Is Ann Arbor the kind of city where even the potholes are heart-shaped? (Photo illustration by The Chronicle.)

A visit to the scene by The Chronicle found city crews wrapping up their work, filling in some potholes in both the eastbound and westbound lanes.

Unknown to The Chronicle at the time, another reader, Eric Wucherer, had encountered the potholed pavement on Huron Street that same evening, sustaining two flat tires.

And Wucherer was not the only driver to sustain vehicle damage due to the same set of potholes. As he described it in the web-based service request that he logged near midnight: “Pulled over behind someone with a flat tire from the same pothole, who was able to deploy their spare tire. With 2 flats, I got towed …”

Over the next few months, Wucherer filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain records of complaints made about potholes at that location. He filed a claim with the city’s board of insurance administration – it was denied. He filed an appeal of the denial – it was rejected.

Then Wucherer did something at that point in the process that no one else has tried in assistant city attorney Bob West’s recollection over the last 16 years: Wucherer filed against the city of Ann Arbor in the small claims division of the 15th District Court.

Under Act 236 of 1961, attorneys aren’t allowed to argue on behalf of clients in small claims court. But defendants in small claims court – in this case, the city of Ann Arbor – are allowed to demand that the case be removed from small claims to the general civil docket. And the city of Ann Arbor exercised its right to do that. That permitted West to handle the case.

The case was set up for West to argue, among other things, a standard governmental immunity defense on behalf of the city. But before Wucherer and West squared off – in a case that had been assigned to be heard by then-judge Julie Creal – the city offered to settle the claim.

And on Sept. 22, 2011 the city’s board of insurance administration authorized a settlement with Wucherer for $568.16. In his claim he’d asked for $750 to cover damage to tires, wheels and an axel.

In reporting this article, The Chronicle reviewed nearly a year’s worth of vehicle damage claims brought before the board of insurance administration. They included a range of vehicle damage – allegedly caused by potholes, garbage trucks, a police car, or falling tree branches.

After the jump we take a brief look at the defense the city would have made in court in the Wucherer pothole case, and the way the city approaches pothole repair, as well as some of the other types of vehicle damage claims.

Range of Vehicle Damage Claims

Under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) The Chronicle requested documents related to 34 claims brought before the city’s board of insurance administration. The board handles all claims, not just those related to vehicle damage. But all 34 claims targeted by The Chronicle’s request were vehicle damage claims of some kind. We had identified them as such from the board’s meeting minutes that were attached to the city council’s meeting agendas from January 2011 through October 2011.

Diagram from accident report involving a city of Ann Arbor garbage truck that slid on an ice-covered parking lot. (Image links to complete report.)

By way of background, under the city’s ordinance, the board is supposed to consist of two city councilmembers and the city treasurer as an ex-officio member. In actual practice, the city council appears to have appointed just one member to serve on the board for the last several years. This past November that was Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

The two largest categories of claims we reviewed were collision claims and pothole claims. Of the 34 claims we looked at, 12 were collision-type claims and 13 were pothole-type claims. Another three claims involved branches of trees in the right-of-way falling on cars. Except for Wucherer’s pothole claim, only those claims where some human agent of the city of Ann Arbor was actively involved in the incident were approved by the board. (And not all of those were approved.)

For example, the city granted claims involving the automatic arm that is used by drivers of city garbage trucks to empty the carts into the truck. If the arm is not fully retracted before the truck moves forward, the arm can do substantial damage to a vehicle in its path.

Standard operating procedure for drivers is to retract the arm before moving forward. But execution of that procedure is not perfect. As one driver states in the report that must be filled out after these incidents: “… hit car with arm that was not fully retracted, but thought it was.”

Diagram showing a police car (vehicle 1) colliding with a car turning left on a green light (vehicle 2). (Image links to complete report.)

The remedy noted is straightforward – make sure that the arm is in the “home position” before moving forward. In one report, a supervisor’s note suggests the possibility of implementing an alarm or a light to signal drivers when they’re moving forward with the arm not in the home position.

The city also granted a claim about a garbage truck that slid sideways on an ice-covered parking lot and struck three parked cars. And the city granted a claim involving a snowplow that got too close to a parked vehicle, damaging the parked vehicle’s tire. The remedy recorded in the supervisor’s note is straightforward: “Don’t get close to cars.”

The city also paid a claim involving a police car that attempted to make a right-on-red turn, and collided with a car that was turning left on a green light.

For all the claims paid by the city in the set of documents The Chronicle examined, the total approved by the city for payment came to around $22,000.

Governmental Immunity Act

In answering Wucherer’s complaint to the 15th District Court, the city argued among other things that the incident causing damage to Wucherer’s car was due to his “own lack of due care given the attendant circumstances, available information, and prior knowledge and notice.” But the key part of the city’s defense as expressed in the city’s answer to Wucherer’s complaint was reliance on governmental immunity.

Governmental Immunity Act: Background

Under Act 170 of 1964 (known by the popular name “Governmental Immunity Act”) it’s not sufficient to show that vehicle damage resulted from a specific pothole in order for the city of Ann Arbor to be legally liable for the damage. The statute makes clear that the city has to have known or should have known about the pothole and had reasonable opportunity to repair it, in order for the city to incur liability:

691.1403 Defective highways; knowledge of defect, repair.
Sec. 3.
No governmental agency is liable for injuries or damages caused by defective highways unless the governmental agency knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of the existence of the defect and had a reasonable time to repair the defect before the injury took place. …

The city has mechanisms in place for finding out about potholes – beyond when city workers observe defects in pavement in the course of systematic inspection or through happenstance.

Pothole (left) was reported via the phone number 99-HOLES at 2:22 p.m. on June 14, 2011. Repaired pothole (right) observed at 1:42 p.m. on June 15. View is eastbound on West Liberty near Eighth Street.

Residents have at least two ways they can notify the city about potholes. One is a telephone number 99-HOLES (994-6537) and another is an Internet-based reporting interface.

In its response to Wucherer’s suit, the city contends that in general, it repairs potholes in a timely way. In a Stopped.Watched. item filed on June 15, 2011, The Chronicle noted a less-than-24-hour response time for the 99-HOLES number.

A variety of factors can influence response time to pothole reports. A night crew recently made its way through the same Old West Side neighborhood, and a resident speculated that it had been in response to a notification he’d sent in – two months earlier.

Governmental Immunity: Wucherer’s Case

Of the pothole claims The Chronicle reviewed, 11 of the 12 were denied by the board of insurance administration. It appears routine that the city denies such claims. None of the claimants besides Wucherer took the step of filing with the small claims division of the 15th District Court. But it’s unlikely that the city of Ann Arbor would settle a claim just because Wucherer went to the trouble to file it.

So what was it about his case that gave him at least a shot at prevailing over a standard governmental immunity defense? He would need to show that the city knew about the pothole that caused damage to his car and a reasonably adequate time to effect a repair, and failed to do so.

Wucherer had obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request the service requests from citizens made about potholes in the area. On the day of Wucherer’s incident, city’s records show a half dozen reports about potholes at least in the general vicinity of the right westbound lane of Huron Street, just west of Seventh Street, where his incident occurred, including Wucherer’s own request. It’s possible to imagine people arguing about whether a pothole report just before noon should reasonably be expected to be repaired later that evening.

To the extent there are earlier reports, those arguments would tend to tilt in the plaintiff’s direction. And the city’s records also show reports on Feb. 16, the day before Wucherer’s incident, as well as one on Feb. 14, about potholes that are at least somewhere in the general vicinity of his incident.

So for those earlier reports, it’s possible to imagine people arguing about what specific pothole prompted a report. Was it that specific pothole that caused Wucherer’s vehicle damage? Or if not, would “reasonable diligence” to repair the identified pothole have led a repair crew almost certainly to discover the pothole that caused the damage and to repair that one, too?

For example, the Feb. 14 report describes a location of “200 feet west of the Jackson/W. Huron split in the right lane westbound.” If by “split” the caller meant the “Y” in the road where Huron divides into Jackson Road and Dexter-Ann Arbor Road, then that might be far enough from Wucherer’s incident to argue that the call was not about Wucherer’s pothole at all.

According to city records, the caller on Feb. 14 described the location as “on W Huron near YMCA near S Seventh going Westbound.” Except for the reference to the YMCA, which is a quarter-mile east of that intersection, that location appears close enough to argue about.

So Wucherer had the raw material with which he could at least make some kind of argument that the city knew about or should have known about the pothole that caused damage to his car, and that the city could have reasonably been expected to repair it before his incident. And the fact that he had some kind of argument likely had an impact on the city’s willingness to settle the case.

Timeline Overview

Here’s a timeline overview of some key dates related to Wucherer’s case. [.pdf of more detailed timeline of Wucherer's case as it was processed through small claims and removed to the general civil docket.]

• 1824 First use of asphalt blocks in a road – on the Champs-Elysees in Paris. Also the year Ann Arbor is founded.
• 2011-Feb-14 Valentine’s Day, and date of one pothole report on West Huron.
• 2011-Feb-17 Wucherer drives through pothole west of Seventh on West Huron.
• 2011-Mar-24 Board of insurance administration denies Wucherer claim.
• 2011-Apr-28 Board of insurance administration denies Wucherer appeal.
• 2011-Jun-15 Wucherer files with small claims division of 15th District Court.
• 2011-Jun-27 Claim removed from small claims to general civil docket.
• 2011-Sep-22 Board of insurance administration approves settlement.
• 2011-Oct-24 City sends check to Wucherer for $568.16.

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!

