Door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber.

The council will be asked to vote on a series of resolutions related to a proposed conversion of the city’s 355 public housing units to a project-based voucher system under HUD’s Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program. The council had been briefed at a Feb. 11, 2013 work session on the details of the proposal.

Key steps the council will be asked to take on June 3 include transferring ownership of properties managed by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC) from the city of Ann Arbor to the AAHC. Because it involves the transfer of a land interest, approval will require an 8-vote majority on the 11-member council. The properties would eventually be owned by a public/private partnership. The AAHC selected a co-developer earlier this year at its Jan. 10, 2013 meeting.

AAHC is seeking to undertake with this initiative in order to fund several million dollars worth of needed capital improvements. On the RAD approach, they would be funded in large part through low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC).  The council will also be asked to approve a payment in lieu of taxes to the AAHC, so that no property taxes will be owed by AAHC.

The AAHC had originally conceived of converting its properties to project-based vouchers in phases over a few years. The impact of federal sequestration had led AAHC to contemplate converting all the properties this year, to soften part of that impact. However, a hoped-for change in HUD’s rules that would allow the all-in-one-go approach was not made, AAHC learned last week. So “Scenario 3″ described in the staff memo accompanying the council resolution is no longer possible. The negative financial impact of that HUD decision totals around $550,000 over the course of three years.

On the public  transportation side, the council will be asked to approve a change to the articles of incorporation for the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. The change will admit the city of Ypsilanti as a member of the authority, and expand the AATA board from seven to nine members. The name of the authority would change to Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. One of the board members would be appointed by the city of Ypsilanti.

The request comes in the context of a demised attempt in 2012 to expand the AATA to all of Washtenaw County. Since then, conversations have continued among a smaller cluster of communities geographically closer to Ann Arbor. Previous Chronicle coverage includes “Ypsilanti a Topic for AATA Planning Retreat” and “Ypsi Waits at Bus Stop, Other Riders Unclear.”

While the change will affect the governance of the AATA, the goal of the governance change is to provide a way to generate additional funding for transportation. The AATA could, with voter approval, levy a uniform property tax on the entire area of its membership – but the AATA does not currently do that. The cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti currently levy their own millages, which are transmitted to the AATA. However, Ypsilanti is currently at its 20-mill statutory limit. A millage levied by the AATA would not count against that 20-mill cap.

Other significant items on the council’s June 3 agenda include a resolution encouraging the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to allocate funding for three police officers. The council will also be considering a final vote on ordinance changes to which it’s already given initial approval: public art (eliminating the 1% capital project budget set-aside); utility rate increases (an annual item); and a reduction in utility improvement charges imposed on first-time connections.

In anticipation of the upcoming July 4 holiday, the council may also take initial action on an ordinance that would restrict use  of fireworks to the hours of 8 a.m. to midnight. The local regulation is only possible as a result of a change in the state law that has been passed by the Michigan House and is expected to be ratified and signed into law before July 4. The item had not yet been added to the city council’s agenda as of 4 p.m. today.

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

The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the meeting, published in this article “below the fold.”

4 p.m. Scheduled meeting start time is 7 p.m. Live updates will start shortly before then.

6:46 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. A dozen or so people are already here. Most appear to be here for the annual historic district commission awards. City planner Jill Thacher is here. She provides staff support for the HDC. Framed awards are sitting on the speakers podium next to the yellow printed agendas.

6:59 p.m. The council chambers are nearly filled. Julie Steiner and several other affordable housing advocates are here. Ed Shaffran is across the room, possibly here to receive one of the several awards from the historic district commission. Mayor John Hieftje, Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) are in council chambers. Other councilmembers haven’t arrived.

7:12 p.m. Pledge of allegiance, moment of silence and the roll call of council. Introductory elements are now complete, including the pledge to the flag. [At the Ravens Club restaurant downtown, resting on the piano is a song book called "I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag" – a 1941 era printing. The pledge printed on the reverse does not include "under God," which was added in 1954 on Flag Day, June 14.] All councilmembers are present except for Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

7:13 p.m. Proclamation. Now up is a mayoral proclamation recognizing the efforts of the 2|42 Kids Care Club assisting with the A2 Downtown Blooms Day event last month.

7:16 p.m. Historic District Commission preservation awards. The HDC presents these awards annually. By custom, they’re presented at a meeting of the city council.

7:21 p.m. These are the 25th annual HDC awards. There are 19 awards in six categories. First up is 420 W. Huron (Ann Arbor School of Yoga). Newcombe Clark, whose mother operates the yoga school, is here to document the presentation photographically. The property is owned by Ed Shaffran. Next up is 120 Packard (Lottie Van Curler). Ray Detter is accepting the award. Another award goes to 719 W. Washington (John Mouat and Lisa Mouat Snapp). Mouat is an architect. He’s also a member of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board, as is Newcombe Clark.

7:29 p.m. Next up is 711 W. Washington (Jayne Haas and Marie Coppa), followed by awards for 212 Third Street (Susan Fisher), 222 N. Seventh (Tom Fricke and Christine Stier), 1550 Washtenaw Ave. (Zeta Tau Alpha), 1850 Washtenaw Ave. (Gregory and Margene Henry), 1115 Woodlawn (Christa and John Williams), and 2505 Geddes (Eugene and Martha Burnstein).

7:37 p.m. More HDC awards: 1425 Pontiac (David and Bethany Steinberg), 3081 Glazier (Constance and David Osler). Special merit awards: Kristi Gilbert (HDC volunteer), Cobblestone Farm Association board, 116 W. Huron bus depot sign (First Martin), 226 S. Main Marquee Restoration – Lena (2mission design & development). A centennial award goes to Hill Auditorium (University of Michigan). The preservationist of the year for 2013 is Pauline Walters.

7:40 p.m. The last award is the project of the year: 1331 Hill Street (Delta Upsilon Fraternity). That concludes the Historic District Commission awards.

7:41 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 3-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.] Tonight’s lineup for reserved time speaking is: Thomas Partridge, Seth Best, Antonio Benton, Nicholas Goodman, Mark Turner, Margaret Lynch, Julie Steiner, Bob Miller, Jeffrey Crockett, and Peter Nagourney.

7:44 p.m. Partridge is here to advance the cause of human rights and civil rights, affordable housing, public transportation for all residents, especially those with disabilities and seniors. Several speakers after Partridge are here to speak on behalf of Camp Take Notice.

7:52 p.m. Best asks everyone in the audience to stand who’s attending the council meeting to support Pizza in the Park. A couple dozen people stand up. He thanks the mayor and staff for their efforts to ensure that the program, sponsored by the Vineyard Church, can continue. The program distributes food and other aid to the homeless community in Liberty Plaza. He hopes for something in writing. Goodman described an increased police presence that he perceived as designed to break up tent communities. Benton also thanks the mayor and the council for agreeing to allow the Pizza and Park to continue. He describes himself as a full-time student, but also homeless. Pizza in the Park is the one meal that many in the homeless community get.

7:55 p.m. Mark Tucker quips that his name, spelled “Turner” on the agenda, “has been misspelled worse.” He speaks in support of public art. He notes that the newly proposed ordinance includes language acknowledging the positive impact that government can have in supporting the arts. He speaks in favor of episodic and temporary public art. [Tucker is co-founder of the annual FestiFools parade in downtown Ann Arbor.] He hopes that the revised ordinance signals the beginning of a dialogue.

