Ask us who’s on the wrong side of the increasingly strained discussions between the Ann Arbor City Council and the Downtown Development Authority over how to share parking revenue, and we’d say neither is.

What we see are two entities caught in the friction caused by tight budgets and their strong desire to look after the interests they are supposed to represent.

But there’s still common ground to be found here. And the DDA board appears to be moving closer to it with a new bargaining position that it will consider Monday night. We welcome the move, and hope it leads to an eventual agreement.

Ann Arbor Mayor John Hieftje, right, speaks to the AnnArbor.com Editorial Board last week.

Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com

After all, it faces eliminating 25 positions in the Police Department and 12 positions in the Fire Department over the next two years, among other cuts. That is not a slashing of public safety protection that we’d want to see.

In past editorials, we’ve been critical of the City Council’s approach toward the DDA and parking revenue. We chided it for relying too much on parking revenue to balance the city’s general fund, and we’ve objected to the conflict we think exists in having City Council members sit on the DDA board.

But those concerns pale in light of the $2.4 million deficit the city faces in the coming fiscal year. It needs the DDA’s help to close that deficit - even though, yes, the DDA has legitimate budget concerns of its own.

The DDA has managed the city-owned parking system since the early 1990s, and has done an admirable job of it. In 2005, the DDA entered an agreement under which it would give the city $1 million a year in “rent’’ for 10 years, with the option for the city to accelerate those payments. The city ended up taking the entire $10 million in five years.

In the current negotiations, the DDA had proposed giving the city an annual payment of 16 percent of parking revenues — which would amount to about $2.5 million in the coming fiscal year — for 10 years. Representatives of City Council have asked for 16 percent a year in the first two years, then 17.5 percent a year for the next eight years. Two weeks ago, council voted to ask the DDA for 18 percent a year for 10 years. That would be about $2.8 million in the coming fiscal year.

While we feared the two sides might be headed toward impasse, a DDA committee has suggested a new proposal that the full board will consider Monday. It calls for giving the city a flat 17 percent of parking revenue per year, the closest offer yet to what the city is requesting. In turn, the DDA would ask for several things from the city, including a longer-term agreement, and the authority for final approval over parking rates and enforcement hours.

The offer seems constructive. It recognizes the city’s compelling need for revenue, particularly over the next couple of years. The city should, in turn, recognize that this offer is a stretch financially for the DDA.

The DDA understandably is concerned about committing 17 percent of parking revenue to the city - let alone 18 percent - given that the fund balance in the DDA’s parking fund is a negative $4.2 million this fiscal year, because of upfront costs associated with building the $50 million underground parking structure on Fifth Avenue.

The DDA’s financial plan calls for getting that fund back in the black in future years, but its concern about not over-committing itself on parking revenue to the city is legitimate.

Whatever agreement the two sides might reach, it should have clear guarantees that a portion of the parking revenue given to the city will continue to be used downtown.

In addition to the $2 million a year in parking revenue that the DDA has been contributing to the city’s general fund, it also has put about $1 million a year in the city’s street fund, for things like downtown snow-plowing and pothole patching. The DDA will want written assurance that some portion of parking funds will continue to provide that kind of street maintenance, and it should get that consideration.

We are not supportive, however, of giving the DDA final authority to set parking rates and enforcement hours downtown, without City Council approval. City Council members are elected officials accountable directly to the public, and they should be making those decisions, particularly when parking rates are funding not just the parking system, but basic city services, such as police and fire, which are outside the DDA’s domain.

We also think the current discussions underscore the different missions of the City Council and DDA, and we reiterate our concern about City Council members serving on the DDA board. We understand that the mayor — or alternately, the city administrator —has a place on the board under DDA bylaws. But City Council Member Sandi Smith, D-1st Ward, also serves on the DDA board, and should she step down at some point, we do not think another council member should be appointed in her place.

That being said, the primary point of tension remains the sharing of parking revenue. We encourage the DDA board to be as flexible and responsive as it can in helping the city cope with a severe fiscal crisis, and the proposal before it on Monday would be a good move in that direction.

(This editorial was published in today's newspaper and represents the opinion of the Editorial Board at AnnArbor.com.)