Bob Snyder, with his dog Walter, talks with Gwen Nystuen before the start of the Feb. 7 planning commission meeting. Both Snyder and Nystuen spoke during a public hearing to oppose rezoning of 1320 S. University. (Photos by the writer.)

Currently at the site – on the south side of South University, between Forest and Washtenaw avenues – is the three-story Park Plaza apartment building. It’s owned by Philip Sotiroff, who hoped to construct a mixed-use building  – retail and residential – as tall as 145 feet. That height would allow for a structure between 10-14 stories on the 0.82-acre site. The current zoning is D2 (downtown interface), which does not allow for a structure taller than 60 feet.

Sotiroff is asking the city to rezone the parcel to D1, a zoning district that allows for the greatest density development. Representatives from his development team noted that higher density zoning was allowed prior to 2009, and pointed out that initially the D1 designation had been recommended by the planning commission before the final version of A2D2 was adopted.

The site is adjacent to a D1 parcel to the east, where the Landmark apartment building is being constructed, at 601 S. Forest. But the 1320 S. University property also abuts lower-density residential zoning. Single-family homes are located to the south of the site, and a fraternity is located to the west.

Fifteen people spoke during a public hearing about the rezoning. Most of them were residents and neighborhood leaders who objected to the proposed rezoning, though the request did receive letters of support from owners of the Landmark as well as from the South University Area Association, a merchants’ group.

Planning staff recommended denial. All of the planning commissioners spoke in support of the current zoning, saying that the community had reached a hard-won consensus that was not to be overturned lightly, especially since it was implemented fairly recently. A couple of commissioners noted that the owner could find flexibility within the existing zoning by submitting a planned project – like the 618 S. Main development that planning commission approved at its Jan. 19, 2012 meeting.

Rezoning for 1320 S. University

At the Feb. 7 meeting, city planner Alexis DiLeo delivered the staff report. [.pdf of staff report, excluding maps and other images]

She described the location of the site in the context of the surrounding properties. To the east is the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity – well known as the location for the annual Mud Bowl, at the corner of South University and Washtenaw Avenue. To the west is the Landmark apartment building, formerly known as 601 S. Forest, a development that’s nearing completion. The 1320 S. University site is on the border of the D1 zoning district. The Landmark building is located in D1, as is property on the north side of South University.

From left: City planner Alexis DiLeo and planning commissioner Bonnie Bona.

The property also is directly north of Forest Court, a cul-de-sac of owner-occupied and rental houses in a R4C (multi-family residential) zoning district.

In seeking D1 zoning, the owner proposed setting conditions as part of the rezoning approval. Those conditions would: (1) limit the maximum height to 145 feet, which would allow for between 10-14 stories; (2) increase minimum side and rear setback requirements; and (3) limit permitted principal uses to those allowed in D2 districts.

Another condition proposed by the developer would limit the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) to 700%, with premiums. FAR, a measure of density, is the ratio of the square footage of a building divided by the size of the lot. A one-story structure built lot-line-to-lot-line with no setbacks corresponds to an FAR of 100%. A similar structure built two-stories tall would result in an FAR of 200%. The D1 zoning normally allows for up to 900% FAR, with premiums.

DiLeo noted that the owner did not submit a detailed proposal for a building. But she calculated that based on the assumption of residential units on all of the upper floors with an average of 800 square feet per unit, more than 225 apartments would be possible. About 100 off-street parking spaces would also be required.

DiLeo described the long zoning history at the site. Until 2006, it was zoned R4C (multi-family residential). As part of a broader rezoning initiative, in 2006 the planning commission recommended – and the city council ultimately approved – rezoning the site to C2A, which would allow for density up to 400% FAR.

In 2007, the A2D2 rezoning initiative kicked off. Initially, the recommendation put forward in late 2008 called for the 1320 S. University parcel to be rezoned D1. Following that initial recommendation, which the planning commission had supported, there was a lot of back-and-forth, DiLeo said. But ultimately, the downtown master plan adopted by city council designated this site as D2 – and it was on that basis that the A2D2 rezoning was adopted in late 2009. [For a timeline overview of the A2D2 and design guidelines process, with links to previous Chronicle coverage, see "Ann Arbor Hotel First to Get Design Review?"]

DiLeo summarized what she described as the owner’s lengthy rezoning proposal. The owner cited several reasons that rezoning was appropriate, including:

• The D2 zoning “unnecessarily and unfairly restricts” the use of the property, and limits the South University area’s potential for growth and economic vitality.
• The property is better suited for D1 development than are most other D1 parcels in that area, because it can achieve the required density without aggregating multiple parcels.
• The parcel is only partially located in the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district, so it would benefit all taxing units.

Planning staff disagreed with the owner’s assessment, and found that the arguments in favor of rezoning weren’t strong enough to support deviating from the A2D2 zoning, DiLeo said. She noted that the A2D2 process had included a public hearing in 2009 specifically for the 1320 S. University parcel, at the owner’s request. The current zoning has been in place for over two years, and changing it would negatively affect expectations for the site, she said. No conditions have changed since the zoning was adopted, DiLeo noted. The owner did provide census information that wasn’t available at the time of the A2D2 process, she said, but the data simply affirmed what planning staff had already believed regarding demographics for that area.

DiLeo also noted that the owner felt an error had been made in assigning D2 zoning to that parcel. Planning staff doesn’t believe that’s the case, she said. It’s possible to disagree with the decision of the planning commission and city council, but the record is clear, she concluded, and all documents accurately reflect that.

The city’s planning staff recommended denial of the rezoning request.

Rezoning for 1320 S. University: Public Hearing

Fifteen people spoke during a public hearing about the rezoning. Most of them were residents and neighborhood leaders who objected to the proposed rezoning. However letters supporting the project were sent to the planning commission from Maggie Ladd, executive director of the South University Area Association, and from Rajen Shastri on behalf of Campus Investors 601 Forest Property Owner LLC, owners of the Landmark apartment building. Neither Ladd nor Shastri attended Tuesday’s meeting.

Bob Snyder, speaking on behalf of the South University Neighborhood Association, began by introducing Walter, his Parkinson’s service dog. It was Walter’s first meeting, Snyder noted, and “he might cut me short.” Snyder asked what had happened to the Ann Arbor that had been a true university town – with a sprawling campus and trees, as typified by the Arboretum and Burton Tower. When and why had the city and university decided it was better to build up? he wondered. But he quipped that UM’s buildings have managed to keep below the low-flying cloud height.

Questions like “How big is too big?” and “How tall is too tall?” keep being redefined, Snyder said. Didn’t the citizens, acting in good faith, reach a conclusion about the D1 and D2 zoning? At that point, everyone said “at least it’s over and done with.” But here we go again, Snyder continued. So now there’s only one question regarding this issue, he said: “What part of ‘no’ don’t you understand? Is it the ‘N’ or the ‘O’?” Snyder concluded by thanking the commissioners, adding “Walter thanks you, too.”

From left: Wendy Rampson, head of the city's planning unit, talks with Ann Arbor residents Marc Gerstein and Eleanor Linn, who live in the South University area.

Marc Gerstein told commissioners that he’s lived on Forest Court since 1982 – his property abuts the south end of the 1320 S. University parcel, and any change will affect his home directly, he said. Gerstein urged commissioners to support the staff recommendation of denial. The staff report examines the history, rationale and merits of the request, he said, and repeatedly found that the D2 zoning designation was warranted. To rezone the parcel would take away the buffer between Forest Court and the densest D1 development of South University, he noted.

Saying she was one of the people involved in developing the A2D2 zoning, former city planning commissioner Ethel Potts also voiced opposition to the rezoning request. The staff report accurately reflects the actions that led to the D2 zoning for this parcel, she said. Potts would have preferred if the lot had been rezoned for residential use, but since it was declared to be part of the downtown, then D2 zoning is appropriate. It’s a buffer between D1 districts and the neighborhoods, she said. Potts concluded by saying that everyone relies on zoning to be stable, not changed because of someone’s preference. D2 is what belongs there, she concluded.

John Nystuen read a letter from Anthony Pinnell, a resident and businessman in the South University neighborhood who could not attend the meeting. Pinnell had wanted to express strong opposition to the rezoning request. Pinnell had attended a community forum about the project, and reported that residents had proposed alternative ideas for the site that would comply with the current D2 zoning. In his letter, Pinnell also argued that any attempt to characterize the neighborhood as primarily student housing is wrong.

Steve Kaplan told commissioners that he owned property on nearby Church Street. The property at 1320 S. University is the textbook definition of a buffer area, he said. Not only is the zoning not a mistake, he said it’s the perfect application of D2 zoning. Saying he had no affiliation with the Landmark development, Kaplan noted that those developers made a major investment under terms that the city laid out. To make a change now for the adjacent property would be harmful to Landmark, he said, as well as to any sense of integrity that the city might retain – integrity that a developer would rely on to do business in this town. The zoning should remain D2, Kaplan concluded.

Chris Crockett introduced herself as president of the Old Fourth Ward Association. She ventured that perhaps the developer wasn’t involved in the multi-year deliberations in the community regarding the A2D2 zoning, and that’s why he doesn’t realize that D2 isn’t a mistake for their property. As someone who was part of the process to develop A2D2, Crockett said it’s shocking to have the developer come in and describe something as an error when it was so thoroughly deliberated, and approved by the planning commission and city council. The A2D2 zoning expresses the intent of the community, she said. Nobody got everything they wanted, she added – it was a compromise, but one that people can live with. It’s egregious to have someone come in from out of town and say that it’s wrong, she concluded.

