An architectural drawing of the proposed Fuller Road Station. (Image links to city of Ann Arbor webpage on the Fuller Road Station)

The press release includes a statement from mayor John Hieftje, which reads in part: “After months of fruitful discussions, we received new information from the Federal Rail Administration regarding the eligibility of monies for the local match. This information altered project timing such that we could no longer finalize a proposal under the current Memorandum of Understanding.”

On the university’s side, Jim Kosteva – director of community relations – is quoted in the press release as follows: “We are optimistic the city’s drive to win additional federal and state dollars for Fuller Road Station will be successful …When the time comes, we stand ready to reengage.” [.pdf of press release]

The press release also includes the news that the university will build the parking deck it had planned for the Fuller Road Station site at a different location: “… it is acknowledged that the University will need to move forward with building a parking structure, in a yet to be determined location, near the Medical Campus to address the expected demand as employment and patient activity continues to grow.”

The university was primarily interested in the initial phase of the project, a large parking structure with more than 1,000 spaces planned.

The city of Ann Arbor’s main interest was in the second phase of the project – a multimodal transit center that city officials hope would include a new Amtrak station, bus depot and sufficient parking for those needs. That component of the project appears to be very much still in play, contingent on identifying funding.

The Chronicle has compiled a timeline overview of Fuller Road Station with links to previous coverage. After the jump, we look at: (1) the train/bus station component of the project; (2) what led UM to initially participate in the project; (3) what happened since a memorandum of understanding between the city and the university was ratified; and (4) the timing of the decision to halt the project.

Funding a Rail Station

With the university’s parking requirements no longer a part of the project, some of the controversy surrounding it could be reduced. That specific controversy stemmed from the objection that the construction of a large parking deck would require some kind of lease arrangement with the university over a long enough period to be tantamount to a sale of the land. A sale of city parkland is required by Ann Arbor’s city charter to be put to a voter referendum.

The parcel is zoned as public land (PL). The city council approved a change to the city’s zoning code in July 2010 that explicitly allows for “transportation facilities” on public land.

The city was looking to an investment from the university in Fuller Road Station to count toward matching funds for federal funding that would support construction of a later phase of the project, which would include a rail station. The project would still need to include a parking component – but not anywhere near the scale of the structure UM was planning to build. It’s not certain what funding sources will be available to the city of Ann Arbor as it moves forward with the project without UM’s involvement.

However, federal funds have always been a part of a hoped-for funding strategy. And in the spring of 2011, the city received news that initial federal funding for the project had been awarded – $2.8 million from the Federal Rail Administration, towards a $3.5 million project for environmental assessment and engineering at the site. The difference is required to be paid by a local match. The city and the university have already made expenditures in connection with that project that the city believes will count for most if not all of that local match. It’s typical that federally-funded infrastructure projects require something on the order of a 20% match in local funds.

The rail station component of the project is estimated to cost about $18 million, with necessary modifications and upgrades to tracks totaling an additional $6-7 million. When the FRA funding for the environmental assessment was announced, Ann Arbor transportation program manager Eli Cooper called the award significant because it indicates the FRA’s willingness to be the lead federal agency for the project. Although it’s not guaranteed, the FRA does not typically fund initial phases of a project like the environmental assessment without following through with funds for the project itself.

If the city eventually pursues the project independently of the university’s own parking needs, it would provide a more narrow focus on the amount of parking that’s required just for the rail station component. To meet that need, some amount of parking spaces would be required for short-term and drop-off parking, as well as some long-term parking. The figure corresponding to the city’s allotment of the spots when UM was involved would have worked out to around 200 parking spaces. Those spaces would need to be constructed as a project independently of UM’s parking needs.

The FAQ maintained by the city of Ann Arbor about Fuller Road mentions that Greyhound and Amtrak have indicated an interest in the project. [For a historical look at Amtrak ridership from 1994-2011, see "Transit Ridership Data Roundup: 2011"]

The Fuller Road Station is included in a 30-year vision that has been developed by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority as part of a transportation master plan for a countywide system. The transition of the AATA to a system of governance that includes a wider geographic area than the city of Ann Arbor is currently being debated by the Ann Arbor city council. That’s a discussion centered on details of a four-party agreement – between the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the AATA.

Wall Street Controversy Led to Fuller Road Location

The attempted collaboration by UM with the city on Fuller Road Station stemmed from a controversy about UM’s plans to build a parking structure on Wall Street dating back at least four years. Plans by UM to expand in the general area go back to the 1980s. In 2008, the university’s plans to address its parking needs by constructing a parking deck on Wall Street had generated vocal opposition among nearby residents.

Early sketch of Fuller Road transit station from 2008-2009. (Image links to higher resolution image.)

So the alternative proposal to build the parking structure at the Fuller Park location next to the railroad tracks – in conjunction with a transit station that the city hoped to construct – had relieved some of the Wall Street controversy.

The specific pitch by the city to the university to collaborate on a multimodal transit center was publicly given concrete form at a January 2009 meeting of city staff and neighbors held at the Northside Grill, on Broadway in the Wall Street neighborhood. The city had identified the possible site for the proposed Fuller Road Station – a parking lot on land designated as part of the city’s park system – in its “Model for Mobility” long-term transportation planning initiative.

Later that year, on Nov. 5, 2009, the city council ratified a memorandum of understanding with the university for the parking deck component of the project. It called for a 22%-78% city-university proportionate share of the 1,050 parking structure spaces and a corresponding financial responsibility for construction. With an estimated cost of $46.6 million, the city’s share of the parking structure (phase 1) would have been roughly $10 million.

The UM board of regents approved the project at its Jan. 21, 2010 meeting. The memorandum of understanding calls for the parking structure component of the project to be ready for use by June 15, 2012. Construction would have needed to start in 2011 for that target to have been met.

The memorandum of understanding between the city and the university also gave a nod to the university’s interest in the rail station component (phase 2) portion of the project, but placed no obligations on UM: “The City and University shall cooperate and use their best efforts to achieve completion of mutually-beneficial elements of Fuller Road Station not included in Phase One.” Now, however, it’s not clear how UM might be involved on any elements of a rail station that might connect across the tracks to the UM hospital complex. The Feb. 10 press release includes the statement from Kosteva: “When the time comes, we stand ready to reengage.”

After the City-University MOU

Since the ratification of the memorandum of understanding, the project had languished, with little visible progress on the city-university deal. But community conversation about the deal has continued – during public commentary at meetings of the city council, the city’s park advisory commission, the city planning commission and of the UM regents. That’s because the Fuller Road location for the construction of parking for UM included at least as much controversy as the original Wall Street location – due partly to the fact that the parcel (currently a surface parking lot) is located on city-owned land designated as part of the city’s park system.

In May 2010, the city’s park advisory commission (PAC) considered a resolution that called for the city council to abandon the Fuller Road Station project, or at the least to get a better deal from the university in terms of revenues provided to the city for leasing the structure. [Chronicle coverage: "Better Deal Desired for Fuller Road Station"] That caught the attention of Hieftje, an advocate of the project, who attended PAC’s May 18, 2010 meeting and asked commissioners for their support. [Chronicle coverage: "Hieftje Urges Unity on Fuller Road Station"]

Hieftje’s request led commissioners to reconsider their position, dropping a call to stop the project but still urging city council to work for a more open process and to ensure a better financial deal to benefit the parks system. [Chronicle coverage: "PAC Softens Stance on Fuller Road Station"] The Ann Arbor city planning commission voted 7-2 on Sept. 21, 2010 to recommend approval of the Fuller Road Station site plan.

By the next year, with no visible additional movement, in June 2011 Hieftje indicated at a city council meeting that he’d be willing to schedule a work session on the topic of Fuller Road Station. And when a July 11, 2011 work session was added to the council’s calendar, it appeared the topic would be Fuller Road Station. However, at the council’s July 5, 2011 meeting, Hieftje indicated that the upcoming work session would not deal with Fuller Road Station – it dealt instead with possible changes to the city’s approach to garbage collection, as well as a reorganization of the city/county office of community development.

Later in July 2011, Hieftje sent a letter to constituents that reviewed much of the information that was previously known, but appeared to introduce the possibility that the University of Michigan would provide construction costs for the city’s share of the parking structure up front, with the city’s portion of 22% to be repaid later.

Although the final project has not been voted on and formally approved by the city council, aspects of Fuller Road Station, including its design, have moved ahead. A task force for a public art component was formed last year, for example. But at the public art commission’s November 2011 meeting, commissioners on the task force reported that they were told by city staff that the project had been delayed by 6-12 months.

Timing of the Decision to Halt Fuller Road Project

The Feb. 10 announcement about halting the joint university/city project comes after a release on Jan. 31 by the Sierra Club-Huron Valley Group of the city of Ann Arbor’s response to a Freedom of Information Act request seeking information on Fuller Road Station.

The material released under the FOIA request indicated growing frustration on the university’s side dating back at least to late October of last year. In an Oct. 20, 2011 email sent to mayor John Hieftje and city administrator Steve Powers – with the subject line “Action on Fuller Road Station” – UM director of community relations Jim Kosteva wrote:

There is growing anxiousness among university leadership regarding the ongoing delay in getting the commitment from Council and construction started. And revisiting our decision to postpone the structure(s) on Wall Street is becoming a more frequent discussion.

In that email Kosteva points to the imminent opening (since opened) of the new C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital and the increased pressure that the new hospital puts on the university’s parking system. [.pdf of Oct. 20, 2011 Kosteva email]

The decision about halting the Fuller Road Station project was made at least as early as Wednesday, Feb. 1. And in retrospect, there were some signs of that. During that afternoon’s meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, Hieftje appeared pre-occupied at the board table – he did not cast his vote of principle against the Republic Parking management incentive, as he has consistently done the previous three years.

And Lucy Ann Lance reported on air just after 9 a.m. on Friday, Feb. 3 that a hoped-for guest who could talk about UM’s parking and transportation system – Hank Baier, associate vice president for facilities and operations – would not appear on her Business Insider radio show (1290 AM) that morning.

Joe Grengs, University of Michigan associate professor of urban and regional planning, speaking at a Feb. 9 forum on sustainability in the city of Ann Arbor.

Possibly factoring into a delay in announcing the news were two public events held by the city of Ann Arbor on Wednesday and Thursday this past week (Feb. 8 and 9) – events where the topic of Fuller Road Station might naturally emerge. On Wednesday, the city hosted two sessions of a forum on the city’s non-motorized master plan update. And on Thursday, the city held the second of a four-part series on sustainability forums. The city’s transportation manager and AATA board member, Eli Cooper, was a speaker at both events. Had the news been released before those events, conversation might have centered on Fuller Road Station to the exclusion of other topics.

Even without the news of the project’s suspension, the topic of Fuller Road Station was raised during the sustainability forum, which focused on land use. During a question-and-answer period, Clark Charnetski – a member of the AATA’s local advisory council – voiced support for the proposed location.

Charnetski’s comment prompted a response from Joe Grengs, a panelist and UM associate professor of urban and regional planning. Grengs said he didn’t believe the university needed more parking, and that there are steps that could be taken to reallocate parking within UM’s current infrastructure.

The Fuller Road Station project undermines the city’s stated sustainability goals, Grengs said, because the mode of parking falls into a completely different category than walking, biking and rail transit. All of those latter modes work well in areas of high density, he said. But cars work against that – they are “big, hulking objects” that simply sit all day, he observed. So to have 1,000 cars parked at that location every day, at a place where there should be opportunities for interaction – places for retail or recreation, for example – “to me is a mistake and I’d urge the city to think about that,” he concluded. Grengs’ remarks were met with a smattering of applause from the audience.

Grengs’ commentary included a view that has been expressed by UM graduate student Joel Batterman at more than one public meeting covered by The Chronicle: That the university could meet its parking needs by reallocating and optimizing its current parking resources. Batterman is an urban planning student who is specializing in transportation issues. From his remarks made to UM regents on Jan. 20, 2011: “… continually increasing parking supply may be less environmentally and fiscally sustainable than an alternative strategy of adjusting parking pricing to more efficiently use existing parking supply.”

Fuller Road Station Timeline Overview

The following is a detailed timeline of the Fuller Road Station project, compiled by The Chronicle, with links to previous coverage.

• 1824 Ann Arbor is founded.
• 1837 University of Michigan re-locates from Detroit to Ann Arbor.
• 1993-Jun-26 UM and city make a land swap deal involving the surface parking lot at the site of the proposed Fuller Road Station. Ann Arbor News article states: “Oak trees to be spared from ax – A request from UM officials for a temporary parking lot may be the key to saving condemned burr oak trees.”
• 2006-Jun-15 City of Ann Arbor “Model for Mobility” introduced as a three-point vision, with: (1) north-south commuter rail, (2) east-west commuter rail, and (3) local circulator connector system.
• 2008-Sep-18 University of Michigan regents give initial approval to $48.6 million Wall Street parking structure.
• 2008-Dec-16 UM officials meet with residents who live near the proposed Wall Street parking structure projects.
• 2009-Jan-27 City transportation program manager gives combined multimodal transit center and parking structure concrete form by showing a sketch of the project, indicating its location at the Fuller Park parking lot. The presentation takes place in the context of a neighborhood meeting to respond in part to concerns about the UM proposal to build parking structures on Wall Street.
• 2009-Jun-19 UM regents pause the proposed Wall Street parking structure project.
• 2009-Aug-17 Ann Arbor city council approves $213,984 of city funds for an environmental study and site assessment. Of that amount, $104,742 was appropriated from the economic development fund.
• 2009-Nov-05 Ann Arbor city council approves memorandum of understanding with UM on Fuller Road Station.
• 2009-Nov-05 Ann Arbor city council authorizes additional $111,228 for environmental study and site assessment.
• 2010-Jan-21 UM board of regents approves the Fuller Road Station project.
• 2010-Feb-10 Public forum held for Ann Arbor residents on Fuller Road Station.
• 2010-May-04 Ann Arbor park advisory commission weighs a resolution calling for the city council to abandon the Fuller Road Station project, or at the least to get a better deal from the university.
• 2010-May-04 Ann Arbor city planning commission recommends amending zoning code list of permitted principal uses of public land (including the site of the proposed Fuller Road Station) – specifically, changing a “municipal airports” use to “transportation facilities.”
• 2010-May-18 Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje attends meeting of park advisory commission urging their support of Fuller Road Station.
• 2010-Jun-01 Ann Arbor park advisory commission modifies resolution draft due in part to the mayor’s visit at their previous meeting.
• 2010-Jul-06 Ann Arbor city council votes to change zoning code to allow transportation facilities as allowable use for public land.
• 2010-Jun-15 Ann Arbor park advisory commission passes resolution on Fuller Road Station calling for transparency.
• 2010-Sep-21 Ann Arbor city planning commission votes 7-2 to recommend approval of the Fuller Road Station site plan.
• 2011-May-17 Ann Arbor park advisory commission gets update on Fuller Road Station, including award of $2.8 million from Federal Rail Administration for environmental study and site analysis. The funds would reimburse some money already expended.
• 2011-Jun-06 Public commentary at a city council meeting prompts city councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1) to request that a council work session be scheduled on Fuller Road Station – mayor John Hieftje agrees that one can be scheduled.
• 2011-Jun-20 City council adds a working session to its calendar for July 11, 2011.
• 2011-Jul-05 Mayor John Hieftje indicates during the city council’s meeting that Fuller Road Station is not among the intended topics for the July 11 work session.
• 2011-Jul-27 Mayor John Hieftje sends letter to constituents about Fuller Road Station.
• 2011-Oct-20 Jim Kosteva, UM director of community relations, sends an email to the mayor and city administrator warning of the need for urgency.
• 2012-Jan-31 Press release from Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club calls for details of Fuller Road Station plans to be made known.
• 2012-Feb-10 Press release from the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan announcing a halt to the project.
• 2012-Jun-15 Date by which Ann Arbor-UM memorandum of understanding anticipates Fuller Road Station parking structure would be ready for use.

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

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) sign agendas for students who attended the Feb. 6 meeting to complete a class assignment. (Photos by the writer.)

The AATA had requested the postponement until March 5. The council ultimately agreed to do that, but not before thoroughly debating the merits of March 5 versus March 19, or even some unspecified date in the future. In the end, the resolution to postpone included a stipulation that the mayor or city administrator could take the item off the March 5 agenda, if a funding recommendation and 5-year service plan are not provided to the council by the AATA in a timely way for the March 5 meeting. A meeting of a financial advisory group, co-chaired by McKinley Inc. CEO Albert Berriz and retired Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel, is scheduled to take place on Feb. 29.

In other business, the council approved the tentative award of a $92,929,000 contract with Walsh Construction Company II to undertake a major renovation project at the city’s wastewater treatment plant. During public commentary, the council heard from Glenn Granger, whose company was one of two that had submitted lower bids than Walsh. City staff evaluating the bids did not agree with Granger’s contention that his company had comparable previous experience with a project of similar complexity.

The council gave final approval to a revision to the Arlington Square planned unit development, which grants the developer additional types of uses, without imposing additional parking requirements. The council also appointed a hearing officer for the coming year’s liquor license review process – councilmember Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who also served last year in that capacity.

Highlights of public participation included commentary from a group that has been advocating for a warming center for the homeless.

Four-Party Transit Agreement

In front of the council for a third time was a resolution that would have established an agreement between Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, establishing a new framework for governance of local public transportation. The council previously postponed the issue at its Jan. 9 and Jan. 23 meetings. Thirty-nine people spoke at a public hearing held on Jan. 23.

The four-party agreement would expand the area and level of transportation service provided by the AATA by expanding the geographic area of its governance structure. Specifically, under the four-party agreement, the AATA would be incorporated as a transportation authority under Act 196 of 1986.

In advance of the meeting, the AATA had requested that the council delay the vote until March 5.

The previous delays by the council were due in part to a desire to hear a recommendation from a financial advisory group that was scheduled to meet on Jan. 27 – but that meeting was postponed. The group is now expected to meet on Feb. 29. The group is a collection of more than 20 representatives of the public and private sectors, led by McKinley Inc. CEO Albert Berriz and retired Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel. They have met since the fall of 2011.

The day before the group’s scheduled meeting, a 17-bill package was introduced on Jan. 26 in the Michigan house of representatives that provides for the establishment and funding of a regional transit authority that would include Washtenaw, Wayne, Macomb and Oakland counties. However, the AATA has not explicitly cited that new legislation as the reason for the postponement of its meeting.

Four-Party Transit Agreement: Public Commentary

Jim Mogensen reminded councilmembers that he’d addressed them at their last meeting, during the public hearing on the four-party agreement. He wanted to extend his remarks. So far, he said, most of the discussion has involved technical details about service options. Now we’re coming to the part where, he said, “most of us like to look away, because it starts to get ugly.” This next part, he said, is about money and power.

AATA FY 2102 revenue pie chart.

Ticking through the four parties to the agreement and evaluating their power and money, he noted that Washtenaw County has power – the county would be the party to file the articles of incorporation, but is not being asked to contribute any money. AATA has money it brings to the table, he said – through its federal and state grants. He noted that of the AATA operating budget, only 30% comes from Ann Arbor’s local transit tax. He pointed out that even the University of Michigan needs to go through the AATA in applying for federal funding for transportation. The city of Ann Arbor has both power and brings money to the table.

Mogensen described Ypsilanti as “kind of” bringing money to the table [through its purchase-of-service agreement (POSA)]. But for the most part, he said, Ypsilanti doesn’t have money or power.

Mogensen stressed that the AATA is a public entity – it’s not Indian Trails or Greyhound. It’s similar, he said, to the fact that the Ann Arbor District Library is not a bookstore. He pointed out that for the commuter express service into Ann Arbor from Chelsea and Canton, AATA has spent about $100,000 in FY 2011 out of local millage money to fund it. [Total cost of the service was around $320,000.]

During public commentary, Thomas Partridge noted that February is African American history month, so he called for “freedom rides” to promote a transportation system in Washtenaw County that is affordable, accessible, and is an equal-opportunity transportation system.

Four-Party Transit Agreement: Council Deliberations

During his communications time near the start of the meeting, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) noted that the council had had a long discussion about the four-party agreement. He was glad that AATA’s chief executive officer Michael Ford had indicated a willingness to meet with councilmembers before the agreement comes before the council again. Anglin indicated that he felt it’s now an appropriate timeframe in which to ask questions. He reported one such question that someone in the community had asked: Why aren’t members of the AATA board publicly elected, like the library board?

The council’s deliberations began with an amendment to the agreement offered by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), which ultimately was not approved by the council.

Four-Party Transit Agreement: Council Deliberations – 1%

Briere’s amendment would have eliminated the reference to 1% as the amount of the municipal service charge that the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti could impose on the local millages that they would be contributing to the new Act 196 authority [proposed deletion in strike-through, additions in italics]:

… the tax levy in its entirely to AATA at the 2012 millage rate or as adjusted by State of Michigan statute less a municipal service charge of one percent (1%) of the annual millage at the time of the collection of taxes to be negotiated by the city administrator, of which the portion of the service charge for the collection of any tax levy shall not exceed the allowable maximum under statute for tax administration fees.

Mayor John Hieftje reacted to the proposed change by saying that the specific figure of 1% makes it definite. And he wondered about the choice of the word “negotiated.” Assistant city attorney Mary Fales explained that Act 196, under which the new transportation authority would be incorporated, uses that word. ["Any agreement negotiated under this subsection shall guarantee the collecting unit its reasonable expenses."]

Asked to comment on the proposed change, Michael Ford, CEO of AATA, indicated that he could not comment – AATA’s legal counsel was not present and he was just seeing the proposed change for the first time.

Hieftje suggested the council should go ahead and undertake any changes the councilmembers thought were necessary, even if the intent is to postpone the vote. In the process of taking “little bites,” he felt this might be an appropriate bite. Responding to the view by Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) that there would be additional amendments coming at future meetings, Hieftje felt that it would be beneficial to go ahead and take care of as many of those issues as the council could.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked what the “municipal service charge” referred to. It was his understanding that the municipal service charge is something that the city charges to, for example, the golf course enterprise fund to cover overhead. He said the city charges an administrative fee on the collection of taxes already, so he wondered: Is the charge referred to in the four-party agreement an additional charge? Briere ventured that based on the communication she’d had with the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, she believed it’s the same thing. It’s two different ways of saying the same thing, she ventured.

Kunselman disagreed with Briere, saying he didn’t understand it that way at all. City treasurer Matt Horning provided some clarity on the issue, by explaining that the 1% administrative fee is something charged to taxpayers above and beyond their tax bill. The municipal service charge is something charged within the city’s accounting system to different units.

[What the four-party agreement would do, then, is allow the city of Ann Arbor and the city of Ypsilanti to forward just 99% of their local millages to the new Act 196 authority. The administrative fee does not result in a reduction of millage money forwarded, because it's paid by taxpayers on top of their entire tax bill.]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) got clarification that the maximum allowable rate for the tax administration fee is 1%. Noting that Act 196 refers to a negotiation, he wondered if the conversation the council was having, plus the conversations of the other parties, constitute the negotiation? Fales allowed that the four-party agreement could be used as the point of negotiation. But she said Briere’s suggestion would allow flexibility. Taylor agreed that Fales’ description was accurate, but he felt that now was the time when the negotiation is taking place. He appreciated having flexibility downstream – but said the city would be moving down from what it had previously charged. So he said he’d decline to support the amendment as drafted.

Outcome: Briere’s 1% amendment failed, with support only from Anglin, Briere, and Kunselman.

Four-Party Transit Agreement: Council Deliberations – Termination

Briere offered another amendment to add language to the termination clause to make explicit what some of the options are – to which Taylor eventually added the second sentence. He also tweaked the initial sentence so that it referred to withdrawal from the new transit authority, not the four-party agreement.

The City of Ann Arbor may also withdraw from the new TA [transit authority] using any of the methods authorized by MCL 124.458. In the event that the city of Ann Arbor exercise any of the forgoing rights, Ann Arbor may terminate this agreement upon written notice to the other parties.

Briere offered as rationale the fact that much of the conversation has been about the option to withdraw from the Act 196 authority within 30 days after its incorporation. She noted that there are more options than just the 30-day period, and it’s a good idea not to waive any of those options.

Kunselman asked what would happen if the new authority were created and Ann Arbor withdrew. Fales indicated that the agreement would be binding on the other three parties. Responding to a question from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Fales noted that the council will vote separately on the articles of incorporation.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) got clarification that the added language was clarifying the existence of the city’s rights, not giving it new rights.

Outcome: The amendment clarifying withdrawal options was approved unanimously.

Four-Party Transit Agreement: Council Deliberations – Postponement

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) initially made a motion to postpone the issue to March 19. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she did not want the date to be specified. Lumm wanted to make it non-specific and contingent on receiving the funding recommendation and service plan.

Briere noted there are two options – postponing until a date certain or tabling with an uncertain date. She said she felt the March 19 date would address the concern expressed by Lumm. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) objected to the idea of leaving the date uncertain. She said the council should pick a date and shoot for that date. That way the council and the public will know when “we’ll be queuing it up,” Smith said. If necessary, the council can postpone again.

Asked for his thoughts, Michael Ford – CEA of the AATA – indicated that the AATA had asked for postponement only until the March 5 date. The AATA would be prepared with the information on March 5, he said.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) had mixed feelings. She noted the Feb. 29 meeting of the financial advisory group, and said that March 5 comes up quickly after that meeting. She was concerned that the council wouldn’t have the time it would need to evaluate the information.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked Ford if the March 19 date would slow down the AATA too much. Ford replied, “It will slow us down.” Ford reiterated that the AATA could provide the information by March 5.

Taylor expressed his view that the information that some councilmembers want to see before taking a vote on the four-party agreement is not necessary to see. He said it’s an agreement between parties and doesn’t bind the city to enter into a new financing plan. Rather, it creates an analytic process by which to move forward. It’s not law the council is making here, he said. The agreement is binding only according to its terms, nothing more.

Lumm said she wanted to postpone it longer, but was comfortable with March 19. That would also allow time for the community to assess the information. She rejected the idea that it’s important not to lose momentum. “If it’s a good concept today, it’ll be a good concept tomorrow,” she said.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Higgins indicated that she’d heard people say nobody is pushing this, but she noted that Taylor had reminded the council twice it needs to move forward. She said she was just looking for the final pieces to fall into place. She gets asked frequently by her constituents about the funding piece of the plan. She allowed that the funding is separate from the four-party agreement, but said that the two things come together at some point in time.

As far as a timeline goes, Higgins asked Ford why he could not meet with the city of Ypsilanti and work on their part of the agreement. Ford explained that the AATA has had meetings with Ypsilanti officials, but a lot of people are looking at what Ann Arbor is doing. To be blunt, he said, people are looking for Ann Arbor’s leadership.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he shared the view that the financing plan is separate from the four-party agreement. If the council did receive the requested material on Feb. 29 , that’s consistent with the timeframe for which it receives information for its council meetings – on the Wednesday before the next Monday meeting. He did not see a problem with changing the postponement date to March 5.

Briere agreed with Hohnke’s point about the timing of the information. She also agreed with Higgins and Lumm when they said the public would also want a chance to dig into it. After that, she continued, if Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the AATA all sign off on it, then the public will have the next several months to dig into it.

Mayor John Hieftje said he felt it’s important to keep the ball rolling. March 5 would be another opportunity to figure out how to amend the agreement.

Lumm objected to that date as too short a timeframe. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wondered why Ypsilanti is even being included the agreement, given its relatively small financial contribution.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) reminded his colleagues of the concerns they’d heard during public commentary about the financial part of the plan.

Smith noted that on March 5, the four-party agreement can be postponed again if the council decides it needs to be postponed. She noted that “… if Ann Arbor’s not playing, there’s no game.”

Briere reminded her colleagues and the public that the proposed bills in the state legislature, which could alter the funding picture, had only been introduced. Just because something has been introduced doesn’t mean it will pass, she said. Trying to theorize what would happen is a waste of time, she said – we have no control over what happens in Lansing. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) felt the council tends to overuse postponement. He felt the four-party agreement is a preliminary step and the council should just go ahead.

Higgins was not entirely satisfied with the March 5 date, but extracted an assurance that if the funding recommendation and the service plan were not available, it could be taken off that meeting’s agenda. Hieftje told Higgins that he and city administrator Steve Powers would “get together on that.”

Outcome: The council voted to postpone the vote on the four-party agreement until March 5. Voting against the postponement, because of the date that was specified, were Anglin and Lumm.

Wastewater Treatment Contract

The council considered the tentative award of a $92,929,000 contract with Walsh Construction Company II LLC to undertake the work associated with the facilities renovation project at the city’s wastewater treatment plant. The “tentative” award is a requirement for receiving a low-interest loan from the state’s revolving fund loan program, which is administered through Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality.

The city reviewed six bids: Lakeshore Toltest Corp. ($83,302,048); Granger Construction Co. ($89,990,000); Walsh Construction Co. II LLC ($92,929,000); Walbridge ($95,380,441); Hunt/Colasanti ($99,990,000); and Barton Malow Co. ($102,884,000).

The firms making lower bids were found by city staff not to be sufficiently qualified to undertake the specific work, because they did not have experience as a general contractor in charge of a wastewater treatment facility construction project with a similar complexity and size.

