At the May 23 meeting of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners' task force on animal control services, commissioner Rob Turner discusses the different service levels the county could provide. Turner is also the board's liaison to a work group led by sheriff Jerry Clayton that's developing a cost analysis of animal control services. (Photos by the writer.)

It was the second meeting scheduled. The first one – on May 9 – was canceled after only two commissioners showed up. The intent is to set policy that will guide a request for proposals that the county plans to issue later this year, for its next contract to provide animal control services. Those services are currently handled by the Humane Society of Huron Valley (HSHV), in a contract that expires at the end of 2012.

The wide-ranging discussion revealed tensions between the push to control costs – a point that’s been driving these changes – and a desire by some to provide a higher level of service than what’s mandated by the state. There seemed to be at least some initial consensus that while the state mandate focuses on stray dogs and animal cruelty, the county should support a broader range of animal control services, depending on the cost.

Also discussed was the need to bring more communities into the conversation – at least those that have their own animal control ordinances, including Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township. Representatives from those municipalities are participating in a separate work group, led by sheriff Jerry Clayton, that’s developing a cost structure for animal control services. The hope is that other communities will also give financial support to HSHV, or possibly another service provider.

Four additional task force meetings are scheduled: on June 13, July 25, Aug. 22 and Sept. 12. All meetings are open to the public and will provide an opportunity for public commentary. They’ll take place from 8-10 a.m. at the county’s Learning Resource Center, 4135 Washtenaw Ave., and are being facilitated by representatives of the Dispute Resolution Center.

Animal Control Services: Background

When it developed the 2012-2013 budget, the county board decided to reduce funding for animal control services, which it has handled through a contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley (HSHV). Until Dec. 31, 2011, the county had paid HSHV $500,000 annually. The budget originally approved by the county board in late 2011 cut funding for animal control services to $250,000, although commissioners also discussed the possibility of paying an additional $180,000 to HSHV – if the nonprofit took over work previously done by the county’s animal control officers. That brought the total amount budgeted for animal control to $430,000 in 2012. HSHV officials rejected that contract offer, saying that even $500,000 wasn’t sufficient to cover costs for all the work they do.

Through mid-February 2012, the county and HSHV operated under a $29,000 month-by-month contract, while trying to reach a new agreement. At the county board’s Feb. 15 meeting, commissioners approved a $415,000 contract with the HSHV that will provide animal control services for the county just through Dec. 31, 2012. [.pdf of current HSHV contract] The intent was to give the county time to develop and issue a request for proposals (RFP) later this year to solicit bids for the next contract.

Also at that Feb. 15 meeting, the county board passed a resolution creating two entities – a policy task force and a work group –  to work through issues related to animal control services. [.pdf of Feb. 15 resolution] The work group, led by sheriff Jerry Clayton, is tasked with developing a methodology to determine the cost of providing animal control services. The work group includes representatives from HSHV, the county, and other municipalities that have animal control ordinances.

The task force was created for county commissioners to develop a policy that would guide the work group. Commissioners had set a May 15 deadline for an initial report from the task force, but that goal was not met. The first meeting of the task force, on May 9, was canceled after only two commissioners showed up – board chair Conan Smith, who had organized the meeting, and Barbara Bergman.

At the May 23 task force meeting, turnout was better – five commissioners attended: Smith, Ronnie Peterson, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi and Rob Turner. The meeting was also attended by four people affiliated with the Dispute Resolution Center, as well as county administrator Verna McDaniel and deputy county clerk Peter Simms, who took minutes. One member of the public was present: Kate Murphy, an HSHV volunteer. There was opportunity for public commentary at the end of the meeting, but by then Murphy had left.

Smith had prepared a binder with 115 pages of documents related to animal control issues. [.pdf of binder documents] He started the discussion by describing the focus of the task force: to identify the county’s mandated animal control services, and their minimum level of serviceability. That’s a level that might not be the amount of service the county wants to provide, he said, but it’s what Washtenaw County has to provide. The decision of the policy task force will be communicated to the work group that’s led by the sheriff, Smith continued, which will report back to the board regarding what it would cost to implement the policy and provide those services.

Smith noted that the county’s labor negotiations have been using interest-based bargaining for several years. It’s an approach that’s widely used at the federal level, he said, but generally it hasn’t been embraced by state or local governments. He said it can be a powerful tool for developing public policy, and it’s a technique that the Dispute Resolution Center uses – that’s why he asked the DRC to help with this task force work.

Animal Control: What’s the Goal?

Belinda Dulin, executive director of the Ann Arbor-based Dispute Resolution Center, was one of four DRC facilitators who attended the May 23 meeting. She told commissioners that the DRC would be a neutral facilitator – the center had no horse in this race, she said. Dulin noted that this isn’t a new discussion for commissioners, and she asked them to start by describing their ideal outcome.

County administrator Verna McDaniel began by saying she’d like the board to set a policy to guide what animal control services the county buys. While county officials should be clear that in an ideal world they’d like to provide full services, she said, there is also the need for cost containment. The services that the county has been receiving from the Humane Society of Huron Valley are excellent, McDaniel said – there’s no doubt about the quality. But the county is now in an era that requires defining those services and having a plan on how to pay for them. A policy would be very helpful in making budget projections, she said, as well as in monitoring the quality and level of services provided.

McDaniel concluded by saying she’d like the outcome of these discussions to be a clear determination of what services the county is purchasing, and projections of the costs and levels of those services.

Yousef Rabhi said he agreed with everything McDaniel said. The reason this conversation is happening is because of the county’s budget situation, he said. It’s not because commissioners don’t care about animals. The county board needs to know what they’re buying and how to budget for it, based on the levels of service they want to provide. He said his stance on the mandate is based on months of discussion by the board, and by a comprehensive report that the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, has provided regarding the mandate and minimum serviceability levels as required by state law. He noted that HSHV representatives had given input to the document, and it’s quite comprehensive. It should be their guiding document, Rabhi said. [.pdf of Hedger's memo]

The memo summarizes the county’s legal obligations in this way:

The County is responsible for the housing of stray dogs under the Dog Law of 1919. The County must pay for those dogs to be boarded for the statutory holding period of 4 days if the dog has a collar, license or other indicia of ownership or 7 days if it does not have such evidence of ownership. After this holding period, the dog could be euthanized and the county would have no further responsibility for the animal.

The County has no similar financial responsibility for other stray animals. While a county may, by ordinance, create an animal control agency to address the handling of these other species, Washtenaw County has never adopted such an ordinance and thus is not generally responsible for these animals.

The County has no financial responsibility for animals boarded under the Dangerous Animal or Fighting Dog laws as the acts specifically allocate the cost of boarding any animals under those laws, to the animal’s owner.

The County would have financial responsibility to pay for animals boarded under the general animal cruelty law found in MCLA 750.49-53. However, the two main sections involving animal cruelty, MCLA 750.50 and MCLA 750.50b both provide a process for the animal to be forfeited to the animal control or protection shelter. In addition, each of these acts encourages judges to assess boarding costs against the animal’s owner.

Finally, under the Public Health Code, the county would be responsible for holding certain animals suspected of having come into contact with a rabid animal for a period of time up to 10 days depending upon whether the animal was a stray, had indicia of ownership etc.

Rabhi said that after the cost of those minimum levels of service is determined, then the county can see what additional services they can afford.

Sally Brush of the Dispute Resolution Center takes notes during the May 23 meeting of the county board's animal control task force. She was one of four people from the DRC who helped facilitate the meeting.

Ronnie Peterson was brief in stating his desired outcome: How can the county go beyond its mandate, and keep its reputation for providing excellent services.

Wes Prater began by saying he was learning things he hadn’t heard before. The document from Hedger was very informative, he said. [Although other commissioners told him that Hedger's memo had been distributed last fall, Prater contended that he hadn't previously received it.] The mandate is the minimum, Prater said, though he added that he agreed with Peterson – they should also look at levels of service that have been historically provided.

Residents need to understand that revenues are shrinking, Prater said: “That’s just the way it is, and we have to live with what we’ve got.” Yet Prater also wanted to see what HSHV believes are the appropriate levels of service. For example, although mandates relate to dogs and not cats, the county has a significant feral cat problem, he said. [HSHV has a program to help manage the feral cat population by capturing, neutering, then returning the cats to their original habitat.]

Rob Turner noted that he serves as the board’s liaison to the work group that’s developing a cost structure for animal control services. He said there are three questions commissioners need to answer: (1) Are they looking at animal control from a state-mandate perspective? (2) Are they looking at it from the perspective of cost structure? (3) Are they making decisions based on their conscience?

The county must be safe for its residents and humane to its animals, Turner said, but the definition of “humane” is open to interpretation. Ultimately, the county also has to live within its budget, he said. The mandate for the work group is to determine the cost of current services – that report is supposed to be ready in mid-June. Does that influence the board’s policy? he asked. Can the county only afford its mandate? Or does the board follow its conscience – and at what cost?

Developing a Cost Structure

Although it’s the sheriff’s work group that is charged with developing a detailed cost analysis for animal control services, much of the discussion at the May 23 task force meeting centered on this issue, too.

Rob Turner noted that the Humane Society of Huron Valley is working on an itemized list of costs, similar to the costs that were detailed for a police services unit. [For background on that effort, see Chronicle coverage: "Washtenaw OKs Price for Police Services"] With an itemized list, he said, the board can see what it can afford, and make decisions based in part on that. He noted that the police services costs were itemized down to the price for ammunition in a gun. With a list like that, he said, the county would have flexibility to make choices.

Conan Smith observed that the itemized cost report is due on June 12, and could be discussed at the June 13 meeting of the policy task force. Task force members could give their feedback on it, he said, and that feedback could be communicated to the work group.

Turner cautioned that the June 12 date might be overly optimistic – it’s been asked for, but it wasn’t clear if it would be delivered. He said that when he initially requested the itemized costs, Tanya Hilgendorf, HSHV’s executive director, had said it couldn’t be done. When he told her it had to be done, Turner said she “begrudgingly agreed.” Unless sheriff Jerry Clayton holds the HSHV’s feet to the fire, Turner said he was afraid that the county would end up where it has in the past – with a generalized cost estimate, but not an itemized list of costs. Turner said it was important to have an accurate cost analysis, because that ultimately will determine the county’s policy for years to come.

Yousef Rabhi noted that an itemized list would be helpful so that the county could identify appropriate funding sources. For example, if a certain amount is used for gas in HSHV vehicles, the county might be able to fund that item from its fuel purchasing account, rather than the general fund.

Turner said that HSHV regularly brings up the animal cruelty case at a Salem Township horse farm late last year, as an example of expenses that the organization incurs and that the county is mandated to cover. But he said that’s an anomaly, like the mid-March tornado that struck the Dexter area. “Sure, you’ll have a cow every once in a while,” he said, but it’s something you just have to deal with when it happens – it can’t be built into a budget.

County commissioner Wes Prater.

Rabhi replied that animal cruelty cases fall under the state mandate, and are the county’s responsibility. That’s true, Turner said, but how do you budget for that kind of emergency?

Wes Prater suggested having a line-item for emergencies, based on the county’s best guess. Ronnie Peterson noted that HSHV should expect reasonable compensation for its work.

Peterson asked how the work group’s cost analysis would impact the deliberations of the task force. Smith said that he and Clayton have talked through the roles of each group and how the two entities interact. There needs to be a lot of information-sharing, he said. The task force is heavily dependent on the HSHV for information about costs, and the work group will be guided in part by the board’s policy. At some point, the two groups will need to merge, Smith said.

Another factor is that the scope goes beyond just the board of commissioners, Smith added. More members of the executive branch of county government need to be involved, he said – the treasurer and county prosecuting attorney, in addition to the sheriff. [The treasurer administers dog licenses. The prosecuting attorney's office handles animal cruelty cases.]

For example, Smith said, he wasn’t sure whether the county prosecuting attorney, Brian Mackie, regularly requests the release of animals from their owners in animal cruelty cases – asking the court to require that the animals be turned over to HSHV. The judges need to be part of the conversation too, he said. In animal cruelty cases, the law says the burden of cost – for the boarding and care of animals during the case – is on the owner. But often the owners don’t have the means to pay, he noted. Prater observed that judges have a lot of leeway in assessing fees, if the owner has the wherewithal to pay.

Smith reminded the group that the issue of cost recovery is a topic for the July 25 meeting of the task force – it’s a big issue. Prater disagreed, saying there are very few cruelty cases to deal with. Smith replied that although there might be a small number of cases, the issue is complex.

In terms of revenue, Turner noted that licensing is another source. He said the balance needs to be just right, however – if a license costs too much, people won’t pay. He also floated the possibility of licensing cats, which prompted Prater to respond: “Hold it right there! If you want to license cats, you’re opening the barn door.” Belinda Dulin of the DRC noted that the general topic of revenue is part of the focus of the task force’s July 25 meeting.

Tom Brush with the DRC asked whether the board conducts this kind of process for each of its funding decisions. Prater noted that it was used for resolving issues with police services, but that took several years to develop and only really got started after sheriff Clayton was elected. Rabhi added that the animal control process is slightly different, in that there are two groups – a policy task force, and cost work group – that are on parallel tracks.

What Type of Services?

In addressing the question of service levels, Conan Smith returned to Rob Turner’s earlier framing of the issue – cost and conscience. County administrator Verna McDaniel had indicated that the county needs a blend of the two, Smith said.

Wes Prater observed that everything hinges on revenue – “that’s where the rub’s gonna be,” he said.

Smith continued by noting that the state mandate breaks the county’s responsibilities into two areas: stray dogs, and animal cruelty. For him, there are a handful of questions that the board needs to answer related to serviceability in those areas. How long does the county keep an animal? The law isn’t clear about that, Smith said. In animal cruelty cases, some animals are held more than a year – that goes beyond the mandate, he said.

Turner noted that in animal cruelty cases, the county is required to keep the animal until the trial or the case comes to completion, or until the owner signs over the rights to the animal – which in many cases, the owners won’t do, he said. Otherwise, the number of days for holding animals is laid out (between 4-7 days) but that’s where the difference between mandate and mission emerges, Turner said. If the Humane Society’s mission is to hold animals longer than that, then that’s the nonprofit’s responsibility.

Or that could be the conscience piece of the county’s policy, Smith added. True, Turner replied, but conscience comes with a cost. It’s sad to say, but there needs to be cost controls on conscience, he said. So until the board gets information on cost, they can’t make a final decision about policy.

Prater observed that the difference between his conscience and someone else’s “might be miles apart.” That’s true with the 11 commissioners, and even more so with citizens throughout the county. “And I don’t know where to go with that one,” he said.

When the 1919 dog law was passed, stray dogs were the big issue, Ronnie Peterson said. But today, he added, animal control should be broader than that.

Mission vs. Mandate

Wes Prater suggested that the board step back from the Humane Society of Huron Valley. Instead of talking about HSHV, they should be asking what the scope of service would be for the RFP (request for proposals).

Rob Turner countered that HSHV is a big piece of the discussion. The county in the past has made a big commitment to the organization – helping secure financing for its new facility, and contributing a lot of money to that. And until the latest budget cycle, the county has given HSHV the funds it has requested, he said.

County commissioner Ronnie Peterson. In the background is Kate Murphy, a volunteer with the Humane Society of Huron Valley who attended the meeting as an observer.

Ronnie Peterson argued that HSHV volunteers and donors are the people who help keep costs down – that makes a big difference. The only other organization that comes close might be the homeless shelter, he said. [The Delonis Center in Ann Arbor, run by the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, was a project spearheaded by the county.]

The relationship between the county and HSHV is a two-way partnership, Peterson said, and it saves the county money. The board needs to look at the benefits that HSHV brings to the county, he added. That needs to be a factor as they develop an animal control policy.

Conan Smith said he appreciated Peterson’s comment. The county’s state mandate is for dogs, but the community mandate is likely broader, he said. If the county were to start an animal control department from scratch, Smith said he’d ask: (1) What do we want to do? and (2) What revenues do we have? Donors could be one revenue stream, he noted, and it’s important to embrace the fact that revenues from donors contribute to animal control.

Prater again said the conversation should move away from HSHV – a dog pound is required by the state, but that’s very different from the mission of the HSHV.

County administrator Verna McDaniel noted that the HSHV has a unique goal of achieving a 100% save rate, and that’s commendable, she said. On the other hand, the county’s mandate is to protect the health and safety of residents. To marry those two perspectives is virtually impossible, she said, from the standpoint of the county’s budget. So what middle ground can they find that’s satisfactory to both?

The county doesn’t have any business trying to change the mission of the HSHV, McDaniel said. But the county does have a responsibility to all its residents. These are rugged times. Every time you turn around, you face erosion of another revenue source, she said. Many things are beyond the county’s control, she added, but somehow the county needs to figure out a policy that allows them to meet their goals.

Everyone recognizes the value of the excellent services provided by HSHV, McDaniel continued, and the county would like to see HSHV continue providing those services. “The problem is the cost,” she said.

Smith said he was thinking about the issue politically, too. There’s a divide among commissioners – some believe the county should only provide the minimum mandated services, while at least one commissioner would spend any spare dime to provide animal welfare. The board needs to articulate the minimum level of service as a starting point, he said, then have a conversation about how far above the minimum they should go. If commissioners can agree on a minimum level of services and the cost of those services, at least they’ll know what the floor is for budgeting purposes.

Turner observed that the HSHV is a tool for determining costs to help guide the county in determining its policy and writing an RFP for services. But the policy that’s developed should not specifically reference HSHV, he said. “It has to be a generic policy.”

Turner also noted that most of the animals that come to the HSHV aren’t brought in by the county’s animal control officers. Most animals are brought by people off the street, he said. “If someone brings in a box of kitties they found on the side of the road, is that our responsibility?” If it’s not, he observed, that cuts the county’s costs in half.

Prater said there are two different issues – a state-mandated dog pound, and the HSHV’s mission of taking care of animals. He said he’s as passionate about taking care of animals as anyone, but the question is whether that’s the county’s role.

Belinda Dulin of the DRC suggested that it might be helpful to start using the term “service provider” rather than HSHV.

Ronnie Peterson said he didn’t understand how the county could look at other service providers aside from HSHV. How can commissioners use a formula to value the hundreds of donors and volunteers that HSHV brings to the table? The police services discussion didn’t have that element, he said.

Smith replied that HSHV has now agreed to work with the county’s finance staff, and he was sure they could come up with a cost structure that reflects in-kind contributions. If that’s the case, Peterson said, then perhaps it also could be used as a model for funding other agencies – like human service nonprofits – that the county supports financially.

Bringing Others to the Table

Belinda Dulin of the DRC asked about the other partners in this process, in addition to the county board. Verna McDaniel noted that the city of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Township both have animal control ordinances, but haven’t historically paid the HSHV for animal control services. Conan Smith said the city of Ypsilanti also has an animal control ordinance. [.pdf of Ann Arbor animal control ordinance] [.pdf of Ypsilanti animal control ordinance] [.pdf of Ypsilanti Township animal control ordinance]

Belinda Dulin, executive director of the Dispute Resolution Center, moderated the discussion at the May 23 task force meeting.

McDaniel said she sees these communities as partners, and there might be others. The county has been paying HSHV for animal control services, and has also budgeted for two animal control officers in the sheriff’s department. Costs have been approaching $1 million annually, she said. Other communities with animal control ordinances are significant stakeholders in this process, she said – that’s one reason why the county wanted to use the police services model to develop a cost structure. [Representatives from communities that contract with the county for sheriff deputy patrols were involved in developing the cost model for that service.]

Smith noted that two-thirds of the animals brought to HSHV come from communities with animal control ordinances.

Ronnie Peterson argued that if the county sees these communities as a major resource, then representatives from those communities should be at the table to develop an animal control policy. And in fact, he said, all communities in the county have a stake – everyone should be at the table. Resources should come from each community in the county, he said.

Wes Prater pointed out that it’s the county’s mandate to take care of stray dogs and animal cruelty cases. They’ll have a hard time convincing other communities to help pay for that, he said.

That’s why clarifying the mandate is so important, Smith replied. The mandate goes to a certain level, but many community ordinances go beyond that, so those communities should share the costs. But no one can have a conversation about that until a mandated level of service is determined, he said.

Turner noted that Ypsilanti Township and the cities of Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor each have a representative on the sheriff’s work group. Peterson said all communities should be involved in that group, too.

Further, Peterson said communities that don’t have animal control ordinances should adopt them, and come to the table with resources. Prater wondered how those communities could be enticed to do that.

Next Steps

Conan Smith suggested that he work with county administrator Verna McDaniel and corporation counsel Curtis Hedger to develop a draft statement outlining the county’s minimum level of responsibilities. That would be brought to the next task force meeting, on June 13.

Rob Turner said he was interested in seeing court rulings on this issue, noting that the HSHV has argued that the 1919 legislation mandating animal control has been modified by the courts since then. Smith replied that there are just two applicable court cases and a handful of attorney general opinions – and most of them date back several decades. The courts have not spoken clearly, he said, so it’s incumbent on local units of government to interpret the mandate. [.pdf of 1919 dog law legislation] [.pdf of court rulings] [.pdf of attorney general opinions]

The board can determine the minimum, Smith said, so the next step should be figuring out what to do beyond that. Turner said the question is based on conscience, and the public will help inform the answer. The board needs to find out the community’s collective conscience regarding animal welfare, he said, and make policy decisions based on that. Some say it should be based on just the mandate, while some feel much more should be done, he said. Turner characterized his own views as in the middle.

Ronnie Peterson felt they should at least keep the current level of service provided by HSHV.

Wes Prater cautioned that the board shouldn’t just listen to the people who come and speak during public commentary. [In the past, HSHV supporters have been vocal in their support, attending county board meetings and demonstrating outside of the county administration building.] The public at large should be included, he said. A lot of people – including his wife, who thinks their cat is a person – are supportive of a higher level of service, he said, but a lot of others aren’t. He reminded commissioners that thousands of Washtenaw County residents don’t have health insurance, and many live in poverty.

Peterson said he didn’t think he would attend future meetings of the task force. Everyone knew his position, he said. Belinda Dulin of the DRC told him she hoped he’d reconsider.

Four more meetings of this policy group are scheduled from 8-10 a.m. at the county’s Learning Resource Center, 4135 Washtenaw Ave.:

• June 13: Preferred serviceability levels
• July 25: Revenue and cost recovery options
• Aug. 22: Scope of services and revenue recommendations
• Sept. 12: Final recommendations and RFP

All meetings are open to the public and will be facilitated by members of the Dispute Resolution Center.

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

From left: Councilmembers Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). The two had co-sponsored a resolution establishing a task force to study the North Main Street and Huron River corridor. (Photos by the writer.)

In addition to the budget, the council efficiently dispatched with a fairly packed agenda of regular items, which are covered in this part of the meeting report. The item generating the most discussion was a follow-up to action taken at the council’s previous meeting on May 7, to establish a task force to study the North Main Street and Huron River corridor.

That resolution had provided for nine task force members representing different constituencies. At the May 21 meeting, a resolution was brought forward to add three members. A debate unfolded about whether to add a fourth member – from the Ann Arbor public art commission – to the mix. Ultimately that addition was approved narrowly on a 6-5 vote on the 11-member council.

While the North Main task force is meant to develop a vision for future land use in the corridor, the council took action on several current land use items too. Winning easy approval were a site plan for Allen Creek Preschool on Miller Avenue, and a rezoning and site plan for Michigan AAA on South Main Street. The council also quickly approved six routine rezoning requests associated with annexation from a township into the city of Ann Arbor.  And councilmembers gave initial approval to revisions of the planned unit development regulations for a Shell service station on Ann Arbor-Saline and West Eisenhower Parkway.

Associated with these land use items were a total of 10 separate public hearings. However, no one addressed the council during any of those hearings.

The city’s park system made it onto the agenda in a few different ways. First, a consent agenda item was pulled out for separate consideration to highlight the fact that renovations to South University Park were being funded with a $50,000 gift that had been made by a couple – Leslie and Michael Morris – who previously lived next to the park. The council also approved the lease of a 40-space parking lot near Argo Canoe liveries to meet additional demand for river trips that has been generated by construction of the Argo Cascades bypass around the dam.

Related to open space outside the city were the reappointments of two members of the greenbelt advisory commission – Peter Allen and Catherine Riseng. The commission overseas a portion of the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage.

Financial issues considered by the council included initial approval to increase water, sewer and stormwater rates that will together generate an additional $1.7 million in annual revenue. The council also approved a tax abatement for Sakti3, a battery technology company in Ann Arbor that is looking to expand its operation here.

Other items on the agenda included receipt of a federal grant to develop a strategy for improved energy efficiency in rental housing, as well as a grant administered for laptop computers to be used as electronic pollbooks. The computers are used for election record-keeping, not for casting ballots. The council also gave initial approval to an ordinance revision that relieves homeowners of responsibility for maintaining sidewalks adjacent to their property for the duration of the sidewalk-repair millage, which voters approved in November 2011.

North Main Task Force Positions

On the May 21 agenda was an item adding three positions to a task force to study the corridor along North Main Street and the Huron River: a member of the city council, someone from the boating/fishing community of river users, and a representative from the Huron River Citizens Association. During the meeting, an amendment was offered to add a member of the Ann Arbor public art commission (AAPAC) to the task force, too.

When the task force was established at the council’s May 7, 2012 meeting, the membership had included the following: one member of the park advisory commission, one member of the planning commission, one resident representing the Water Hill neighborhood, one resident representing the North Central neighborhood, one resident from the Old Fourth Ward, one resident representing the Broadway/Pontiac neighborhood, two business and property owners from the affected area, and one member of the Huron River Watershed Council.

The task force is charged with delivering a report to the city council more than a year from now – by July 31, 2013 – that describes “a vision to create/complete/enhance pedestrian and bike connection from downtown to Bandemer and Huron River Drive, increase public access to the river-side amenities of existing parks in the North Main-Huron River corridor, ease traffic congestion at Main and Depot at certain times of a day and recommend use of MichCon property at Broadway; …”

Earlier than that – by the end of 2012 – the task force is to make recommendations on the use of the city-owned 721 N. Main parcel.

