Marcia Higgins « A2Politico: Ann Arbor Politics Grilled To Perfection

August 27, 2010

The Politics of Culture: Ann Arbor Launches the National Pilot Fish Fry Festival

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)

I like Constance Crump’s thoughtful writing. I particularly like writers who, with a simple question, can get me all tangled up in trying to figure out the answer. I first read Crump’s blog post a few days ago. Initially, I didn’t get hooked. Who cares if Austin has music, Sundance has film, Aspen has comedy and the Bay Area has, well, I don’t know how Crump zeroed in on the single festival she chose? Then, Connie Crump Cicked the ball through the uprights when she wrote, “Ann Arbor has football as our signature event, culture-vulture yearnings to the contrary…what brings most people here on a most consistent basis is football.”

Football is our signature event? Our. Signature. Event. Football is the signature event of the University of Michigan. To say football is our signature event is, well, some very co-dependent reasoning. It’s kind of like saying: My neighbor’s a doctor, so medicine is my forte. Before you slacker profs. employed to teach 9 hours per week, 8 months per year—when you’re not on sabbatical or spring break—get your leather briefcases in a bunch, I’ll make sure to give lip service and say what Crump didn’t. Graduation, not sports, is the signature event at colleges and universities. Allegedly.

Now, I’m going to let those of you who aren’t among the inside Scrabble players in higher education in on a dirty little secret: fewer and fewer colleges students are graduating. That’s right, after spending an average of $11,000 per year on tuition, room and board, close to half of America’s 18,000,000 undergraduate college students never reach the promised land. If you really want to ferret out a possible explanation for why Americans ages 15-24 read, on average, one book per year, or seven minutes per day, look at graduation rates. Then, consider student-athletes. At some schools, non-white athletes have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than earning an undergraduate degree. Before you feel smug, because, obviously, those colleges are all nestled in states that backed coach Jefferson Davis, hold on to your maize and blue butt-warmer. At the University of Michigan, 83 percent of students graduate, and on average, 73 percent of athletes do. A look at the school’s football program should sober you right up. In that program, 58 percent of the white student-athletes graduate, but just 38 percent of the black players do, according to data from Black Issues in Higher Education.

So it is a big deal that only 38 percent of black football players at U of M graduate? Hell yes it is. According to data from the 2000 Census, someone with a bachelor’s degree earns nearly $1 million more over his or her lifetime than a high school graduate. Census Bureau data show a college graduate can expect to earn $2.1 million working full-time between ages 25 and 64, which demographers call a typical work-life period. A master’s degree-holder is projected to earn $2.5 million, while someone with a professional degree, such as a doctor or lawyer, could make even more — $4.4 million. In contrast, a high school graduate can expect to make $1.2 million during the working years.

Could it be different? You bet. At Boise State University, 24 percent of students graduate, and 54 percent of student athletes graduate. In that school’s football program, 57 of black athletes graduate, and 47 percent of white football players do.

In the higher ed biz, that’s called the “graduation gap,” and excepting Boise State’s record, black student-athletes generally graduate less often than their white teammates. Every time the geeky editors The Chronicle of Higher Education or, (please, God, no) Black Issues in Education feel the need to kick-up some sand at the beach, they publish features about athlete graduation rates in higher education.

Those of you wearing your rose-colored glasses, and who are under the impression that many of the student-athletes who don’t graduate end up turning pro, here’s what The Christian Science Monitor has to say about that:

21% of Division I male athletes want to turn pro.

1% of college athletes go on to play at the professional level.

Football at the University of Michigan, Crump’s so-called “signature event” of Ann Arbor, is about exploitation and big money for the patricians who can afford the tickets, transportation, housing, and who make money off of the people who come to town for the football games, etc.., and not the Saturday afternoon gladiators who play the game. The next time you get invited by Dr. Coleman to one of her comfy lairs at the various stadia, where she hosts donors, politicos and other bigwigs like you, casually bring up the subject of graduation rates of the black athletes. Then run. Fast. Because the burly, yet erudite Deans of the School of Student-Athlete Tutoring will be chasing you. You see, U of M football generates piles of cash for the university and the town on the backs of oodles of black athletes, 62 percent of whom will never enjoy the lifetime earnings income boost an undergraduate degree provides. In her piece, Crump quotes Mary A. Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau: ”It [U of M football] brings in $80 million for eight home games a year. 60 percent (of people who attend) come from outside of Washtenaw County.”

So why doesn’t Ann Arbor have a nationally-recognized festival all its own? Partially, I think, it has to do with this mentality that the University of Michigan is us. And the fact that there are way too many politicos in office who would kill to get an invite to Coleman’s private viewing box, blaxploitation be damned. The University has never been us, and never will be. The University is the shark, circling, swimming, feeding, hunting for great land deals, like our parkland for U of M’s Fuller Road parking garage. Thus, Ann Arbor serves as a Pilot fish of a town, swimming into the shark’s mouth to clean the predator’s teeth. The Stadium bridges fiasco rests squarely on the shoulders of the current mayor and Council as they approved staff-generated Capital Improvement Plans that did not include the replacement of the crumbling bridge. When City Administrator Roger Fraser went to our university neighbor to ask if, perhaps, U of M could chip in on the Stadium Bridge replacement tab—after all tens of thousands visitors travel over the bridge on their way to football and basketball games—the answer was a resounding “No.” Pilot fish, you see, get little in return for their efforts. Pilot fish should be happy they don’t get eaten, right?

Outside Magazine did a feature recently about the 25 best cities to live in, and in Michigan the magazine editors chose Grand Rapids. The editors wrote: “Where do you end up when you want a community with incredible access to the outdoors, affordable homes, and solid jobs?” Here’s how they described GR:

Michigan’s second-largest city will surprise you. For starters, the regional economy is both more diverse and more robust than Detroit’s—and includes everything from furniture (Herman Miller and Steelcase) to health and beauty (Amway) to footwear (Wolverine Worldwide). Plus, despite the state’s overall woes and high unemployment, G.R. is, dare we say, thriving. In the past few years, it’s gained a riverfront luxury hotel, a medical school, and the world’s first LEED-certified museum. What’s more, the county recently set aside 1,500 acres for a downtown park, and Grand Rapids’ newly established ArtPrize competition—the largest art contest in the world by prize money—resulted in 1,200 works of public art on display throughout downtown.

Connie Crump recognizes that Grand Rapids hit gold with ArtPrize:

Sadly, Hash Bash and the Naked Mile compete with Tree Town athletics and arts events for regional and national attention. Thankfully, both are endangered or extinct. Plenty of other local festivals fill the calendar but none have taken the crown as ArtPrize has done for Grand Rapids. After only one year, ArtPrize has established an indelible community identity for the city.

Compare how GR put together its ArtPrize competition with how Ann Arbor launched its Percent for the Arts Program, and chose its first project and artist. About GR Crump writes, “Total community involvement was the key to success for ArtPrize in Grand Rapids last year, says the program’s executive director, Bill Holsinger-Robinson. Having a $250,000 first prize and a total $449,000 purse doesn’t hurt, either, he adds.” At just about the same time GR was putting together its ArtPrize competition, Ann Arbor was appointing a group of insiders to the Public Art Commission, people who would have no problem with a Task Force comprised of hand-picked Municipal Center “stakeholders,” recommending the first project be awarded to a German artist. The city’s web site explains away the hiring of the German artist this way:

Because the water-related project had to be designed in time to be incorporated into the basic infrastructure of the building, the Public Art Task Force decided to commission one artist to begin working on a design immediately. It recommended Herbert Dreiseitl.

Thus, Ann Arbor used a selection process that enraged local artists and shut out, rather than encouraged the participation of large numbers of artists and citizens. Meanwhile, Grand Rapids devised ArtPrize with a process that was described by the program’s executive director, Bill Holsinger-Robinson thusly, “A lot of what we did last year was based upon one-on-one outreach, really — and a lot of trying to stay out of the public’s way and (let them) determine how they were going to participate. Even though art was the focus of the event, the community played on the main stage. We make everything as accessible to participate in as many ways as possible.”

Grand Rapids is becoming a cutting edge community, and Ann Arbor is becoming Little Southfield, a bugie bedroom berg.

Yet, here in A2, our Pilot fish Mayor and Council act as though they could show those Grand Rapids Gramublicans a thing or two about how a cool, cutting edge city works. [Please note: Versions of this same clever strategy are currently being used to try to privatize Huron Hills Golf Course, and to dispose of public land next to the Library downtown.]

First, John Hieftje creates and hand picks a National Festival Task Force from among Hizzoner’s political pals, donors, present political appointees or, better still, his basketball buddies.

Next, Council quickly rubber stamps all of the appointments.

Second Ward Council member, Stephen Rapundalo, when running for re-election in 2011, will refer to the rubber-stamping of mayoral appointments as an example of “efficiency in city government” which he “spearheaded.” Ann Arbor CFO Tom Crawford will be quoted by Rapundalo as swearing to Zeus that rubber stamping board and commission appointments saves someone, anyone, everyone, really, $15 million dollars. Rapunds will boast (modestly) that the $15 million in savings is, well, “a conservative estimate. It’s probably more, like a brazilian million.” Fourth Ward Council member Marcia Higgins, in her campaign for re-election, will claim to have spearheaded the same rubber stamping initiative, and to have saved the same brazilian million dollars. For good measure, she’ll claim to be safeguarding the money by keeping it in her purse. Third Ward Councilman Steve Kunselman, in his bid for re-election in 2011, will rail ad infinitum against rubber stamping and promise to end it. Someday. Soon. Really. Fifth Ward Councilman, Mike Anglin, will present a resolution to end rubber stamping—only to lack a second. First Ward Council member Sabra Briere will explain in such a way that only the reporter from the AnnArborChronicle.com can understand, why she couldn’t second Anglin’s resolution to end rubber stamping of mayoral appointments. “I was possibly, probably, rarely in favor of Anglin’s proposal,” Briere will email later to confused constituents to whom she’d spoken in support of the resolution.

Next, the National Festival Task Force will meet monthly, and the city staff assigned to “help” the group will decide exactly what kind of festival Ann Arbor should have. This will be done without ever having to bother with a single public hearing. Yet evidence of more efficiency in government, Stephen Rapundalo/Marcia Higgins will claim on their campaign literature. CFO Crawford will tell the eager local press that public hearings cost the city exactly $15 million dollars per year, or at least he thinks they do. Could be more. Could be less. “I’m just not sure I understand the definition of the word ‘cost,’” Crawford will explain.

Then, once festival plans have been finalized, the National Festival Task Force will be replaced by the Ann Arbor National Festival Commission. (For an appointment to this commission, please see above and start practicing your jump shot or starting saving your money). A National Festival Administrator will be hired full-time, and the Administrator’s salary, benefits, private school tuition for up to three children, retirement, vacation, car and clothing allowances would be paid out of the Economic Development Fund, Water and Sewer Fund, with a dash of cash from the Fleet Fund.

Four years later, the Ann Arbor National Festival Commission will announce to a stunned public who’d forgotten there was a National Festival Commission, that the first annual Ann Arbor National Pilot Fish Fry Festival is scheduled to be held on Whitsuntide in the spacious party room at Arbor Brewing Company, with entertainment provided by the members of the Downtown Development Authority, who are renowned for their ability to tell stories, sing, dance and play jokes on taxpayers.

Connie Crump may wonder why Ann Arbor has no national festival to call its own, but in reality the answer is as plain as the fried Pilot fish on her plate.

Popularity: 13% [?]