Betsy Price, a resident of the South University area, apologized for belaboring the issue, and thanked city staff for their hard work. She noted that the city had achieved a compromise with the D1/D2 zoning, and standards were set. Those decisions weren’t made in haste, and weren’t serendipitous. It’s time to adhere to the rules that were established, she said.

Brad Moore, an architect for the project, characterized the petitioner as a property owner, not a developer. He noted that initially, the planning commission had recommended D1 zoning for the 1320 S. University lot. It wasn’t until the city council asked for a change that the planning commission revised its recommendation. He then described the difficulties of building on the lot within the constraints of the current D2 zoning – because of setback requirements, building code issues related to windows, and mandatory storm sewer easement.

Attorney Susan Friedlaender and Philip Sotiroff, owner of 1320 S. University.

Saying that she represented the owner, Susan Friedlaender – a Farmington Hills attorney – described the history of zoning for the site. She noted that prior to the A2D2 process, the site had been rezoned to C2A, which she said was more liberal than D1 in terms of setbacks. Then the planning commission and planning staff had recommended D1 zoning there, but the city council requested that it be downzoned to D2.

Friedlaender noted that the owners of the adjacent Landmark building sent a letter of support for the rezoning of 1320 S. University. She also said that the city’s master plan is very inconsistent with regard to this site. Page 42 of the land use plan (Chapter 5) has a map of future land use for this area that shows the parcel as “core” downtown, she noted, not interface. [The D2 zoning is considered interface zoning, for buffer areas between neighborhoods and areas zoned for denser development.] And the city’s transportation master plan, she said, shows the parcel as intended for the highest possible density. But the downtown plan shows the site as an interface area.

Friedlaender said the owner and his representatives disagree with the city planning staff’s assessment that the land can be developed in a financially viable way with D2 zoning. She’d like to see what the staff has come up with in that regard, because the owner has reached a conclusion that’s very different, she said.

If the parcel is granted D1 zoning, the owner has offered to restrict uses to those allowed in D2 districts, but would be willing to further limit those uses, Friedlaender said. She also mentioned the issue of the area’s demographics, noting that of the 1,718 people in the same census block group as the 1320 S. University parcel, 1,712 are renters, with a high turnover in residency. She asked that the city not make decisions based on the expectations of a handful of people.

Jim Valenta of Midwestern Consulting identified himself as a member of the development team. He had authored the traffic study for the 1320 S. University project. He also had authored the transportation study for the Landmark development, as well as for The Varsity and both Zaragon projects – all of them recent residential developments in downtown Ann Arbor. All of those projects cater to a non-motorized mode of transportation, he said. Planning staff comments regarding transportation issues can easily be reconciled at the site plan level, he concluded. [If rezoning were approved, the owner would then need to submit a site plan for approval by the planning commission and city council.]

Gwen Nystuen told commissioners that she didn’t want to repeat what’s already been said. She’s lived in near-downtown neighborhoods for almost 50 years, and residents don’t want to live next to Main Street. This is a perfect example of zoning that steps down from commercial to residential, she said. Compatibility with neighborhoods is extremely important, and she urged commissioners to support the planning staff’s recommendation of denial.

Saying that he represented the North Burns Park Association, Peter Nagourney supported the staff recommendation to deny the rezoning request. He regretted that citizens, as taxpayers, are paying for staff time to consider a request that should never have been made. Any change to the D2 zoning would be seen as a precedent that could threaten other D2 districts, like Kerrytown. Why aren’t these zoning decisions respected? he wondered. Why are they being challenged? It must be because developers believe there’s wiggle room and a pro-density sentiment in city hall.

Past successes by some developers might inspire hope that the system can be broken, Nagourney said. As a citizen and president of a neighborhood association, Nagourney hoped he could maintain faith in the integrity of existing rules. If the current request is approved, he’d have to conclude that the city has sold out to developers and the master plan has no meaning. That’s not the preferred outcome, he concluded.

Earl Barr spoke briefly, simply noting that he lived on Forest Court and agreed that the rezoning request should be denied.

Alluding to a previous speaker, Ray Detter joked that he wasn’t going to promise not to repeat comments that had already been made. He said he was speaking on behalf of the downtown citizens advisory council, and that the group had spent most of their recent meeting talking about this property. Detter reiterated many of the arguments against the rezoning request. He noted that the 618 S. Main project, which the planning commission approved at their Jan. 19, 2012 meeting, is in a D2 district, as is most of Kerrytown. He observed that several people in Kerrytown who want to develop their property would love to see the 1320 S. University rezoning request approved.

The final speaker was Eleanor Linn, a resident of Forest Court directly to the south of 1320 S. University. It’s been a long slog, she said, with the property owner repeatedly trying to get the site rezoned so that he can put up a tall building behind her two-story house. The apartment building that’s there now already brings him income, she noted, and it could be redeveloped under D2 zoning. Her neighborhood has houses that are well-maintained – it’s a real community, she said. They’ve even created an informal group called Friends of Forest Court, to help people learn about their responsibilities as residents.

The developer tries to characterize it as a transient student neighborhood, Linn said, but “this is far from the truth.” She said she contributes to the vibrancy of the city and expects the city to uphold its master plan and keep neighborhoods liveable. She urged commissioners to deny the request and protect residents from the annoyance of these repeated rezoning efforts.

Rezoning for 1320 S. University: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona began the discussion by responding to Friedlaender’s remarks about inconsistencies in the city’s various master plans. There is only one land use plan, Bona said – the downtown plan. Other plans are intended to complement that.

Bona then noted that she had participated in the entire A2D2 process. Her first meeting as a planning commissioner was a retreat to initiate the A2D2 process. Having gone through that – as well as having participated in the rezoning of this particular parcel – Bona said she’s not in the same place now as she was when the process started. She had strong opinions, but completely agreed with where the zoning ended up. The city shouldn’t have knee-jerk reactions to requests, she said. Even if she didn’t entirely agree, the community reached a decision and it would be hard for her to deviate from that.

Bona described the history of the various rezoning decisions for this parcel. When it was rezoned to C2A, it had been a long, complicated process, she said. It has already been developed beyond the density of a residential zoning district, so it was rezoned to C2A because it was viewed as part of the downtown, even though it was an outlier. At the time there was no D2 interface option – the idea of an interface zone was suggested in the master plan, but had not yet been implemented. So while it might not seem obvious why the city upzoned it to C2A, and then downzoned it to D2 during the A2D2 process, there are reasons why it makes sense, she said.

Bona concluded by noting that the option of proposing a planned project allows for greater flexibility within the D2 district, without having to rezone the property.

From left: Ann Arbor planning commissioners Eleanore Adenekan, Tony Derezinski, Evan Pratt and Kirk Westphal.

Evan Pratt agreed with Bona, pointing specifically to her statement about planned projects. The A2D2 process was a long one, but everyone agreed at the end. He said he had no interest in undoing all the time and energy it took to reach consensus. Nothing has changed since then, he added. Perhaps in six or seven years, the situation will have changed, he concluded, but that’s not the case now.

Noting that she hadn’t been on the planning commission at the time of the A2D2 process, Eleanore Adenekan thanked Bona and Pratt for putting the situation in historical context.

Tony Derezinski indicated that the city regularly faces controversial decisions. A2D2 was one of those, he said, as is another one that’s coming before the planning commission later this year: changes to R4C (multi-family) zoning districts. But that’s the process, he said.

Derezinski said he was so glad to hear the planning staff praised – he read aloud several comments that he had written down during public commentary, complimenting the staff. He hoped people who had made those comments would have similar things to say the next time the staff makes a recommendation.

It’s not unheard-of for a property owner to take another bite at the apple, Derezinski said, and that’s fine. The A2D2 process was tough, and not everyone got what they wanted. But the final result is something that should be relied on, he said. Zoning was invented in order to provide certainty, he said, and the zoning for this parcel is reasonable. It’s not wrong to try to change it, he concluded, but the owner should let it rest for a while.

Kirk Westphal observed that everyone shares the excitement of changes happening in the South University area, and over the years they’ve appreciated the input of the merchants’ association and others who’ve advocated for a more active downtown. He said he believes the planning commission and staff are often informed by the economic realities of a situation, and it would be nice to have more development in the South University district.

However, Westphal said he had to concur with other commissioners. They have a track record of working out compromises when a parcel doesn’t fit the zoning, and have unanimously approved several planned unit developments and planned projects. He said it’s unusual that this parcel has been bounced around, from zoning that was too high, to zoning that was too low. But now it’s in the “Goldilocks” area, he said – presumably a reference to the zoning being “just right.”

Wendy Woods teased her colleagues, saying that everyone seemed so reasonable, and she agreed with them. When she first saw this request on the agenda for a February meeting, she thought it seemed appropriate because it was like the movie “Groundhog Day,” when everything is repeated. She said the city got it right the last time, when D2 zoning was approved. It’s also important to see the impact of the Landmark building, which is expected to be completed later this year. Woods concluded by praising the city’s planning staff for their work.

Diane Giannola said she agreed with other commissioners. She hadn’t been on planning commission at the time of the A2D2 process, but she watched deliberations on TV. It had been very intense, and there was a lot of compromise. There is no doubt that the intent was to make this parcel D2. For her, it would have made sense to zone it D1, she said, so that the entire block would have consistent zoning. She’d prefer to have a taller building there, but the will of the public overrides that. The D2 zoning doesn’t rise to the level of bad planning, she said. If it did, she added, the commission would have an obligation to say something about it.