7:59 p.m. Julie Steiner of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance comments on the transfer of city-owned properties to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission. She points out that it’s unusual for a municipality to own the property. She allows that the proposed RAD conversion sounds complicated, but she calls it a win-win for all of us. It will allow renovations that could not be done with federal HUD funding. She warns that the properties could fall into a disastrous state of affairs, if this option is not pursued. Even Albert Berriz has been doing this in Florida and Texas for a number of years, she says. [Berriz is CEO of McKinley Inc., a real estate management firm.]

8:06 p.m. Bob Miller, chair of the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission, is speaking on behalf of himself. He’s addressing the items on the agenda related to public arts funding. He suggests that the council add to the ordinance a requirement that private construction contribute to a public art fund.

8:10 p.m. Jeffrey Crockett congratulates winners of the historic district commission awards. He thanks Jill Thacher for her staff support. He criticizes the provision for “mitigation” of landmark trees in the zoning code. He concludes there is no meaningful protection for landmark trees in the D1 zoning code. Crockett is responding to the 413 E. Huron project, which the council approved last month. That project involved mitigation of landmark trees. Peter Nagourney also comments on the 413 E. Huron project. He criticizes the council’s decision to approve the project, based on the threat of a lawsuit. Steve Kaplan also addresses the issue of the 413 E. Huron project. He calls the project emblematic of problems to come. He focuses on the possible traffic issues that the project could cause.

8:10 p.m. Council communications. This is the first of three slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

8:23 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) announces a townhall meeting to be hosted by her and wardmate Jane Lumm. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reports from a May 22 meeting of the North Main Huron River task force and announced the next one. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) reports on a picnic in the greenway held on June 2. He says there’s still interest in the vision for establishing a greenway. Lumm reported that over the last week there were four ReImagine Washtenaw public meetings. If people couldn’t attend, they can find information on the project’s website. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) refers to a 2008 email cited at the council’s previous meeting and attempts a defense of the DDA. Mayor John Hieftje explains what happened to cause a misunderstanding concerning Pizza in the Park. He gives an assurance that Pizza in the Park will be allowed to continue. Hieftje says there’s no legal basis for not being able to continue that event. City administrator Steve Powers alerts the council to the numerous street closures on their consent agenda. He also highlights another event: Red Fish Blue Fish at Gallup Park on June 9, to teach kids to fish.

8:23 p.m. Public hearings. Nine separate public hearings are on the agenda. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Two of public hearings are on proposals for rezoning, which have already received initial approval from the council – Parkway Place and State Street Center. The Parkway Place rezoning is from R3 (townhouse dwelling district) to R1B (single-family dwelling district). The State Street Center rezoning is from O (office district) to C3 (fringe commercial district).

Other public hearings include one for changes to utility rates (drinking water, sewer and stormwater) and one to adjust utility improvement charges. A change to the public art ordinance is also getting a public hearing, after the council previously gave initial approval to the change. Related items later in the agenda would return funds set aside for public art to their respective funds of origin.

A change to the city’s ordinance on the retirement system is also getting a public hearing. It affects one employee. It’s related to the contracting out of police dispatch services. Two property annexations are also receiving separate public hearings. Finally, a public hearing for the Miller Avenue sidewalk special assessment is on the agenda. No action will be taken on that special assessment tonight – it’s a public hearing only.

8:41 p.m. Through the first four public hearings, Thomas Partridge was the only person to speak at any of them. John Kotarski adds his commentary to the fifth one, on the public art ordinance. He disagrees with Partridge’s assessment on the merits of the Dreiseitl fountain in front of city hall. Kotarski – who is a member of the city’s public art commission – states that he thinks the proposed ordinance amendments will strengthen the public art program. He argues that the “baking in” of public art will result in more public art. He tells the council and the city administrator that he’s ready to help.

8:49 p.m. Partridge has now had his say and the public hearings are concluded.

8:51 p.m. Council communications. Briere identifies the relevant segment of Miller Avenue where the sidewalk assessment will be imposed as not passing in front of Miller Manor, as Partridge had implied during his comments at the public hearing. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy explains that eventually all curb ramps are supposed to be brought into compliance with the ADA.

8:52 p.m. Minutes and consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes several street closing approvals, including:

• (June 16) Ann Arbor Inner Peace Festival
• (June 20) The Event on Main Street
• (June 26-30) Ann Arbor Jaycees Summer Carnival
• (July 4) Firecracker 5K
• (July 4) 4th of July Parade
• (Aug. 12) UA Block Party
• (Sept. 29) Leaders and Best 10K and 5K

8:54 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration, and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) pulls out an agreement with the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner to support rain gardens. She just wants to commend staff for their work.

8:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has now unanimously approved the consent agenda.

8:56 p.m. Parkway Place rezoning. This rezoning request from 490 Huron Parkway, from R3 (townhouse district) to R1B (single-family dwelling), was given initial approval at the council’s May 13, 2013 meeting. The council is considering final approval tonight. The proposal did not win approval from the city planning commission at its Dec. 18, 2012 meeting. At that meeting, planning commissioner Bonnie Bona said she couldn’t support the rezoning. With 70,000 people commuting into Ann Arbor each day, it didn’t make sense to build single-family homes in that area. The 5-1 vote meant that the project did not get the six votes it needed for a recommendation of approval.

8:56 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanks staff for their response to a question about unstable soils. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) notes that the recommendation of denial from the planning commission resulted from the attendance of only six of nine commissioners. She notes that the rationale for those voting for it – they thought it would be a benefit to the area.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the 490 Huron Parkway rezoning.

8:57 p.m. State Street Center rezoning This rezoning request, from O (office) to C3 (fringe commercial), was given initial approval by the council at its May 13, 2013 meeting. The council is considering final approval tonight. The development is located adjacent to a new Tim Hortons restaurant, which opened last year. The project calls for demolishing a vacant 840-square-foot house on this site. In its place, the developer plans a one-story, 1,700-square-foot drive-thru Jimmy John’s restaurant facing South State Street.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the State Street Center rezoning.

8:57 p.m. Utility rates (water, sewer, stormwater). Initial approval of the utility rate increases came at the council’s May 20, 2013 meeting. The council is considering final approval tonight. In terms of revenue generated to the city, the rate increases are expected to generate 3.55% more for drinking water ($739,244), 4.25% more for the sanitary sewer ($955,531), and 4% more for stormwater ($233,811). [.pdf of complete utility rate changes as proposed] The city estimates that the impact on an average customer will be a $20.66 per year increase in total utility charges.

Outcome: The council gave unanimous final approval to the utility rate increases.

8:57 p.m. Utility improvement charges These are charges that are due when a single- or two-family property connects to water and sewer for the first time. The charges are paid by either the contractor/developer or the property owner, depending on who makes the request for a connection. [.pdf of connection charge comparison] The council is considering a change in the approach to calculating the charges that would reduce them by about half – partly in an effort to remove what’s perceived as an obstacle to infill development on vacant parcels. The council gave initial approval of the change at its May 13, 2013 meeting. The council is considering final approval tonight.

9:02 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) announces that the city attorney’s office has recommended a change to the amendment. She reads aloud the change and allows that “it’s not entirely enlightening.” The change relates to property outside a development. The change is accepted in a friendly way. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanks staff for their work and expresses her support the ordinance change.