The creation of the task force comes in the context of the city’s application to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for funds to demolish two former maintenance yard buildings on the city-owned 721 N. Main parcel. The application has been approved by FEMA, but is pending the update of the city’s All-Hazard plan, which had expired and is being updated. FEMA is willing to help fund the demolition, because the two buildings are located in the floodway. The city council’s eventual acceptance of the FEMA grant will require a deed restriction on development in the floodway portion of the parcel.

North Main Task Force Positions: Council Deliberations

Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who had co-sponsored the initial creation of the task force, led off the discussion by saying that the council had been inundated with requests about the task force, and that had prompted the addition of three more categories.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said he felt one segment of the community that should be included is the public art commission. It’s important to make the entrances to the city beautiful, he said, so he wanted a representative from the public art commission on the task force. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) thanked Derezinski for that suggestion. She noted that there truly are so many possible voices that could be heard on the task force.

But Briere worried that the task force could become overcrowded. The task force had been given very tight deadlines, she said. She reported that she’d encouraged interested people to attend the task force meetings and participate, even if they can’t vote. She said she lacked clarity on the parameters for public art – whether the money can be used for non-original decorative pieces, for example. So she hesitated to say where the role of the public art commission member could be on a task force that’s more visionary than practical at this point. Adding a representative from the public art commission would move it up to 13 voting members, which pushes the envelope of practicality, she felt.

Derezinski made a formal motion to amend the resolution to add a representative from the public art commission. If Briere was not clear about the parameters for public art, Derezinski said she should attend the commission meetings or read the annual report. To him the idea of making the entrance beautiful “sort of implies art.”

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).

Smith respected the idea of having art be a part of this, but said there is not necessarily a specific project the task force is meant to study – because their responsibility is much broader than a specific project. Later in the process, she felt, it’d be appropriate to bring in someone from the public art commission. However, she couldn’t support it now.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said there’s a continuing discussion about how to better integrate art into the city. He felt it’s possible that someone from the public art commission could help influence the visioning. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) asked if there are capital projects known to be a part of the task force effort. Briere responded to Hohnke, saying yes and no. She noted that the city staff will be applying for additional grants for 721 N. Main [from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund and from the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission]. She felt that counts as capital improvement. However, the task force’s job is to talk about how best to use the site, not to build or approve a capital project. She imagined that capital projects would come out of this – for example, if there’s a tunnel or a bridge built to get across the railroad tracks, that’s a capital improvement.

Derezinski felt that Briere’s answer to Hohnke’s question was a yes. Derezinski contended that the task force had started off by looking at an entrance to the city. When you start to plan your vision, he said, art should be a part of the vision – and entrances to the city are critically important. The art should not be just an add-on. He said he would like Ann Arbor to be known as an art city. The resolution was already adding three additional members, he said, so he wanted to add one more.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated that this was a case where she’d defer to the people who brought the resolution on the task force forward – and it appeared that they don’t want to add one more member at this time.

She noted that there are other corridor studies going on – for Washtenaw Avenue and South State Street –and no one from the public art commission is on those committees. She felt that the North Main task force is not yet at a point where it needed a member from the public art commission. She wouldn’t support the amendment, she told Derezinski, but she did support what he was trying to do.

Outcome on the amendment: The council voted 6-5 in support of the amendment to add a member to the task force from the public art commission. Voting for the additional member were Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), and mayor John Hieftje.

Mayor John Hieftje told Derezinski that it was now Derezinski’s task to find a member of the public art commission to add. [Derezinski serves on the public art commission. Two day's later, the public art commission met and recommended that Connie Rizzolo Brown be appointed to the task force.]

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) noted that there’d been a desire expressed by the Greenway Conservancy to be part of the task force, too. She worried that a group as large as 13 might be too large to be effective, and that’s why she had not voted for Derezinski’s amendment.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to add the four positions to the North Main/Huron River task force.

The appointment of actual members to the task force has not yet been made. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) indicated that the complete set of names might be expected by the council’s June 4 meeting. Later in the council meeting, Hieftje gave the following names, which will be formally appointed at the June 4 meeting: Darren McKinnon (Water Hill representative); David Santacroce (North Central neighborhood representative); Ray Detter (Old Fourth Ward representative); Tamara Burns (Broadway/Pontiac neighborhood representative); Julie Grand (park advisory commission representative); Erica Briggs (planning commission representative); Paul Ganz and Mike Martin (business & property owners of the affected area representative); Sandi Smith (councilmember); Rita Combest (Huron River/Newport neighborhoods representative); Cynthia Ives (boating/fishing/river users representative). Not yet determined is the representative from the Huron River Watershed Council. And the public art commissioners subsequently recommended Connie Rizzolo Brown to represent the commission.

Allen Creek Preschool Site Plan

The council considered a site plan for the Allen Creek Preschool, located at 2350 Miller Ave.

The site plan had been recommended unanimously for approval by the Ann Arbor planning commission at its April 17, 2012 meeting. The commission also granted a special exception use for the project.

The project entails building a one-story, 929-square-foot addition onto the west end of an existing 3,111-square-foot preschool building, for a new total of 4,040 square feet. The preschool has an agreement with the Korean Methodist Church at 1526 Franklin Street to use eight parking spaces at the church lot. On-street parking is available on Miller Avenue and Franklin Street.

The special exception use is required because the project is located on a site zoned R1C (single-family dwelling district). According to a staff memo, the preschool includes programs for children up to 5 years old, with one or two afternoon enrichment classes serving children up to 8 years old. The programs will have a maximum of 14 students each (with 8 for young children attending with their parents) and one or two staff members teaching the programs. The preschool programs will be held mornings on Mondays through Thursdays, with enrichment classes held in the late afternoons. The number of children at the preschool will increase from 25 to 42, with a maximum of 50 in the future.

In December 2010, the planning commission had previously granted special exception use and recommended site plan approval for a project proposed by the preschool at a different location. That plan had called for demolishing the existing building and constructing a new 1,101-square-foot preschool building in a residentially zoned district at 1515 Franklin St. The preschool subsequently decided to pursue a different project.

The site plan (but not the special exception use) required approval by city council.

Outcome: Without deliberation, the council unanimously approved the Allen Creek Preschool site plan.

Shell Station Rezoning

The council gave initial consideration to a request to revise the zoning regulations associated with the parcel on the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline and West Eisenhower Parkway, where a Shell service station is located.

The city planning commission had previously voted unanimously to recommend approval of the zoning changes at its April 17, 2012 meeting.

Owners of the station are asking for revisions to the site’s planned unit development (PUD), which would allow them to build additions onto the existing 1,000-square-foot convenience store. The new additions would total 4,089 square feet, including 2,189 square feet to the north and east of the store. Their plan also calls for converting the 900-square-foot carwash area into new retail space. The existing access drive to the carwash would be landscaped, and the parking lot would be reconfigured for a new total of 16 spaces.

According to a planning staff memo, the PUD revisions were recommended because they are seen as providing an overall benefit to the city, by: (1) supporting the continued viability of retail options for the surrounding neighborhood; (2) creating job opportunities from this expansion; and (3) controlling the architectural design standards of this building as a gateway into the city.

Outcome: Without deliberation, the council gave unanimous initial approval to the Shell station PUD revision. Because changes to the PUD regulations are a change to the city’s zoning code, hence to the city’s ordinances, the initial approval by the council at its May 21 meeting will need to be followed by a second and final approval after a public hearing at a subsequent meeting.

AAA Site Plan, Rezoning

The council considered final approval of a rezoning request from AAA Michigan and the site plans for two separate parcels that are part of the same project on South Main Street. The council had given initial approval to the rezoning request at its May 7 meeting.

The rezoning request was to change half of a parcel located at 1200 S. Main to the P (parking) zoning designation.

The rezoning to P (parking) is part of a two-parcel site plan proposal – for which the city planning commission provided a positive recommendation at its March 6, 2012 meeting. At that meeting, the commission took two votes on the 1200 S. Main parcel – the site plan and the rezoning proposal. And on both votes, the planning commission split 6-3. For the other, adjacent parcel at 1100 S. Main, the city planning commission voted unanimously to recommend the site plan for approval.

The two parcels, at 1100 and 1200 S. Main, are across from Michigan Stadium. An AAA branch built in the 1950s is located there. The owner wants to build a new branch on a different part of the site, tear down the existing building, and reconfigure parking spaces.

The two parcels are part of a 1.5-acre site containing four parcels owned by the auto club and all zoned O (office). Located on the 1200 S. Main parcel is the current one-story branch building with walk-out basement and 36 parking spaces, with exits onto South Main, Berkley and Potter.

The 1100 S. Main site is a surface parking lot, which has 72 spaces and exits onto both Potter and Keech. The owner is requesting to build a one-story, 5,443-square-foot new branch building on the northeast corner of that site, with parking for 21 spaces. A second phase of the project would include an eventual 2,230-square-foot addition to the south side of that building. There are six landmark trees on the site, and the plan would require removal of two that are located along South Main, near Keech. Other trees would be added elsewhere on the site.

After the new structure is completed, the old building at 1200 S. Main would be torn down and a 14-space parking lot would be put on that parcel. And to do that, the proposal asked that the northern 123 feet of that parcel – about half of the parcel – be rezoned from O (office) to P (parking), so that parking could become the principal use for that site. A site plan for that parcel is also required.

The owner’s overall plan called for a total of 35 spaces – a reduction from the current parking on the site, which was approved in the mid-1970s but no longer conforms with existing zoning. The 35 spaces would be four more spaces than the 31 maximum number permitted under the O (office) zoning, based on the new building’s square footage in both phases. That’s why the owner requested that a portion of the overall site be rezoned for parking – in the P (parking) district, there is no maximum.

The council’s deliberations were brief. Margie Teall (Ward 4) got confirmation from city planning manager Wendy Rampson that the intent was not to build a parking structure on the site, but rather to have a surface parking lot.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved all three resolutions related to the Michigan AAA site.

South University Park Improvements

On the council’s consent agenda was an item to approve a $43,533 contract with Terra-Firma Landscape Inc. to make improvements to South University Park.

Photo from the June 21, 2011 park advisory commission meeting, when the Morrises announced their gift of $50,000 to rehab South University Park. From left: Michael Morris and Leslie Morris, and Colin Smith, the city's parks and recreation manager.

The work includes removal of trees and shrubs, replacement of the basketball court, removal of the bench and dilapidated kiosk, and installation of three new benches, installation of a new concrete walk that bisects the park, a picnic table, and native flowering trees and shrubs as well as extensive grading to the site.

Consent agenda items are moved and voted on as a group, but can be separated out at the request of any councilmember. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) pulled out this resolution for special consideration to review the list of improvements.

What’s noteworthy, Lumm said, is that they’re being funded by a $50,000 donation from Leslie and Michael Morris, who previously lived by the park and would like to see it improved.

Lumm also highlighted the past service of Leslie Morris on the Ann Arbor city council and the park advisory commission.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the contract with Terra-Firma Landscape Inc. to make improvements to South University Park.

Supplemental Argo Livery Parking

The council considered a resolution approving a $2,500 lease with Huron River Holdings Inc. to use a parking lot near 416 Longshore Drive on weekends and holidays from May 26, 2012 to Sept. 3, 2012 to supplement parking for patrons at the Argo Canoe Livery. [Combined, the Argo and Gallup canoe liveries in Ann Arbor are the largest in the state of Michigan, according to livery manager Cheryl Saam.] It’s expected that the increased user fees at the livery, especially in connection with increased rentals due to the new Argo Dam bypass – called the Argo Cascades – will offset the cost of the lease.

Council deliberations consisted of Sabra Briere (Ward 1) remarking that she is glad more parking is being secured [the lot offers 40 spaces]. However, she ventured that still more parking in the area would be needed as the city had created additional demand through the construction of the Argo Cascades.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the lease to provide overflow parking.

Greenbelt Commission Reappointments

The council considered approval of the reappointment of Peter Allen and Catherine Riseng to the city’s greenbelt advisory commission. The group is responsible for overseeing a portion of the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage.

The greenbelt advisory commission is one of the few boards and commissions for which the nominations to serve come from the city council as a body, not from the mayor. The item had been on the council’s agenda at its May 7 meeting – but only inadvertently. It had been intended only as a communication item. The council voted to postpone consideration of the reappointment until the May 21 meeting.

The commission’s membership is defined in terms of qualifications in different categories. Allen fills the slot on the commission designated for a real estate developer. Riseng fills a slot designated for a plant or animal biologist. According to her University of Michigan faculty profile, Riseng is an “aquatic ecologist with specific focus on fluvial ecosystems and benthic invertebrate ecology.”

The complete slate of membership positions include the following: two members to serve as representatives of environmental or conservation groups; one member who is an agricultural landowner or operates an agricultural business; one member who is a real estate development professional; one member who is a plant or animal professional; one member who is a plant or animal biologist; three members from the public-at-large; one member of the Ann Arbor city council.

The city council representative to the greenbelt advisory commission is Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5). In re-introducing the reappointments, Hohnke noted that both Allen and Riseng have provided their substantial expertise in service of the commission.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to reappoint Allen and Riseng to the greenbelt advisory commission for three-year terms.

Water, Sewer Rate Increases

The council gave initial consideration to increased rates for drinking water, sanitary sewer and stormwater. According to a staff memo, the increases on an average single-family customer come to 3.21% across three different rate tiers – assuming the same level of consumption as last year. That 3.21% increase works out to $19.40 per year. [.pdf of water, sewer rates]

History of Ann Arbor water rates, showing the introduction of tiered rates. (Image links to Google Chart.)

Because the water and sewer rates are part of a city ordinance, the council will need to vote a second and final time on the rates, after a public hearing.

By way of illustration of the rates, the drinking water rate for the vast majority of residential customers is tiered, based on usage. For the first 7 “units” of water, the charge is proposed to increase from $1.27 to $1.31. For the next 21 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $2.64 to $2.74 per unit. And for the 17 units after that, the increase is proposed to be from $4.50 to $4.69. For additional amounts more than 45 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $6.50 to $6.78 per unit.

One hundred cubic feet is 748 gallons. So a rate of $1.31 per unit translates to significantly less than a penny a gallon – $0.00175.

Ann Arbor’s tiered rate system was implemented in 2004. Before that, the rate for all usage levels was the same. In 2003, that was $1.97 per unit. In 2004, the lowest tier was dropped to $0.97. This year’s rate for the lowest tier is still less than what the general rate was in 2003.

Council deliberations were brief. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off by saying that Ann Arbor has always had some of the lowest rates compared to other communities. And she noted that those who use the least amount of water pay less.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) felt the council shouldn’t gloss over something that results in generating that much additional revenue. The rate increases are expected to generate $664,834 more for the water fund, $916,577 more for the sanitary sewer fund, and $184,064 for the stormwater fund. But the increases are in the 3-4% range, she said, which she felt is reasonable and she would support the changes. None of the councilmembers take this change lightly, she said. The rates are competitive. The additional revenues are necessary to fund debt service and new capital projects. The increases are not insignificant but are reasonable, she said. Mayor John Hieftje said he appreciated the mention of Ann Arbor’s rates as compared to other municipalities.

Outcome: Councilmembers unanimously voted to give initial approval to the rate increases.

Sakti3 Tax Abatement

The council considered a tax abatement for Sakti3 – a battery technology spinoff from the University of Michigan. Sakti3 is led by UM professor Ann Marie Sastry.

The council had postponed their vote on the tax abatement at the council’s May 7 meeting – at the request of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who wanted the matter referred first to the council’s budget committee.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, the abatement would be on $151,433 of real property improvements and $1,374,861 of new personal property. According to a memo from city financial staff, the value of the tax incentive to Sakti3 over three years totals $36,000.

Reasons given in the staff memo for the abatement include the need for Sakti3 to expand and add new equipment for the continually changing alternative energy business and the expected addition of five new employees due to the firm’s expansion. The memo concludes that the retention and expansion of such operations is consistent with the economic development goals of the city of Ann Arbor and of Ann Arbor SPARK.

Previously, the council voted on March 21, 2011 to set a public hearing on the establishment of the industrial development district under which Sakti3 is applying for an abatement. And on April 4, 2011, the city council approved the establishment of that district.

The city is prohibited by state statute from abating taxes on any more than 5% of the total state equalized value of property in the city. Responding to an emailed query, city of Ann Arbor chief financial officer Tom Crawford wrote to The Chronicle that total SEV for the city for 2012 stands at $5,294,974,640, and the total SEV of abated property in 2012 is $8,935,974. That works out to 0.169% – well under 5%.

At the May 21 meeting, the council moved the item forward on the agenda so it could be considered early in the evening. The brief deliberations consisted of a report from Higgins, who noted that the council’s budget committee had met to discuss the abatement, and had recommended that the request be moved forward to the council for approval. Higgins chairs the budget committee.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the Sakti3 tax abatement.

Sustainability Grant

The council considered authorizing receipt of $256,000 to create a community-scale energy strategy to increase energy efficiency improvements in rental housing.

The rationale for the project, according to a staff memo, is to address energy costs that are regressive, because renters often pay more on utilities due to the condition of rental housing stock. That is, higher energy costs affect poorer renters more. The grant will be used to develop a strategy to address inefficiencies in rental housing and thereby increase the affordability of rental housing stock.

The money was awarded to the city as part of a larger $3 million grant given last year to Washtenaw County through the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Community Challenge Planning Grant (CCPG). According to the city staff memo, the goal of the Washtenaw County grant is “to expand existing affordable and energy efficient housing options and connect them to job centers and healthy food through an enhanced multi-modal transportation corridor.”

The corridor in question is Washtenaw Avenue, between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

The $256,000 will be used by Ann Arbor for a rental housing energy efficiency project that is planned to last through December of 2014. Of the $256,000, $210,000 is budgeted for labor to hire a project manager and $46,000 is budgeted for marketing and outreach.

Matching funds totaling $370,000 have been pledged: $50,000 from the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality grant supporting Michigan Green Communities; $60,000 from the Home Depot Foundation Sustainability Framework; and $260,000 from the city’s PACE/A2energy.org energy efficiency financing and community outreach efforts.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the receipt of the grant.

Electronic Pollbooks for All Ann Arbor Precincts

The council considered approval of a $32,850 grant from the state of Michigan, funded through the Help America Vote Act, to pay for 48 laptop computers and the peripheral devices needed to use the equipment as electronic pollbooks (EPBs).

The electronic pollbooks do not change the way voters cast their ballots; Ann Arbor voters will continue to use paper ballots. The electronic pollbooks are expected to make record-keeping at the precinct locations on election day more efficient and to reduce waiting time for voters.

The city had already accepted eight laptops and accessories, which were deployed at eight polling places for the May 8, 2012 election. That pilot program went smoothly, according to a staff memo accompanying the resolution.

An added incentive to the city to participate in the state’s EPB program is that the state will fund 50% of the cost of the maintenance agreements for Ann Arbor’s voting tabulators – if EPBs are implemented in all 48 of the city’s precincts by the Nov. 6, 2012 election. For previous Chronicle coverage of the pilot deployment, see “New Technology for Tech Bond Election.”

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the state grant for electronic pollbooks.

Annexation Rezonings

The council considered final approval for six separate rezoning requests associated with annexation into the city of Ann Arbor from Scio Township. The zoning change in all cases is from the township to a residential category. The requests had received initial approval at the council’s April 16 meeting.

Five of the properties were annexed into the city on Oct. 3, 2011 – in connection with the expansion of a well-prohibition zone due to 1,4 dioxane groundwater contamination caused by the Pall Corp.’s Wagner Road facility, formerly owned by Gelman Sciences. Those five properties are: 305 Pinewood St.; 3225 Dexter Rd.; 427 Barber Ave.; 545 Allison Dr.; and 3249 Dexter Rd.

Annexation into the city allows the properties to connect to city of Ann Arbor water services. Pall has paid all petition filing fees as well as the connection and improvement charges for water and sanitary sewer service that are related to the annexations. The zoning for which the city council gave final approval is for R1C. [Google map of well prohibition zones and property locations] [.jpg of map with well prohibition zones and property locations]

A sixth parcel for which the council considered final rezoning approval – also due to annexation, but not related to the well-prohibition zone – is located at 1575 Alexandra Blvd. The parcel was rezoned from the township to R1A zoning.

No one spoke at any of the individual public hearings on any of the rezoning resolutions. The council did not deliberate on any of the parcels.

Outcome: On separate votes, the council unanimously approved the six rezoning resolutions.

Sidewalk Repair Ordinance

The council gave initial consideration to a revision of the city’s sidewalk repair ordinance – in light of the voter-approved sidewalk repair millage, passed in November 2011. The basic idea is that for the period of the authorized millage – through fiscal year 2016 (which ends June 30, 2017) property owners will not be responsible for repairs to sidewalks abutting the property on which they pay taxes.

There are various wrinkles and contingencies in the revised ordinance for properties located within the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority tax increment finance (TIF) district.

Ann Arbor voters authorized an additional 0.125 mill to be levied as part of the street repair millage, which was also renewed at that November 2011 election for 2.0 mills, for a total of 2.125 mills.

As part of the resolution passed by the city council to place the sidewalk millage question on the November 2011 ballot, the council directed the city attorney and other staff to provide the ordinance revision for the council’s consideration on or before Dec. 1, 2011. There was no comment at the council table about why the revision came to the council nearly half a year after the date specified.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) introduced the ordinance, and described the rationale for the part that deals with the DDA district. He said that because the DDA captures a certain amount of millage monies, the DDA was taking responsibility for repair of sidewalks in the DDA district. But on further reflection, the DDA had insufficient experience with the inspection and repair program, so DDA staff had worked with the city on a plan to have the city perform the repairs and have the DDA fund those repairs with a portion of the millage.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give initial approval to the sidewalk repair ordinance. As with all ordinance revisions, the council will need to vote a second time at a subsequent meeting, following a public hearing, in order for the ordinance to take effect.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: R4C/R2A Report

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) alerted his colleagues to the fact that a report from the advisory committee that studied the R4C/R2A zoning areas of the city has been referred to the planning commission’s ordinance review committee. The report is available on the planning commission website, he said. He noted that there are a lot of different views on it. [Derezinski is the city council's representative to the planning commission. For a detailed overview of the R4C/R2A report, see Chronicle coverage of the May 8, 2012 planning commission working session.]

Comm/Comm: Human Rights

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as an advocate for everyone needing vital services. He told the council he is on the Democratic primary ballot for Michigan house of representatives, District 53. [The seat is currently held by Democrat Jeff Irwin.] Partridge said he was there to advance the cause of human rights and disability rights. He called for full funding of housing and human services in Ann Arbor. He called on the council to take an integrated approach, instead of a segregationist approach, and to do away with the old-boy network, and backroom decision making.

Comm/Comm: Smart Meters

Nanci Gerler updated the council on DTE smart meter installation. She reported that the Ypsilanti Township board had voted to enact a moratorium – because the board felt an opt-out provision was necessary. She told the council that citizens as well as representatives for DTE had spoken. She wanted the council to take action and let DTE know there’s a large number of people who will be affected by smart meter installation.

Helen Slomovits introduced herself as a resident of Ann Arbor. The benefits and safety of the devices are being misrepresented by utility companies, she contended. She urged the council to enact a moratorium on smart meter installation. The devices allow for time-of-day billing. She contended the devices don’t save energy or save customers money. In fact, she contended, they cause electric bills to go higher. She also contended that the meters are an invasion of privacy, because they collect more information than necessary. The utility companies also misrepresent the amount of RF radiation the meters give off. The data transmissions might be few per day, but because the devices are part of a mesh network there are about 10,000 transmissions a day to keep the network going, she said.

Responding later to the public commentary on smart meters, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) noted that smart meters are on the agenda for the next environmental commission meeting. Mayor John Hieftje remarked that most communities aren’t fortunate enough to have an environmental commission.

Comm/Comm: Energy Farms

Kermit Schlansker spoke to the council about the challenges to achieving sustainable living. He described the inherent geometric advantages to bigger buildings – a better surface-area-to-volume ratio. He described a range of different energy systems, including solar systems, windmills, bio-digesters, and thermal reservoirs.

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, June 4, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 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!

Republican Alicia Ping and Democrat Wes Prater currently serve Districts 3 and 4, respectively, on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. They will face each other in the Nov. 6 general election due to redistricting of the board that takes effect in the next election cycle. They'll both vie for the new District 3. The filing deadline for candidates was the day before the board's May 16, 2012 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

The 2012 budget update covered the first three months of the year, but also looked at projections for the full year. Overall revenues for the general fund are now projected to be about $1.165 million more than budgeted  in 2012 – thanks in large part to about $2.5 million more in property tax revenues than originally anticipated, but offset by revenue shortfalls in other areas. Total revenues for the 2012 general fund are expected to reach $99.9 million.

But expenditures for the general fund are $893,527 more than budgeted, primarily due to $669,000 in higher-than-expected costs in the sheriff’s office from greater use of part‐time temporary workers and overtime, operating supplies, and jail medical/food contracts.

The 2012 budget had anticipated a surplus of $1.889 million, but the administration is now projecting a surplus of just $272,238. That surplus is intended to carry over into the 2013 fund balance – so the county faces a $1.617 million shortfall in the amount it had budgeted for the fund balance contribution in 2013. Currently, the county has a $14.5 million fund balance.

Tina Gavalier, the county’s finance analyst, told commissioners that she’ll have a much clearer picture of the budget outlook when she gives a second-quarter update at the board’s Aug. 1 meeting. She listed out several areas that the administration intends to monitor closely, including medical costs, state revenue-sharing, personal property tax reform, and actuarial valuations for the retirement plan and retiree health benefits.

The board also took an initial vote to set the 2012 county general operating millage rate at 4.5493 mills – unchanged from the current rate. Several other county millages are levied separately: emergency communications (0.2000 mills), the Huron Clinton Metroparks Authority (0.2146 mills), two for county parks and recreation (0.2353 mills and 0.236 mills) and for the natural areas preservation program (0.2409 mills). That brings the total county millage rate to 5.6768 mills, which is also unchanged from 2011. One mill is equal to $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value.

This is an annual procedural action, not a vote to levy new taxes, and it’s typically passed without discussion. But this time Wes Prater raised concerns about a $29 million fund balance for the parks and recreation department, saying it was too high and wondering whether it indicated that the tax levy for parks should be lowered. Several other commissioners – including those who serve on the parks & recreation commission (which oversees those funds) – defended the fund balance, noting that several major capital projects are in the works that will tap that money.