Wastewater Treatment Contract: Public Comment

During his turn at public commentary at the start of the meeting, Kermit Schlansker did not address the specific issue of the wastewater treatment contract. However, he did reprise a theme on which he has addressed the council for nearly 20 years: energy conservation and municipal sewage disposal. From the Sept. 7, 1994 city council minutes:

Kermit Schlansker, 2950 Marshall St., stated that cities should start building their own power plants because small facilities are more energy conserving and cheaper than large facilities. He voiced concern with the status quo in energy conservation and expressed the need for the creation of an environmental science commission staffed with experts to accomplish such conservation projects. Mr. Schlansker stated that conservation is cost effective and essential in achieving a sustainable society.

Schlansker is a former aerospace engineer for Allied Bendix.

At the Feb. 6, 2012 meeting, Schlansker told the council that sewage disposal is more effective if there are multiple goals. He called for recycling sewage, suggesting that the southwest side of the city should have an experimental sewage plant. If we don’t start to use sewage as fertilizer for crops, millions will starve, he warned.

Glenn Granger of Granger Construction Co. addressed the council during public commentary, objecting to the assessment of the city’s staff that his firm had no similar previous experience.

Glenn Granger of Granger Construction Co. In the background is councilmember Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Granger pointed specifically to a $70 million project in Wyoming Township that he contended was comparable. He allowed that the total dollar value was somewhat less than the $90 million contract for Ann Arbor’s wastewater treatment facility, but said from the point of view of the dollar value of construction expected per year, it was comparable.

Granger described wastewater treatment and solid waste as “within our wheelhouse,” noting that the very first construction project he’d been involved with in his career was a wastewater treatment facility. So he said he was confused by the city’s assessment. Noting that some students from Skyline High School were in the audience, he told the council that Granger was the contractor for that project, as well as many other local building projects. Granger asked the council to delay their consideration of the contract.

Wastewater Treatment Contract: Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje noted that while his name is given on the agenda as the sponsor of the resolution, he’s not responsible for the hard work that went into it.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) led off deliberations by asking that Craig Hupy to come forward to the podium to answer questions. Hupy is interim public services area administrator in the wake of Sue McCormick’s resignation late last year. She took a job heading up Detroit’s water and sewerage department.

From left: Earl Kenzie, unit manager at the city's wastewater treatment plant, and Craig Hupy, interim public services area administrator.

Taylor noted that the council had received communications from the unsuccessful bidders on the project. Taylor told Hupy that he was looking to have him confirm and affirm the rationale for the selection of Walsh.

Hupy stressed that the rationale has nothing to do with Granger’s ability to perform as a general building contractor. The firm has wide experience in that area, Hupy said.

Hupy addressed the specific issue of the Wyoming Township project, which Granger had cited as a comparable project. That is a drinking water treatment plant, he said, whereas Ann Arbor’s project is a wastewater plant. The Wyoming Township facility, he said, was built adjacent to the existing facility, with service switched over to the new facility in one step. The Ann Arbor project, he said, would require demolishing out sections of an existing facility and switching over service step by step over time. Hupy described it as involving multiple cutovers and tie-ins. It’s a different complexity than the Wyoming facility.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) asked what was “tentative” about the contract award. The explanation is that it’s a required step for receiving a low-interest loan from the state’s revolving fund loan program, which is administered through Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality.

Earl Kenzie, unit manager at the city’s wastewater treatment plant, responded to a question from Mike Anglin (Ward 5) by walking the council through the process used to review the bids.

The staff took a look at the three low bids and based on a review of those bids, the city submitted written questions to the three lowest bidders. Those bidders were then brought in to discuss the answers that had been given.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) wrapped up the deliberations by saying that the project’s engineering firm, Malcolm Pirnie of Michigan Inc., had provided a detailed memo on the selection of the contractor. She characterized the evaluation process as “quite robust.”

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the tentative award of the wastewater treatment facility construction contract to Walsh Construction.

Arlington Square PUD

The council considered final approval to changes to the supplemental regulations of a planned unit development (PUD) for Arlington Square. The changes to the PUD supplemental regulations would allow for urgent care and restaurant uses at the site, with no additional parking. No exterior changes are proposed.

The two-story, 51,285-square-foot retail and office complex is located at 3250 Washtenaw Ave. – the southeast corner of Washtenaw Avenue and Huron Parkway. An 8,000-square-foot space in the complex, where Hollywood Video was formerly located, is vacant, and the owner would like to have the option of leasing the space to a restaurant or urgent care facility.

The current PUD zoning, which was approved in 1989, allows for certain C3 (fringe commercial) uses, but due to an increased need for parking that would be created, the original regulations did not allow for (1) restaurants with seating, (2) barber/beauty shops on the first floor, or (3) office uses on the second floor, with the exception of medical/dental offices.

The site includes 200 parking spaces. To accommodate potential increased parking demand, the building’s owner – Nadim Ajlouny of Orchard Lake, Mich. – is offering to provide bus passes to all employees on the site and to provide an additional 14 enclosed bicycle parking spaces.

The city planning commission, at its meeting of Dec. 6, 2011, had recommended approval of the request.

The city council had given its initial approval at its Jan. 9, 2012 meeting. Because change to the PUD is a change to the city’s zoning, the change is subject to the requirements of any ordinance change, which include a second and final approval by the council as well as a public hearing.

Arlington Square PUD: Public Hearing

As he typically does at any public hearing involving zoning changes, Thomas Partridge called for zoning that accommodates the need for equal access to transportation and affordable housing.

Steve Dykstra of Hobbs + Black Architects appeared to indicate essentially that he was available for any questions.

Arlington Square PUD: Council Deliberations

One question that arose during the council’s initial deliberations on Jan. 9, 2012 involved the number of parking spaces that are actually on the site.

During deliberations on Feb. 6, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who had questioned the number of spaces, reported that his question had been answered, noting that the spaces were located under the building, and thus had been hard to find. [.pdf of site schematic]

Kunselman said he had some concerns due to the fact that it’s a “tight corner.” He said that some residents had asked about the entrance off Huron Parkway. It requires turning right then immediately turning left. Kunselman described the turn as “awkward.” Kunselman asked how that entrance is expected to function if the traffic will increase, based on new uses. Dykstra told Kunselman that when the building previously had been fully rented [it's currently partly empty] there were no issues with traffic. He added that no physical changes are being made to the site.

Kunselman pressed the issue of possibly increased traffic flow. Dykstra indicated that he didn’t think that there would be any additional traffic flow beyond what the site experienced when it was fully rented. The additional specific use is an urgent care facility and that looks like it will actually generate somewhat lower traffic volumes. Kunselman noted that the PUD regulations indicate that an annual traffic monitoring report is supposed to be done. Dykstra indicated that had been done only once in the past and said that the developer would be more careful with that.

Kunselman then asked Wendy Rampson, head of city planning, what would happen if the traffic monitoring report indicates an increase in traffic flow. Would there be any opportunity to address that? Rampson indicated that yes, the city would be able to approach the developer and work on ways to mitigate or reduce the additional traffic flow – through carpooling or bus passes.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give final approval to the additional uses specified in the Arlington Square PUD.

Liquor Hearing Officer & Transcript Fees

The council considered the appointment of Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) as the hearing officer for annual liquor license renewal and revocation. Derezinski serves on the council’s liquor license review committee along with Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Also before the council for separate consideration was a resolution to set the fee for transcripts of any hearings.

Ward 2 councilmembers Tony Derezinski and Jane Lumm.

Early last year, at the council’s March 7, 2011 meeting, councilmembers had approved Derezinski as hearing officer. That came amid some minor controversy as then-chair of the liquor license review committee Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) had made clear that his expectation before the council’s meeting was that there’d be a hearing panel consisting of the three members of the liquor license review committee.

During deliberations this year, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) noted that the date specified goes past the end of Derezinski’s term – he’ll need to stand for election this year. Higgins said she hoped that Derezinski is running again, but wanted the date set to Nov. 8, 2012, which is the first council meeting after the Nov. 6 election. [Derezinski has stated publicly that he's running again.] She also wanted to fold the appointment of the hearing officer into the regular council appointments list. Derezinski indicated that was fine with him.

Derezinski described how the liquor license review committee does an annual review of all 121 licensees in the city. That allows the committee to recommend renewal or non-renewal. That approach also allows the city council to recommend non-renewal to the state liquor control commission. The process was established a year ago, he said. Former councilmember Stephen Rapundalo had a lot to do with setting up an orderly process for the review, Derezinski said. Licensees pay a fee to have it reviewed, which covers the cost of the process. The review involves fire department officials, the building department and the police. He described how a number of form letters are sent out.

Derezinski reported that a “usual item” that’s discovered is non-payment of fees and taxes by licensees. Last year the amount came to about $46,000. He continued by saying that every once in a while, a pattern of unacceptable conduct is identified. Last year, there were two establishments that fell into that category, he said. The committee is starting the process again this year.

Derezinski noted that petitioners are entitled to basic due process. That can include an appeal, which has an associated hearing that’s treated as an evidentiary hearing. One of the hearings last year took about four and a half hours and included a lot of contradictory statements. The deadline for completing the review process is March 30, he said, in order to make recommendations to the city council, which then makes recommendations to the state liquor control commission. The form letters have been sent out, he said, and the city is starting to get responses.

Derezinski also noted that there’s a procedure to undertake revocation of a license, outside the context of the annual review and renewal. That hasn’t yet been necessary, he said, venturing that the threat of that is as powerful as the exercise of the authority.

Anglin, who serves on the liquor license review committee with Derezinski, said that Derezinski had done a good job last year. He ventured that licensees want to cooperate with the committee, and said he thought it’s difficult to operate a business in a large student area.

Lumm, who replaced Rapundalo on the city council and on the liquor license review committee, described the committee as “ably chaired” by Derezinski, and thanked him for volunteering his expertise and time to serve as hearing officer.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to appoint Derezinski as hearing officer.

On the issue of the transcript fee, Derezinski noted that a transcript of a hearing can be made available if there’s an appeal or someone doesn’t like the decision that has been made. Generally, no transcript is made, but the hearing is recorded.

The resolution that set the fee did not do so in terms of a dollar amount, but rather set it to be equal to whatever the actual cost of the transcription service is. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that no information is included about what the cost per hour is. Assistant city attorney Mary Fales told Briere she’d done some preliminary checking – the average cost is about $3.50 per page. There are additional services that can be requested, like getting the transcript on a disk. She described it as a “pass through” cost.

Briere wanted to know if someone would know before they ordered a transcript how much it would cost, or if someone would need to wait until the transcript is complete. Fales indicated that transcribers can estimate based on how long the hearing lasted.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wanted to know who would be performing the service. Would the city be hiring someone? She ventured that this kind of fee should be set with the other fees that are set with the approval of the annual city budget.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the transcript fees as the actual cost charged by the transcription service. Higgins dissented.

Re-Funding Bonds

The council considered approval of the issuance of $2,850,000 of bonds to refinance the outstanding principal amount of Michigan Transportation Fund Bonds for the Broadway bridges project. After factoring in bond issuance costs, the city expects to save around $185,000 over the next 11 years.

Council deliberations were brief. Mayor John Hieftje said he appreciated the work of the city’s financial staff. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) also praised the city staff. When Hieftje mentioned that the refinancing was being done for the Broadway bridges project, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said that point warranted repeating. Many people have forgotten that the city had financed that project.

Outcome: The council voted to approval issuance of the re-funding bonds.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Leasing Ordinance

During her communications, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) told her council colleagues that she’d been approached by members of the Washtenaw Area Apartment Association about the city’s leasing ordinance. She also reminded council that on the same issue they’d heard from Michael Benson, president of the graduate student body at the University of Michigan. At issue is a provision in Ann Arbor’s leasing ordinance, approved by the city council in 2008, which is supposed to prevent landlords from renting or showing an apartment to another renter until 70 days of the current lease period has passed.

Lumm reported that Benson will be scheduling a couple of forums and depending on the feedback from those forums, some recommendations will be forthcoming. She hoped some improvements could be made in the ordinance – some people might like to see the time period requirement repealed, and that might be the best solution, she said. She told the council that she’d give them a heads up when any meetings are scheduled.

Mayor John Hieftje responded to Lumm by saying he felt that people would be happy to entertain discussion of the issue, but he asked that any changes be completed before the end of the semester. The time period requirement had been added to the ordinance because of student concerns, and he wanted want to make sure their input was considered before any changes were implemented.

Comm/Comm: DDA TIF Report

During his communications time, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) contended the council had not yet received the annual report from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority for the fiscal year 2011, which ended June 30, 2011 and for which the audit was complete. Kunselman said he hoped that either mayor John Hieftje or Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who both serve on the DDA board, could ensure that report is forwarded to the council.

In an email sent to Kunselman the following afternoon, Smith pointed out to Kunselman that the DDA’s annual report had been included in the council’s information packet for its meeting a month earlier – on Jan. 9, 2012. [.pdf of Smith email to Kunselman][.pdf of TIF report]

The TIF (tax increment finance) report shows estimated assessed property value in the district of $392,193,873, of which $140,612,435 is captured value. That’s the increment on which the DDA’s tax increment finance mechanism “captures” the taxes that other taxing authorities would otherwise receive. On that captured value, the DDA received $3,419,042 in revenue. The TIF report also shows outstanding bond indebtedness amounting to $77,854,652 in principal and $39,492,937 in interest for a total of $117,347,589.

Comm/Comm: Recognition of Volunteers

Two residents were honored by separate mayoral proclamations for their volunteer work in assisting the Ann Arbor police department and the broader community: Diane Schillack and Beverly Robbins.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) stood with Robbins as she received her proclamation. After a pause for some photographs, Kunselman delivered a few remarks about Robbins. He called her his “other mother” and her two three sons his brothers, her dad his “gramps.” He said it’s a testament to her good nurturing that he is where he is today, and he gave her a hug to conclude his remarks.

Comm/Comm: Energy Website

Andrew Brix, the city’s energy coordinator, gave the council an update from the energy office. As part of the emphasis on energy savings throughout the community, the energy office has launched a new website: a2energy.org One of the slogans featured prominently on the site reads “Caulk is cheap.” Brix observed that for most homes in Ann Arbor, the two most effective measures to take are air sealing and attic insulation.

Comm/Comm: Year of the Co-op

A mayoral proclamation was issued in honor of co-op businesses in the community – 2012 has been declared “International Year of the Cooperatives” by the United Nations.

Eric Lipson, a former city planning commissioner who is general manager of the Inter-cooperative Council, presented a mug to the council with the twin-pine symbol of co-ops.

Tiffany Ford, new president of the University of Michigan Credit Union, also delivered some remarks to the council, thanking them for the recognition, and reviewing some of the history of UMCU – it was established in 1954.

Comm/Comm: Student Visitors

A large number of students from local schools attended the council’s meeting to satisfy requirements for a class.

Some teachers require students to obtain a signature from a councilmember on an agenda in order to attest to their attendance. So towards the start of the meeting, mayor John Hieftje paused the proceedings and asked students to take the opportunity to get a signature, so as not to distract councilmembers later during the meeting, when students left. He joked that if they left early that he and councilmembers would call their teachers. A student shot back from the audience: “Do you know our teachers?”

Herb David, owner of the eponymous guitar studio located on the corner of Liberty and Fifth Avenue, and Ali Ramlawi, owner of the neighboring Jerusalem Garden, were seated in the audience, having signed up for a public commentary reserved slot. In their remarks, they both addressed the challenges they face in their downtown location – caused by the closure of Fifth Avenue during the construction of the new underground parking structure. When Hieftje brought up the topic of student visitors getting signatures from councilmembers, David quipped to Ramlawi: “I’d like to get one, too – on a check!”

Comm/Comm: Fifth Avenue Underground Parking Garage

Herb David told the council that his business – the Herb David Guitar Studio – would be celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. He said he’s enjoyed his situation in Ann Arbor. He contended that Ann Arbor’s downtown is changing from one that is people-oriented to one that is characterized by franchise cookie-cutter businesses. The character of downtown is being destroyed, he contended, and he blamed part of that on the construction of the new Fifth Avenue underground parking garage. He noted that before that, the Internet had already started to have a negative impact on downtown retail.

David told the council that the city gives tax abatements to businesses it wants to attract. What about people you want to retain? he asked councilmembers. People come to his guitar studio from all over the world, and the studio has been written up in various publications. “I think I’m worth supporting,” he said. The council should think about positive ways to support the businesses that bring more people here.

Near the start of his remarks, Ali Ramlawi – owner of Jerusalem Garden – welcomed Jane Lumm (Ward 2) to the council. [She was newly elected in November 2011, having served previously in the mid-1990s.] Ramlawi said he was interested is seeing if Lumm can bring “progressive ideas to a hungry audience.” He said he understood why she ran as an independent and why she won as an independent. About his fellow Democrats, he said, “These are not my daddy’s Democrats.”

Ramlawi told councilmembers that he was there to address them because his neighbor, Herb David, had asked him to come and speak. Fifth Avenue has been closed since August 2010. He’d been told the street would be open again in August 2011. “We want to know when the road will open,” he told the council. Herb David is going into his nest egg, Ramlawi said. Ramlawi’s own business is back to normal – but that’s due to the increase in his catering business to the University of Michigan. He characterized his in-house traffic as “in the toilet.” He told the council he’s used up all his rainy day funds.

Ramlawi ventured somewhat sardonically that he should thank the council – what doesn’t kill you will make you stronger. He allowed that after the road opens, he will have a stronger business than he had before. But he noted that the downtown has lost three or four retailers in the last year, and some of that loss he attributed to the construction. He described the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, which is overseeing the parking structure’s construction, as “whisky drunk” on parking revenue. He urged the DDA to stop focusing on the parking system as a source of revenue and to focus on funding police foot patrols and dealing with panhandling issues. People come downtown for arts, culture and food, not to park in a structure, he concluded.

Comm/Comm: Warming Center, Affordable Housing

Several people addressed the council during public commentary about their desire to see a day shelter set up for use as a warming center for the homeless.

Alexandra Hoffman told the council that she’d heard the issue of homelessness described politically as “a hot potato.” She ventured that, “It’s time to get some oven mitts.” She told the council that they shouldn’t shy away from the issue.

Alexandra Hoffman at the podium addresses the council, advocating for a warming center.

Mary Johnson challenged notions of who the homeless are and what they’re capable of. She described the writing workshop at the St. Andrews Episcopal Church that’s offered to homeless people. She told the council that promises have been made to provide affordable housing that remain unmet. She said homeless people would like to contribute back to the city – they can become powerful city volunteers, she said.

Orian Zakai reminded the council that she’d spoken to them twice before about the need for additional warming spaces in the city available all hours of the day and night. Her group has narrowed their request to just daytime. But she told the council that support from the city has failed to manifest itself in a tangible way. She said her group could use help from people with influence who can pick up their phones and make things happen. She’s still waiting for any action on the possibility of using the city-owned 721 N. Main building as a warming center, she said.

While the group is waiting, she said, they’d undertaken their first creative project, during their regular meetings. They’d decided to build a cardboard house – if no one gives them a house, they’d build one themselves, she said. Two walls of the house tell the story of the 100 units of affordable housing that were removed from the downtown area, when the old YMCA building deteriorated to the point that it became uninhabitable and needed to be demolished.

Lily Au was critical of two projects intended to increase the supply of affordable housing – the Near North project, which she described as having high construction costs, and 1500 Pauline, which she said actually resulted in the loss of 15 units of housing.

Alan Haber told the council that they’d been putting out a lot of prayer to hold off the winter. [It's been a mild winter so far.] He said the group of warming center advocates had been given a tour of the city-owned 721 N. Main property by Ralph Welton, the city’s chief development official. Subsequently, Haber said, no one has been responding to their phone calls.

During his communications time, mayor John Hieftje responded to some of the commentary by saying that the city had been working diligently to replace the 100 units of affordable housing that previously existed at the former downtown YMCA. Not all of it is in a single place, he said, but he said that 70 additional units have been created.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) followed up on Hieftje’s remarks by asking him if it weren’t the case that he’s meeting with people on that issue, which he confirmed he was. Parties to the conversation that he named were the Washtenaw Housing Alliance, H-PORT (Homeless Project Outreach Team), the Washtenaw County administrator and the nonprofit Dawn Farm. He concluded that the need is being met and no one is being turned away. A detox unit has been opened not far from the Delonis Center, he said, for those who are not sober and can’t come into the shelter. No one is outside, he contended, “unless they desire to be out in the cold.”

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

Next council meeting: Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

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

DDA Quiz: Board member Sandi Smith is illustrating: (a) the "increment" in "tax increment financing," (b) the amount of a parking rate increase, (c) building heights and flood plains, or (d) relative thickness of concrete slabs in parking structures. (Photos by the writer.)

The amount of the award was 90% of the total amount the board could have awarded –$45,000 of $50,000. It’s the same amount the board has awarded in each of the last three years. It’s based on a variety of criteria, including customer satisfaction surveys, independent inspections of the parking facilities, and financial performance.

February’s meeting also included a review of the DDA’s finances at the mid-point of the fiscal year – through Dec. 31, 2011. The DDA’s fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30. Operations committee chair Roger Hewitt sketched out a picture that portrayed things unfolding pretty much as expected. Although parking revenues are currently about $125,000 under the year-to-date budgeted amount, parking revenues are projected to finish the year at around $672,536 over the budgeted amount. The gross parking revenue now anticipated for FY 2012 is around $16.8 million. But capital costs associated with the new Fifth Avenue parking garage construction are anticipated to put the parking fund expenses over budget.

Part of that parking system revenue will come from rate increases and changes in billing methods, which were approved by the board at its Jan. 4, 2012 meeting. Some of the changes will not be implemented until September 2012 – like hourly rates at parking structures and lots, which will climb from $1.10 per hour to $1.20 per hour.

But other changes were implemented starting Feb. 1, including a change in the billing method at parking structures and hourly lots – from half-hourly to hourly. The board heard criticism of the change during public commentary, from a resident who makes frequent but brief trips downtown as a patron of the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The billing change amounts to a “surcharge” on his library use of a couple hundred dollars a year, he said.

The board also heard a pitch from the developer of the 618 S. Main project, Dan Ketelaar, who is interested in financing certain elements of the project through the state’s Community Revitalization Program. That’s the successor to the state’s brownfield and historic preservation tax credit program.

The 618 S. Main project, which received a positive planning commission recommendation on Jan. 19, would be a 7-story, 153,133-square-foot apartment building with 190 units for 231 bedrooms. The idea would be for the DDA to forgo a portion of the taxes that it would ordinarily capture on the newly constructed 618 S. Main project. The DDA captures taxes from the increment in value due to new construction within its tax increment authority (TIF) district.

The board also heard a pitch from Jody Lanning, with Lanning Outdoor Advertising, for a way to finance murals on the city’s parking structures and other public buildings. The board also entertained its usual set of updates from boards and commissions.

Parking Finances

The monthly report on parking revenues and activity is a standard element of Ann Arbor DDA board meetings. The report is usually delivered by board member Roger Hewitt, and the Feb. 1, 2012 meeting was no different. But earlier in the meeting, Hewitt had already touched on the state of the DDA’s parking fund as part of the fiscal year mid-point update.

And the topic of parking revenues, as reflected in a critique of recent rate and billing method increases, came up during public commentary, too.

Parking: Overall State of the Fund

The parking fund is one of four funds in the DDA’s system of accounting. The DDA’s fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30. The six-month update for the parking fund, reported by Hewitt, shows year-to-date revenue as slightly below the amount budgeted. Specifically, through December 2011 the system had taken in $8,392,644, but the year-to-date budgeted amount is $8,518,094. [.pdf of year-to-date FY 2012 financial picture for all funds]

Still, Hewitt said, the DDA expects to finish the year with $16,835,288 in revenue against a budgeted amount of $16,162,752. That’s a surplus of $672,536 or 4.16% more than budgeted. So by year’s end, Hewitt concluded, the DDA anticipates almost $17 million in parking revenue. Parking operating expenses are, for the moment, lower than budgeted, Hewitt said – just $2,668,055 against $4,743,996 for the year-to-date budgeted amount.

But by year’s end, the capital expenses associated with construction on the new Fifth Avenue underground parking garage are expected to put operating expenses for the parking fund $1,450,514 (or 19.37%) over the year’s budgeted operating expenses of $7,487,994. Direct parking expenses – the contract with Republic Parking, including the 17% of gross that’s paid to the city – are currently slightly under budget, Hewitt said: $3,513,189 against a $3,844,733 year-to-date budgeted amount. But he anticipated that those expenses would be right on budget by the end of the year.

Overall, by year’s end the DDA anticipates spending $835,544 more out of its parking fund than it has taken in.

Parking: Monthly Report

Included in the board’s information packet were three reports: (1) the most recent monthly report, for December 2011; (2) the report for the most recent quarter, for October-December 2011; and (3) the report for the last six months, for July-December 2011. [.pdf of parking reports July-December 2011] All three reports, said Hewitt, tell the same story. Revenues are up 9-10% compared with the same periods a year ago – which is greater than the rate increase that has taken effect since then, Hewitt said.

Patrons are also using the system in greater numbers, he said. Compared with the same six-month period a year ago, the report shows 43,696 (or 4.06%) more hourly patrons. For a year, that projects to 90,000 additional trips downtown, he said. Hewitt called them “strong numbers in an economy that’s not booming.” He said the numbers show a very strong demand for parking.

Ann Arbor public parking system revenue. (Links to larger image)

Ann Arbor public parking system hourly patrons. (Links to larger image)

Parking: Hourly Billing – Approval

When Hewitt updated his colleagues on the parking numbers, he used a rough metric to evaluate the 9-10% increase in revenues over the period of July-December 2011, compared with the same period in 2010: If the percentage-wise revenue increase is greater than the increase expected solely from parking rate increases over the same period, it demonstrates that more total parking hours are being sold.

Sign at Fifth and William surface parking lot entrance off of William Street: "There will no longer be 1/2 hour increment rates." The same billing change applies to parking structures. Rates in structures are set to rise to $1.20 per hour in September 2012.

Until Feb. 1, 2012, that rule of thumb has not needed to factor in any changes to the time increment in the billing method. The billing method – which up until Feb. 1 was based on half-hour increments – has remained constant since 2003. But along with a a recent round of parking rate increases, approved by the DDA board at its Jan. 4, 2012 meeting, a billing method change was approved as well. Hourly parking – in structures and on surface lots – is now charged in hourly increments, not half hourly increments. Before considering the financial impact of that change, it’s worth reviewing the process used to decide rate increases.

A new contract, under which the DDA manages the city’s public parking system, was ratified in May 2011 with the city of Ann Arbor. The terms of the new contract give the DDA the authority to set rates. The previous contract allowed the city council to veto rate increases.

In order to implement parking rate increases, the DDA is required under terms of the contract to schedule a public hearing, with the details of planned rate increases spelled out in writing. The hearing is then to be held at the following month’s board meeting, with a vote coming no sooner than the board’s next monthly meeting. The DDA announced a public hearing before its Nov. 2, 2011 meeting and continued the hearing at its Dec. 7, 2011 meeting. The vote approving the rate increases was held at the board’s Jan. 4, 2012 meeting.

The rate increases described in the board’s Nov. 2 meeting information packet do not include the billing change from half-hour increments to hour increments. But the change in billing will have a substantial impact on the cost of parking and the parking system revenues.

Parking: Hourly Billing – Financial Impact

Some of the rate changes approved by the DDA board on Jan. 4, 2012 will not be implemented until September 2012 – like hourly rates at parking structures and lots, which will climb from $1.10 per hour to $1.20 per hour.

But other changes were implemented starting Feb. 1, including a change in the billing method at parking structures and hourly lots – from half-hourly to hourly.

To compare the hour-increment billing method to the half-hour billing method, assume that parking times are evenly distributed among those people who parked between N and (N + 0.5) hours and those who parked between (N + 0.5) and (N + 1) hours, where N is some whole number.

On the hour-increment billing method – for the current hourly rate of $1.10 – the first group would pay for N + 1 hours, or roughly $0.55 more than under the half-hour-increment method, under which they’d pay just for N + 0.5 hours. The second group would pay for N + 1 hours under either billing method. So by changing from half-hourly to hourly increments, half of the roughly 2 million annual hourly patrons would pay $0.55 more – generating roughly $550,000 more revenue annually.

In the monthly parking report for February 2012, which should be available by the time of the April board meeting (there’s a two month lag time), it’s reasonable to expect at least around $550,000/12 or $45,000 in additional revenue for that month, compared to February 2011.

The March 4, 2009 DDA board minutes reflect similar numbers based on the hourly rate at the time, $0.80: [emphasis added]:

Whereas, The DDA Operations Committee also determined that it has tools available to it to increase parking revenues if needed including the following (in recommended order):
-increase the daily cost of meter bags $5/day from $15/day to $20/day (anticipated to increase revenues by $181,000/year). The DDA could also limit the amount of meter bag fee waivers it provides nonprofits and government agencies, which is currently in excess of $150,000)
-Return to charging for parking by one-hour increments rather than 30-minute increments (anticipated to increase revenues by $400,000/year). The change to 30-minute increments was made in 2003. 
…

Back in 2009, the DDA board was simply weighing various alternatives for generating revenue – at the request of the Ann Arbor city council to explain how the DDA could afford construction of the new underground parking garage. The board did not act at the time to change the billing method.

Beyond a clarificational question asked by board member Nader Nassif at the Jan. 4 meeting, the board did not deliberate on the billing method change, and it received little, if any, public scrutiny – because the change was not included in the written set of rate increases associated with the public hearing. However, the change in billing method did not go unnoticed.