Outcome: The council gave unanimous final approval to the change in the utility improvement charges.

9:02 p.m. Public art ordinance change. This proposal would change the city’s public art ordinance, so that capital improvement projects are no longer required to set aside 1% of their budgets for public art – up to a maximum of $250,000 per project. Under the amended approach, city staff would work to determine whether a specific capital improvement project should have enhanced design features “baked in” to a project – either enhanced architectural work or specific public art. The council gave initial approval to the ordinance change at its May 13, 2013 meeting. Tonight the council is giving the change final consideration.

9:21 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) thanks everyone, highlighting Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who did much of the work on the council’s task force. Teall doesn’t think it’s a perfect ordinance. She highlights the portion of the ordinance that she’d added, which Mark Tucker had noted during public commentary, about the government playing a role in supporting art. Briere also thanks everyone, including the staff. She notes that the task force didn’t have solutions for some things. As an example: how to pay for public art administration, and what to do with currently pooled public art funds.

Craig Hupy, public services area administrator, comes to the podium. He says he’ll give an engineer’s version of finance. Financing the administration of the public art program is a challenge. The municipal service charge wouldn’t be feasible, he says, because that charge is assessed “looking backwards.” Hupy indicated that it would be possible to craft a program supported by the general fund for an interim period, until the new program becomes fully functional. CFO Tom Crawford recommends that the council use the existing pooled funds that are set aside to get the program through the next two years. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) questions whether the pooled funds could be used, given the restriction on use of public funds in a way that’s linked thematically to the work of art.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) ventures that what’s needed is administrative support not for specific projects, but for those that are conceived. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) notes that the total of uncommitted funds that have been set aside in the public art fund is around $845,000. She suggests that maybe 10% of it could be retained as transition money to the new program. Crawford indicates that if money were pulled from the pooled funds, it would be done proportionally from the respective funds of origin.

9:21 p.m. Lumm proposes an amendment to the ordinance to allow the return of funds set aside in previous years to their funds of origin. It’s necessary in order to implement a resolution later on the agenda. Here’s her proposed added language:

(8) City Council may, at its discretion, amend the Fiscal Year 2014 budget or any subsequent budget to return to their respective funds of origin some or all uncommitted funds allocated for art prior to Fiscal Year 2014 under the prior Section 1:833, including funds that have been pooled in accordance with Section 1:834.

Briere and Teall weigh in against this amendment. Teall says that the public art program needs a full-time administrator. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asks for clarification from assistant city attorney Abigail Elias.

9:29 p.m. Kunselman says he won’t support the amendment. He worked on the task force, he says, and there was a lot of compromise involved. Lumm tells Kunselman he could support this amendment but then keep some of the money as transition money. She returns to the fact that there’s roughly $845,000 of uncommitted funds. She calls for a clean break from the Percent for Art program. She wants to know what art that money would be used for, instead of sewer and street improvements, for example.

Kailasapathy indicates that she won’t support using restricted funds for general art administration. Elias indicates that this amendment would be necessary for the Lumm-Kailasapathy resolution later in the meeting, which would return public art money from prior years to the funds of origin. Briere draws out the fact that the current amount in the art administration fund will be zero by the end of this fiscal year.

9:35 p.m. Petersen ventures that even the administration costs have a “nexus” issue, which means that the money has to be thematically linked to the art to be funded. Kailasapathy notes that the administration fund comes from an 8% allocation initially, so to take another 8% from the set-aside would essentially be double-dipping. Hupy points out that to implement the recommendation for a full-time instead of a part-time administrator, it will cost more. [The current public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, serves in a part-time position.] Taylor describes how the work of the public art administrator in the future will involve how to bake in art to various capital projects. If the administrator is thinking about incorporating art into streets, then that’s an adequate thematic link to streets to fund the art administrator’s work. As long as the administrator allocates time proportionally among the source funds, there shouldn’t be a problem, Taylor contends.

9:42 p.m. Briere asks what the “fall back position” is. Crawford says that if all the pooled art money is returned to the funds of origin, then to fund the public art program, he could only come up with the general fund as an option for funding it. Lumm returns to her idea simply to leave a small portion of the uncommitted art funds to pay for administration. She stresses that the sewage fund contributed the majority of the money that’s in the public art fund. Petersen argues that if the amendment is approved, it gives the council some flexibility in the future. She’s implying that the restoration of that money to its funds of origin need not be settled that night. Two unknowns include: (1) How much is needed? (2) What’s the art administrator’s job description?

9:45 p.m. Hieftje says he won’t support the amendment. He contends that when the conversation about changing the public art program was started, many councilmembers had expressed their comfort with leaving the funds in the public art fund. He links public art with economic development. The amendment fails, with support only from Kailasapathy, Petersen and Lumm.

9:49 p.m. Back to the main question, Kunselman talks about working together and compromising. His concern had always been about the legality of the program, he says. The task force had done a lot to come to an agreement. So he wouldn’t be asking for a state attorney general opinion on the legality of the program. He allowed that he’d voted for the program in 2007, unaware of the implications of the funding mechanism. He hoped that the community could find funds for other kinds of art besides capital improvements. He indicates a preference for gatherings of people having a good time, rather than monumental art. He’s supporting the ordinance change.

Lumm thanks the task force. She’s supportive of the part of the ordinance change that eliminates the automatic 1% set-aside. If any community could fund public art with private sources, it’s Ann Arbor, she says.

9:58 p.m. Lumm is still concerned that the structure of the program leaves in place a mechanism that takes money from capital improvement projects. She expresses disappointment that her amendment was not approved. She returns to the point of the $845,000 that’s in the fund. She continues to re-argue the case for the amendment. She indicates a grudging support for the ordinance change.

Taylor says he is delighted and proud to have participated in the task force. He calls the ordinance change an improvement. But he indicates there’s some uncertainty. Public art will compete with other priorities and find its proper level of support, he feels. Briere summarizes the task force work as the result of councilmembers coming from their individual peculiar attitudes toward public art. Thinking through all the implications had been hard, she said. She doesn’t think everything has been solved. How it’ll play out in the next three years remains to be seen. The council will be determining how much public art there is and where – based on advice from the staff about which projects should have art incorporated in them.

Kailasapathy indicates support for the ordinance, but still has reservations about leaving the money in the art fund balance. She allows she’s not a legal expert, but feels this is on shaky legal grounds.

10:03 p.m. Responding to Kunselman, Hupy allows that he can’t imagine that $845,000 could be spent on public art administration in two years. Crawford indicates that it could be used for administration or also on art projects. Kunselman says he wants to stop looking back and to start looking forward. It’s tough for him to disagree with Lumm and Kailasapathy, but he wants to look forward. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asks about the resolution later on the agenda that restores funding that was set aside for public art in FY 2014 just recently: How is that different? Crawford explains that it’s just for FY 2014. There’s a second resolution that would return money from previous years – which Lumm’s amendment to the ordinance was meant to facilitate.

10:03 p.m. Outcome: The council gave unanimous final approval to the changes to the public art ordinance.

10:12 p.m. Recess. After approving changes to the public art ordinance, the council went into recess. They’re still in recess.

10:15 p.m. The council is back in session.

10:17 p.m. The council votes to go into closed session to discuss land acquisition.

10:29 p.m. The council has returned from closed session.

