of governance.

And the outcome of the partnerships committee meeting was a decision to hold another full board retreat, this one on May 28 at 2 p.m. at the DDA board room. The general topic of the retreat, which is open to the public, will be the term sheet. The DDA already held its semi-annual retreat about two months ago, on March 16.

Before reporting on some of the deliberations at the DDA’s May 12 partnerships committee meeting regarding the term sheet, this article first takes a look at some of the recent local conversation about the legal powers of the DDA. The deliberations at the partnerships committee are divided into a couple of subheadings, covering the public accessibility of the process up to now and in the future, as well as DDA board member views about what the mission of the authority should be: parking or development.

DDA Powers

Over the last year, the status of the DDA in the context of the city’s governance has received active discussion. There are also a couple of precedents for the exercise of city power over a DDA worth considering – one involving the city of Ann Arbor in 2007, and another just a couple weeks ago in Royal Oak. In that context, it’s also worth reviewing some key elements of the state statute that allows downtown development authorities to be created in the first place.

DDA Powers: Discussion

At the May 5, 2010 meeting when the DDA approved the $2 million payment to the city, DDA board member and former city councilmember Joan Lowenstein spoke in general, not legal, terms about the relationship between the city and the DDA. From The Chronicle’s meeting report:

[Lowenstein] found it distressing to hear the kind of “us and them” discussion. It’s not us and the city but rather it’s all the city.

At that same meeting, mayor John Hieftje portrayed the idea that the DDA was somehow a separate organization as one that could be traced to the mid-1990s. In rejecting that idea, he introduced the specter of the summary dissolution of the DDA by the city council:

So [Hieftje] wanted to make the point that the city council had the ability to create DDAs with a simple six-vote majority and also had the ability to end DDAs with a simple six-vote majority. It seemed to him that the DDA was indeed an “arm of the city” [...]

The fact that the city council controls the DDA via its confirmation of appointments to the board was a point that Hieftje had also chosen to make at the city council’s May 3, 2010 meeting. On that occasion, Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, had appeared before the council to answer questions about DDA bylaws revisions.

Also at the city council’s May 3 meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had mooted the question of the DDA’s relationship with the city by asking Pollay if she was a city employee. From The Chronicle’s account of that meeting:

Kunselman asked Pollay if she was a city of Ann Arbor employee. Pollay allowed that it was an interesting question but said she did not believe so. She indicated that she was an employee of the DDA, but all of the DDA staff follow all of the city rules and the paychecks come through the city finance office. She said they actually did not take a lot of time reflecting on the question. They function as if they were a part of one whole organization.

Pollay indicated, however, that she worked at the pleasure of the DDA board. Her job, then, was to make sure that she met their expectations and goals, as expressed in their resolutions. Mayor John Hieftje added that the board of the DDA in a very real way serves at the pleasure of the city council – given that the city council appoints DDA board members. “So you can feel better about that,” he told Kunselman. Quipped Pollay, “I’m not sure I do!”

And a little over a year ago, during the March 1, 2009 Sunday night caucus, Hieftje had compared the DDA to the city’s planning commission, which serves almost exclusively as an advisory body to the city council:

As far as being “a part of the city of Ann Arbor,” Hieftje said the DDA was “no different from planning commission except that they had their own funding stream” – the tax increment financing (TIF) district.

The one situation in which the planning commission stands on equal footing with the city council is the adoption of master plans for the city. The two bodies must adopt the same master plan.

DDA Powers: Recent Examples

Included in The Chronicle’s report on the city council’s May 17, 2010 meeting, when it approved the FY 2011 budget, was a question that Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) raised: Did the city council even need a resolution from the DDA to authorize payment of $2 million to the city? Could the city simply move the money from the DDA’s fund to its own fund as part of the budget amendment process?

While there was not a clear answer given to Kunselman’s basic question, The Chronicle’s May 17 meeting report includes a vignette from 2007, when the city council reached into the DDA’s budget with an amendment to the overall city budget:

While the topic of the city’s authority with respect to the DDA budget was not explored further at the council meeting, it’s worth reviewing a piece of history from 2007, when the council passed its FY 2008 budget. That year, one of the budget resolutions approved by the council reached into the DDA’s budget and reduced an allocation for capital expenditures within the DDA’s TIF (tax-increment financing) fund. [The city calls this fund 0003.] From the May 21, 2007 city council minutes:

[FY 2008 budget] Amendment 11
Resolved, that the Downtown Development Authority fund (0003) expenditure budget be decreased by $1,600,000 to reduce the appropriated reserves for future capital construction projects.