Parking: Hourly Billing – Public Commentary

During the public commentary period at the start of the Feb. 1 meeting, Matthew Barritt told the board he is concerned with two things: (1) short-term parking for library patrons; and (2) the change from half-hourly billing to hourly billing for structures and lots. As a result of the construction on the new underground parking structure on Fifth Avenue, he said, two dedicated spaces on the lot next to the library – for 10-minute short-term use by library patrons – were eliminated. There used to be a 10-minute grace period, he said.

Ann Arbor District Library book return slot off of William Street.

Barritt described how he and his family visit the library about twice a week – dropping off and picking up books, after reserving them online. They previously were able to come and go under the 10-minute grace period. Now, he’s had to pay 60 cents per visit to the library to check out and pick up books.

Barritt asked for a restoration of the 10-minute grace period. It’s his understanding that there is a grace period, but it’s not publicized and does not seem to be operationally functional. Because there’s no longer dedicated spaces with a 10-minute grace period, he said, it works works out to a “surcharge” of over $100 on his library use.

And with the change from half-hourly billing to hourly billing, Barritt said, the effective parking rate is different from the advertised rate. It’s always rounded up, he pointed out, and that results in an underrepresented rate. As an example, he said, for 10 minutes – at an hourly rate of $1.30 (rounded up) – that works out to nearly $8 an hour.

Barritt stated that the practice is inappropriate and he ventured that the DDA couldn’t have pitched such a rate to the city council for approval. He recognized the need for revenue, but stated that the effective rates should be the same as the advertised rates.

Barritt concluded by saying he’d like to see a fully-functional 10-minute grace period in the current lot as well as in the new underground parking structure.

Parking: Hourly Billing – Board Discussion

Later in the meeting, as Roger Hewitt was updating his board colleagues on parking revenues, Joan Lowenstein asked about the issue that Barritt had raised. Hewitt responded by saying that with the transition to hourly billing (instead of half-hour increments), a 10-minute grace period would remain in place. Board member Russ Collins wondered if that would apply even to lots with automatic walk-up pay stations (without attendants).

William Street just north of Fifth Avenue looking west. Five-minute parking is available next to the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library.

DDA deputy director Joe Morehouse clarified that the grace period is implemented for all hourly facilities, but he acknowledged that the dedicated spots for library patrons are not provided in the Fifth and William lot [also known as the Old Y lot]. That’s the lot that essentially became the closest surface-lot alternative for library patrons after construction began on the site for the underground parking structure. Morehouse clarified that there is, in fact, a 10-minute grace period – in fact, it can be stretched to 15 minutes to allow for time to exit the lot.

Leah Gunn, who chaired the board meeting in Bob Guenzel’s absence, noted that on East William Street (just north of Fifth Avenue) there are 5-minute on-street spaces for quick drop-offs at the library – that’s where the book and the audio visual return slots are located.

In the new underground parking structure, Hewitt added, a walk-up payment system will be a primary option. Those will be in place on the surface and on the first two levels underground. Patrons will pull a ticket on the way in and put the ticket into the automatic pay station on the way out – which will allow payment with a credit card or cash. A staffed booth will also be available if that’s what a patron prefers. There will be no pay stations on underground levels three and four initially, because they’re expected to be filled with monthly permit holders.

Parking Management Incentive

Although the DDA manages the city’s public parking system under contract with the city of Ann Arbor, it uses a contractor, Republic Parking, to handle day-to-day operational issues. At its Feb. 1 meeting, the board considered a management incentive under the terms of its contract with Republic Parking. The board has discretion to award $50,000 of the $200,000 total. The other $150,000 of the $200,000 is not discretionary, and is paid to Republic in monthly installments.

The management incentive is paid based on customer satisfaction surveys and independent inspections of the parking facilities, as well as other metrics. The free responses section of the survey included a range of sentiments, from enthusiastic praise of specific Republic Parking employees (“Staff is always very friendly” and “Teri and Cathy are the greatest!!”), complaints about employee job performance (“I don’t pay $12-$13 a day to be inconvenienced because your employees can’t get their job done timely!”), praise for the facilities (“Very clean and nice art work on ground floor at curved wall on the southeast comer”) and criticism of the facilities (“Please clean more. And take care of the awful smell on floor 4″). Sprinkled through the responses are complaints about parking rates. [.pdf of parking customer responses]

The rating scale responses of the survey broke down as follows: 5-Excellent (36.5%), 4 (26.3%), 3 (14.0%), 2 (9.5%), 1-Poor (6.7%), Non-Responsive (6.9%). Last year the same survey yielded the following results: 5-Excellent (22.5%), 4 (32.3%), 3 (17.9%), 2 (4.6%), 1-Poor (2.2%), Non-Responsive (20.1%). So the number of survey respondents giving a rating of 5 or 4 increased from 54.8% to 62.8%. The rating of 1 or 2 also increased, from 6.8% to 16.2%. Around 600 people responded to the survey.

The DDA’s independent parking inspector made 48 written reports to evaluate the cleanliness of the facilities systemwide last year. Average for the year was 90.48%, which is a three-point drop from last year’s score of 93.7%.

The Dec. 31, 2010 accounts receivable balance for parking permit accounts stood at $106,965. That’s 25% of the average monthly billing and five times the target of 5%. But it reflects a decrease from 28.5% last year. The dead ticket average was 2.56% for the year – an increase from last year’s 1.56%, and above the target of 1.75%. The operating surplus on June 30, 2011 was $23,133 more than budgeted.

At the board meeting, Roger Hewitt explained the structure of the Republic Parking contract with the DDA and described the various criteria. DDA staff had weighed all the criteria, made an overall assessment and was recommending $45,000 compared with the maximum $50,000.

In each of the previous three years (2009, 2010, and 2011), the DDA board voted to award the same $45,000 incentive. In those years, mayor John Hieftje had voted against the incentive. This year the vote was unanimous.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously without substantial discussion to award $45,000 out of the $50,000 management incentive.

Communications, Committee Reports

The board’s meeting included the usual range of reports from its standing committees and the downtown citizens advisory council, as well as public comment.

Comm/Comm: Underground Garage Construction Update

John Splitt gave an update on the underground parking garage construction. He noted that despite the mild winter, temperatures have not been high enough to allow for the application of waterproof coatings. Work on mechanical systems like elevators, however, continues. Roger Hewitt noted that for an underground parking structure it actually has a bright and open feel to it. The ceilings are two feet higher than in the Maynard structure. The architect, Carl Luckenbach, did a great job with the stairwells, he said – the sun shines down four stories underground.

Hewitt also gave an update on the precise number of underground spaces the structure is expected to provide: 706. [The initial design estimates for a larger structure that would have extended to William Street put the number at around 770. When that dogleg was truncated, it reduced the estimate to 670. More recently, the more conservative figure of 640-650 has been given.]

Comm/Comm: getDowntown Survey

Nancy Shore, director of the getDowntown program, gave the DDA board an update on a survey that had been completed, asking downtown employers and employees about their commuting habits. The survey showed a slight reduction in the number of people who commute by driving alone. [.ppt file of getDowntown commuter survey]

Comm/Comm: Vacancies, SEMCOG, William Street

Joan Lowenstein reported on the most recent meeting from the partnerships committee. Committee members had received an update from representatives of Swisher Commercial about downtown vacancy rates. Ann Arbor is somewhat immunized from the economic downtown, she said. Vacancies decreased by 2.5% in 2011 and there’d been a 40% increase in lease dollar volume – landlords are willing to show some optimism by entering into longer-term leases. Lowenstein said some companies looking to expand can’t find the larger floorplates they need.

Lowenstein also reported that the committee had received an update on forecasts from SEMCOG (the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments) through 2040. SEMCOG estimates the region will make a slow recovery over the next 30 years. [For a more detailed breakdown, see Chronicle coverage of the presentation made to the planning commission: "City Planners Preview SEMCOG Forecast"]

Village Green City Place Groundbreaking on Jan. 26, 2012.

Lowenstein reported that the “Discovering Midtown” project – a process for exploring alternate uses of downtown city-owned surface parking lots, has had its name changed. The effort will now be known as “Connecting William Street,” to avoid confusion with a character district in the city’s zoning ordinance that is called Midtown.

The process is being led by the DDA based on direction given by the Ann Arbor city council at the council’s April 4, 2011 meeting. Lowenstein reported that a leadership and outreach committee is working on social media strategies. A hundred different stakeholders and groups have been identified. In mid- to late February a community-wide survey will be released. Parts of that survey are currently being finalized.

Lowenstein also noted that ground had been ceremonially broken on Jan. 26 for Village Green’s City Apartments project at First and Washington. That’s a joint venture between Village Green and the DDA, which will include two floors worth of public parking on the first two stories of the building, some of which will be reserved for residents of the building.

At the Feb. 1 meeting, the board briefly discussed the possibility of canceling the February partnerships committee meeting. Noting a possibly very light agenda, board members were inclined to cancel the committee meeting, which would ordinarily have taken place the week after the board meeting – in this case, on Feb. 8. The board agreed to do that. Executive director Susan Pollay’s suggestion that the 618 S. Main project would be a suitable topic for the partnerships committee agenda that month was not met with any outward signs of enthusiasm from board members.

Comm/Comm: 618 S. Main

During public commentary, Dan Ketelaar spoke about his 618 S. Main project. It would be a 7-story, 153,133-square-foot apartment building with 190 units for 231 bedrooms, located on the former site of Fox Tent & Awning between Main and Ashley, north of Mosley. Ketelaar described the location as in the southernmost part of the DDA district. He also described it as a “gateway project.” He noted that it is located in an area zoned D2 (downtown interface) and is being developed for young professionals. A week and a half ago, he told the board, the Ann Arbor city planning commission had given the project its recommendation, at its Jan. 19, 2012 meeting.

618 South Main facade, facing west from Main Street. (Links to larger image)

The building would include two layers of parking – more than what’s required, Ketelaar said. The courtyard would include a rain garden, and the project would meet the silver standard for LEED certification. Ketelaar told the board he’s suggesting redoing the streetscape along Main between his project and William Street. He reported that Ward 5 councilmember Mike Anglin had requested that traffic calming measures be implemented along that stretch, including adding on-street parking. Ketelaar said he’s interested in helping to “create the future of Ann Arbor” and not just deal with the past.

Early in his turn at the podium, Ketelaar described the parcel as a brownfield site, a topic that the attorney for the project, John Byl, elaborated on. Byl is with the firm Warner Norcross & Judd. He described contamination on the site due to petroleum from an underground tank. The project would clean up that contamination under the state’s Community Revitalization Program, which is the successor to the brownfield program. The required local contribution to that program, he suggested, would come from the DDA. The project would mean a $25 million investment resulting in a taxable value of $9.5 million. He calculated that it would generate $250,000 in additional tax increment finance capture per year.

By way of brief background, the mechanism of a tax increment finance (TIF) district allows an entity like the Ann Arbor DDA to “capture” a portion of the property taxes in a specific geographic area that would otherwise be collected by taxing authorities in the district, like the city or library. The tax capture is only on the increment in valuation – the difference between the value of property when the district was established, and the value resulting from improvements made to the property. In the DDA district, only the taxes on the initial increment are captured – any additional inflationary value beyond that goes to the taxing authorities in the district. Those authorities are the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw Community College, Washtenaw County, and the city of Ann Arbor.

A spiral-bound booklet on 618 S. Main, distributed to board members at the Feb. 1 meeting, outlined the costs for various LEED features – like rain gardens and solar panels, plus streetscape improvements – totaling $2.3 million. The developer would pay all those costs upfront, but six months after a certificate of occupancy is issued, Ketelaar would be reimbursed for up to $1 million, Byl suggested. That would be around mid-2014 or so. The balance of roughly another $1 million would be reimbursed over time from the tax increment that the DDA captured. If the DDA reimbursed at a rate of 75% of the $250,000 a year it would receive in additional tax capture, it would take about six years to reimburse those expenses, concluded Byl.

Comm/Comm: Murals

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Jody Lanning – owner of Lanning Outdoor Advertising – pitched the board an idea for an advertising partnership involving the placement of murals on public parking structures. She told the board she’s been in the outdoor advertising industry for 18 years.

Concept for a mural on the Fourth and William parking structure in downtown Ann Arbor – presented to the DDA board by Jody Lanning.

She’s worked in the Atlanta and Kentucky markets, she said, and she moved to Michigan three years ago. She said she’s noticed how public art is used in other cities, and she enumerated several benefits of public art. She presented slides depicting some parking garages and the city hall building with concepts for murals.

The business model would consist of renting wall space on parking garages – it would be funded through sponsorships. She estimated that a wall could generate $5,000 in income. Her proposal would be that she’d received a 50% share – out of which 10% would be put aside for scholarships. She suggested forming a board of perhaps four people who would make decisions on the art.

Comm/Comm: Rezoning from D2 to D1

A highlight from Ray Detter‘s report from the previous evening’s meeting of the Downtown Area Citizens Advisory Council included the highlight that nearby residents of 1320 S. University had attended the meeting. They’re opposed to a proposal to rezone that parcel from D2 to D1, which will be considered by the planning commission on Feb. 7, 2012. Detter said the CAC will oppose the rezoning. [The city planning staff recommended denial of the request.]

Present: Nader Nassif, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn, Russ Collins, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat.

Absent: Newcombe Clark, Bob Guenzel, Keith Orr.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, March 7, 2012, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [confirm date]

Ann Arbor medical marijuana licensing board at its Jan. 31, 2012 meeting. Left to right: Sabra Briere, Jim Kenyon, Patricia O’Rorke, John Rosevear and Gene Ragland. (Photos by the writer.)

Both issues – the award of the licenses and the changes to the ordinance – will be up to the city council to decide. The licensing board’s recommendation and report had been due to the city council by Jan. 31, according to the council resolution passed in conjunction with last year’s enactment of the licensing ordinance. But at the city council’s Jan. 23, 2012 meeting, Ward 1 representative Sabra Briere gave her colleagues a heads up that the medical marijuana licensing board would be submitting its recommendations in early February instead.

The legislation enacted by the council on June 20, 2011 included provisions for licenses and zoning requirements. The zoning requirements played a role in the recommendation to award one of the 10 licenses conditionally. Treecity is located in a district zoned for office use, which does not permit medical marijuana dispensaries.

On Jan. 25, 2012, the city’s zoning board of appeals (ZBA) turned down Treecity’s appeal of the city’s decision to deny Treecity’s application for a zoning compliance permit – a necessary component of a license application. At the same meeting, the ZBA granted the same kind of appeal to another dispensary – Green Planet (700 Tappan St.).

The tension between the board’s work and the city attorney’s office is reflected in the fact that even as the board recommended the conditional award of a license to Treecity, the city attorney has served a lawsuit against the dispensary.

The tension was also reflected during the meeting itself, as assistant city attorney Kristen Larcom reminded the board that their purview, according to the city’s ordinance, is [emphasis Larcom's] to “send to City Council a proposed resolution recommending either approval or rejection of each complete license application.”

In the city’s view, Treecity’s application is not complete, because the city has denied a zoning compliance permit to the dispensary. However the board appeared to rely on the subsequent sentence of the ordinance: “A recommended resolution may set conditions for approval.”

Also at its Jan. 31 meeting, the licensing board recommended that the initial licensing fee be established at $1,100 with the annual renewal fee set at $350.

Licenses Recommended

Businesses recommended to be awarded a license under Ann Arbor’s local ordinance were: (1) Green Planet, 700 Tappan St.; (2) TreeCity Treecity Health Collective, 1712 S. State St.; (3) Ann Arbor Health Collective, 2350 E. Stadium Blvd.; (4) OM of Medicine, 112 S. Main St.; (5) People’s Choice, 2245 W. Liberty St.; (6) Greenbee Collective, 401 S. Maple St.; (7) Ann Arbor Wellness Collective, 321 E. Liberty St.; (8) MedMarx at Arborside, 1818 Packard St.; (9) Medical Grass Station, 325 W. Liberty St.; and (10) PR Center, 3820 Varsity Dr.

The city of Ann Arbor received 10 applications from businesses seeking to be licensed as medical marijuana dispensaries. Their locations are indicated with the green pushpins. On Jan. 31, 2012 the medical marijuana licensing board recommended granting licenses to all 10 – two of them conditionally. (Image links to dynamic Google Map)

The licensing board required little time at its Jan. 31, 2012 meeting to review and deliberate on each application – most of the review had been completed at previous meetings. [See previous Chronicle coverage: "Medical Marijuana: Local Board Eyes 2012" and "Medical Marijuana Board Straw Poll: Yes"]

Recommendations for Treecity and Greenbee were made conditionally – Greenbee must secure adequate parking, and Treecity must move to a location allowed under the city’s medical marijuana zoning rules.

At the board’s December 2011 meeting, it was discussed that Greenbee has only 8 of the needed 14 parking spaces for its intended use of the space as a medical marijuana dispensary. At the Jan. 31, 2012 meeting, the board’s discussion suggested that perhaps only five additional spaces were needed.

Treecity is currently located on a parcel zoned office (O), which is not one of the zones designated for medical marijuana dispensaries. In Ann Arbor, medical marijuana dispensaries can be located only in those districts zoned as D (downtown), C (commercial), or M (industrial), or in PUD (planned unit development) districts where a retail use is permitted in the supplemental regulations.

Of the licenses recommended, nine were made for businesses considered to be operating before the Ann Arbor city council imposed a moratorium on Aug. 5, 2010 for 120 days. The moratorium prohibited any additional uses of property inside the city for cultivation facilities or dispensaries. The moratorium was extended several times in the course of the council’s consideration of the medical marijuana issue.

The timing of the application process for pre-moratorium businesses for the first year’s applications was slightly earlier than for businesses established after the moratorium. And the maximum number of licenses available in the first year is a function of the number of applications received from pre-moratorium businesses – which the city determined to be nine. Those nine plus 10% (rounded up) yielded the total number of licenses available – 10. The one post-moratorium business recommended for a license is Grass Station.

The owner of the Grass Station had previously argued for inclusion for consideration as a pre-moratorium business. And previously, it appeared that possibly two dispensaries would be considered as post-moratorium applicants – Grass Station and PR Center. That would have set up a situation where the board needed to choose between dispensaries for which it would recommend a license.

However, PR Center was ultimately considered as a pre-moratorium business. The initial analysis as a pre-moratorium business had resulted from the fact that PR Center has more than one location – one of which is in a township island.

Zoning Board of Appeals

The licensing board’s report on recommended licenses and changes to the licensing ordinance was due to be submitted to the city council on Jan. 31. One reason the board did not meet until that day to take a final vote on its recommendations was to allow time for a decision by the city’s zoning board of appeals (ZBA) on two cases involving dispensaries: Treecity and Green Planet. The ZBA met to hear those two appeals on Jan. 25.

At issue in both cases was a decision by the city to deny a zoning compliance permit to the dispensaries, on the grounds that the businesses are not located in one of the zones enumerated in the city’s zoning code: D (downtown), C (commercial), or M (industrial), or in PUD (planned unit development) districts where a retail use is permitted in the supplemental regulations. Such a permit is a requirement for a medical marijuana dispensary license application.

On a unanimous vote, the ZBA overturned a decision by the city to deny a zoning compliance permit to Green Planet. And on a 5-1 vote, the ZBA upheld the decision by the city to deny Treecity’s zoning compliance permit.

Zoning Board of Appeals: Green Planet

Green Planet is located in a PUD (planned unit development ) zoning district. The PUD includes supplemental regulations that lay out types of uses allowed in the district:

a. Restaurants and Catering Businesses.
b. Grocery, prepared food and beverage sales, including retail sales of non-food items typically associated with groceries and food preparation. Examples include cookware, glassware, linens, books, kitchen utensils and implements, and small kitchen appliances.
c. Classrooms and educational instruction.
d. Tanning, massage and beauty salon.
e. Business offices, medical or dental offices, professional and non-profit organization offices. Examples include real estate and insurance agencies, attorneys and law firms, accountants, architects, engineers, travel agencies, consultants, and property management firms.

The language of the medical marijuana zoning ordinance states:

Medical marijuana dispensaries shall only be located in a district classified pursuant to this chapter as D, C, or M, or in PUD districts where retail is permitted in the supplemental regulations.

Green Planet had argued, in part, that because specific kinds of retail uses are permitted in the PUD’s supplemental regulations, they meet the ordinance description of a “PUD district where retail is permitted in the supplemental regulations.” In rejecting Green Planet’s application for a zoning compliance permit, the city argued that the kind of retail uses described in the supplemental regulation do not include marijuana dispensaries, because marijuana for medical use is not an item “typically associated with groceries and food preparation.”

Green Planet's Michael McLeod distributes handouts at the Jan. 25 meeting of the zoning board of appeals. Seated at left are Ben Carlisle and Sabra Briere.

The ZBA’s decision relied on the intent of the planning commission as reflected in that body’s deliberations on the zoning ordinance at its Oct. 5, 2010 meeting. Green Planet noted that the language on PUDs had been added as an amendment at that meeting and adduced the minutes of the meeting, the video, as well as The Chronicle’s reporting ["Medical Marijuana Zoning Heads to Council"] to argue its case. Green Planet argued that it had not been the intent of the planning commission to ask property owners to revise the supplemental regulations of a PUD in order to specifically allow dispensaries.

The vote by the ZBA to overturn the city’s decision on Green Planet was unanimous among the six members attending the meeting of the nine-member board. Absent were Carol Kuhnke and Wendy Carman. Jason Boggs recently resigned, leaving a current vacancy. [An application form for appointments to city boards and commissions is available on the city's website.] Attending his first meeting as a member of the ZBA was Ben Carlisle, who replaced long-time member David Gregorka.

Chairing the ZBA meeting in Kuhnke’s absence was Erica Briggs, who also serves on the city’s planning commission. As a planning commissioner, she’d actually voted on Oct. 5, 2010 against the inclusion of PUDs among those districts that are allowable zones for medical marijuana dispensaries. But given that the majority of her colleagues on the planning commission disagreed with her and the city council eventually enacted the zoning code to include PUDs, she told The Chronicle after the hearing that she was compelled to vote in favor of Green Planet’s appeal.

Zoning Board of Appeals: Treecity

Treecity is located in a district zoned as office (O), which is not one of the zoning districts allowed for use as a medical marijuana dispensary. Treecity’s appeal was based in part on its contention that a legal, non-conforming use of the property as a medical marijuana dispensary had been established before the zoning laws were passed.

The city’s position relied in part on the general principle of Ann Arbor’s zoning ordinance that: “Uses not expressly permitted are prohibited.” So the city of Ann Arbor argued that there was no legal use of a parcel within the city as a medical marijuana dispensary before the enactment of the zoning ordinance on June 20, 2011. Although several ZBA members expressed sympathy for Treecity’s situation, only one member – Sabra Briere – voted to overturn the city’s denial of the zoning compliance permit.

Treecity’s ZBA denial marked the third key disappointment for Treecity in its effort to keep its business at the 1712 S. State St. address. At the Oct. 5, 2010 meeting of the planning commission, Treecity’s attorney Dennis Hayes had unsuccessfully advocated for the inclusion of office districts as a possible zone for dispensaries. Then the planning commission (on Aug. 16, 2011), followed by the city council (on Oct. 3, 2011) both rejected Treecity’s request to be rezoned from office to C1 (local business).

At the licensing board’s Jan. 31 meeting, assistant city attorney Kristen Larcom reported that the city of Ann Arbor had actually filed a lawsuit a few months ago against Treecity, but had not served it until after the ZBA hearing. Dori Edwards, an employee who does public relations work for the dispensary, said that Treecity had been served on Friday, Jan. 27, 2012. The lawsuit, filed in the 22nd circuit court and assigned to judge Donald Shelton, alleges three counts of nuisance.

Other Recommendations

The city council resolution enacting the licensing ordinance, approved by the city council on June 20, 2010, directed the licensing board to make recommendations to the city council for any changes to the ordinance by Jan. 31, 2012. The ordinance itself also provides for regular communication from the board to the council – beyond an annual recommendation for approval or rejection of license applications. The board is also charged with reviewing and recommending licensing criteria, the number of licenses and the fee structure.

Other Recommendations: Completeness, Conditions

The issue of completeness of applications is one that has been a chaffing point between the board and the city staff. City staff have been reluctant to present the board with license applications that it does not consider complete. For example, one of the elements of an license application is a zoning compliance permit, for which the city has a separate application.

Assistant city attorney Kristen Larcom.

A zoning compliance permit has long been a standard part of the city’s review process, and is not peculiar to medical marijuana dispensaries. For two dispensaries (Treecity and Green Planet), the city denied had the permit because the city determined they were located in the wrong zone. So the license applications were considered to be incomplete.

Until Green Planet’s denial was overturned by the ZBA on Jan. 25, the licensing board had not reviewed and evaluated that dispensary’s application for a license. At the board’s Jan. 31 meeting, Green Planet’s Michael McCleod described how the city planning staff had subsequently been very helpful in assisting him in identifying any other gaps in his license application materials. The application requires, for example, evidence of operation before the moratorium was imposed on Aug. 5, 2010, and statements about any felony convictions for dispensary owners and operators.

So at the Jan. 31 meeting, board members reviewed the Green Planet application and came to a quick consensus that the dispensary should be recommended for a license.

At the same meeting, Dori Edwards of Treecity indicated that she’d not known she should contact city staff for help in reviewing any missing materials. But Treecity’s ZBA appeal had been turned down, so from the city staff’s perspective, the application was fundamentally not complete and Treecity had exhausted all possible avenues for making it complete. And as the board mulled the question of how to deal with Treecity’s application, assistant city attorney Kristen Larcom said she wanted to remind the board that its purview was to evaluate and make a recommendation on each complete application.

Larcom allowed that the ordinance does provide for conditional approvals, but indicated that a possible condition would not extend to the issuance of a zoning compliance permit – having that permit was a matter of completeness of the application.

Medical marijuana licensing board members Sabra Briere and Jim Kenyon.

Sabra Briere told Larcom point blank: “I disagree with you.” Briere is the city council representative to the medical marijuana licensing board. And Briere said that during deliberations on council, the council didn’t talk about why there’d be conditional approvals or limits on those conditions.

So the board forged ahead and included Treecity as a recommended license – with the condition that it obtain a zoning compliance permit. That would mean the business would need to move from its current location.

The attorney for Treecity, Dennis Hayes, wrote in an email to The Chronicle that he hoped the lawsuit the city has filed against Treecity would be resolved by Treecity finding a new location.

Edwards indicated at the Jan. 31 board meeting that she’s actively seeking an alternate location and hoped to sign a lease within a week or two. After that it would take perhaps a month to complete a move, she said.

Larcom stressed that for now, the dispensary use that Treecity wants to make of its current location is not legal – other aspects of the business could possibly persist, but the dispensary use violates zoning. And the city is required to uphold the zoning law – that’s why a lawsuit has been filed, Larcom said.

Related to the issue of completeness, the licensing board agreed at its Jan. 31 meeting to recommend that the explicit role of city staff in determining completeness of applications be struck from two places in the ordinance [added language in italics; deleted language with strike-through]:

7:504 (4) Following official confirmation by staff that the applicant has submitted a complete application City Council approval of the issuance of a license, a new license shall not be issued to a medical marijuana dispensary until the applicant for the license complies with all of the following requirements…

7:505. If the applicant has successfully demonstrated compliance with all requirements for issuance of a license within 10 weeks (70 calendar days) after the date of City staff’s official confirmation that the application for a license was complete City Council’s approval of a license, the city administrator or designee shall grant renewal of an existing or issue a new license…

At the board’s Jan. 18 meeting, the idea was entertained to remove staff from part of the process, by requiring that all the application materials be forwarded directly to the board, instead of to the city planning staff. Jill Thacher is the city planner who’s shouldered that task for the first year’s round of applications. Ultimately, the board weighed the volume of actual work it would take for board members to handle application materials, concluding it was more than a clerical task.

But related to the issue of what can constitute a condition on granting a license, the board agreed to a recommendation making explicit that there is flexibility in the kind of conditions that can be set.

7:502 (7) … The Board shall annually send to City Council a proposed resolution recommending either approval or rejection of each complete license application. A recommended resolution may set conditions for approval. The conditions may include a waiver by City Council of any provision or provisions of the licensing ordinance, and/or the imposition of a new provision or new provisions, if the public interest so requires.

Other Recommendations: Entry for Inspection

Licensing board member Patricia O’Rorke was particularly concerned about a provision in the ordinance that requires dispensaries to consent to inspection. The board agreed to recommend a change that makes explicit that requests from the city to inspect a dispensary would be complaint-driven:

Pursuant to a complaint, an authorized person shall consent to the entry into a medical marijuana dispensary by the Building Official and zoning inspectors for the purpose of inspection to determine compliance with this chapter pursuant to a notice posted in a conspicuous place on the premises two (2) or more days before the date of the inspection or sent and by first class mail to the address of the premises four (4) or more calendar business days before the date of the inspection.

When asked if she saw any problem with the “pursuant to complaint” language, city planner Jill Thacher said, no – that’s the way city staff handles issues like that anyway.

In weighing whether the notice given should be done by posting and mail, a brief discussion unfolded about the merits of certified mail versus first class mail and the future of the U.S. Postal Service.