In another budget-related action, commissioners gave final approval to the Urban County’s annual plan for July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013 with a $3.59 million budget. The Urban County is a consortium of local municipalities that receive federal funding for projects in low-income neighborhoods. In a separate vote, the board approved adding Webster Township to the consortium, which includes the city of Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and several townships.

Two residents spoke during public commentary, objecting to funding for Planned Parenthood that was included in the annual plan. That particular funding had already been approved last year by the board, as part of a coordinated funding model that pools includes money from the county, the Urban County, Washtenaw United Way, and the city of Ann Arbor to fund several dozen human services nonprofits.

Two commissioners commented on issues related to animal control services during the May 16 meeting. Barbara Bergman noted that there had been a “failed meeting” of a task force on May 9 – only she and board chair Conan Smith had attended from the board, although the task force is open to all commissioners. [See Chronicle coverage: "Low Turnout for Animal Control Task Force."] The intent is to set policy that will guide a request for proposals that the county plans to issue later this year, for its next contract to provide animal control services. Those services are currently handled by the Humane Society of Huron Valley (HSHV), in a contract that expires at the end of 2012. [A subsequent task force meeting on the morning of May 23 drew five of the 11 commissioners, and will be reported in a separate Chronicle article.]

A separate work group on animal control services is being led by the sheriff’s office. That group is tasked with developing a methodology to determine the cost of providing animal control services. It includes representatives from HSHV, the county, and other municipalities that have animal control ordinances. Commissioner Rob Turner, who serves on the group, reported that the HSHV has agreed to work with the county’s finance department to come up with a cost breakdown for the services it currently provides.

The May 16 meeting also included a brief swearing-in ceremony for Felicia Brabec, who won a May 8 special election to represent District 7. Brabec had been appointed to the board last October following Kristin Judge’s resignation.

First-Quarter Budget Update

Tina Gavalier, Washtenaw County’s finance analyst, gave a first-quarter financial update that contained mixed news. The county’s fiscal year is based on a calendar year – the update covered the first three months of 2012, through March 31. [.pdf of chart showing general fund projections]

County administrator Verna McDaniel introduced the presentation by saying that the main message is “stay the course.” While the good news is that property tax revenues are higher than expected, those revenues are still in decline, she noted, and the county must continue to monitor its expenditures.

Gavalier began by observing that the first-quarter projections tend to be very conservative, because not very much information is available yet.

First-Quarter Budget Update: General Fund Revenues

Revenues for the general fund are now projected to be about $1.165 million more than budgeted – thanks in large part to about $2.5 million more in property tax revenues than originally anticipated. Total revenues for the 2012 general fund are expected to reach $99.9 million. [The board had received the news about the higher property tax revenues at its April 18, 2012 meeting, when the county equalization report was presented.]

Gavalier highlighted some of the revenue variances for specific units. Revenues for the sheriff’s office are projected to be about $949,000 less than budgeted. About two‐thirds of that amount – or roughly $660,000 – is due primarily to the delayed implementation of the county’s dispatch consolidation with the city of Ann Arbor. [At its Dec. 5, 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council approved a $759,089 annual contract with the county, which was supposed to start in March of 2012. It's now expected to begin this summer.] Other items that contributed to the shortfall include no revenue so far for towing contract administration fees (contract amendments are now in progress) and lower-than-projected concessions revenue for the corrections service center lobby coffee shop and other food venues.

Projected revenues for the Washtenaw County Trial Court also are falling short of budgeted amounts by about $226,000. Gavalier said that’s due to lower-than-budgeted court equity funds that are disbursed by the state. A projected shortfall of about $135,000 in the 14A District Court is due to lower court fees and fines, attributed to a declining trend in case filings. Now, the District Court’s 2012 revenue from fees and services is expected to align with 2011 and 2010 actual amounts of about $2 million.

First-Quarter Budget Update: General Fund Expenditures

Gavalier then said she wanted to remind commissioners of amendments they made to the budget in late 2011 and early 2012. At their Dec. 7, 2011 meeting, commissioners voted to reinstate $128,538 in funds for human services nonprofits – administered via the coordinated funding model – that had previously been cut from the budget. On Jan. 18, 2012, the board voted to approve the consolidated dispatch between the county and city of Ann Arbor, and authorized the creation of 15 full-time positions. That vote increased the budget – on both the revenue and expenditure sides – by about $1.4 million. Also, at their Feb. 15, 2012 meeting, commissioners approved a $165,000 expenditure increase as part of a new contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley, for animal control services through 2012.

First-quarter Washtenaw County general fund budget projection. (Links to larger image)

Turning to overall expenditures, Gavalier reported that expenses are $893,527 more than budgeted for the general fund. That’s primarily due to $669,000 in higher-than-expected costs in the sheriff’s office from greater use of part‐time temporary workers and overtime, operating supplies, and jail medical/food contracts. She said the board will be asked later this year to approve a $200,000 reserve for inmate hospital care, which will require a budget adjustment.

Gavalier noted that the general fund expenditure projections include an assumption that there will be a lump sum expense reduction of $2.481 million for the year – an amount that’s not specific to any particular department, but that will be gained from across the organization. So far, $1 million in reductions have been identified, due to the high number of retirements last year (118) with 97 of those coming in the last quarter of 2011. The savings come from several unfilled positions following those retirements, as well as from lower salary and fringe benefit costs for new employees replacing the retirees.

However, some of those savings have been offset by increases in part‐time temporary costs and increased fringe benefit costs. A high number of medical claims were made over the last five months of 2011, Gavalier reported. Since there’s typically a six-month processing delay for those claims, most are being paid in 2012. Changes in the county’s employee medical plan are expected to contribute to the lump sum reductions later this year, she said. Overall, only about $282,000 in net lump sum reductions have been realized so far this year.

Other highlights on the expense side include about $238,000 so far this year in tax refunds – the total budgeted amount for refunds in 2012 is $1.5 million. Also, the Washtenaw Trial Court is expected to exceed the cost reductions it had planned for 2012 and show a surplus by year’s end.

The 2012 budget had anticipated a surplus of $1.889 million, but the administration is now projecting a surplus of just $272,238. That surplus is intended to carry over into the 2013 fund balance – so the county faces a $1.617 million shortfall in the amount it had budgeted for the fund balance contribution. Currently, the county has a $14.5 million fund balance.

First-Quarter Budget Update: Non-General Fund Items

Gavalier gave an overview of several county operations that are not supported by general fund revenues. Units that are projected to be on budget include facilities management, Friend of the Court (due to trial court consolidation and cost containment efforts), the office of community & economic development, the prosecuting attorney’s office, and the office of veteran’s relief.

Projecting a surplus are building inspection operations and risk management – assuming there are no major settlements or disasters. Regarding the building inspection unit, that unit owes about $780,000 on an amount it previously borrowed from the county’s capital reserve. Any contributions to the unit’s fund balance over $51,000 must be used to repay the debt. Because the building inspection fund balance stood at about $162,000 at the end of 2011, about $111,000 will be returned to the capital reserve fund.

Finally, two units – public/environmental health, and programs supported by the Act 88 millage – have projected shortfalls but had budgeted to use their respective fund balances in 2012 to cover the overages, Gavalier said.

First-Quarter Budget Update: Issues to Watch

Gavalier listed out several areas that the administration intends to monitor closely. Medical costs are difficult to project, because the trend of claims is evolving under the new medical plans for employees. The budget was developed based in part on projected costs provided by Blue Cross Blue Shield, Gavalier noted. But because the county is self‐insured, it pays the actual costs of its employees’ medical claims. July will be the first month that the county will start to see how claims have adjusted under the new medical plans, she said. So the third quarter of this year – from July through September – will show a better reflection of actual savings.

Another area to watch relates to state revenue-sharing and the state’s new economic vitality incentive program, intended as a replacement to revenue sharing. Gavalier reminded commissioners that the county’s revenue-sharing reserve fund will be depleted in 2013. Currently, Gov. Rick Snyder’s proposed budget includes a partial allocation for 2013 – of just under $1.2 million – with specific compliance incentives and defined eligibility requirements outlined in order to receive those funds. The state Senate and House of Representatives are deliberating on funding amounts and criteria, she said.

Personal property tax (PPT) reform legislation is another uncertainty, Gavalier said. There will be an impact, but the magnitude is uncertain. Currently, PPT revenue for the county is $5.6 million. Current versions of bills to repeal the PPT  include reductions in tax revenue starting in 2013 of about $390,000 for industrial and commercial properties, with additional reductions phased in each year through 2022.

Gavalier also reported that the county’s annual actuarial valuations for its retirement plan (the Washtenaw Employees Retirement System, or WERS) and retiree health benefits (the Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association, or VEBA) will be completed this summer. With 118 retirements in 2011, there will certainly be a cost impact to those plans, she said. The valuations might also increase the cost of fringe benefits for active employees too.

In addition, the county expects to complete a cost allocation plan (CAP) by this summer, Gavalier said, outlining how much each department will be accessed. CAP is an amount charged to each county department for things like the county attorney and administration. CAP amounts have been waived or frozen in recent years, but will be adjusted for the 2012-2013 budget cycle.

First-Quarter Budget Update: Board Discussion

Several commissioners had questions, while also praising Gavalier for the clarity of her presentation. Felicia Brabec asked about last year’s 118 retirements, and wondered if there are any estimates yet on the impact to the county’s retirement plans. County administrator Verna McDaniel said it’s difficult to guess at this point.

Dan Smith asked about the items that factored in to the projections – how many have already occurred, and how many are just anticipated? As an example, he cited the consolidated dispatch operations, which they know will happen later this year. Gavalier said the picture will become much clearer as the year progresses. She noted that commissioners will get a second-quarter budget update at the board’s Aug. 1 meeting. ”I will be more confident in August when I present than I am right now,” she said.

From right: Commissioners Rob Turner, Ronnie Peterson, Leah Gunn, and Barbara Bergman.

Smith then pointed to the anticipated 2012 surplus of $272,238, which is about $1.6 million less than the amount budgeted for the year. He asked whether Gavalier expected the surplus to increase. Yes, she replied, as the finance department gets a handle on medical expenses. She said she suspected the surplus would get larger.

Rob Turner wanted to know details about why the dispatch consolidation was delayed. It has an impact on the budgets for both the county and city of Ann Arbor, he noted. Could it be delayed even further? He also wondered what’s being done to address any roadblocks.

McDaniel noted that aggressive hiring is underway for the new dispatch positions, and she promised to bring the board a more detailed report at a future meeting.

Wes Prater asked about the $2.4 million budgeted lump sum reduction – he wondered where those cuts will be made. Gavalier replied that the reduction was built into the 2012 budget based on assumed savings from labor negotiations that hadn’t wrapped up by the time the budget was passed in late 2011. Savings in medical expenses are assumed to be a large part of that reduction, but until claims based on the new medical plans start coming in later this year, the administration won’t know exactly how much will be saved.

Prater also highlighted the projected personnel costs for 2012, which are an estimated $2.15 million higher than budgeted – a projected $65 million, compared to the budgeted $62.85 million. What accounts for those higher costs? Prater asked.

Gavalier reported that a big portion of those costs relate to overtime and part-time employees at the sheriff’s office. As the county works to fill positions that were vacated because of retirements, they’re using overtime and part-time staff as an interim measure. She again stated that although the general fund isn’t hitting its original budgeted surplus, a surplus is still projected for the year – just a smaller one than anticipated at this point.

Outcome: This was a presentation only – no board action was required.

Annual Millage Rate

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to the 2012 county general operating millage rate at 4.5493 mills – unchanged from the current rate. Several other county millages are levied separately: emergency communications (0.2000 mills), the Huron Clinton Metroparks Authority (0.2146 mills), two for county parks and recreation (0.2353 mills and 0.236 mills) and for the natural areas preservation program (0.2409 mills). That brings the total county millage rate to 5.6768 mills, a rate that’s also unchanged from 2011.

This is an annual procedural action, and not a vote to levy new taxes. With a few minor exceptions, the county board does not have authority to levy taxes independently. Millage increases, new millages or an action to reset a millage at its original rate (known as a Headlee override) would require voter approval.

Annual Millage Rate: Board Discussion

Commissioner Wes Prater expressed concern that the county parks & recreation department was building up a fund balance that he felt was higher than necessary. He noted that the fund balance stands at $29.795 million, according to the county’s comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR).

Prater wondered whether perhaps the entire millage for parks & rec did not need to be levied. The department shouldn’t act like a bank, he said, and he suggested that the parks & rec director could be asked to explain it. [Bob Tetens, director of parks & recreation, typically attends all meetings of the board, but was not at the May 16 meeting because of family commitments.]

Several commissioners defended the use of millage proceeds. Dan Smith noted that he serves on the parks & recreation commission, along with commissioners Barbara Bergman and Rolland Sizemore Jr. He assured Prater that the department has a detailed plan for specific projects that will benefit residents throughout the county. It was a plan that came to the county board as part of the budget process last year, he said. The fund balance is large now because the department is getting ready for several major capital projects, Smith added, including a new enlarged “spray and play zone” at Independence Lake Park.

County commissioner Barbara Bergman of Ann Arbor also serves on the county parks & recreation commission.

[The parks & recreation department developed a five-year master plan in 2010 – see Chronicle coverage: "County Seeks Input on Parks Master Plan." For more recent actions, see Chronicle coverage of the parks & recreation commission meetings in April and May of 2012.]

Bergman pointed to new projects as well as maintenance, and noted that the county board doesn’t have a say in spending the millage: “It’s not our money.” The voters approved those millages, she said. The parks & rec commission isn’t acting as a bank, Bergman added – they are acting as stewards.

Yousef Rabhi also cited the parks & recreation department’s role as “conscientious stewards.” He pointed to The Chronicle’s coverage of the May 8, 2012 parks & rec commission meeting, where commissioners had discussed shifting more of an emphasis from acquisition to stewardship. As someone who works in this area, Rabhi said, he felt it was a wise conversation to have. [Rabhi is currently workday coordinator for the city of Ann Arbor's natural area preservation program.]

Leah Gunn noted that the millage supports both parkland and natural areas, and projects like the possible recreation center in downtown Ypsilanti. Voters have been very supportive, she said, and the millage should be maintained as it is.

Prater responded by saying he wasn’t trying to claim money for the county’s general fund or anything else. He just wanted to take a look at the funding. If everything is as other commissioners have described, he said, then it’s well documented and those documents should be easy to provide. He again pointed to the $29 million fund balance, and said he didn’t believe in keeping fund balances so high. It’s not good business, he concluded.

Outcome: The initial vote to set the annual millage rate passed unanimously, but Wes Prater indicated that he wanted more information about parks & recreation before he’d support final approval. The board also voted to set a public hearing for the millage rate at its June 6 meeting. Commissioners are expected to take a final vote on the millage at that time.

Urban County Annual Plan

Two items on the May 16 agenda related to the Washtenaw Urban County.

Commissioners were asked to approve the Urban County’s annual plan for July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013 with a $3.59 million budget. A public hearing on the plan had been held at the board’s May 2, 2012 meeting. The annual plan describes how the Urban County expects to spend the federal funding it receives from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) programs, operated by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). [.pdf of 2012-2013 draft annual plan] [.pdf of list of planned projects]

The board also authorized Webster Township to join the Urban County. The Washtenaw Urban County is a consortium of local municipalities that receive federal funding for projects in low-income neighborhoods. Current members include the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and the townships of Ypsilanti, Pittsfield, Ann Arbor, Bridgewater, Salem, Superior, York, Scio, and Northfield. Webster Township will be among an additional seven municipalities that will become part of the Urban County as of July 1, 2012. Other new members will include the city of Saline, the village of Manchester, and the townships of Dexter, Lima, Manchester, and Saline.

“Urban County” is a HUD designation, identifying a county with more than 200,000 people. With that designation, individual governments within the Urban County can become members, making them entitled to an allotment of funding through a variety of HUD programs.

The Washtenaw Urban County executive committee meets monthly and is chaired by county commissioner Yousef Rabhi. The program is administered by the staff of the joint county/city of Ann Arbor office of community & economic development.

Urban County: Public Commentary

The annual plan includes a list of funding for human services nonprofits, awarded through the relatively new coordinated funding model, a two-year pilot program that runs through June 2013. Partners include the Urban County, Washtenaw County, the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw United Way, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. The model focuses funding on six priorities that have been identified for the entire county: housing/homelessness, aging, school-aged youth, children from birth to six, health and food.

For 2012-2013, about $4.1 million in funds are being awarded to 63 programs – these funds were approved by the county board in late 2011 as part of their two-year budget planning process. Only a portion of the funds are provided via the Urban County. [.pdf of nonprofit funding]

Among the programs to be funded are two awards to Planned Parenthood of Mid and South Michigan: $14,400 for family planning for low-income women, and $53,040 for prenatal care services. That funding was the target for some of the public commentary at the May 16 meeting.

Paul Dobrowolski of Saline and Brigid Kowalczyk of Ann Arbor both spoke against funding for Planned Parenthood. Dobrowolski, who had also spoken in opposition to the funding a year ago, again asked that the programs not be given taxpayer dollars and that the grants be ended immediately. He argued that Planned Parenthood had plenty of other funding, and that the organization was being misleading about the types of services it provides. He also noted that 41% of clients for prenatal care come from outside of Washtenaw County. He urged commissioners not to support funding for Planned Parenthood.

Kowalczyk noted that a package of bills introduced in the state legislature aim to prevent women from being coerced into having an abortion. Many women feel coerced, she said, and there are examples of people – including NFL quarterback Tim Tebow and opera tenor Andrea Bocelli – whose mothers had been urged to abort them, but didn’t. Women don’t want health care that doesn’t respect life, Kowalczyk said. A better way is to fund organizations like Family Life Services, Hope Clinic and St. Joseph Mercy Hospital that provide alternatives to abortion, she said, and assist women through their pregnancies. Women deserve better, she concluded, and future county taxpayers should be welcomed with joy and expectation.

Thomas Partridge of Ann Arbor also addressed the Urban County annual plan during public commentary. He praised the amount of federal funding that was being received, but said the plan leaves unanswered the question of whether this funding is adequate for affordable housing, transit, health care and other needs of low-income residents. He called for more state assistance to support the most vulnerable population in the county.

Urban County: Board Discussion

Two commissioners responded to the criticism of Planned Parenthood funding. Barbara Bergman spoke at length about the need to preserve choices for women. She noted that her beloved granddaughter is adopted, and expressed gratitude that her granddaughter’s birth mother had chosen to deliver her. No one wants abortion, Bergman said, but until there’s adequate sex education and universal health care, she hoped women would have the options they need.

Yousef Rabhi urged anyone who’s driving down Washtenaw Avenue past the intersection at Hill to check out The Rock, which Planned Parenthood has recently painted.

Other questions about the plan were more general. Felicia Brabec noted that the Urban County works from a five-year strategic plan, and this coming year will be the last year of the current plan. She wondered what direction the next five-year plan would take.

Brett Lenart, housing and infrastructure manager at the office of community & economic development, replied that later this year the staff will start developing the next five-year plan, with broad goals that will guide specific projects. The goals will likely be similar to the current plan, he said, with a focus on affordable and supportive housing. The staff is also aware that it can’t take the county’s existing housing stock for granted, so that will likely be an element of the next strategic plan too, he said.

Alicia Ping asked when the next opportunity would be for other municipalities in the county could join the Urban County. Those decisions are made in three-year cycles, as mandated by the federal government. The next round will be open in mid-2015, Lenart said.

Wes Prater asked who pays for the matching funds related to the Urban County plan – $220,010 in in-kind costs from the county, plus a $172,306 local match. Lenart explained that matching funds for HOME grants typically come from the value of taxes that have been waived, as well as from donations of labor and materials toward projects. Matching funds for HUD’s emergency shelter grants come from the county’s human services funding. Other coordinated funding sources also count as matching funds.

Outcome: The annual plan for the Washtenaw Urban County was unanimously passed, as was the addition of Webster Township to the consortium.

Bond Re-Funding

Two resolutions related to re-funding of bonds previously issued by Washtenaw County were on the May 16 agenda. One of the actions – advised by the county’s bond counsel, John Axe with Axe & Ecklund of Grosse Pointe Farms – consolidates two previous bond issues and is expected to save $889,000 over the life of the bond repayments.

From left: County commissioner Yousef Rabhi, corporation counsel Curtis Hedger, and Greg Dill, infrastructure management director.

In 2004, the county board had approved a bond sale of $6.365 million to fund energy efficiency improvements in county facilities. Chevron Energy Solutions was hired to oversee that effort, which is known as the Chevron project. About $4.69 million in principle is owed on that bond. [Commissioners were last updated on this project at their June 2010 working session.]

In 2005, the board approved a bond sale of $11.475 million to re-fund a 1999 bond issued for projects that included capital improvements for the juvenile detention center, buildings at 110 N. Fourth and 200 N. Main, and the environmental services building on Zeeb Road. About $7.835 million in principle is still owed on that bond issue.

Because of current low interest rates, Axe has advised the county board to authorize the sale of a single re-funding bond issue not to exceed $12.35 million. Commissioners gave initial approval to that action, as well as to a separate resolution authorizing continued disclosure on the re-funding bond issue, as required by the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC). The re-funding bonds will be called the County of Washtenaw Capital Improvement Re-funding Bond Series 2012.

Axe attended the meeting, but was not asked to the podium to answer questions.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners approved both bond-related items. A second, final vote is required and will likely be on the board’s June 6 agenda.

Sugar Creek Drain Bond

On the agenda was an item giving final approval to pledge the county’s full faith and credit for up to $270,000 in bonds to fund an extension of the Sugar Creek drainage district. The financing request came from water resources commissioner Janis Bobrin, whose office is managing the project. It had been given initial approval at the board’s May 2 meeting.

The project – which in total is budgeted at $349,899 – is being done at the behest of the Washtenaw County road commission. It entails relocating a portion of the county drain, including a section of 1,850 feet adjacent to Platt Road between Judd and Stoney Creek roads in York Township. A second phase includes removing sediment and vegetation, as well as making wingwall repairs, at the drain crossings of US-23, McCrone Road, and Gooding Road.

The Sugar Creek drainage district covers parts of York Township, Augusta Township and the city of Milan. The bonds will be repaid in part by assessing property owners in the district – 70% of the cost of the bonds will be paid in this way. [.pdf map of drainage district] The remainder of the funds will come from York and Augusta townships, the city of Milan, Washtenaw County, the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, and two railroads – Ann Arbor Railroad and Norfolk Southern Railroad. The county’s share of the cost is $24,203 – half of that will be paid by the county road commission.

A contract for the work has been awarded to Mead Brothers Excavating of Springport, Mich., the lowest responsible bidder.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners gave final approval to the Sugar Creek drainage district bonds.

Project LIFT Funding

Commissioners were asked to authorize the application for a $1,348,853 federal grant from the U.S. Dept. of Labor to fund Project LIFT, a jobs training and service program for juvenile ex-offenders run by the county sheriff’s office. The program aims to serve 100 youth. [.pdf of program description]

A staff memo noted that while Washtenaw County

… has the best employment rates compared to its neighbors, it also has the highest rate of criminal recidivism in the state, with 80% of released prisoners being re-imprisoned 2-3 years later. In addition, many at-risk youth reside in communities that serve as a revolving door for offenders returning to society from our jails and prisons. With community-based reintegration in Washtenaw County still in its infancy, there is a need to engage youth before they are introduced to the criminal justice system as adults, within their own communities, that will deter them from criminal behavior.

According to the staff report, the sheriff’s community action team estimates there are 12-13 gangs active in Washtenaw County, with 9-10 gangs active in one neighborhood alone. The largest gang has an estimated 25 members.

There was only one question on this item, from commissioner Felicia Brabec. She pointed to information in the staff memo, which stated that the Washtenaw County Trial Court had identified 900 young people aged 18-21 who have been convicted in juvenile court, but have never been convicted of an adult offense. Of those, Project LIFT would only serve 100, and Brabec wanted to know what selection criteria would be used.

No one from the sheriff’s office was on hand to answer Brabec’s question, so county administrator Verna McDaniel promised to follow up and get that information.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously authorized application of federal funds for Project LIFT. A final vote is expected at the board’s June 6 meeting.

District 7 Swearing-In

County clerk Larry Kestenbaum was on hand to swear in Felicia Brabec in a short ceremony near the beginning of the May 16 meeting.

At the county board's May 16 meeting, Felicia Brabec was sworn in as District 7 commissioner after winning a May 8 special election. County clerk Larry Kestenbaum (foreground) officiated.

Brabec won a May 8 election against Republican Richard Conn to represent District 7 (Pittsfield Township) on the 11-member county board. It had been the only election for the county board, for a term that will run through the end of 2012. (County commissioners typically serve two-year terms.)

The unusual timing of the race stemmed from the October 2011 resignation of former District 7 commissioner Kristin Judge. The board appointed Brabec to replace Judge at its Oct. 19, 2011 meeting. Brabec had been encouraged by Judge to apply for the vacancy, and was one of two people interviewed for the position. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Meets District 7 Candidates"] There was a special primary election for the seat on Feb. 28, followed by the special general election on May 8.

Communications & Public Commentary

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

Communications: Animal Control Services

Two commissioners commented on issues related to animal control services. Barbara Bergman noted that there had been a “failed meeting” of the animal control services task force on May 9 . Only she and board chair Conan Smith had attended from the board, although the task force is open to all commissioners. The meeting was canceled when it became clear that no other commissioners would attend. [See Chronicle coverage: "Low Turnout for Animal Control Task Force."]

Smith did not attend the May 16 board meeting, so Bergman asked Alicia Ping – the board’s vice chair, who was running the meeting in Smith’s absence – to convey to Smith that a new meeting time should be set “PDQ.” The board needs to address policy issues related to animal control services so they don’t get “cut off at the knees,” Bergman said. “Frankly, I’m a little angry.”

When Ping mentioned that Smith had previously passed out a schedule of meeting times, Bergman indicated that Smith no longer planned to hold those sessions, in light of the low turnout for the first one. [Subsequent email from Smith confirmed dates for additional meetings – on May 23, June 13, July 25, Aug.22 and Sept. 12. A report of the May 23 meeting will be provided in a separate Chronicle article.]