On a voice vote, the Mayor [John Hieftje] declared the motion carried with one dissenting vote made by Councilmember [Joan] Lowenstein.

Based on that vote, it appears that the city council has in the past asserted some direct control over the DDA’s budget.

More recently, this month the city of Royal Oak enacted a rule that requires all Royal Oak DDA actions to be subject to approval by the city commission. But that rule may not stand legal scrutiny. From a Crain’s Detroit Business article by Chad Halcom:

Lawyers and Royal Oak officials said a city code amendment approved last month to make all DDA decisions subject to the approval of the City Commission is without precedent and may be open to a legal challenge.

The commission adopted the amendment after the DDA gave a $300,000 tax credit inducement March 24 to Emagine for its $19 million movie theater, bowling alley and entertainment complex proposed at 11 Mile Road and Troy Street. The credit helps the company become eligible for state tax incentives.

DDA Powers: Statutory Authority

The existence of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority is based on state level legislation (the “enabling legislation”) that was originally passed in 1975 to allow the creation of such authorities and the tax increment finance districts that fund them. [For background on tax increment finance districts (TIFs) see Chronicle coverage: "Budget Round 5: Economic Development"]

At the May 5 DDA meeting, reacting to Hieftje’s remarks about how the city could dissolve the DDA with a six-vote majority, DDA board member Gary Boren’s response to the mayor was based in part on the Downtown Development Authority Act 197 of 1975. From The Chronicle’s report of that meeting.

The state’s enabling act says that when the DDA has completed its mission, the city council shall disband it, Boren stated. It does not say that the city council can for any reason or for no reason disband the DDA.

From the act itself:

Sec. 30. (1) An authority that has completed the purposes for which it was organized shall be dissolved by ordinance of the governing body. The property and assets of the authority remaining after the satisfaction of the obligations of the authority belong to the municipality.

At the May 5 meeting, Hieftje indicated that he has resisted the calls from some in the community to dissolve the DDA. One of those calls came in the form of an email sent May 7 by Ted Annis to multiple parties, including city councilmembers:

Is it time for the DDA to become the DAC (Downtown Advisory Committee), which is to say that its status as an Authority would be eliminated and it would be folded into the City? City Council can do this.

It seems that the Mayor and City Council have enough on their plates without having to deal with an unaccountable, contentious quasi government-within-a-government.

Based on Halcom’s reporting in Crain’s Detroit Business, however, it’s not clear that the city council has the powers Annis claims it does:

Prior case law is unclear on whether a city or township can convert its DDA to a recommending body with no decision-making power of its own, said Michael Bogren, governmental law practice group leader at Bloomfield Hills-based Plunkett Cooney P.C.

Among the key powers that the enabling legislation gives a DDA is the ability to own property as a separate body corporate:

[...] An authority shall be a public body corporate which may sue and be sued in any court of this state. An authority possesses all the powers necessary to carry out the purpose of its incorporation. The enumeration of a power in this act shall not be construed as a limitation upon the general powers of an authority. [...]

The board may: [...] (h) Acquire by purchase or otherwise, on terms and conditions and in a manner the authority considers proper or own, convey, or otherwise dispose of, or lease as lessor or lessee, land and other property, real or personal, or rights or interests in property, which the authority determines is reasonably necessary to achieve the purposes of this act, and to grant or acquire licenses, easements, and options with respect to that property.

Partnerships Committee Deliberations

The ability of DDAs to own real estate, as specified in the DDA Act, was a key point made by DDA board member Newcombe Clark during partnerships committee deliberations about the term sheet on Wednesday, May 12. Clark related the question of the DDA buying land to the political realities of the situation – a topic that received a lot of discussion in its own right.

The key element of the term sheet about which there seemed to be consensus among DDA board members who were present at the partnerships committee is a brief one at the end of the document [emphasis added]:

Development of City-owned Property Within the DDA District

The working group envisions that the DDA would serve as a visioning, initiation and implementation engine for development of City-owned property within the DDA district. The nature and extent of this role will be discussed, considered and, if approved, implemented in parallel to any omnibus agreement, but would not be part of that agreement.