Other Recommendations: Number of Licenses, Frequency of Recommendation

At its Jan. 31 meeting, the licensing board grappled with the tension between having a single annual recommendation on licenses (as the ordinance now specifies) versus a rolling recommendation as applications are submitted. Board member Jim Kenyon said he liked the idea of being responsive and meeting regularly. However, he noted that if there are a limited number of licenses available, a rolling recommendation process would result in giving privilege to those applying first.

Board members Jim Kenyon and Patricia O'Rorke.

Kenyon gave the example of the University of Michigan, which he said had wound up admitting nearly its entire freshman class through the early admission this year. “The music stopped and there were no chairs,” he said. That does not necessarily result in the most qualified applicants being admitted. On the other hand, he said, he did not want to make people wait a calendar year to have their application for a dispensary license processed.

During the board’s discussion, Sabra Briere noted that as far as evaluating one dispensary against another, the board had not faced that situation this year, and had not applied qualitative criteria to the evaluation. The board had essentially made its criteria for recommendation a matter of whether a dispensary had “jumped through all the right hoops.”

The board mulled what the number of licenses should be. With respect to potential demand, city planner Jill Thacher reported that before the city council passed its licensing and zoning ordinances, she’d fielded numerous phone calls from out-of-state people interested in setting up shop. After the Ann Arbor legislation was passed, she said, the phone calls had fallen off precipitously.

Board member Gene Ragland suggested that it should be possible to work out the math of the demographics of patients and calculate the potential consumer demand. Local attorney Dennis Hayes, who attended the meeting, ventured that there were perhaps 50,000-60,000 registered patients who did not have caregivers – that might be a way to gauge potential consumer demand. Kenyon said that he himself would not use a caregiver to obtain medical marijuana, if a dispensary were an option.

Ultimately, the board settled on capping the number of licenses at 20, which is the maximum number specified in the ordinance for the first year.

… but not more than 20 medical marijuana dispensary licenses shall be issued in the first year and shall be capped at that number.

The board also agreed not to suggest changing from the process described in the ordinance as an annual recommendation for the award of licenses. Also recommended was a standardization of the timing requirements for applications – in some places there’s a 70-day condition but in others it’s a 90-day condition. The board agreed to recommend making that timing requirement uniformly 90 days.

Other Recommendations: Operation in Compliance with MMMA

The board also recommended striking a clause in the zoning ordinance as superfluous:

5:50.1.4(k) Medical marijuana dispensaries and medical marijuana cultivation facilities shall be operated in compliance with the MMMA.

The discussion at the board’s Jan. 18, 2012 meeting on this issue included concern expressed by dispensary owner Chuck Ream, that deleting the phrase could cause alarm and attract unwanted attention to Ann Arbor if it were incorrectly perceived as sending a message that Ann Arbor’s dispensaries would not be following Michigan’s medical marijuana law.

Other Recommendations: Licensing Fee

The final issue on which the licensing board needed to weigh in was setting the licensing fee for medical marijuana dispensaries – which is separate from the application fee of $600. One point of comparison for the board was neighboring Ypsilanti’s $2,500 initial license fee, with a $1,100 renewal each year. Patricia O’Rorke was inclined to set them much lower. Sabra Briere joked that perhaps Ann Arbor’s fees should be higher because Ann Arbor was “more prestigious.”

Medical marijuana licensing board member Gene Ragland.

Jim Kenyon said he felt the goal of the fee should be to make it high enough to prevent someone from applying “casually.” He continued by saying that the $600 application fee, plus a $1,100 initial licensing fee would do that.

Gene Ragland, who fills the physician’s slot on the licensing board, noted that his narcotics license cost him only $350. But Briere wondered how much Ragland’s medical education had cost. Ragland offered that when he’d finished medical school, he’d owed $8,000 in loans – and he’d paid those off in two years. But that was long ago, he allowed.

Based on Ragland’s narcotics license, the board agreed to recommend the annual license renewal fee be set at $350, to go along with a $1,100 initial license fee.

Next Step: City Council

Even if granted a local Ann Arbor license, dispensaries in Ann Arbor would still need to operate in conformance with the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, which was enacted by statewide voter referendum in 2008. The city has explicitly required applicants for dispensary licenses to explain how their business conforms with the law, including an Aug. 23, 2011 court of appeals ruling that has been interpreted by many authorities to mean that no medical marijuana dispensaries are legal. [.pdf of the McQueen case ruling].

Ann Arbor’s city attorney, Stephen Postema, is open to the possibility that dispensary business models may exist that do conform to the McQueen case ruling, but Postema has not issued a written opinion describing business models that he believes conform. The city council will receive advice from the city attorney before it votes on awarding the licenses that the board has now recommended. Any vote by the council would come at the earliest on Feb. 21.

At the Jan. 31 meeting, dispensary owners felt it was important for Ann Arbor to demonstrate a working model for local licensing – it would provide a basis for state legislation, which may be introduced soon, that would explicitly enable local options for regulation of dispensaries.

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

The Ann Arbor Chronicle currently has no plans to implement a choice of "skins" for the website, especially not one that would allow readers to view the publication as if it were printed on the scales of a dragon we slew.

Some eagle-eyed regular readers might have noticed that in the spot on the “masthead” where the current date used to sit are now four links: Civic News Ticker • Stopped. Watched. • Comments • Events. We’re also expecting the sad grey box at the top of the left sidebar to be retired sometime soon.

This does not signal that a major design change is in the offing. We have no plans, for example, to implement a choice of “skins” for the website, especially not one that would allow readers to view the publication as if it were printed on the scales of a dragon we slew.

That initial change – swapping out the masthead date with links we’d like to highlight – was prompted by some confusion that resulted from the appearance of a current date … on the same page as an article originally published three years ago.

It’s actually somewhat encouraging that The Chronicle has now been around long enough that this kind of confusion could result.

What I’d like to share with readers this month is a little vignette from the city council’s last meeting, which concluded near midnight – so I was draggin’ tail. And the vignette itself is a little dragon tale.

The last thought that registered in my head at the end of the council’s Jan. 23 session, which included more than 50 turns of public commentary, was this: Well, you know, dragons live in caves and breathe fire! It was a perfectly natural thought to entertain sitting there in the council chambers, filing the final briefs from the meeting for The Chronicle’s Civic News Ticker.

It was a thought prompted by Alan Haber’s public commentary at the end of the meeting. He’d addressed the council on the topic of a fundamental human right – to come in out of the cold and sit in the cave by the fire. The dragon connection was easy, because Thomas Partridge had preceded Haber at the public commentary podium and alluded to Ward 2 councilmember Jane Lumm, contending she had a “dragon lady” attitude.

And that served to reinforce the dragon-themed wishes that came from Ward 1 councilmember Sabra Briere over four hours earlier, near the start of the meeting – she’d wished everyone a happy Chinese New Year. It’s the year of the dragon, folks.

So in terms of the Chinese zodiac, this is my year. From the two years Chronicle publisher Mary Morgan and I spent living in China, I have a vague recollection that it’s a hugely positive thing to be born in a dragon year. Apparently it’s a pretty big deal, and Mary is awfully lucky to be married to someone who’s described by one authoritative source this way: “And due to their hunger for power, Dragons are not well suited to growing old. The prospect of losing power, the helpless feeling of youthful strength ebbing away is unbearable to them. Irritable and stubborn, the Dragon is a real big mouth and his words often outrun his thoughts.”

Words outrunning thoughts is a pretty apt description for this month’s milestone. So I’ll conclude by echoing Sabra Briere’s thoughts: Happy Chinese New Year!

About the writer: Dave Askins is editor and co-founder of The Ann Arbor Chronicle. The Chronicle could not survive to count each milestone without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local government and civic affairs. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

In this action shot from city council chambers, a paper copy of an amendment to the text of the four-party transit agreement is handed from city clerk Jackie Beaudry to councilmember Jane Lumm (Ward 2). In the background are Ward 1 councilmembers Sandi Smith (left) and Sabra Briere. (Photos by the writer.)

The council postponed action until its Feb. 6 meeting, but not before undertaking several amendments to the text of the agreement. The council had previously postponed action at its Jan. 9 meeting and had set a public hearing for Jan. 23. Thirty-nine people appeared before the council to speak during the hearing, and some of those people also reprised their remarks during public comment at the conclusion of the meeting. Fourteen of the speakers were either current or former elected or appointed public officials, or former candidates for public office.

The four-party agreement would be between the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County.

A delay was warranted from the perspective of some councilmembers, who wanted to hear the recommendation of a financial advisory group. The group has been meeting since the fall of 2011 and was scheduled to hold a final meeting on Jan. 27, four days after the council’s vote to postpone. However, later in the week the financial advisory group also chose to postpone its Jan. 27 meeting, in the wake of a 17-bill package of state legislation introduced on Jan. 26 – part of which would establish a regional transit authority for Washtenaw, Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties and a possible funding mechanism for that authority. It’s not clear if the financial advisory group will meet before the council’s next meeting on Feb. 6.

The council could undertake further amendments to the text of the four-party agreement at its Feb. 6 meeting. In fact, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated he’d bring forward an amendment to change the composition of the planned new transit authority board, to give Ann Arbor more than the currently proposed seven out of 15 seats, so that Ann Arbor would have a majority.

In other business, the council passed two resolutions as symbolic statements of position. One was to express opposition to Michigan’s Public Act 297, which was signed into law on Dec. 22, 2011. The act prohibits public employers from providing employee medical and fringe benefits to those who are not married to an employee, a dependent of the employee, or eligible to inherit from the employee under the laws of intestate succession.

The law impacts the city of Ann Arbor’s policy of extending benefits to “other qualified adults” – which can include a same-sex domestic partner. The resolution gained unanimous support on the Ann Arbor city council. As Jane Lumm (Ward 2) expressed her concerns about the council’s purview on such a resolution, but ultimately expressed her support for it, Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who is openly gay, was prompted to say, “I love this city!”

The second resolution expressing a position was passed over the dissent of Lumm and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). It encouraged the federal government to exercise prosecutorial discretion in pursuing the deportation of undocumented immigrants who have not committed serious crimes and who have ties to the community.

The council also approved a contract with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to supply policing services for the downtown Ann Arbor Blake Transit Center. And the council authorized a $10 million contract for engineering services in connection with the facilities renovation project at the city’s wastewater treatment center.

The meeting was bookended by mentions of the word “dragon” – in separate contexts. 

4-Party Transit Deal

The council considered a four-party agreement that would establish a framework for a transition of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to a countywide governance incorporated under Michigan’s Act 196 of 1986.

Front to back: Ann Arbor Transportation Authority CEO Michael Ford, Menlo Innovations president Rich Sheridan, legal counsel for the AATA Jerry Lax, and AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein.

The council ultimately postponed action until its Feb. 6 meeting. The council had previously postponed action at its Jan. 9 meeting and had set a public hearing for Jan. 23.

The four-party agreement is between the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County. The transition to a countywide governance and funding base is intended to (1) ensure stability of funding for transit connections outside of the city of Ann Arbor, which until now has depended on purchase-of-service agreements; (2) provide a higher level of transit service inside the city of Ann Arbor; and (3) expand the area where transit service is provided.

In the four party-agreement, the role of the two cities – Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – would be to pledge their current transit millages to the new authority, contingent on identifying a countywide funding source. The two cities currently levy millages that are designated for public transit and are passed through to the AATA. For Ann Arbor, that’s currently just over 2 mills. For Ypsilanti, which uses the proceeds of the tax – approved in November 2010 – to fund its purchase-of-service agreement with the AATA, the levy is just under 1 mill. [One mill is $1 for each $1,000 of a property's taxable value.]

As part of the four-party agreement, Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor would agree that AATA’s existing assets would be assumed by the new Act 196 transit authority, and they’d also agree to assign their existing millages to the new Act 196 authority. But the asset transfer and the millage assignment would be contingent on identifying a countywide funding source for the new Act 196 authority.

4-Party Agreement: Context – Funding Report, State Legislation

At the Jan. 23 meeting, some councilmembers expressed an interest in postponing any action on the four-party agreement so that their decision could be informed by the recommendation of a financial advisory group that has been meeting since the fall of 2011 and was scheduled to hold a final meeting on Jan. 27, four days after the council’s vote to postpone.

However, the financial advisory group also chose to postpone its Jan. 27 meeting, in the wake of a 17-bill package of state legislation introduced on Jan. 26 – part of which would establish a regional transit authority for Washtenaw, Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties and a possible funding mechanism for that authority. It’s not clear if the financial advisory group will meet before the council’s next meeting on Feb. 6.

4-Party Agreement: Context – Ypsilanti

In an email sent to The Chronicle following the Jan. 23 meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) expressed frustration that the Ann Arbor city council had not been apprised of a wrinkle in the Ypsilanti charter transit millage. The provision could appear to create the possibility that the Ypsilanti city council would not levy the transit millage – in the event that some countywide funding is approved by voters. By way of background, Ypsilanti voters passed the millage on Nov. 2, 2010 by a 3-to-1 margin. The ballot language read as follows [emphasis original]:

“This amendment authorizes, in any year a millage is NOT otherwise levied for countywide or regional public transit, or when needed to supplement a countywide or regional millage approved by City Council, a tax of 0.9789 mills solely for public transit purposes. Approval increases the tax levy by 0.9789 mills as new additional millage in excess of the legal limitation, restoring the authorized Charter millage to 20 mills, since reduced by the Headlee amendment.

The apparent intent of the language in the four-party agreement is to establish that Ypsilanti only gets a board seat if it levies that existing city millage and pays it to the new transit authority (TA). From the four-party agreement: “In exchange for the City of Ypsilanti mayor’s nomination with council confirmation, of one director of New TA’s board, … the City of Ypsilanti agrees to pay its charter transportation millage at the 2012 millage rate or as adjusted by State Statute to the New TA.”

In a phone interview with The Chronicle, Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber said his understanding is that Ypsilanti had the flexibility not to levy the full amount of the millage or not to assign it to the new authority – but that the result of such a decision would be to lose its membership and board seat in the new Act 196 authority.

The composition of the board of the new transit authority, as well as the existing board of the AATA, is one of the points of discussion.

4-Party Agreement: Context – Board Seats

At the Jan. 23 council meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) gave his colleagues a heads up that he’d be bringing a resolution to the next meeting to alter the four-party agreement so that Ann Arbor would have a majority on the board of the new Act 196 authority. As currently formulated in the agreement, Ann Arbor would have seven out of 15 seats. Based strictly on population, Ann Arbor would have five seats – roughly one-third of the county’s population lives in the city.

But the transfer of capital assets to the new authority and the ongoing provision of Ann Arbor’s local millage to the authority led to a board composition that provides seven seats to Ann Arbor. Some, including Kunselman, see that as insufficient in light of Ann Arbor’s expected financial contribution – that’s the rationale behind his expected amendment altering the board composition.

Another idea put forward by Kunselman at the council’s Jan. 23 meeting would fill the existing opening on the AATA board with a township elected official. [Rich Robben recently resigned from the AATA board. His last board meeting was Jan. 19, 2012.] The idea had come from conversations that Kunselman had with representatives of townships and the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. Kunselman mentioned Ypsilanti Township supervisor Brenda Stumbo specifically.

Mayor John Hieftje said he could look into that – a city councilmember couldn’t serve on the board, he said, but he wasn’t sure about an elected official of a township. Hieftje said he was going through the applications for the open slot on the AATA board, and was hoping to have a nomination to bring to the council by its next meeting, on Feb. 6.

Responding to a Facebook link to The Chronicle’s reporting on the postponement of the financial advisory group’s Jan. 27 meeting, Kunselman left a comment that prompted an exchange with Roger Kerson, a member of the AATA board. That exchange included Kunselman’s view that the current AATA board should have representation from the city of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township.

Stephen Kunselman Maybe there is a better way; let’s analyze all the options before going off the deep end and dissolving our City Transit Authority!
[Friday, Jan. 27] at 1:04 p.m.

Roger Kerson Steve, the authority would *not* be dissolved, but enlarged to provide better service to more people.
[Friday, Jan. 27] at 5:09 p.m.

Stephen Kunselman Roger, Act 55 allows expansion of the existing City Transit Authority, so what’s the problem?
[Friday, Jan. 27] at 5:27 p.m.

Roger Kerson If you favor expansion with a different structure, I’m all ears – tho as you know a great deal of planning, with public input, took place in developing the current proposal. If you’re not in favor of expanding transit, I’m interested in what other ideas you may have to reduce individual vehicle trips and associated environmental, congestion and parking concerns. If you’re against “dissolution” of the AATA, I’m not sure who you’re addressing, as no one has proposed this.
[Saturday, Jan. 28] at 3:41 p.m.

Stephen Kunselman Yes, I favor allowing City of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township having representation on the AATA Board since they pay for service – will you support their inclusion? Any community in Washtenaw Co. can request inclusion now under Act 55. And yes, the AATA is proposed to be dissolved, it’s in the 4 party agreement under debate – transfer all assets of AATA to the county authority. [Editor's note: Link added to relevant section of Act 55.]
[Sunday, Jan. 29]

Roger Kerson I’ve said my piece for now, but I’ll stick to this point: Transferring an asset to a different governance structure is not “dissolution.”
[Sunday, Jan. 29]

Stephen Kunselman Sure thing; thanks for chatting.
[Sunday, Jan. 29]

The composition of the current AATA board was controversial for the Ann Arbor city council in December last year, when some councilmembers, including Kunselman, objected to the nomination by Hieftje of a city employee, Eli Cooper, to the AATA board. Cooper is the city of Ann Arbor’s transportation program manager.

4-Party Agreement: Mayoral Politics

During his communications time, Hieftje, addressed what he described as an impression some people had that the four-party agreement is the “mayor’s proposal.” Hieftje was keen to establish that it was not his proposal. He said that he could not claim credit for it. The work was done by the AATA board and staff, he said.

Hieftje praised the work of the AATA, saying that he didn’t want the AATA board to think he was taking credit for their hard work. He stressed it’s been AATA’s proposal from the beginning.

[The impression that the four-party agreement is the "mayor's proposal" has been fostered, for example, by a post made by LuAnne Bullington on the newsgroup of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition entitled: "The Gov's regional transit service vs. the Mayor's regional transit services for Washtenaw County." A possible analysis for the attempt to characterize the AATA's proposed transition in governance structure as the "mayor's proposal": It's perceived by some as sufficiently unpopular that they believe it's an opportunity to damage Hieftje politically if he can be tied to it. He's expected to run for re-election again this year, although he's not made a formal announcement.]

4-Party Agreement: Summary of Amendments – Set One

Before postponing a vote on the agreement, the council undertook several amendments, which they handled separately. Councilmembers took turns reading them aloud. For the initial set of amendments, the council’s action tracked with the changes indicated in a document that had been available before the meeting. [.pdf of document with tracked changes]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) described the intent of many of the changes as an attempt to get a “refined document” that could be talked about. The point was to achieve “narrative clarity.”

The first amendment added the phrase to the end of the “Acknowledged Facts” section: “… only when all the contingencies of the Agreement are met.”

The next amendment undertaken by the council added an explicit requirement that the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti would need to vote to adopt the articles of incorporation that Washtenaw County would file to formally incorporate the new Act 196 transit authority. [.pdf of draft articles of incorporation] A brief conversation among Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Taylor on the legal meaning of the word “shall” did not lead anyone to ask for a change in wording. Taylor summarized the effect of the amendment as being: If the council votes down the articles of incorporation, then it’s “game over.”

A further amendment highlighted at the beginning of some relevant paragraphs the condition that must be met in order for the substance of the paragraph to apply, and expresses it in terms of time, not abstract logic: “After all of the Section 8 contingencies to Closing are satisfied, …”

Completely struck was a section that contemplated the possibility that “funding sources are elected to fund the NEW TA [transit authority] which do not require voter approval.”

Also inserted as an amendment, which Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she was putting forward because assistant city attorney Mary Fales had felt it was a good idea: “Nothing in this section has the effect of waiving the defense of governmental immunity available to an indemnifying party under applicable law as to 3rd parties.”

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Inserted in two places was an amendment (one for each of the cities in the agreement) to place on the new Act 196 transit authority a requirement to the effect that the new authority must provide to Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti “at a minimum, the continued level of services provided by its predecessor-in-interest, AATA, …” That amendment prompted a question from Kunselman, about the ability to bind the new Act 196 authority to something, if the new authority is not a party to the agreement. Kunselman had actually raised the issue earlier, in the discussion of a different amendment, but wasn’t able to pursue it – because Briere raised the point of order that Kunselman’s question didn’t bear on the amendment they were considering at that time.

But later, with the issue clearly in order, assistant city attorney Mary Fales explained that the intent of the language was to require that any agreement the AATA entered into with the new Act 196 authority would need to provide the minimum continued level of service.

Another revision accommodated the possibility that some municipalities might choose to opt out of an Act 196 authority if one were to be incorporated – by swapping in “authority-wide” for the phrase “county-wide.”

The last in the first set of relatively uncontroversial amendments was to address a wording mistake pointed out by Michael Benson, during the public hearing. The final boilerplate language in the general provisions stated [emphasis added]: “… and may be amended only in writing signed by both parties …” Given the nature of the agreement, involving four-parties, the word “both” was replaced with “all.”

Outcome: The council approved the first set of amendments unanimously on separate votes.

4-Party Agreement: Summary of Amendments – Who Else Is In?

An additional amendment put forth by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) addressed the scenario that Ann Arbor could be the only municipality that participates in the Act 196 authority. It provides for the automatic termination of the four-party agreement if Ann Arbor is the only member:

Automatic Termination.
This Agreement will terminate automatically if (i) Closing does not occur before December 31, 2015, or if (ii) after incorporation of the Authority and the expiration of the statutory withdrawal period from the public authority, the City of Ann Arbor is the only participating political subdivision in Washtenaw County in the New TA [transit authority]. It is recognized by all the parties that if either of these conditions occur the stated objectives of Act 196 and this Agreement will not have been met and the Agreement shall be null and void.

Kunselman explained that he wanted to make sure that Ann Arbor is not the only member of the new transit authority.

Washtenaw County map with 26 local units of government labeled. (Image links to higher resolution file)

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the council had heard during the public hearing that 22 out of 26 units of government in Washtenaw County are participating in the process. She indicated that she was less worried that all the other units besides Ann Arbor would opt out of the Act 196 authority. But on the “off chance” that Kunselman is correct, she indicated she’d support Kunselman’s amendment.

By way of additional background, the figure of 22 out of 26 units that are participating in the process came from AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein during that evening’s public hearing. He described those units as “participating in the transit master planning process.”

The 20 townships of Washtenaw County are: Lyndon, Dexter, Webster, Northfield, Salem, Superior, Ann Arbor, Scio, Lima, Sylvan, Sharon, Freedom, Lodi, Pittsfield, Ypsilanti, Machester, Bridgewater, Saline, York and Augusta.

The six cities and villages include: city of Chelsea, village of Dexter, city of Ann Arbor, city of Ypsilanti, city of Saline and village of Manchester. The city of Milan is located only partly in Washtenaw County.

Possible composition of board membership for a Washtenaw countywide transit authority. (Links to larger image.)

A brief discussion then ensued about the Act 7 agreements some of those units will use to participate in the Act 196 authority. Act 7 of 1967 sets forth the standards under which agreements between different units of government can be made.

Of the 15 seats proposed for the new Act 196 board, nine require no agreement between local units, because they correspond to local government units that would be districts unto themselves – the city of Ann Arbor (7 seats), city of Ypsilanti (1 seat) and Pittsfield Township (1 seat). The remaining six seats correspond to five geographic districts that will require some kind of agreement among the units in those districts.

About the countywide government units in those districts, AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein stated at the council’s Jan. 23 meeting that “Most of them have signed Act 7 agreements to create districts to represent their interests and group them [preliminarily] to form an Act 196 authority.”

In the listing out below of the geographic coverage of those five districts, non-participating government units in are indicated in italics. In cases where dates are given, The Chronicle has been able confirm independently or via the AATA that a vote was taken on that date involving an Act 7 agreement – linked dates go to meeting minutes, when available. Act 7 agreements will eventually need to be filed with the county clerk.

• Northeast: Superior Township (June 20, 2011); Ann Arbor Township (May 16, 2011); Northfield Township (July 12, 2011); Salem Township (June 14, 2011 – the motion died for lack of a second)
• Southeast: Ypsilanti Township (July 19, 2011); Augusta Township (Oct. 11, 2011)
• South Middle: Lodi Township (Sept. 6, 2011); city of Saline (Sept. 12, 2011); York Township (Sept. 14, 2011); city of Milan (Oct. 17, 2011); Saline Township
• North Middle: Webster Township (Aug. 16, 2011); village of Dexter (Aug. 8, 2011); Scio Township (Aug. 9, 2011)
• West: city of Chelsea (Aug. 23, 2011 ); Dexter Township (Sept. 20, 2011); Lima Township (Oct. 10, 2011); Sharon Township (mentioned Sept. 1, 2011 but no hearing held due to time constraints); Freedom Township (Sept. 13, 2011 ); Manchester Township (mentioned but not voted on April 12, 2011); village of Manchester (Sept. 19, 2011); Lyndon Township; Bridgewater Township; Sylvan Township

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked for clarification about who is participating. Salem, Sylvan, Bridgewater and Saline townships have decided not to participate in the process, said AATA CEO Michael Ford. He said the door has been left open, but they’ve chosen not to participate at this time.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved Kunselman’s amendment that terminates the agreement if Ann Arbor were to be the only member of the Act 196 authority. [clean .pdf of the four-party agreement as amended by the Ann Arbor city council on Jan. 23, 2012]

4-Party Agreement: Summary of Amendments – Bonding Authority?

The amendment generating the most discussion was put forward by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) – it was not approved by the council. The section on full faith and credit already makes clear that neither city has to pledge its full faith and credit for projects undertaken by the new transit authority [emphasis added]:

The parties further agree that the Cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti shall not be required to, and do not by virtue of execution of this Agreement, pledge their respective full faith and credit for any project assumed by the NEW TA at Closing or undertaken by the New TA thereafter when operational.

Lumm noted that while Ann Arbor would not be required to pledge its full faith and credit, she wanted to amend the agreement to add an extra requirement that if the city did choose to do that, then it would require a popular vote, not simply a city council approval.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). At far left is Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) wondered if the city attorney’s office had had a chance to look at the amendment. Assistant city attorney Mary Fales indicated that Lumm had raised the question earlier, but that the language was new – it was being heard on the floor. Derezinski asked Fales what she thought. Fales told Derezinski that the council has the authority to put a ballot question on any issue presented to the council.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) asked if the council had taken any actions recently to pledge the city’s full faith and credit without voter approval. Yes, answered Fales. Hohnke asked Lumm why there should be a requirement of voter approval in this case, when it was not generally a requirement. Lumm told Hohnke she thinks this is a significant decision – she just thinks the council alone shouldn’t have that authority. Voters have the ability to weigh in on different steps, and she felt the issue of full faith and credit needed to be “tightened.”

Hohnke came back to his question of why Lumm wanted to draw a distinction between projects associated with the new Act 196 authority and other projects. He noted that the council regularly pledges the city’s full faith and credit without voter approval. Lumm replied that this decision is “a huge deal.” Mayor John Hieftje noted the city council had just recently given notice of its intent to issue $140 million in bonds for the facilities renovation project at the city’s wastewater treatment center. Lumm said she didn’t see the downside of letting people have the chance to weigh in.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the difficulty with seeking voter approval on bonds is one of timing – the decision has to be made months in advance, and nothing can happen unless and until voter approval occurs. She noted that there was not actually a bond being proposed, but said that the council might run into the issue of whether a project undertaken by the new authority project will be delayed adversely.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) gave his colleagues a concrete hypothetical example to contemplate: Suppose the new transit authority proposed light rail down Washtenaw Avenue, and when it hits city borders, it requires permission to construct on Ann Arbor city roads and wants to go for a bond. Kunselman wondered what the council’s role would be, if the new transit authority is constructing a light rail line on city of Ann Arbor property.

Fales explained that the new Act 196 authority would need to pull all permits, licenses and easements. If the new transit authority were seeking funding outside of its existing budget – through a grant from the city, or through partnering on a bond – that would come to the city council for a vote. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) got clarification that what Lumm’s amendment would do is require a popular referendum every time there’s a request for infrastructure improvement that the new transit authority wanted to undertake by bonding through the city.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) noted that every time something is put on the ballot, there’s a cost. Kunselman indicated some agreement with Smith’s point about the frequency of the popular votes, and offered to put in a minimum threshold – say $50 million. Lumm was amendable to changing her amendment to include a minimum threshold.

There was brief contemplation of delaying a vote on the amendment until the recommendation on funding came back from the financial advisory group – to figure out what the minimum threshold should be. But Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) seemed to speak for most of his colleagues when he said he would not support the amendment – with or without a limit, now or later. He said he trusted the judgement of future councils.

Outcome: The council voted against Jane Lumm’s amendment that would have required a popular referendum before the city could pledge its full faith and credit to back a project undertaken by the new Act 196 authority. It got support from Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

4-Party Agreement: Public Hearing – Who Spoke?

The Chronicle counted 39 people who addressed the council during the public hearing held on the four-party agreement. Of those, 14 were connected to public office in some fashion – current or former appointed or elected officials (or candidates). Five spoke on behalf of some organization other than a public body. Five people were affiliated at least indirectly with the AATA in some way. Eight of the speakers had donated to Jane Lumm’s 2011 city council campaign.