Eric Mahler said he had supported D1 zoning for this parcel, and if it had been zoned D1 he would support keeping it that way. But it was a robust discussion and a compromise was reached for A2D2. “It is what it is,” he said, adding that he doesn’t see any appealable errors. Mahler also noted that it’s not within the planning commission’s purview to consider economic factors when making their decisions.

Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, said she wanted to point out that the petitioner did offer to make additional conditions to the D1 zoning. City planner Alexis DiLeo explained that those conditions would include limiting the uses on the site to those allowed in D2 districts, except there would be no transportation- or industrial-oriented uses allowed. Those types of uses are permitted in D2 districts.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously against recommending the rezoning request for 1320 S. University. The recommendation will be forwarded to city council.

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

Absent: Erica Briggs.

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Thursday, Feb. 23 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 do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funding a Rail Station

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wall Street Controversy Led to Fuller Road Location

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After the City-University MOU

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timing of the Decision to Halt Fuller Road Project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuller Road Station Timeline Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Four-Party Transit Agreement

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

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

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

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

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

Four-Party Transit Agreement: Public Commentary

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

AATA FY 2102 revenue pie chart.

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

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

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

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

Four-Party Transit Agreement: Council Deliberations

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

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

Four-Party Transit Agreement: Council Deliberations – 1%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Four-Party Transit Agreement: Council Deliberations – Termination

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: The amendment clarifying withdrawal options was approved unanimously.

Four-Party Transit Agreement: Council Deliberations – Postponement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wastewater Treatment Contract

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

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

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

Wastewater Treatment Contract: Public Comment

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

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

Schlansker is a former aerospace engineer for Allied Bendix.

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

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

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

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

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

Wastewater Treatment Contract: Council Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arlington Square PUD

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arlington Square PUD: Public Hearing

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

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

Arlington Square PUD: Council Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liquor Hearing Officer & Transcript Fees

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

Ward 2 councilmembers Tony Derezinski and Jane Lumm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re-Funding Bonds

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

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

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

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Leasing Ordinance

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: DDA TIF Report

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Recognition of Volunteers

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

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

Comm/Comm: Energy Website

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

Comm/Comm: Year of the Co-op

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Student Visitors

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Fifth Avenue Underground Parking Garage

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

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

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Warming Center, Affordable Housing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Washtenaw County administrator Verna McDaniel. (Photos by the writer)

McDaniel is asking departments to explore a “continuum of opportunities,” from cooperation on one end of the spectrum, to consolidation on the other end. As an example, she noted that the recent 911 dispatch consolidation between the city of Ann Arbor and the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office – an agreement at the county board approved at its Jan. 18, 2012 meeting – began as cooperation, when county dispatchers co-located with Ann Arbor’s operations.

As an initial step, at the board’s Feb. 15 meeting McDaniel will be asking for approval to restructure support services in administration, finance, information technology and facilities management. The changes entail creating a new “cross-lateral” team of four current senior managers, and putting two positions – including the job of deputy county administrator – on “hold vacant” status. Another nine positions will be eliminated, while eight jobs will be created. The restructuring will result in a net reduction of three full-time jobs, and estimated annual savings of $326,422.

Commissioners were generally supportive of her proposal, though some cautioned against creating the expectation that the county can provide the same or a better level of services with reduced resources. The county is facing projected deficits of $11.6 million in 2014 and $14.7 million in 2015.

Also at the Feb. 2 working session, board chair Conan Smith gave an update on negotiations with the Humane Society of Huron Valley, saying he hopes to bring an agreement for board approval at their Feb. 15 meeting. The contract would cover animal control services for the remainder of 2012, with the intent of working toward a longer-term agreement for the coming years. The county plans to ask local municipalities that have animal control ordinances – including Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Township – to help pay for services provided under contract with HSHV.

The board also got a brief update on the $1.3 million in renovations at the downtown county courthouse. The project, which started early last year when Ann Arbor’s 15th District Court vacated the courthouse to move to the city’s new Justice Center, will be wrapping up in mid-March.

The working session included an agenda briefing for the Feb. 15 meeting, but some commissioners expressed discontent at the new format, which had been implemented earlier this year. Wes Prater suggested that if the briefings do not include time for commissioners to ask questions, then the information might as well be emailed to them instead. “I believe all of us can read,” he said.

Humane Society Update

Toward the beginning of the working session, board chair Conan Smith announced that negotiations are continuing with the Humane Society of Huron Valley and that it’s his hope to bring a contract to the board’s Feb. 15 meeting for approval. Representatives from the county and HSHV have another meeting scheduled on Wednesday, Feb. 8, Smith said – he hopes to reach a resolution on outstanding issues at that meeting.

The contract would cover the remainder of 2012. HSHV’s previous contract for mandated animal control services expired at the end of 2011, and since then the county has been paying $29,000 per month for continued services.

Following the Feb. 2 working session, county administrator Verna McDaniel told The Chronicle that the county intends to form a study group with the HSHV and others to discuss a longer-term solution to the issue of countywide mandated animal control. The goal is to bring to the table other municipalities that have animal control ordinances – like the city of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Township – but that do not currently make financial contributions to the county’s animal control services.

In the previous two-year contract with HSHV, the county paid $500,000 annually for animal control – for services mandated by the state as well as additional work that did not fall under the mandate. The budget approved by the county board for 2012 cut that funding to $250,000, though 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. HSHV officials have said that even $500,000 wasn’t sufficient to cover costs for all the work they do.

Plans for Restructuring

County administrator Verna McDaniel gave an overview of restructuring plans that are underway, in response to both dwindling resources as well as a significant number of retirements at the end of 2011. She told commissioners that she wanted to provide the rationale and perspective for the restructuring effort, and to get their input as plans are developed.

McDaniel began by noting that 117 county employees retired last year, including 51 in the health and human services area and 35 in public safety and justice (including the trial court and sheriff’s office). It’s important to look at the areas where retirements occurred, she said, because some positions are supported by the general fund, while others are supported with non-general fund sources, such as grants. Restructuring efforts should consider whether there are savings to the general fund, she noted.

McDaniel then reviewed the current hiring process. The phrase “hiring freeze” is really a misnomer, she said. Human resources staff review all departmental requests to fill vacant jobs. Among other things, departments must submit a business plan and work plan related to the job, and answer a series of questions: (1) What’s the critical nature of the position to the department’s operation? (2) Can the vacant position be consolidated or reclassified with another position? (3) Do vacancies exist that can be put on “hold vacant” status or eliminated? (4) Can a temporary assignment offset the need to fill the position for a defined period?

In addition, support and supervisory positions are reviewed based on their function within a specific building, with an eye toward possible consolidation.

Funding sources are also taken into consideration, McDaniel said. It’s more likely the jobs will be filled if they are completely funded from non-general fund sources, or if the jobs are 100% revenue-generating. Other exceptions include contractual commitments – such as sheriff’s deputies who are paid through police services contracts with municipalities. There are also positions related to public safety or the provision of mandated services that need to be filled. And because the county funds the courts through a lump sum budget, court administrators have total discretion over hiring there, she said.

McDaniel described a “continuum of opportunities” that she wants county departments to explore, from cooperation on one end of the spectrum, to consolidation on the other end. She noted that the 911 dispatch consolidation between the city of Ann Arbor and the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office – an agreement at the county board approved at its Jan. 18, 2012 meeting – began as cooperation, when county dispatchers co-located with Ann Arbor’s operations in 2010.

Other examples from the previous budget cycle include the merger of three county departments to form the new office of community and economic development, and the relocation of the juvenile court to the downtown courthouse.

On Feb. 10, the “Group of 180″ – the county’s departmental leadership, including managers and union leaders – will meet to start talking about the process of restructuring, McDaniel said. Other elected officials who lead departments will be part of the discussion too: the county clerk, treasurer, prosecuting attorney, water resources commissioner, and sheriff.

McDaniel ended her presentation by reading a mission statement for restructuring:

Through the guidance and review of the Board of Commissioners as part of Working Sessions, all Communities of Interest within Washtenaw County shall strive to further cooperate, collaborate and consolidate services and functions, demonstrate good stewards of community resources, all while seeking to improve service delivery to our customers.

Plans for Restructuring: Commissioner Discussion – Temp Assignments

Felicia Brabec asked about the process of making a temporary assignment to fill a vacant position. She clarified with McDaniel that the assignment is typically given to another staff member who gets “bumped up,” with an 8% pay increase for taking on additional responsibilities. Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, noted that such assignments are for a defined period of time – it’s not indefinite.

Wes Prater said there seems to be a blur between responsibilities when someone is asked to take on a temporary assignment, in addition to their own job. Heidt explained that union contracts address this situation. The assignment also can enable an employee to learn a new skill set. She gave the example of teachers’ aides in the Head Start program being able to lead classrooms for a period of time, because of temporary vacancies.

Plans for Restructuring: Commissioner Discussion – Group of 180 Meeting

Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked about the Feb. 10 meeting – when would it be held, and where? Is it open to commissioners? He indicated that he wanted to attend.

McDaniel replied that the Group of 180 meets quarterly to discuss leadership and operational issues. The name stems from a time when there were 180 department heads, managers and union leaders – the number is smaller now. Commissioners haven’t been invited because often the meetings focus on operational issues, like training, she said. On Feb. 10, much of the meeting will involve a discussion about internal audit controls, for example, in addition to the talk about restructuring.

Sizemore again asked for the time and location. The meeting begins at 8:30 a.m., McDaniel said, at the Washtenaw Community College’s Morris Lawrence Building.