Partnerships Deliberations: DDA as Land Owner

It was near the end of the committee discussion when Newcombe Clark addressed the idea of the DDA owning land. He stated that a lot of the wrangling about the parking agreement as a mechanism for transferring the $2 million could have been avoided if the DDA had simply bought land from the city.

The DDA could have said, “Here’s $2 million and we’ll buy two lots,” or one lot – like the Palio’s lot at William and Main, suggested Clark. [The parcel currently serves as a surface parking lot.] Even though the DDA had elected not to do that, and instead decided to renegotiate the parking agreement, Clark said he thought that land purchase was still worth exploring.

Clark contended there were political reasons why that had not happened. The political reality, he said, was that some people are afraid of the idea of the DDA actually developing city-owned lots.

An interaction between Clark and Sandi Smith – who serves on both the DDA board and city council – unfolded about what zoning regulations would apply to parcels that might be sold to the DDA. Clark contended that the city-owned parcels downtown are not zoned according to the recently enacted A2D2 framework. However, he said, in theory you could sell them and say they’re zoned according to the A2D2 framework – and you’d get buildings out of it that conformed to A2D2 zoning. That would make it easier, Clark said, than going through the approval process for a PUD (planned unit development).

Smith questioned Clark’s contention that the city-owned parcels downtown were not zoned according to the A2D2 framework – she thought the A2D2 zoning regulations were overlaid on top of the public land designation. If that’s the case, Clark concluded, that would actually make it easier for the city to sell land. [Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city, responded to an emailed query from The Chronicle, clarifying that the D1 zoning designation, which is part of A2D2, does not overlay public land designations – but the Palio's lot specifically is zoned D1, not public land.]

If a city-owned parcel is not a PUD that goes through a request for proposals (RFP) process, and the city were to simply sell the land, then maybe the DDA would be the one to buy it, suggested Clark. Or someone else buys a city-owned lot, and rents it until they are ready to develop it – but at least they’d now be paying property taxes.

At the partnerships committee meeting, Clark put the politically-charged issue of the DDA developing city-owned land in the context of the “working group” process that produced the term sheet – it had taken place out of public view. With the idea that “sunlight is the best disinfectant,” he said, if there are things the DDA board is talking about, it’s especially important that it be an open process.

Clark stated that avoiding the political implications of the DDA developing city-owned land was not a good idea. If political implications are a true barrier to moving forward, he contended, then it needed to be discussed openly, like the board discussed everything else – to see if that was a true boundary or if there was perhaps a workaround. Avoidance, Clark concluded, was not helpful.

Clark had been responding, in part, to comments made earlier in the meeting by DDA board member John Mouat, who was absent from the board’s May 5 meeting when it approved the $2 million payment to the city. Earlier in the partnerships meeting, Mouat had lamented what he concluded was an increased “polarization” on the board, based on media accounts he’d read about the meeting. And Mouat further suggested that the board refrain from the sort of politics that he felt those accounts showed.

So in response to Clark’s call not to avoid politically-charged issues and to discuss them openly, Mouat asked, “Did I suggest avoidance?”

Partnerships Deliberations: Politics and Open Discussions

Mouat had not explicitly suggested avoidance of the issue, but did seem to object to the self-described anger that had been conveyed by Jennifer Hall at the DDA’s May 5 board meeting over the fact that the conversations that produced the term sheet had taken place out of public view.

By way of brief background, that renegotiation of the parking agreement was originally conceived to have taken place in a publicly accessible process through conversations between two committees – the two so-called “mutually beneficial” committees – appointed by the city council (on July 20, 2009) and the DDA board (March 4, 2009), respectively, with the explicit charge to take on that task. [More detailed background here: "DDA to Tie $2 Million to Public Process"]

However, the two committees did not renegotiate the parking agreement. Instead, conversations between the city and the DDA took place out of public view through the early part of 2010 in the form of a “working group” – which produced a term sheet as a basis for future negotiations.

At the partnerships committee meeting on May 12, Hall attempted to win the committee’s endorsement of a resolution to be brought before the entire board. The resolution would have given the DDA’s mutually beneficial committee the status of a “standing” committee of the board, in order to provide some assurance that DDA board members and city councilmembers would make their meetings open to the public. The city council, at its May 17 meeting, stripped out language about transparency from its own resolution regarding future conversations with the DDA, with some councilmembers contending that such language was redundant.