10:29 p.m. Pension ordinance change. The proposed amendment would potentially affect a single person – a former city dispatcher. When dispatch operations for the city were contracted out to the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office, the pension benefit change was negotiated as part of the consolidation with the Ann Arbor Police Officers Association, which represented the city dispatchers. The amendment allows a former dispatcher to collect city pension benefits at the same time that they could have if they’d remained employees with the city. The council previously gave this change initial approval. Tonight is consideration of the second and final approval.

10:30 p.m. Outcome: Without discussion, the council gave unanimous final approval to the change to the pension ordinance.

10:30 p.m. Sidewalk definition change. The council is being asked to give initial approval (first reading) to a change in the definition of “sidewalk.” It expands the existing definition to include non-motorized paths that are “designed particularly for pedestrian, bicycle, or other nonmotorized travel and that is constructed (1) in the public right of way or (2) within or upon an easement or strip of land taken or accepted by the City or dedicated to and accepted by the City for public use by pedestrians, bicycles, or other nonmotorized travel, …” Impacts from this change include funding for repair and maintenance of such facilities and responsibility for snow clearance. The changed definition will allow the city to use sidewalk millage money to repair and maintain the facilities. However, it will also place responsibility on the abutting property owner for snow clearance during the winter.

10:33 p.m. Briere indicates she will support the ordinance to move it to a second reading, but she has some questions she’ll want answered when it comes back to the council. She highlights the question of who’s responsible for shoveling snow off sidewalks during the winter. She feels the council will want to look carefully at the definition change.

Outcome: The council gave unanimous initial approval to the change in the definition of “sidewalk.”

10:33 p.m. Fireworks. This is the initial consideration of an ordinance change that would regulate the use of fireworks for the day before, the day of, and the day after a national holiday – like July 4. Currently, it’s possible to explode fireworks for the continuous 72-hour period from July 3-5. The ordinance change would limit fireworks to the hours from 8 a.m. to midnight. If this ordinance change is approved tonight and given final approval at the council’s next meeting on June 17, it would be in place for July 4. State law currently prohibits local municipalities from regulating the use of fireworks on the day preceding, the day of, and the day after a national holiday. But a bill that’s working its way through the legislature would allow local municipalities to impose restrictions on those days – but only by regulating the hours – to 8 a.m. through midnight. For New Year’s Day, local municipalities could regulate use of fireworks by allowing them from 8 a.m. through 1 a.m., which would allow for midnight fireworks celebrations.

10:38 p.m. Briere recalls the loud July 4 last year and the complaints about fireworks. While the number of complaints might not have been great, those that were heard were dramatic, she said. That resulted from a change in state law that allows residents to use “more exciting” fireworks. Lumm asks for clarification.

Outcome: The council gave unanimous initial approval to the change in the fireworks ordinance. The second reading will come before the council on June 17.

10:38 p.m. Greenbelt advisory commission appointment: Jennifer Fike. The council is considering confirmation of Jennifer Fike to the greenbelt advisory commission. Fike is finance director of the Huron River Watershed Council. She would replace Laura Rubin, HRWC’s executive director, whose term on the commission ends in June. Fike was nominated at the council’s May 20, 2013 meeting.

10:39 p.m. Taylor briefly describes Fike’s background and thanks Rubin for her service.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to confirm Fike’s appointment to GAC.

10:39 p.m. DDA funding of downtown police. The resolution would encourage the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to provide funding for three police officers (a total of $270,000 annually) to be deployed in the DDA district and asks that the DDA board consider that at its next regular meeting. The next meeting of the DDA board is June 5, 2013. For a Chronicle op-ed on this general topic, see: “Counting on the DDA to Fund Police?”

10:49 p.m. Lumm is introducing the resolution, which she’s sponsored with Kailasapathy and Petersen. Kunselman indicates he’ll support it. His understanding is that the DDA likes direction from the city council in the form of resolutions.

Taylor allows that would not be irrational for the DDA to review this question. He indicates that the resolution is not particularly polite – and he wants to rebuild a relationship of trust with the DDA. He points out that the DDA has included an option in its budget to fund public safety. He’ll be voting against the resolution.

Briere alludes to the council’s December 2012 retreat priorities on public safety. She’s supporting the resolution because it’s advisory. But she notes that the work plan in response to the council’s priority on public safety includes a lot of elements that don’t depend on a count of officers. This resolution is only about a number of police officers. She wants to move the discussion beyond numbers to talk about policy.

Kailasapathy stresses that the funds in the DDA’s budget are undesignated. That’s part of the basis on which she’s supporting the resolution. Petersen says the perception of public safety is high until someone has a problem – and police downtown might be able to prevent problems before they happen. Anglin indicates he’ll support it. He allows that having more police doesn’t make a safer city, but more police means that the city is able to respond when someone calls.

10:58 p.m. Higgins expresses appreciation for the fact that the resolution was brought forward. She expresses some reservations about specifying the exact number of officers. She asks for an amendment to the resolution to make it nonspecific. Lumm prefers her original version specifying three officers.

Briere asks police chief John Seto to come to the podium. She asks how many officers are dedicated to the DDA area. Seto says none are assigned to the DDA specifically. It’s part of the “Adam” district – bounded by Huron, Main, Stadium and Packard – and 12-14 officers are assigned to it. Briere wanted to know if three officers were added, how would the staffing be handled. Seto says they’d be additional bodies that would be assigned to the “Adam” district. The officers assigned to other areas should remain the same, he says.

Hieftje says Ann Arbor is one of the safest cities in the nation. Most of the literature indicates that adding police doesn’t reduce crime, he says. His interest is in reducing nuisance issues. The DDA board has discussed the possibility of funding ambassadors who would have direct communication with the police. Hieftje says that Taylor framed it well, given the context of the council’s consideration of revising the ordinance governing DDA TIF (tax increment finance) capture. Hieftje notes that the funding for police staffing needs to be sustainable. He couldn’t predict how the DDA would perceive the resolution. He wanted councilmembers to be prepared for a range of reactions from the DDA board. He felt it would be a worthy discussion at the DDA.

10:59 p.m. Outcome: The council voted 8-2 to encourage the DDA to consider funding three police officers to be deployed in the downtown. Dissent came from Taylor and Teall.

10:59 p.m. Public art: reallocation to funds of origin – previous years. Two items are on the agenda that would essentially do the same kind of thing, but for different time frames. Each resolution would reallocate monies to their funds of origin that had been set aside under the previous public art ordinance (aka Percent for Art program). The first resolution, sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) would return monies to their funds of origin, which had been set aside for public in previous years under the ordinance. The previous discussion of the public art ordinance, however, means that this won’t be possible. The council declined to amend the ordinance to allow moving prior years’ public art set asides back the funds of origin.

The second resolution – sponsored by Margie Teall (Ward 4) Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) – would return just the money set aside in the FY 2014 budget – which was approved by the council on May 20, 2013.

Both proposals change the budget, which under the city charter means that an eight-vote majority will be required on the 11-member council. The Lumm-Kailasapathy proposal would return the following amounts to the respective funds for a total of $845,029:

• 002-Energy $3,120
• 0042-Water Supply System $61,358
• 0043-Sewage Disposal System $451,956
• 0048-Airport $6,416
• 0069-Stormwater $20,844
• 0062-Street Millage $237,314
• 0071-Parks Millage $28,492
• 0072-Solid Waste $35,529

The second proposal would return the following amount to the respective funds for a total of $326,464:

• 0042-Water Supply System $113,500
• 0043-Sewage Disposal System $50,050
• 0069-Stormwater $33,500
• 0062-Street Millage $120,700
• 0071-Parks Millage $8,714

The Lumm-Kailasapathy resolution is up first.