Comments (7)

August 18, 2010

The Politics of Prying: Borders Gets Tight-Lipped

Filed under: economic development, money — Tags: A2Politico, AnnArbor.com, Bill Gates, Borders, FuckedCompany.com, John Hieftje, LiveJournal, Marcia Higgins, MediaBistro, Pud, Sergey Brin, Tony Dearing, UsedBookBlog — A2 Politico @ 8:00 am

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (8 votes cast)

Here’s a recent headline from AA.com: “How many people now work at Borders’ headquarters in Ann Arbor? Borders won’t say” Sigh. When you pry, or at least try to pry into the business of other companies, it’s good to be slightly more industrious. The piece reveals little about Borders. I always chuckle, of course, when AnnArbor.com makes big noise about other companies being tight-lipped about their businesses. In December of 2009, when a reporter from the radio show “Marketplace” asked for specifics from AnnArbor.com Kontent King Tony Dearing, she got stiff-armed. I wrote about it here, and Dearing subsequently shared the information with A2Politico he’d refused to give to “Marketplace.”

Of course, MediaBistro did an even worse job of prying about the Borders layoffs. The go-to media industry site provided a Cliff Notes version of the AnnArbor.com piece:

Today AnnArbor.com broke the news that Borders Group had cut more employees at the bookseller’s corporate headquarters in Michigan. A spokesperson declined to say how many people were laid off.

The company provided this statement: “we have made changes to our staffing levels so that the right people are in the right positions and that those positions are aligned with our strategic objectives.”

Earlier this month, we noted that Borders will cut another 100 workers in its distribution facility located in La Vergne, Tennessee. When asked about those cuts, the company provided the same statement.

At Borders, this latest round of lay-offs was, in fact the fifth round the bookseller made in 2010. This round came just seven days after the company made its fourth round of lay-offs. Prior to the most recent round of cutting, Borders employed some 650 employees at its Ann Arbor headquarters. On the UsedBookBlog, Borders employees, evidently, were slightly more forthcoming about the life-saving measures being implemented. One Borders employee writes:

From the front lines, those “strategic alternatives” included getting rid of managers and supervisors, eliminating the employee gift card of $25/mo. for full time employees, eliminating time and a half for all employees working holidays and the thing that is guaranteed to save their rosy butts — charging employees 35 cents for tea and coffee that had been previously free.

We have also been vigorously sending back music and book product to the vendors in order to get quick credit back at the expense of our empty bookshelves and music/DVD units …

… managers have been asked to cut back on supply ordering, and necessary repairs are not being completed.

My brother works for Borders and he said that they have just cut out the employee of the month program (probably because there was a $25 gift card given to the recipient).

I guess if I’d implemented a money-saving strategy that included getting rid of the employee of the month program, I’d be pretty tight-lipped, as well, because I’d be terrified shareholders would roll their eyes and laugh at my incredibly short-sighted business decision. After all, tending to employee morale is so passé. Everyone knows preventative medicine is for managerial pantywaists such as Sergey Brin and Bill Gates.

Well, all of this makes me miss Pud, who oversaw FuckedCompany.com. The site was a dot-com dead pool, but posts from employees fired from all kinds of companies shedding dead, live and other employee weight, popped up with regularity. There’s no one quite as willing to share information as a recently sacked employee, particularly low- to- mid-level employees.

Over at LiveJournal, a site where Borders employees shoot the breeze about their employer’s financial viability (a sort of micro-FuckedCompany), there is an entry dated August 12th in which the poster writes “About 55 people were laid off yesterday….If your not actively applying for a different job at a different company, let me be the first to tell you; your sucking a life. Everyone working at Borders needs to be actively searching for another job.” Another LiveJournal poster writes: “I urge everybody to actually read the quarterly statement when it comes out (on Sep 1st I believe). It doesn’t take much Googling to get copies of past years and compare them. There’s a LOT of information if you know how to read between the lines and translate the corporate speak into what it really means.”

Having company headquarters in a town provides politicos with bragging rights and photo opps—of which the current bunch in office avail themselves liberally. When Borders celebrated the grand opening of its first nationwide concept store in the Waters Place shopping center, Hizzoner was on hand for the festivities and ribbon-cutting. Now that Borders is in a death spiral, it’s likely the only dismissed Borders employee to receive Hieftje’s sympathies was, perhaps, Fourth Ward Council member Marcia Higgins, who was among the many people the company has let go in its many rounds of lay-offs.

So should we care that Borders, Google, AnnArbor.com and other companies that do business is our town get light-lipped when the going gets tough, revenue projections and employee head counts fall short? Absolutely. Pfizer’s departure was blamed by every incumbent who was recently re-elected for the disaster that is Ann Arbor’s slash-and-burn budget. That voters couldn’t figure out losing a paltry 4.68 percent of property tax revenues couldn’t possibly explain the desire to privatize Huron Hills Golf course, cut police and fire staffing, boggles the mind. Then again, a recent New York Times piece about the economy of Italy placed the blame for the disaster that is Italy’s debt-ridden, anemic, stagnant economy on the fact that primarily older voters in Italy go to the polls—people loathe to see the status quo disturbed. Couple cronyism, local politicos willing to tell whoppers, and invent whatever they need to invent to keep up appearances for the old folks and, as one CPA told me, we have a city that will be insolvent in five years unless things change drastically. Borders, you see, is not the only tight-lipped organization in an economic death spiral. Thus, the advice from the Borders employee who counseled colleagues to study the company’s financial statements, and to be making plans to relocate seems startlingly prescient and apt.

A member of the Ann Arbor Parks Advisory Commission (PAC) with a wicked sense of humor and a wonderful sense of the absurd put it to me this way: Ann Arbor politics is controlled by the canes and walkers, ex-hippies who think the city should be encased in lucite for the benefit of said canes and walkers. It was an astute observation. A look at the rolls of regular voters in Ann Arbor, and you will see that the list is dominated by Boomers, as well as canes and walkers. Around 10 percent of registered voters decided local elections this past August.

Don’t expect AnnArbor.com to pry about city finances any time soon. In July, the company passed the one-year mark necessary to have official announcements printed in the pages of its newspaper. AnnArbor.com, I predict, will soon get a boatload of new advertising from the City of Ann Arbor, and while editorial departments at papers of record such as the Washington Post and New York Times fight for editorial independence from advertising concerns, it’s quite clear that no such struggle goes on at AnnArbor.com. Otherwise, instead of headlines like “How many people work at Borders?” we’d have investigations into the financial malarky presented as the Gospel truth by local politicos, and city staff—starting with CFO Tom Crawford’s fabrication that the now over-budget Police-Court Tin Can would cost exactly $44.7 million dollars.

Popularity: 17% [?]

Comments (0)

May 18, 2010

The Politics of Responsibility: Taking Credit For Everything and Responsibility For Nothing

Filed under: infrastructure, money — Tags: Ann Arbor Chamber of Commerce, Ann Arbor SPARK, LDFA, Marcia Higgins, Margie Teall, Representative John Dingell — A2 Politico @ 12:14 pm

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (8 votes cast)

Last Friday afternoon, I went to a Meet the Candidate event sponsored by the Ann Arbor Chamber of Commerce. There were Chamber members from Ann Arbor, the surrounding townships and cities, as well as national, state and local candidates for office. I had a chance to meet numerous owners of small and medium-sized businesses who not only understand what “responsible spending” means, but who practice it in their own businesses. Yeah, there were lots of Republicans at the event, but you know what? They pay taxes, too, and own businesses. A business in Ann Arbor that provides an individual or a family with an income is an asset to our community. Since 2005, Ann Arbor has seen almost 10 percent of its jobs disappear, and the total number of unemployed residents jump from 8,000 to 16,000 individuals. Despite frittering away millions of tax dollars on economic development boondoggles such as the LDFA and Ann Arbor SPARK, our city’s residents have significantly fewer job opportunities. On the up side, lots of local politicos and business big wigs have board positions to list on their campaign web sites and professional résumés.

We can’t expect our elected officials to be responsible for the jobs lost in Ann Arbor, can we? Of course we can. And should. Our elected officials willingly push their way to the front during photo shoots done by the local press, and take credit for construction jobs created by building the new Police-Court Building and the Library lot parking garage. Heck, the Mayor and Representative Dingell went hat in hand to the federal government for TIGER grant money to rebuild our Stadium Bridges by touting the number of jobs the work would create—an incredible 448 (TIGER grants are made to shovel ready projects that preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery). 448 jobs in one fell swoop of federal funding for the project. That’s more jobs than have been created in Ann Arbor over the past three years.

I believe we have every reason to expect elected officials to take responsibility for the overall economic health and vitality of our city—or lack thereof. However, that’s not how politics is currently played in our city.

We have politicos who take credit for everything and take responsibility for nothing.

Take the Stadium Bridges. Please.

When I met with Representative John Dingell a few weeks ago, and we spoke about the Stadium Bridges, I made clear my opinion the current state of disrepair of those bridges was in no way his political responsibility. That wet, hot, infrastructural mess has been simmering on the back burner of every local politico and the responsible city staff since 2006. Mr. Dingell was recently quoted in the Press as describing the state the bridges have been allowed to deteriorate by our city staff and local elected officials as “miserable” and “disastrous.” Be that as it may, it was recently reported that Mr. Dingell helped bring the U.S. Deputy Secretary of Transportation to Ann Arbor for a political dog and pony show. All that was missing were the tasty treats one gives to performing politicos.

The whole gang was there for the photo shoot with the U.S. Deputy Secretary of Transportation: Mayor Hieftje, Representative Dingell, Fourth Ward Council members Margie Teall and Marcia Higgins. State Street was closed for the photo shoot, and in the end what Ann Arbor politicos got out of the Washington politico was, well, lots of tea and sympathy. It’s all they deserved.

Now that it’s election season, the Stadium Bridges have become a national emergency, literally. In reality, what we have here is a political mess so toxic that our local officials are willing to stretch the truth to get federal funding for the project. To begin, Ann Arbor lost out on the first round of federal TIGER grant funding because though the City Council and Mayor voted in 2006 to spend $1.5 million dollars on the design of a replacement bridge, the design wasn’t completed in 2006 by the company given the money. So, the project missed the first round of federal funding because, literally, no one followed through and checked on the work of the contractor hired to produce the design. Then, Ann Arbor missed out on a $750,000 grant that could have been used to repair the bridge because Marcia Higgins and Margie Teall never appointed a citizen committee necessary to the application process.

The Mayor works. He has been working on funding the bridge for five years. He was quoted in the press as saying he’s been working on a PILOT program to negotiate voluntary payments in lieu property taxes from the University of Michigan for years. He’s been working to negotiate a deal with DTE so our city’s windmills and solar panels to nowhere can be hooked into the power grid. Our elected officials have been fixing on fixing the roads since George W. Bush was president. Well, we have a Roads Millage Fund that is a fat $19 million dollars, a supplemental road millage that brings in $9 million dollars per year, and roads that will loosen your fillings, dent your tire rims and, generally, make driving from one side of town to the other reminiscent of life as a 19th century settler. Ann Arbor has recreated the long lost era of corduroy roads. We also have a falling down bridge that our fire trucks can’t drive across.

Interestingly, the latest TIGER grant application states that Ann Arbor needs that money in part because there are two fire stations within a short distance of the bridge. Don’t tell the Deputy Secretary of Transportation, or your Burns Park friends, but Fire Station Number 2, on Packard and Stadium, has been closed since 2003. It’s a furniture store house now. Stretching the truth to get federal grant dollars, I would imagine, is de rigeur in some cities, but it shouldn’t be in ours.

Now, we’re being told: “Communities don’t finance projects like the Stadium Bridges on their own. I don’t know of another instance when it happened,” Hieftje said. “We’ve been after those funds for quite some time, but we’re very hopeful now. You can’t do much more than bring the deputy secretary of transportation to town along with the congressman….and we just think it’s something we can make happen.”

It’s the Think Method of bridge repair and road reconstruction. Professor Harold Hill perfected that over in River City, Iowa. Think, Men. Think.