The draft resolution circulated by Hall at the partnerships committee meeting received no traction from the committee, which was attended by 10 of 12 DDA board members: Jennifer S. Hall, Gary Boren, Roger Hewitt, John Mouat, Keith Orr, Russ Collins, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Newcombe Clark and Joan Lowenstein. [The only DDA board members not present were Leah Gunn and John Hieftje.] The group was joined by city council representatives to the DDA’s partnerships committee, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

Only Clark and Hall raised their hands in response to executive director Susan Pollay’s request for a show of support.

Partnerships Deliberations: What Exactly Does the DDA Want?

Both resolutions passed by the DDA board and the city council specify that there will be monthly meetings and that there will be monthly reports to each body. But independently of the mechanism of the conversations, the central question that the DDA now faces is how to proceed with the substance of the term sheet.

Towards the beginning of the term sheet discussion at the May 12 partnerships committee meeting, Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, floated the basic question of what the DDA should be.

Pollay suggested that it was important not just to talk about what was on the list, but also about what was missing from the list. She said she’d had a 14-year tenure at the DDA, and she had come in at a time of crisis – the parking decks were falling apart and the DDA had taken them over from the city, which was how the DDA had gotten into “the parking business.”

The DDA had fixed the decks, continued Pollay, and they had hit a point where they then had asked, Now what do we do? At that point they had gone back to the organization’s fundamental roots, she said. And that was something they should do again, she said. “We are here as a development authority,” she said. “We are not a BIZ (Business Improvement Zone), we are not a merchant association, we are a development authority.”

Pollay reported that she had spent some time in Detroit the previous Friday visiting the Detroit DDA, which is actually doing development. She reported that the Detroit DDA is buying buildings and rehabbing them, or it’s demolishing them and selling them – it’s a development authority.

Pollay said the Detroit DDA was not encumbered by all the things that the Ann Arbor DDA had encumbered itself with. They do development. They are there to encourage development. And what was breathtaking about it, she said, was how unencumbered they are: “They know what they are there to do, and they’re doing it.”

Pollay cautioned that the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, through expediency, found itself compromising its way into all sorts of areas. And maybe a place to begin, she said, was to go back and think about why the development authority was there in the first place. “Fundamentally, at the end of the day,” declared Pollay, “our measure of success should be as a development authority.”

Pollay said as she looked around, she did not see anyone redeveloping public land in the city. She said that she saw people doing services and code enforcement, but she saw no one doing redevelopment. She concluded by saying she was throwing that out as an idea for the committee to react to, and to start a dialogue.

Margie Teall said she totally agreed with Pollay. She said that she and Russ Collins had talked to city administrator Roger Fraser about that. Teall felt Collins had some great ideas in this area and that they should move forward. But there were other pieces on the term sheet, she said, that were there because they felt like they could move forward more quickly with those. But development of city property was definitely something she wanted to see the DDA go ahead with.

There was resistance on the part of most DDA board members to the items on the terms sheet that stated the DDA will absorb responsibility for aspects of code enforcement and provide various services downtown. A notable exception was Roger Hewitt, who had been part of the working group that had produced the term sheet.

Keith Orr acknowledged it was important that enforcement be part of the same system. But perhaps long-term, he said, being a parking authority is not part of the DDA’s mission, and maybe that operation gets spun off into a separate parking authority. But he felt it was important to assemble the management and enforcement all in one place.

The least developed part of the term sheet, Orr said, was the part about the development of city-owned land. If there were truly a functional development piece in it, he said, that in itself is worth working on. That was, he felt, the true purpose of the DDA. He said the reason the DDA was building a large underground parking lot was so that the downtown area would not need a lot of surface parking lots – that would be key to creating a vibrant streetscape downtown. He said his first thought on the non-parking code enforcement was, “Oh, well I guess that makes sense because the people who are going around doing the parking enforcement can do other code enforcement, too.”

But the more he thought about it, Orr said, the more he thought how he did not even want that piece. Two reasons he gave for not wanting it were: (i) non-parking code enforcement could not be dealt with in the same customer-service way that the DDA wanted to implement parking code enforcement; and (ii) the DDA had no control over the code – it would make them the “bad guys.” He feared that the DDA might wind up having to enforce ordinances that they not only did not believe in, but also felt counter to what they were doing.