11:00 p.m. Outcome: Lumm withdrew the resolution, given that her attempt to amend the ordinance – in a way that was necessary for the resolution to be considered – failed earlier in the meeting.

11:01 p.m. Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) articles of incorporation. The council is being asked to consider revision of the AATA’s articles of incorporation to admit the city of Ypsilanti as a member, and to expand the size of the board from seven to nine members. One of the new seats would be appointed by the city of Ypsilanti. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Ypsi Waits at Bus Stop, Other Riders Unclear"]

This would change only the governance of the authority, but would not yet impose any new tax. A millage proposal would require voter approval. There’s an outside chance for the AATA to place a millage on the November ballot – if the change to the articles of incorporation are approved in straightforward fashion by the Ann Arbor city council, followed by the AATA board and the Ypsilanti city council. Any decision to place a millage request on the November 2013 ballot would need to be made by late August. [Ballot language needs to be certified to the county clerk by Aug. 27, 2013]. But the practicalities of mounting a successful millage campaign mean that a decision to make a millage request would likely need to come sooner than that.

The change in the articles of incorporation also calls for a name change – to the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority (AAATA). Customary pronunciation of the current name is to sound out each letter: A-A-T-A. Carrying forward that custom seems unlikely. “Triple-A-T-A” is one possibility The Chronicle has heard floated. [.pdf of proposed AAATA articles of incorporation] [.pdf of existing AATA articles of incorporation] This item is being co-sponsored on the agenda by mayor John Hieftje, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

11:07 p.m. Briere introduces the proposal. Kunselman adds his support to the proposal. He calls it a small step. He wonders if it’s appropriate to take action before the AATA board takes action. His concern is that to add other members – like Ypsilanti Township or Pittsfield Township – it might require amending the articles of incorporation again. There’s a strong connection of the communities to the east and Ann Arbor, so they need a voice at the table, he says, and this step that the council is being asked to take will help to do that.

Anglin asks for someone from the AATA to explain this to the public. Jerry Lax, the legal counsel for the AATA, is on hand. Joining Lax are Bill De Groot and Mary Stasiak, staff with the AATA. Lax explains that the city of Ypsilanti has explicitly requested membership. The document in front of the council resulted from a discussion between the city of Ann Arbor, AATA, and the city of Ypsilanti. He noted that this step does not itself create new funding. But it creates a mechanism by which voters could approve new funding.

11:13 p.m. Responding to a question from Anglin, Lax describes the benefit to residents of Ann Arbor as providing a more coherent approach to providing transportation. Hieftje describes the background of the “urban core” meetings. Petersen says that her notion of “urban core” is Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. She asks if that’s the AATA’s view. Lax ventures that the two townships might also be considered a rational part of the system.

Petersen expresses concern about calling it the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. She suggests calling it the Ann Arbor Ypsilanti Transportation Authority. Lax says some initial drafts did include AAYT as a possibility. He didn’t feel that the name change was the major accomplishment – something that Petersen agrees within. Kunselman ventures that it would be shortened to “Ypsi-Arbor Transportation Authority.” Hieftje suggested looking at where high school graduates are attending school. Many Ann Arbor high school grads attend Eastern Michigan University in Ypsilanti, he says.

11:19 p.m. Hieftje notes that Ypsilanti has already set up a dedicated funding mechanism. He wanted the Ann Arbor city council to be able to affirm the action that the Ypsilanti city council had taken by requesting membership. He said he was impressed with the AATA’s ability to account for where the various millage dollars were going. He wouldn’t have a problem in some “bleed-over” from Ann Arbor funding for Routes #4 and #5 between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

Lumm thanks staff for providing answers to her questions earlier in the day. She recites much of the recent history of efforts to expand transportation. She complains that information on Ypsilanti’s financial commitment was only provided in response to councilmembers requesting it. She laments the fact that there’s not a framework for adding additional members beyond Ypsilanti. But Ypsilanti is Ann Arbor’s most natural partner, so she’ll support the proposal.

11:23 p.m. Kailasapathy draws out the fact that a new AAATA millage would be for the geographic area of the entire transportation authority.

Outcome: The council unanimously approves adding Ypsilanti to the AATA.

11:23 p.m. Public art: reallocation to funds of origin – FY 2014. This is a return of just the FY 2014 public art set-asides to their funds of origin.

11:25 p.m. Briere introduces the resolution. Lumm indicates she supports the resolution. She again complains that the council didn’t act to return previous years’ allocations to their funds of origin.

Outcome: The council voted to return the FY 2014 public art set-asides to their funds of origin.

11:26 p.m. Annexations: Weller and Higgins. These are both owner-initiated annexations, each property about 0.5 acres. The parcels are currently a part of Ann Arbor Township.

11:26 p.m. Outcome: On separate unanimous votes, the council approved the annexations.

11:27 p.m. Non-motorized transportation plan distribution. This item is a formal step toward incorporating a revised version of the city’s non-motorized transportation plan into its set of master plan documents. At its April 16, 2013 meeting, the city’s planning commission recommended distribution to adjoining jurisdictions and stakeholders, including the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, DTE Energy, Norfolk-Southern Railroad, the University of Michigan, the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, and the Ann Arbor Public Schools. They’ll have 42 days to submit comments.

11:27 p.m. Outcome: On a unanimous vote, the council authorized the distribution of the draft non-motorized plan.

11:27 p.m. Ann Arbor Housing Commission. Five resolutions affecting the AAHC are on the agenda. All are related to the proposed conversion of public housing managed by AAHC to a public/private partnership that would fund the units through project-based vouchers.

First up is a resolution that would transfer ownership of the city-owned properties, currently managed by the AAHC, to the AAHC itself. As a land transaction, it requires eight votes to pass. If it doesn’t pass, the other resolutions are probably moot. Postponement isn’t a feasible option, because the AAHC’s first grant application is due June 15 – and that grant application needs to demonstrate “site control.”

After the land transfer comes a resolution stating that the current employees of the housing commission are currently city employees and will continue to be city employees after the conversion of AAHC properties to project-based vouchers. The next resolution on the agenda is approval of a payment in lieu of taxes for properties in Phase 1 of the planned conversion: 106 Packard Road, 727 Miller, 1701-1747 Green Road, 2742 Packard, and 800-890 South Maple. That will exempt the AAHC from paying property taxes on the properties.

Following that on the agenda is a $200,000 appropriation from the city’s affordable housing trust fund to support a loan application for improvements at 727 Miller (Miller Manor) and 800-890 South Maple. The final item is a request from the city’s general fund to backstop anticipated deficits – even if the AAHC converts all its units to project-based vouchers. The resolution asks for at least $124,000 – based on “Scenario 3″ described in the council’s information packet, or up to $461,000 if HUD did not allow AAHC to convert its units all in one go (before all financing is formally secured) – to lessen the impacts of federal sequestration. According to AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall, HUD didn’t agree to AAHC’s request to do that. So it’s the $461,000 figure that’s in play – for the three fiscal years FY 2014-16.