Think about this: The city of San Francisco financed and built the Golden Gate Bridge in 1937, in the midst of a Great Recession. How’d they do it? They floated bonds. Here’s something else for you to think about: why have our elected officials been trying to get financing to repair the Stadium Bridges for five years? Why didn’t they simply float bonds in 2006 as opposed to keeping things quiet about the state of the bridge’s failing beams, then being forced to close a portion of the artery that runs over State Street? Why didn’t they float $22 million in bonds to rebuild the bridge instead of floating bonds to build a new Police-Court building? Why didn’t they float bonds to fix the Stadium Bridges instead of borrowing $56 million dollars to build an underground parking garage we don’t need next to the Fifth Avenue library downtown? Why didn’t they repair the bridge instead of borrowing $30 million dollars to build the Wheeler Center, to house city trucks, some of which are now unable to cross the Stadium Bridges safety?

Contrary to what our politicos would have us believe, competent city leaders all over the United States maintain their roads and repair their bridges from their own city funds, and, when necessary, they float bonds to finance large ticket bridge repairs and replacements. Thanks to a long-term public policy that has put shiny new buildings before road repair/maintenance, and city services, the amount we pay to service long-term debt rose from $934,000 in 2005 to $10 million dollars per year in 2010. Debt service on $10-$15 million dollars in bonds to pay for the Stadium Bridges project would be around $800,000-$1,000,000 per year, or about 1.0-1.3 percent (tip o’ the keyboard to Jim Rees) of the $77 million dollar General Fund.

So why the dog and pony show with the press, Congressman, local politicos and the Deputy Secretary of Transportation? Why include the Ann Arbor taxpayers in the ridiculous French farce of pretending that our bridge can’t be repaired without welfare from the American taxpayers? Why blame the United States Congress for not fishing our local infrastructural fannies out of a fire we kindled all by ourselves and watched burn? At the Chamber of Commerce event last Friday, an official running for state office suggested to me that the current elected officials in Ann Arbor have such unmitigated contempt for the citizenry, that our local politicos didn’t believe they needed to repair the bridge in any big hurry. So, they missed deadlines for grants, gave the bridge design company $1.5 million, and never got a design in return, neglected to appoint citizen committees, and blamed everything on the dearth of federal funding, and a $450,000 dollar annual decrease in state revenue sharing.

Why not? If people will believe the current budget crisis is the result of losing “state revenue sharing,” and the loss of less than $2 million in tax revenue from Pfizer, why shouldn’t our politicos be confident that the public will believe them when they fib and say that “communities don’t fund projects like the Stadium Bridges?” It’s a beautiful lie.

So where’s the University of Michigan on all of this? Refusing to partner with the city because, spokesman James Kosteva pointed out to the press who asked, U of M is busy spending $500,000 to restructure one of our city roads that abuts their campus to suit themselves and their own needs.

The ugly truth is that we need to float bonds to rebuild the bridge, and use our Road Millage Fund money to repair the 187 miles of roads in our city the state classified as in “poor” condition—the third worst roads in Michigan.

How do we make the bond payments?

In the 2010-2011 budget City Council voted to give the IT department additional millions for new electronic toys, and the Fleet Department additional millions for new vehicles. Over the past four years, the IT budget has doubled to almost $7 million dollars per year. IT charges are being used as a tool to skim millions, via inflated IT charges, from other city departments. The IT Department, not surprisingly has a fund surplus of $4 million dollars. Fleet has a fund surplus that has been built up, using a similar scheme of inflating charges, of $7.5 million dollars. Our city has $102,000,000 million in unrestricted surplus tax dollars sitting in the funds of various city departments.

By cutting over-allocations in the city’s budget that allow department to accumulate such large unrestricted surpluses, we would have the money needed for payments on bonds to fix the Stadium Bridges—and then some. Better yet, Council could vote to halt the underground parking garage project and repurpose a portion of those bonds to fix the Stadium Bridges. SEC officials have said the garage bonds may be legally repurposed for use on any capital improvement project in the city. I wrote about a plan to do that, here.

President Obama’s administration has said no to Ann Arbor for federal money to build a new train station on Fuller Road, no to Ann Arbor for federal money for the financially unsound commuter train boondoggle, and no to Ann Arbor for federal money for the Stadium Bridges. The Stadium Bridges are falling down and yet we are still told by the current politicos up for re-election: “You can’t do much more than bring the deputy secretary of transportation to town along with the congressman.” Well, that, and submit an application for federal funding peppered with little white lies.

Maybe bringing the deputy secretary to town along with the congressman is all the current politicos can do. I’m ready and prepared to do much, much more than close traffic on State Street and stand under the Stadium Bridges in a hard hat to get my picture taken with Representative Dingell, Margie Teall and some sympathetic fellow from Washington, D.C. who won’t be the one who chooses which of the only 12 TIGER grant applications will get approved by an administration that seems to be sending a clear message that “free” money in the form of federal funding for our various projects (pie-in-the-sky and otherwise) won’t be forthcoming anytime soon.

Popularity: 57% [?]

Comments (20)

May 4, 2010

The Politics of Rescue Heroes: What in the Billy Blazes Is Going On?

Filed under: campaigns, elections, money, politicians, politics — Tags: Avalon Housing, Downtown Development Authority, Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County, Jamie Adkins, Julie Steiner, Katie Doyle, Marcia Higgins, Margie Teall, Michael Appel, Ozone House — A2 Politico @ 5:49 pm

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (7 votes cast)

On April 30th, I predicted the future. I wish I had the same luck with lotto numbers. I think the state jackpot is somewhere around $266 million dollars, and like everyone else out there, $266 million minus taxes could come in pretty handy right about now as my kids close quickly in on the ages where we need to start saving for university. So how did I predict the future with pinpoint accurately? Actually, it wasn’t too tough, and it was a clear-cut case of much of what is dysfunctional in our city government at the moment being played out on the big stage for the general public who care enough to watch on CTN, or read on AnnArbor.com.

At the May 3rd City Council meeting, several “changes” to the proposed 2010-2011 budget were announced. One major “change” was thanks to a $2 million dollar quick fix of cash from the Downtown Development Authority’s coffers. I sat in Council chambers and listened as the incumbent announced that he hoped to “greatly minimize” layoffs in police and fire. He added that the “budget…will be quite remarkable in the state of Michigan when we look at so many cities with tax increases on the ballot and so many cities that are facing very deep cuts and layoffs.”

So, we’ll lose only 10 police and 10 firefighters instead of 20 each, and we’ll see politicos stumping for re-election claiming to have “saved” jobs.

Malarky.

Police officer Jamie Adkins explained to City Council on Monday night exactly why playing politics with safety services is like playing with fire. Our city has lost close to half of its police officers and half of its firefighters since 2003. At any given time, there are six-twelve police officers on patrol and just 17 firefighters staffing our five stations. Just so you understand what that means, it takes 17 firefighters to suppress one fire. In a town with a major research university and 45,000 residences, what do you think the chances are that there might be two fires simultaneously? If there were two fires called in, the awful truth is that one of houses would burn while the first fire was being handled. Our firefighters respond to auto wrecks, and emergencies involving hazardous materials, as well. In 2003, before there was the misguided notion that “streamlining” fire and police would be a great way to save a buck, our emergency service departments could handle three emergencies at once.

So, right now, if my house and your house burn, and I call my fire in first, you should call the Mayor and your two City Council members to come over and help with your own bucket brigade, because that’s all you’re going to have until any mutual aid might arrive. I say might, because if the firefighters from the three small surrounding communities with which we are trying to hammer out a mutual aid agreement are busy, they can’t offer any support to Ann Arbor. In fact, only three communities (Ann Arbor Township, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township) would consider participating in our City Administrator’s grand scheme of mutual aid. Several city administrators from surrounding communities turned Ann Arbor down flat: they left a meeting scheduled for two hours after just 20 minutes, and refused to subsidize our safety services at the same time our Mayor and Council were balancing the budget by eliminating police and fire.

At the May 3rd Council meeting, I sat in chambers and watched my predictions come true. Fourth Ward Council member Margie Teall (up for re-election) announced that she and her colleague Marcia Higgins had come up with a plan to save the residents in the Frisinger/Allmendinger Park neighborhood from the indignity of Saturday football parking, proposed in the 2010-2011 budget to raise less than $40K in revenue. Mayor Hieftje then announced that he hoped to “greatly minimize” police and fire layoffs.

Then came the most touching display of pandering I’ve seen in quite some time. Councilmember Teall announced that she and the Mayor had a plan to to bring forward an amendment on May 17 to maintain funding for human services at 2010 budget levels. In essence, they were announcing a zero percent increase in the funding. What item better to be “rescued” than Human Services funding? Margie Teall even threw out a bone to the other Council members up for re-election when she said that she hoped “other Council members would support her proposed amendments to the 2010-2011 budget.” It was a touching display of political gamesmanship, and a perfect example of how much time, citizen effort and energy is wasted so City Council members can have bullet points for their political résumés.

I was truly offended, but not the least bit surprised. Every budget cycle, there are high profile items put on the chopping block in private Budget Committee meetings for certain Council members up for re-election to “rescue.” In the 2010-2011 budget, it was the Burns Parks Senior Center (Christopher Taylor), Mack Pool (Carsten Hohnke), police, fire and human service funding (Hieftje/Teall), and protecting Allmendinger Park (Teall).

There were police and firefighters present at the Council meeting to plead for funding to keep our city and its citizens safe. There were leaders of several local nonprofit agencies at the meeting Monday night, begging the council not to make cuts to human services.

So Julie Steiner from the Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County took an evening off of her work helping homeless families to remind City Council members that the families served by her agency need, well, help. Ironically, I had earlier in the day helped the folks at Alpha House plan their veggie garden (I built them a raised bed garden the year before as a part of a project sponsored by our synagogue). Katie Doyle from Ozone House took an evening off of her working with homeless youths and runaways to remind Mayor and Council that, well, young people served by her agency need help.

Michael Appel of Avalon Housing was there pleading for human services funding, as well. During 2010, Avalon has enjoyed a taxpayer-funded $500,000 from the DDA for Avalon’s Near North Development, as well as a two year property tax abatement on all of its properties—a resolution presented to Council without a dollar amount so that Council members would actually know how much of the taxpayers’ money Avalon was being given in abatements.

You know who was absent? Representatives from U of M begging for the $10 million dollars for the Fuller Road parking garage. I didn’t see a single person from the city’s IT department there to plead for that department’s increased allocation, or a single representative from the fleet department pitching the case for the extra couple of million that department was allocated in the 2010-2011 budget. There was no one there to bow and scrape for money set aside for the so-called Economic Development Fund. No. IT, the Fuller Road parking garage boondoggle, and the Economic Development Fund allocations are not going to be cut.

I have an idea: let’s get Council focused on the multi-million dollar budget items, like city employee pension and health care costs, as opposed to spending endless hours playing Rescue Heroes so they can have something to put on their campaign web sites and campaign literature. It was Thomas Edison who said that invention was 10 percent inspiration and 90 percent perspiration. Inventing crises to resolve, and budget items to “save,” wastes 100 percent of the public’s time and money.

Popularity: 49% [?]

Comments (9)

March 7, 2010

The Politics of Negotiating: You Never Get What You Deserve

Filed under: city council, city services, fire, police, unions — Tags: Administration and Labor Committee, Budget and Labor Committee, Carsten Hohnke, Christopher Taylor, Ed Pierce, firefighters, Jerry Jernigan, Lou Belcher, Marcia Higgins, Margie Teall, Mayor Al Wheeler, Mayor John Hieftje, Nicholas Nightwine, police, Sandi Smith, Stephen Rapundalo, Tony Derezinski — A2 Politico @ 6:50 am

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)

The following was posted to AnnArbor.com on February 28, 2010:

City officials say it’s been a challenge getting the needed concessions from labor unions, specifically with the police and firefighters unions, whose members enjoy premium-free health insurance.