Rob Turner, during his liaison report, gave an update on a work group, led by sheriff Jerry Clayton, that’s tasked with developing a methodology to determine the cost of providing animal control services. The work group includes representatives from HSHV, the county, and other municipalities that have animal control ordinances.

A meeting was held on May 15, where Turner said the group heard a presentation by HSHV. He said he conveyed the county board’s charge to the group – that the goal is to develop a cost structure, similar to the process of developing the cost structure for a police services unit, which was approved by the board in last summer. [See Chronicle coverage: "Washtenaw OKs Price for Police Services"]

Initially, HSHV representatives said they didn’t think they could do it, Turner reported. But they know that they have to do it, he said, and they’ve agreed to work with the county’s finance department to come up with a cost breakdown. It’s a difficult task, he said, and he’ll report back to the board after the next work group meeting.

The work group and task force are part of a broader process that began last year when the county board – as part of developing the 2012-2013 budget – decided to cut funding for animal control services, which it has handled through a contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley (HSHV). The board subsequently approved a contract with the HSHV at its Feb. 15, 2012 meeting. That contract expires at the end of 2012, and the county plans to issue a request for proposals (RFP) later this year to solicit bids for the next contract.

Communications: Public Commentary

In addition to the public commentary reported above, Thomas Partridge of Ann Arbor spoke during both opportunities for the public to address the board. He noted that he is a candidate in the Democratic primary for the state House of Representatives in District 53. [Partridge will run against incumbent Democrat Jeff Irwin, a former county commissioner who's seeking his second two-year term in the House.] Partridge called for renewed energy and a new set of attitudes for providing services to those in need – attitudes of respect, integrity, and reaching out to residents rather than standing back or even retracting from them. The first priority should be affordable housing, he said.

Present: Barbara Bergman, Felicia Brabec, Leah Gunn, Alicia Ping, Ronnie Peterson, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Dan Smith, Rob Turner.

Absent: Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith.

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

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

Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, handed the microphone around to board members at a May 16 meeting so their commentary could be more easily heard. Board member Anya Dale had just finished speaking. (Photos by the writer.)

The two key documents approved or endorsed by the board were the articles of incorporation for a possible new transit authority, and a four-party agreement establishing a framework for possibly transitioning AATA to that new authority – now with the working name of “The Washtenaw Ride.” The four parties to the agreement are the AATA, Washtenaw County, the city of Ann Arbor and the city of Ypsilanti. [.pdf of articles of incorporation]

Board action came in the context of various unknown factors, including continued federal funding, pending state legislation on a regional transit authority for southeast Michigan, and the number of Washtenaw County municipalities that will participate in a possible countywide authority. Another uncertainty relates to the status of the four-party agreement, which the Ann Arbor city council approved on March 5, 2012, after amending (several times over multiple meetings) the version that the AATA had first presented.

A wrinkle emerged on May 15, 21012, when the Ypsilanti city council approved the four-party agreement, but amended it in a way that requires reconsideration by the Ann Arbor city council. In response to an emailed query from The Chronicle, mayor John Hieftje indicated that the four-party agreement would be back on the Ann Arbor council’s agenda for its June 4 meeting. [.pdf of red-lined four-party agreement as amended by Ypsilanti city council]

The Ypsilanti amendment relates to a 1% municipal service charge that the agreement originally allowed the two cities to impose on their millages, before forwarding the millage money to the new transit authority. The Ypsilanti council struck the municipal service charge from the agreement. At its Feb. 6, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council had already contemplated – and rejected, on an 8-3 vote against it – an amendment of the language related to the municipal service charge.

Balanced against that set of uncertainties was a generally very optimistic tone during the meeting, with board chair Jesse Bernstein indicating that he felt that no matter what happened on a variety of fronts, the AATA was well-positioned for the future.

Bernstein and the board’s optimism was based in part on positive reports on several fronts. The doubling of frequency on the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti Route #4 has resulted in 20-25% ridership gains on that route. The new Ann Arbor-Detroit Metro airport service had double the number of passengers in the last week of April compared to the first week of April, when it was first launched. AATA’s vanpool service is poised for implementation. And results of a survey conducted on board AATA buses late last year indicate a high level of customer satisfaction among AATA riders.

On the budget front, AATA controller Phil Webb also delivered positive news, in the context of an approved budget this year that was expected to absorb additional expenses in order to pay for some of the new service initiatives. Through the first six months of the fiscal year 2012 (which began Oct. 1, 2011) the AATA is under budget by around $500,000. The board had approved a budget on Sept. 15, 2011 that called for tapping fund reserves for $1 million. Now, Webb said, the AATA could finish the year breaking even, depending on how things play out in the second half of the fiscal year.

The board voted to support three other resolutions at the meeting: (1) approval of a contract for vanpool and rideshare matching software; (2) approval of a contract for construction of additional bus shelters; and (3) approval of revisions to the AATA’s procurement manual. The board also got updates on a number of other projects, including the construction of the new Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor.

Future Governance

The board considered two key documents related to a possible transition to a new governance structure for countywide transit authority: a four-party agreement, and the articles of incorporation of the new authority. The current working name of the new authority, “The Washtenaw Ride,” replaces a previous working name of “Washtenaw Area Transportation Authority.” [It was discovered that WATA is an acronym already in use by another transit authority.]

The four parties to the agreement are the AATA, the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County. One key element of the four-party agreement is that the two cities would pledge their existing transit millages to the new countywide authority, instead of to the AATA. The Ann Arbor city council approved a version of the four-party agreement on March 5, 2012, after amending the version that the AATA had first presented. Amendments were made in several ways, and stretched over multiple meetings.

On May 15, 21012, the Ypsilanti council approved the four-party agreement, but amended it in a way that requires reconsideration by the Ann Arbor city council. [.pdf of red-lined four-party agreement as amended by Ypsilanti city council] The Ypsilanti amendment relates to a 1% municipal service charge that the agreement originally allowed the two cities to impose on their millages, before forwarding the millage money to the new transit authority. The Ypsilanti council struck the municipal service charge from the agreement.

But at its Feb. 6, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council had already contemplated – and rejected, on an 8-3 vote against it – an amendment of the language related to the municipal service charge. At that meeting, Ann Arbor councilmembers appeared keen to retain the maximum allowable amount of the municipal service charge.

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

The AATA board’s resolution on May 16 did not try to resolve differences between the versions of the four-party agreement that have now been approved by the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

Also considered by the AATA board at their May 16 meeting were the articles of incorporation of the new transit authority. The evening before, the Ypsilanti council unanimously approved, without amendment, the proposed articles of incorporation. The Ann Arbor city council has not yet voted on the articles of incorporation. [.pdf of articles of incorporation]

The Washtenaw County board of commissioners will consider the four-party agreement and the articles of incorporation in the near future. County commissioners have already been briefed more than once on AATA’s countywide initiative, but have not yet formally considered the proposal.

An unincorporated Act 196 board (U196) has been seated and has met since the fall of 2011. Its membership includes the following: Membership in the 11-member U196 board is: Pittsfield District – Mandy Grewal (supervisor, Pittsfield Township); Northeast District – David Phillips (clerk, Superior Township); North Middle District – David Read (trustee, Scio Township) with alternate Jim Carson (councilmember, Village of Dexter); Southeast District – (1) Karen Lovejoy Roe (clerk, Ypsilanti Township) and (2) John McGehee (director of human resources, Lincoln Consolidated Schools); West District – Bob Mester (trustee, Lyndon Township) with alternate Ann Feeney (councilmember, city of Chelsea); Ypsilanti District – Paul Schreiber (mayor of Ypsilanti) with alternate Peter Murdock (councilmember, city of Ypsilanti); South Middle District – Bill Lavery (resident, York Township); Ann Arbor District: (1) Jesse Bernstein (AATA board), (2) Charles Griffith (AATA board) and (3) David Nacht (AATA board).

Governance: Four-Party Agreement

Introducing the voting item on the agenda, board chair Jesse Bernstein told the board that if there are changes to the agreement made by the other partners that affect the AATA, the document would come before the board again. Depending on the change, however, Bernstein indicated that the board might be simply apprised of that as a point of information.

Noting that the city of Ypsilanti had voted on the four-party agreement the previous night, Eli Cooper wondered if the AATA board was already in a situation where it would need to vote again on the issue – after Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor had resolved the changes that had emerged in the document. CEO Michael Ford told Cooper that the focus had been on the allowable municipal service charge that the two cities could deduct from their millages, before transferring the tax levy the new transit authority. So that issue will need to be presented to the Ann Arbor city council. The Ypsilanti council had made another change, Ford said, that was a clarification specific to Ypsilanti.

Cooper asked what would happen if the AATA board voted on the four-party agreement that day, and then subsequently the two cities resolve the difference: Would the AATA board need to ratify that? Bernstein felt that unless a change impacts the AATA, the board would not need to address the issue again. He felt the current situation does not impact the AATA.

[The current transit levy of roughly 2 mills on Ann Arbor taxpayers (decreased from the charter millage of 2.5 mills through the Headlee Amendment) generates roughly $9 million annually. So depending on the imposition of a 1% service charge, the city of Ann Arbor will either retain roughly $90,000 that would not be transferred to the new transit authority, or will transfer that $90,000 to the new authority.]

Bernstein continued by saying the board could bring it back for a vote anyway. David Nacht ventured that if the city council says the board should vote on it, the board would vote on it. Also, if a lawyer says vote on it, the board votes on it. If anyone says the board needs to vote, then the board votes on it, Nacht concluded.

At Roger Kerson’s request, Ford reviewed the basic timetable of approvals. The articles of incorporation still need to be approved by Ann Arbor. The issue in the four-party agreement on the municipal service charge still needs to be resolved by the two cities. Ford said the AATA had asked if the item could be placed on the Ann Arbor city council’s May 21 agenda. [In response to an emailed query from The Chronicle, mayor John Hieftje indicated that the four-party agreement would be on the Ann Arbor council's agenda for its June 4 meeting.] Then the Washtenaw County board of commissioners needs to consider and approve its part of the four-party agreement. Bernstein indicated that by early June, he hoped all the documents could be approved.

Outcome: The AATA unanimously approved the four-party agreement, contingent on Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti coming to an accord on the language that now differs in the two versions that the respective councils have approved.

Governance: Articles of Incorporation

When the AATA board came to the specific agenda item that required a vote on the articles of incorporation, no one appeared initially inclined to speak to the issue before voting. But board member Charles Griffith said he felt like he should say something, given that he’d been part of the group that had gone through the document word-by-word.

AATA board members Charles Griffith and Sue Gott.

Included in the board’s information packet for the meeting was a listing out of the team that had reviewed the articles: Jesse Bernstein (AATA board chair); Michael Ford (CEO of AATA); Charles Griffith (AATA board member); Jerry Lax (AATA legal counsel); Jeff Ammon (AATA legal counsel); Sarah Gryniewicz (AATA community outreach coordinator); Terri Blackmore (executive director, Washtenaw Area Transportation Study); Christopher Taylor (Ann Arbor city council, Ward 3); Sabra Briere (Ann Arbor city council, Ward 1); Conan Smith (chair, Washtenaw County board of commissioners); Alicia Ping (vice chair, Washtenaw County board of commissioners); Paul Schreiber (mayor, city of Ypsilanti); Peter Murdock (Ypsilanti city council); David Phillips (clerk, Superior Township, U196 board); and David Read (trustee, Scio Township, U196 board).

Griffith described going over Act 196 of 1986 in great detail, describing it as a tortured piece of legislation. That was to make sure the articles of incorporation are consistent with the state legislation, he said. The original document was 2-3 pages, but it increased to around 14 pages and then the group had chopped it back down. The idea was to get solid buy-in from all the players, he said. [.pdf of one red-lined version of Act 196 transit authority articles of incorporation]

Outcome: The AATA unanimously endorsed the articles of incorporation for a new Act 196 transit authority.

Five-Year Program

Also key to any transition of governance from AATA to a new transit authority incorporated under Act 196  is a funding and service plan. The publication of details of the service and funding plan in a newspaper of general circulation is one of two requirements that must be met, before the AATA can submit a request to Washtenaw County to approve, sign and file the articles of incorporation of a new authority with the state of Michigan. The other requirement is that the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti must approve the articles of incorporation.

At the May 16 board meeting, Michael Benham, strategic planner for the AATA, reviewed highlights of the draft five-year plan. [.pdf of draft five-year plan]

The draft five-year service plan includes: (1) countywide demand-responsive services and feeder services; (2) express bus services and local transit hub services; (3) local community connectors and local community circulators; (4) park-and-ride intercept lots; and (5) urban bus network enhancements. For Ann Arbor, the program includes increased bus frequencies on key corridors, increased operating hours, and more services on weekends. The total hours of operation in the Ann Arbor district are expected to increase by 33% on weekdays and over 100% on Saturdays and Sundays.

Benham described to the board how a second round of district advisory committee (DAC) meetings was underway in each of the eight districts making up the representation on the U196 board. The goal is to provide an opportunity for continued feedback on revisions to the service plan. He indicated there was also interest expressed in a third round of meetings. Even after the five-year program document is finished, Benham said, there will be continued feedback into the future provided through the DACs.

The Ann Arbor DAC meeting had been held two days earlier on May 14 at the Malletts Creek branch of the Ann Arbor District Library. During public commentary at the board’s May 16 meeting, Vivienne Armentrout – a member of Ann Arbor’s DAC – criticized the level of detail provided in the five-year plan, as well as the way the DAC meetings are being run. She said she’d read through the plan twice, and felt that more detail on Ann Arbor route schedules was called for – given the relative dollar amounts that Ann Arbor residents would be providing, which she’s calculated at 75%.

Armentrout called the DAC “not particularly functional.” Of the two meetings, she said, the first was simply an introduction, and the second was a well-meaning attempt to combine a committee meeting and a general public forum. She told the board she had walked out in the middle of the second DAC meeting, because she was unhappy with the way it was being run.

Policy Discussion

The most substantive policy discussion undertaken by the board began with a question about placement of new bus stops. The five-year program of the transit master plan calls for nearly 50 new bus stops and improvements to 100 more. It then evolved into a discussion of land use, planning versus implementation, and express commuter services.

Policy Discussion: Washtenaw Corridor – Bus Stops

Board member Anya Dale asked about placement of new bus stops along Washtenaw Avenue. Chris White, AATA manager of service development, told Dale that one proposed new stop that’s in the works is at Washtenaw and Platt, partly in connection with the Arbor Hills Crossing development that is going forward.

White also described how Washtenaw County is working on developing a new parking lot on the north side of Washtenaw Avenue just east of US-23. He’s looking at the plans for that and trying to see if there might be ways to integrate a bus stop. The AATA is waiting for the result a right-of-way study that’s being done with the federal HUD grant that was awarded to the Washtenaw County Sustainable Community last year. [The county was awarded a $3 million grant in late 2011 for a project focusing on the Washtenaw Avenue corridor, spanning Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Pittsfield Township and Ypsilanti Township.] Part of that study is meant to identify locations for bus stops, as well as for pedestrian and bicyclist improvements in the corridor, White said.

Policy Discussion: Land Use (Park-and-Ride)

Dale wondered about possible park-and-ride lot locations along Washtenaw Avenue. [Included in the five-year program are five additional general sites identified for new park-and-ride lots and two lots identified for improvements. The park-and-ride projects would potentially add 800 parking spaces designed for commuters to park, then take public transportation the rest of the way to their destination.]

Dale noted that the five-year program did not include any park-and-ride lots for Washtenaw Avenue. White responded to Dale by saying that AATA did not have plans for a major park-and-ride lot at Washtenaw Avenue. AATA’s review concluded that people would be accessing Washtenaw Avenue all along the corridor, not necessarily at a single point. Currently there’s a small lot next to the downtown Ypsilanti Transit Center with 11 spaces that AATA hopes to be able to expand, White said. The AATA is also looking for agreements with property owners along the corridor, to expand park-and-ride opportunities. That allows the AATA to avoid putting all its eggs in one basket and gives people options, he said.

[By way of background, the "eggs in one basket" reference was an allusion to the loss of park-and-ride opportunities in the Arborland shopping center. Around three years ago, the owner of the shopping center chose not to renew the agreement with AATA to accommodate a bus stop and park-and-ride spots in the parking lot there.]

Dale suggested that this basic strategy of smaller incremental expansion of park-and-ride opportunities could be included in the five-year program to help generate public support in the Ypsilanti area. She also felt that consideration should be given to locating a stop for AirRide (the AnnArbor-Detroit Metro service) in Ypsilanti. Michael Ford, CEO of the AATA, told Dale that to address that issue, he was scheduling a meeting with Tony VanDerworp, a business development specialist for the county. And AATA is meeting with the Eastern Leaders Group, Ford said.

Eli Cooper indicated that he agreed with the incremental steps that AATA is pursuing now. But taking a longer view of that corridor, he encouraged consideration of the implications of the high level of transit service that’s currently in place and that’s expected to become more robust. How that service coordinates with the regional highway system should also be considered. The Washtenaw Avenue and US-23 interchange was an area of emphasis for Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) access management studies, and part of the city of Ann Arbor’s long-range transportation plan.

Cooper – who serves as the city of Ann Arbor’s transportation program manager – noted that a very functional, large park-and-ride lot had been displaced [Arborland]. He encouraged AATA staff to use the current interest and current ridership, as well as benefit, to create an “intermodal opportunity” [i.e., park-and-ride lot] along that corridor. To him, he said, it seems there are a number of considerations that point to the Washtenaw corridor as an opportunity the AATA should capitalize on.

AATA board member Sue Gott, who works for the University of Michigan as its university planner.

Building on remarks by Cooper and Dale, Sue Gott suggested that looking into the future five years and beyond, she would love to see the county transition away from building larger and larger surface commuter parking lots to keep accommodating commuters. At some point, she said, the paradigm should be shifted to use land more efficiently by building parking structures. She said she understood the economic challenges of doing that. But as good stewards of the environment, she wanted to put that idea forward as something that the AATA should strive to achieve. When you look at Washtenaw Avenue, there’s not the land available for the demand that might exist. If the AATA could be innovative, Gott said, “we could set the bar in Michigan.”

Board chair Jesse Bernstein related Gott’s remarks to a concept that he said the AATA talked relatively little about, because the organization could not affect it directly – transit-oriented development. Bernstein described how many of the younger as well as the older generation are looking for more of a dense town center as a place to live. And as corridors are provided for development, that’s where development will occur, he said. Empty spaces or underutilized spaces on Washtenaw Avenue could be more densely populated living-working arrangements, Bernstein added, and the AATA can provide the back-and-forth connectivity. The AATA can aid density in a kind of chicken-and-egg way, he ventured.

Cooper said he appreciated Bernstein’s remarks on transit-oriented development. In the transit industry, he said, there’s also a notion called “development-oriented transit.” Bernstein is right, Cooper said, that as a transit authority, the AATA doesn’t control land-use decisions. However, the AATA does control its investment in transit. With respect to Gott’s point about the efficiency of land use – parking structures versus surface lots – he referred again to the MDOT access management study of the area around US-23 and Washtenaw. He noted that the study depicted a vision of a multi-level parking structure, wrapped with mixed land use, right where the Arborland parking lot is today. There are bigger “wins” out there, he said.

In terms of development-oriented transit, Cooper felt like the AATA should drive toward looking at funding the organization can obtain to guide those investments. In Minneapolis, Cooper said there was a Smart Growth Twin Cities program, which consisted of public investments – federal and regional money – to create parking structures in places like St. Louis Park. Those became the nodes for new growth opportunities in the region. And that is not going to happen unless someone takes the lead, Cooper cautioned. The AATA is well-positioned to begin to move that way, he suggested, using development-oriented transit strategies to encourage the local land-use decision makers to implement transit-oriented design.

Dale felt that in general the AATA has done an excellent job of providing service to everybody, which is the AATA’s primary mission. But there’s also an opportunity to be a leader in land-use development, even though the AATA can’t directly control it. It’s pretty well known that park-and-ride lots tend to incentivize sprawl, she said. So Dale stressed that it’s important to look at the placement of such lots. She weighed in against new flat lots just outside urban areas. She advocated instead for use of underutilized lots within the urban area.

Policy Discussion: Where’s Rail Transit in 5-Year Program?

Roger Kerson ventured that all the references to rail planning had been removed from the five-year program based on the advice of the financial task force – advice that activity should match where funding is available. But knowing the team of AATA staff and the board, he said, this would not be an arena where the AATA would be idle for the next five years. Those projects need outside funding and private partners; but because the AATA staff is as good as they are at “walking and chewing gun” and running the existing system while planning for expansion, Kerson expected some planning work would continue.

Kerson suggested that the AATA needs to think about how that can be communicated to people – that rail transit is not something AATA is going to do right now and it’s not something that a millage or vehicle registration fee would be tied to; however, there’d be activity in that area. That activity is part of the vision, Kerson said. And that’s a vision that attracts a lot of people – it’s one that attracts him, he said, when you say: If there could be a train here, wouldn’t that be great. Even though that’s not something that the AATA can deliver in the near term, he said, the AATA needs to make clear to people that there’s a 30-year vision as well as a five-year program. It would be helpful, he said, if it can be made clear that during the first five years, the AATA will still be looking at things that it will do over the longer term.

Michael Benham, AATA strategic planner, responded to Kerson’s remark about eliminating rail from the five-year program. Benham noted that reference to rail in the program has not been completely removed. Rather, rail has not been prioritized. In the five-year program document, he said, it’s noted there needs to be development work to keep those projects going. From the draft five-year program document:

Because of long lead times and requirements for involving many stakeholders, projects such as commuter rail and high-capacity transit require a level of planning investment and project development that may take place years in advance of the projects’ implementation. Accordingly, it is recommended that the AATA continue to include in its plans funding for such project development work, paid for to the extent feasible by State and Federal grants.

Eli Cooper allowed that perhaps he was the only one in the room who did not believe they’d have to wait five years to see the first next type of rail service arrive in Ann Arbor. He felt that the retreat that day would be a good opportunity to explore the AATA’s interests in defining how it sees its process as engaging in rail development – currently, not five, six or thirty years from now. The financial task force had some recommendations about two projects that have five to ten years of planning work behind them already, he noted: commuter rail and local higher-capacity transit. Cooper’s interest was in exploring as a board what the AATA’s role is with rail – recognizing that the federal and state government is in the process of investing $0.5 billion in improvements in the railroad corridor.

The most recent reports from SEMCOG, which has been the lead agency for commuter rail, is that they’re working with the Federal Transit Authority on an environmental assessment. An environmental assessment is the study that’s needed in order to access federal funds for the commuter rail service. Their timetables are within a matter of a couple of years, Cooper reported – saying that it seems like “it’s always a couple of years out.” He wondered what the AATA can do to keep it moving forward – as an entity that’s connected to and serving a community that will benefit from rail service.

Cooper was not content to say that rail is something out in the future: “The future is now.” He suggested having AATA staff coordinate with SEMCOG and MDOT, and bring forward whatever the community needs to do – AATA and Washtenaw County – to help facilitate implementation of the rail service. As the AATA is implementing express bus services, he felt that rail should remain in the plan “in a timeframe that’s deemed appropriate through a coordinated effort with the professionals.” That timeframe on the rail project can be provided back to the financial task force and the rest of the community, Cooper said.

Charles Griffith supported Cooper’s suggestion. He’s heard a lot of comments from community members expressing disappointment that the commuter rail project is not being emphasized as an option. The financial task force was making a recommendation based on the availability of funding, he said. It doesn’t mean that commuter rail is not a priority any longer. It just means that it’s on a slightly different track. It’s important to clarify within the first five years what the track looks like, he said, and what it would take to keep the studies moving forward.

Griffith also brought up the Ann Arbor Connector (from US-23 and Plymouth through the campus, downtown and south to I-94), which he described as a project that excites him and the community – the idea that Ann Arbor could have something that’s world class. It’s important, he said, to move beyond just buses – not that there’s anything bad about buses.

Griffith said he uses his bus each week to get to work, but buses don’t offer a lot of excitement, he said. New forms of transportation are something that many people in the community think Ann Arbor is ready for and should have. And the AATA is the entity that can make that happen, Griffith said. He wanted to make sure people didn’t think the AATA was de-emphasizing those projects, just because they are on a longer-term track. Michael Ford, the AATA’s CEO, indicated that he was actively pursuing funding for the next stage of the connector study (the alternatives analysis), working with the University of Michigan and the city of Ann Arbor.

[What's already complete is a feasibility study. What's needed now are local matching funds for a $1.2 million federal grant that the AATA obtained last year for the alternatives analysis phase. In November 2011, Ford updated the board on the possible timeline for the alternatives analysis, saying that this phase – in which a preferred technology and route with stop locations would be identified – would take around 16 months if it begins in April 2012. A final report would be expected in August 2013, he said at the time.]

Ford felt he’d have a clearer idea about the status of local match money he’s pursuing from the city of Ann Arbor and UM later in May.

Later in the meeting, board members returned to the idea that the AATA needs to focus on clearly communicating about the difference between implementation and continued planning, guided by a 30-year vision, which includes commuter rail.

Jesse Bernstein said he wanted to speak to where the AATA stands as a board. Zingerman’s [a local deli that has spawned a community of related businesses] talks about the north star – the place we want to go, knowing we might never get there, he said. That’s the 30-year vision of the transit master plan (TMP). The five-year program reflects what the financial task force told the AATA could be achieved with local funding over the next five years. But Bernstein said the AATA should continue to work on everything in the 30-year vision. “We’re looking at what we can do when,” Bernstein said. Planning for rail would continue at the staff level, he ventured.

Kerson agreed with Bernstein, saying it’s a matter of communicating. The potentials for rail should be included in the AATA’s planning scenarios, he said. When the Ann Arbor city council was considering the four-party transit agreement, state Rep. Jeff Irwin (D-53) addressed the council, Kerson said, and told councilmembers said Ann Arbor can’t control what Lansing does, but Ann Arbor can control what Ann Arbor does.