Ann Arbor Housing Commission Properties. Color coding indicates phase: Phase 1 (red); Phase 2 (orange); Phase 3 (blue), Phase 4 (green). Image links to dynamic map.

11:31 p.m. AAHC: property transfer to AAHC. Briere has asked AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall to the podium. Hall attributes the dilapidated condition of some of the properties as a lack of investment by the federal government. She describes the basic approach of this proposal. She characterizes the AAHC housing units as relatively “dispersed.”

By way of additional background, the need to rethink the funding and maintenance strategy for Ann Arbor public housing is based on a capital needs assessment conducted in 2009 – which determined that AAHC had $40,337 per unit in capital needs over the next 15 years. But at current HUD funding rates, AAHC would receive only $18,000 per unit – which is a $22,000 per unit shortfall in capital repair funding. Without some other funding strategy for its 355 units, AAHC would face roughly $7.8 million or about $520,000 per year in unmet capital needs.

11:36 p.m. Hall explains that there’s a June 15 loan application deadline. AAHC is applying for a $1 million federal loan. She explains that there’s been a change from the original plan that was presented to the city council. That original plan would have transferred the properties further from AAHC to a new public/private partnership. But the new plan is for the AAHC to own the land and the buildings, and to lease the improvements (buildings) through a ground lease to the limited partnership. A long-term ground lease will satisfy the IRS’s requirement that the limited partnership have an ownership interest in the property.

11:44 p.m. Kailasapathy wants to know if the city still has any controls over the properties after the transfer of ownership. Hall notes that the city council appoints the AAHC board. Kailasapathy would prefer to have clarity on issues like rights of first refusal. That makes her nervous. Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald explains that there’s deed restriction that will provide an extra control. He reiterates Hall’s point that the council still appoints the members of the AAHC board. The council has the ability to remove members of the AAHC board, and McDonald notes that the council has exercised that option before. McDonald also points out that HUD controls the properties. If the properties were being mismanaged, HUD could step in.

Kailasapathy asks about the change from the transfer to the public/private partnership to the idea of a ground lease. Hall says after 15 years the properties come back to the AAHC. Kailasapathy raises the specter of an accident that results in a legal liability – because governmental immunity might not apply to a public/private partnership.

11:49 p.m. Rochelle Lento, the legal consultant for the AAHC, is trying to provide some assurance to Kailasapathy. She notes that HUD’s Hope 6 program uses ground leases as a mechanism. McDonald notes that there’s nothing that’s being proposed that’s outside the scope of what housing commissions can do.

Kunselman wants to know why the city can’t just lease the properties to the AAHC with a sublease to the public/private partnership. Lento can’t say it can’t be done, but she has never seen it done that way.

11:52 p.m. Kunselman ventures that there’s a valid reason for why the city of Ann Arbor currently owns the properties. He felt that a five-member board of political appointees might not be the best property managers. Kunselman, who said he’d be voting no on this when the council was briefed on the proposal back in February, is engaged in extended back and forth with Hall, Lento, and McDonald. He asks which properties are proposed to be demolished and rebuilt.

12:01 a.m. Petersen asks for a description of limited liability partners and if AAHC has one lined up. Lento indicates that the Great Lakes Capital Fund is interested in AAHC. She describes GLCF as an active player in Michigan. She feels the AAHC’s ability to acquire an equity partner is good. Taylor brings up the shortfall in needed capital improvements. Hall says it would be burying her head in the sand to think that there will be more funding for public housing at the federal level. Taylor asks for the reasonable expectation of the available investment that this proposal would create. Hall describes the AAHC’s plan to package Miller Manor with South Maple – which will have a $13 million rehabilitation cost. The low-income housing credits will generate about $9 million for that particular project. She also describes using the city’s PACE program to fund some of the cost.

12:15 a.m. Lumm thanks Hall for not sticking her head in the sand. It’s complicated and difficult, she says. Lumm acknowledges that something dramatic needs to be done, and this approach makes sense. She notes that sequestration complicates the issue. She calls it a clear choice. It’s not consistent with Ann Arbor’s values to do nothing and let the properties continue to deteriorate and eventually disappear, Lumm says, along with the services the properties provide.

Briere says it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that there are people involved – when all the discussion is about the properties. Hall describes a situation at Broadway, involving a stormwater drain. A building on Platt Road has continuing problems with water in the basement, because it was built in the floodplain. She describes sewer backups. Briere asks what happens to the people who live in the properties if the properties are demolished as planned by the AAHC. Hall explains that AAHC has to follow the HUD protocols.

Hall describes how some of the AAHC properties could support more units than they currently have – with a possible net increase of 20-30 units citywide. Kunselman is now questioning Hall and Lento. Only half a dozen members of the general public are still here (not counting staff and the press). The council does not appear to be close to winding up discussion of this first AAHC resolution.

12:25 a.m. McDonald suggests adding a resolved clause to the resolution. It would condition the transfer of the city property on review of the proposed ground lease to the public/private partnership. Kunselman asks if the deed restriction can include a requirement that the housing be accessible to 30% AMI. McDonald isn’t sure if HUD will accept the imposition of a more stringent requirement than HUD’s 50% AMI requirement. Hall describes the advantage of setting the rents at 50% – because vouchers make up the difference between income and the rent.

12:26 a.m. Recess. The council is taking a short break before considering the amendment that McDonald is working on.

12:35 a.m. The council is back from recess. Kailasapathy moves the amendment to the resolution suggested by McDonald. The council agrees to the amendment.

12:40 a.m. Kunselman says he’s been very hesitant to go in this direction. He fears it will push out the “poorest of the poor.” The council has spent the last 10 years talking about affordable housing without talking about the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, he says. But Kunselman says he’ll support this proposal because of the great unknown. Hieftje allows there are some unknowns. But he feels that federal funding is going to go down. Taylor questions the wording of the amendment.

12:40 a.m. Outcome: On a 10-0 vote, including Kunselman, the council voted to transfer the city-owned public housing properties to AAHC. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) is absent.

12:40 a.m. AAHC: employees remain city employees.

12:40 a.m. Outcome: The council approved the confirmation of AAHC-assigned employees as city employees.

12:40 a.m. AAHC: exemption from property taxes.

12:40 a.m. Outcome: The council unanimously approved the PILOT for AAHC properties.

12:43 a.m. AAHC: grant for Miller Manor improvements. Briere mentions that the $200,000 appropriation from the city’s affordable housing trust fund was recommended by HHSAB some time ago. Lumm indicates support for the resolution.

12:43 a.m. Outcome: The council unanimously approved the grant for improvements at Miller Manor.

12:43 a.m. AAHC: general fund support. This item has been withdrawn from the agenda.

12:44 a.m. West Madison Street improvements. This item requests the council approve a $2,283,524 contract with Pamar Enterprises Inc. for the work on West Madison Street – from South Seventh Street to South Main Street. The total cost of the project is $3,162,000. It’s being paid for with a combination of street funds, water funds and stormwater funds. It includes water main replacement and stormwater improvements.

12:48 a.m. Kunselman wonders if the base of the road will be beefed up to prevent the sloughing of the pavement. A city engineer assures him it will have an appropriate cross section. Anglin asks for an explanation of the stormwater features, including rain gardens.

Outcome: The West Madison Street improvements contract was unanimously approved.