“We are still struggling with labor contracts that were heavily one-sided that were decided back in the ’70s and ’80s,” said Mayor John Hieftje. “We’ve been working very hard to try to do more. Employees are contributing more to their health benefits, but not nearly what they need to be.”

So, the current serious problems between the current City Council, Mayor and City Administrator and our unions are really the responsibility of Mayor Al Wheeler—D (1975-1978), Lou Belcher—R (1978-1985), Ed Pierce—D (1985-1987) and last but certainly not least, Jerry Jernigan—R (1987-1991)?

Bollocks.

Fantasies come in all shapes and sizes, and some are more elaborate than others. Mayor Hieftje’s latest fantasy is that our city “is still struggling with labor contracts that were heavily one-sided that were decided back in the ’70s and ’80s” and that he’s been “working very hard to try to do more.”

Let’s make something very clear: The longest serving members of Council, Mayor Hieftje, Fourth Ward’s Marcia Higgins and Margie Teall, along with Ward Two’s Stephen Rapundalo, have among them a collective 30+ years sitting on the former City Council Budget and Labor Committee. In case you’re wondering, that’s the committee that, until this year, oversaw negotiations with the city’s unions. Oh, those elected officials didn’t position themselves across from the union representatives and hammer out agreements. That’s the responsibility of the City Administrator. So, naturally, he relies on a lawyer to do the actual negotiating. A lawyer from the City Attorney’s office? Nope. Ann Arbor’s Mayor and City Council have approved hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past decade to hire consultants to negotiate with the unionized employees.

We’ve certainly gotten what we paid for, if the Mayor is to be believed: one-sided labor agreements. You know why? For starters, until recently the city’s labor union PACs could be counted on for political donations. In summer of 2008, First Ward’s Sandi Smith, Second Ward’s Tony Derezinski, Third Ward’s Christopher Taylor and Fifth Ward’s Carsten Hohnke, all put their hands out and took, collectively, thousands from the firefighter’s PAC. Taking money from a local union group with which you’re expected to negotiate and vote on contracts is a conflict of interest. The donations were perfectly legal, mind you. However, the Council members should have exercised better judgement, propriety and common sense.

The other reason that we’ve ended up with one-sided labor agreements is that the Mayor, City Council, the City Administrator and the contractors hired to “negotiate” our union labor agreements have negotiated one-sided contracts, and voted to approve one-sided contracts. This comes from a piece about the city’s union woe’s posted to AnnArbor.com on February 28, 2010:

AFSCME President Nicholas Nightwine, who heads up the city’s largest labor union, acknowledged his bargaining unit historically has shared little of the cost of health benefits. For instance, AFSCME employees never paid deductibles for their health insurance until their last contract—and they still don’t pay premiums.

“But when we negotiate a contract, both sides sign off on the agreement,” Nightwine said. “So the city has not given us anything that they have not signed off on giving us. We don’t make our own wages or benefits.”

Nightwine is absolutely right: it’s a well-established rule in business that you never get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate, and our city’s unions have negotiated our City Administrator, Mayor, City Council, and their highly-paid hired negotiating guns right under the bargaining table. In turn, the results of those “negotiations” have been approved by the City Council’s Budget and Labor Committee members above, then by the other City Council members.

At any time in the process, any of our elected officials could have spoken up and asked why the contracts on which they were voting to approve allowed AFSCME employees to skip making contributions to their health care premiums. Of course, that would’ve required studying the contracts to understand them. It might take a law degree to write a labor contract, but it doesn’t take a law degree to read and understand a labor contract. It takes a command of English, patience, and the ability to use a table of contents to get to the juicy parts, such as wages and benefits.

Yes, it would have caused a ruckus to have pointed out problems in the proposed final versions of the contracts brought to Council for approval, and it certainly would have left the City Administrator red-faced, but what’s more important than negotiating an equitable contract on behalf of the taxpayers? For some, it’s more important to try to sell the public a bill of goods that the problem with union contracts reaches back to the days of platform shoes, Casey and the Sunshine Band, and President Ford.

Is the cause of the city’s financial mess the result of the pay and benefit packages of some current unionized employees? No, of course not. Overhead unrelated to those salaries and benefits has risen 35 percent ($34 million dollars) since 2006. Annual debt payments have ballooned from $950,000 per year in 2005 to $3.9 million dollars per year in 2010.

Are the city’s unionized employees a bunch of spoiled brats with outsized pay and benefit packages? As someone with extensive experience analyzing labor agreements for both employers and employees, I can tell you the responsibility for the final version of any contract between our city and its unions rests with Mayor, Council and the City Administrator. Nick Nightwine is absolutely right that AFSCME doesn’t make its own wages and benefits. The union negotiated them. AFSCME officials negotiated the pants off of Marcia Higgins, Margie Teall, Mayor Hieftje, Stephen Rapundalo and Roger Fraser. Not a single other Council member over the past decade has been willing to say that the members of the City Council’s Budget and Labor Committee had no clothes.

The Budget and Labor Committee was recently split into two entities. Mayor Hieftje took himself off the Budget Committee, but remains a member of the newly created Administration and Labor Committee, along with Tony Derezinski, Marcia Higgins, Margie Teall and Stephen Rapundalo. And now we have the absurd assertion from the five of them that they have “been trying to do more” to bring down costs of unionized labor. Four of them couldn’t do it as long-time members on the Budget and Labor Committee, and Council member Derezinski has the worst attendance record of any member of City Council; he can’t be counted on to show up to meetings, or important votes.

The firefighters recently gave voluntary salary concessions, and then woke up to read in the newspapers that the deal was for six months, and that there are still layoffs planned to close the ever-present “budget gap.” Negotiating in bad faith, and with more hubris than verifiable factual data, will do little than destroy any hope of working with our city’s organized labor. I expect the City Administrator and current lot of Council members to have little luck winning voluntary concessions from any of the city’s other unions.

Why should we care if our unionized employees are utterly disgruntled? The Dickensian model of employee management went out with the Triangle Factory Fire, and management science studies from the 1920s that first definitely linked employee morale with productivity. Put simply, low employee morale costs our city millions every year in decreased productivity. The damaged relationships with our unionized employees cost additional millions, because those employees are disinclined to give salary and benefit concessions voluntarily, or to open their contracts in times of serious and real fiscal emergency.

Since 2003, (with the exception of 2009) city staff has sent budgets to Mayor and Council, and our elected officials have approved budgets year after year which have had projected inflated deficits in the General Fund. When the actual numbers came in, there were General Fund surpluses. The inconceivable consistency in miscalculating General Fund revenues aside, unionized employees are asked to rely on this data during negotiations. It should come as no surprise that they are increasingly disinclined to do, and suspect they are being deliberately fed inaccurate financial information.

There is binding arbitration in the case of police and fire union negotiation impasses, but in reality Act 312 is a dangerous spin of the Roulette Wheel for any Michigan city. Act 312 does not allow the units to strike. Instead, there is a legally-mandated arbitration procedure. In 2009, Ann Arbor’s patrol officers union went to binding arbitration and won $673,000 in pay raises.

So what’s the solution? It’s going to take some significant changes in how our city approaches labor negotiations. It’s going to take hard work to repair the severe damage done to the relationships between Ann Arbor and its labor unions. On the up side, there’s a pretty simple formula to ending up with equitable union contracts: first, City Council members must make sure that the City Administrator negotiates equitable labor agreements, then Council members will have to read the agreements carefully before voting in favor of them.

Instead of doing the Hustle, it’s time for elected officials and city staff to take responsibility for the labor agreements they negotiated then voted in favor of supporting.

Popularity: 35% [?]

Comments (3)

February 15, 2010

The Politics of Grandstanding: The Three Percent Solution Resolution

Filed under: city council, money, politics — Tags: Budget and Labor Committee, Marcia Higgins, Margie Teall, Mayor Hieftje, Mike Anglin, Roger Fraser, Stephen Kunselman, Stephen Postema, Stephen Rapundalo — A2 Politico @ 3:30 pm

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)

Between 2004 and 2009, Fourth Ward Council member Marcia Higgins, Mayor Hieftje, Fourth Ward Council member Margie Teall, and Second Ward’s Stephen Rapundalo voted, as Chair and members, respectively, of the City Council’s Budget and Labor Committee to give City Administrator Roger Fraser the following salary increases, lump sum payments and cash-outs:

In December 2004, Fraser received a 3 percent raise of his $133,000 salary retroactive to July 2004. ($3,990)

In December 2005, he received a 3 percent raise retroactive to July 2005 and 10 extra vacation days, which can be exchanged for cash. ($4,109)

In February 2007, he received a one-time payment of $8,479, plus a life insurance policy worth twice his salary.

In November 2007, the City Council approved a lump sum payment of $4,361 and five extra vacation days.

In October 2008, the council approved giving Fraser another lump sum payment of $3,634 and the ability to cash out 150 hours of vacation, sick or personal time.

This past November 2009, Fraser’s contract was revised again to include a clause that allows him to cash out an additional 120 hours of paid time off before June 30, 2010.

Since 2004, Council members Higgins and Rapundalo have voted to raise Mr. Fraser’s salary by $8,099 dollars, and given him lump sum payments equal to $16,744 dollars. That’s a total of $24,843 in cash. They then added the option for Mr. Fraser to cash-out 275 hours (6.8 weeks) of paid vacation, sick and personal time, worth over $18,800. In total, then, Mayor Hieftje and Council members Teall, Higgins and Rapundalo voted to give our City Administrator raises, lump sum payments and cash-outs equal to $43,643. This amounts to a 35 percent increase in his initial $133,000 salary. Ironically, this is exactly the same percentage that overhead has grown in our city’s budget since 2006. In my experience, outside of Wall Street, an employee under whose management overhead costs increase by 35 percent ($34 million dollars) does not get rewarded with a pay package increase equal to 35 percent of her/his starting base salary.

Council members Rapundalo and Higgins are now co-sponsoring a resolution that, according to a piece posted to AnnArbor.com, “…asks that the base salary of both Fraser and City Attorney Stephen Postema be reduced by 3 percent, starting July 1. It also asks that the base salaries of all other non-union employees be reduced by 3 percent.” A draft of the resolution also asks that the remaining two council members who did not voluntarily reduce their own pay by three percent this year do so—Fifth Ward’s Mike Anglin, and third Ward’s Stephen Kunselman.

On the surface, their resolution appears sensible and equitable, even responsible. However, upon closer scrutiny it is quite the opposite. It is neither a resolution worth supporting, nor a resolution that treats the city’s 765 employees equitably. The proposed three percent reduction in Mr. Fraser’s salary leaves him with a net 32 percent increase in his pay since 2004. Further the Higgins-Rapundalo resolution links their proposed three percent reduction to the proposal that all of the city’s non-unionized employees to accept a lifetime three percent pay reduction. The Higgins-Rapundalo resolution penalizes the lowest paid city employees and protects pay gains given to the highest paid city employees over the course of the past five years.

Council members Higgins and Rapundalo agreed to a voluntary three percent pay reduction. However, Council members Higgins and Rapundalo would do well to remember that they were caught via FOIAed emails published in a piece in the Ann Arbor News rigging the vote for the three percent pay raise they voted to accept in 2007. Mayor Hieftje and Council would do well to remember that their voluntary pay cut is, in essence, a one-time give back. The give back being asked of current unionized, as well as non-unionized employees is for the rest of their tenure as employees of the City of Ann Arbor.

It’s time to stop political grandstanding that accomplishes little than further angering already demoralized city staff and union members. It’s time to get down to the hard work of rolling back the $34 million dollars in overhead increases that Council members Higgins and Rapundalo allowed to slip past them unquestioned, over the past four years. Council needs to direct the City Administrator and CFO to devise a plan to reduce staffing costs that is truly equitable and reflects a commitment to tie compensation directly to performance and the fiscal health of the City.