Sue Gott added to Kerson’s remarks on communication. The theme she felt could be highlighted is that there are items that are “in front of us” in terms of implementation. But there are other projects that are “equally in front of us” in terms of planning, but are not yet in an implementation mode. It’s a matter of making sure the AATA is using the right language so that community expectations are managed effectively, she concluded.

Policy Discussion: Express Commuter Service

Sue Gott asked Michael Benham what the methodology was for deciding express bus services. Benham explained that staff had started with a list of options that had been considered some time ago – they’d studied origin-destination pairs. Consultants had analyzed demand for those services and selected those that appeared to have the best cost-benefit ratio.

Charles Griffith allowed that there’s some concern about the extent to which the AATA emphasizes service for those who live outside of Ann Arbor and even outside of Washtenaw County. The board’s performance monitoring and external relations committee, he reported, had a goal of minimizing the cost to citizens. For the commuter services, he continued, the AATA has achieved reductions in the amount of the local millage that’s used for the service – but there’s still a share paid out of the local millage.

Griffith pointed out there are also costs of not using the millage to help fund the commuter service: more cars on roads, more cars in parking structures and the like. Griffith said the board felt comfortable there’s some role for the AATA to play. It’s worth being thoughtful about how to characterize express bus services as the AATA continues to plan additional commuter services, he said. The cost of the express services would potentially be covered, he ventured, and part of the countywide initiative is an attempt to share costs more widely than just Ann Arbor. Griffith said he felt the role the AATA should play is to try to allocate fairly the cost of service to those who get the benefit.

By way of background, revenues for commuter express for the first half of FY 2012 (through March) showed $54,138 in passenger fares (some portion of which University of Michigan paid, for any of its employees who used the service) and $42,313 in state operating assistance – for a total of $96,451. Expenses for commuter express over that period were $138,053, leaving a total of $41,602 that was covered by Ann Arbor taxpayers.

Benham noted that the five-year program’s differential fares, based on geographic zone, are a part of the attempt to allocate costs fairly.

Eli Cooper recalled that when the board initially considered implementing the Chelsea commuter express service, one of the board members at that time had suggested that it needed to be self-funded. Cooper had argued that the fares needed at least to be competitive with the cost of driving and parking. The good news, he said, is that there’s more room in the cost equation for commuter service as potential riders compare costs – because “the cost of dinosaurs” (i.e., gasoline) is 2-3 times higher now than it was then. But Cooper noted a limit as to how high the fares can go on commuter service.

Cooper then highlighted why the conversation in Ann Arbor includes commuter service. The fact is, he said, that 70,000 workers commute to jobs into Ann Arbor every day. He repeated that fact for effect. Of those 70,000 people, 95% arrive in a car, he said. That causes huge expenses – parking spaces at $50-60,000 per parking space. That cost is not borne by commuters, but by the community. On top of that, there’s the congestion and the time lost because of competition for that “fleeting space.”

Locally, it’s not feasible to knock down buildings where employees work, in order to widen roads, Cooper said. And there aren’t significant state and federal funds to widen roads like M-14 or I-94, he said. So, Cooper concluded, it might be for the greater good of the community that ways are found for people to travel in groups of 50-70 people (i.e., on buses), instead of filling up lanes on the freeway and streets and creating a need to construct expensive parking structures. It’s 70,000 commuters today, but the city of Ann Arbor is planning based on tens of thousands of new employees in the next 30 years. Commuter express, he said, is an economic tool.

Gott wanted to know if “cost avoidance” is being factored in by calculating actual dollars. That’s an area the AATA could look at added data, she suggested. Benham indicated that cost-benefit analysis had been done in connection with the transit master plan, but it had been done on a fairly high level. He felt more detail could be achieved.

Outlook: Uncertainty, Optimism

Board chair Jesse Bernstein summarized his view of where things stood – in the context of the wide-ranging policy discussion, as well as a previous presentation from AATA community outreach coordinator Sarah Gryniewicz.

Outlook: Uncertainty

Gryniewicz had noted that the AATA has been working across jurisdictional boundaries. If and when the countywide process moves forward and local funding is approved, the board would need to work on a transition process, she said. That involves transitioning the board, its assets and its various committees, including the local advisory council.

As the district advisory committees give their recommendations and refinements are made and different communities decide whether to participate, adjustments will need to be made.

By way of background, if a municipality that has thus far participated in the process were to withdraw, that would reduce costs, because service would not be extended to that area. But it would also reduce revenues, because the additional funding such an area would otherwise contribute (property millage or vehicle registration fee) would not be collected. For example, on May 8 Northfield Township voted 5-1 to rescind the inter-local agreement under which it had been participating in the northeast district and the U196 board.

Ultimately, Gryniewicz said, the funding question will come to the AATA board and the U196 board. As the two entities get closer to the final five-year program and the AATA gets updates from the legislature, the financial advisory task force can be reconvened as appropriate, she said.

Right now there are two main funding options that might be available. The one that is currently available is a property millage. The five-year program currently would require the equivalent of an 0.05 mill tax countywide, she said. She compared that to the rough equivalent of the recently successful technology bond approved in the May 8, 2012 election by voters in the Ann Arbor Public Schools district.

The second option – a motor vehicle registration fee – would still need state enabling legislation, Gryniewicz said. She said the AATA is working with the governor’s office and the state legislature to make sure that option also works for the AATA. At the Ann Arbor district advisory committee meeting held on May 14 at the Malletts Creek library, Bernstein had identified Republican state Sen. Tom Casperson – who represents Michigan’s 38th district and chairs the senate transportation committee – as a legislator with whom he and AATA CEO Michael Ford were working directly. Bernstein also indicated at the May 14 DAC meeting that they were working closely with Gov. Rick Snyder, who lives in Washtenaw County.

Gryniewicz sketched a legislative update on the federal level, saying that the U.S. Congress is still working on a transportation bill. The main debate, she said, does not seem to be about transit, but rather about the Keystone Pipeline and job creation. But on the transit end, it’s encouraging, she said, and Michigan’s legislators are working hard to ensure that transit funding is maintained and that there’s room for growth.

At the state level, several transit-related policy items are being discussed, she said. One of the main sets of bills involves changes to Act 51, she said. Right now it looks like all local transit authorities – like the AATA – would be able to maintain their current state operating monies. A separate fund would be established for higher-capacity transit, like rolling rapid transit (aka bus rapid transit) or connectors. The AATA will continue to work with the state, she said, on developments that related to the regional transit authority (RTA) bill. The governor’s office and other legislators, she said, have been very supportive of the AATA’s efforts to develop the transit master plan (TMP) and are fully aware of the AATA’s planning efforts.

The RTA legislation would establish the possibility of a four-county area as a regional transit authority: Washtenaw, Wayne, Macomb, and Oakland counties. For more detail on the possible RTA legislation, see Chronicle coverage: “Michigan Regional Transit Bills Unveiled.” At the May 14 DAC meeting, Bernstein had talked about the possibility that Washtenaw County could be separated out from the other three counties – a possibility that has not yet been formally introduced in the state legislation. Bernstein felt that if the legislature did not act before the summer recess at the end of June, the issue would not be taken up until the “lame duck” session after the November election.

Outlook: Optimism

At the board’s May 16 retreat, Bernstein said the most important thing is funding. If through “some horrendous outcome” the federal programs supporting transportation don’t continue, then the AATA would be in a very different position than it is now. The AATA board has a policy that the AATA won’t do anything that is not funded, he said.

AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein.

Bernstein felt that the AATA is well-positioned, no matter what. The AATA could remain an Act 55 transit authority and continue to deliver services. But there’s a well-thought-out plan to change to an Act 196 authority, he said, adding that he saw the AATA moving ahead without any reservations.

If there is another option of having a regional transit authority, and another funding option based on vehicle registration fees, the AATA is in position to take advantage of that, he said. Whichever way the wind blows, the AATA is positioned to go any direction that situation leads them, he said. The reality, Bernstein allowed, is that without more revenue, AATA will remain an Act 55. But the AATA won’t give up on its 30-year vision – the AATA would accomplish the vision the best it can. Bernstein concluded his remarks with a lot of praise for the AATA staff.

New Service Initiatives: Vanpools

The board was briefed on the status of a number of initiatives the AATA has been working on. One of them is the entrance of AATA into the vanpool market. Vanpools are essentially a group of people who are provided a vehicle, and charged a price for the use of that vehicle so they can drive to work together.

AATA’s planned entrance into the vanpool services market comes in the context of the discontinuation of the Michigan Dept. of Transportation’s MichiVan program. AATA’s strategy is essentially to step in and provide an alternative to MichiVan – as the vehicles currently being used reach the end of their useful life. So AATA intends to add those already existing vanpools to its operations. The University of Michigan has around 90 such vanpools. On Sept. 15, 2011, the AATA board authorized a contract with VPSI to provide vanpool services, and on Jan. 19, 2012, the board authorized the purchase of up to 25 vans to provide the vanpool service.

During an update on board initiatives that started last year, community relations manager Mary Stasiak laid out the sharing of responsibility between VPSI and AATA for the vanpool service. VPSI handles maintenance, insurance, vehicle prep, driver training, background checks, billing, and reporting. The AATA handles contract oversight, vehicle purchase and ownership, promotion, customer service, and vanpool group formation.

The fleet is currently seven and they’re currently having decals put on. Right now, the purchased vehicles are being stored at the dealership at no cost. Stasiak expected those vehicles to be put into service quickly. The rates charged to riders, she said, are expected to cover costs. The rates are different depending on whether the trip origin and end are both in Washtenaw County. For start and end in Washtenaw County, the minimum number of riders in a pool of four plus the driver is charged at $99 per rider. For 5-6 riders plus a driver, that per-rider cost drops to $79 per rider. Outside of Washtenaw County, the respective rates for different numbers in the vanpool are $139 and $119. In all cases, the vanpool driver’s cost is zero.

Vanpools: Software

The board considered a five-year contract totaling not more than $125,000 with Ecology & Environment Inc. for rideshare and vanpool matching software. The software will be paid for using existing and anticipated federal funds, provided to the AATA through the Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) program.

According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, a requirement of the software is that it must be accessible through standard Internet appliances, and provide instant, accurate online ride‐matches through detailed map information presented to the end‐user. It must also integrate with social networking services such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Google+.

Vanpools: Software – Public Comment

During his first turn at public comment, Thomas Partridge mentioned the vanpool software contract. He told the board he was there as an advocate for residents of Washtenaw County who need and deserve public transportation. He said he was a long-time and constant advocate for conversion of AATA to a countywide system. He was there to advance that cause on behalf of those people whose interests don’t appear on the agenda. There are multi-year contracts that favor people with jobs, he said, alluding to the vanpool software item. The beneficiaries of that are well-paid UM health system employees, he contended, and there were no corresponding improvements in senior and handicapped services.

Vanpools: Software – Board Deliberations

Anya Dale sought clarification about ownership of the software. Staff indicated that it was a licensing arrangement, not a purchase. Board chair Jesse Bernstein said he wanted to hear somebody say that the cost includes all updates and upgrades. Community relations manager Mary Stasiak told Bernstein that was the case – unless the AATA makes requests for custom functionality.

Eli Cooper indicated he’d vote in support of it. He noted that 20 years ago, when he’d worked in the field, vanpools and transit were seen as competitors. With that background, he said, he supported the AATA’s entry into the vanpool market as movement in a positive and progressive direction.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the vanpool and ride-matching software.

New Service Initiatives: Airport Service

AATA deputy director Dawn Gabay gave the board an update on the recently launched AirRide service, which provides service between Ann Arbor and the Detroit Metro Airport. Gabay described how the AATA had negotiated with Michigan Flyer on the public-private contract,  which provides 12 daily roundtrips between Ann Arbor and the airport. [Key to the economics of the service is the fact that the Detroit Metro Airport is not assessing an entrance fee to the AirRide service – because the Michigan Flyer buses are operating under the auspices of the AATA. Public transit is not charged an entrance fee, but private operators must pay an entrance fee.]

The promotional fares will end on July 30, Gabay said. She  described various discounts for seniors and children. She also described the other partners with whom the AATA is working on the service, including the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The DDA has arranged for passengers on AirRide to park at the  Fourth and William parking structure for $2 for up to 2 weeks. The Kensington Court hotel, a stop on the AirRide service, is providing parking at a rate of $2/day for up to three weeks. Detroit Metro Airport has allowed wayfinding signs (that indicate public transit) and has assigned AirRide a designated bus stop. The  Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau, Michigan Flyer and the University of Michigan have also helped promote the service, Gabay said. She provided the first four weeks of ridership statistics.

AATA ridership on the Detroit Metro Airport to Ann Arbor service: Weeks 1-4 (Image links to higher resolution file.)

During subsequent board discussion, Roger Kerson related an anecdote about his own experience with the service. He said it was terrific – the pickup from the Kensington stop was on time. On his return trip, he changed his plans and did not get on the bus he’d reserved – and he received a call saying, “You didn’t meet the bus at your spot, so when can we pick you up instead?” Kerson concluded that the level of service that’s being provided is really excellent.

The fact that the ridership has doubled over four weeks shows that this is a service that can work, he ventured. What causes him concern, he said, is that he doesn’t see “AATA” or “The Ride” anywhere in the signs at the airport. It says “public transit.” So as the AATA looks to expand the service generally, he wanted to have the AATA brand on it somewhere. Given that the name of the AATA might be different very soon, that might not be easy to change, but he felt that on the AirRide website at least, it should be clear that it’s the AATA that’s getting you to the airport.

New Service Initiatives: Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti Work

A desire for an increase in frequency of service was a highlight of a recent on-board survey that included 2,824 riders. [.pdf of survey report] Increased frequency is being implemented as part of a workforce transportation initiative on Route #4 between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor.

Route #4 performance since implementation of increased frequency of service.

Chris White, AATA manager of service development, gave the board an update on the impact on ridership of the Route #4 service, since the frequency was doubled in February, to run every 5-10 minutes during peak times and every 10-20 minutes midday. Part of the implementation was to develop two variations on the route. Unchanged on Route #4 is the section  between the downtown Ypsilanti Transit Center westward to Geddes and Washtenaw. But now, half the buses go to the University of Michigan and the others go to the central campus. White explained that this route variation cuts eight minutes off the round trip of every bus, without reducing service levels at the UM hospital.

So the strategy has spread the ridership load. The impact has been beyond what the AATA expected, White said, even though the location of the route hasn’t changed. Ridership systemwide was already up about 5-7%, but since implementation of the increased frequency on Route #4, he said, the increase in ridership on that route has been 20-25%. White said he’s anxious to see how ridership continues to change on the route.

On-time performance on Route #4 since implementation of increased frequency of service.

On-time performance has also improved significantly on that route, partly due to the fact that the buses are not as crowded. White explained some amount of increased ridership was expected – because that’s typically what happens. But typically, the impact is not seen the next day, because it takes a certain period for riders to adjust and become aware of the availability of increased frequency. The increased ridership the AATA has seen on the route, he said, reflects that there’s a lot of latent demand in that corridor.

Another initiative related to workforce transportation is the expansion of the geographic area served by the AATA’s NightRide service. NightRide is a demand-response service that’s offered when the regular fixed-route bus service stops running, and on holidays. Passengers have a similar experience to ordering a taxi; the standard fare is $5. The cost is high enough so that it does not really attract a lot of casual riders, White explained. Work transportation is the predominant use.

Increased ridership on the NightRide service since geographic expansion of its service area.

White explained that the service was limited to the city of Ann Arbor when it was first offered in 1983. In April of 2011, the geographic are was expanded as far east as Golfside Road.

That had not resulted in a significant ridership increase, White reported. But in January 2012, the service area was expanded to Ypsilanti, and that had a significant effect.

The expanded NightRide service is being funded by a federal Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) grant. Board member David Nacht asked when the JARC grant ran out. White explained that it’s a continuing funding source. However, White said, it would be his preference to find a different way to fund the roughly $23,000 cost long-term, and to use JARC to fund new initiatives.

New Service Initiatives: E. Medical Center

A status update on another new initiative was the extension of the AATA’s A-Ride service to a location outside Ann Arbor – to the University of Michigan’s East Ann Arbor Health Center (EAAHC), starting last year on July 1, 2011.  The university and the AATA share the cost of trips from Ann Arbor, White said. UM pays the entire cost of trips from outside Ann Arbor.

Usage of the A-Ride service is about what the AATA predicted, White said. About 17% of the rides are for passengers who use wheelchairs.

Other Initiatives: Bus Shelters

The board was briefed in moderate detail on a number of other initiatives that are not covered in this report. They include the reconstruction of the downtown Ann Arbor Blake Transit Center, the bus garage expansion on South Industrial Highway at the AATA headquarters, development of the new AATA website, and bus stop improvements.

One news item from the presentation on bus stop improvements related to the technical problem of transmitting real-time arrival information to the lighted signs at the University of Michigan central campus transit center. That looks to have been solved, and might be implemented sometime over the summer.

One voting item that related to the general program of bus stop improvements was a contract with Duo-Gard Industries to provide shelters at stops. The $390,000 contract is to manufacture and install around 60 bus shelters and 126 benches over a three-year period. There’s an option to extend the contract twice, for a year at a time. The AATA expects to use existing and future federal and state grant funds to pay for the shelters.

During the brief board deliberations on the item, Eli Cooper said he recalled when the AATA approved its first contract with Duo-Gard, it was a local vendor that made exciting new shelters. “We’ve seen them, we love them, we’re going to get more of them,” he said. Cooper also noted that Duo-Gard was the low bidder.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the contract with Duo-Gard.

Budget Update

The budget approved on Sept. 15, 2011 by the AATA board expected to tap the fund reserve for around $1 million in a $30.4 million expense budget. The board characterized it as a calculated risk to fund some of the service initiatives on which the board was briefed at the May 16, 2012 retreat.

At the retreat, AATA controller Phil Webb briefed the board on the status of the budget. Through March (midway through the AATA fiscal year) the AATA is about $573,000 under budget. Factors contributing to that, Webb said, included the fact that the budget provided for an earlier launch of the AirRide service. The educational expenses associated with the transit master plan (TMP) have been less than anticipated. And finally, some staff positions have been vacant for part of the year.

Webb said he felt that depending on revenues, it might be possible to break even for the year, or have a small surplus. The variable, Webb said, is the cost of the education effort associated with the TMP.

Public Commentary

AATA board meetings provide two chances for public participation – one near the beginning and another at the end, each time limited to two minutes. The first session is meant to be restricted to agenda items. Commentary not otherwise included above is reported here.

Thomas Partridge said he was there as a declared candidate for the state of Michigan’s house of representatives 53rd District (a spot currently held by Democrat Jeff Irwin). His platform includes countywide, regionwide and statewide interconnected public transportation. He advocated that the board adopt the concept of integrated services – in terms of those people needing services the most, in terms of access to affordable housing,

Partridge told the board he was there to speak frankly. Many candidates for public office like to go before the public with smiling faces and gloss over serious problems. The AATA board needs to address the issue of connecting with the public, he said. He complained about the length of that day’s session, which prevented people from staying through the whole session. Partridge also objected to the fact that the meeting was being held in a venue where it was not videotaped for broadcast on Community Television Network (CTN).

Present: AATA board members Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Jesse Bernstein, Eli Cooper, Sue Gott, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, June 21, 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 get on board with The Chronicle, too!

Looking down and to the north from the fourth floor of the Ann Arbor District Library downtown building, overlooking the city-owned underground parking structure being built by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The black area in the foreground will be the small road called Library Lane, running between Fifth Avenue and Division. (Photos by the writer.)

In three separate, unanimous votes, the board approved the $12.183 million budget, set a millage rate at 1.55 mills – unchanged from the current rate – and designated the budget as a line-item budget with a policy for disbursements. There were no amendments, and minimal discussion. No one attended a public hearing on the budget.

Several trustees noted that the millage rate is below the 1.92 mills that the district is authorized to levy. If set at that higher rate, the library would see an additional $1.6 million in property tax revenues. The lower rate has been in place since fiscal 2009-10.

Monday’s meeting also included a report on the performance evaluation of AADL director Josie Parker, which was overwhelmingly positive. Parker’s salary will remain unchanged at $143,114.

Board president Margaret Leary read aloud a letter to Parker that praised her accomplishments, and highlighted an upcoming challenge: “The Ann Arbor District Library has increasingly been central to our community and its growth and prosperity. Now AADL has to decide whether its downtown facility is up to providing what the community deserves.”

The reference to a downtown facility reflects a decision by the board and top staff to resume exploring the possibility of a new building, in place of the current four-story structure at 343 S. Fifth Ave. A recent survey commissioned by AADL – and presented to the board at its April 16, 2012 meeting – indicates voter support for a tax increase to pay for major renovations or reconstruction of that building.

In another action item at Monday’s meeting, the board approved a one-year extension to the space-use agreement with Friends of the Ann Arbor District Library (FAADL). The nonprofit operates a used bookstore in the lower level of AADL’s downtown building. Proceeds of the store – about $90,000 annually – are given to the library.

Most of the board’s questions and discussion at the meeting related to a non-action item brought up during Parker’s report on the recent Vision 2012 conference, which drew 400 people from across Michigan and nearby states. The event featured three dozen exhibitors of products and services for the blind and visually impaired. It was hosted by AADL, which administers the Washtenaw Library for the Blind and Physically Disabled. Ed Surovell speculated that there might be an opportunity to grow the event even more.

AADL 2012-13 Budget

The board considered three resolutions related to the $12.183 million budget for fiscal year 2012-13, which runs from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013.

Near the start of Monday’s meeting, the board held a public hearing on the budget to seek input, but no one showed up to comment.

A draft budget had been presented at the board’s April 16, 2012 meeting. At that time, the budget had been developed based on a 1% increase in projected tax revenues. That projected increase was subsequently lowered to 0.4% following the April 18 release of Washtenaw County’s equalization report, which is the basis for determining taxable value of property in the county, and in turn indicates how much tax revenue will be collected by local taxing entities.

The final budget projects an estimated $11.132 million in tax revenues – or about $71,000 less than the draft budget had projected. In addition to property taxes, other revenues come from library fines and fees, state aid and fines, interest, non-resident fees and grants.

From left: Administrative assistant Karen Wilson gives documents to AADL board president Margaret Leary to sign after the May 21 meeting.

On the expenditure side, the highest category is salaries and wages, at $5.8 million – an increase from $5.67 million this year. Employee benefits are budgeted to increase 6% from $1.476 million this year to $1.565 million in the next fiscal year. In part, that reflects an increase in the amount that AADL must contribute to the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System (MPSERS) – from 24.46% this year to 27.37%. The budget also includes a 3% merit raise pool for employees. In recent years, there has been no allocation for merit pay increases. [.pdf of 2012-13 budget summary]

AADL director Josie Parker commented that this is the first time in three years that the library has been able to offer merit raises, and she was pleased that staff who deserve raises would be able to receive them. The library hasn’t faltered in its accomplishments in recent years, she said, and the staff have stepped up and worked hard. Parker said she was grateful, and wanted to thank them publicly.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the 2012-13 budget.

AADL 2012-13 Budget: Millage Rate

In a separate vote, the board was asked to set a millage rate of 1.55 mills, unchanged from this year. One mill equals $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value.

Rebecca Head noted that the millage rate is below the 1.92 mills that the district is authorized to levy. That reflects the board’s conservative nature, she said, adding that she appreciated the work of AADL director Josie Parker and Ken Nieman, AADL associate director of finance, HR and operations.

Prue Rosenthal asked how much additional revenues the 1.92 mills would raise. Nieman replied that if the full millage were levied, it would bring in about $1.6 million more in revenues.

Ed Surovell noted that the 1.55 mills is lower than what the library has levied in the past. As recently as 2008-09, the library had levied the full amount. The rate was lowered to 1.55 mills in 2009-10 and has stayed at that rate. From The Chronicle’s report of the May 18, 2009 AADL board meeting:

In the past they’ve levied 1.92 mills but have been operating on 1.55 mills – the difference was set aside and used to pay for building projects, such as the Traverwood branch. Barbara Murphy noted that when she first joined the board, AADL had been operating at 1.65 mills. She said that when Parker and her staff came on board seven years ago, they managed to lower the operating costs while improving service, and that they should be commended for that.

Surovell called it great progress that AADL was levying a lower amount. Jan Barney Newman said it was especially impressive, in light of everything the library has been able to accomplish.

Outcome: Board members unanimously set the millage rate at 1.55 mills.

AADL 2012-13 Budget: Line Item

A third resolution related to the 2012-13 budget designated it as a line-item budget and set a policy for disbursements. [.pdf of line-item/disbursements resolution]

There was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to set a line-item budget and policy for disbursements.

Financial Report

Ken Nieman, AADL associate director of finance, HR and operations, gave a brief financial report for the month of April. At the end of the month, the library had an unrestricted cash balance of $9.7 million, and has received nearly 98% of its budgeted tax receipts for the fiscal year, which ends June 30, 2012.

Two items that are currently over budget – materials and circulation supplies – are expected to come back in line by the end of the fiscal year, Nieman said. [The report indicates that to date, materials are $4,741 over budget, while circulation supplies are over budget by $2,614.][.pdf of financial report]

Neiman said the fund balance of $8.17 million is “pretty healthy” heading into the next fiscal year.

For the current fiscal year, the library finance staff is projecting a surplus of $292,025.

The board had no questions or comments on the financial report.

Director’s Evaluation

At the May 21 meeting, board members gave their annual evaluation to AADL director Josie Parker, which they had discussed with her during an executive session at the start of the meeting. It was overwhelmingly positive.

Board president Margaret Leary read aloud a two-page letter to Parker that had been vetted by all board members. [.pdf of evaluation letter] The letter states that Parker’s salary will remain unchanged at $143,114 and that the board believes her salary to be equitable with comparable positions.

The letter describes Parker’s performance as excellent, and lists several areas of accomplishment, including the attraction and retention of top talent, consistency in presenting a balanced budget, and creativity in providing new services. The letter also points to challenges ahead.

From the letter:

We are aware that AADL’s community relations efforts have succeeded in creating demand beyond what our existing facilities can support. The big challenge to all of us in the coming year – and the biggest challenge for you – is to lead the effort to determine the best path for ensuring that AADL lives up to what our community expects, in all regards. The coming year will present new demands that are not completely foreseeable. Ann Arbor is a special community, founded and built on learning and information. The Ann Arbor District Library has increasingly been central to our community and its growth and prosperity. Now AADL has to decide whether its downtown facility is up to providing what the community deserves.