Conan Smith said what he’s hearing from McDaniel is that she’d prefer commissioners not to attend the meeting. He felt it was inappropriate for commissioners to get involved at that operational level.

Saying she’d never tell commissioners not to attend, McDaniel nevertheless indicated that Smith was correct. The meetings are intended to encourage open dialogue among staff, she said. But although commissioners haven’t been invited in the past, that’s not to say things couldn’t change, she added. McDaniel said she thought the meetings might bore commissioners, but the sessions aren’t secret.

Sizemore said he agreed with Smith that commissioners shouldn’t get involved in operations. But if McDaniel is asking for his support in restructuring, he needs to be informed – the more he learns, the easier it will be for him to support restructuring, Sizemore said. “So I’ll be there.”

Wes Prater cautioned that any commissioner who attends needs to be aware of their role, and only go as an observer. Leah Gunn said she wouldn’t dream of going.

Plans for Restructuring: Commissioner Discussion – Mission Statement

Gunn praised the restructuring mission statement. The county’s role is to provide services – both mandated and non-mandated – with diminishing resources. It’s the board’s job to set priorities for that, she said.

Alicia Ping noted that for a long time, employees have been asked to do more with less. But there comes a point when you can only do so much with the resources you have, she said. It’s wonderful to say the goal is to “improve service delivery,” Ping said, but she doesn’t want it to seem that the county is able to do more than it actually can. Employees might feel they’re asked to do too much, she added: ”I don’t want anyone to get stressed out because they’re trying to achieve mission impossible.”

Dan Smith said he agreed with Ping. In terms of services, the county would be happy to maintain the status quo, given the financial circumstances.

Yousef Rahbi noted that focusing on customers is key as the county restructures. He appreciated seeing that in the mission statement.

Rob Turner said he loved the mission statement. This kind of focus needs to happen all the time, not just during hard financial times, he said. How the county government delivers services has an impact on how residents view the county, he said. It’s important to do a few things well, he added, rather than to do a lot of things not very well.

Prater asked whether levels of services will examined as part of the restructuring. McDaniel said the staff will be looking at how to make services more efficient, from the front counter to the back office. For example, if a building currently has multiple entry points and a staff person is located at each entry to handle customers, perhaps it makes more sense to have one entry into the building, and one staff person to direct customers to the appropriate office. These kinds of ideas will be put on the table, she said, then the staff can talk about whether operational changes can make it work.

Employees are the best source of information regarding potential changes, Prater said, as long as administration is clear about the outcomes it’s looking for.

Plans for Restructuring: Commissioner Discussion – Retirements

Felicia Brabec asked for more details about the 51 retirements in health and human services area. McDaniel said that most were in the public health department and the community support & treatment services (CSTS) department. Heidt added that in the public safety and justice area, the bulk of the 35 retirements were in the trial court, though there were also some in the sheriff’s office.

Dan Smith asked for some clarification on how many retirements were in positions funded by the general fund, compared to non-general fund jobs. Heidt replied that most of the 51 retirements in health and human services were non-general fund positions. In contrast, most of the 35 public safety and justice retirements were in general fund jobs.

Smith also asked for an example of a 100% revenue-generating job. Heidt said such jobs could be funded through grants or contracts. For example, 13 dispatch operators will be classified as 100% revenue generating, because the positions are funded through a contract with the city of Ann Arbor. Another example would be the county’s emergency management jobs that are paid for with a state grant. Heidt also gave an example of non-general fund positions: Employees with the county parks and recreation department, who are funded by a dedicated millage.

Plans for Restructuring: Commissioner Discussion – Budget Outcomes

Dan Smith noted that the words “cooperate, collaborate and consolidate” are used a lot, but it should be clear that these actions are the means to an end. The county isn’t consolidating for consolidation’s sake, he said. They’re doing it because of financial circumstances.

Wes Prater asked whether budget outcomes are driving the decisions to restructure. That’s the primary driver, McDaniel replied.

Yousef Rahbi reminded commissioners that at the previous working session, they had discussed the need to start talking about the next two-year budget cycle – for 2014-2015. [The county's fiscal years are based on calendar years, and budgets are developed in two-year periods. The most recent budget, approved in November 2011, covered 2012 and 2013.] Rabhi said it’s productive to think about 2014-2015 as they move through this restructuring process.

Rabhi also asked how McDaniel would be encouraging employees to participate – how would ideas for restructuring be solicited? There’s never any foot-dragging, McDaniel replied. Generally, department heads and managers are always looking for ways to improve services and deliver them more efficiently, she said. In fact, there are usually more suggestions for restructuring than the organization can implement – it’s difficult to do, McDaniel said. So she did not have any additional plans for outreach.

Rabhi praised McDaniel for proposing to restructure her own department, saying that it’s a great way to set an example. McDaniel said she felt it was necessary to practice what she’s preaching.

At the board’s Feb. 15 meeting, McDaniel will be asking for approval to restructure support services in administration, finance, information technology and facilities management. The changes entail creating a new “cross-lateral” team of four current senior managers: Kelly Belknap, director of finance; Greg Dill, infrastructure management director; Curtis Hedger, corporation counsel; and Diane Heidt, director of human services and labor relations.

The position of deputy county administrator – which has been vacant since April 2011 – and one other position will be put on “hold vacant” status. Another nine positions will be eliminated, while eight jobs will be created. The restructuring will result in a net reduction of three full-time jobs, and estimated annual savings of $326,422.

Rob Turner called the overall restructuring the perfect springboard to launch into the next budget cycle. He asked for more information about the internal audit, saying it would be a pivotal report.

Belknap, who’s currently serving as interim deputy administrator, replied that the Group of 180 meeting on Feb. 10 will be the kickoff for the internal audit process. [At its June 1, 2011 meeting, the board had authorized hiring the professional services firm Experis (formerly known as Jefferson Wells) for $87,500 to perform internal auditing services for the county for one year, with the possibility of extending the contract over additional years.]

The audit’s first step entails a survey of current internal controls, she said. Then Experis will conduct an audit on a limited number of departments. Belknap said she expects a report will be ready for commissioners in the spring or early summer.

Plans for Restructuring: Public Commentary

During public commentary at the end of the working session, Nancy Heine – president of AFSCME Local 3052, which represents about 50 county employees who have supervisory jobs – raised concerns about some of the proposed administrative restructuring changes that commissioners will be voting on at their Feb. 15 meeting. The plan calls for eliminating two senior accounting positions that are part of the union, she said, and creating two non-union jobs in their place with a higher salary range.

Heine noted that this kind of situation has occurred in the past, and the union has restored the positions by filing a complaint with the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC). She said the union wants to work with the administration and human resources to resolve this issue, but the union will have to pursue whatever options are necessary.

In response to Heine’s commentary, Yousef Rabhi noted that the proposed restructuring also involves a non-union job being reclassified as a job represented by Local 3052. That position is in the information technology group. Rabhi said it’s a concern to lose the two union jobs, but at least another one is being created.

Diane Heidt, director of human services and labor relations, noted that several jobs are being reclassified, and that commissioners would be given more details about the changes before their vote on Feb. 15.

Trial Court Renovations

Jason Fee with the county facilities unit gave an update on renovations at the county courthouse in downtown Ann Arbor, located at Main and Huron. The courthouse houses the Washtenaw County trial court, an entity that includes the 22nd Circuit Court, juvenile court, probate court and Friend of the Court program.

From left: Greg Dill, county infrastructure management director; Bob Tetens, director of county parks & recreation; trial court administrator Dan Dwyer; and Dave Shirley, county operations and maintenance manager.

There were two main phases, Fee said. The first phase, which cost about $300,000, started in early 2011 after the 15th District Court moved out of the courthouse and into the city’s new Justice Center at Fifth and Huron. The second floor of the county courthouse was remodeled to create a new jury assembly room, and the third floor was renovated for the juvenile court, which was previously located at a Platt Road facility.

The second phase – focusing on first-floor renovations and costing about $1 million – is still underway. The first floor is where the public comes to do its court-related business, Fee said. Renovations included an active file room; offices for the Washtenaw County Bar Association, Legal Resource Center, and court administration; and a new staff lunchroom.

First-floor renovations began in August of 2011 and are scheduled to wrap up by March 16, 2012 – though Fee said the work might be finished sooner. He credited Dan Dwyer, court administrator, for working hand-in-hand on the design and execution of the work, and said the county saved money by keeping much of the labor in-house.

Fee told commissioners that they’d get another update at their March 8 working session, with a tour scheduled for March 22.

Trial Court Renovations: Commissioner Discussion

Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked a question he’s voiced at other meetings: Is chief judge Donald Shelton happy with the work? Court administrator Dan Dwyer quipped: “He’s as happy as he gets!”

In response to another question from Sizemore, Fee said that renovations to the exterior of the courthouse aren’t part of this current project. Wes Prater encouraged Fee to look at the outside of the courthouse along the Main Street side, saying there are parts of the wall that look like they’re ready to fall off.

Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, told commissioners that staff planned to look at possible exterior work in the spring.

Rob Turner, the commissioner who has acted as a liaison for this project, described himself as usually a hard-head, but said it had been a pleasure to work with Fee and others on this effort. He noted that last year the project had been behind schedule, but they had managed to pull it back together and finish possibly ahead of schedule and on budget.

Sizemore commended the fact that the county’s facilities department was getting an intern to work with them. He encouraged the IT (information technology) department to do the same thing. Even though there’s not as much new housing construction now, Sizemore said, young people can still learn to work on construction projects like the courthouse renovation. It gives them hope that they’ll be able to find a job in this field, he said.