12:48 a.m. Mack Pool roof. This item approves a contract with Pranam GlobalTech Inc. for $193,000 to cover the roof replacement and painting refurbishment for Mack Pool. A 10% construction contingency brings the project’s budget to $212,300. The city’s park advisory commission had recommended approval of the contract at its May 21, 2013 meeting.

12:48 a.m. Outcome: The Mack Pool roof contract was unanimously approved.

12:48 a.m. Stone School Road improvements. This item asks for council approval of a $101,140 contract for design work with Northwest Consultants Inc. (NCI) for the Stone School Road reconstruction between I-94 and Ellsworth Road.

12:49 a.m. Kunselman says he’s looking forward to this project. He’s personally seen the failed culvert. City engineer Nick Hutchinson tells Kunselman that construction is expected in 2014.

Outcome: The Stone School Road design work contract was unanimously approved by the council.

12:50 a.m. Appointments. The one mayoral nomination from the previous meeting was Lloyd E. Shelton for the city’s commission on disability issues. Petersen describes her interaction with Shelton that led to his nomination for the commission.

12:50 a.m. Outcome: Shelton’s appointment to the city’s commission on disability issues was unanimously confirmed.

12:53 a.m. Nominations. Nominations include reappointments to the planning commission of Bonnie Bona and Tony Derezinski. Also among the nominations is LuAnne Bullington to the taxicab board. In addition, all the members of the downtown citizens advisory council have been re-nominated. The council will vote on these nominations at its next meeting.

12:53 a.m. Public commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary. Turns are limited to three minutes.

12:55 a.m. Caleb Poirer is addressing the council asking for a binding, written agreement indicating that humanitarian aid providers will not be charged a parks and recreation fee. Seth Best echoes Poirer’s sentiments. He’s concerned that a policy might be applied that requires a permit if you advertise a gathering in a public space that could draw more than 50 people.

12:55 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. Details on some individual voting items can be found in The Chronicle’s Civic News Ticker. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

The housing commission is responsible for 355 public housing units spread over 18 sites – or around 50% of the affordable housing stock in the city – plus 1,300 Section 8 vouchers for a three-county area.

Kerry Laycock, the consultant who gave the city council a presentation on the reorganization of the housing commission, gave a slide presentation from the podium using this laptop computer. (Photos by the writer.)

Keys to the reorganization are beefing up the Section 8 program with a dedicated financial analyst and a program manager, and redefining roles of the executive director and deputy director, as well as outsourcing maintenance of the housing units.

Outsourcing maintenance will reduce the housing commission staff by six people – two temporary employees plus four union workers.

Alan Levy, who chairs the housing commission board, told councilmembers that the reorganization had already been approved by a 3-2 vote of the housing commission’s board at a special meeting held on Jan. 6, 2010.

The two dissenting votes, Levy said, were in overall support of the plan, but had reservations about the union employees whose positions with the housing commission would be eliminated.

Kerry Laycock, at the podium, gives the city council the grim verdict from a needs assessment he helped conduct of the Ann Arbor housing commission. Seated are Marge Novak, interim executive director of AAHC, and Alan Levy, chair of the AAHC board.

The need to reorganize, Levy told the council, was prompted by a difficult last few years dealing with personnel and staffing issues, as well as chronic underfunding of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

What was the city council’s role in the reorganization? At its May 18, 2009 meeting, the city council had approved a contract with Schumaker & Company for $117,040 to perform a needs assessment for the housing commission. It’s the result of that recommendation that led to the adopted reorganization.

And for the next two years, the council may be asked to help bridge a $138,163 funding gap to help with the transition as the commission reorganizes.

Anecdotal Indicator of Public Housing Conditions

In the course of deliberations, mayor John Hieftje gave one anecdotal indicator that the housing commission was already beginning to turn the corner on some of its past difficulties.

He told his council colleagues that a couple of years ago, residents of Ann Arbor’s public housing had begun to visit his Friday open office hours to share complaints with him.

And Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who serves as the council liaison to the city’s housing commission, described the housing commission’s situation during his most recent period of service as “a trying year.” He summarized it by saying, “It was a mess.”

However, Derezinski described the appointment of Marge Novak as interim executive director in May 2009 as “a godsend,” while emphasizing that the housing commission was still not “out of the woods.”

Hieftje said that six to nine months ago, the visits by public housing residents to his weekly office hour had stopped. Why had they shown up in the first place?

Problems with the Housing Commission

Kerry Laycock spoke on behalf of the consultant that had performed the needs assessment – Schumaker & Company. In the course of his presentation, he painted a picture that could fairly be described as grim.

That assessment had been based on staff interviews, community/stakeholder interviews, focus groups with public housing residents, financial analyses and benchmarking with other communities.

Measured against its mission statement, Laycock told the council, the housing commission was not doing that well. The commission’s mission statement reads [emphasis added for readability]:

Mission Statement

Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC) seeks to provide desirable housing and related supportive services for low-income individuals and families on a transitional and/or permanent basis. AAHC will partner with housing and service providers to build healthy residential communities and promote an atmosphere of pride and responsibility.

But Laycock described a commission that provided desirable housing only in the sense that there were many people who needed a place to live and were signed up for a spot – the properties themselves, he said, were outdated and poorly maintained.

The supportive services provided were limited and not meeting the current needs of residents, he said. And he described the housing commission as a relatively isolated agency that had limited interaction with other community organizations and programs.

Some of the challenges faced by AAHC, Laycock acknowledged, were a result of an environment of relative instability caused by HUD. By its own measure, he said, HUD funds its programs at a level of 82% of what they need. The underfunding, plus the fact that funding decisions are made late in the year, had led to less-than-optimal operations by AAHC.

Given the unstable environment of HUD, Laycock said, it was important to secure additional funding, outside of HUD. Because AAHC had not done that, he continued, it was not able to make up for the HUD shortfall, nor provide support services needed by the residents of its housing, nor keep up on important maintenance and modernization of its housing stock. His presentation described the housing stock as amendable to better maintenance, but as outdated and inherently substandard.

Laycock described one approach to updating public housing as tearing it down and starting from scratch – an approach that had been taken in Grand Rapids, he said. However, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) drew out the fact that in Grand Rapids, the housing commission had been separated out from the city’s administration – something that Laycock’s analysis did not recommend. If anything, Laycock said, the AAHC should have a closer relationship with the city.

Adopted Solutions: Staffing and Maintenance

Laycock identified the key strategic objectives of 1) rehabilitating and redeveloping AAHC properties, 2) expanding funding to include non-HUD sources, 3) strengthening of support services, 4) improving management oversight and 5) improving internal efficiencies.

The reorganization adopted by the housing commission seeks to realize these objectives by redefining and adding administrative staff roles (a plus of two positions), while outsourcing maintenance of the properties (a minus of six positions).

Staff Roles

To understand the additions to the city housing commission staff that have been adopted, it’s useful to understand the distinction between the public housing versus the Section 8 part of the AAHC mission.

The low-income public housing component of the AAHC mission involves ownership, maintenance and management of places for people to live. The Section 8 housing choice voucher (HCV) program, on the other hand, is a voucher system – those who are served by the program receive a voucher that can be used to pay rent to a private landlord. In the Section 8 program, prospective tenants contact landlords directly, and landlords are supposed to screen tenants the same way they would those without vouchers.