The reference to a downtown facility reflects a decision by the board and top staff to explore the possibility of a new building, in place of the current four-story structure at 343 S. Fifth Ave.

AADL director Josie Parker.

A recent survey commissioned by AADL – and presented to the board at its April 16, 2012 meeting – indicates voter support for a tax increase to pay for major renovations or reconstruction of that building.

When Leary finished reading the letter, the board gave Parker a round of applause.

Parker responded by saying that 18-year-olds who are graduating from high school this time of year are typically told to choose a career that they love. ”And I do – I love what I do,” she said. “I could do a lot of things, and I chose to do this.”

Parker noted that she’s held this position for 10 years, and plans to continue. ”There isn’t right now a better place to do it.”

Parker also said she enjoys the people she works with, and that makes a huge difference. She concluded by thanking the board for their support.

Outcome: This was not an action item – no vote was taken.

Friends of the AADL Space-Use Agreement

The board was asked to approve a one-year extension to the space-use agreement with Friends of the Ann Arbor District Library.

Friends of the Ann Arbor District Library (FAADL) is a nonprofit that operates a used bookstore in the lower level of AADL’s downtown branch at 343 S. Fifth Ave. Proceeds of the store – about $90,000 annually – are given to the library. At its May 2011 meeting, the AADL board had also approved a one-year extension to the space use agreement. [.pdf file of FAADL space-use agreement] On Monday, essentially the same agreement was proposed for another year.

There was minimal discussion on this item. Board president Margaret Leary said it was wonderful that Friends are using the space and generating revenues for the library.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the one-year extension of the space-use agreement with FAADL.

Director’s Report

Most of Josie Parker’s report focused on the May 9 VISIONS 2012 Vendor Fair, held at Washtenaw Community College in partnership with WCC and the Michigan Commission for the Blind. The event featured three dozen exhibitors of products and services for the blind and visually impaired. It was hosted by AADL, which administers the Washtenaw Library for the Blind and Physically Disabled.

AADL board members Ed Surovell and Prue Rosenthal after the May 21 AADL board meeting adjourned.

About 400 people attended from across Michigan, Ohio and Indiana, Parker said. Many came for the opportunity to try out technology and devices in person – exhibitors showcased magnifiers, electronic readers, Braille devices, therapy and service dogs, and other support products and services for the blind and physically disabled.

In addition to vendors, there were four speakers, including Neil Bernstein of the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, and the “AT Guys,” who specialize in assistive technology.

Prue Rosenthal asked if there is anything else like this in southeast Michigan. Parker replied that Wayne County Subregional Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped will host a vendor fair in October, but it will be much smaller.

Ed Surovell wondered if there would be a benefit for the AADL event to be even bigger. Does anyone gain if it’s marketed more broadly? Parker said there’s no downside to AADL – she wants as many people to come as possible. She noted that most people came with a companion – a person or a dog – to help guide them. There were also volunteers to provide that service at the event, so it gets pretty crowded. If more people attend, a larger venue would be needed, she said.

Parker mentioned one other item in her director’s report – the May 12 It’s All Write! Teen Short Story Writing Contest hosted at the AADL downtown building. The guest speaker was Caitlin Horrocks, who published her first short story collection in 2011 – “This Is Not Your City.” Parker noted that Horrocks had won AADL’s teen short story contest in 1997. This year, 350 submissions were received from teens in grades 6-12. A list of 2012 winners in several categories is posted on the AADL website.

Present: Rebecca Head, Margaret Leary, Jan Barney Newman, Prue Rosenthal, Ed Surovell. Also AADL director Josie Parker.

Absent: Nancy Kaplan, Barbara Murphy.

Next meeting: Monday, June 18, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the library’s fourth floor meeting room, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor District Library board. 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 the couple of weeks leading up to the May 21, 2012 meeting, councilmembers had their hands literally full with the FY 2013 budget. (Photo by the writer, taken on May 18.)

The amendments approved by the council included modifications that added a secretary position to the 15th District Court, increased human services funding by $46,899, added $78,000 to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission budget, and eliminated a contract with RecycleBank to administer a coupon program to encourage residents to recycle.

One resolution – which did not actually modify the budget – simply directed the city administrator to bring a future mid-year budget amendment to add up to six firefighters to the budget – if a federal grant and increased state fire protection allocations materialize.

Amendments that were brought forward, but that did not win council approval, included a proposal to leave money in various city funds, totaling $307,299, instead of transferring that amount to the public art fund. Also failing to win approval was an amendment that would give a specific interpretation to the city’s downtown development authority tax increment finance (TIF) capture ordinance – that would have benefited the city’s general fund by around $200,000. Both of those amendments were brought forward by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Another amendment that failed would have restored loose leaf collection service in the fall, as well as holiday tree pickup. And an amendment to fund additional police officers also did not succeed. Both of those amendments were proposed by Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Lumm was joined by Mike Anglin (Ward 5) in dissenting on the final budget vote.

The total expenditure budget for FY 2013 as proposed – across all funds, including utilities, solid waste and the like – came to $404,900,312 in revenues against $382,172,603 in expenses.

The originally proposed budget for the much smaller general fund – out of which the city pays for services like fire and police, planning, financial services, administration, parks and recreation – showed $79,193,112 in revenues against expenses totaling $78,869,750 for a planned surplus of $323,362. The following year, FY 2014, had been projected to be basically a break-even year.

The cumulative impact of the amendments approved by the council on Monday night increased expenditures to $79,070,842 against revenues of $79,193,112, for a surplus of $122,270. Below is a detailed list of proposed amendments and outcomes.

• Increase District Court budget by $76,193 to add a secretary position. Outcome: Approved on a 10-1 vote, with Jane Lumm (Ward 2) dissenting. The amendment was put forward by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).
  The increased expenditure did not identify a source of funds other than to tap the general fund. Rationale for the added position was that it restored a job that had been eliminated when it was uncertain whether Gov. Rick Snyder would appoint a replacement for judge Julie Creal, who resigned in 2011. Joe Burke was eventually appointed on Feb. 15, 2012 to replace her. The argument for adding the position was essentially that Burke needs the support staff.
• Policy Direction: Upon receipt of additional funding for fire protection from the federal or state government, make a future mid-year budget amendment to hire up to six additional firefighters for a total of 88 firefighters. Outcome: Approved on a unanimous vote. The amendment was put forward by Margie Teall (Ward 4).
  The funding for additional firefighters would potentially be a combination of a federal grant – for which the city has applied through a FEMA program called Staffing for Adequate Fire & Emergency Response grants (SAFER) – and possible increases in the state of Michigan’s fire protection allocation to municipalities that are home to state-owned institutions like the University of Michigan. The number of 88 had been identified by fire chief Chuck Hubbard as ideal at a working session conducted on March 12, 2012.
• Define DDA TIF capture on an interpretation of Chapter 7 that’s different from that of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, add $199,360 to general fund, and add two firefighter positions. Outcome: Rejected on a 3-8 vote. The amendment was put forward by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). It got support only from Kunselman, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).
  The interpretation of Chapter 7 was controversial since it was first identified last year by city financial staff as having an impact on the amount of tax increment finance (TIF) capture to which the Ann Arbor DDA is entitled in its downtown district. For more detail see: “Column: Let’s Take Time on Ann Arbor Budget.” The interpretation of the ordinance and method of calculation of the TIF capture proposed by Kunselman would have had a substantial impact on the city’s revenue, as well as that of other taxing authorities in the DDA district, including the Ann Arbor District Library.
• Increase human services allocation by $46,899. Outcome: Approved on a unanimous vote. The amendment was brought forward by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sandi Smith (Ward 1).
  Last year for FY 2012, the council amended the proposed budget to increase human service funding by $85,600, to bring the total allocation to nonprofits providing human services to $1,244,629. Compared to the originally proposed FY 2012 human services amount, this year’s FY 2013 amount is about $39,000 greater. But that reflects a $46,899 decrease from the level to which the council amended the budget last year.
• Decrease mayor/council travel budget by $6,500. Outcome: Rejected on a 2-9 vote. The amendment was brought forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), and won support only from Briere and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).
  The amount of $6,500 appears to arise out of an allocation of $550 for each of 10 councilmembers and $1,000 for the mayor. Two years ago on March 1, 2010, as the council was giving direction to then-city administrator Roger Fraser, a proposal was made to direct Fraser to eliminate travel for the mayor and councilmembers. The council decided on that occasion to preserve mayor John Hieftje’s allocation of $1,000.
• Eliminate RecycleBank funding, with virtually no impact this year to the solid waste budget. Outcome: Approved on a 8-3 vote. The amendment was brought forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). It was opposed by Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).
  RecycleBank administers a coupon-based reward program that is intended to increase rates of curbside recycling in the city. At its Sept. 19, 2011 meeting, the city council voted to retain the contract it had signed the previous year with RecycleBank. Leading up to that vote, there had been some interest on the council in canceling the contract entirely – because it was not clear that the impact of the coupon-based incentives was commensurate with the financial benefit to the city. But the council settled on a contract revision that was favorable to the city. The cost of continuing the contract this year would be $103,500. The cost of canceling is $107,200 – $90,000 in an equipment purchase settlement in accordance with terms of the contract and $17,200 for 60 days of contractual notice. Savings will be realized in subsequent years.
• Eliminate $307,299 in transfers to public art. Outcome: Rejected on a 2-9 vote. The amendment was brought forward by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). It got support only from its two sponsors.
  The amendment stipulated that the transfers from various city funds into the public art fund would not take place, “notwithstanding city code” – a reference to the city’s Percent for Art ordinance. The Percent for Art ordinance requires that 1% of all capital improvement projects, up to a cap of $250,000 per capital project, be set aside for public art. The amendment would have prevented the transfer of $60,649 out of the drinking water fund, $22,400 out of the stormwater fund, $101,750 out of the sewer fund, and $122,500 out of the street millage fund. The council had re-debated its public art ordinance most recently at its May 7, 2012 meeting, in the context of a sculpture for the Justice Center lobby, which was ultimately approved.
• Increase Ann Arbor Housing Commission budget by $78,000 to offset cost of allocating retiree healthcare costs. Outcome: Approved on a unanimous vote. The amendment was brought forward by Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).
  The resolution did not identify a source of revenue other than the general fund surplus to pay for the increase. However, the resolution made clear that the increase was for one year only, to give the AAHC time to find additional revenue. The increase to AAHC is intended to offset the additional costs to AAHC from the new method of allocating retiree health costs to different departments – based on where the liability is accruing. For the city’s general fund departments, this resulted in decreased costs this year totaling around $1 million. But for some organizations within the city, like AAHC, it resulted in increased costs. For detail on retiree cost allocation methodology, see The Chronicle’s coverage of a Feb. 13, 2012 working session.
• Count golf course support as parks support. Outcome: Approved with dissent only from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). The amendment was brought forward by Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).
  The background to the amendment is a 2006 administrative policy approved by the council in connection with the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage. Among other things, under the 2006 administrative policy, general fund support for parks will decrease only in concert with the rest of the general fund budget. The council has revised the 2006 administrative policy twice previously. On May 17, 2010, the city council revised the 2006 administrative policy to eliminate the natural area preservation program’s automatic 3% increase, and reset NAP funding to levels proportionate with other programs. And on May 16, 2011 the council revised the 2006 administrative policy to allow non-millage funds to count as general fund support for the parks, for purposes of the policy that require general fund support. The parks maintenance and capital improvements millage will likely be put on the ballot for renewal in the Nov. 6, 2012 general election.
  The result of the other budget amendments that the council passed on the evening of May 21 would have triggered a need to adjust parks funding upwards by $49,000. The budget amendment on golf support did not change the 2006 administrative policy. Rather, it stipulated that the $272,220 included in the FY 2013 budget proposal as a transfer to the golf courses covered the adjustment (the $49,000) that would have been required to meet the 2006 policy.
• Restore non-containerized fall leaf collection and holiday tree pickup, through a one-time use of $383,000 and recurring use of $275,280 money from the solid waste fund. Outcome: Rejected on a 3-8 vote. The amendment was brought forward by Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Joining her in support were only Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).
  The one-time use of funds would be for purchasing two sweeper/pusher vehicles. The amendment also called for recurring use of $275,280 to pay for labor/equipment costs. Of that amount, $25,204 would have gone to fund the curbside pickup of holiday trees. The amendment called for a range of different savings within the solid waste fund that might have been used to fund the recurring costs, including savings from the elimination of the RecycleBank contract.
• Add up to 10 sworn police officers – five to be funded through a federal Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant and five to be funded through reductions in other departments. Outcome: Rejected with support only from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). The amendment was brought forward by Lumm.
  The five positions to be added through the COPS grant would have been added only if the grant were awarded. The other five positions would have been funded from non-specific cuts to other city general fund departments: mayor and council ($8,957); 15th District Court ($94,617); public services ($192,265); and human resources ($35,939). The amendment also called for higher cost recovery for officers for which the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) contracts.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the city of Ann Arbor. 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!

That’s right, I’d like to “kick the can down the road.” I suppose it’s a pretty big can. But it’s a short road – only one week.

When kicking the can down the road, be sure it's a short road and does not contain worms. (Incredible self-portrait action shot by the writer.)

Letting that meeting continue past Monday will be a benefit to the council and Ann Arbor residents, as well as to other public bodies like the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Community College and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority (DDA).

The city charter requires that by the end of that meeting, the council must approve the city budget for fiscal year 2013 – which begins on July 1, 2012. If the council does not act on the budget before the end of the meeting, then according to the city charter, the budget proposed by the city administrator on April 16, 2012 will automatically take effect. Last year, the “second meeting in May” was conducted over the course of sessions on three separate days, and did not end until May 31, 2011.

Last year’s extension of that second meeting in May – achieved  by recessing and reconvening on subsequent days – stemmed from the council’s desire to achieve clarity about issues related to the DDA. The issue centered around tax increment finance (TIF) capture, as well as the contract under which the DDA operates the city’s public parking system.

This year, one of the amendments that’s almost certain to be proposed on Monday – by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) – revisits the issue of the DDA’s TIF capture, and provides a recurring revenue source for the city to fund two firefighter positions this year, and perhaps more in subsequent years. Kunselman’s amendment calls for the kind of interpretation of the city’s ordinance on DDA TIF capture for which I’ve previously advocated. [See "Column: Tax Capture is a Varsity Sport"]

So this year, I’d like to suggest that city councilmembers plan now to take advantage of the parliamentary option of recessing their May 21 meeting until May 28 – so that they and the public can give thorough consideration to at least nine other budget amendments (in addition to Kunselman’s DDA/firefighter amendment) that could be brought forward on Monday.

The formal public hearing on the budget was already held and closed on May 7, 2012. It enjoyed the participation of just three Ann Arbor residents. By establishing the May 21 session as an occasion to sketch out the intent and the mechanics of proposed budget amendments, the council would better serve the public’s interest in being able to advocate for or against the various proposed amendments to the budget.

I’d also like to use the occasion of this column to lay out the content of some of the fire protection amendments, and to single out Kunselman’s amendment as one that I think especially deserves the entire council’s support.  

Budget Principle: Recurring versus Non-Recurring

When the city’s chief financial officer, Tom Crawford, talks about the city budget he doesn’t talk only about expenses and revenues. He always bases the conversation on this notion: Are these expenses and revenues recurring or non-recurring?

A simple example of recurring revenue is money from taxes – the city levies taxes every year in a recurrent way. The exact amount might vary based on the economy, but the city’s tax levy will reliably generate money in a way that can be reasonably estimated each year into the future. A simple example of a recurring expense is an employee’s salary. When the city hires someone to do a job – like arrest criminals, or put out fires, or review proposed new buildings – our basic expectation is that we’ll have a recurring need to pay that person’s salary each year.

A simple example of  non-recurring revenue is proceeds from the sale of land. When the city receives a $90,000 payment from the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority for a strip of land in downtown Ann Arbor, the city cannot reliably expect every year in the future that it will have an available strip of land it can sell and that someone actually wants to buy for $90,000. On the expense side, an example of a non-recurring item would be a payment made to induce a police officer to retire earlier than that officer would have otherwise retired. The following year, that payment would not need to recur – because the employee has already retired.

If asked on Monday night to comment during deliberations, one basic principle that Crawford will likely apply to any proposed budget amendment is this: Pay for additional recurring expenses only out of additional recurring revenues.

By way of example, suppose a councilmember were to propose a budget amendment that funds an extra firefighter position (which would cost roughly $80,000) from the proceeds of the land sale to the AATA ($90,000). One way to phrase an argument against that proposed amendment would be simply to say: That’s an attempt to fund a recurring expense from non-recurring revenue.

To be clear, no one on the Ann Arbor city council has proposed funding a firefighter position from the land sale to the AATA. However, at least three different councilmembers have drafted modifications to the FY 2013 budget that would add firefighter positions: Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

Fire Protection – Use of Fund Balance

The two budget amendments drafted by Lumm and Teall are similar, in that they would bring the budgeted number of firefighters from 82 to 88 – for an addition of six, compared to the city administrator’s proposed budgeted levels.  They’re also similar in their approach to paying for the additional firefighter positions. Teall’s resolution stipulates the combination of a federal grant – for which the city has applied through a FEMA program called Staffing For Adequate Fire & Emergency Response Grants (SAFER) – and possible increases in the state of Michigan’s fire protection allocation to municipalities that are home to state-owned institutions.

The state fire protection grant program is based on the fact that state-owned institutions do not generate property tax revenues to the municipalities that must provide those state-owned institutions with fire protection. In Ann Arbor’s case, it’s the University of Michigan that generates no direct property taxes; but Ann Arbor provides fire protection for UM.

However, Teall’s resolution essentially provides direction to the city administration to tap the city’s fund balance reserve –  if a SAFER grant or additional funding from the state is not available or is insufficient. From a draft of Teall’s resolved clause:

RESOLVED, the City increase the General Fund Fire Services Unit FTEs by six, and funding for the positions totaling $477,594 ($79,599 per FTE) be added to the adopted budget, funded from the receipt of additional Fire Protection monies from the State, potential Grant Funds and the use of fund balance, as needed, from the General Fund.

Lumm’s resolution is similar:

RESOLVED, the Administrator’s proposed budget be amended to add six FTEs to the fire department FTE budget (88 FTE total) and $477,594 be added to the fire department GF expenditure budget to fund the expected cost of the six additional FTEs

RESOLVED,  the additional $477,594 in FY 13 GF expenditures be funded in the following priority order: (1) Revenues from the SAFER Grant (2) Revenues from the increase over the Administrator’s budgeted amount in the State Fire Protection Grant  …

Lumm’s draft amendment continues with contingencies for this year based on reducing funds from a possible High Speed Rail Local Match allocation; but it also includes the possibility of drawing on the general fund reserve.

It’s fair, I think, to describe the strategies of Lumm and Teall for funding additional firefighter positions (SAFER grant and increased fire protection grants from the state) as depending on revenues that might be recurring, but that are not yet in hand, and that currently have some uncertainty attached. Their amendments have in common a willingness to backstop that hoped-for revenue with use of the fund balance.

Otherwise put, their amendments have a backstop that would use non-recurring revenue to pay for recurring expenses. In contrast, Kunselman’s fire protection amendment does not depend on the general fund reserve as a backstop.

Fire Protection – Use of Recurring Revenue

In terms of the number of firefighters, Kunselman’s fire protection amendment is less ambitious. It seeks to add just two firefighter positions. However, his amendment identifies a recurring revenue source – the additional revenue that would be distributed to the city of Ann Arbor, if the city’s ordinance regulating the DDA’s TIF capture were interpreted in a particular way.

By way of background, in broad simple strokes, the DDA “captures” taxes that are levied in its downtown district by other taxing jurisdictions. But the DDA does not capture all the taxes levied. It captures only the taxes on the increment between the baseline value of a property and the value of built improvements on a property. And the Ann Arbor DDA captures taxes only on the initial increment – the difference between the property’s initial value, and the value after a site is developed – not on its later appreciation. In this way, it captures taxes that would otherwise go to the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Community College and the city of Ann Arbor.

The city’s ordinance on DDA tax capture appears to limit how much tax can be captured, based on the actual increase in value of property in the district, compared with the projected value in the DDA’s official TIF plan. From the relevant clause from Chapter 7 of the city code [emphasis and extra emphasis added]:

If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction, and increase in value of property newly constructed or existing property improved subsequent thereto, grows at a rate faster than that anticipated in the tax increment plan, at least 50% of such additional amounts shall be divided among the taxing units in relation to their proportion of the current tax levies. If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction grows at a rate of over twice that anticipated in the plan, all of such excess amounts over twice that anticipated shall be divided among the taxing units. Only after approval of the governmental units may these restrictions be removed. [.pdf of Ann Arbor city ordinance establishing the DDA]

Last year, the impact of Chapter 7 was pointed out for the first time by city financial staff. It resulted in a combined refund of roughly $473,000 from the DDA to the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw Community College and Washtenaw County. The city of Ann Arbor chose to waive its $712,000 share of the calculated excess. I argued in a column last year that the method of calculation for the excess was wrong, and that the amount returned should have been even greater. [See "Column: Tax Capture is a Varsity Sport"]

Subsequently, the DDA reversed its legal position and contended that no money should have been returned at all. The DDA’s position is based on the following clause of Chapter 7:

Tax funds that are paid to the downtown development authority due to the captured assessed value shall first be used to pay the required amounts into the bond and interest redemption funds and the required reserves thereto. Thereafter, the funds shall be distributed as set forth above or shall be divided among the taxing units in relation to their proportion of the current tax levies.

Without delving into the details of how these TIF calculations work, Kunselman’s budget amendment calls for a Chapter 7 interpretation that is essentially consistent with the one I’ve argued for in the past. It results this year in roughly $200,000 more for the city’s general fund, which Kunselman proposes to use to fund two firefighter positions. From Kunselman’s draft resolution:

RESOLVED, That City Council directs the DDA to interpret and apply Chapter 7 of City Code using:

• both real and personal property,
• the “realistic” capture projection from the 2003 DDA Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Plan,
• a cumulative comparison of projected capture to actual capture; and
• consideration of only debt service payments for TIF related projects (i.e. exclude all debt service for the construction, maintenance, and management of the City’s parking system).

RESOLVED, That City Council directs the City Treasurer to distribute future TIF revenue to the DDA only up to the amount that would be realized in the plan plus any increases that are permissible in Chapter 7;

RESOLVED, That City Council directs the City Treasurer to distribute the excess amounts of future TIF revenue to the taxing authorities from which they were captured; and

RESOLVED, That the increased revenue to the General Fund in the amount of $199,360 be utilized to increase the Fire Department expenditure authorization in FY 2013 and to increase the authorized number of Fire FTEs by 2 positions.

Based on this “cumulative” approach to Chapter 7, the amount of additional revenue will recur.

So it’s fair to think of Kunselman’s proposed Chapter 7 interpretation as roughly approximating the following: From this point forward, new development in the DDA district will directly benefit the district’s taxing jurisdictions – by an amount equal to half the TIF that the DDA would otherwise capture on that new development. Considering all jurisdictions that have their taxes captured by the DDA, the city of Ann Arbor’s rough proportional share (across all funds) is about 60%. So the city of Ann Arbor’s rough benefit from the future new development would be about 30% of the TIF that the DDA would otherwise capture.

Four major projects in downtown will be completed in the next year or two, resulting in additional recurring revenue that the city of Ann Arbor could budget. Those four projects are: the Landmark Building, The Varsity, City Apartments, and Zaragon West.

If Ann Arbor’s proportional share of captured taxes is 60%, what about that other 40% of the TIF?

Inter-Governmental Cooperation

Other than the city of Ann Arbor’s share, the other 40% of the taxes captured by the Ann Arbor DDA are levied by the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw County, and Washtenaw Community College.

The way that the Chapter 7 interpretation played out last year did not serve the city of Ann Arbor’s long-term interests for collaboration and cooperation, in the context of the city’s natural regional partners. Last year, when the Chapter 7 issue arose, the issue should have been identified for all parties who had a stake in the issue. Then, a mutual understanding could have been reached – by the  Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Community College, the city of Ann Arbor, and the Ann Arbor DDA – about the interpretation and method of calculation for excess TIF capture.

Instead, when the Chapter 7 issue was first identified, the method of calculating excess TIF was unilaterally decided by the DDA, with the implicit endorsement of the city of Ann Arbor. Also decided unilaterally was the subsequent interpretation of Chapter 7 by the DDA as not requiring any TIF to be returned – last year or in the future. At the time, Larry Whitworth, who was then president of Washtenaw Community College, told The Chronicle that he was disturbed by the DDA’s decision. As recently as March 19, 2012, Josie Parker – director of the Ann Arbor District Library – has expressed a willingness to have a conversation with the DDA about the issue, because she sees the TIF capture issue differently from the DDA.

If the city of Ann Arbor and the Ann Arbor DDA don’t want to invite the other taxing jurisdictions to the table to work out a mutually agreeable interpretation and method of calculating excess TIF capture, then Ann Arbor’s wisest long-term choice is to defend the interests of those not at the table.

What Kunselman’s amendment says to other taxing jurisdictions is this: You can trust Ann Arbor to defend your interests, when your interests depend on the city doing the right thing. Otherwise put: Ann Arbor knows how to be a good neighbor.

Recess, Reconvene

Of course, if the city council were simply to approve Kunselman’s amendment Monday night, they’d be doing that without giving the DDA a seat at the table. That’s partly why I think it’s reasonable for the council to allow the DDA sufficient time to present the city council with a revised 10-year budget plan (a tool the DDA uses for long-range planning) that factors in Kunselman’s proposed Chapter 7 interpretation and method of calculation.

That additional window of time could be achieved by recessing Monday’s council meeting and reconvening it a week later. The additional time would also allow the city council enough time to absorb the substance of Kunselman’s proposed amendment, and to satisfy itself that the DDA would still be able to meet all its financial obligations.

For some councilmembers, it will be difficult to see anything more in Kunselman’s amendment than a continued pattern on Kunselman’s part to use the DDA as a political punching bag, or as yet another way for the council to use the DDA as an ATM machine. As I’ve outlined in this column, I think the substance of Kunselman’s amendment deserves more than that kind of knee-jerk reaction.