Thematically, their remarks could be separated into some basic categories, with several speakers touching on multiple themes: support for public transportation within the city of Ann Arbor; equity and the cost burden; concerns about control of the new authority; opportunities for collaboration; and general uncertainty about the details.

4-Party Agreement: Public Hearing – Good Service in Ann Arbor

What many speakers had in common was an expression of support for public transportation and better service in Ann Arbor – but that did not necessarily translate to support for the four-party agreement.

Chuck Warpehoski, of the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, spoke roughly midway through the hearing, and remarked on the fact that people for and against the four-party agreement seemed to share a broad understanding that Ann Arbor needs a better bus system. He felt that the four-party agreement could lead to that by bringing together the key parties around a service plan and the possibility of stable funding. He called it one step forward, but said it’s not the final piece. Joel Batterman told the council he wouldn’t be speaking in favor of the agreement if he had any doubt that it was the best way to improve service.

Former city planning commissioner James D’Amour said that AATA’s services need to be expanded – in Ann Arbor and also Ypsilanti, adding that we’re all for a better AATA. Clark Charnetski, a member of AATA’s local advisory council, described the changes in transportation needs over time, with the emergence of Domino’s Farms, St. Joseph Mercy Hospital, Washtenaw Community College and Briarwood Mall. He said the system would look very different if it were planned today – he was tired of waiting for something better.

Julie Steiner, executive director of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance, said she was speaking for people who aren’t often heard – severe low income people who are struggling to find a job. She said there are a lot of details to work out, but “our community can’t wait” for better transportation. There are people who can’t get to jobs that are being created as the economy improves. Cheryl Webber, a member of the AATA’s local advisory council, said the incremental expansion of AATA’s services that has taken place over time has allowed her lifestyle to expand. She told the council that she’s a disabled person and feels that a lot of people are in favor of the kind of expansion AATA is looking at. Kathleen Russell told the council she represents 130 people with Parkinson’s disease and she would ask those people to support the agreement.

Larry Deck told the council he supports expansion to a countywide system. His understanding of the resolution is to keep the process going forward. He trusted the council to make right decisions at the checkpoints along the way.

Several speakers addressed their concern that attempts to expand might result in a diminishment of services to Ann Arbor.

Vince Caruso described the extensive use that his family makes of the AATA buses and described himself as a supporter of public transportation. His concern was that the future arrangement be reversible so that Ann Arbor could revert back to the current situation. Glenn Thompson said the question is not about opposing transportation, it’s about preserving the transportation Ann Arbor already has. Odile Hugenot Haber noted that at the AATA board’s last meeting, a representative of the Michigan Transportation Association had praised the AATA as being a model system. But she said the system could still be improved.

Rita Mitchell led off her remarks with a question for the council: Did anyone ride the bus to this meeting? [No councilmembers raised their hands.] She ventured that maybe it was because they couldn’t get a ride back home when the meeting concluded – AATA’s service ends before the typical council meeting ends. She said that AATA should have improved service before expanding the service countywide. Former planning commissioner Ethel Potts described the current service offered by the AATA as good, but not complete. Tim Hull introduced himself as a supporter of public transportation, but ticked through a number of concerns about the four-party agreement.

4-Party Agreement: Public Hearing – Money/Equity

Alexis Blizman, policy director for the Ecology Center, expressed strong support for public transit and support for the four-party agreement. The Ecology Center had participated in the process through the leadership committee meetings and the AATA board. [AATA board member Charles Griffith is employed by the Ecology Center.] Blizman said we’d reached a point where more funding is required in order to improve service.

Tim Mortimer ventured that the people who are focused on benefits are Republican, but those who are concerned about costs seemed to be Democrats.

Alan Haber said that other parts of the county need to put money on the table. The data is not there for the financing, he said. He advised the council to restrain themselves from saying “Forward ever, backwards never.” Lawrence Baird described one of the parties as having major financial problems – Ypsilanti. Ypsilanti’s local millage isn’t covering the cost of Ypsilanti’s purchase-of-service agreement, he noted.

Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber said the 3-to-1 margin that Ypsilanti voters gave a transit millage in 2010 was significant. With respect to the suggestion that maybe Ypsilanti won’t pay, he said that the 3-to-1 margin speaks volume. He described the purchase-of-service agreement (POSA) system – an annual agreement to provide bus services – as a chain that can be broken from year to year. The plan being considered would stabilize funding for the service.

Karen Sidney said that part of the state operating assistance the AATA receives would disappear if the AATA changed to a different governance structure. She also ventured that what’s driving the process is development, pointing out that infrastructure improvements within a half mile of a transit station qualify under the state’s brownfield authority act.

Kathy Boris described herself as a non-motorist supporter of countywide service. The list of more services is appealing, she said – it’s impressive and ambitious. But she described the financial plan as “murky.” She wondered if Ann Arbor might be buying into something it wants but can’t actually afford.

John Satarino described the cost of implementing the system over the course of 30 years – over $600 million. That’s a large amount to think about, he said. But is that in today’s dollars or the projected equivalent 30 years from now? He said he does not support giving Ann Arbor’s aid to the townships – living in townships is cheaper, and there’s a reason for that.

Peter Eckstein also noted the program cost over the course of 30 years. He asked how it would be paid for. If there would be a millage, he wanted to know if it would be for 1 mill or less, and for how long. He called some of the benefits “dubious.” For example, with respect to the planned transit service to Detroit Metro airport, he said he’s not interested in paying for his rich friends’ vacations or out-of-state students.

Eckstein also contended that AATA has a reputation of having a high-cost system. He alluded to an analysis done by retired economics professor Richard Porter that had found AATA’s cost of providing service is above the average of comparable cities. Ted Annis has a number of good ideas, Eckstein said. [By way of background, Annis is a former member of the AATA board, who was often at odds with his board colleagues over the appropriate goal for a key metric – dollar cost per service hour. Annis contended an achievable goal for that statistic would be around $85. AATA has budgeted around $112 per service hour for its current fiscal year.]

Vivienne Armentrout wondered what would happen if several of the local units of government opted out of the Act 196 authority. She said there should be a minimal-participation clause. She wondered if the new Act 196 authority would be viable at the funding levels that would result without participation of most of the units. She said it would be good to wait for the results of the financial advisory group’s recommendation. She expressed concern about the equity of the financial burden between residents of Ann Arbor and residents of the townships. Township residents have chosen to live where taxes are low, she said.

Glenn Thompson noted that current assets of the AATA are worth $50 million – more than the new police/courts building. He called it the largest valued contract the city has ever entered. He wondered what would happen if the assets have been used as collateral and the newly incorporated authority goes bankrupt. He felt there aren’t sufficient safeguards that would allow Ann Arbor to withdraw from the arrangement to recover its assets.

4-Party Agreement: Public Hearing – Control

John Floyd noted that there’s no necessary connection between expanded countywide service and the system of governance offered by Act 196. He said that if outlying districts feel AATA’s service is not of value, they don’t need to purchase it. Act 196 is just a change in legal form – and that form takes away from city residents because it results in a board that is less accountable to city residents than the current AATA board. The effect of the change, said Floyd, is to remove accountability, not to expand service.

Carolyn Grawi spoke on behalf of the Center for Independent living. She said she has concerns, but also has faith in what is going on. She encouraged the council not to vote down the proposal, because that would close the door – the door needs to be left open. The AATA has been very open in its process, she said, and now the governing bodies of the government units need to do the same. Citizens need to have a say in the voting process, she said, and she’s not convinced that the amendments to the four-party agreement do that.

4-Party Agreement: Public Hearing – In this Together, Economic Development

Washtenaw County commissioner Rolland Sizemore said we’re all in the same boat. “We can’t be in silos,” he said. He said the four-party agreement needs to move forward, calling it “one of the pieces of the puzzle.” He told the council to decide what it wants to do and the county board would then look at the articles of incorporation.

Jesse Bernstein introduced himself as a resident of Ward 2 for 40 years and chair of the AATA board. Responding to the suggestion that there could be widespread non-participation across the county in the Act 196 authority, he noted that 22 of the 26 local units of government in Washtenaw County have been participating in the transit master planning process, and most of them have signed Act 7 agreements. We need collaboration, he said. At any point, any member of the four-party agreement can end participation, and if that happens the AATA will continue as a Act 55 authority.

Bill Lavery introduced himself as a resident of York Township – he represents the south central district on the unincorporated Act 196 (U196) board that’s been meeting since the fall of 2011. He said he’d circled through his community and reported people are supportive of the planning process. He’s happy they’re participating in a shared vision. Transportation needs are growing, he said, noting increased numbers of residences for the elderly, and senior centers. People in Lodi Township have noted that bus service has been reduced in the school district, he said.

Ann Arbor Public Schools trustee Simone Lightfoot appeared before the council, saying she fully understands the challenge of navigating the politics of the situation. She asked the council to consider the rich opportunity to work with AAPS. She noted that the district is facing a $15 million budget challenge. That will affect the district’s ability to transport its students. She said she’d met with AATA’s CEO Michael Ford and is impressed with the work AATA is doing. She said she looked forward to the effort moving forward, so that AAPS can work with AATA.

State Rep. Jeff Irwin spoke in support of public transportation. He said he’d been a part of the public meetings to develop the transit master plan. He described it as a long and complicated process. The planned Act 196 authority will meet three main goals, he said: (1) fill holes in existing service; (2) increase connectivity to other places in the region; and (3) cement Ann Arbor as the economic center of the region. “No city is a island,” he said. The transportation system is an economic engine that will be good for us and good for property values, he concluded.

In support of collaboration and cooperation, Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board member Keith Orr offered the historical vignette of the founding communities that eventually came together to form Milwaukee. They were such fierce rivals that it nearly resulted in armed conflict. Streets were planned on opposites sides of the river to be misaligned for any bridges that might be built. To this day, the bridges are askew, Orr said. Eventually they realized that the friction between communities was discouraging settlement. The four-party agreement is the kind of regional leadership we should embrace, he said.

Rich Sheridan introduced himself as president of Menlo Innovations. He described how the company had tripled in size several times, which had led the company to move to different spots in downtown Ann Arbor. It now occupies the entire downstairs space at Tally Hall [now called Liberty Square]. He described Menlo Innovations as a high-tech firm that employs younger and older high-tech workers

Menlo has participated in the go!pass program since its inception, he said. He told councilmembers that they’ve likely seen him on the side of the bus – he participated in a publicity campaign that included head shots of local leaders displayed on the sides of buses and at bus shelters. As someone who gets around the country quite a bit to recruit talent, Sheridan said the kind of place people are attracted to are places with strong transit systems. When he visited Portland recently, he’d asked how it was that the transit system there had been approved. He’d been told there was a big fight – they weren’t sure anyone would ride it. He encouraged the council use their leadership to move the community forward.

Judy Wenzel described herself as a 32-year resident of Braeburn Circle. Among other issues, she gave an example of what happened when the county and the city were involved with a project. When a new traffic light was installed, she said, the county paid nothing, but the city paid half and her co-op paid half.

Thomas Partridge told the council that when he’d run for the 18th District senate seat, he’d done so on a platform to unite the region through transportation.

Putting transportation in the context of other areas of collaboration where the balance is difficult to achieve was Jim Mogensen. He alluded to the dispute between Washtenaw County and townships over the cost of providing sheriff deputy road patrols. Responding to mayor John Hieftje’s remark that countywide transportation planning had begun at least 10 years ago, Mogensen said it’d actually started 40 years ago. In 1969 Act 55 had been amended to allow provision of transit service as far away from a city as 10 miles. He said Ann Arbor already has a regional system that includes Ypsilanti, Superior Township, Ann Arbor Township and Pittsfield Township, which was established through an agreement among those parties to participate. He described the four-party agreement as opening up a “Pandora’s box.” He cautioned: “Let’s not go backwards.”

4-Party Agreement: Public Hearing – Uncertainty

Dorothy Nordness expressed dissatisfaction with the detail provided in answers to questions that the AATA had released in a document on Jan. 17. Those questions included some about the financing and the level of the University of Michigan’s participation.

Michael Benson, Ward 2 resident and president of the University of Michigan graduate study body, said the current four-party agreement still needs work. He encouraged the council to hold off approving it until after the budget is done [in May]. The financial piece still needs more work, he said.

LuAnne Bullington described the uncertainty of a situation in which countywide planning in Washtenaw is going on at the same time as new state-level legislation was planned to be introduced for a regional transit authority. [By way of background, the legislation has been in the works for several months, and was mentioned in Gov. Rick Snyder's state of the state address. The legislation was introduced four days after the council's Jan. 23 meeting.]

4-Party Agreement: Outcome

The rationale for postponement was for some councilmembers based on the desire to hear the recommendation of the financial advisory group, which had been scheduled to meet at the end of the week. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) made clear that he was willing to postpone, but did not think it was necessary to have the recommendation of the financial group before voting.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone action on the four-party agreement until its Feb. 6 meeting.

Resolution on Immigration

The Ann Arbor city council considered a resolution opposing federal policies that detain people and that result in deportation of immigrants who have not committed a “serious criminal offense” and who have long-standing ties to the community. The council’s resolution supports the use of prosecutorial discretion in such cases. The resolution also calls for timely legalization of undocumented immigrants who have not committed a serious criminal offense.

Several people held signs in support of the resolution on immigration.

The council previously passed a resolution, on July 6, 2010, opposing an Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to investigate a person’s immigration status, when there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the U.S. unlawfully.

And the council formulated a policy in 2003 that directs its police officers to “limit local enforcement actions with respect to immigration matters to penal violations of federal immigration law (as opposed to administrative violations) except in cases where the chief of police determines there is a legitimate public safety concern.”

The council’s resolution passed at its Jan. 23, 2012 meeting comes after they’d heard a plea at their Dec. 5, 2011 meeting from 14-year Ann Arbor resident Lourdes Salazar Bautista, who faced deportation in late December. She was subsequently given a one-year reprieve. The council’s resolution did not address Bautista’s situation specifically.

Immigration: Public Comment

Out of 10 reserved spots for public commentary at the start of the meeting, eight people signed up to address the resolution on immigration.

Linda Kurtz spoke to her direct personal experience living across the street from Bautista. Bautista has lived across the street from her for several years, and turned a rundown house into a nice one, Kurtz said. Bautista pays her bills on time – she’s the kind of neighbor everyone wants. Her presence on the street adds to value to the other houses, Kurtz said. Of the nine houses on the block, two have been foreclosed in the last year. The neighborhood doesn’t need another empty house on the street. Bautista and her children have become a part of the community they live in, Kurtz said.

Martha Valdez introduced herself as a graduate student at the University of Michigan who came to study community organizing and social work. She’d moved to Ann Arbor because she appreciated the sense of community here. She’d become aware of the injustices that occur in the immigrant community, and wanted to join those who are challenging those inequalities and working together to make a difference. She’s planning to find a job here so that she can remain in Ann Arbor after graduating in April. She wants to help make sure that others who come from immigrant families like she does can feel safe and respected in Ann Arbor. She called it critical to pass the resolution like the one the council was considering.

Diana Sierra introduced herself as a doctoral student at the University of Michigan. She told the council that she’d immigrated to the U.S. when she was five years old. Up until December 2011, when she obtained a permanent residency permit, she’d been living as an undocumented immigrant. Having lived that way for most of her life, she said, she understood that fear is a part of daily life for an undocumented immigrant.

Sierra described the tactics used against undocumented immigrants as harassment, “stalking” them outside grocery stores, schools and their homes. She noted that fear of deportation keeps people from reporting domestic violence, or abuses of landlords like the refusal to turn on heat or water.

Bob Snyder thanked Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) for bringing forward the resolution. He decried the use of the term “illegal immigrant” because it fails to differentiate between those who are here in the U.S. without the proper papers and those who’ve committed serious crimes. Snyder characterized as a “racist slur” the reference to Latin American guests in the U.S. as “illegal.” He lamented the fact that they are “fair game” in the hunting season of local, state and national elections.

Kevin Young spoke on behalf of the Washtenaw Community Action Team. He said the resolution would constitute a firm statement on behalf of justice and human dignity. He felt the resolution would expand the discussion on immigration beyond its current narrow focus, by countering rhetoric blaming immigrants. It would instead shift attention to the root causes of human migration – namely, a staggering level of global inequality.

Leslie Stambaugh spoke on behalf of the Ann Arbor human rights commission. She described solutions to the issue of immigration as a series of “patchy fixes” that sacrifice fairness. She said there are 15 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. She described how unmarked SUVs follow targeted persons to their homes, workplaces, churches and schoolyards, and noted that ICE [immigration & customs enforcement] agents can demand documents and detain people. She noted that the federal policy calls for low prioritization of those who haven’t committed a serious criminal offense, but the actual practice of ICE agents doesn’t live up to that, she said.

Carlos Zavala spoke on behalf of the Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights, saying that he wanted to acknowledge the positive impacts of immigrants on the community, such as providing manpower for labor-intensive occupations.

He cited the three principles of Catholic social teachings on migration: (1) People have the right to migrate to sustain their lives and the lives of their families; (2) A country has the right to regulate its borders and to control immigration; and (3) A country must regulate its borders with justice and mercy.

Joseph Summers introduced himself as the pastor of a local Episcopal church for 25 years. He said that public policies are a reflection of core values. He characterized the actions of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents as that of “goons,” likening them to the imperial stormtroopers from Star Wars. He said that as a Christian, his faith speaks clearly to him. He cited some verses of biblical scripture from Leviticus 19:34: “You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

Immigration: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who had co-sponsored the resolution, told her colleagues that there’d been “further language perfections,” made to the resolution. In the final two “resolved” clauses, reference to an immigrant’s ties to the U.S. was swapped out in favor of ties “to our community.”

Briere said she was confident other councilmembers recalled public comment at their December 2011 council meeting about an Ann Arbor resident who was at risk of deportation. That brought home to councilmembers an issue they’d perhaps heard about on the news, but had no experience of their own. Ann Arbor is not on the border, but residents are still at risk – not because they’ve committed crimes.

Briere said the U.S. should have a system where undocumented immigrants who have ties to a community can take steps to become citizens. People who are low risk are not supposed to be prioritized for deportation, based on statements from president Barack Obama. But such individuals wind up being prioritized – because they are easy to catch, because they’re law abiding. She encouraged her colleagues support the resolution.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) described how a few months ago a group had approached some councilmembers and a few of them had stepped forward, thinking that a resolution like this would be “in the soul of Ann Arbor.” The issue is being worked on, Anglin said, and the discussion needs to be nudged along. This resolution would do that, he said.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) called it “a beautifully written resolution.” She characterized it as sending a message and providing feedback to the federal government. For her, however, it is a situation where the council is being asked to address a national policy. She questioned whether a local resolution was appropriate. The other resolution on the agenda that night – expressing opposition to Michigan’s Public Act 247 – had a clear and direct connection to Ann Arbor, she said. For her, the resolution on immigration is one that doesn’t have a connection to Ann Arbor that is as direct or as clear. Given all that the council has to do, she said she’d resist the tendency to address something outside the council’s scope and control.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) responded to Lumm by saying the resolution was specifically written to address issues connected to Ann Arbor, but she appreciated Lumm’s concern about it being outside the council’s purview. The resolution is designed to give potential relief to citizens in Ann Arbor, Smith said. She agreed with Anglin, who said the resolution speaks to the soul of Ann Arbor. She allowed that the council has pressing matters it has to consider – among them the four-party transit agreement and the budget. But she said that the council stays and does its work. The resolution may prolong the council’s time at the table, but it does’t mean the council is unable to attend to its other work.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she appreciated Smith’s comments, but wouldn’t support the resolution. That’s been her consistent position for her entire time on the city council, she said. [Higgins attended the July 6, 2010 meeting when the council passed a resolution opposing Arizona's law requiring local law enforcement officials to investigate a person’s immigration status, when there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the U.S. unlawfully. However, she was not at the table when the vote was taken. Then-councilmember Stephen Rapundalo, whom Lumm replaced on the council, voted against the July 6, 2010 resolution. Rapundalo, Lumm and Higgins are all former Republicans.]

Higgins allowed that the resolution raised awareness, but contained nothing actionable. She said people should instead pick up the phone or email and contact legislators. While some people think a city council resolution carries more weight, Higgins said she felt that one voice combined with many other voices gives the position more weight. She encouraged people to raise their voices individually to make the message “a very strong shout.”

Mayor John Hieftje said what the council is objecting to is people getting jerked out of their homes, saying that the resolution does apply to this community and our neighbors.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the resolution opposing deportation, with dissent from  Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Resolution on Public Act 297

The council considered a resolution opposing Michigan’s Public Act 297, which was signed into law on Dec. 22, 2011. The act prohibits public employers from providing employee medical and fringe benefits to those who are not married to an employee, a dependent of the employee, or eligible to inherit from the employee under the laws of intestate succession. [.pdf of PA 297]

It’s not legal in Michigan for same-sex couples to marry. PA 297 thus effectively eliminates the possibility of providing benefits to same-sex domestic partners.

Ann Arbor provides employee benefits to “other qualified adults,” a definition that includes same-sex domestic partners. [.pdf of Ann Arbor employee retirement system definition of other qualified adult] Nine current or retired city of Ann Arbor employees are impacted by PA 297.

Before the bill was signed, the council – at its Sept. 19, 2011 meeting – passed a resolution calling on Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder not to sign the bill into law.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1): "I love this city!"

On Jan. 5, 2012, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in U.S. district court against Snyder on behalf of four couples. Four of the eight plaintiffs are residents of Ann Arbor. The public employer for the two Ann Arbor couples is the Ann Arbor Public Schools. [.pdf of complaint against Rick Snyder] The resolution directs the Ann Arbor city attorney to assist the ACLU in the lawsuit in whatever way is useful, including filing an amicus brief.

The resolution considered by the Ann Arbor city council on Jan. 23 also cites Ann Arbor’s history of commitment to non-discrimination and protections for those of all sexual orientations. [.pdf of Ann Arbor's non-discrimination ordinance]

During the council’s deliberations Jane Lumm (Ward 1) expressed her interest in not seeing the ACLU and the city of Ann Arbor by themselves trying to take on the state of Michigan. She asked city attorney Stephen Postema if other municipalities had indicated they’d be willing to help – he was not aware of any.

Responding to Lumm’s concern, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he would be proud to have Ann Arbor stand alone. He characterized PA 297 as a “state shame.” Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said it was appropriate to see a cause like this in a city like Ann Arbor. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she’d support the resolution wholeheartedly. Margie Teall (Ward 4) thanked Smith for bringing it forward.

Lumm, given the concern she’d expressed about Ann Arbor going it alone, was keen to stress that she opposes PA 297, saying it puts Michigan at a competitive disadvantage. And as Lumm went on, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) declared: “I love this city!”

Outcome: The council unanimously passed the resolution opposing PA 297.

AATA Policing Contract

The Ann Arbor city council considered a renewal to the agreement under which it supplies policing services to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority – at the transit agency’s downtown Ann Arbor Blake Transit Center.

The agreement entails the provision of a dedicated officer for the location. The previous agreement had expired on Oct. 31, 2011. Cost of the services to the AATA is $75,000, with a $5,000 increase per year after Oct. 31, 2012. The point of the increases is to get the contract value back to the fully-burdened cost, which is $112,000.

During deliberations, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she appreciated getting an answer to her question about the fully-burdened cost of providing a police officer dedicated to the Blake Transit Center – $112,000, as compared to $75,000 for the value of the contract. She said that she understood it to be the result of negotiation.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked why the city wouldn’t charge the full cost. Deputy chief of police John Seto came to the podium and told Higgins he didn’t know the full history of the initial agreement. The most recent round of negotiations resulted in an agreement to attempt to get the contract back to the level of the fully-burdened cost through a $5,000 increase each year. He’d revisit the possibility of increasing it to $10,000 annually, or even more aggressively. Higgins indicated interest to city administrator Steve Powers in discussing other similar contracts in the context of setting the fiscal year 2013 budget. [The council approves the budget for the next fiscal year in May – the fiscal year starts on July 1. So the council will approve the FY 2013 budget in May 2012.]

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the AATA policing contract.

Wastewater Project Contract

At its Jan. 23, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council considered a $10,802,423 contract with Malcolm Pirnie Inc. for engineering services related to the facilities renovation project (FRP) at the city’s wastewater treatment plant.

The city’s wastewater treatment facility includes an East Plant and West Plant. The West Plant has been taken offline due to its dilapidated condition and is planned to be demolished and replaced. The project also includes a number of improvements throughout the facility, including a new electrical distribution system, new emergency power generators, utilities relocation, and replacement of stormwater collection system equipment.

The total project cost is well over $100 million and is expected to be financed in part with low-interest loans through Michigan’s state revolving fund program, which is administered by the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality. [For additional background on the project, see The Ann Arbor Observer's "The Flow Never Stops" from April 2009.]

Outcome: The council voted without deliberation to approve the contract.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Downtown City-Owned Surface Lots

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) gave an update on progress with the “Discovering Midtown” project – a process for exploring alternate uses of downtown city-owned surface parking lots. The process is being led by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority based on direction given by the Ann Arbor city council at the council’s April 4, 2011 meeting. The effort will now be known as “Connecting William Street,” reported Smith, to avoid confusion with a character district in the city’s zoning ordinance that is called Midtown. There will be surveys conducted in February, she said. She noted that out of a recent $3 million federal sustainability grant that was recently awarded, a small piece will be used by the DDA to have a facilitator do public outreach, which begins in March. [The grant application included the DDA's planning effort.]

Comm/Comm: City-Owned Parcel – 415 W. Washington

Mayor John Hieftje reminded the council that a group had been formed to look at the city-owned 415 W. Washington lot. [The council passed a resolution giving direction for the effort at its Feb. 1, 2010 meeting, nearly two years ago. The resolution calls for the arts and greenway communities to lead fundraising and development of a vision for the parcel’s use. The site, across from the YMCA, is currently providing revenue to the city as a surface parking lot. It was previously the city’s maintenance yard.] Hieftje said the group continues to meet – the biggest challenge remains the building. He said a report on the status of the project would be given at the end of February.

Comm/Comm: Medical Marijuana

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) gave her colleagues a head’s up that the next meeting of the medical medical marijuana licensing board would be Jan. 31. The board has been meeting at least once a month since October 2011, she said. [Briere serves as the city council's representative to the board, which was established last year in connection with the city's medical marijuana ordinance.] So, the recommendation that the board is supposed to submit to the council by Jan. 31 would likely be in the council’s hands by early February, she said. [Recent Chronicle coverage: "ZBA Grants 1 of 2 Medical Marijuana Appeals" and "Medical Marijuana: Local Board Eyes 2012"]

Comm/Comm: Budget, Public Safety

During public commentary, Karen Sidney noted that the city council needs to approve next year’s budget [FY 2013] by the end of May. [The city's fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30, so FY 2013 begins on July 1, 2012. By city charter, the city administrator must submit a budget in April, and the city council must adopt it with any amendments by May each year.] That’s not a lot of time, she said, to solve the big budget problems the city is facing. She contended the city does not have adequate numbers of police officers and firefighters to keep residents safe. She said that two-person crews are not the answer, when it takes four firefighters to enter a burning building [two to enter and two to remain outside.]

In the last five years, Sidney counted a loss of 64 police officers and 12 firefighters. She called on councilmembers to start now, if they expected to figure out what to cut, in order to restore those positions. She said there’d been a historical pattern of spending time on time-consuming issues that can wait – the four-party countywide transit agreement is an example of that, she said, suggesting it could wait until after May. She hoped the proposed budget would be posted in a timely fashion and that the council would discuss any changes in the city council chambers, instead of at “meetings behind closed doors.”

During his communications, mayor John Hieftje said that in May 2011 he’d said that council’s challenge is to make sure that further cuts to the police force don’t happen – his preference would be to add officers. The hiring to replace retiring officers is going well, Hieftje said. The city had received 450 applications for 9-10 spots. He said the city had finished the year with a record reduction in crime for 2011.

Comm/Comm: Dragons, Council Rules, Warming

During the communications slot at the start of the council’s agenda, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wished everyone a happy Year of the Dragon, noting that it was the first night of the Chinese New Year [a festival that runs 15 days].

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Alan Haber. In the background behind Haber is city of Ann Arbor transportation program manager Eli Cooper.

Later in the evening, during public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Thomas Partridge alluded to Jane Lumm (Ward 2), saying it was “entirely disappointing” that she appeared to be taking a “dragon lady attitude” on the council. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) objected during Partridge’s remarks to the fact that Partridge was calling names.

Alan Haber followed Partridge to the podium, saying that he’d been listed as an alternate to speak during the reserved time at the start of the meeting, behind other speakers – Karen Sidney and Thomas Partridge. [The council makes 10 reserved slots available at the start of the meeting, giving priority to those who wish to address agenda items.]

Haber complained that while he always appreciated Partridge’s astute comments on social justice, and Sidney’s comments were always worth hearing, the two had not addressed topics on the agenda in their remarks at the start of the meeting. In contrast, he’d wanted to speak to an item on the agenda, but was nonetheless assigned alternate status.

The issue of that particular council rule has been a topic of previous complaint. At the council’s Sept. 19, 2011 meeting, Michael Benson asked the council to enforce that rule.