The current Higgins-Rapundalo proposed resolution reflects precious little understanding of pay equity, and sends the message that our City Council cares little about the lowest paid city employees, and instead intends to protect tens of thousands of dollars in raises they’ve awarded to those highest paid city managers.

It’s good politics and terribly regressive leadership. In short, once again, it’s business as usual.

Popularity: 29% [?]

Comments (5)

February 4, 2010

The Politics of Financial Football: Throwing The Hail Mary Pass in the First Quarter

Filed under: campaigns, money — Tags: AnnArbor.com, Christopher Taylor, Leigh Greden, Marcia Higgins, Mayor Hieftje, Mike Anglin, Roger Fraser, Sabra Briere, Stephen Rapundalo, Steve Kunselman, Tom Crawford — A2 Politico @ 11:55 am

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)

On February 2, 2010, the day I declared to run for mayor, AnnArbor.com posted this piece: “Roger Fraser tells Ann Arbor City Council to set aside politics to make budget decisions.” The City Administrator is quoted in the piece as saying to Mayor and Council:

“I understand that these are politically difficult things to talk about,” Fraser said. “I understand that we have elections every year. I understand that six of you are up for election this year. But I also understand that we’ve got some major issues that need to be resolved in terms of our budget, and something’s got to give.”

Well, yes. Something’s got to give. Rather, someone’s got to give: the taxpayer. Roger Fraser is pushing to have Council members put a city income tax on the ballot. At the January 19, 2010 Budget Committee meeting, Fraser suggested to the members of the Committee, First Ward’s Sabra Briere, Fifth Ward’s Mike Anglin, Second Ward’s Stephen Rapundalo, Fourth Ward’s Marcia Higgins and Third Ward’s Christopher Taylor, that they had an obligation to float the question of a city income tax.

The Mayor, in attendance, thus making the meeting a quorum, and subject to Open Meetings Act requirements, had this interesting tidbit to add. Whether the question was floated on the August primary ballot or on the November general election ballot would have little impact on how soon any city income tax could be implemented. Well, yes. That’s true. However, we know that in Ann Arbor, mayor and council races are decided in August, in the primary, not in the November general election.

Former Third Ward council member Leigh Greden, who ran opposed, and Second Ward’s Stephen Rapundalo who ran unopposed, tempted the tax gods by coming out in favor of a city income tax during the 2009 primary season. This video comes from AnnArbor.com, and was shot before the August 4, 2009 primary. Note that Roger Fraser says there are 75,000 people who commute into Ann Arbor daily. On January 31, 2010, the Mayor was quoted in AnnArbor.com as saying, “…Ann Arbor has an estimated 70,000 daily commuters.” These numbers come from the July 2009 Plante Moran Income Tx Feasibility Study. In that study, on page 26, the authors document that there are 20,000 commuters who come to work at U of M. The study then concludes there are 54,000 additional people who commute into the City. There is, however, no source for where that number comes from. Furthermore, the study concludes between 2011 and 2015, Ann Arbor will add 4,000 jobs for people to commute to. Between 2006 and 2009, Ann Arbor added a total of 600 jobs.

Roger Fraser estimates that a city income tax could “could raise $7.6 million a year in additional revenue for the city,” according to AnnArbor.com. Of course, there was a July 2009 study to support the idea of putting a city income tax to a vote. In that study by Plante & Moran, the authors write, “Using growth rate assumptions made by City personnel, we projected revenue that would be generated from the current property tax system over the next five years….The analysis has been developed using the best available information concerning financial and demographic trends and conditions. As mentioned above, each model was developed using certain key assumptions and should not be evaluated without a thorough understanding of those assumptions. The assumptions and the accompanying rationale are documented in later sections of this report….”

Here’s where we all need to sit up and pay very close attention: “All assumptions are the responsibility of the City of Ann Arbors’ management based on their best judgment at the time of the study. It is possible that the forecasted results may not be achieved because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected.”

In other words, Roger Fraser’s revenue estimate is not even an estimate. It’s a prognostication in the grand tradition of prognosticators. Plante and Moran predict that the assumptions of growth made by city staff, and on which the study is based, “frequently do not occur as predicted.”

If that doesn’t give you a cold grue, it should. The Plante and Moran study begins with a caveat that explains, quite clearly, that a city income tax is not the panacea for the budget woes of Ann Arbor. In fact, the move to a city income tax could end up providing Ann Arbor less revenue than the current property tax model. And there we’d be, still, facing the alternatives the City Administrator often presents to the people of Ann Arbor through City Council: freeze to death or burn to death. Sell parkland, raise taxes, cut services, or increase water and sewer fees.

Mayor Hieftje took himself off of the Budget Committee. Margie Teall stepped down, as well. However, their decision to try to distance themselves from the disaster that it the city’s fiscal situation is a day late and several million dollars short.

It’s quite clear that for the past several years, the Budget Committee on which they sat, and Council, simply followed the direction of the City Administrator and CFO without question and without performing the due diligence required. For instance, the City Charter mandates monthly statements be delivered to the Budget Committee that summarize the City’s financial position. They were never requested or delivered. Yet, the Mayor and his hand-picked Budget Committee crafted policy, recommended program and service cuts, and made recommendations for the expenditure of over $1.5 billion in tax dollars and fees over the past five years without ever knowing exactly how much money the City had in any given month.

Thanks to the urging of Third Ward’s Steve Kunselman, city staff will be producing monthly reports. According to the AnnArborchronicle.com, this is what long-time Budget Committee Chair, Fourth Ward’s Marcia Higgins, had to say when it was suggested that the monthly reports be delivered directly to all Council members.

“In discussing how the monthly report should be disseminated, Roger Fraser suggested that it be sent directly to all councilmembers. However, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) weighed in in favor of first having the budget committee review it before disseminating it to other councilmembers. She reasoned that the rest of the council might not understand what they were looking at, and that budget committee members would then be in a position to help others on council.”

Is it any wonder Roger Fraser is pushing, shoving and trying to drop-kick a city income tax? At this same meeting, he suggested that City Council survey voter attitudes – such as the survey conducted by AATA concerning that group’s fantasy of a county-wide millage. The City Administrator called allocating money for such a survey “due diligence.”

Due diligence? I call it a waste of time and taxpayer money. Those are marketing surveys designed to find out how to best phrase the ballot question so that the voters will support the measure.

There are three steps that must be taken before we can ever entertain the notion of a city income tax:

1. As I wrote in an earlier entry (“The Politics of Cooking the Books: Ann Arbor as a French Restaurant”), total city revenues are up significantly since 2006. So are total expenses. It’s time to examine every possible opportunity for savings. Overhead is the place to begin. The cost of running City Hall has risen 35 percent since 2006. That is a rate of increase that far outpaces both inflation and the cost of living combined. Over-spending must be checked immediately. There is no moratorium, for instance, on meals out and travel for city staff, while at the same time those same staff bring scenarios to Council and the public to raise revenue by selling parkland and cutting services.

2. All City Council members must be given extensive training in reading and understanding financial statements. It’s no sin to be incapable of understanding a cash flow analysis, and such training would benefit not only the Council members, but the public they serve, as well. It is a sin to vote on the allocation of funds without having first examined and understood the financial situation of the City. All Council members have to know the right questions to ask in order to have the ability to oversee city staff in their use of the tax dollars given them.

3. It’s time for a Mayor who will send Ann Arbor City Administrator Roger Fraser, and CFO Tom Crawford back to sharpen their pencils and to prepare two scenarios: under the auspices of the first, they cut 10 percent of the city’s expenses. Under the second, they cut 20 percent of the city’s expenses.

There’s only one rule: not a single city service may be impacted adversely by the cuts.

Popularity: 30% [?]

Comments (6)

February 2, 2010

The Politics of Falling From Grace: An Interview With DDA Board Member Jennifer Santi Hall

Filed under: boards and commissions — Tags: AnnArborChronicle.com, Christopher Easthope, Doug Cowherd, Eric Lipson, Great Lakes Environmental Law Center, Greenbelt Advisory Commission, Jeff Irwin, Jennifer Santi Hall, Kim Groome, Leigh Greden, Marcia Higgins, Mayor Hieftje, Noah Hall, Planning Commission, Rene Greff, Steve Kunselman, Tim Colenback, Tom Crawford — A2 Politico @ 9:59 am

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)

Jennifer Santi Hall was never convinced Ann Arbor needed an underground parking garage and more parking. As a board member of the current Downtown Development Authority, her opinion is akin to heresy.

Santi Hall has spent the past seven years serving on various city boards and commissions. After Mayor Hieftje’s 2008 re-election, she wrote a glowing blog entry about Mayor Hieftje’s work as an environmentalist. The post appears on the Great Lakes Law blog, authored by Hall’s husband, Noah Hall. Detractors, in fact, refer to Jennifer Hall as John Hieftje in a skirt for her perceived unquestioning support of his initiatives. Hall writes in the August 2008 blog entry, “In 2003, he led a successful campaign for a dedicated millage to create a greenbelt of farmland and open space around Ann Arbor, including significant portions of the Huron River watershed. Leader of the Huron Valley Chapter of the Sierra Club, Doug Cowherd, will tell you he easily spent 1,000 hours crafting the greenbelt resolution and championed the cause well before Hieftje came on board.

Then, came the February 2009 letter of intent to file suit against the city. The lawsuit aimed at derailing the Library Lot underground parking lot project was filed by the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center. The Law Center is headed by Jennifer Santi Hall’s husband, Noah. According to an entry about the lawsuit posted to the AnnArborChronicle.com, on August 13, 2009, “the complaint alleges violations of the Michigan Environmental Protection Act, the Michigan Open Meetings Act, as well as nuisance and trespass violations.”

Then came a public accusation made by Mayor Hieftje at the May 2009 DDA Board retreat that Jennifer Santi Hall had “a cloud hanging over her head” thanks to the lawsuit. The cloud over her head was interfering with the ability of a joint City Council-DDA committee moving forward with negotiations between the DDA and the city. City Council members refused to work with Hall, and the Mayor was disinclined to force the issue.

In an October 2009 A2Politico interview with former DDA Board member Rene Greff, Greff said, “At our annual Board retreat, I pressed the Mayor until he finally admitted publically what I had been saying for months, that the reason they were stalling on putting together their committee was that “some members of Council” didn’t want to negotiate with Jennifer and me.”

There are some who are betting that Jennifer Santi Hall’s political career in Ann Arbor is over so long as Mayor Hieftje remains in office. A2Poltico caught up with Jennifer Santi Hall and asked her about her time on the DDA Board, the pending lawsuit, why she doesn’t support the Library Lot underground parking garage, and whether she will lose her seat on the Board of the Downtown Development Authority this summer, when her term ends.

1. When Kim Groome left Ann Arbor, and the First Ward City Council seat became open, you were in the running for appointment to that seat. After all, you had been Chair of the Planning Commission, a Board Mayor Hieftje uses as a stepping stone for those whom he’d like to see on City Council. I’ve heard Groome’s vacant First Ward Council seat was promised to you, and that at the last moment, a friend of Council member Christopher Easthope’s was appointed instead. A very short time later, Mayor Hieftje appointed you to the Greenbelt Advisory Commission and then, almost a year to the day after you were passed over for that First Ward Council seat appointment, you were appointed by the Mayor to the DDA. Forgive me, but it looks suspiciously as if those two Board appointments were rewards for you having taken “one for the team,” when Chris Easthope’s college friend was appointed to the City Council seat promised you. Comments?

First, a couple of clarifications to your statement above. I don’t think it’s quite accurate to say that the Planning Commission has been used by Mayor Hieftje as a “stepping stone for those he’s like to see on City Council.” In the 7 years I’ve been serving on city boards and commission, I can only recall two planning commissioners who have run for Council – Eric Lipson (ran against Marcia Higgins in 4th Ward, not endorsed by Mayor Hieftje) and Steve Kunselman (don’t recall if he was endorsed by the Mayor in 2006, not endorsed in 2009).