In fact, it would not be unreasonable to hope that Teall, Kunselman and Lumm could use the additional time to sit down together and hammer out a fire protection budget amendment they could jointly present to the full council. Kunselman’s amendment could be a starting point for their conversation.

The council could also use the additional time to allow themselves and the public to get more familiar with the substance of at least nine other amendments that might eventually be voted on. [.pdf of set 1 of amendments] [.pdf of set 2 of amendments]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the city of Ann Arbor. 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 decision came after the state Bureau of Elections indicated late Friday afternoon that a determination made by county clerk Larry Kestenbaum earlier in the week was inappropriate. Ed Golembiewski, chief deputy county clerk and elections director, told The Chronicle on Saturday that Borregard had been apprised of the situation, and will be officially informed in writing on Monday, when his name will be removed from the list of candidates on the county’s election website.

Republican Dan Smith, shown here chairing the May 16 meeting of the Washtenaw County board's ways & means committee, represents District 2 on the board of commissioners. He will be the only candidate on the ballot in District 2 for the Aug. 7 primary. (Photo by the writer.)

Borregard, a Dexter resident, had originally filed to run in District 1, which is the current district in which he resides. However, because of redistricting that takes effect for the upcoming election, his home will be located in the new District 2. Shortly after the 4 p.m. filing deadline on Tuesday, May 15, the county clerk’s office was alerted to this error by Kent Martinez-Kratz, a Democrat who’s running in District 1 against incumbent Republican Rob Turner. Acting to correct what he deemed a clerical error, Kestenbaum, a Democrat, approved an amendment to Borregard’s paperwork to allow him to appear on the District 2 ballot.

On Friday afternoon at 2 p.m., Kestenbaum told The Chronicle that he had talked with the county’s corporation counsel [Curtis Hedger] earlier in the week, as well as to staff in the state Bureau of Elections, and that he was comfortable that the change was within his authority to make. He said it was important not to create barriers to running for office. “There’s no trickery here,” he said.

Later that afternoon, Secretary of State spokesman Fred Woodhams told The Chronicle that staff were reviewing the situation and would potentially weigh on in it early next week. The Bureau of Elections is a division of the office of Secretary of State, a position held by Republican Ruth Johnson.

But just a few minutes before 5 p.m. on Friday, an official from the Bureau of Elections contacted the county clerk’s office, according to Golembiewski. The state’s view is that it was not appropriate to accept changes to the filing after the 4 p.m. deadline. As a result, Borregard’s name will not appear on the ballot. Kestenbaum left town Friday afternoon to attend an out-of-state funeral over the weekend and could not be reached. Golembiewski said that Kestenbaum had previously indicated he would abide by the state Bureau of Elections decision.

Borregard, who ran for county commissioner in 2010 but was defeated in the Democratic primary, has the option of challenging the decision in court. He could also choose to run as an independent in the Nov. 6 general election – the filing deadline for candidates who are not affiliated with a political party is July 19 at 4 p.m.

In another county board race, two Ypsilanti Township candidates who had previously filed to run for the commissioner seat in District 5 – Rick Roe and Michael White – have withdrawn from that Aug. 7 primary race. The deadline to withdraw was 4 p.m. Friday, May 18. That leaves incumbent Democrat Rolland Sizemore Jr. unchallenged in the primary.

For a list of county candidates in the Aug. 7 primary election, see Chronicle coverage: “Last Minute Filings: Washtenaw County Races.”

District 2 Ballot

Eric Borregard filed his affidavit to become a Democratic candidate for the Washtenaw County board of commissioners on March 8, 2012. He has run for office several times in the past, most recently in 2010 for the District 1 county board seat. In that race, he lost in the three-way August primary to Adam Zemke, earning 15.06% of the vote compared to 69.98% for Zemke and 14.69% for the other Democratic candidate, Reid McCarthy. Zemke was subsequently defeated by Republican Rob Turner in the general election.

When candidates file their paperwork to run for office, the county clerk’s staff checks to confirm the accuracy of information submitted by candidates by using the Michigan Qualified Voter File, a database maintained by the state. Initially, county clerk Larry Kestenbaum told The Chronicle that the day after Borregard filed for the 2012 election, the clerk’s staff checked the QVF and found that it listed Borregard as a resident of District 1. Kestenbaum explained this by saying that the state had not yet updated the QVF to reflect the new county districts.

But on Friday night, Ed Golembiewski, chief deputy county clerk and elections director, told The Chronicle that the state disputed that claim and that the QVF had been updated by the time that Borregard had filed in March. Golembiewski said he checked the county’s records again on Friday night and found that, in fact, the QVF had been updated at the time of Borregard’s original filing. It now appears that the candidate filed to run in the incorrect district, and the county clerk’s staff didn’t catch the error when reviewing Borregard’s paperwork.

The error came to the attention of the clerk’s staff a few minutes after the 4 p.m. filing deadline on Tuesday, May 15, when Kent Martinez-Kratz, the only other Democrat running in District 1, contacted the clerk’s office. At that point, Kestenbaum decided to offer Borregard the opportunity to amend his affidavit to reflect the correct district – District 2. Borregard submitted that amendment at 5:22 p.m. on May 15, more than an hour after the filing deadline.

Dan Smith, who was first elected in 2010 for a term beginning in January 2011, is unopposed in the Republican primary. And other than Borregard, no other Democratic candidates filed in District 2. Kestenbaum reported that Smith had inquired about the timeline of events regarding Borregard’s filing, and on Thursday, May 17 the county clerk’s staff prepared a written timeline at Smith’s request. [.pdf of timeline from clerk's office]

In an interview with The Chronicle early Friday afternoon, May 18, Kestenbaum said that he had consulted with the county’s corporation counsel and staff at the state Bureau of Elections, and “as far as I’m concerned, it’s settled.” Borregard filed in a timely matter, and filed in the district he believed was correct – and the clerk’s staff had confirmed that information, Kestenbaum said. He said it wasn’t the candidate’s fault that the QVF hadn’t been updated. [At the time of his conversation with The Chronicle, Kestenbaum asserted that the QVF had not been up to date.]

Kestenbaum said his general philosophy is to err on the side of letting people run for office so that voters can decide, and not create barriers to getting on the ballot. He noted that there was a special election on May 8 based on the current districts for the county board, while at the same time candidates were filing for races in the new districts. [Democrat Felicia Brabec won that May 8 election against Republican Richard Conn – a special election prompted by last year's resignation of former commissioner Kristin Judge.]

Regardless, Kestenbaum said, his office should have checked the candidates’ addresses against a map of the new county board districts, but they didn’t. Borregard relied on confirmation by the clerk’s office that his filing was accurate, Kestenbaum said.

[By way of background, Kestenbaum – a former county commissioner who represented one of Ann Arbor's districts – chaired the county apportionment commission, which developed and approved the county board redistricting plan in May of 2011. Other members of the apportionment commission were county treasurer Catherine McClary; county prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie; Cleveland Chandler, chair of the Washtenaw County Democratic Party; and Mark Boonstra, then-chair of the Washtenaw County Republican Committee. See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Loses 2 Seats in Redistricting."]

Redistricting occurs every 10 years, in connection with the U.S. Census. So it would be rare for confusion about the district boundaries to arise in connection with candidate filings. Kestenbaum characterized it as a clerical error, and did not recall encountering any similar cases for this type of race.

Before the state weighed in, Kestenbaum had said that if Smith was aggrieved by the decision to include Borregard on the District 2 ballot, he had the option of filing a lawsuit in the 22nd Circuit Court. Now, Borregard would have that same option. Kestenbaum was uncertain whether there is a deadline by which such a filing would need to occur. Golembiewski noted that the ballots will be approved by the county board of election commissioners, which meets on June 11.

Kestenbaum, as county clerk, also serves on the board of election commissioners. Other members are the county treasurer (McClary) and Donald Shelton, chief judge of the 22nd Circuit Court. Kestenbaum and McClary were elected clerk and treasurer as Democrats, and are both running for re-election this year. Shelton was elected judge on a non-partisan ballot, but in the past has run for office as a Democrat. This group is also responsible for ruling on the clarity of ballot language for recall petitions, for example.

Ballots for the Aug. 7 primary elections will begin to be created as early as next week. The county contracts with Government Business Systems (GBS) to do its ballot programming.

Borregard also has the option to run as an independent in the Nov. 6 general election – the filing deadline for candidates who are not affiliated with a political party is July 19 at 4 p.m.

When asked about the partisan implications of this situation, Kestenbaum said he would have done the exact same thing if Borregard had been a Republican. “In fact, I wish it were a Republican,” he added, so that the partisan question would be irrelevant. He said he detests political considerations being a factor in what goes on the ballot, citing his disagreement with a recent decision by the state Board of State Canvassers as an example. That board denied approving petitions to put a repeal of the state’s emergency manager law on the ballot because the petitions weren’t circulated with the font size required by law. That decision is being appealed.

In a phone conversation with The Chronicle on Friday afternoon before the state weighed in, Smith had said he wasn’t prepared to make a statement on the issue. He had planned to talk with people about it over the weekend at the Republican state convention in Detroit – Smith is a delegate from Precinct 3 in Northfield Township.

Update: Late Sunday night, May 20, Dan Smith emailed this statement to The Chronicle: “Mr. Kestenbaum has jeopardized the transparency and integrity of the Clerk’s office; undermining the hard work of the dedicated public servants under his supervision. However, a detailed accounting at this time would do little to advance the concerns of those in the 2nd district. My focus remains on the residents of Washtenaw County: providing for their public safety needs, being accountable for their tax dollars, and ensuring the long-term financial stability of their government.”

Matt Kowalski, right, gives a report on recommendations from the R4C/R2A advisory committee at a May 8, 2012 work session of the Ann Arbor planning commission. Next to him is Tony Derezinski, a planning commissioner and city council member who served on the advisory committee. To the left is Wendy Carman, an advisory committee member who took issue with some aspects of the final report. Two other committee members – Eppie Potts and Julie Weatherbee – attended the working session.

Both kinds of zoning districts were established in the 1960s, and applied to existing neighborhoods. R4C allows for multiple-family residential dwellings, such as apartment buildings, while R2A zoning limits density to two-family residential structures. Planning manager Wendy Rampson described the R4C zoning as “broken” –and most of the committee recommendations relate to R4C districts.

Concerns about R4C/R2A districts have been raised since at least the mid-1980s, and are tied to the question of how dense these areas can be. Although there were smaller projects that caused concern,  two more recent large housing proposals – The Moravian, and City Place – brought the issue to the forefront for people on both sides of the density debate.

In particular, the controversial City Place project on South Fifth Avenue, which combined multiple lots and demolished seven residential houses to build two apartment buildings, has been cited as an example of the need to address R4C zoning. City Place changes the streetscape of that neighborhood, but is analyzed as conforming to current zoning code.

The final committee report includes 10 recommendations, with accompanying analysis. [.pdf of recommendations] The major recommendations relate to: (1) rebuilding structures that don’t conform to existing zoning; (2) rezoning certain areas from R4C to R2A; (3) reducing minimum lot sizes and minimum lot widths; (4) exploring the creation of zoning overlay districts; (5) revising density calculations; (6) revising parking standards; and (7) changing requirements for lot combinations.

Commissioners praised the work of the committee, but much of the discussion related to future process: What are the next steps to take, now that the report has been completed? It’s likely that the group’s ordinance revisions committee will tackle the job of making recommendations for specific ordinance language to implement the changes. Those ordinance revisions would then be reviewed by the planning commission, which would forward its recommendations to city council.

In terms of content, commissioners mostly focused on the idea of overlay districts, which would be a way of preserving the character of different, distinct R4C neighborhoods. Commissioner Bonnie Bona floated the concept of form-based code as an option. Described in a very general way, a form-based approach tends to be more proscriptive regarding the types of buildings that the community wants to see in a particular district, including their design. In contrast, traditional zoning typically sets an allowable range of uses, sizes, placements, and other aspects for a development, but generally leaves the details of those decisions to the developer.

It was generally acknowledged that either approach – form-based or one with overlay districts – would be a complex issue to tackle.

Three advisory committee members – Wendy Carman, Ethel “Eppie” Potts, and Julie Weatherbee – attended the May 8 session. Carman and Potts spoke during public commentary to amplify written comments they had provided as supplements to the report, expressing concerns that some aspects of the report don’t accurately reflect the committee’s views.

During the May 8 session, commissioners also were updated on the city’s sustainability goals, which they’ll be asked to vote on at their May 15 meeting. This report focuses only on the R4C/R2A portion of the working session.

R4C/R2A Zoning: Background

The city of Ann Arbor has undertaken several major initiatives to overhaul regulations related to development. Two of those  are completed: A2D2 (downtown zoning) and AHP (revisions to area, height and placement requirements). A third one, ZORO (zoning ordinance reorganization), which is a comprehensive zoning code review, is wrapping up. The city council was briefed on a consultant’s report on ZORO at its May 14, 2012 working session.

Another major initiative has been the review of R4C (multiple-family residential dwelling) and R2A (two-family residential dwelling) districts, which were set up in the 1960s, The issue has been around since at least the mid-1980s. At that time, city planning staff conducted a review of the North Burns Park area, which ultimately led to a downzoning of that neighborhood to R2A from R2B – a zoning category that allows for group housing like fraternities and sororities. The sense at that time was that R4C districts were appropriate places for greater density and student housing.

That sentiment is reflected in the city’s central area plan, which was developed in the early 1990s and later incorporated into the city’s master plan. [.pdf of central area map] The central area plan included several recommendations related to zoning, but the planning commission at that time didn’t act on those proposed changes.

The issue emerged again a few years ago, when there seemed to be a change in attitude about whether R4C was still appropriate for certain areas in the city. In particular, residents in Lower Burns Park lobbied for rezoning of R4C districts to R2A or R1A (single-family houses). And in October of 2007, the council passed a resolution directing planning staff to explore rezoning in that neighborhood. According to reports in the Ann Arbor News, in late 2007 the planning commission recommended that only Golden Avenue be downzoned to R1D (single family) – a recommendation that the council approved on Feb. 19, 2008. Other parts of Lower Burns Park were not rezoned.

At that same Feb. 19, 2008 meeting, the council unanimously passed a resolution directing the planning commission and planning staff to do a more comprehensive review of residential zoning in the central area. However, no action resulted from that resolution. A nearly identical resolution was introduced a year later by Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) – which the council passed at its March 2, 2009 meeting.

The resolution identifies the rationale for undertaking this zoning review effort:

Whereas, the Central Area Plan, dated December 21, 1992, recommends four Implementation Program “Priority Action Strategies” as follows:

• HN1 – Analyze zoning nonconformities related to area, height and placement regulations for the Central Area neighborhoods and determine if amendments are needed to make the regulations more consistent with established development patterns;
• HN12 – Amend the zoning ordinance and map to clearly identify areas to be maintained or encouraged as housing;
• HN14 – Reinforce student neighborhoods in the area south and west of Central Campus by developing new zoning definitions and standards that support organized group housing opportunities;
• HP17 – Develop site design standards that encourage creative design while maintaining sensitivity for existing neighborhood character;

Whereas, The Non-Motorized Plan, dated December 6, 2006, provides guidance for land use and zoning to support walking, bicycling and transit;

Whereas, The Downtown Plan, amended December 1992, recommends in Section III to protect the livability of residentially-zoned areas adjacent to downtown;

Whereas, A majority of the lots in the residential districts in the Central Area are non-conforming due to lot size and lot width, and a significant number require variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals to make modifications or additions to the existing non-conforming structures;

Whereas, The resolution of October 15, 2007 directing the City Planning Commission to review rezoning in the Lower Burns Park neighborhood revealed (through the staff report, public hearing, written public comments and Planning Commission discussion) the need to review the R2A and R4C zoning districts more comprehensively within the Central Area rather than one isolated neighborhood at a time;

Whereas, The City Planning Commission believes that modifications to the zoning and ordinance requirements for residential districts in the Central Area could enhance the livability of these neighborhoods for owner-occupants and renters through a comprehensive review and appropriate changes to the minimum lot size, minimum lot width, setback, density, building height, open space, parking, landscaping and possibly other site related issues; and

Whereas, The City Council has requested that the Planning Commission and City staff find ways to reduce the need for developers to utilize Planned Project development applications as a way to accomplish the City’s goal to ensure that development proposals are more sustainable and that all efforts involving changes to City Zoning regulations involve extensive public involvement …

That resolution led to the formation, in the summer of 2009, of an advisory committee that was charged with studying the R4C/R2A issue, getting input from the public and community stakeholders, and presenting recommendations to the planning commission and city council for possible changes in these zoning districts. The committee convened for the first time in December of 2009.

One of two apartment buildings in the City Place development on South Fifth Avenue, south of William. Walking in front on his way to the library is local attorney Kurt Berggren.

Underpinning discussions of changes to R4C/R2A is the question of how much dense these areas should be. Though there were smaller projects that caused concern, two large housing proposals in particular – The Moravian, and City Place – brought the debate to the forefront for people on both sides of the issue.

The Moravian, a five-story, 62-unit building proposed for the section of East Madison Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues near downtown Ann Arbor, was ultimately rejected by the city council in April of 2010. It was proposed as a planned unit development (PUD), located in an area zoned R4C.

City Place is a “by right” housing project that was proposed in an R4C district on the east side of South Fifth Avenue just south of William. Approved by the council in September 2009, it called for tearing down several older houses and constructing two new apartment buildings. However, its developer, Alex de Parry, subsequently proposed a different project on that same site (Heritage Row) – which would have renovated the houses and built new apartment buildings behind them. That project, a planned unit development (PUD), was rejected by the council.

Earlier,  in in July 2009, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) had proposed a moratorium in R4C/R2A districts, with the intent of halting the Moravian and City Place projects until the advisory committee work was completed. The moratorium was voted down at the council’s Aug. 6, 2009 meeting, though a different moratorium was approved at that same meeting. It applied to demolition only in a limited geographic area. It was the assigned area of study for a committee appointed by the council to weigh the possibility of establishing a historic district there – a two-block area just south of William Street on Fourth and Fifth avenues. The study committee recommended establishing a historic district in the area, but that recommendation was rejected by the council, and the moratorium expired.

Subsequently, de Parry sold his interest in the City Place development and the new owners moved ahead with that project – it is now well underway and is expected to be finished later this year. [Chronicle timeline of events related to the City Place project.]

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report

The planning commission had first been briefed on a draft report of the R4C/R2A committee at a June 2011 working session. At that time, planning staff had indicated that the committee had been unable to reach consensus on the recommendations, and  frustration about the outcome was expressed by two planning commissioners who had been appointed to the committee – Jean Carlberg and Tony Derezinski. [Carlberg's term on the planning commission ended on June 30, 2011 and she did not seek reappointment.]

Yet advisory committee members disputed the characterization that they couldn’t reach consensus, and continued to work on the report.

Since meeting for the first time in December of 2009, the committee has met a total of 11 times, and provided feedback and input via email and individual communications with planning staff. Opportunities for public commentary were provided during the committee meetings, and members of the group met with various stakeholders, including representatives of neighborhood associations, landlords, city boards and commissions, city rental housing inspectors, and students. An online survey was also emailed to all University of Michigan students, receiving more than 240 responses.

Some of the members of the R4C/R2A advisory committee at a November 2011 meeting.

Committee members are: Chuck Carver (rental property owner representative), Ilene Tyler and David Merchant (Ward 1 residents), Wendy Carman and Carl Luckenbach (Ward 2 residents), Ellen Rambo and Michele Derr (Ward 3 residents), Julie Weatherbee and Nancy Leff (Ward 4 residents), Ethel Potts (Ward 5 resident), Tony Derezinski (city council representative), Jean Carlberg (former planning commission representative). Anya Dale, who had previously served on the committee as a Ward 5 resident, was not listed in the final report.

The final report includes 10 recommendations, with accompanying analysis. [.pdf of recommendations] The major recommendations relate to: (1) rebuilding structures that don’t conform to existing zoning; (2) rezoning certain areas from R4C to R2A; (3) reducing minimum lot sizes and minimum lot widths; (4) exploring the creation of zoning overlay districts; (5) revising density calculations; (6) revising parking standards; and (7) changing requirements for lot combinations.

The report also recommends no changes to zoning for rooming houses or group housing (such as fraternities or sororities).

Aside from a general recommendation regarding non-conformance, the recommendations all relate to R4C districts. The report did address R2A zoning, but noted that the issues for that zoning district were minimal. No changes to lot area, lot width, density or parking were proposed for R2A, though the committee suggested downzoning some current R4C districts to R2A.

City planner Matt Kowalski was the city staff point person for the R4C/R2A committee, and he briefed commissioners on the report at their May 8 working session. Three committee members – Wendy Carman, Ethel “Eppie” Potts, and Julie Weatherbee – attended the session. Carman and Potts spoke during public commentary to amplify written comments they’d provided as supplements to the report, expressing concerns that some aspects of the report don’t accurately reflect the committee’s views. Their remarks are reported below.

The report’s introduction ends with this caveat:

Due to the complexity and extent of the issues identified, the goal of the study was not to reach consensus on all issues, but rather to identify possible solutions based on majority opinion of the Advisory Committee. The draft recommendations below are the best effort at addressing the concerns of the Advisory Committee and the general public, and represent the majority opinion of the Advisory Committee.

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Non-Conformance

The report’s first recommendation relates to zoning non-conformance. The fact that many structures don’t currently conform to R4C/R2A zoning was a big issue, Kowalsk told commissioners. As an example, existing zoning requires an 8,500-square-foot lot area, but 83% of parcels don’t meet that requirement, he said. Many of the current buildings were constructed before existing zoning standards, and are non-conforming – especially related to lot size and setbacks. If a building is destroyed, current ordinances would require that whatever is rebuilt would need to conform to existing zoning.

Most of the committee and the overwhelming public feedback were in favor of keeping the existing streetscape in R4C/R2A neighborhoods, Kowalski said. So the committee supported allowing buildings to be reconstructed, under certain conditions, with a similar size and dimensions as the original structure, even though the new building would not conform to zoning.

Recommendation: Chapter 55, Section 5:87 (Structure Non-Conformance) should be revised to allow reconstruction of non-conforming structures in R2A and R4C districts when construction meets all of  the following standards:

• Allow the ability to re-construct a structure if damaged due to fire, flood, or other calamity. Reconstruction should not be allowed in the case of voluntary destruction or demolition by neglect.
• Establish time limit (18 months) on how long after destruction the reconstruction of a non-conforming structure is permitted.
• Establish time limit (18 months) on building completion, once construction has started.
• Require that replacement structures must be of similar style, placement, massing dimensions of the original structure and character as the building before destruction.
• This section would apply to non-conforming structures only, and does not include non-conforming uses.

Two recommendations related to non-conformance that were in the original draft report presented at the June 2011 working session were subsequently removed, and are not in the final report:

• Allow non-conforming multiple-family structures to add units and floor area without ZBA [Zoning Board of Appeals] approval, if the additional units or floor area is located within the existing building footprint. Additional units must meet density requirements; however structure can be non-conforming for lot area and setbacks.
• Allow for additions to existing multiple-family structures without ZBA approval if the addition complies with all setback and required open space standards for that district. This is currently permitted for single-family houses ONLY.

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: R2A District

No significant changes were proposed for the R2A zoning districts. Many of the issues that arise in R4C districts aren’t a problem in R2A neighborhoods, Kowalski said. Aside from the non-conformance changes, the report does not recommend any changes to R2A lot area, lot width, density, setbacks or parking.

However, the committee does recommend that some areas now zoned R4C would be more appropriately zoned as R2A. [See R4C Rezoning section below.]

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: R4C Rezoning

Kowalski said the committee looked at recommendations from the city’s central area plan, which was adopted in 1992. Many things have changed over the past 20 years, he said, so those recommendations aren’t all applicable.

According to Chapter 55, Section 5:10.8 of the city’s zoning code (for multiple-family dwelling districts),  the R4C zoning is intended for the central area of the city, near to the central business district and the University of Michigan. However, there are some parcels outside of the central area that are also zoned R4C, Kowalski noted – along South State Street, for example. It wouldn’t be appropriate to apply some of the recommended R4C zoning changes to those parcels, so the report suggests downzoning those areas:

Recommendation: Select areas should be rezoned from R4C to R2A and additional study be given to other areas that could warrant rezoning based on current conditions. Large R4C parcels outside of the Central Area should be rezoned to a more appropriate zoning district.

The 1992 central area plan recommended that another specific area be rezoned from R4C to R2A – the  Hoover/Davis neighborhood. That recommendation was supported by the current advisory committee. [The previous draft report had also specifically recommended rezoning the Dewey/Packard/Brookwood area to R2A, but that reference is omitted from the final report.]

The final report notes that there might be other areas where rezoning should be considered, stating that “but more research is needed in order to determine where additional rezonings are appropriate based on a more detailed analysis of existing land uses.”

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report:  Minimum Lot Size/Lot Width/Setbacks

“This was a big one,” Kowalski told commissioners. The existing minimum lot size in R4C districts is 8,500 square feet, but 83% of parcels – 1,970 lots – are non-conforming for this requirement. The majority of these parcels are also non-conforming for lot width. The committee felt it was important to bring zoning closer to the established development in these areas.

Recommendations: Reduce the minimum lot size to 4,350 square feet for all parcels in R4C zoning districts. Require the minimum lot width requirement for existing original platted lots and reduce the minimum lot width to 40 feet if not an original platted lot. No changes to existing setbacks are proposed.

Kowalski noted that the current average R4C lot size is 6,052 square feet – but he said he did not include large church lots or UM property in his calculations of that average. The proposed recommendation would bring 875 lots into conformance. If the proposed revisions are implemented, 62% of R4C lots would conform to the minimum lot area requirement. [The draft report from 2011 had recommended a reduction of minimum lot sizes to 4,000 square feet for all parcels in R4C zoning district and elimination of the minimum lot width requirement.]

The final report’s recommendation not to change existing setbacks, which are 12 feet on each side, will help reduce the scale of new construction and prevent larger additions from being built closer to the property lines, according to the report. Existing setbacks could help preserve the scale and massing of existing streetscapes, the report states.