The reason for apparent lack of enforcement of that provision of the council’s rules can be found in the specific language of the rule. It gives priority to speakers who wish to address agenda items, but only for people reserving a time between 8 a.m. and 1 p.m. on the day of a council meeting. After 1 p.m. it’s strictly first-come, first-served.

On the morning of the regular meeting of the City Council the City Clerk shall sign up persons interested in speaking during the time designated as Public Commentary Reserved Time as follows:
a. Between 8 a.m. and 1 p.m. all ten speaking times will be available to persons wishing to address council on agenda items.
b. After 1 p.m. on that same day speakers wishing to address council on any matter will be signed up strictly on a first come first serve basis for any remaining times. Two alternates may also be designated.

The substantive issue Haber had wished to address was the idea of establishing a warming center. He’d intended to link that issue to the minutes of Ann Arbor’s human rights commission, which were attached to the council’s agenda, but which he contended he could not find. The reason he wished to link the warming center to the human rights commission, Haber said, is that the first human right is warmth – the right to come in out of the cold and to sit in the cave by the fire.

Comm/Comm: Leasing, Student Relations

Michael Benson addressed the council at the conclusion of the meeting, partly on behalf of the graduate student body at the University of Michigan, for which he serves as president.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton and Michael Benson.

He noted some dissatisfaction on the part of some people with the leasing situation. He was alluding to a provision in Ann Arbor’s leasing ordinance, approved by the city council in 2008, which is supposed to prevent landlords from renting or showing an apartment to another renter until 70 days of the current lease period has passed.

In that context, Benson reiterated a suggestion he made a year ago during public commentary – to reconvene the student relations committee and expand its membership. [Council representatives to the committee are Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).]

Comm/Comm: General Praise

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, John Litle called the council meeting and its public hearing on the four-party transit agreement a “shining example of democracy in action,” saying it had restored his faith in democracy.

Also at the conclusion of the meeting, Michael Benson thanked the council for their work, saying that after watching them transact business – while he didn’t always agree with all or any of them – he believed they had everyone’s best interests at heart. He said it’s important to remember that while we might disagree, attacking individuals is not the best way to move an agenda forward.

Comm/Comm: Vehicle Idling

During her public commentary turn on the immigration resolution, Linda Kurtz added her thoughts on an ordinance that might come before the Ann Arbor city council to regulate unnecessary vehicle idling. Kurtz said she was shocked at the number of vehicles she’s seen idling – it’s wasteful and unnecessary, she said. An educational effort should be undertaken, she said, and the enactment of an ordinance plays a part in that education. Education should start with city workers, she said. [In connection with the site preparation work for the City Place project on South Fifth Avenue, nearby residents reported city vehicles idling through the better part of a day.]

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

Next council meeting: Monday, Feb. 6, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

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

Amtrak train pulling away (despite appearances) from the Ann Arbor station on Jan. 25, 2012. Later that same day, Ann Arbor Transportation Authority buses converging on downtown Ann Arbor's Blake Transit Center. (Photos by the writer.)

The Chronicle is taking the pause between council meetings as an opportunity to offer readers a look at Ann Arbor’s current bus system ridership numbers over the last several years.

Part of a 30-year transit vision developed by the AATA includes the relocation of the Amtrak station – from Depot Street to a spot in the city’s Fuller Park. The proposed city/University of Michigan collaboration on the Fuller Road Station includes a large parking structure for the UM medical complex as its first phase. So we’re also taking a look at current ridership data on the Amtrak line through Ann Arbor.

Ann Arbor’s regular fixed route bus system provided 5.95 million rides for fiscal year 2011, which ended Sept. 30, 2011. That’s slightly better than the previous year, but was slightly off the record high year of 6.02 million rides delivered in FY 2009. The first three months of the 2012 fiscal year – October, November and December 2011 – show slight increases over the monthly numbers for FY 2011.

Of those 5.95 million rides provided by AATA in FY 2011, 2.43 million of them (41%) were provided through the University of Michigan MRide program – which allows faculty, students and staff of the university to board AATA buses without paying a fare. The cost for the service is paid by UM to the AATA. It was a record-setting year for the MRide program.

Also making up a portion of those 5.95 million rides were trips taken by holders of the getDowntown go!pass program, which allows downtown Ann Arbor employers to provide free bus passes for their employees for a nominal cost – the cost of the rides is funded through a grant from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

In FY 2011, 634,000 rides were provided under the go!pass program – a 23% increase over FY 2010, adding to the trend of monotonically increasing numbers of go!pass rides over the last decade. The first three months of FY 2012 don’t show the same kind of double-digit increases for go!pass use as FY 2011 – they’re tracking roughly the same as last year.

The number of riders getting on and off the Amtrak trains that passed through Ann Arbor during the 2011 calendar year was 141,522. That figure tracked close to the same level of activity the station has seen since 2006 – from 140,000 to 145,000 riders. Through May 2011, Amtrak was on pace to eclipse the record number of riders in 2010 (145,040). But starting in July 2011, ridership was lower in every month (compared to 2010) through the end of the year.

Charts and graphs by The Chronicle – as well as more detailed breakdowns – are provided after the break.

Overall Ridership on AATA Buses

AATA operates on a fiscal year that runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30. The data provided by the AATA to The Chronicle is organized based on that time period.

Figure 1. Total AATA Fixed Route Ridership by Year (Image links to larger file)

Figure 2. Ridership on AATA Fixed Route by Month 2004-2011 (Image links to larger file)

Fiscal year 2006 was the first year that AATA ridership crossed the 5 million-ride threshold on its regular fixed route service. By 2008, ridership was just under 6 million and actually nudged past 6 million in 2009. Ridership has remained relatively level over the four years from 2008 to 2011. In 2010, there was a dip of about a quarter million rides, but in FY 2011, the most recent full fiscal year, the number was again just shy of 6 million at 5,954,569. [See Figure 1.]

Figure 2 includes the ridership trend through the first three months of FY 2012 – October through December of 2011. Comparing the dark red line (FY 2012) with the heavy black line (FY 2011) shows an increase in each month of about 30,000 rides.

UM Ridership on AATA Buses

About 40% of rides on the AATA regular bus system are taken by University of Michigan students, faculty and staff under the MRide program. The program is commonly described as one that allows UM affiliates to “ride for free,” which is a chafing point for AATA public relations staff. The program does allow UM affiliates to board AATA buses without paying a fare. But the cost of the rides is intended to be compensated through payments UM makes to the AATA under the MRide contract.

The first MRide agreement was for a five-year period from Aug. 1, 2004 to July 31, 2009. When negotiations between UM and the AATA did not produce a new five-year agreement by July 31, 2009, the two organizations agreed to a one‐year extension of the original agreement for the period from Aug. 1, 2009 to July 31, 2010. Under that arrangement, UM paid AATA a total $1,987,642 to cover the cost of UM affiliate rides.

Then at its Sept. 16, 2011 meeting, the AATA board ratified a new five-year deal from 2010-2015. One difference between the previous agreement and the one that the board considered and approved at the Sept. 16 meeting is that the new arrangement makes explicit a per-boarding amount to be paid by UM. In the previous arrangement, UM agreed to pay a lump sum for the boardings, with additional money contributed through a federal grant for which UM is eligible.

While the federal grant is still a component of the new MRide arrangement, the boarding payment is now explicitly tied to the number of rides taken by UM riders. The current agreement is for UM to pay AATA $1 per ride. The regular fare for AATA buses is $1.50. The MRide rate is based on the cost per ride paid by holders of a 30-day pass, which costs $58. The previous arrangement had worked out to around $0.80 per ride, though it was not defined that way in the contract.

Although early in the MRide negotiations there was some consideration given to UM charging a partial cost of rides directly to its riders through the new swipeable fare box technology recently installed in AATA buses, that possibility was quickly taken off the table.

The count of UM riders is achieved by UM riders swiping their MCards through the AATA fareboxes. However, the usage data is provided to UM, and AATA does not have access to statistics on who is riding the buses – faculty, staff, or students. That information can be analyzed by UM, however.

Figure 3. UM Ridership on AATA Buses by Year (Image links to larger file)

Figure 4. UM Ridership on AATA Buses by Month (Image links to larger file)

By 2008, ridership in the MRide program had more or less stabilized at around 2.3 million rides per year. In the most recent year – FY 2011 – the program had 2.4 million rides [see Figure 3]. The monthly trend for the first three months of FY 2012 shows an increase in MRide program ridership in each month, compared to FY 2011 [see Figure 4]. In December 2011, that increase was only about 10,000 rides, compared to almost 20,000 more rides in January and February. December is a typical trough for MRide ridership numbers, which show seasonal variation tied to the academic calendar.

go!pass Ridership on AATA Buses

Another bus pass program accounts for about 10% of AATA regular bus ridership – getDowntown’s go!pass program. Under the program, downtown Ann Arbor employers can purchase bus passes for their employees at $10 apiece. Participating employers must purchase passes for all their employees. The passes are good for unlimited rides on AATA buses.

The cost of the rides has historically been carried by payments from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority out of its parking fund. At its June 2, 2010 meeting, the DDA board authorized a three-year grant to fund the go!pass program – $445,672 for FY 2011; $488,054 for FY 2012; and $540,060 for FY 2013.

In the past, the AATA has adjusted the charge to match actual ridership – which means that the amount of the DDA grants would likely need to increase as well, if that policy continued. However, a financial crunch at the DDA led the AATA to modify the amount it charges for rides taken under the go!pass program. At its Aug. 24, 2011 meeting, the AATA board voted to set the charges at the same amount for which the DDA had provided grants.

Figure 5. go!pass Ridership on AATA Buses by Year (Image links to larger file)

Figure 6. go!pass Ridership on AATA Buses by Month (Image links to larger file)

Figure 5 shows that the number of rides taken with the go!pass has increased steadily since 2004. That’s partly due to the steadily increasing number of go!passes in circulation. From FY 2010 to FY 2011, the number of passes sold jumped about 10% – from 6,537 to 7,226.

Ridership was up 23% in FY 2011 compared to FY 2010. It’s conceivable that some of the increase could be attributable to a change in the way go!pass ridership data is collected. It’s now collected with swipeable cards that pass holders run through the fare box, instead of depending on a driver’s manual button press. That change started on Nov. 1, 2010.

On the theory that fewer undercounting errors might be associated with a swipeable card system, some increase in the number of rides might be expected due purely to the change in data collection. However, in FY 2008, the program also had a ridership increase that outpaced the increase in passes sold – a 20% increase in ridership with a 5% increase in go!pass circulation. There was no change in data collection method at that time. In addition, there does not seem to be a similar bump in MRide ridership associated with the same change in data collection method, implemented in 2009.

Through the first three months of FY 2012, ridership on the go!pass program is tracking fairly close to FY 2011 [see Figure 6].

Ann Arbor Amtrak Ridership

Ann Arbor is one of the stations on Amtrak’s Wolverine Line, which runs from Pontiac through Detroit to Chicago. Amtrak ridership data is provided online by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation. Service is three times a day in each direction, for a total of six train stops a day. The schedule, westbound and eastbound is: 7:48 a.m. WB, 12:29 p.m. WB, 1:04 p.m. EB, 5:45 p.m. EB, 7:17 p.m. WB, 11:32 p.m. EB.

Figure 7. Ann Arbor Amtrak Ridership by Year (Image links to larger file)

Figure 8. Ann Arbor Amtrak Ridership by Month (Image links to larger file)

In the early part of the 2000s, ridership through the Ann Arbor station climbed steadily to reach 140,000 riders in 2006. [That counts passengers either getting on or getting off the train in Ann Arbor.] Since then, ridership has remained in the range of 140,000-145,000 except for 2009, when there was a clear dip – to about 126,000. That off year could be explained by the economic downturn in the fall of 2008, and by the the fact that average Ann Arbor area gas prices fell from over $4 per gallon in July 2008 to under $2 per gallon by January 2009 [see Figure 7].

Ann Arbor’s Amtrak ridership started off 2011 on a record-setting pace through April, which continued a bit less dramatically through May and June. By July, however, ridership numbers fell below the 2011 figures for every month through the end of 2011. That could be explained in part by decreases in the quality of on-time performance associated with speed restrictions placed on the track by its owner Norfolk-Southern in June 2011. The speed restrictions stem from the need to upgrade the track. Rather than undertake the track work necessary to allow for regular speeds, Norfolk-Southern elected to impose the speed limits. [As an example, the 5:45 p.m. scheduled arrival on Jan. 24, 2012 was 68 minutes late.] And in May 2011, the Detroit News published a column extolling the virtues of the car trip between Detroit and Chicago.

In October 2011, MDOT struck a deal with Norfolk-Southern to purchase the 135 miles of track between Kalamazoo and Dearborn. Track improvements, funded by federal stimulus money, are expected to allow the speed restrictions to be lifted.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local government and civic affairs. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Rich Robben's last meeting as an Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board member was Jan. 19, 2012. (Photos by the writer.)

The board itself is in transition – Thursday was Rich Robben’s last meeting as an AATA board member. And the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, attended his first meeting since his nomination was confirmed by the Ann Arbor city council on Dec. 19, 2011. He replaces Sue McCormick on the board.

The AATA as an organization is also possibly in transition, as it seeks to establish a new, countywide governance structure under Michigan’s Act 196 of 1986. To provide a framework for that move, AATA is asking three other entities – the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County – to ratify an agreement with the AATA. The Ann Arbor city council postponed action on that agreement at its Jan. 9, 2012 meeting, but is expected to take action on Jan. 23. A public hearing on the four-party agreement is scheduled for that council meeting as well. CEO Michael Ford reported that the text of the four-party agreement is currently being revised, to promote clarity.

And as the AATA works on a possible move to countywide governance of public transit in Washtenaw County, Michigan’s state legislature may also act to establish a regional transit authority (RTA) for southeast Michigan that would add Washtenaw to Wayne, Macomb and Oakland counties.

The AATA board got a briefing on possible upcoming RTA legislation from Dusty Fancher, a consultant for the Michigan Public Transit Association (MPTA). Fancher, who’s employed by Midwest Strategy Group, stressed that the RTA legislation – for which no details have yet been released publicly – comes in the context of a larger transportation infrastructure agenda being pushed by Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder. That larger agenda includes a focus on funding for roads.

Like the move to a local countywide governance, the funding for an RTA would probably include a request to voters for additional taxes. If the state’s RTA legislation were passed before the November 2012 election – and if a decision also were made to place a ballot request to Washtenaw County voters to fund more transportation within the county – that would potentially result in two transportation tax initiatives in the same election.

How likely is it that the state’s RTA legislation would be passed before the November 2012 election? Fancher said that if nothing were passed by March 2012, she’d bet money that nothing would happen before November. Also at the AATA board meeting, Clark Harder, executive director of the MPTA, indicated that it’s important to understand that Snyder does not currently have the votes within his own Republican Party to push the RTA package forward.

Against that backdrop of transition and many unknowns, the AATA went about some regular business with quantifiable, known facts. The board authorized the purchase of up to 25 vans to provide van pool service. The board also authorized its capital grant program for the next five years, which allows for an additional $1.5 million of federal and state grant money to go towards the reconstruction of the downtown Ann Arbor Blake Transit Center.

The board also heard its usual range of public commentary and reports from committees.

Board in Transition

Charles Griffith chaired the meeting in Jesse Bernstein’s absence. Griffith began the meeting by welcoming Eli Cooper back to the board. Cooper had served previously on the board from 2005-2008. But Cooper was attending his first meeting as an AATA board member since his most recent confirmation by the Ann Arbor city council on Dec. 19, 2011. Cooper told Griffith it was great to be back.

Cooper is the city of Ann Arbor transportation program manager, and his recent nomination to a position on the board was for the city council somewhat controversial, due to his employment with the city.

Board in Transition: Robben Departs

At the start of the Jan. 19 meeting, Griffith also noted the departure of Rich Robben from the board – that night’s meeting would be Robben’s last.

Rich Robben was presented with the traditional token of appreciation from the AATA for his board service.

Because Griffith was filling in for Jesse Bernstein as chair, he could not simultaneously play his usual role as the board secretary. The board’s resolutions approved at the meeting required a signature from the chair and the secretary, without those signatures being from the same person. So Griffith tapped Robben to serve as secretary at his final board meeting.

By way of additional background, Robben had submitted his resignation in November 2011, but had agreed to serve through January 2012 to allow some time to find a replacement.

Robben’s departure was early – his four-year term had started last year. In his resignation letter sent to mayor John Hieftje, Robben wrote, “… other factors have risen that will interfere with my time commitment to this endeavor.” Appointments to the AATA board are made through mayoral nomination, and confirmation by the city council. There’s been no public mention of Robben’s resignation at previous meetings of the AATA or city council. Board members queried by The Chronicle after the Jan. 19 meeting had not heard anything about who might be nominated to replace Robben.

Robben received the traditional parting gift for departing board members – a mailbox marked up to resemble an AATA bus. Colleagues on the board offered their praise and gratitude for his service.

CEO Michael Ford’s written report to the board for the month included the following statement about Robben:

The organization has benefited greatly from Rich’s stewardship and tireless service having held the chair of the planning and development committee and served on several other committees prior to PDC’s inception and also served as a U196 Board member. Rich was instrumental in the redesign of the Board structure and made a contribution to many other projects that altered the face of the organization. We will miss him greatly but look forward to continuing to come in contact through AATA’s ongoing partnership with U of M.

Later in the meeting, David Nacht heaped praise on Robben, saying that for those who don’t know, Robben is a senior manager at the University of Michigan, for facilities management. It means that Robben knows how to think about building, running transit operations, hiring and firing, and dealing with people and machinery, Nacht said. “I have learned so much from Rich,” Nacht said, adding that it’s been a delight to serve with him. Nacht called Robben “a terrific guy” who had been of “incalculable assistance to the community.”

Griffith told Robben he enjoyed serving with Robben – they’d started on the board at the same time, back in 2006.

Robben thanked his colleagues for their kind words, saying that he greatly enjoyed his time serving on the board. Robben called the AATA an outstanding, well-run organization with an excellent CEO. The board has gotten great new blood, he said. He turned to the AATA staff in attendance and literally applauded them. “You are a terrific staff,” he said, “you really are.” He said he’d enjoyed his association with them – they are on the pinacle of expertise in the transportation industry, he said. He concluded by saying he hoped he’d helped move things forward – an indirect reference to AATA’s “Moving You Forward” marketing slogan.

Board in Transition: Internal Organization

Robben’s resignation is the second early departure from the board in two months. Sue McCormick’s last meeting was Dec. 15, 2011. Her replacement on the board is Eli Cooper, the city of Ann Arbor transportation program manager.

Eli Cooper sported transit-themed neckwear for his first meeting on the AATA board since his confirmation by the Ann Arbor city council on Dec. 19, 2011.

Originally on the Jan. 19 agenda were items to elect new officers and make new committee assignments. Just four months ago, on Sept. 15, 2011, the board had elected new officers: Jesse Bernstein (chair); Charles Griffith (secretary); and Sue McCormick (treasurer). But with McCormick’s early departure from the board in December, the board needs to identify a treasurer.

Also at the Sept. 15 meeting, the board had divided its committee responsibilities. The committee chairs were determined to be: Rich Robben (planning and development committee), and Charles Griffith (performance monitoring and external relations). So the board also needs to identify a new chair of the planning and development committee.

However, the items on officers and committee assignments were pulled from the agenda before the meeting.

Another role played by Robben until now was as one of three representatives of the AATA to the U196 board – the unincorporated Act 196 board. That body is a precursor to what could become a transit authority with a countywide governance – an entity that would subsume the AATA as the Ann Arbor area public transit provider. The U196 board has been meeting since late 2011. Compared to the U196 board, a fully incorporated board would include four more Ann Arbor members, for a total of seven out of 15 board seats.

Board in Transition: External Representation – Countywide

The need for the AATA to fill Robben’s slot on the U196 board – and to take a more active role as a entire board in the activities of the U196 – was a view expressed during public commentary delivered at the meeting by Vivienne Armentrout.

Vivienne Armentrout.

Armentrout told the board she’d attended a meeting of the planning and development committee when the issue of a millage vote had been discussed. She reported that David Nacht had asked who would plan the millage vote. Ford had answered that the U196 board would do that.

She then showed the board a diagram from the AATA showing a timeline indicating the U196 board was assigned the responsibility of planning the millage vote.

Armentrout said she is concerned that the U196 board has only three AATA board members on it – one of them Rich Robben, who was departing from the board. The U196 board is really not a real board – it’s a group of very responsible people, but it’s not a real board, she said. She wanted to see the whole AATA board more closely involved, especially in the early stages of planning, as finances and millage votes are discussed.

AATA in Transition

The transition to a countywide governance and funding base is intended to (1) ensure stability of funding for transit connections outside of the city of Ann Arbor, which until now has depended on purchase-of-service agreements; (2) provide a higher level of transit service inside the city of Ann Arbor; and (3) expand the area where transit service is provided. The service plan is laid out in two volumes of the transit master plan. [.pdf of "Volume 1: A Transit Vision for Washtenaw County"] [.pdf of "Volume 2: Transit Master Plan Implementation Strategy"]

A two-volume document on funding options forms the third part of the transit master plan. [.pdf of Part 1 of Vol. 3 Transit Master Plan Funding Options] [.pdf of Part 2 of Vol. 3 Transit Master Plan Funding Options]. A financial advisory group, led by McKinley Inc. CEO Albert Berriz and retired Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel, has met since late 2011 to analyze those funding options.

To provide a framework for a move to countywide governance, the AATA is asking three other entities – the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County – to ratify an agreement with the AATA. The Ann Arbor city council postponed action on that agreement at its Jan. 9, 2012 meeting, but is expected to take action on Jan. 23. A public hearing on the four-party agreement is scheduled for that council meeting as well. [.pdf of four-party agreement as presented to city council on Jan. 9, 2012]

In the four party-agreement, the role of the two cities – Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – would be to pledge their current transit millages to the new authority, contingent on identifying a countywide funding source. The two cities currently levy millages that are designated for public transit and are passed through to the AATA. For Ann Arbor, that’s currently just over 2 mills. For Ypsilanti, which uses the proceeds of the tax – approved in November 2010 – to fund its purchase-of-service agreement with the AATA, the levy is just under 1 mill. [One mill is $1 for each $1,000 of a property's taxable value.]

As part of the four-party agreement, Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor would agree that AATA’s existing assets would be assumed by the new Act 196 transit authority, and they’d also agree to assign their existing millages to the new Act 196 authority. But the asset transfer and the millage assignment would be contingent on identifying a countywide funding source for the new Act 196 authority.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the Jan. 19 AATA board meeting, Nancy Kaplan asked for clarification on the four-party agreement. She noted that countywide voter approval of a funding source is one of the contingencies to closing the deal.

8. Contingencies to Closing.
…
(f) Countywide voter approval before December 31, 2014, of a New TA Act 196 funding source adequate to fund ongoing operations of New TA. Any ballot question submitted to the voters of the City of Ann Arbor and/or the City of Ypsilanti shall clearly identify the new funding as additional to the existing millage.

Kaplan compared that contingency to another section of the agreement [added by the city council through amendment at its Jan. 9 meeting] that allows the city of Ann Arbor to withdraw from the agreement, if voters within the city do not approve the countywide funding source – even if the proposal achieves a majority countywide:

9. Ann Arbor Approval.
Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, if voters in the City of Ann Arbor fail to approve the NEW TA Act 196 funding source, regardless of whether it is approved or not by the other voting jurisdictions, then the City shall have the right to (i) withdraw from this Agreement without penalty; (ii) veto any attempted termination by AATA of the AATA-City operation agreement; and (iii) refuse to designate and/or assign its millage under Section 3(a).

Kaplan expressed concern that paragraph 9 appears to give the city of Ann Arbor the right to withdraw, but does not obligate the city to withdraw, if a majority of Ann Arbor voters don’t vote for the funding source.

State-Level Transitions

At its Jan. 19 meeting, the board received a briefing on the state-level legislative climate for transit funding. Clark Harder, executive director of the Michigan Public Transit Association, led off the presentation by giving the board a brief history of the MPTA – a group to which the AATA belongs.

Harder was followed by Dusty Fancher of Midwest Strategy Group, a multi-client lobbying firm in Lansing.

State-Level Transitions: Regional Transit, Road Funding

What’s been fantastic about Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, Fancher said, is that he’s been openly and publicly supportive of public transit, in a way that hasn’t been seen in a Michigan governor in many years. She said she’s worked with his policy advisors and talked to them extensively about the regional transportation authority legislation that the governor had called for in his State of the State address delivered on Jan. 18. The nitty gritty details of the bills have not yet come forward, she said.

Four-county region that may be proposed for a regional transit authority (RTA) counterclockwise from Washtenaw County (orange): Wayne, Macomb, Oakland. Pushpin A is the location of the Detroit Metro airport. Major corridors on which rolling rapid transit would be provided include Gratiot (red), M-59 (yellow), Woodward (purple) and Michigan Avenue (green). (Map is by The Ann Arbor Chronicle. Image links to dynamic Google Map with .kml file)

The bills have not been introduced and the drafts have not yet been released at this time. But from talking to the governor and his staff, Fancher said, it was known that the Ann Arbor area would have two voting board members. It’s known that the governor wants to have major bus lines running in and out of Ann Arbor to the Detroit Metro airport and to the city of Detroit. The governor wants a funding mechanism that will provide additional funding for the area. The details aren’t known, she said. It might be that residents of southeast Michigan will have to vote as a region, for an additional tax. There will be four bills related to the regional transit authority, she said – the charge will be led by state senators Tom Casperson and Tupac Hunter. [Clarification: According to staff from Hunter's office as well as staff from from the office of senator Bert Johnson, it's Johnson who's working closely with Casperson on the legislation.]

The regional transit authority is part of a much larger context of the governor’s transportation infrastructure agenda, she said, which he released in October 2011. The transportation system has been underfunded for years at the state and federal levels, she said. For every dollar sent to Washington D.C. only about 80 cents comes back to Michigan.

Snyder is planning a 13-bill package to increase transportation funding overall – that includes roads and public transit, Fancher reported. What it really looks like Snyder wants to do is change the formula for funding roads. Currently road funding is based on vehicle miles traveled – that might be changed to give more money to fund state highways and less to municipalities. But every revenue package that’s been floated to the legislature so far, she said, has “fallen pretty flat” – both in the senate and the house.

Legislators are wondering if the consumer who pulls up to the pump every week really wants to pay more gas taxes, Fancher explained. Universally there’s no support in the legislature for increasing the gas tax, she said. So what they’ll have to look at is the sales tax on gasoline. When you go to the pump, you’d pay a sales tax on top of a gas tax. That could be re-directed into roads.

Another possibility is that the registration fees paid for vehicles will be restructured to put some of that money into the road funding formula – that’s a real possibility, according to Fancher. Some people are even talking about the Natural Resources Trust Fund and asking if some percentage of that money can be set aside and put towards roads – that idea is getting more traction than you’d think, she said.

There’s still talk of increasing the statewide sales tax by one penny, and designating that revenue for roads. But that would require a statewide popular vote, Fancher said. And it would be hard to get a majority of voters to agree to increase the sales tax after many years of recession. We all know we need a bunch of money to fix our roads and make sure we have a robust transit system, Fancher told the board – it’s just not clear how we’re going to get there.

Rep. Rick Olson is looking at transit funding and trying to put out a report, Fancher said. He’s met with staff of the AATA and Fancher met with him last week in his office. Olson has also put out a report about road funding – “that’s been very interesting,” she said. In the Jan. 18 State of the State address, the governor did call for Michigan as a state and for the legislature to move forward on transportation and infrastructure funding. There’s been enough talk, she said, and Snyder would like to start coalescing around some specific ideas. Snyder likes to talk about moving forward in “dog years,” she said. Fancher felt if something was not passed by March 2012, then there won’t likely be anything passed before the November elections. “I’d bet some money on that,” she said.

State-Level Transitions: RTA – MPTA Policy Position

Harder of the Michigan Public Transit Association stressed that while the regional transit authority (RTA) legislation will be introduced sooner or later, he wanted to assure the AATA that his group will not take a position on the RTA until it knows AATA’s stance. The MPTA would get the AATA’s feedback, he said, as well as feedback from other southeast Michigan transit providers. Any MPTA position would be determined by its members, he said. And if there’s a conflict, the MPTA won’t take a position.

Harder noted that he and AATA CEO Michael Ford both attended an address given in late 2011 at Lawrence Technological University, when Snyder had sketched out a regional transit authority. He recalled asking Ford, “Okay, what do you think, Michael?” Harder said they’d both “kind of shrugged.” It’s hard to know until details come forth. But Harder stressed that the AATA has a very vital stake in a possible regional authority. He indicated that Washtenaw County would definitely be a part of the RTA that would eventually be proposed.

State-Level Transitions: RTA – Board Response

In the context of the AATA’s current effort to collaborate with other entities in Washtenaw County to establish a countywide governance for a transit authority, AATA board member Roger Kerson wanted to know if Harder and Fancher could shed light on how the regional transit authority would work.

Kerson said he assumed it won’t do day-to-day operations, and that the local authority would handle that. Harder indicated that his best understanding is that an RTA will not replace or duplicate existing local systems. If there are areas where transit doesn’t currently work well, that’s an area where the new RTA would come in with some innovative ideas along some key corridors.