Another clarification, I was appointed to the Greenbelt Advisory Commission upon its creation in May of 2004; Kim Groome left Council sometime in July or August of 2005.

If the Mayor thought he was giving me a seat on the DDA board as a reward for “taking one for the team,” he certainly didn’t let me in on his thought process.

As the end of my 3 year term on Planning Commission approached in spring of 2006, I scheduled a meeting with Mayor Heiftje. I told him that I didn’t want to be presumptuous in thinking he would offer me a second term on Planning Commission, but in case he was thinking of reappointing me, I wanted to let him know that I wasn’t interested. I was pregnant and then later a nursing mom during my term on Planning Commission and my husband and I were thinking about another child for our family, and I just couldn’t envision surviving the late night meetings during another pregnancy and infancy. I was quite surprised when the Mayor asked if I would be interested in a citizen seat on the DDA. He told me my background and also my experience on Planning Commission would make me a good fit for that board.

I don’t believe that I was ever “promised” the seat vacated by Kim Groome, but it is true that Leigh Greden (former Third Ward Council member) encouraged me to put my name in the running for the vacant seat and then gave me some advice about how to prepare and present myself during the process. Up to a point, I believe he was actively lobbying his colleagues to appoint me. I don’t know all of what happened behind the scenes except that there were some on Council who didn’t want to see Tim Colenback appointed (who was really the Ward 1 favorite). I had never met Tim and knew little of his background and involvement in city issues. Thanks to our mutual friend Jeff Irwin, Tim and I got to know each other better during the appointment process. I wish that I had been introduced to Tim before I put my name forward for the seat —I certainly would have made a different decision. I think Tim would have made (or someday will be) a great Councilperson.

I am actually quite happy that I was not appointed to that seat. My time serving on city boards gave me great experience with policy issues, but I wasn’t as involved in the city politics. Looking back, it’s clear that the council majority wanted someone that would simply go along with their agenda, and that’s not what the voters of the 1st ward wanted and not what I would have done.

2. You were appointed to the DDA in 2006, and former Board member Rene Greff told A2Politico that she holds great stock in your abilities as a Board member. One of the reasons Greff got booted was her outspoken defense of the DDA as an independent Board, both procedurally and financially. Some say the DDA Board must submit to the will of City Council. Others disagree because the DDA is an entity established and supported by City Charter, just as is the City Council. What is your view of the relationship between Council and the DDA? Who’s the alpha dog, as it were, or are there two packs at work here?

The Ann Arbor DDA was created in 1982, under the authority of the State of Michigan Act 197 (passed in 1975). The State wanted to give municipalities a tool for downtown urban renewal—a way to combat the economic decline and structural demise that was affecting downtowns all across America. In creating the DDA in Ann Arbor, the City Council recognized the extreme importance that a downtown district has to the whole city’s vitality. The downtown belongs to the entire Ann Arbor community and as such would benefit from a designated stream of resources to protect and nurture it. I was excited by an opportunity to serve on the DDA because I fundamentally believe in the general purpose of DDAs and the mission of the Ann Arbor DDA. I am a true lover of downtown urban areas. I like the excitement, the crowd of people, the entertainment, and cultural offerings. Having all these things located close together means that they are very accessible to everyone. Vibrant downtowns are an important component to my environmental ethic —I believe a density of residents, employment, and activity is the only sustainable way to construct a city and to make transportation between work, home and play not dependent on an automobile.

I totally agree with Rene that the DDA should be an independent authority. City Councils must make decisions about many areas of the city and appropriate resources across all types of competing community interests. The DDA exists with a board independent from City Council expressly to protect the DDA area from having to compete with the rest of those interests. That being said, I don’t believe the DDA has unchecked authority. It is created by the City, overseen by the City, and can be dissolved if the City Council so desires.

The DDA has money (from the tax capture and from parking revenues) and the Council has the statutory oversight of our appointments, changes to our bylaws, approval of our budget. Further, any infrastructure work we want to do in the downtown requires their approval because the city owns all the property (roads, parking structures, alleys, etc). So the politics begins. Some politics have a purpose, those games I understand. Some other politics make no sense.

I wish Council provided the kind of oversight, check and balance that an independent agency such as the DDA (or AATA or any other authority) should have. But they don’t always do that. They don’t really look into our bylaws and make sure that we aren’t abusing our power. They just won’t approve them (DDA sent bylaw changes to Council about 2 years ago and they were never placed on a Council agenda for approval) because some board members want them changed and certain council members don’t want those board members to have something they want.

If the City Council wants unquestioned access to the DDAs resources, then it should disband the DDA. It has the ability to do so, but if you were to look closely at the numbers, you would see that it would not make financial sense for the city to do so. The DDA’s TIF capture comes from not only the City but also the County, AAPS, AADL, and WCC. The DDA has given the City more than its share of TIF capture back in grants and other expenditures (like rent for the parking meters – the original source of the $2million question).

3. Mayor and a group of Council members including Leigh Greden, Margie Teall, Marcia Higgins, as well as Ann Arbor’s CFO Tom Crawford, have been pressing the DDA over the past 24 months for larger financial contributions to the City’s sagging General Fund. The DDA Board agreed, for instance, to pay $500,000 per year toward the cost of the bonds issued to build the new Court house. A past DDA member described this to me as an outrageous misuse of DDA funds. You voted in favor of the DDA-city bond repayment obligation, but against the underground parking garage project. Why should taxpayers care if Council demands millions from the DDA to put into the General Fund? It’s the city’s money, anyway, right?

I truly believe in the purpose and mission of DDAs. The DDA exists to protect and nurture a communal resource. If the City continually uses politics to coerce resources out of the DDA, I think our whole community loses. I believe there are 3 big reasons why our community should care how the DDA spends its resources (and why we should care if those resources are given to the City’s General Fund).

1. TIF money doesn’t just come from the City of Ann Arbor;

2. Parking system revenues should be used for transportation; and

3. It’s disingenuous to have a DDA and then take the resources for other purposes.

All DDAs across the state are structured and financed differently. In the case of Ann Arbor’s DDA, some of the funds come from the TIF captured by the DDA and some (a much larger amount) of funds come from parking revenues. The DDA has maintained separate purposes for these funds – parking revenues support transportation (including operation and maintenance of the parking system and support for alternative transportation efforts like getDowntown and goPasses) and TIF funds are used for other work of the DDA (alley improvements, Fifth/Division, LED lighting, energy grants, and projects like the municipal center).

The question presents 3 different and distinct issues regarding the use of DDA funds. First, there’s the financial support the DDA gave to the municipal center project came from TIF funds. The DDA was asked by the City for a certain amount of money (something like $8 million) and we decided it would be easier for us to contribute the money on a yearly basis (rather than in a lump sum cash payment) and so it made sense for us to pay the yearly bond payments. I supported the DDA’s contribution to this project because I felt that was a good investment in the downtown. It was very important to me to keep City Hall and city workforce downtown. And the urban streetscape improvement the building addition makes to Fifth Ave. was really important to me as well. I think public investment in downtown municipal buildings (city halls, librarys, court buildings, etc) is incredibly important to a vibrant, functional downtown. I also supported the green elements the City added to the building.

The second issue is the parking garage. The DDA is paying for most of this project out of parking revenues, although some of the aspects of the project are paid out of TIF funds. I voted against the parking garage for a several reasons:

1.  I don’t believe we need more parking at this time in downtown;

2.  I think we can create more parking supply by increasing our investment in alternatives and managing our parking supply differently (the DDA is already doing this and I argued that we should wait to see the results of these investments and operational changes BEFORE building more parking, especially with such a big price tag);

3. I felt that investing $50 million in more parking was a bad environmental choice – think of what $50 million could do to create modern efficient transit choices; and

4.  I didn’t support how the project was being financed.  I’m disappointed that there was not more vocal opposition to the parking structure during the year or more that the DDA was designing and discussing the options and project details.

There were a few voices questioning the giant parking garage (Steve Bean, chair of the city’s environmental commission for one) but not as many as there are now that the giant hole is being dug. The City is on the hook for the bonds—so if parking demand should change, and we rely on revenue from all these new spaces to pay for the bonds, and there’s no revenue because we have too much parking supply, then what?

The third issue has been dubbed the “$2 million question.” I would call this a raid on DDA resources.

A bit of abbreviated history —5 years ago the DDA took over management and operation of the on-street parking meters. The city was looking for more money for the General Fund at this time, and negotiated a deal with the DDA (I was not on the DDA at that time) in which the DDA would operate/manage the meters (and take the revenues – coins, not fines) and pay the City a “rent” payment for the use of the meters and other parking facilities in the amount of $1 million per year for 10 years.

The City also negotiated an option to take $2 million per year for 5 years. It is my understanding that the City had proposed eliminating the downtown beat cops due to budget limitations and the DDA felt that this rent payment would ensure that those needed cops wouldn’t go away. Nothing about the cops was written into the agreement, however. 2009 was year five of this deal and the city took its last $2million and they are now left with five more years of a “rent” agreement with no more rent to be paid. Rene Greff and I had been quite vocal in saying that it is unfair for the city to ask for more money for an agreement that has been fulfilled on our part. This rent money comes from parking revenues. I am totally OK with beginning a new discussion with City Council about another mutually beneficial agreement that the city and DDA could make—something whereby the DDA pays the city money in exchange for something that benefits the downtown or DDA.

This big, heated discussion of the $ 2 million has quieted down as of late and I think there are a couples of reasons for that. Leigh Greden is no longer on City Council and he was very interested in getting another $2 million yearly payment out of the DDA. Also, I think that City Council is looking for smaller ways to find mutually beneficial agreements with the DDA (or raid the DDA bank, if you will). For example, a month or so ago, the City directed the DDA to give them the revenue from the old Y lot. And that’s what the DDA did (I was absent from that meeting so didn’t participate in the discussion).

So, getting back to your question: Why should taxpayers care if Council demands millions from the DDA to put into the General Fund? It’s the city’s money, anyway, right? Taxpayers should care because not all the TIF money comes from the City. Some comes from the library, the schools, the county, the AATA. These entities have given up some of their tax capture to support the DDA and are not demanding the DDA support their straining budgets. The DDA has always maintained that parking revenues should support transportation purposes. I have no problem with starting a new discussion about parking revenues supporting some other purpose in the city—but I absolutely do not think that parking revenues should be used to bridge a gap in the City of Ann Arbor’s General Fund. Do people who park in Ann Arbor want to pay higher rates to support the city’s administration budget? And lastly, if the City desperately needs the DDA’s money, then it should disband the DDA and take back the parking system and TIF capture and redistribute it as it best sees fit. It’s disingenuous to create a DDA under State Law to do one thing, and then take the money for the City’s general fund.

4. Let’s talk about the library lot underground parking garage. You voted against that project. However, it was the lawsuit filed by two downtown businesses and the Great Lake Environmental Law Center that has resulted in some intensive political backlash against you from City Council members, DDA Board members and the Mayor. Did you expect your political career to be hobbled? One would imagine you’d seen what happened to others who “dissented,” or rocked the boat.

First, let’s just be open and clear about this. My husband is currently serving as the Executive Director of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the City. The bad feelings toward me started long before the lawsuit was filed. I started “rocking the boat” not long after I joined the DDA board.

From day one, I was skeptical of the need to build more parking, and continually pushed the DDA to invest more money into alternative transportation. I was also a huge supporter of the DDA’s Fifth and Division improvement project (it was one of the projects I was most excited to join the DDA to work on). For some reason, there was a lot of political maneuvering on Council about this project. I don’t really know why some on Council didn’t support the project and why others on DDA who were supportive got cold feet. When the first vote for the project came up at DDA (maybe only a few months after I started on the board), the Mayor called me before the meeting and asked if I would support a postponement of the project.