Agenda Briefings

At the Jan. 4, 2012 board meeting, commissioners had voted to change the start time of working sessions to 6 p.m. and add the administrative briefing as the session’s first agenda item. Previously the administrative briefings – held to review the board’s upcoming agenda – were held at 4 p.m. the week prior to a regular board meeting. It had been a difficult time of day for some commissioners to attend.

At the Feb. 2 working session, Alicia Ping expressed some frustration about the new format. The intent was good, she said, but it’s not working. She indicated that because the briefings are held so far ahead of the next meeting – nearly two weeks in advance – many items on the agenda aren’t finalized, and commissioners can’t get enough information to make the briefings productive.

Leah Gunn noted that the briefings are just that – briefings. They are meant to give commissioners an indication of what will be on the agenda, she said, but they aren’t meant to be detailed.

Wes Prater said that if the briefings are only meant to be informational, he didn’t see the point. Why not just email commissioners the agenda information instead? ”I believe all of us can read,” he said. “If we’re not going to talk about it, I don’t have a problem with that.”

Conan Smith pointed out that the agenda isn’t finalized until the week prior to the next meeting. The Feb. 15 meeting agenda, for example, won’t be set until Wednesday, Feb. 8. It won’t be posted publicly until Friday, Feb. 10. The idea for the briefings is to give commissioners a heads up for the big items that will likely be coming before them, he said.

As for when the briefings are held, and who attends, Smith described it as ”a crazy nightmare” to figure out, adding that they’ve tried scheduling it “seven ways from Sunday.”

In March 2011 the board had voted to eliminate the briefings entirely. That decision was made in the wake of criticisms by commissioner Ronnie Peterson, who did not attend the briefings during that period because of his objections to the format. He had called the briefings “backroom” meetings where deliberations occurred that he believed were too far out of the public eye. [The briefings are posted in accordance with the state's Open Meetings Act and The Chronicle has attended nearly all of the public briefings since late 2008.]

After that March 2011 vote, a weekly agenda-setting meeting took the place of briefings, attended by senior staff and just three commissioners: Smith, as board chair; Rolland Sizemore Jr., chair of the ways & means committee; and Yousef Rabhi, chair of the working sessions. Because the meetings did not involve a quorum of commissioners, they were not be required to be open to the public.

Later in the year, the briefings were re-instituted. The 2012 calendar approved by the board at its Dec. 7, 2011 meeting included administrative briefings scheduled at 4 p.m. on the Tuesday during the week prior to the board’s regular Wednesday meetings. They were changed to the current schedule – as part of the board’s workings sessions – to accommodate the schedules of more commissioners, and to be included as part of a televised meeting. [Working sessions are broadcast by Community Television Network and available on the county's website.]

After the brief discussion on Feb. 2, the consensus appeared to be that the briefings would remain a part of the working sessions.

Present: Felicia Brabec, Leah Gunn, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Rob Turner.

Absent: Barbara Bergman, Ronnie Peterson.

The Chronicle could 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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parking Finances

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

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

Parking: Overall State of the Fund

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

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

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

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

Parking: Monthly Report

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

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

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

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

Parking: Hourly Billing – Approval

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parking: Hourly Billing – Financial Impact

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parking: Hourly Billing – Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parking: Hourly Billing – Board Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Parking Management Incentive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communications, Committee Reports

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

Comm/Comm: Underground Garage Construction Update

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

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

Comm/Comm: getDowntown Survey

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

Comm/Comm: Vacancies, SEMCOG, William Street

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: 618 S. Main

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Murals

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

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Rezoning from D2 to D1

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

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

Absent: Newcombe Clark, Bob Guenzel, Keith Orr.

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

Local attorney Stefani Carter talks with Rolland Sizemore Jr., chair of the county board's ways & means committee, before the Feb. 1, 2012 meeting. Carter will be filling in for the county's corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, who is taking a three-month medical leave. (Photos by the writer.)

Items not on the agenda took up much of the meeting time. As he has in the past, commissioner Wes Prater raised concerns over a countywide transit plan being developed by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. It’s expected that the county board will eventually be asked to authorize a four-party agreement with the AATA and the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, but that agreement has not yet been formally presented to the board. [The Ann Arbor city council has postponed its ratification of the four-party agreement twice, and has been asked by the AATA to postpone the issue again at the council's Feb. 6 meeting. That postponement would be until March 5.]

Also at Wednesday’s meeting, county administrator Verna McDaniel introduced local attorney Stefani Carter, who’ll be filling in while corporation counsel Curtis Hedger is on medical leave. Carter has been doing contract work for the county, and previously spent 15 years with the Ann Arbor city attorney’s office.

Speaking at the time for public commentary, Billy Salamey – owner of three towing companies in the county – defended accusations that have been levied against his business during a recent bidding process for towing services with the sheriff’s office. Salamey’s commentary in turn prompted board chair Conan Smith to defend the county’s bidding process, which Smith described as transparent and fair.

Among the formal actions taken during Wednesday’s meeting, commissioners authorized a five-year, $460,000 extension to a project aimed at improving conditions at Whitmore Lake. They also gave final approval to a two-year collective bargaining agreement with AFSCME Local 3052, representing 52 general supervisors.

Medical Leave for County Attorney

Toward the beginning of Wednesday’s meeting, county administrator Verna McDaniel reported that Curtis Hedger, Washtenaw County’s corporation counsel, was taking medical leave. McDaniel introduced local attorney Stefani Carter, who will be handling Hedger’s responsibilities in his absence.

The three-month, part-time medical leave follows a diagnosis of congestive heart failure in January. Hedger told The Chronicle that he plans to work a limited number of hours per week, and will help Carter transition into her role with the county. Carter has been serving as “of counsel” with the county on a contract basis, and Hedger recommended her for this new role. Early in her career Carter worked in the county prosecuting attorney’s office, and later spent 15 years as an assistant city attorney for Ann Arbor.

At the Feb. 1 meeting, Carter told commissioners that she was happy to be there, but ”I hope my term of service will be short, as we hope Curtis comes back as soon as possible.”

Toward the end of the three-month leave, Hedger said he’ll undergo additional testing that could determine whether he’ll return to his job on a full-time basis, continue part-time work, or retire.

Later in the meeting, commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. said that the situation would be a good time to examine the county’s legal expenses and to make sure there’s a fair distribution of work around the county.

In addition to Hedger’s salary of about $117,000, the county contracts with other attorneys to handle its legal work. Documents provided in response to a Freedom of Information Act request made by The Chronicle in 2011 show that the county spent $4.83 million on outside legal counsel during the five-year period from 2006-2010. [.pdf of 2006-2010 itemized legal expenses]

During that five-year period, the county used 19 firms. But the bulk of the expenses – $4.152 million – were paid to just five firms: Dykema Gossett ($1.45 million), Reach Law Firm ($1.38 million), Miller Johnson ($869,824), Gallagher & Gallagher ($246,645) and Timothy McDaniel ($203,635). (McDaniel is the husband of county administrator Verna McDaniel.)

Much of Dykema’s work related to its role as outside counsel for a lawsuit filed against the county in 2006 by the townships of Ypsilanti, Salem and Augusta over the cost of police services. The county board voted to accept a settlement in mid-2011, but the settlement did not include recovery of the county’s legal expenses. Other legal expenses handled by the 19 law firms relate to real estate, litigation, bond issues and a range of other matters.

The response to a Chronicle FOIA request for 2011 legal expenses, filed last week, will be forthcoming.

Countywide Transit

During one of the opportunities for commissioners to bring up items for current or future discussion, Wes Prater said he wanted to address the issue of a four-party agreement for countywide transit. It’s a topic he has raised at previous meetings as well, most recently at the board’s Jan. 18, 2012 meeting, where he expressed concerns about the county’s role.

WEMU reporter Andy Cluley interviews county commissioner Wes Prater.

On Wednesday, Prater observed that the project seems to be stalled. He then read a statement outlining some of his concerns. [.pdf of Prater's statement] He highlighted the Ann Arbor  Transportation Authority’s cost per passenger ride, which he calculated to be about $5 per rider – based on a $30 million budget and about 6 million riders. Prater also claimed that fewer than 1.25 average passengers are riding per route for each hour of service provided.

By way of explanation, Prater arrives at his artificially low number by starting with the AATA’s systemwide average: 32 passengers per service hour. He then divides that number by the number of routes – 26.

However, the “passengers per service hour” statistic is in concept already finer-grained than an individual route. A “service hour” is an hour of operation for an individual revenue-producing vehicle. And a single route can have more than one vehicle operating on it at the same time. It’s not clear how insight can be gained into route-wise performance by dividing the systemwide average by the number of routes – as Prater has done. That would be akin to trying to learn about household income levels by dividing average personal income by the number of households.

The AATA collects and maintains passenger-per-service-hour data for each route. And those numbers range from a high of nearly 46 passengers per service hour on Route 9 to a low of 11 passengers per service hour on Route 17 in the most recent year.

Prater went on to suggest that AATA discuss these issues with the county board, in light of the four-party agreement that the board will be asked to approve in the near future.

County commissioners were most recently briefed on the AATA’s countywide transit plan at the board’s Dec. 7, 2011 meeting. At that meeting, AATA CEO Michael Ford gave a presentation and answered questions, and addressed the county’s role in the process of forming a new countywide transit authority.