The arithmetic of staff additions would add a financial analyst to the Section 8 program. Together with the upgrading to financial analyst of a current accounting clerk position for public housing, that would give each of the housing commission’s programs a financial analyst. Laycock described the advantage of the analyst over a clerk position: An analyst can interpret and summarize financial data and make recommendations – as opposed to a clerk, whose responsibility is more limited to recording and inputting data.

The second additional position would also go to support the Section 8 program in the form of a separate manager of that program.

Besides adding positions, the reorganization redefines the roles of staff, from site managers up to the executive director level. Site managers would no longer supervise maintenance staff – but they’d still have a relationship with the vendor for outsourced maintenance. The strategy will be to relieve these on-site managers of maintenance-employee supervision so that they can focus more squarely on meeting residents’ needs. That refocusing of task is reflected in a job title change from site manager to residency manager.

The executive director and the deputy director would be made regular full-time positions. The executive director will be less focused on operations than in the past, with a primary responsibility for strategic planning,  rehabilitation of existing housing, and development of new housing. The deputy director will split time between operations and grant writing. Winning grants is seen as key to bridging the HUD funding gap, as well as eventually covering the increased staffing costs of the reorganization.

Marge Novak, interim executive director of Ann Arbor's housing commission, explains to the city council that part of the goal of reorganization is to secure additional grant funding.

Optimism that there was grant money available that the AAHC commission was not currently exploiting – due to a lack of grant-writing resources – came from interim executive director of AAHC, Marge Novak. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) clarified with Novak that the AAHC was currently “leaving money on the table.”

And winning grants was the answer to a question Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) had about how much funding the city council might be asked to provide over time – operations were ongoing expenses every year, he cautioned. The city council’s prior commitment to the housing commission for FY 2010 and FY 2011 is $90,000, but the financial implications of the reorganization – adding people and expanding existing roles – will amount to $228,163.

In his comments, mayor John Hieftje characterized the strategy as spending a little money in the short term in order to get someone in place who can go after more money in the form of grants.

The options for addressing the $138,163 difference, Laycock said, included using AAHC reserves, looking at funds held by affiliated nonprofits, using in-kind services from the city of Ann Arbor, and the sale/lease of maintenance vehicles as a part of the outsourcing contract. But Laycock gave city councilmembers a heads-up on Monday night that the AAHC could be asking them for money from the Ann Arbor general fund as well. That’s why Hohnke wondered if the request would be one that was repeated into the future.

Laycock and Novak seemed confident that the investment in grant writing resources would pay off – any additional request from the city council would be confined to achieving the transition to the new, reorganized housing commission.

Alan Levy, chair of the Ann Arbor housing commission board, clarifies a point with Jayne Miller, community services area administrator. In the background is Joan Doughty, director of the Community Action Network (CAN).

Also a part of the transition strategy would be the addition of new positions as more funds become available. Jayne Miller, community services area administrator, told the council that the time frame for the transition to financial sustainability was expected to be about two years.

Maintenance Outsourcing

Also a part of the gradual approach to the transition is the change to outsourced maintenance. There are two temporary positions that would be eliminated as soon as an initial contract with a maintenance vendor is signed. But four other American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union positions would be absorbed elsewhere in the city workforce as positions become available.

Another aspect of the gradualness of the transition is that an outside vendor for maintenance will first engage in a pilot project that encompasses work currently done by two temporary employees – at a single building or site. The outside vendor would then assume additional work as the AFSCME positions transition to other positions within the city.

In his presentation, Laycock characterized the move to outsourced maintenance as the most controversial aspect of the reorganization, but stressed that is was not a matter of chasing dollars – the idea is to provide better maintenance of the properties.

There would be a request for proposals (RFP) process for the outside maintenance vendor, Laycock said, and he saw that as an opportunity for partnering with other agencies. He did not elaborate on that, saying that he did not want that possibility to affect the RFP process.

Councilmember Questions on AAHC

Other commentary by councilmembers covered a range of topics.

Potential Partnerships

The relative isolation of the AAHC from other entities with complementary missions was identified as a problem in the operational needs assessment.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) asks for clarification about the potential for partnerships by the housing commission with other agencies.

So Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) asked where the potential for partnerships was. Interim executive director Marge Novak described how some collaborations already existed – with Peace Neighborhood Center and Community Action Network (CAN). Further, she described how the county’s Employment Training & Community Services (ETCS) department provided meals to two of the public housing locations – Miller Manor and Baker Commons.

Alan Levy, chair of the AAHC board, added later that there was a memorandum of understanding with the Interfaith Hospitality Network that allowed three referrals per year on a priority basis for the homeless, with no wait-listing required.

Wait-lists

From Mike Anglin (Ward 5) came a question about wait-list times. Novak said that for public housing, the wait-list was around 700 people and that there were a couple hundred on the wait-list for Section 8. The Section 8 wait-list, Novak told the council, had not been open “in years.” The public housing wait-list had been opened a few times over the last few years. [Currently, the city of Ann Arbor's website indicates that the wait-list for public housing is closed.]

The city council had been asked earlier in the fall to approve a measure that allocated funds on an emergency basis to provide housing vouchers for homeless families. At Monday’s working session, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) wanted to know if these were the same kind of vouchers. Novak said that those came through the office of city/county community development. But Section 8 did include family vouchers, Novak clarified.

Smith also wanted to know if the problem with Section 8 wait-listing was a lack of supply – are there enough landlords? Novak described the problem as the hundreds of people who are waiting for vouchers as the larger issue. She said there were around 1,000 landlords in the three-county area who had properties available.

How Does Ann Arbor and Its City Council Fit In?

From both Ward 3 council representatives – Christopher Taylor and Stephen Kunselman – came questions about the nature of the city’s relationship to the housing commission and the council’s role specifically. After hearing Laycock explain that the housing commission had adopted the reorganization and that the council did not need to approve it, Kunselman asked: “What is our responsibility?”

Jayne Miller, community services area administrator, clarified that there was no funding responsibility – HUD is the funding agency. However, Miller continued, the city council approved appointments to the housing commission’s board. Further, she said, the city council had invested considerable resources in its commitment to affordable housing, and the housing commission was responsible for around half of all affordable housing units in the city.

Taylor wondered what the structure of the housing commission was with respect to the city’s actual organization. Specifically, Taylor was interested in how the housing commission’s staff related to the city’s bargaining units. [In his presentation, Laycock had described how part of the reorganization plan entailed a recommendation to adopt a compensation policy that would put pay at 90% of the market midpoint.]

In responding to Taylor, Laycock clarified that housing commission staff were, in fact, city employees. As such, he said, every mandate for Ann Arbor city employees applies to them – with no independent ability to attach any funding to those mandates. The HUD program, which involves a federal department that relies on local authorities, which in turn provide oversight to additional entities, was characterized by Laycock as a prescription for confusion.

Taylor also picked up on a data point about Section 8 vouchers that emerged in the presentation: 70% of voucher recipients are non-Ann Arbor residents. Taylor wanted to know if the AAHC looked for funding from the communities where they do reside. The clarification was that HUD assigns areas of service to each authority and that the AAHC serves a three-county region.

Taylor also elicited the clarification that there is in some sense a “margin” of benefit provided by Section 8 to the public housing component of the AAHC. That is, funding for Section 8 administration helps cover costs associated with the public housing part of the AAHC.