He said he supported the project, but the timing wasn’t right and that maybe we could do it cheaper. I told him I couldn’t support a postponement. The DDA had worked very hard on this project, it had very popular community support and if this wasn’t the right time to invest in downtown, then when would be the right time? Fortunately for the project, the move to postpone was defeated and the project moved forward at DDA. Only to be stalled for over a year at City Council.

Council refused to put the project on an agenda, knowing that it had broad community support and not wanting to have to cast a vote against it at the Council table. After some time, Rene and I strategized about how best to move this project forward. We asked our staff to organize another public meeting to bring the project some current attention (the meeting was very well attended). And we lobbied City Council, a lot, especially Rene. She was great. All this time, the DDA was working out options for building more parking and then designing plans for the library lot underground structure.

So, I’m outspoken about Fifth and Division to Council and very vocal in my opposition to building more parking. I’m already a dissenter. The letter sent by the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center (along with the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and several local residents) to the city raising concerns about the environmental impacts of this project, the FOIA requests made by the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center for council meeting emails, and the subsequent lawsuit filed by the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center and neighboring businesses was just the icing on the cake. I don’t really think my political career has been hobbled. I don’t really envision that I have a political career. I don’t know what the next phase will be for me—but it can’t happen if I compromise my goals or my principles.

5. With Leigh Greden gone, do you think the relationship between the DDA and Council will change in any way? If so, how?

I think it’s fair to say that Leigh supported the basic premise behind having a DDA—invest in downtown and it will remain vital and prosperous. Many people can support that general concept and all have a different set of priorities and a different way of implementing that agenda. I believe that Leigh primarily saw the DDA as a big piggy bank for his priorities and did not respect the priorities or the autonomy of the DDA board.

As a member of the Council budget committee, Leigh was the most vocal Councilmember in wanting to continue the $2 million payments from the DDA to the City (something I don’t support as a “blank check” payment). He was very instrumental in getting the DDA to contribute to the Police/Courts building. He even came to our board meeting the day we approved the contribution. My most frustrating interaction with him during my time on DDA was his opposition to the 5th and Division streetscape improvements. Of course, his opposition was never made public. Instead, for over a year, he prevented the project from being placed on a Council agenda for consideration.

So—yes, I think the relationship between DDA and Council will change now that Leigh is no longer in office.

6. Mayor Hieftje has been accused of stacking the DDA Board with appointees who will rubber stamp his ideas and simply do his bidding. In your opinion, who are the voices of dissent on the DDA Board. Is it necessary to have voices of dissent on the DDA Board do you think?

One of the powers given to Ann Arbor’s Mayor is his/her ability to make appointments to boards and commissions. Not all of them, however. City Council gets to make nominations to other boards, such as the Greenbelt Advisory Commission and Environmental Commission. Ever wonder about the politics involved in creating those boards and why that authority wasn’t given to the Mayor? The Mayor selects people that he thinks will be most sympathetic to his interests. Even so, the vast majority of people that serve of city boards and commissions are independent minded, dedicated, and put a tremendous amount of work towards serving the city. Even when I disagree with them on a specific issue, I respect their service and work.

Dissent, conflict, and differences of opinions are what lead to good public policy in my opinion. The big questions are: how loud does it become, what are the politics involved, how personal does it get, and is it effective at serving a public good? I have witnessed several situations which lead to dissent on city boards.

1.  The Mayor appoints new people to a board to replace those appointed by the previous Mayor.  That’s what happened when I was appointed to the Planning Commission almost 7 years ago.  I suspect that people are feeling more homogeneity of appointments of late because the Mayor has been in office for so long that ALL of the people serving on board and commissions have been appointed by him (or re-appointed in some cases).

2.  The Mayor misjudges a person’s goals and support for certain issues.  Or more significantly, the person has a stronger independent voice than thought.  It’s totally understandable.  You don’t take a test of loyalty or an oath to do whatever he says when you’re offered an appointment.

3.  The Mayor appoints someone he knows may be a voice of dissent, but does it as a token offering to a certain interest group he wants to make favor with.  (I think Dave DeVarti’s tenure on the DDA and Eppie Potts’s appointments to the Planning Commission illustrate this point)

4.  The Mayor actually changes his goals or maybe not his goals, but the priority of those goals, and his appointments no longer match those interests. (I think Fred Beal and Rob Aldrich are good examples here – they were good appointments when the primary issue of the day for the Mayor was downtown density, but not so much when the big issue of the day became getting another $2million from the DDA, so he didn’t reappoint them).

If it’s of interest to your readers, here’s a detailed sketch of my own relationship as an appointee with the Mayor to illustrate my points above. I have spent 7 years on 4 different boards and commissions: 1 term on Planning Commission appointed my Mayor Hieftje (appointed in 2003, confirmed by City Council on a 6-5 vote); a year or so on the Environmental Commission (filling a spot designated for a planning commissioner, I was nominated by the Planning Commission and confirmed by City Council); in my 3rd term on the Greenbelt Advisory Commission (appointed in 2004, nominated by Council); and serving in my 4th year of my first term on DDA (appointed in 2006 by Mayor Hieftje and confirmed by City Council —not sure of the vote).

When I was first appointed to the Planning Commission in 2003, the Mayor was looking for someone who would sympathize with neighborhoods disgruntled with development, oppose tall buildings in the downtown, and someone who would be an environmental voice on the Planning Commission. It was thought that I would do all these things (I was recruited for the position by Doug Cowherd and Bill Hanson, who were at the time close advisors of the Mayor, because of my background with conservation planning working for The Nature Conservancy.) The vetting process for appointments is not all that rigorous (you don’t have to submit to any tests, go through days and days of Senate-like confirmation hearings or give over your first born child), and of course, it’s hard to know exactly how someone will think or grow as they get more knowledge and experience under their belt.

I do have a strong environmental ethic, but as it turns out my self-defined environmental goals support some increased density in the downtown. Funny thing is, the Mayor changed his mind about density in the downtown. Downtown density (and some issues surrounding the formation of the Greenbelt Advisory Commission) fractured the relationship between Doug, Bill and the Mayor. The Mayor later became more closely allied to Leigh Greden (who also was a proponent of downtown density).

And what happened to me? I ended up on the Greden/Heiftje “team” partly because they saw me as an ally to their position and partly because I was “shunned” and “demonized” by others in this town for my position about downtown density and other development issues. It’s important for me to emphasize here that I never chose any of these teams. My beliefs have never changed—although they have grown and been refined by experience and knowledge. And I don’t mean to say that I’ve only been a pawn in all of this political shifting. I have strong opinions and I’m not shy about stating them and working the issues. I’ve used and I’ve been used and that’s all part of the game.

I believe the Mayor appointed me to the DDA because I was an advocate for downtown density, but also because I was a supporter of alternative transportation, something also promoted by the Mayor. After a few months on the DDA, the Mayor called me and asked if I would support delaying the decision on the 5th and Division project. He felt the timing was bad and the project cost too much money. I didn’t agree with him—5th and Division was one of the DDAs projects that I was most excited about joining the board to work on. This was a turning point in my relationship with the Mayor. I also didn’t support the parking structure project, advocating for more than a year that we do more transit demand management and invest more in alternative transportation before we spend so much money to build more parking. Then I vocally opposed the city taking $2 million from the DDA for no express purpose. Then the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center and other environmental groups (with my husband as the lead attorney) started raising legal issues with the parking structure and that’s when things really changed and the true hostilities started.

I think all boards need different opinions. A good fight makes sure that an issue is really thought about before it’s done. Debate and conflict are what make good public policy. Some on DDA recall a happier time when the DDA was a “consensus board.” I don’t think that made for good public policy. I’m glad that there are voices of dissent, on any issue, even ones I support. But, I think the dissent needs to be philosophical or pragmatic in nature. Arguing for politics sake just wastes everyone’s time.

7. Rene Greff assumes you will not be reappointed to the DDA Board when your term expires. Is her assumption correct, do you think? Have you spoken to the Mayor about this? Do you want to be reappointed to the DDA Board?

As I said above, it is really up to the Mayor to decide if he wants to reappoint me to the DDA Board. Given the chilly feeling I get from him, it certainly seems that Rene’s assumption is a good one. I have a seat on the DDA board that is reserved for a citizen representative (other seats are reserved for downtown business owners and employees and one seat for a downtown resident). I think it’s important to fill the citizen seats with people who do not also have a business or residential interest in the downtown. The DDA was created in recognition that vibrant, successful downtowns benefit the whole of Ann Arbor, and it’s funded using tax money that could otherwise have a different public purpose.

It’s important to me that the citizen representatives on the DDA not only serve the mission of the DDA, but are mindful of the broader context for that mission.

Popularity: 37% [?]

Comments (11)

February 1, 2010

The Politics of the Inquisition: Kunselman Has Kwestions

Filed under: money — Tags: A2Politico, Ann Arbor Airport, Budget Committee, Capital Improvement Plan, FITS, Marcia Higgins, Mayor Hieftje, Roger Fraser, Sabra Briere, Steve Kunselman — A2 Politico @ 8:00 am

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)

Alright, someday I’ll stop with the K, but for now it’s amusing. Since this is a blog, I figure I should get to amuse myself every now and again. I’ve been impressed with the “new” Third Ward Council member Steve Kunselman. He’d say it was the old Steve Kunselman, but I’d have to disagree. The new Steve Kunselman is coming to City Council with a lists of pointed questions. The latest list concerns the Capital Improvement Plan submitted to City Council for its edification (the usual) and approval (the foregone conclusion) without much real questioning.

Until now.

City Administrator Roger Fraser hasn’t answered this many pointed questions in public since, well, the last time Steve Kunselman asked for specific information.

“So,” you may be muttering, “just what in the name of Frank Lloyd Wright is a Capital Improvement Plan?”

Excellent question. I’m glad you asked.

It’s a fantasy list of building projects on which the City Administrator and staff want to spend millions of our tax dollars. Little kids call their Capital Improvement Plans “Letters to Santa Claus.” Sometimes, staff use the Capital Improvement Plan to let taxpayers in on their behind-the-scenes machinations, such as the expansion of the Ann Arbor Airport. Mayor and Council oked a loan from the General Fund (about $1 million dollars), and that money was used to new build hangars at the Ann Arbor airport. Not just new hangars, but big, new hangars. The kind of hangars that can house corporate jets.

So, you might ask, can a DC-9 land at the Ann Arbor Airport? Why, no, a DC-9 cannot land at our airport. The runway is not long enough. However, page 22 of the CIP includes the airport runway expansion as a FY2011 expense and describes it as urgent. Urgent? Does approval of the CIP mean our City Council is approving the controversial runway expansion? Here’s another bit of CIP info. for taxpayers to chew on, FY2015 includes $800,000 for a terminal expansion to be paid from the airport fund. Airport revenue is down, down, down. Why spend $800K on expanding the terminal?

Here’s one for Sherlock Holmes from Page 23 of the CIP. FITS: This project is labeled as funded. The plan claims $5,365,000 will be paid from the Economic Development Fund in FY2011 for Fuller Road Station (FITS) design construction. Well, the Economic Development Fund doesn’t have $5 million dollars in it, and money for that fund is taken from the General Fund. Where will the Economic Development Fund get the money to pay for this project? I’ll tell you. We’ll be treated to another emergency meeting of the City Council Budget Committee, and the City Administrator will give the depressing news to taxpayers there’s a $5.3 million dollar deficit in the General Fund.

Can you smell the firefighters burning, and taxpayers being given the option of a city income tax, or closing pools, ice rinks, and community and senior centers?