The four-party agreement – with the AATA, Washtenaw County, and the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – has not yet been placed on the agenda for the county board. It is being considered by the Ann Arbor city council, which has postponed action on the agreement two times. At a public hearing on the issue at the council’s Jan. 23 meeting, county commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. spoke in support of the countywide plan. The Ann Arbor city council had planned to discuss the agreement at its Feb. 6 meeting. But in the most recent development, on Friday, Feb. 3, the AATA requested that the city council postpone a decision on the four-party transit agreement until March 5.

Later in the Feb. 1 meeting, Prater said his statement didn’t mean that he doesn’t support public transit. He’s just concerned about the process for forming a countywide transit authority. Prater said he didn’t think AATA had been forthcoming on all items related to the plan. He also said that a financial advisory group, which was expected to release a report on Friday, Jan. 27 with recommendations on funding a countywide transit system, decided against “turning it loose,” he said. “That’s unfortunate.”

The advisory group, co-chaired by former county administrator Bob Guenzel, postponed its Jan. 27 meeting in the wake of state legislation that had been introduced the previous day – on Jan. 26. The 17-bill package, if passed, would provide for the establishment and funding of a regional transit authority that would include Washtenaw, Wayne, Macomb and Oakland counties.

Whitmore Lake Improvement Project

On the Feb. 1 agenda was a resolution to give initial approval to a five-year, $460,000 project to study and improve conditions at Whitmore Lake. The lake is located in Washtenaw County’s Northfield Township and Livingston County’s Green Oak Township.

The effort – focusing on removal of invasive weeds – is a continuation of a project that began in 2003, and was renewed in 2007. It’s overseen by the county board of public works. The project’s cost will be recovered through special assessments on over 860 parcels near Whitmore Lake.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked for additional details of the project. Jeff Krcmarik, an environmental supervisor with the county’s office of the water resources commissioner, said the project began in 2003 after residents living near Whitmore Lake asked for the county’s help. Invasive weeds was inhibiting recreational activities, he said, and limiting the lake’s biodiversity. The assessments require renewal every five years.

Krcmarik pointed commissioners to the project’s website for more information and historical reports.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the Whitemore Lake project. A final vote is expected at the board’s Feb. 15 meeting.

AFSCME Local 3052 Contract Approved

Without discussion, the board gave final approval to a two-year collective bargaining agreement with AFSCME Local 3052, representing 52 general supervisors. The agreement had been ratified by its membership, and had received initial approval from commissioners at their Jan. 18, 2012 meeting.

AFSCME Local 3052 was one of five bargaining units – out of 17 units representing county employees – that did not reach an agreement with the county by the end of 2011, when its previous contracts expired. Negotiations continue with the other four units – representing the prosecuting attorneys, the prosecuting attorney supervisors, attorneys in the public defenders office, supervisors of attorneys in the public defenders office.

The new agreement, which runs from Jan. 1, 2012 through Dec. 31, 2013, calls for a 10% retirement contribution from employees, and a 10-year vesting period for new hires. Employees will take 10 unpaid “bank leave” days in 2012 and 2013, with no furlough days imposed. Though bank leave and furlough days are similar – both are unpaid – the bank leave days do not affect calculations toward an employee’s retirement or longevity pay.

The default health care plan will comply with the state’s hard cap on costs. The cap limits the amount that public employers can contribute toward employee healthcare annually: $5,500 for single-person coverage, $11,000 for individual and spouse coverage, and $15,000 for family coverage. Employees have the option to upgrade their plans for additional annual costs of $2,724 or $1,772, based on the plan.

The agreement also eliminates longevity pay for new hires, and reduces longevity pay by 25% for current employees in 2012. Step increases will be frozen for 2013. The collective bargaining agreement stipulates that if county property tax revenues increase by at least 2% on or before Dec. 31, 2012, a 1% wage increase would become effective Jan. 1, 2013.

Outcome: Commissioners gave final approval to a new contract with AFSCME Local 3052.

Workers Comp Contracts Authorized

Commissioners were asked to approve a resolution authorizing two contracts: (1) for the third-party administration of claims services for the workers’ disability compensation program from 2012-2015; and (2) for excess workers’ disability compensation insurance coverage from Feb. 1, 2012 through May 1, 2013.

The agreement for third-party administration of claims services was awarded to Broadspire Services Inc., based in Atlanta. It calls for paying Broadspire $36,750 in each of the first and second years, and $37,565 in the third year of the contract. Broadspire is the county’s current vendor for these services.

The contract for excess insurance coverage above $500,000 was awarded to St. Louis-based Safety National. The agreement calls for paying the company $62,297 for the period of February 2012 through May 2013. The resolution approved by the board also authorizes the county administrator to negotiate one-year extensions through May 1, 2015. According to a staff memo, the insurance coverage will be used to protect the county from potential worker’s compensation losses over the next year. Safety National is the county’s current excess insurance vendor.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the resolution related to two contracts for the workers compensation program.

Public Commentary: Towing Contract

One person spoke during the opportunity for public commentary. Billy Salamey introduced himself as a Superior Township resident and owner of three towing companies. [His businesses include Budget Towing, Stadium Towing and Glen Ann Towing.]

Billy Salamey, left, talks with Washtenaw County commissioner Conan Smith after the Feb. 1 meeting.

Salamey said he was there to talk about allegations that had been made against his company by a competitor. It was frustrating, he said, because he felt that his character had been defamed. He said he conducts his business with integrity and honesty, and he cited several examples of work in the community to make his point.

By way of background, Salamey was referring to a letter sent to the board of commissioners on Jan. 25, 2012 from Ed Lee, towing manager of Aachen Auto in Ypsilanti. Lee objected to the process of choosing companies for towing contracts with the sheriff’s office, alleging that a company had submitted a fraudulent bid. Lee criticized the bidding process, stating that the contract extension process “has historically violated the rights of every towing company within Washtenaw County that didn’t currently have the contract.”

In his letter, Lee requested time at the Feb. 1 meeting to discuss the issue with the board. The letter did not refer to Salamey or his business by name. [.pdf of Lee's letter] However, no presentation on the issue was made at Wednesday’s meeting.

During his time at public commentary, Salamey thanked the county for conducting due diligence in responding to the allegations.

Bob Mossing, business manager for the sheriff’s office, had responded to Lee’s allegations in a Jan. 27 memo to Angela Perry, the county’s purchasing manager – the memo was also cc-ed to the county board. Mossing noted in the memo that “no official action has been taken relative to this RFP or awarding any areas to any tow companies.” [.pdf of memo from Mossing] [.pdf of original RFP, issued in June of 2011]

Public Commentary: Towing Contract – Commissioner Response

Conan Smith, chair of the board, responded to Salamey’s comments by saying that the county prides itself on the transparency of its processes. The bids were vetted by the county’s corporation counsel and sheriff’s office, he said, and the bids were found to be in compliance with the county’s policies. He said he appreciated that Salamey attended the meeting, and that the county has a fair, solid bidding process.

Present: Leah Gunn, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Rob Turner.

Absent: Barbara Bergman, Felicia Brabec, Ronnie Peterson

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Feb. 15, 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. [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 could 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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Licenses Recommended

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zoning Board of Appeals

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

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

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

Zoning Board of Appeals: Green Planet

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

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

The language of the medical marijuana zoning ordinance states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zoning Board of Appeals: Treecity

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

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

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

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

Other Recommendations

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

Other Recommendations: Completeness, Conditions

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

Assistant city attorney Kristen Larcom.

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

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

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

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

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

Medical marijuana licensing board members Sabra Briere and Jim Kenyon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Recommendations: Entry for Inspection

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

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

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

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

Other Recommendations: Number of Licenses, Frequency of Recommendation

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

Board members Jim Kenyon and Patricia O'Rorke.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Recommendations: Operation in Compliance with MMMA

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

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

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

Other Recommendations: Licensing Fee

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

Medical marijuana licensing board member Gene Ragland.

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

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

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

Next Step: City Council

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

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

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

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

This ballot likely reflects a sentiment against the Fuller Road Station, which would include a train station, bus terminal and – in its first phase – a large parking structure. At last report, the facility would be a joint city of Ann Arbor-University of Michigan project, located on city-owned land that's designated as part of the park system.

Out of curiosity, The Chronicle asked intern Hayley Byrnes to take a look at the names of people voters wrote by hand on their ballots. 

Of the 1,206 Ward 1 voters who dragged themselves to their polling stations on a rainy Tuesday last November, 57 filled in the bubble next to the blank space for write-in candidates.

None of the people whose names were written on any of those 57 ballots could have won the election. Some were not the names of actual people who live in Ward 1, or even actual people at all.

But even among those actual Ward 1 residents whose names were put forward by voters, none of them had filed officially for a write-in candidacy. They were therefore not legal opponents in the election. Those 57 bubbles, however, reflected the votes of 57 Ward 1 voters.

Writing in the name of a person who has not registered as a write-in candidate – on a ballot that offers only one candidate – could reasonably be seen as an expression of dissatisfaction.

So The Chronicle wanted to discover: What form did voters’ dissatisfaction take?

Ward 1 Compared to Other Wards

How did the 57 write-ins (4.73%) for Ward 1 compare to other wards?

Bar Chart A. Percentage of write-in ballots for Nov. 8, 2011 Ann Arbor city council elections by ward.

In Ward 3, 1.29% of voters wrote in a candidate. In Ward 4, that figure was 1.11%. Ward 5 had 0.81% write-ins, while Ward 2 had 0.17%. So Ward 1 had more than three times as many write-ins as any other ward.

To consider those numbers in the context of each ward’s contest, the lowest percentage of write-ins (by far) came from Ward 2, where Jane Lumm won one of the closest races, garnering 60% of the vote. The Ward 2 race was expected to be close, so it’s not surprising that only six voters ward-wide chose to “waste” their votes.