The report notes that when combined with a revised density standard (see below), the changes could allow for more flexibility in configuring new buildings or remodeling existing buildings. The revisions could also result in increased density for some parcels, according to the report.

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Overlay District

Kowalski noted that R4C neighborhoods differ widely. Some R4C areas have tiny lots with almost no setbacks, while in other parts of the city – like the Oakland neighborhood – lots have 60-70 foot setbacks. You can also find everything in between those two extremes, he said.

To create one set of regulations for all neighborhoods would be really difficult, he said. One of the goals is to preserve what already exists, so overlay districts could be used to “customize” regulations and keep future development compatible with the current streetscape.

Recommendation: Zoning overlay districts should be explored as a tool for protecting massing, setbacks and streetscape of unique neighborhoods experiencing redevelopment pressure within the R4C zone. Overlay districts should be implemented on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson likened the R4C overlay districts to those created for D1 and D2 zoning, as part of the A2D2 zoning process.

According to the report, the advisory committee identified several issues that an overlay district might address:

• Out-of scale development: A maximum building footprint could be instituted based on the historic development patterns of the neighborhood.
• Design not compatible with neighborhoods: Guidelines can be developed on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis to control general massing and front setbacks.
• Increased/decreased flexibility of site design: For example, an overlay district could be created that modifies the area, height and placement (AHP) standard based on existing development pattern for a selected neighborhood.

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Density Calculation

Committee members felt that the current way of calculating density acts as an incentive for a developer to add more bedrooms, Kowalski said. Specifically, current zoning encourages the construction of six-bedroom units, because the same minimum lot area is required (2,175 square feet per unit) no matter what size the units are – one-bedroom or six-bedroom. The report notes that the majority of units recently built in R4C districts have had six bedrooms – and those typically appeal more to students, compared to other potential renters.

Recommendation: Adopt a graduated scale of calculating density based on the total number of bedrooms provided in each unit. As detailed below, the majority of the committee recommends requiring 2,175 square feet of lot area per unit for 0-4 bedroom units and 3,000 square feet of lot area for 5-6 bedroom units.

The committee received strong input that a mix of bedroom unit sizes – from one to six bedrooms – was desired, Kowalski said. According to the report, a majority of committee members support code revisions that would encourage construction of units with four bedrooms or fewer, and discourage five- or six-bedroom units. Existing zoning code regulates only the number of occupants in a unit, not the number of bedrooms.

The new density calculation relies on the interplay of (1) lot size, (2) required lot area per unit, and (3) caps on the number of bedrooms/occupants. The report states that when combined with proposed reductions in lot area/width, the proposed graduated scale will create incentives to build smaller units with fewer bedrooms per unit.

As an example for comparison, the existing minimum lot size in R4C districts is 8,500 square feet. A lot that size currently allows for up to three units with as many as six occupants each, or as many as 18 occupants/bedrooms total. Under proposed density standards, up to three units would also be allowed on that same size lot if the units have 0-4 bedrooms each, based on the requirement of 2,175-square-feet per unit. So under the proposed standards, only up to 12 bedrooms, not 18, would be allowed.

What happens with the proposed minimum lot size of 4,350 square feet? For a lot that size, the proposed density standard (with the requirement of 2,175-square-feet per unit), only two units with 0-4 bedrooms would be allowed – or a maximum of eight bedrooms. Six occupants would still be allowed for each of those two units however, for a maximum of 12 occupants. (A limit of 20 units per acre would remain in place in these examples. One acre is 43,560 square feet.)

Or consider again a 8,500-square-foot lot, but built with 5-6 bedroom units. Under the proposed density standard, which requires 3,000 feet for each 5-6 bedroom unit, only two units would be allowed – which is a maximum of 12 occupants/bedrooms. Currently, as many as 18 occupants/bedrooms are allowed on a lot that size.

Another feature of the proposed density standard, which applies to 5-6 bedroom units, would drop the maximum number of such units per acre from 20 to 14.

For a 4,350-square-foot lot, only one unit with 5-6 bedrooms would be allowed under the proposed density requirements – or a maximum of six occupants.

The report lays out proposed regulations for the two different unit types – 0-4 bedroom units, and 5-6 bedroom units:

Type A: 0-4 bedrooms: 2,175-square-foot lot area required per unit

• EXISTING: An 8,500-square-foot lot will permit 3 units, 20 units per acre maximum (up to a maximum of 18 occupants at 6 per unit and up to 18 bedrooms). Maximum occupancy is based on bedroom size under the housing code, but capped at 6 unrelated occupants per unit.
• PROPOSED new density standard: An 8,500-square-foot lot would permit 3 units, 20 units per acre maximum (up to a maximum of 18 occupants at 6 per unit and up to 12 bedrooms). Maximum occupancy is based on bedroom size under the housing code, but capped at 6 unrelated occupants per unit.
• NEW MINIMUM LOT SIZE: A 4,350-square-foot lot would permit a maximum of 2 units (with a maximum 4 bedrooms each and up to a maximum of 12 occupants, or a total maximum of 8 bedrooms). Maximum occupancy is based on bedroom size under the housing code, but capped at 6 unrelated occupants per unit.

Type B: 5-6 bedrooms: 3,000-square-foot lot area required per unit

• EXISTING: An 8,500-square-foot lot will permit 3 units, 20 units per acre maximum (up to a maximum of 18 occupants at 6 per unit and up to 18 bedrooms). Maximum occupancy is based on bedroom size under the housing code, but capped at 6 unrelated occupants per unit.
• PROPOSED new density standard: An 8,500-square-foot lot would permit 2 units, 14 units per acre maximum (up to a maximum of 12 occupants and up to 12 bedrooms). Maximum occupancy is based on bedroom size (in square feet) under the housing code, but capped at 6 unrelated occupants per unit.
• NEW MINIMUM LOT SIZE: A 4,350-square-foot lot would permit a maximum of 1 unit (with a maximum of 6 bedrooms and a maximum of 6 occupants). Maximum occupancy is based on bedroom size (in square feet) under the housing code, but capped at 6 unrelated occupants per unit.

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Rooming Houses/Group Housing

No changes were proposed for zoning related to rooming houses or group housing, such as fraternities, sororities and co-operatives. The existing 8,500-square-foot lot requirement and parking requirement are recommended to remain in place. For group housing, a requirement to obtain a special exception use from the planning commission would also remain unchanged.

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Parking Standard

Kowalski described parking standards as another big issue. Currently, the same number of parking spaces – 1.5 spaces per unit – are required, regardless of how many bedrooms are in each unit. It was felt that this approach encourages developers to put more bedrooms per unit, he said. Committee members and public participation indicated a strong desire to encourage a mix of different number of bedrooms per unit, so a graduated scale of parking requirements is recommended.

Recommendation: Adopt a graduated scale of calculating required parking based on unit type (above), increasing parking requirements as number of bedrooms in units increase. The Advisory Committee also recommends investigating an off-site parking storage concept and other alternative parking methods.

The recommendation calls for keeping the same parking requirement – 1.5 spaces per unit – for units with 0-4 bedrooms, but increasing the requirement to 2 spaces per unit for units with 5-6 bedrooms.

The 2011 draft report had recommended a more fine-grained parking requirement, corresponding to the three recommended unit types: 0.5 spaces for each 0-2 bedroom unit; 1 space for each 3-4 bedroom unit; and 2 spaces for each 5-6 bedroom unit.

According to the final report, a majority of committee members felt that the parking requirement shouldn’t control a building’s site design, and that open space shouldn’t be converted to parking in order to meet the requirement. But some committee members expressed concern about ensuring adequate on-site parking. The report states that the committee also recommends that parking requirements be studied further, in conjunction with all the other R4C recommendations.

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Lot Combinations

Lot combinations was another hot button issue, Kowalski told planning commissioners. The report states that no consensus was reached about how to address the issue, but that the committee recommends limiting or prohibiting lot combinations in order to help prevent construction of large buildings that would disrupt the existing streetscape.

Recommendation: The Advisory Committee recommends a limit on lot combinations within the R4C District.

Kowalski said most committee members who supported a limitation wanted to limit the maximum lot size to 6,525 square feet – the area needed to allow three units at the current density, or three units of 0-4 bedrooms each at the proposed density. It is a square footage that’s based on the current average R4C lot size, according to the report.

Kowalski noted that there are a lot of other limiting factors in place that would limit construction of large buildings.

The 2011 draft report had also indicated that the committee couldn’t reach consensus on this issue, but that the majority supported a recommendation that no more than two parcels be allowed to be combined, with the resulting parcel not to exceed 10,000 square feet.

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Conclusion

Wrapping up his staff report, Kowalski observed that it was a longer process than they’d originally anticipated, with a lot of complex issues. R4C zoning districts are one of the most complicated, diverse districts in the city, he said, and changing the zoning is not a simple fix.

He also noted that committee members are interested in pursuing other issues in depth – issues that weren’t part of the committee’s original council directive. Those issues include dealing with trash, noise from student parties, and code enforcement, among other things. The issues are relevant to the R4C district, he said, but are not part of the committee’s report.

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Public Commentary

Unlike the working sessions for city council, the planning commission’s working sessions include an opportunity for public commentary. On May 8, three members of the R4C/R2A advisory committee attended: Wendy Carman, Ethel “Eppie” Potts, and Julie Weatherbee.

Planning commissioner Erica Briggs suggested that since the committee members were there and it wasn’t a formal setting, perhaps the discussion could be more informal than just the standard three minutes for each speaker, which Briggs said seemed weird in this case.

Kirk Westphal was chairing the meeting at this point – commission chair Eric Mahler was stuck in an elevator for the first hour of the meeting. Westphal said he’d be open to sticking with the initial three-minute commentary, then playing it by ear during the discussion. He also felt the commissioners should limit the scope of their discussion for this meeting, perhaps by just focusing on the process they’d like to set for handling the report.

Tony Derezinski suggested sticking with a “semi-formal” process regarding commentary. The expectation for the outcome of the R4C/R2A work is high, he noted. Several actions by city council have been deferred, he said, waiting for the outcome of this process. [As an example, proposed revisions to the city's landscape and screening ordinance were rejected by council at its March 19, 2012 meeting, in part because some councilmembers wanted to wait until recommendations for R4C zoning had been completed.]

All of this effort and public input should yield something substantial, and there will be even more public forums in the future, Derezinski said. This working session obviously won’t be the only discussion that planning commissioners have on these recommendations, he said, but the product will ultimately be changes in zoning. He concluded by saying that no one wants this to be just another report on a shelf. [Derezinski is the city council representative to the city planning commission.]

Both Potts and Carman had submitted written comments to the commission that took issue with some aspects of the report, and they both spoke during public commentary to highlight their concerns.

Eppie Potts began by saying “I’ve given it a lot of thought, obviously.” She began by pointing to the areas that are zoned R4C but located outside of the city’s central area, and challenged commissioners to look at those areas and see if they could be rezoned to something more suitable.

Regarding parking, Potts said the committee had agreed that there should be a graduated scale for parking requirements, but that the recommendations included in the report “aren’t very graduated.”

Potts also took issue with the report’s conclusion, saying that it seemed too tentative. At some point, the report “is what it is,” she said. Who’s going to finalize the recommendations, and when? she asked.

In her written comments, Potts had suggested substituting the following paragraph, or something similar to it, instead of the conclusion provided in the staff report:

The recommendations above are the product of two years of comprehensive research, discussion and analysis. The issues identified throughout the course of this study are very complex. Those who gave input to the Advisory Committee expressed problems caused by such issues as unsustainable density, lack of parking, inadequate open space, and the number of small non-conforming lots. Our recommendations deal with these issues. The Advisory Committee recommends that the proposed changes be adopted, tried for a time, then be reviewed for effectiveness and possible amendment.

Wendy Carman said it’s important for everyone to recognize the hard work of the committee. The committee members had wanted to keep the density no greater than it is now, but to decrease the number of non-conforming parcels.  The R4C zoning had been imposed on existing neighborhoods, she noted. The committee had been unanimous in its desire to preserve the existing streetscapes, she said. They also had wanted to reduce the incentives for building six-bedroom apartments, which she noted are really targeted just for students.

Regarding the parking recommendations, Carman stated that the committee did not vote for the recommendations that are included in the report. They did vote to recommend a graduated scale for calculating required parking, to make it dependent not only on unit type and number of bedrooms, but also on a maximum potential occupancy and lot size, she said. The committee had asked Kowalski to develop a proposal, but they did not vote on the one that’s in this report, she said. That’s a staff recommendation, she noted, not one from the committee.

R4C/R2A Zoning Report: Commission Discussion

Evan Pratt asked whether the report was just an FYI to planning commissioners and would go directly to city council, or whether planning commissioners would discuss it first. Matt Kowalski replied that the council’s directive had been to the planning commission and staff. He noted that advisory committee recommendations don’t include language that could be inserted into city code at this point, so that would need to be done before the council could act.

The dark red areas are those areas zoned R4C in the city of Ann Arbor. (Image links to Google Map)

When Pratt said he was fishing to see what kind of action is expected of the planning commission, Kowalski said that would be up to commissioners to decide.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson said there’s no set format for proceeding. One option would be to simply send the report to the city council as an item of information. Or the commission’s ordinance revisions committee could take a look first, she said, and bring back recommendations with specific ordinance language.

Tony Derezinski stressed that there needs to be some concrete outcome to this work. It’s too central and too controversial not to result in ordinance changes, eventually. It might take another step or two, he added, but his sense is that the council wants an action item.

Pratt responded by saying it would be good to get some direction from city council, to make sure planning commissioners are going in the same direction in developing ordinance language.

Derezinski said the question is whether the planning commission simply forwards the report to city council, or whether they do something more with it first. Bonnie Bona felt it would be helpful to provide some suggestions to the council about approaching the recommendations. For example, while in some cases there’s a lot of detail, there are other issues – like the overlay districts – that didn’t really get addressed in depth. She said she could imagine sending something to councilmembers that suggested making base zoning changes, plus recommendations for handling R4C lots outside of the central area, and for overlay districts.

Erica Briggs said she thought this was a great report, with a lot of consensus in terms of direction. The report provides solid recommendations, she said. However, Briggs felt that more attention needed to be paid to parking, adding ”but you know how I feel about parking, so I won’t go into that.” [Briggs has consistently been an advocate for requiring less on-site parking in developments, and encouraging alternative transportation or using other means to deal with the parking issue.]

Diane Giannola said her hope from this work is to make R4C zoning simpler, but that some of the recommendations seem to make it more complex. The overall message of the report is that something is being fixed, she said. Are the proposed changes actually fixing a problem, or just switching the problem to a different place? she asked. Giannola noted that the parking recommendations conflict with the views of some people on the planning commission – it’s important to be mindful of that.

R4C/R2A Zoning Report: Commission Discussion – Overlay and Form-Based Code

Much of the commission’s discussion centered on the concept of overlay districts. Bonnie Bona noted that A2D2 overlay districts really helped with the downtown zoning, by acknowledging the different character and sizes of buildings. But she also said she’d prefer some kind of form-based code, instead of “shoehorning” zoning into neighborhoods that are distinct. [Described in a general way, a form-based approach is more proscriptive regarding the types of buildings the community wants to see in a particular district, including their design. In contrast, traditional zoning is structured to provide an allowable range of uses, sizes, placements, and other aspects of a development, but generally leaves the details of those decisions to the developer.]

Erica Briggs said her concern about overlay districts is that there’s no teeth to enforce them. She said she didn’t know much about form-based code, but she like the concept.

Wendy Rampson noted that true form-based code doesn’t look at land use, so it probably wouldn’t be an ideal candidate for R4C. But some aspects of it might be helpful, she said.

Briggs observed that a form-based approach might address some of the things that planning commissioners have discussed in the past, like having small neighborhood stores. Currently, residential zoning doesn’t allow for that. Briggs said she’d really like to see something substantial emerge from the recommendations.

Kirk Westphal said he’d like to think that the commission could expedite this process and produce draft ordinance language based on the committee’s recommendations. However, he noted that when he hears the word “overlay,” he thinks of lines on a map – and that becomes a much longer process. For R4C, it might be even more complicated than when the city created overlay districts for D1 and D2 zoning. He asked Kowalski whether there was general agreement on the committee regarding overlay districts or boundaries between neighborhoods.

Kowalski said there were only a couple of neighborhoods mentioned – like the Oakland area with large setbacks, or a street near Golden with really small lots. But the committee didn’t delve into details about possible overlay districts, he said. It could be a useful tool, he added, but not simple to do.

Pratt noted that historic districts are already one kind of overlay. If you look at a map, he said, most R4C districts are pretty distinct, and relatively small.

Rampson noted that compared to overlay districts, form-based code would be similarly complex. Kowalski added that a form-based approach would need to be citywide, and would not just apply to R4C zoning districts. That’s another complicating factor, he said.

Westphal noted that if the city opts for overlays, the other issue is to define the character of those overlay districts. You’d be drafting a whole new set of rules, he said, but if you don’t have them in place, some of the other zoning revisions might encourage development or renovations that wouldn’t fit the character of the existing neighborhood.

R4C/R2A Zoning Report: Commission Discussion – Next Steps

Tony Derezinski pointed out that other zoning projects were underway – most significantly, the ZORO (zoning ordinance reorganization) project, a comprehensive zoning code review. [A consultant hired by the city has submitted his recommendations, which were the topic of a May 14 city council working session. The ZORO recommendations have not yet been made available to the public.] He asked Rampson how the R4C/R2A effort fits into other zoning projects.

Rampson called R4C a broken district, and said she’d rather deal with a complexity of ordinances that make sense, rather than continuing to have a broken zoning district. The recommendations could be considered an evolution from the Calthorpe process, she said. [Calthorpe Associates was a California-based consultant whose work resulted in the city's A2D2 downtown zoning.]

Derezinski said it was good to start with the premise that R4C is broken, and he liked the description of the zoning revisions as an evolution. That helps justify doing things a little differently in R4C than in other zoning districts, he said.

Evan Pratt said there’s nothing to dislike in this report. The main problems are listed out, and the recommendations make sense. He asked staff if they had any advice on how to tackle the other issues in R4C that hadn’t been addressed – is it just a matter of prioritizing?

Rampon said the ZORO project will help, making it easier to find and understand the existing zoning.

As the discussion wound down, Eric Mahler asked for recommendations on next steps. Rampson said it sounded like commissioners were inclined to discuss the report in more detail, before starting to develop ordinance language. She suggested convening the ordinance revisions committee as a starting point. Derezinski, who also represents Ward 2 on the city council, offered to update councilmembers as an interim step.

Bonnie Bona said the ordinance revisions committee could perhaps develop a cover memo for the report, which could then be discussed by the planning commission as a whole. [Members of the ordinance revisions committee are planning commissioners Bonnie Bona, Eric Mahler, Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods.]

Rampson suggested that this might be a topic for another commission working session. But first, she would look at their schedules and set a time for an ordinance revisions committee meeting to discuss the report, and then take it from there. She thanked Matt Kowalski and the advisory committee for their work, noting that it hadn’t been easy, but that the result was an excellent report.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Bonnie Bona, Erica Briggs, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Evan Pratt, Kirk Westphal.

Absent: Wendy Woods

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the city planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to plan on doing the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Small group work made up a portion of the May 14 budget forum. (Photo by the writer.)

Attendance at the second community budget forum held Monday at Huron high school was lighter than at the first one, held a week earlier. Still, almost 40 community members and about a dozen staff members participated.

The two main themes that came out of the second forum were: (1) a desire to keep the cuts away from the classrooms (i.e. not cutting teaching staff or increasing class sizes); and (2) a concern that the cuts as proposed would disproportionately affect the most educationally vulnerable segments of the district’s population. Many participants also expressed concern that the timing of the proposed budget reductions would not allow for transition planning this late in the year, and that the district was not being sufficiently forthcoming with detailed budget information.

Trustees Glenn Nelson, Irene Patalan, and Christine Stead attended the May 14 budget forum. The board will hold a discussion on the budget during their next committee of the whole meeting to be held on Wednesday, May 16 beginning at 5:30 p.m. in the Balas administration building’s main conference room.

Budget Presentation

AAPS superintendent Patricia Green welcomed everyone to the forum, and reviewed the reasons behind the structural deficit that has caused AAPS to need to make over $55 million in cuts in the past five years. Green said that her administration does not want to be suggesting any of these cuts to the board, and that the cumulative effect of these reductions will be painful no matter which decisions the board makes. She then invited AAPS deputy superintendent of operations Robert Allen to present the proposed budget.

The proposed budget was made in terms of three alternatives – Plans A, B and C – each with progressively bigger cuts. Even Plan A, with the smallest number of cuts and the greatest use of the district’s financial reserves, calls for a reduction in staff by 32 full-time positions, the elimination of some busing services, and the closure or merging of one of the district’s alternative high schools. Plans B and C have progressively greater cuts and less use of reserves.

Allen gave a presentation of the full budget proposal almost identical to the one presented to school board members last month, and then asked participants to break out into small groups to discuss their concerns with the potential budget reductions and brainstorm additional revenue enhancement ideas. An AAPS administrator sat with each of the small groups to serve as the facilitator and recorder.

Community Response

Community members attending the forum were asked to answer the following three questions:

1. Given the budget realities facing the Ann Arbor Public Schools, what is your main concern with the proposed budget for 2012/2013?
2. Based on revenue options, do you have any suggestions on how the district could raise revenue, such as private giving or increased marketing?
3. What other questions to you have that were not answered this evening?

They were then asked to report out to the whole group. Meeting handouts also stated that AAPS would post additional information on the district’s website after the community budget forums to answer questions from participants, and also invited forum attendees to submit their concerns or questions in writing.

Community Response: Concerns

The concern mentioned most often at the May 14 budget forum was that the proposed cuts could negatively affect student learning – due to higher class sizes. Participants expressed the belief that the core curriculum will be what closes the achievement gap, and suggested that keeping class sizes as low as possible should be prioritized above everything else, including all extracurricular activities. “Don’t cut anything related to instruction,” “Cut anything but the basics,” and “Students first – preserve class sizes” were all suggestions made at the forum.

One community member noted that higher class sizes is what caused a lack of success for some students at their comprehensive high schools. And that had created the need for alternative programs such as the one in place at the Roberto Clement Student Development Center.

Another main set of concerns had to do with a perceived lack of equity in the proposed cuts. Participants argued that marginalized students who need the most support will be the most affected by transportation cuts; that “at-risk families are being hit hard across the board with cuts;” and that the cuts are being made “from the bottom up.” Another contention was that students of color would have more trouble getting to school, but the budget cuts will not reduce the academic achievement of whites, thereby widening the racial achievement gap.

Regarding the possible restructuring of Roberto Clemente Student Development Center, a few tables compared the timeline for transition for that alternative high school to a timeline for transition of an athletic program. Participants noted that lacrosse, previously a varsity sport, had been given a year to transition to a club sport, but Clemente could be closed with seven weeks notice – not enough time for the community time to re-group. According to a Clemente student who attended the forum, “Clemente students are starting to freak out.”

Participants also questioned if there was enough time left in the year to enact the budget reductions as proposed, and said that “people should have been given more time to react.” One table requested that the community be given detailed information earlier next year, because it’s projected to be another bad budget cycle.

Finally, it was argued that the district need to be more transparent, and that data should not need to be requested via Freedom of Information Act requests. A participant suggested that the district should also provide more background on the institutional history that had gone into the budget recommendations. Forum attendees also asked to be kept involved in the budget process between the May 14 budget forum and the final budget vote.

Community Response: Revenue Enhancement Suggestions

Community members suggested the following strategies for bringing in additional revenue – which are grouped thematically:

• Redouble efforts to pass a countywide enhancement millage
• Support the AAPS educational foundation
• Help the AAPS educational foundation raise substantial amounts of money
• Cut middle school athletics
• Cut all sports
• Convert more sports teams to club sports [as was done with lacrosse]
• Cut all extracurricular activities
• Institute a “pay to ride” plan to cover busing costs, waiving the fee for those who can’t afford it
• Have the PTOs subsidize busing
• Use smaller buses for smaller routes
• Outsource busing
• Eliminate two of the buses serving Ann Arbor Open
• Eliminate swimming at Ann Arbor Open [at Mack pool]
• Allow advertising in district spaces
• Apply for more grant funding
• Open more alternative programs in the district to bring in more School of Choice students
• Fill Clemente to capacity by allowing additional School of Choice students to enroll there
• Add Arabic language as an elective to attract kids who are attending local charter school
• Join the Early College Alliance
• Make sure the district is getting all of its Medicaid reimbursements
• Redistricting so all students can attend the elementary school closest to their homes
• Combine elementary schools and sell off unused properties
• Merge low-enrollment elementary schools
• Eliminate employees’ dental and vision benefits
• Outsource the payroll department
• Take back central administrators’ salary raises
• Cut administrator’s salaries
• Prohibit all administrators’ vacations until the budget is resolved

Community Response: Questions

Table groups asked a number of questions that were not answered formally for the whole forum group, though administrators did walk around and answer specific questions individually during the small group discussion and after the forum. The district has said it would post on its website answers to questions asked by forum attendees. Questions asked included:

• How would cuts to the three dedicated police officers impact the schools?
• What percentage of the budget needs to be kept in the fund balance?
• What process was used in coming up with these suggested reductions?
• Why aren’t there details being offered in the plan to restructure Clemente?
• What is an estimate of the value of the Clemente building and property?
• Is there a plan for the alternative schools that could be shared to explain what could be happening and reduce fears?
• Why aren’t all of the alternative schools on the chopping block?
• What savings would be realized by eliminating the NWEA assessment?
• Why were there increases in central administration salaries?
• Can the district release more details on the proposed cuts?
• When a proposed cut in listed, are “offset expenses” reflected in that cut?
• What is the timeline – when will these budget decisions be made?
• How can people who aren’t present at the budget forum give input?

Green closed the forum by thanking everyone for their input, and saying that everything discussed at the forum would be shared with the board and posted on the district’s website as the budget conversations continue over the next several weeks.

Next board meeting: Committee of the whole, May 16, 2012, 5:30 p.m., at the Balas administration building main conference room, 2555 S. State St., Ann Arbor, MI 48104.