Board member Roger Hewitt – owner of the Red Hawk restaurant as well as Revive and Replenish in the ground floor of the Zaragon Place building – offered a counterpoint. The part about services and code enforcement was something that he invested in for 25 years. He suggested that if you talk to a business owner in the campus area, you would understand the implications. He noted that the city had put in various services – they used to sweep the sidewalks, they used to water plants and trim the trees.  There are lots of things that the city used to do, when they were “flush,” he said.

By “code enforcement,” Hewitt said that he was talking about sidewalk cafes, alleys, trash and those sorts of things that are now handled on a complaint basis – but are frequently not even handled when complaints are made. Particularly in the South University area, he said, there is virtually no code enforcement done. He had personal experience with that, he said. Nobody is responsible for what happens on the sidewalks or in the alleys, Hewitt contended.

There is no person at the city, there is no person at the DDA, who is assigned to be concerned about code enforcement, Hewitt said. There is a gap, he said, between what the police do and what the parking enforcement people do and what needs to get done to make the streets in the alleys and the sidewalks look good and attractive. If it looks good and is attractive to people, they’ll will feel safe.

Aggressive panhandling has been an issue, Hewitt said, ever since he’d been downtown. And it’s mostly an issue in the campus area, he said, because the students are an easier touch than the patrons of Main Street. Now that the panhandling had started to move to Main Street, everyone is starting to talk about it, but in the South University area nearer to campus, Hewitt said, they had been dealing with it for decades.

So the parts about services and code enforcement were in the term sheet, Hewitt said, because nobody else seems to care about it. If the DDA does not care about it, he warned, nobody else is going to. That had been his experience of 25 years, he said, and that’s why those parts are in the term sheet. He said he recognized that it was a change in direction for the DDA and, as such, there would have to be a consensus or a significant majority that would support it. And he allowed that the support on the board might not be there. But he said he wanted to raise the question: If they did not do it, then who would? Or does it simply fall between the cracks as it always has?

Partnerships Deliberations: Beat Cops

At the May 5 DDA board meeting, the board remanded a resolution to the partnerships committee on reserving of funds for a possible contract with the city to provide downtown beat cops. The resolution had been brought to the board by Newcombe Clark via its operations committee.

At the May 12 partnerships committee meeting, Clark said he was content not to press the resolution forward unless there was an attempt to grab the funds for some other purpose. The funds in Clark’s resolution on beat cops would be reallocated in monthly $60,000 increments from the WALLY north-south commuter train project, between Washtenaw and Livingston counties. There is a total of $335,000 reserved in the DDA budget for WALLY.

Outside the DDA: Objections to Term Sheet

Opposition to the focus on parking plus other code enforcement, plus provision of city services by the DDA, is not limited to the DDA board itself. At the city council’s May 16 caucus – as well as at the May 17 meeting – mayor John Hieftje, who also sits on the DDA board, expressed his feeling that the city’s community standards officers could enforce the parking code with the same customer service attitude that the DDA wanted to see.

That point of view was also expressed by the city’s chief of police, Barnett Jones, at the city council’s May 10 meeting on the budget:

Jones said that the DDA wanted to manage the entire parking system, including enforcement, and that they wanted to handle enforcement in their specific way. He said he felt that his department could have handled it in the way that the DDA wanted to handle it. That, however, he characterized as a “business decision.” In response to Kunselman’s question about whether it could legally be done, he stated that it could be.

At the May 16 caucus, Stephen Kunsleman (Ward 3) also stated his opposition to the DDA taking over enforcement, raising the specter of a “shadow government.” At the council’s May 17 meeting, he stated that he would not be voting to abdicate his responsibility to the community’s health, safety and welfare by contracting it out to a third party.

Objections to the idea of the DDA enforcing parking and other codes were also heard at the council’s May 17 meeting from a representative of the AFSCME union – community standards officers are members of AFSCME. They see the city’s transfer of responsibility and jobs related to parking enforcement as a violation of their union contract.

DDA Retreat Redux

One outcome of the partnerships committee meeting was the scheduling of an additional retreat of the full board. It’s to be held Friday, May 28 at 2 p.m. at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. The general topic of the retreat will be the term sheet. The DDA already held its semi-annual retreat about two months ago on March 16. Minutes from that spring 2010 retreat are available from the DDA’s website.