The FITS project is anticipated to cost $14.68 million total and, remember, it’s marked as funded. Where is the $14.68 million in non-city funding coming from? The Mayor was quoted recently in the Ann Arbor Observer as saying the city did not have that money.

Below are the questions Third Ward’s Steve Kunselman appended to the agenda for the Monday City Council meeting for City Administrator Roger Fraser to sing and dance about in public:

Question: The project identified as “800′ Runway Safety Extension” is listed as “urgent” for FY 2011. In addition, approximately $1.4 million of outside funding is proposed. Therefore,

1. Please explain the nature of “urgency” for the Airport runway extension.

2. Will this project allow for heavier and larger aircraft to utilize the airport?

3. Will this project allow for an increase in frequency of flights by existing aircraft utilizing the airport, including aircraft that presently take off with weight limitations (i.e. fuel carrying limitations) at the airport?

4. Has this project been presented to the Pittsfield Township Board of Trustees and Planning Commission?

5. Is the primary source of outside funding from the Federal Government? If so, what are the ramifications to the City’s control of airport operations if such funding is accepted? What are the City’s obligations to the Federal Government if such funds are accepted?

Question: The project identified as “Model for Mobility: Fuller Road Station Phase 1 Design/Construction” is listed as “urgent” for FY 2011. In addition, $5,365,000 of funding is estimated to be appropriated from the Economic Development Fund where such funding does not presently exist. Therefore,

1. Please explain and identify why
A). This project is urgent, and

B). The source(s) of the proposed fund transfers to the Economic Development Fund. Do these proposed fund transfers include General funds? Do these proposed fund transfers include funds that are presently intended for mass transit (i.e. AATA)? Do these funds include funds presently in or proposed to be transferred to the Alternative Transportation fund? If so, are any of these proposed funds General funds?

2. Please identify if any funds presently existing (as of FY 2010) in the Economic Development Fund are proposed to fund this project? If so, are these funds “unobligated” and not necessary for Google Parking payments?

In plain English, Steve Kunselman is asking, in public, where the money for this pie-in-the-sky wish list of items is going to come from, because we all know the city’s budget is in deficit, and the cost of simply running our city’s government has risen by $33 million dollars since 2006.

Kunselman’s kwestions are a good start, but without change on Council—Council members equally committed to asking such questions, getting answers, then making capital improvement decisions based on reality, and not the fantasy of spending $300 million in AnnArboropoloy money, our City Administrator and city staff will never be directed to focus less on crafting letters to Santa, and more on where they will find the money to fund maintenance on the buildings and crumbling infrastructure we already have.

It’s the job of Mayor and Council to direct the City Administrator and city staff. For the last decade, as our city’s budget slid into deficit, our infrastructure continued to crumble, and Ann Arbor’s roads earned the dubious honor of being classified as the third worst in the entire state of Michigan, Mayor and Council demonstrated little understanding of the implications associated with over-spending, and over-leveraging. If a single one of them had ever taken an introductory course in economics at college, they would have learned, as students, that economies are cyclical.

Mayor Hieftje, Fourth Ward’s Marcia Higgins, and First Ward’s Sabra Briere have all said in public, or written to constituents that the economic downtown caught them as a surprise that could not have been anticipated.

Adam Smith, of course, is frowning down on them from that big lecture hall in the sky. Taxpayers and voters are frowning down from slightly closer quarters.

Popularity: 30% [?]

Comments (8)

January 26, 2010

The Politics of Cooking the Books: Ann Arbor As A French Restaurant

Filed under: best of A2Politico, money — Tags: A2Politico, Dan Rainey, Leigh Greden, Liz Brater, Marcia Higgins, Margie Teall, Mayor Hieftje, Pam Byrnes, Rebekah Warren, Roger Fraser, Stephen Kunselman, Stephen Postema, Stephen Rapundalo, Tom Crawford — A2 Politico @ 2:00 pm

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)

The city’s General Fund is a train wreck.

Property tax revenues are tumbling down like the walls of Jericho.

Housing prices are falling.

Ok. That last one is true. A2Politico being, well, A2Politico, and having a suspicious, cynical and curious nature, I went to the city’s web site, and took a look at the most recent audited financial statement. It’s a 100+ page document, and the best reading for understanding the overall picture of the city’s financial situation is in the section titled, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis.” During the last City Council races, self-proclaimed “budget expert,” Third Ward’s Leigh Greden (defeated by Stephen Kunselman in August 2009) harped on the fact that the state shared revenue is down, kind of like a wind-up doll.

Hizzoner is also fond of pointing out the woes associated with the city getting less revenue sharing from the state. As we can see from the chart I made, state shared revenues are down. Time to take our state representatives, Pam Byrnes and Rebekah Warren not to mention our state senator, Liz Brater, out back and rough the girls up a bit, maybe break their eyelash curlers.

State shared revenues have fallen by 50 percent since 2002. What’s up with the shared revenues? Well, partially, the state isn’t collecting as much revenue to share. Partially, our state legislators are playing hardball with municipalities and not doling out the same percentage of revenues, but rather holding on to them and using that money to shore up the state’s leaky tub of a budget. We could talk about the fact that the tub is leaking because there are state legislators with gold-plated augers, who went about creating the holes, but let’s stick with Ann Arbor for the time being. Take a look at the chart below. All the information is from CAFR statements posted to the city’s web site:

Year	Property Tax Revenue	State Shared Revenues	Business-type Activities	Total Revenue	Total Expenses	Total Debt Service
2002	58,095,088	21,877,296	46,978,051	155,479,402	135,016,056	1,029,598
2006	62,017,866	12,604,477	73,539,483	176,649,150	144,522,183	1,539,263
2009	69,994,107	11,102,183	68,882,686	190,244,281	184,811,290	3,229,523

You’ll note that between 2002 and 2009 property tax revenues rose. Now, look right to the “Business-type activites” column. First, you’re thinking, “what the hell are ‘business type activities’ that bring revenue to the city?” Good question, I’m glad you asked. Try to keep the swearing to a minimum. Those activities include: water, sewer, parking, Farmer’s Market, golf courses, airport, stormwater management. and solid waste (i.e. trash and recycling) removal.

On the Mayor’s website he croons: “At the root of my work as mayor is the desire to protect and improve the quality of life in my hometown. This includes holding down the city portion of taxes to make life here more affordable while at the same time delivering services as efficiently as possible.” I don’t know what kind of “root” he’s referring to, but I think it might be something like Devil’s Claw.

Now, if you’re a clever one, and I think you are, you’ll understand how the Mayor, that Demublican teller of half-truths, can claim on his web site, in his campaign literature and speeches to have “held down the city portion of taxes.” Anyone? Anyone? You, in the back? Mayor and Council have voted to raise the cost of those “business-type activities” provided to taxpayers by 65 percent since 2002. Con artists call it the Old Shell Game. Mayor Hieftje calls it, “holding down the city portion of taxes” to make Ann Arbor more affordable. Right. Here’s another fairy tale for you: Santa Claus is a jolly old fat man who lives at the North Poll with Mrs. C., Rudolph, and the elves.

Now, those of you who are on a tight budget, perhaps, Krogering more often than you used to, and bypassing Plum Market and Whole Foods, look at the total expenses line. As revenues rose, expenses rose, as well, despite the drop in state revenue sharing. In other words, those in charge of the city’s budget, City Administrator Roger Fraser, City CFO Tom Crawford, not to mention Mayor and City Council who are supposed to oversee the work of city staff, went merrily along and lived large, larger and, by 2009, largest. In other words, the more revenues that could be squeezed out of taxpayers through back-door taxation (raising the rates for those business-type activities), the more Mayor and Council allowed city staff to spend.

It’s really that simple. In business terms, under the current Mayor and City Council’s direction, they allowed the city staff to take the city backwards financially, to raise revenues significantly, and to spend, spend, spend.

Now, let’s throw in the debt service, which has more than tripled, since 2002. It’s clear that by allowing expenses to rise at the same pace as revenues, (referred to as “spending every dime you earn and then some,”) our city had no real money to make debt payments out of revenues.

What would you do at your house? Would you build an underground parking garage and incur more debt? Would you build a new city hall and incur more debt? Would you rein in expenses related to running government, and defer non-essential capital improvements?

What’s the answer? First off, anyone who has ever touched a checkbook knows that it’s neigh on fiduciary negligence that no one on the Council Budget and Labor Committee over the past five years (Ward Four’s Marcia Higgins, and Margie Teall, Mayor Hieftje, and Stephen Rapundalo), ever bothered to bring to Council the issue of the unsustainable yearly rises in spending.

Instead, city staff were allowed by the City Council Budget Committee’s inattention or sheer ignorance, to bring budget proposals to Council to cut high profile programs and services, such as human services funding, Mack Pool and the Burns Park Senior Center. Meanwhile, the cost of running city government was raging out of control. Now we have the proposal to sell parkland. City income tax or sell parkland? Burn to death or freeze to death? Those are always the only options given Ann Arbor taxpayers.

All of this leads us to Grandpa. He’s on life support. On January 25, 2010, financial services staff presented Council with a document that outlines pulling the plug on Grandpa. To pay the bills they’ve been allowed to run up, city staff have come up with the brilliant idea that we can sell our parkland. No matter that it’s the worst possible time to sell land since the Great Depression. We need to the money, Daddy. You’ll be terrified to know that in the meantime, A2P hears Hizzoner is all over town glad-handing, telling would-be voters that ”At the root of his work as mayor is the desire to protect and improve the quality of life in my hometown. This includes holding down the city portion of taxes to make life here more affordable while at the same time delivering services as efficiently as possible.”

If the chart above should make anything clear, it’s that for the past ten years John Hieftje and City Council members have kicked back, collected paychecks, and let city staff spend every dime they could squeeze out of the city’s overburdened taxpayers. Do we want to live in a city where citizen services are provided like side dishes in a French restaurant?

Are you prepared to hear the following:

“You want solid waste service? Zat is extra, mon petite tax vache.”

City services in Ann Arbor, a city with some of the highest per capita property taxes in the state, are slowly becoming ala carte items on the bureaucrats’ menu.

Unless we get a new head chef, and send John Hiefje packing, we can look forward to being pitched a city income tax along with the sale of parkland. Here’s a better pitch. We need to elect a mayor and council who will make the financial services staff put together a scenario that reduces city operating expenses by 20 percent without a single cut to city services.

Can you hear the screaming? That’s Roger Fraser— upon learning his car allowance has been eliminated and his salary reduced by 10 percent, and IT Director Dan Rainey upon learning that his $ 7 million dollar IT budget has been reduced by 30 percent. We can’t hear City Attorney Stephen Postema’s screaming. His $2.5 million dollar department was outsourced.

Popularity: 44% [?]

Comments (27)

Older Posts »

A2Politico: Ann Arbor Politics Grilled To Perfection

August 27, 2010

The Politics of Culture: Ann Arbor Launches the National Pilot Fish Fry Festival

August 18, 2010

The Politics of Prying: Borders Gets Tight-Lipped

May 18, 2010

The Politics of Responsibility: Taking Credit For Everything and Responsibility For Nothing

May 4, 2010

The Politics of Rescue Heroes: What in the Billy Blazes Is Going On?

March 7, 2010

The Politics of Negotiating: You Never Get What You Deserve

February 15, 2010

The Politics of Grandstanding: The Three Percent Solution Resolution

February 4, 2010

The Politics of Financial Football: Throwing The Hail Mary Pass in the First Quarter

February 2, 2010

The Politics of Falling From Grace: An Interview With DDA Board Member Jennifer Santi Hall

February 1, 2010

The Politics of the Inquisition: Kunselman Has Kwestions

January 26, 2010

The Politics of Cooking the Books: Ann Arbor As A French Restaurant

Look for new A2P blog entries on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.

A2Politico.com has a Facebook fan page.

The A2Politico Tip Jar Is Open