Harder said he felt that the RTA would not be funded on the back of existing systems. We can’t afford that, he said, so more funding would be needed. It’s been explained to him this way: “This will free up dollars.” A ballpark estimate is $40-50 million, he said – though that could be off. Fancher said the number she’s heard is $100 million total – broken down roughly as $40 million for bus capital expenses, $40 million for bus operating expenses, and the rest into rail improvements.

Kerson wondered about the possibility of going to voters of the proposed four-county authority – which is what Fancher had indicated the intent of the RTA legislation would be. If people have to vote on two tax increases, Kerson said, “that would not be good.” Harder said he wouldn’t want to see that – but that’s still not known.

Right now, Harder said, Snyder doesn’t have the votes to move the package on the Republican side. So a lot of work will have to be done. A constitutional change would eventually have to be made, and those are not easy changes, he said. But in his State of the State address, Snyder had said transportation would be a top priority.

State-Level Transitions: RTA – Constitutional Impact

Fancher elaborated on the fact that under Article 9 Section 9 of Michigan’s constitution, at least 90% of all transportation dollars must be directed to roads. She said that if you ask for a regional millage to support an RTA, you have to count that against the constitutional cap of not more than 10% going for public transit. It’s important to understand what the gap is between the amount of funding public transit receives today and the 10% cap – in planning for increased public funding of transit under current law, you have only that small space to work in.

David Nacht wondered if the legal argument had been tried that when the feds come up with new programs, the constitutional restriction wouldn’t apply. That’s because it would apply only to those federal dollars in programs that were in effect at the time the constitution was ratified. Harder told Nacht that his idea reflected that he was thinking creatively, and the governor’s staff is thinking creatively, too. Harder concluded by saying that Snyder is prioritizing transportation and is including public transportation as a part of that. He said that even as a Democrat, he respected Snyder for his public stand. No governor since William Milliken had taken as strong a public stand for public transportation, Harder said.

State-Level Transitions: Property Tax, Idling Legislation

Some other things the AATA should be keeping its eyes and ears on include possible changes to property taxes, Fancher said. She’s trying to gauge how that will affect local transit millages. Another piece of legislation (PA 152) deals with how much you can pay for health benefits, which might impact federally funded grant programs. That legislation will be opened up again this year and transit providers might be able to get some clarification.

The legislature is also looking at statewide idling legislation to make sure buses, trucks and other diesel-powered vehicles aren’t idling unnecessarily and polluting the air. The idling legislation, she said, is moving forward quickly. [.pdf of HIB 4899] [.pdf of SIB 0819] [For a report on Ann Arbor city council's recent working session on that topic, see Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Restarts Talk on Vehicle Idling"]

State-Level Transitions: House Transportation Committee

Next week, Fancher said, the MPTA will make a presentation to the state house transportation committee at the request of its chair, Paul Opsommer, a Republican who represents District 93. It’s the first time in a decade that representatives from public transportation have been asked to present to the committee, she said. MPTA will present on what public transportation means in an urban versus rural setting, and how it’s funded in Michigan compared to other states.

The following week, she said, Opsommer would like to have a discussion about bus rapid transit, perhaps bringing in somebody from Cincinnati and Grand Rapids, and the third week will focus on public transportation. She characterized it as “fantastic news” that the committee would spend the whole month of January on public transportation. It’s getting some traction in the legislature, Fancher said.

State-Level Transitions: Board Response – AATA Achievements

Responding to the presentation from Harder and Fancher, board member David Nacht asked them to take a message back to the governor and the legislature describing what the AATA had been doing and thinking about over the last few years – which he then enumerated as follows.

1. As agency, Nacht said, the AATA has dealt with legacy costs. “We cooperatively, with our union, put forward a fiscally sound basis for going forward, dealing with retirement issues, dealing with health care issues.” The AATA is a fiscally sound agency, he said. The AATA had not needed warning from someone else that this was necessary, but had recognized it on its own – the AATA had dealt with the issue cooperatively with its union. The AATA had solved the problem before it became a problem.
2. Under the leadership of former board member Ted Annis, Nacht continued, the board worked with staff to focus on best practices and improving operating efficiency. Nacht described Annis as a successful entrepreneur who’d gotten the AATA to think about private sector techniques, so that even as a public agency in a unionized environment, the AATA is constantly looking at how to deliver the same level of service at a lower cost to the taxpayer. That attitude, Nacht said, is an endemic part of the AATA’s culture. Staff has been incredibly flexible, he said. “We’re proud of the culture we’ve created here,” he concluded.
3. The AATA has cooperative agreements with the city of Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and the University of Michigan, Nacht pointed out. The AATA recognizes that people expect government to be this “one public sector thing.” People pay taxes and want problems solved. They don’t want competing public entities and turf wars – they expect people who are the beneficiaries of tax dollars to work together to solve problems. That’s exactly what the AATA is doing by cooperating with other entities, he said.
4. The AATA has pilot-tested how to do regional commuter bus service – from Chelsea and Canton to Ann Arbor. In the beginning, Nacht allowed, the AATA didn’t know how to do it. Now, he said, “we’re doing it well.” The AATA believes in experimenting at low cost, in that case “on the federal government’s dime.” The AATA is prepared to use what it’s learned and to replicate it.
5. The AATA works cooperatively with the private sector to deliver those services that it makes sense to deliver under the AATA’s flag, or simply cooperatively. The AATA has healthy, positive relationships with multiple private sector providers, he said.

The point of his remarks, Nacht said, is say that the AATA is not a classic Mackinac Center image of a public entity – a reference to the conservative Midland-based public policy group.

AATA board member David Nacht.

The AATA is exactly the kind of public sector entity that “a conservative Republican would be proud to have as a public entity,” Nacht contended.

The AATA has tried to be responsive to policy initiatives that come from all stripes and areas of the policy and political spectrum. “I’m really genuinely proud of our success,” Nacht said.

The AATA’s transit master plan looks at best practices in Europe, the Pacific northwest, in Canada, as well as the Midwest, Nacht said.

The AATA recognizes that the Ann Arbor area is “medium density” – not a major metropolitan area, but on the outskirts of one. “We understand exactly what we are and what we’re not – what we’re capable of doing or not capable of doing.”

Nacht said the AATA has put a lot of effort in developing a reasonable approach to getting a fiscal reality for a plan that will improve the way people are moved around – in an environmentally sound way – and in a way that pays attention to economic development and ensures that taxpayers get the best bang for their buck.

Vehicles for Vanpool Service

At its Jan. 19 meeting, the AATA board considered the purchase of seven Dodge Caravans (model year 2012) for $21,272 each (total = $148,904) with an option to purchase up to a total of 25 vans (total = $531,800). The vans will be used to provide vanpool services. Vanpools are arrangements in which a vehicle is provided through the service, but is driven by one of the members of the pool.

At its Sept. 15, 2011 meeting, the board had authorized a contract with VPSI Inc. for vanpool services that is not to exceed $6,600 for each AATA owned/managed van. Riders pay for operational costs. Currently, the MichiVan program, operated by VPSI, provides such a service in the Ann Arbor area. However, through fiscal year 2012 MichiVan will only continue to provide vanpool service for existing vanpools in the Ann Arbor area. It is AATA’s intention to provide service for any additional vanpools that people might wish to create.

Charles Griffith, who was chairing the meeting in Jesse Bernstein’s absence, noted that the performance and external relations committee had not discussed the resolution, but the analysis of the issue had been provided in the board packet. It’s been budgeted, noted Griffith, stressing that the initial purchase of seven vans is not all the resolution authorizes – it authorizes up to 25 vans.

Board member David Nacht noted that while he’s in favor of piggy-backing on the state’s procurement contract, and that it’s a Michigan dealer who’d be providing the vans, it is not a Washtenaw County dealer. Nacht wanted to know if the AATA could get a competing bid from a Washtenaw County dealer for the remaining vans – “just to see how local folks compare.” Chris White, AATA manager of service development , responded by saying that it would be possible if the AATA wanted to do a separate procurement process for the remaining vans.

But White noted that Washtenaw County dealers had already had an opportunity to bid – by bidding on the state contract. He also noted that in a separate procurement process, there’d be no guarantee that the Washtenaw County dealer would win the bid – the AATA is prohibited by the feds from having any geographic preference.

Mary Stasiak, AATA manager of community relations, added that with this particular purchase the AATA would be able to store the vehicles at no cost. If the AATA purchased them from some alternate source, the AATA would want that same arrangement to apply.

Roger Kerson, whose professional background includes time as public relations director for the United Auto Workers, got confirmation of the brand of vehicle – Dodge. “Great,” said Kerson.

AATA Michael Ford clarified with Nacht that Nacht was essentially interested in getting a reconnaissance check for prices from local dealers.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to authorize the purchase of up to 25 vans to provide vanpool service.

AATA Capital and Categorical Grant Program

The resolution considered by the board authorized AATA’s capital and categorical grant program for 2012-2016. [.pdf of capital and categorical grant program] To continue receiving federal and state funding, it’s required that the AATA develop such an annual plan for use of federal and state funds.

The board had authorized a revised version of its 2011-2015 plan last year on Aug. 24, 2011. That revision was made in order to accommodate three projects: (1) the Blake Transit Center (BTC) reconstruction in downtown Ann Arbor, (2) the bus storage facility expansion, and (3) the bus maintenance facility upgrade.

This year’s program also includes those projects. The resolution adopted by the board at its Jan. 19 meeting includes an additional use of grant funding of up to $1.5 million – $1.2 million in federal formula funds and $0.3 million in state funds – for the planned reconstruction of the downtown Ann Arbor BTC. That brings the total BTC project budget from the previously reported $5.5 million to as much as $7 million.

The AATA does not think it will be possible to construct the center’s design for $5.5 million, but the board is not necessarily committed to spending the entire $7 million. Some of the additional cost involves technology for informational displays. The resolution considered by the board on Jan. 19 set that additional funding as the final maximum amount for the planned BTC reconstruction.

According to the resolution, the final cost estimates for the planned BTC reconstruction are due by March 2012. For a more detailed description of the planned new center – which will be reconstructed on the opposite end of the same parcel where the current center sits – see “AATA Preps Stage for Future Transit Choice.”

During the report from the planning and development committee, board member David Nacht noted that when it comes to the BTC financing, Rich Robben had previously asked serious questions about the cost. Nacht said that while Robben did not attend the most recent meeting of that committee, Nacht had followed up on those questions. He described the AATA staff as well prepared – they’d given him and the other committee member, Anya Dale, a comfort level that’s good enough to go forward.

When it came time to deliberate on the capital and categorical grant program, Nacht described it as something the AATA does every year – it’s following an established procedure. Nacht noted that the AATA has some flexibility to re-program funds, but the way the program is set out is consistent with the transportation master plan. Nacht stated his feeling that they were being rational about the grant program, therefore it should be done.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to authorize the capital and categorical grant program for 2012-2016.

Submissions to the FTA

Also considered by the board was a resolution that authorizes its CEO, Michael Ford, to submit applications, certifications and assurances to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), when the AATA asks for funding from that agency. The FTA requires the AATA to have passed such a resolution. The board’s resolution also authorized the CEO to execute contracts with the FTA on behalf of the AATA.

When it came time to vote on the resolution, Charles Griffith – who was chairing the meeting in the absence of Jesse Bernstein – described the resolution as fairly pro forma.

Chris White, AATA manager of service development, described the resolution as the same one that has been on file, with the title of the AATA’s top executive changed from “executive director” to “chief executive officer” – to reflect accurately Michael Ford’s title.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to authorize submissions of materials to the FTA by its CEO.

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

At its Jan. 19, 2012 meeting, the board entertained various communications, including its usual reports from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the planning and development committee, as well as from CEO Michael Ford. The board also heard commentary from the public. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: First Quarter – Financials, Operating

AATA controller Phil Webb gave the board an update on the first quarter financials. For the first three months of the fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, 2011, the AATA is under budget for both revenue and expenses, Webb said.

Over the first three months of this fiscal year (green bars), the AATA is under budget (blue line) for its cost per service hour, but is using more money per hour to provide service than last year (red line). (Image links to .pdf with higher resolution graphs and other financial data.)

Revenue is $473,867 under budget – $6,418,456 compared to a planned $6,892,323. And expenses are also down by 480,154 – $6,512,994 compared to a planned $6,993,148. [.pdf of AATA first quarter financials]

Chris White, AATA manager of service development, noted that the performance and external relations committee had not met in the previous month, so it had not reviewed the operating performance statistics. He described December as a historically low ridership month. He also observed that the cost per service hour is up from last year. So far this year, the AATA is operating at $105.18 per service hour, which is under its $112.30 budget, but more than the $100.17 per service hour it showed last year for the same period.

The on-time performance, White said, continues to improve somewhat. He noted, however, that the impact of the East Stadium bridge closing was significant. Routes 6, 5 and 36 were only about 60% on time. It had been even worse when State Street under the bridge was also closed. Now that State is open again, things are somewhat better, White reported.

But December was a relatively high month for bus crashes – including one that was fairly serious. A pedestrian was struck by a bus that resulted in injuries. [.pdf of operating performance data first quarter of FY 2012]

Comm/Comm: WALLY

In his oral update to the board delivered at the board meeting, CEO Michael Ford reported on the north-south commuter rail project, which would connect Howell and Ann Arbor. [It's called WALLY – Washtenaw Livingston Rail Line]. Ford stressed that it’s currently not a viable project without the TIGER III funding that had been hoped for. It’s very clear that nothing is going to move forward without that capital funding.

By way of background, the AATA continues to prepare for the possibility that additional capital funding can be secured, as preparation for work on station design continues. From the Jan. 10, 2012 meeting of the planning and development committee:

Michael Benham [strategic planner for AATA] reported on issuing a Request for Proposals for Station Design Service for the WALLY project. Proposals are due near the end of January. David Nacht questioned the work, noting that the committee previously had directed staff to seek approval prior to conducting further work on the WALLY project. Benham noted that no funds were yet to be expended and indicated that a plan for moving the project forward would be provided in February or March.

Benham also indicated that the funds for the station design project would be covered with funding obtained from a Section 5303 grant, the City of Howell, Washtenaw County and the Ann Arbor DDA. Benham added that he was in touch with his counterpart at MDOT, and once the revised business plan was complete, he would arrange a meeting to assess the current commitment from the State.

Comm/Comm: getDowntown Survey

Nancy Shore, director of the getDowntown program, gave the AATA board an update on a survey that had been completed, asking downtown employers and employees about their commuting habits. The survey showed a slight reduction in the number of people who commute by driving alone. [.ppt file of getDowntown commuter survey]

Comm/Comm: Website Development

Mary Stasiak, AATA manager of community relations, gave an update on development of the new website. She said that one of the things the AATA has been working hard on is the design. She wants to make sure it’s something the AATA can be proud of. She allowed that these days, websites are changing all the time, but the AATA doesn’t want to be unhappy with the design a year down the road. She described how people had been surveyed, both online and in person, about proposed designs.

Stasiak said she expected the final design template to be done in the coming week. When data is loaded into the template, and the pages are built out, she noted that more user testing would be needed.

Comm/Comm: Paratransit – Bags, Vehicle Safety

In his update to the board, CEO Michael Ford described the response he’d made to some complaint about the AATA’s paratransit service (A-Ride) with respect to the policy on the number of bags and some complaints about the quality of vehicles. He reported that he’d personally ridden in some of the high mileage vehicles used by SelectRide, the AATA’s contractor for the service, and found no problematic issues. They showed usual wear and tear, but were clean and acceptable, Ford reported.

In her update from the AATA’s local advisory council (LAC), Cheryl Weber noted that the council had discussed how packages are carried by A-Ride and fixed-route riders. The council has formed a committee to look at that issue. The board had discussed the issue at its Dec. 15, 2011 meeting – they’d been addressed by a visually-impaired rider at the previous month’s meeting who’d been denied a ride for having too many bags.

Comm/Comm: Importance of Regional Transit

Clark Charnetski introduced himself as a member of the AATA’s local advisory council (LAC). He’s also a member of the Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) advisory council. SMART’s council meets four times a year – but in December 2011 the meeting cancelled due in part to a failure of coordination between SMART and the Detroit Department of Transportation (DDOT). It goes to show what happens if you don’t have a good regional system, he said. He told the AATA board he’s glad they’re working on a good regional plan. He said he hopes there are not too many entities that opt out of joining the Act 196 authority. For SMART, many communities had opted out that have major health centers and educational institutions. He stressed the importance of the transportation system being done on a countywide basis.

Comm/Comm: Improvements to AATA

During public commentary, Ethel Potts commented on the general item of planning, saying that she used to attend AATA meetings in the past. Describing a 5-year improvement plan for 1990-1995, she said not everything had been implemented from that plan. Park-and-ride lots were one such item that had not been completely implemented, she said. She allowed that it is difficult to find land to establish park-and-ride lots. She acknowledged that the AATA had constructed a park-and-ride lot near US-23 and Plymouth Road, but contended that in order to provide bus service to the lot, the AATA had to remove other service.

Speaking to the proposed four-party agreement for countywide transit, Potts said she would prefer to “shape up” Ann Arbor’s system first. Ann Arbor’s transit system is very good, she allowed, but it’s still not good enough in light of the plans AATA has had in the past for a better system.

Present: Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Eli Cooper, Rich Robben, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale

Absent: Jesse Bernstein

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Feb. 16, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]

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

"Please do not leave engines idling. Exhaust damages historic properties." A private property owner has placed this sign in a downtown Ann Arbor alley to discourage delivery drivers from leaving their trucks running. It's advisory only. If an ordinance were enacted by Ann Arbor's city council, the city would post signs alerting drivers to the local law. (Photos by the writer.)

The council got a more detailed briefing on Tuesday, when the city’s environmental coordinator, Matt Naud, and two members of the city’s environmental commission addressed the council. The draft ordinance covers all engines, from heavy-duty trucks to passenger vehicles to generators. It would limit idling to 5 minutes in any given one-hour period. The draft ordinance includes a number of exceptions – for public safety vehicles and for cold weather, for example.

The goal of the ordinance is not to improve overall air quality in Ann Arbor, but rather to improve conditions in very specific localized contexts – school drop-off zones, for example. And the idea is not to create legislation that would then be aggressively enforced. Naud drew an analogy to the city’s ordinance regulating phosphorus-based fertilizers – no citations have ever been issued for ordinance violations, yet the city has achieved a measurable reduction in phosphorus loading in the Huron River since enactment of that ordinance.

Reaction from councilmembers was mixed. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) seemed more interested in exploring the possibility of changing drivers’ behavior through educational outreach than through enacting an ordinance.

Responding to the presentation and summarizing council commentary, mayor John Hieftje ventured that the council was interested in hearing about an educational program. He described that approach as a wiser course than talking about enforcement. Margie Teall (Ward 4), who until recently served as one of two city council representatives to the environmental commission, was more supportive of at least enacting an ordinance, in order to give the educational effort some “backbone.”

Any councilmember could choose to place the ordinance on a future meeting agenda. The council would then need to vote to give it initial approval, and a public hearing would be held, before a final council vote enacting a new ordinance.

Background on Development of Idling Ordinance

City environmental coordinator Matt Naud led off the presentation by saying that “many moons ago” the city’s environmental commission had made a recommendation to the city council that an ordinance should be developed to address unnecessary idling. The council had given city staff the direction to “go forth and do so.” Naud allowed that it had taken a little while, but the idling ordinance had been developed and was being provided back to the council for its consideration.

Mayor John Hieftje asked for clarification about the scope of the council directive – was it for all vehicles or just heavy trucks? [As expressed in the 2004 resolution, the directive with respect to the ordinance was restricted to heavy-duty trucks. The resolution also directs the identification of ways to reduce idling by other vehicles.] Sabra Briere (Ward 1) remarked that it had been in the works for nearly a decade – the environmental commission’s work pre-dated the 2004 city council resolution.

Naud described how in Ann Arbor, the focus on unnecessary idling had started with a number of complaints that had come to him and other staff – such complaints are received on a regular basis. Residents at the Armory – a condo building located kitty corner from city hall at Fifth Avenue and Ann Street – complained when buses delivering children to the nearby Hands-On Museum would park immediately adjacent to the Armory. In the summertime, the windows would be open in those apartments.

Naud ventured that other examples are well known in the community – from delivery trucks to parents dropping off kids at elementary schools – of vehicles idling when they don’t need to. To address that issue, Naud said, a draft ordinance has been developed.

The draft idling ordinance is included in a 2008 white paper that was developed by the environmental commission. [.pdf of 2008 idling white paper]

Draft Idling Ordinance

Naud summarized the draft ordinance by saying that it recommends covering all internal combustion engines – heavy-duty vehicles (large trucks), light-duty vehicles, passenger vehicles, and also small engines (for example, lawn mowers, or generators at construction sites). Generators at construction sites had also generated a lot of complaints, Naud said, when workers go off to lunch, and leave a construction site with a generator running.

The ordinance limits idling to 5 minutes in any 60-minute period, Naud said. Other communities that regulate idling have used 1 minute, 3, 5 or 10 minutes. That’s a policy choice the council can make, Naud said. A number of exemptions are provided – for public safety vehicles and cold temperatures, for example. [.pdf of draft idling ordinance]

Councilmembers were concerned about the enforcement of the ordinance. Given that one of the localized areas where unnecessary idling has been identified as a problem is school drop-off and pick-up zones, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wanted to know if the city’s community standards officers could go onto school property to enforce the ordinance. From the city’s staff attorney on hand came the answer – as a general rule, yes.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) was concerned about the list of exceptions, and the list of city staff who are authorized to enforce the ordinance: “That scares the hell out of me!” Naud noted that in the list, the only applicable city staff are indicated where Chapter 71 is underlined. It’s not as long a list as it appears.

Other Idling Legislation

Naud noted that many communities have developed ordinances that address vehicle idling – as a tool to deal with unnecessary idling in their community. The list of communities from the 2008 white paper hasn’t been updated, he said, but he had an updated version, which he could pass around. [.pdf of American Transportation Research Institute list]

The Michigan legislature also has a bill in process that addresses idling, but it’s unclear where that’s going to go, Naud said. [.pdf of HIB 4899] [.pdf of SIB 0819]

Two members of the environmental commission – John Koupal and John German – then addressed the city council. Naud described them as having real expertise in air quality and air monitoring.

When Is Idling Necessary? Advances in Technology

John German described his background in the automotive field – with Chrysler, the Environmental Protection Agency and Honda. He ventured that he might be better known in Europe and China than he is here. For the last three years, he said, he’s worked for the International Council for Clean Transportation – he’s the council’s technology expert and works with government regulators worldwide.

Idling has come up recently as an issue, he said. It has not been an issue before because of the huge benefits that society gets from mobility. Because of those benefits, people have been willing to put up with impacts on safety, congestion, air pollution. There’s a tension between the benefits and the negative impacts, he said, and you always want to minimize the negative impacts. Idling, however, has nothing to do with mobility, he said. The situation being addressed in the ordinance is one where the vehicle is not moving. He stressed that the area of focus does not include when a car is in traffic, stopped with the engine running.

A lot of things have changed, German said. It used to be that vehicles were not all that easy to restart. Gasoline engines would start with a richer fuel mixture, and sometimes it would entail a fair amount of cranking where raw fuel goes to the engine. So it was previously the case that a certain amount of idling was better than shutting the engine off and restarting it. That same principle previously applied to the initial starting of an engine. In the “old days” if you started a cold engine and immediately drove off, you did damage to the engine.

When it comes to diesel engines, German continued, Detroit Diesel made a two-stroke engine for a while that was almost impossible to restart. So when you see diesel truck operators who never shut their engines off – even if it means idling for an hour or two – it’s really a legacy mindset from that one engine. Engines today are very different, he said. Computer controls and the sensors on them allow engines to restart almost instantly, burning no additional fuel. If you shut the engine off for 10-15 seconds you will actually save fuel, he said. The amount you consume during 10-15 seconds of idling is more fuel than it takes to restart the engine.

With respect to the perceived need to let an engine have an “initial idle” when it’s first started, German said that motor oils are better now, even than just 10 years ago. And engine tolerances and assembly are better. On a cold day and cold engine, you can start it up and drive off, with no impact on the durability of the engine. So there are a lot of legacy reasons for why people think they need to idle, but none of them are really valid anymore, he said.

The emission impacts of idling, German explained, include benzene for gasoline engines. If you have a cold engine, on initial start, you can get a fair amount of particulate emissions from a gasoline engine. You also have a certain amount of CO emissions. In general, in a gasoline engine that is properly operating, there’s not a lot of emissions at idle. But there are situations where it can be a problem, such as people waiting to drop off children at schools. Plus, he said, you save money by shutting the engine off.

Naud added to German’s remarks by saying that he’d always thought light-duty vehicles were as clean as they’d ever been. But the worst emissions for a regular passenger car come when it’s under 50 F and it’s idling after the initial start. It adds up to an enormous amount of emissions, Naud said. German noted that what’s really important with today’s vehicles is to get the mechanisms for complete, clean combustion of the fuel engaged quickly. And on a cold day, you do that much faster if you drive off, instead of letting the engine idle.

Health Impacts: Representing Breathers

John Koupal introduced himself as a member of the city’s environmental commission. He told the council that German was his boss for a while at the EPA. He’s also worked for Nissan – so he’s worked on the government and the industry side of things.

Koupal told the council he was not representing the EPA, but rather the “breathers of our community and also the parents of breathers.” His work has been on vehicle regulations, vehicle technology and vehicle control. He’s been looking at emission impacts and health impacts from vehicle emissions. Fundamentally, he said, it’s a health issue. There are a lot of benefits to reducing unnecessary idling. There’s a distinction between saying, “Don’t idle at a traffic light!” – which he said would be ridiculous – and “Don’t idle when you’re dropping your kids off at school or picking them up.”

You’re not only wasting fuel and increasing damage to the engine over time, but you’re putting harmful pollutants into the environment that are damaging to everyone’s lungs, but particularly to young lungs, Koupal said. There are a number of things that come out of tailpipes when vehicles are idling.

It’s easy to look at trucks and see the soot coming out and say, “That’s really bad, I don’t want to breathe that,” Koupal said. But passenger vehicles are also a major part of the problem through their contribution to air toxins. He described a study done by USA Today in December 2008, where they looked at air quality monitoring at 95 different schools. They found elevated levels of benzene, he said, which primarily comes from gasoline car exhaust.

Benzene is a carcinogen, Koupal said, regulated by the EPA. Benzene is being found near schools because you see a lot of cars stacked up dropping off and picking up kids. In addition to benzene, he said, carbon monoxide is generated by vehicles. By one estimate, he said, one minute of exposure to engine exhaust is the same carbon monoxide exposure as smoking three packs of cigarettes. When you don’t see soot coming out of the tailpipe, it’s easy to think, “Oh, cars are much cleaner, it can’t be that unhealthy!” But the stuff that’s being put into our lungs and our kids’ lungs is really a health issue, he said. And that’s what the ordinance is meant to address. He encouraged the councilmembers to read the section of the white paper describing the health impacts.

Impact of Passenger Vehicles

Koupal said that Naud had asked him to look at the impact of passenger vehicles. Some idling ordinances in other communities look at trucks only, he said. The whole analysis is in the white paper that was provided to councilmembers.

The estimate from the Washtenaw County Transportation Study (WATS) is that on an average day in Ann Arbor, there are 440,000 passenger vehicle trips. Koupal said they estimated about 2,000 bus trips and 22,000 heavy truck trips (based on heavy trucks accounting for 5% of all vehicle miles traveled).

Proportion of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from light-duty vehicles, heavy-duty vehicles, and buses – assuming 10% of vehicles idling for 10 minutes per trip. (Image links to .pdf of 2008 white paper.)

We don’t know how much they idle unnecessarily, Koupal said. But he called it a conservative estimate to assume that 10% of trips would include 10 minutes of unnecessary idling. In terms of the amount per day, it’s a not large contribution.

But it’s not a matter of overall ambient air quality, he said. The ordinance is meant to address the localized health impact – direct exposure at schools or for pedestrians downtown.

It’s also a matter of the relative contribution – close to half of overall pollution is attributable to passenger vehicles. Restricting focus to volatile organic compounds (e.g. benzene), passenger cars account for 2/3 of overall emissions. For carbon monoxide, cars account for around 90% of that gas. So it’s important to address passenger cars as well as trucks and buses, he said.

During council deliberations, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) questioned the assumption that 10% of trips including 10 minutes of unnecessary idling – which had been characterized as “conservative.” He said he wouldn’t imagine 10% of his trips include 10 minutes of unnecessary idling time.

Naud responded by saying it was an attempt get a rough idea. Naud felt there’s a lot of idling in winter in driveways, for example. Koupal noted that even if you cut the assumption in half, passenger cars still make a significant relative contribution to air toxins compared to heavy-duty trucks. The question that the 10%, 10-minute assumption tries to address is whether to regulate only heavy-duty engines, he said.

Localized Impact – Outreach to AAPS

At one point, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) summarized the goal of enacting an ordinance as not being about improving overall air quality – it’s more tactical. The idea is to focus on areas where large numbers of vehicles gather. Koupal responded by saying that he did not want to dismiss overall quality, but allowed that improving overall air quality is not the driver for the ordinance – most emissions come in non-idling contexts, he said.

The goal of the proposed idling ordinance is not to improve overall air quality. This map shows that July 1, 2011 was not a good day for air quality in the Ann Arbor area. (Image links to AirNow.gov, which provides an archive of air historical air quality maps, and includes animations depicting the changes in air quality through the day.)

An often-mentioned localized context targeted by the ordinance was school drop-off and pick-up zones. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Naud how much outreach had been done to the Ann Arbor Public Schools.

Naud reported that initially there’d been a lot of talks, but recently not a lot of conversation. The person he’d spoken with previously had been the district’s executive director of physical properties, Randy Trent. Naud characterized AAPS as supportive – the district had its own policy but found it difficult to enforce. The district had done some of its own research and didn’t think a 3-5 minute timeframe would be a problem. But Naud allowed that no official conversation had taken place in a few years.

Queried by email about the current status of the district’s attitude toward the issue, AAPS director of communications Liz Margolis wrote to The Chronicle that the district had not continued conversations internally since the initial dialogue took place. She indicated that it would likely be referred to the district’s transportation safety committee, chaired by Brad Mellor.

This is a view from south to north of an alley connecting the Klines lot with West Liberty Street. It's part of the Main Street historic district. A sign affixed to the east wall of the alley, about eight feet off the ground, is easily visible from the cab of a large delivery truck. The text of the sign asks drivers not to leave their engines idling – the exhaust damages historic properties. (Image links to larger resolution file.)

At the Jan. 17 working session, Briere pressed for more examples of the localized contexts the ordinance was meant to target – beyond people idling in driveways and school zones. Picking up on the mention during Koupal’s remarks of pedestrians in the downtown area, she asked if that is really an issue?

Naud responded by saying that it can be an issue downtown in loading and unloading zones. If an ordinance were to be enacted, Naud said, the city would need to buy signs. He has a rough estimate of how many zones there are. He noted that he knew of one case where someone had posted their own sign.

By way of additional background, the sign in question is located in an alley that connects West Liberty Street to the Klines Lot, on the downtown’s west side.

Does the sign work? Newcombe Clark, an Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board member, lives in an apartment overlooking the alley. He responded to an email query by saying the “sign works with more veteran drivers. Newer drivers or drivers not on their normal route tend to ignore it.”

Responding to a question from Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Naud said that it would be very expensive to undertake studies of air quality in the micro-environments where the city is trying to improve conditions.

Education versus Enforcement, Enactment

Responding to questions from councilmembers, Naud said he assumed public education would be a part of the enactment of the ordinance. He alluded to the city’s ordinance regulating phosphorus fertilizer.

By way of background, a key section of the city’s ordinance reads:

6:404. – Regulation of the use and application of manufactured fertilizer containing phosphorus.
(1) Manufactured fertilizer that contains any amount of phosphorus or a compound containing phosphorus, such as phosphate, shall not be applied to general turf within the City, except under 1 or both of the following conditions:
a. Application of manufactured fertilizer to an area where general turf is being established from seed or sod, during the first growing season of the seed or sod.
b. Application of manufactured fertilizer that is exempt under section 6:405 of this chapter.

For a more detailed discussion of phosphorus loading on the Huron River, see “Environmental Indicators: Phosphorus.”

Naud explained that the city was not interested in creating ordinances that are difficult to enforce. However, an ordinance provides a tool, when education and signs don’t work. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that in connection with the city’s experience with the pedestrian crosswalk ordinance, outreach had been stressed before enforcement. But in connection with that ordinance, the council hadn’t really talked about the impact on the city’s budget – how the city would implement the ordinance, and educate people on the meaning of the ordinance.

In that context, Briere wondered what the impact would be on staff and budget line items. If the city enacts this ordinance and chooses to engage in an educational program, it might mean the city can’t do something else. So she wanted more information on the budget impact.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) also wanted to know what the budget impact would be. Lumm expressed the view that education is fine, but enforcement is an entirely different matter. She wondered if an ordinance is an appropriate way to educate people. She asked how many fines had been issued for violations of the city’s phosphorus fertilizer ordinance – not a one, replied Naud.

Lumm ventured that the phosphorus example provided evidence that education is more helpful than penalizing people. Naud countered by saying literally millions of dollars had been spent on education about phosphorus fertilizers. Only when an ordinance was enacted, he said, were measurable reductions achieved in phosphorus loading on the Huron River. The ordinance got people paying attention and that changed the market. Ann Arbor is the only city in the country that has seen measurable reductions in phosphorus, Naud said.

For her part, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who has served on the city council for a decade, said she’d been listening to this discussion as long as she’s served on the council. To her, it’s an educational issue – drivers need to understand the improvements in engine technology that German had described.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) summed it up by saying that part of the educational effort is teaching people that the engine they have in their car now is not the one they grew up with. Higgins ventured that part of the educational impact would be to have “all those little people in your home [children]” chastise you. She said that if there were a child who’d learned in school that you should shut your car off, those children would be sitting in the back seat telling their parents: You should shut the car off!

Toward the end of the session on the idling ordinance, mayor John Hieftje told Naud that the council appeared interested in education. He described education as a wiser course than talking about enforcement. Hieftje wondered if there might be grant programs that could fund educational efforts. Hiefjte said he felt that the council had advanced the conversation already.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) got the last word. She said the city is fortunate to have two experts, like German and Koupal. She pointed to the list of other communities that have ordinances, saying that education is a great thing to get people to reduce idling – school kids and drivers education could help. But she added that an ordinance is a great tool to give a backbone to the concept itself.

Sometimes you need a threat in the back of your mind, Teall said. To pass an ordinance would say that the city thinks it’s important. She drew a comparison to the city’s graffiti ordinance, which was not enforced immediately on enactment. The idea is to work towards compliance, not enforcement. But when the educational efforts are disregarded, there needs to be a way to bring people into line, she concluded.

Next Steps

Based on the council’s deliberations, some kind of funding proposal for the educational component of any ordinance would likely be needed to get the council’s support for enacting an ordinance. Any councilmember could choose to place the ordinance on a future council agenda.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

U.S. Rep. John Dingell (D-District 15) paid a visit to the Jan. 14 meeting of the Ann Arbor City Democratic Party.

Appearing at the meeting of the Ann Arbor City Democratic Party to establish that they’d be asking for support in the upcoming August primary, for election to the 22nd circuit court, were local attorneys Carol Kuhnke, Doug McClure and Erane Washington.

The non-partisan Aug. 7, 2012 primary will winnow the field down to two candidates for the one position that will be open on the 22nd circuit court – currently held by Melinda Morris, who is retiring. Candidates have until May 1 to file their nominating petitions.

For the position on the Michigan supreme court, the partisan connection is overt. One mechanism for ballot access is for candidates to be nominated through the convention of a political party. Three nominations can be made this year to the seven-member court. And Democrats will make their selection of nominees at a March 10, 2012 endorsement convention to be held at Detroit’s Cobo Center.

So last Saturday, Bridget Mary McCormack introduced herself to Ann Arbor Democrats as a candidate for one of the three Democratic Party endorsements for supreme court justice. She’s a professor of law at the University of Michigan, and co-director of the Michigan Innocence Clinic.

Also related to state-level party politics at the Saturday morning gathering was some measure of frustration expressed by Debbie Dingell. The wife of U.S. Rep. John Dingell (D-District 15) told the local Ann Arbor Democratic Party group that the state’s party leadership needs to give clearer direction to party members about the presidential primary to be held on Feb. 28.

The need for any direction stems from the appearance on the primary ballot of President Barack Obama’s name, despite the fact that he is not opposed in the primary, and that state party leaders did not want Obama’s name to appear. Michigan Democrats plan to select Obama as their nominee at a May 5 caucus. As it currently stands, national and state party rules don’t allow voters to participate both events – primary and caucus.

For his part, John Dingell quipped from his seat in the audience, “I’ve never voted in a Republican primary, and I ain’t about to start!” Earlier in the meeting, Dingell had dished out a well-polished series of pokes at the Republican Party, which included a lampooning of the field in the GOP presidential primary. Of the candidates, Newt Gingrich probably got the sharpest end of Dingell’s humor, when the Michigan congressman quipped, “As my old daddy used to say, even a blind hog can find an acorn.” Dingell also ticked through a number of achievements of Democrats in the last two years – including support for the auto industry and securing food safety.

Among the various volunteer sign-up sheets circulated at Saturday’s meeting was one to indicate willingness to help with the presidential campaign locally. In connection with that, David Cahill explained that the local party organization is now using the voter activation network (VAN) as its database.

The meeting was also an occasion for local candidates for office to introduce themselves. On the state level, Adam Zemke and Bob Davidow introduced themselves as candidates for District 55 of the Michigan house of representatives.

Incumbent county commissioners Conan Smith (new District 9) and Yousef Rabhi (new District 8) are both seeking re-election in the newly-configured nine districts – the board currently reflects representation of 11 districts. And Andy LaBarre told the gathering that he’s seeking election in the new District 7.

Also on the county level, Kathy Wyatt, executive assistant from the sheriff’s office,  announced that sheriff Jerry Clayton would be seeking re-election this year. The sheriff’s presence was required at a job fair that morning – new dispatchers were being hired in connection with retirements and the consolidation of dispatch operations at the county and the city of Ann Arbor.

Incumbent city councilmember Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) announced to meeting attendees that he’s running for re-election. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) also attended the meeting, but her council seat is not up for election this time around. She was re-elected last year – unopposed in both the primary and the general election. 

Michigan Supreme Court

The string of candidate introductions was led off by McCormack, who began, “My name is Bridget Mary McCormack and I’m running for the Michigan supreme court.” That was met with cheers and applause. She continued by saying she’s from Ann Arbor, and serves as associate dean for clinical affairs at the University of Michigan law school – which means she runs all of the practical legal education programs.

Bridget Mary McCormack, who's running for justice on Michigan's supreme court, pointed to Tony Derezinski, seated in the audience.

In the audience McCormack recognized Tony Derezinski, who was there to announce he is running for re-election to his Ward 2 seat on the Ann Arbor city council. She said, “Tony, you’re looking at me. You met me years ago, I’m married to Steve Croley.” She explained that Croley is also a professor of law at UM, but is currently on leave, serving as special assistant to the president and senior counsel to the president in the office of White House counsel. Derezinski, who has taught courses at UM law school and is a UM law school alum, responded with, “Good seeing you again!”

McCormack identified the Michigan supreme court election as a critical one for Democrats. She said Democrats have an opportunity to win the court. There are three seats in play, she said, and on March 10, the state party will endorse three candidates. By way of background, the two justices whose terms are expiring are Marilyn Kelly and Stephen Markman. A third justice, Brian Zahra, was appointed by Gov. Rick Snyder to the post in early 2011, and must therefore stand for election this year.

McCormack allowed that it’s not clear who will be endorsed at the party convention, but said she felt very strongly that voters have a voice in who the Democrats endorse.

McCormack continued with her self-introduction by describing her work as co-director of the Michigan Innocence Clinic – her students had exonerated five people in the first two years of that clinic. She also reported that she’d been working as a lawyer in the state courts for 20 years and is familiar with the ways in which the state courts do not work equally well for all people. If we elect good candidates to the supreme court, she said, we can fix that.

She said she’s been working hard and has been all over the state, trying to talk to as many people as possible. She hoped to have support on March 10 to gain the party’s endorsement so that she could work even harder over the following five months to win the race.

Because the supreme court contest is a “name-recognition race,” from the audience came the invitation to say her name again. She obliged. And the enthusiastic gathering eventually wound up in a group recitation of her name: “Bridget Mary McCormack.” Asked if she had set up a campaign website, she cautioned that election laws prohibit that kind of activity at this point and quipped that in her husband’s current absence during the week, her kids needed her to stay out of prison so they could be driven to and fro.

Also from the audience came what McCormack called a softball question: How many years in prison had been served by the wrongfully-convicted prisoners that her students had exonerated? All told, they’d spent over 128 years in prison, she said. That’s 128 years of prison that taxpayers had unnecessarily paid for. What’s worse, she continued, is that while the wrong person was in prison, the guilty person was still out there committing more crimes. She said she’d identified six additional homicides that had been committed while the guilty person had been free. The justice system can do better in all sorts of ways, she said.

From the audience also came a suggestion. “You have such a pleasantly youthful look. Be sure in every speech to mention 20 years of experience!” McCormack responded good-naturedly: “I’m actually super-old – ask my kids.” Asked how people could contribute to her campaign, she said the most important way is to tell people her name. And the most immediate way is to show up and have a voice at the endorsement convention on March 10.

After that, she said, she’d need “boots on the ground.” It’s a name-recognition race. The secret of the race, she said, is that the race can be won if every Democrat who shows up and votes for the president also knows who to vote for among the supreme court candidates. Saying her name everywhere you go is the most important thing you can do, she said.

Some among the gathering will be organizing a sign-making meeting, so that people can wave signs at the March 10 nominating convention.

When she was introduced as a candidate for the 22nd circuit court judgeship, Carol Kuhnke first addressed the importance of McCormack’s race. She said McCormack was right in identifying that name recognition is the key factor. Kuhnke said she’d worked at the polls for candidates for the supreme court for the past three election cycles, and there’s nothing more rewarding than doing that work. Working for supreme court candidates is easy, she said.

When people are on their way in to the polls, you can approach them and talk to them about the supreme court and they will stop immediately – because they realize they don’t know who they’re going to vote for and they don’t know who their candidates are, Kuhnke said. It’s much easier than working for a partisan candidate, she said. So she encouraged those who aren’t doing something else on election day to spend some time working for the supreme court candidates.

Erane Washington likewise talked strategy for the supreme court race, before discussing her own candidacy for the 22nd circuit court judgeship. She focused on the importance of absentee ballots in elections and the need to get a candidate’s name in front of the electorate before those ballots are sent out.

22nd Circuit Court

The circuit court is a trial court of general jurisdiction, including criminal cases like felonies and certain serious misdemeanors, as well as civil cases involving amounts greater than $25,000.

Carol Kuhnke, candidate for judge on the 22nd circuit court.

When Carol Kuhnke finished with her encouragement to attendees of the Saturday morning gathering to help work the polls for the supreme court race, she turned to her own race – for the position being vacated by Melinda Morris on the 22nd circuit court.

She introduced herself as a lawyer and a resident of the city of Ann Arbor for 15 years. She was excited about the opportunity to elect a new judge for the Washtenaw County circuit court, she said – it’s been almost 30 years since there’s been an open seat.

Kuhnke told the gathering she’d appreciate their support. She said she’s been a courtroom lawyer for 18 years, representing everyday people, helping them with their issues and problems. She’s spent her entire career in the court, and was now ready to do some work from the other side.

[Chronicle readers may be familiar with Kuhnke's name from her service as chair of the city of Ann Arbor's zoning board of appeals, which recently heard an appeal on the controversial City Place project on Fifth Avenue, south of William Street.]

Erane Washington introduced herself as a candidate for the Washtenaw County circuit court position. She said she’s been practicing law as a courtroom attorney for the past 18 years, and is a graduate of the UM law school.

Washington said she’d been a public servant for about 13 of those years, including working for the Washtenaw County public defender’s office for seven years. After that she worked as a judicial attorney for another six years. Most people in the legal field are familiar with her in her role as a judicial attorney.

Erane Washington, candidate for judge on the 22nd circuit court.

Washington’s current work is also in the courtroom, she said. She has a contract with the county for some defense work. She also has a separate practice in which she handles business, real estate and probate. She’s been appointed by the governor to several positions, she said, and knows a lot about the election process – one of those was to the state board of canvassers. She felt fortunate that in that capacity she’d had the opportunity to certify the election of Barack Obama as president.

Washington said she previously served as the Washtenaw Democratic Party vice chair. She’s very excited about the opportunity to have an election for the circuit court position. It’s been at least 25 years since there’s been an open seat, she said. Although it’s a non-partisan seat, it’s important to achieve an end result of electing a Democrat. She’s looking for people’s support.

She passed around her nominating petition, quipping that “Unlike Yousef, we need more than 50 signatures!” Earlier Yousef Rabhi had joked about the difficulty of gathering 50 signatures for his re-election to the county board of commissioners. Washington went on to explain that she’d need at least 1,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot.

Doug McClure told the audience that he, too, like his friends Carol and Erane, is a candidate for the judgeship on the 22nd circuit court. He noted that the current open seat will be followed in two years by at least one more opportunity for the public to elect a judge with a real choice. By that he meant that once a judge achieves the bench, when they stand for re-election, their incumbent designation appears on the ballot – which gives them a large enough advantage that sitting judges are rarely challenged.

Doug McClure, candidate for judge on the 22nd circuit court.

Of the three candidates in the room, he joked, he is the oldest, which people could see from the way he looks. He’s been practicing for 25 years – his area of practice is environmental law. He’s lived in Washtenaw County since 1991, he said, and is very involved in the Washtenaw County Bar Association. Some of the work the association is doing in the county shows how much need there is for justice, he said. McClure was co-chair of that group’s judiciary committee for the last two years.

The first year, he had co-chaired it with Bob Carbeck. Their program had been on the indigent defense crisis. In Washtenaw County, McClure said, we are lucky because of “the great Lloyd Carr” but he quickly corrected himself – he’d meant to name Lloyd Powell, the Washtenaw County public defender. But in a lot of places in the state, poor criminal defendants don’t get adequate constitutional representation, he said.

Last year, the judiciary committee focused on access to justice. He’s trying to encourage lawyers to donate their time and do pro bono work. For a lot of family law cases, people are in court trying to represent themselves without a lawyer. Lawyers are duty bound to donate some of their time to work pro bono or at a reduced rate, he said.

McClure said that what we need as a judge is someone who is willing to work hard. He said he felt citizens would get that work ethic from him or Kuhnke or Washington – someone who would really pay attention and respect both sides and make a decision based on the facts.

District 55 State House

Two candidates for the Democratic nomination in the new District 55 of the Michigan house of representatives gave the meeting of Ann Arbor Democrats a chance to discuss Rick Olson, a Republican who has indicated he may switch parties in order to run for re-election in the newly-configured district.

Districts for the Michigan house of representatives in Washtenaw County.

District 55 wraps around the city of Ann Arbor like a phagocyte. The district was described at the meeting as “gerrymandered” – but the Republican legislature actually engineered it to be heavily Democratic.

That is taken by some observers to be a measure of Olson’s standing within his own current party.

Adam Zemke introduced himself as a candidate for the 55th District seat.

He described himself as a “numbers geek” – an engineer who likes to see how things are broken down to understand how things work. On Rick Olson, he drew a distinction between Olson’s desire to become a Democrat compared to Olson’s desire to have a “D” next to his name. Zemke described his favorite quote as one in which Olson said he did not change his philosophy with the same frequency that he changed his underwear.

Prompted then by Sabra Briere, Zemke went on to describe what his own philosophy is.

Adam Zemke, candidate for District 55 in the Michigan house of representatives.

Zemke described how he felt that education is the No. 1 form of economic development in Michigan. Right now we’ve had cuts in state funding for K-12 education and cuts in higher education, he said. It’s a big problem – it’s not encouraging kids to go to college. He saw that as detrimental to Michigan’s future.

Zemke said he’s pro-civil liberties – he wants to make Michigan more attractive to people no matter who you are. He’s pro-choice and pro-LGBT rights, he said. He thinks stem cell research is a great thing. Those are all things that Olson would not agree with him on, he said.

Zemke continued by saying he wanted to make sure that Michigan remains clean and free from invasive species. In Washtenaw County, he said, we’re smart enough to see through what the current administration is trying to do with respect to the environment.

Zemke said  he’s interested in hearing from people.

An audience member ventured that if she was previously in District 53, now represented by Democrat Jeff Irwin, that Zemke wouldn’t be a bad replacement. Zemke said he would like to think that’s true. The resident’s precinct – that’s flipping from District 53 to District 55, due to redistricting – is Ward 5, Precinct 11.

Asked by Mike Henry, co-chair of the Ann Arbor City Democrats, to comment on his experience, Zemke allowed that he is younger – 28 years old. And he said he’s been told he looks younger than that.

But he noted that he was just appointed to the Ann Arbor housing and human services advisory board. He reported that he’s served on the Washtenaw County community action board (CAB) and has been active in the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Foundation to promote science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. His introduction to politics came through former District 55 representative Kathy Angerer – he interned for her for a year, he said.

Bob Davidow, candidate for District 55 in the Michigan house of representatives.

Bob Davidow noted that he’d arrived late to the meeting, and he hadn’t actually planned to speak. But because he’s running for the same position as Zemke, he figured he’d introduce himself. He said that he and Zemke presented an interesting contrast – Zemke is 28 and Davidow is 73.

Davidow said he thought he had a lot of relevant experience. He felt he agreed with everything that Zemke had said.

To Zemke’s remarks, Davidow said he’d add that he thinks we need an additional source of revenue to support education. To that end, he’d support a graduated state income tax – though he allowed that would take a constitutional amendment to accomplish. We need revenue to support education, he said.

The economy can’t be revived by firing state employees and teachers, Davidow said. That has an impact on our ability to create a skilled and well-educated work force.

His experience is as a lawyer, Davidow said. He’s studied, practiced and taught law. He’s also a strong supporter of civil liberties.

County Board of Commissioners

In May of 2011, the reapportionment commission of Washtenaw County reduced the number of districts for the county board of commissioners from 11 to 9.

New Ann Arbor districts for the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

The new districts for Ann Arbor, from west to east, are Districts 9, 8 and 7. Democratic candidates for each of those three districts, two of which are incumbents, attended Saturday’s meeting.

Conan Smith, current chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, is running for re-election in the new District 9. He confined his remarks to a simple, “Happy New Year!”

Yousef Rabhi, who also currently serves on the county board, told the group he’d brought his nominating petitions for re-election in the new District 8. It’s a little different from the district he currently represents, he said.

If you live downtown, south of the Huron River and east of the railroad tracks, or if you live on the south side of town in the Burns Park neighborhood or the Georgetown neighborhood, or south of the highway all the way to Ellsworth, then you’re in his district, Rabhi explained. He called it a “very weird district.” He said he would be passing around the petition – he needed “50 whole signatures.” It could be quite a challenge getting those, he quipped.

[The Chronicle encountered Rabhi in early October 2011, when he'd already pulled the petitions.]

Rabhi concluded by saying he was glad to see everyone’s shining face and that he was happy it finally snowed.

Andy LaBarre, candidate to represent the new District 7 on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

Andy LaBarre was the only non-incumbent candidate at the meeting. The current commissioner whose old district is most similar to the new District 7 is Barbara Bergman – who has announced that she’s not running for re-election.

LaBarre introduced himself as running to represent the new District 7 on the  county board. Following up on Rabhi’s description of District 8 as “weird,” LaBarre contended that District 7 was also weirdly shaped. It’s the northern and eastern part of Ann Arbor. If you’re in Ward 1, 2 or 3 of city council, he said, he’d like to talk to you, because he needed signatures on his petition. He said he’d strategically placed his information cards by the cookies on a table near the entrance.

The first kick-off fundraiser he’s doing will be on Feb. 27, LaBarre said. He’d be sending out invitations to that. He also wanted to hear from people and chat with them about the campaign he’s running. He described the board of commissioners as “an exciting unit of government, if you love units of government” – a remark that elicited a big laugh from the crowd. He noted that he needs 50 signatures, but he’d like to turn in 100 – to guard against some of them not being valid or to cause people to say, “Hey, look how popular Andy is!” A question from the audience elicited LaBarre’s clarification that May 15 is the filing deadline.

LaBarre acknowledged that the primary election is on Aug. 7, which might not be an issue for Rabhi or Smith, but certainly would be for him. He was alluding to Christina Montague, who is also running for the Democratic nomination for the new District 7 county board of commissioners seat.

Ann Arbor City Council

Sabra Briere, who represents Ward 1 on the city council and won re-election to her third two-year term last November, offered a Happy New Year, but told the gathering there were more important people to hear from than her.

Tony Derezinski, Ward 2 incumbent on the Ann Arbor city council.

Tony Derezinski reminded the co-chair of the Ann Arbor City Democrats, Mike Henry, that they’d seen each other the previous Saturday night – at the Elk’s club. Derezinski said they’ve got great bands there, and great food. He said he wanted to tell people he’s definitely running again for Ward 2 Ann Arbor city council. He said, “I’m a Democrat. For me, it’s not by convenience.” He noted that he was a Democrat when he previously ran for state senate and has consistently been a Democrat.

Derezinski’s remarks were most obviously connected to the previous discussion at the meeting of Republican Rick Olson’s possible decision to change parties in order to have a better chance of winning re-election in District 55. However, they could apply equally well to his former wardmate, Stephen Rapundalo, who lost his seat last November to Jane Lumm. Both Rapundalo and Lumm had originally won office as Republicans. Rapundalo later switched his party affiliation to Democrat, and Lumm won her most recent election as an independent.

Derezinski said there is a lot of work to do – it’s a great community, but we can make it better, he said. He said he’d been working with county commissioners Yousef Rabhi and Conan Smith on a lot of issues. “We have to be together,” he said.

As the Republican candidates tear each other apart, he said, Democrats would still have their work cut out for them. Derezinski offered his assistance to other candidates in their campaigns.

Derezinski said he felt that this election would be a tough one for President Barack Obama. He said he felt that Obama could win and would win, but it would take a lot of the same effort as the last presidential campaign. Derezinski said he felt the enthusiasm is beginning to be generated.

2012 Presidential Campaign

The 2012 presidential campaign figured prominently in the Saturday meeting for two reasons. Michigan Democrats are uncertain how to handle the fact that Barack Obama’s name will appear on the Feb. 28 primary election ballot, given that Obama will be chosen as the party’s nominee at a May 5 caucus. Also, local Democrats will be using the voter activation network (VAN) database, which is also used by the state and national level organizations.

2012 Presidential Campaign: Primary Versus Caucus

Although it’s a foregone conclusion that Obama will be the nominee put forward by Michigan, the level of turnout for Michigan’s nomination process will likely be analyzed by the popular media as an indicator of support across Michigan for Obama. And because Michigan could be a key battleground state in the November election, Democrats want the nominating process to be a show of Obama’s strength.

Debbie Dingell, wife of U.S. Rep. John Dingell.

Michigan’s secretary of state, Republican Ruth Johnson, placed Obama’s name on the Feb. 28 primary ballot – despite the fact that state Democratic Party  chair Mark Brewer had asked Johnson to leave Obama’s name off the ballot.

In 2011, the Republican legislature had revised Michigan’s election law so that Johnson appears to have had no choice but to print Obama’s name on the ballot.

The language of the election law does allow for the secretary of state to leave a name off the ballot: “A presidential candidate notified by the secretary of state under section 614a may file an affidavit with the secretary of state specifically stating that ‘(candidate’s name) is not a presidential candidate,’ and the secretary of state shall not have that presidential candidate’s name printed on a presidential primary ballot.” However, the language of the affidavit does not appear designed to fit the circumstance of someone who wishes to be a presidential candidate, but nonetheless does not want their name to appear on the ballot.

Michigan Democrats will select their nominee at a May 5 caucus. Democratic Party rules don’t allow participation in both the primary and the caucus. With Obama’s name on the ballot, it might seem reasonable for the Democratic Party leadership to encourage people to vote in the primary in order to show Obama’s strength. But that would preclude participation in the caucus.

At Saturday’s meeting, there was no definitive advice. Among the possibilities discussed was the possibility that the Democratic Party would waive or simply not enforce its rule on dual participation, and encourage people to participate in both events.

It was a point of irritation for Debbie Dingell, who took the podium briefly and laid out her frustration with the lack of clear direction from the state’s Democratic Party leadership. She did not espouse a particular solution, but called on a clear directive so that Democrats statewide would have a coherent strategy.

2012 Presidential Campaign: Primary Versus Caucus

From the local Obama campaign office, Ann Arbor attorney David Cahill addressed the gathering on the general topic of being strategic and methodical on the local level. He circulated a sign-up sheet for people to volunteer locally for the Obama campaign.

Cahill  asked how many people had visited the new Obama office on Eisenhower Parkway – not many raised their hands. So Cahill gave the address (455 E. Eisenhower Parkway) and more detailed instructions on how to get there – it’s non-trivial, he said. You look for the Olive Garden, he said, and you take the Olive Garden’s driveway and go up to the big parking lot behind the restaurant. The Obama office is inside the Concord Center. Go in the main door, he said, and down the stairs, turn to the right and go along the hallway – it’s Suite 65 on the left.

David Cahill explained to meeting attendees how to find the local Obama office and enlisted their support in data collection and entry.

What’s going on over the next couple of months, Cahill continued, is that they’re putting together the local organization. VAN stands for voter activation network, he explained – the nationwide Democratic computer database. It’s been operational since 2004. So the local organization is doing two things. First, they’re trying to locate “our own people.” So they’re phone-banking principally anybody who did anything for Obama in 2008, plus lists from other campaigns’ workers. In Washtenaw County, he said, there’s a large number of bad phone numbers. The work has been episodic during December, but it’s going to start up again in a week or so. So it’s not “cold canvassing,” he said. “We’re calling our own people!”

And once we get this “lovely pile of new information,” Cahill said, the data will need to be entered – that’s what he’s working on. Obama’s headquarters has said that every piece of data is supposed to be entered into VAN within 24 hours of collection. So Cahill is working on getting the data entered. VAN has some unusual features – if you’re idle for more than 10 minutes, it logs you out, he cautioned.

Cahill concluded by asking people to sign up if they were interested in helping on the Obama campaign locally.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local government and civic affairs. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!