A slightly closer race than Ward 2 turned out to be Ward 4, where Marcia Higgins won with 59% of the vote – but it was not necessarily expected to be that close. That could explain a greater willingness of a Ward 4 voter to write in a candidate than in Ward 2.

But beyond numbers and percentages, available online on the Washtenaw County clerk’s website, no record is kept of the text of the write-ins themselves, other than the physical ballot. Ballots are sealed, and the number of handwritten candidate names are tallied as “write-ins” – even if no candidate registered as a write-in candidate.

Ballots as Public Documents

According to Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), citizens “are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent them as public officials and public employees.”

Bar Chart B: Ward 1 Write in ballots by precinct

Whether that broad sentiment of “full and complete information” applies to voted ballots, which are entitled to strict secrecy, is not a part of the explicit language of the FOIA. But in May 2010, Michigan’s then-attorney general Mike Cox concluded that ballots are subject to the FOIA.

In attorney-general opinion #7247, Cox writes that voted ballots do indeed “constitute ‘public records’ for the purposes of the FOIA.” The opinion continues by explaining that because ballots are virtually untraceable to an individual after they have been tabulated, making them available to the public does not violate ballot secrecy.

While the public has the right to see voted ballots, the timeframe for that access is more restrictive than for an ordinary FOIA request. In the same opinion, Cox concluded that the ballots could be released 30 days after certification by the relevant board of canvassers.

For the Nov. 8, 2011 city of Ann Arbor election, the county board of canvassers certified the results on Nov. 16, opening the earliest window for access on Dec. 16. After that window opened, The Chronicle arranged with the city to inspect ballots. In the interest of efficiency, we targeted Precincts 4 and 8 in Ward 1, because together they supplied almost half of the write-in ballots (24 of 57).

While Precinct 9 offered another 16 write-ins, the Clague Middle School polling station for Precinct 9 was the same polling station for a precinct in a different ward – Ward 2, Precinct 6. The voting machine does not separate the ballots by ward, so on balance we expected to be more efficient by opting for precincts that wouldn’t require sorting by ward.

Names of Write-Ins

The 300 Ward 1 ballots we inspected were held in two blue-and-red bags – each with an unbroken seal on the handles. After breaking the seals, city clerk Jacqueline Beaudry remained present throughout the inspection, thus complying with another restriction that a city official be present at all times during ballot inspection.

After 30 minutes we’d confirmed all 24 write-in ballots from precincts 4 and 8. Here’s a sampling of the names that voters filled in on their ballots:

Anyone Else.

John Hilton. Likely a reference to the editor of the Ann Arbor Observer. The printed monthly magazine's articles are also available on arborweb.com

Mr. No Fuller. This ballot likely reflects sentiment against the Fuller Road Station, which would include a train station, bus terminal and – in its first phase – a large parking structure. The facility has been proposed as a joint city of Ann Arbor-University of Michigan project, located on city-owned land that's designated as part of the park system.

Mary Elton. Likely the car enthusiast, spouse of Bob Elton.

Robert Elton. Likely the local car historian who is one of the founders of the Rolling Sculpture Car Show. Image links to Ann Arbor District Library video of a history of Chrysler by Elton.

Pat Clancy. Possibly the co-operator of Lil Dog Rescue.

Grant J. Weber. Possibly a former student at the Ross Business School at the University of Michigan.

Wickboldt. Likely Richard Wickboldt, who ran unsuccessfully for the Ward 1 Democratic nomination for city council in 2007, a race won by Sabra Briere.

Sarah Pinckleman. Likely an English instructor at Washtenaw Community College.

Cthulhu. A fictional character from the short story “The Call of Cthulhu” by H. P. Lovecraft, published in 1928. The creature has a following for the 2012 presidential election.

Wards are represented on the city council by two councilmembers, one of whom stands for election each year. Briere’s wardmate, Sandi Smith, has not announced publicly any plans for seeking re-election to her Ward 1 city council seat in 2012.

But of the names written in on last November’s Ward 1 city council ballots, Cthulhu is the least likely to challenge for her seat – he’ll apparently be otherwise occupied running for president: Chthulhu for President in 2012 Facebook page.

[.pdf of full set of 24 write-in ballots for city council in Ward 1, precincts 4 and 8, from the Nov. 8, 2011 election.]

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!

Baseball field #4 at Veterans Memorial Park will be among fields at three parks that will be renovated, if the Ann Arbor city council approves a recommendation of the park advisory commission. (Photos by the writer.)

PAC unanimously recommended awarding a nearly $1 million contract to RMD Holdings of Chesterfield, Michigan, for renovation of ballfields at Veterans Memorial Park, West Park and Southeast Area Park. If approved by the city council, work would begin after the 2012 summer season. Ann Arbor Rec & Ed – a unit of the Ann Arbor Public Schools – plans to cancel its fall season in light of the project. Teams playing in Rec & Ed programs are the primary users of these fields.

Commissioners also got an update on the status of West Park renovations – specifically, how problems with an underground stormwater system are being addressed. City engineer Nick Hutchinson described plans for repairing the system, saying that legal issues are still being worked out, but the project will likely be completed by July of 2012. A public forum will be held on Feb. 13 at Slauson Middle School to update residents. At a similar meeting held in mid-January, residents raised concerns over whether the situation in West Park has caused flooding in nearby basements.

Also at PAC’s Jan. 24 meeting, commissioner Gwen Nystuen urged the group to consider taking action on the Allen Creek greenway, in light of remarks made by mayor John Hieftje at the city council’s Jan. 23 meeting regarding the city-owned 415 W. Washington property. Colin Smith, the city’s manager of parks and recreation, reported that there’s been discussion about possibly applying for a state grant to help fund the greenway, but the timeline for applying this year is tight. He also suggested that an initial step would be to develop a master plan for the greenway, as recommended in the city’s parks, recreation and open space plan.

Near the beginning of the meeting, commissioner Sam Offen introduced the new executive director for the Leslie Science & Nature Center, Susan Westhoff, who spoke briefly to commissioners. Offen is a board member of the center, a nonprofit that’s located on city property.

Ballfield Renovations

The main action item on the Jan. 24 agenda was a resolution recommending a nearly $1 million contract to renovate softball and baseball fields at three city parks.

If approved by the city council, the $982,333 contract would be awarded to RMD Holdings of Chesterfield, Michigan. That amount includes a $893,030 base bid plus a 10% contingency of $89,303. It was the lowest of four bids received for the project, which will focus on the fenced ballparks at Veterans Memorial Park, West Park and Southeast Area Park. Originally, the city had intended to include fields at Allmendinger Park as well, but bids came in higher than expected, and that work was eliminated from the project.

The renovations have been in the works for more than two years. At PAC’s September 2010 meeting, commissioner David Barrett gave a report on the condition of the city’s ballparks after personally surveying them. [.pdf file of Barrett's ballpark report] According to a staff memo accompanying the Jan. 24 resolution, no major restoration work has been done on the fields in more than 10 years.

Staff from Ann Arbor Rec & Ed, a unit of the public school system, will work with city staff on this project – Rec & Ed programs are the primary users of these fields. Construction will likely begin in mid-August of 2012, with fields ready for use again in early spring of 2013. Rec & Ed plans to cancel its fall season to accommodate the project.

Funding will be drawn from three sources: (1) $250,000 from the approved FY 2012 parks maintenance and capital improvements millage budget; (2) $64,000 from an unobligated remaining fund balance in the expired park repair and restoration millage; and (3) $668,333 from the unobligated fund balance of the existing parks maintenance and capital improvements millage.

Deputy parks manager Jeff Straw and Matt Warba, the city’s supervisor of field operations, briefed PAC on the proposal. Straw noted that in collecting feedback for the 2010 update to the parks, recreation and open space (PROS) plan, the city heard loud and clear that people wanted better maintenance of the fields. The fields – used for baseball, softball and kickball – drew more than 5,000 players during the summer and fall seasons in 2011, Straw said.

Warba noted that when the city had a larger parks staff, renovations of the fields occurred every 10 years. Now, that’s no longer possible to do in-house, he said. Describing the current conditions of the fields, Warba said they are poorly graded, with poor drainage that results in water pooling in the infield, which limits play. The material used for the infield makes it dusty in the summer, and doesn’t allow water to drain quickly when it rains.

For the outfields, the playing surfaces are uneven, Warba said, the turf is in poor condition, and the warning tracks are filled with weeds. Fencing is deteriorating and damaged, and many of the backstops don’t have overhangs.

Upgrades will include regrading the infields, removing the infield lip, replacing the existing infield material with red clay, and installing drainage around the infield’s perimeter. Fencing will be replaced, automated irrigation systems will be installed, field turf will be restored, and concrete will be used for floors of the dugouts and bleacher pads.

Warba told commissioners that Stantec had drawn up designs for the project, and that the lowest “responsible” bid came from RMD Holdings, a company with prior experience doing this work.

Ballfield Renovations: Commission Discussion

Karen Levin asked whether other fields in the city’s parks system can be used to play on during the renovations. Warba said there are 24 other neighborhood fields available. The next phase of this project will be upgrading those as well, he said. Straw added that Rec & Ed decided to cancel its fall season in part because lighting would be a challenge – most of the other ballfields don’t have lights.

Colin Smith, the city’s manager of parks and recreation, noted that no matter how the renovations are handled, it will be inconvenient. Rec & Ed staff felt this would be the best approach, he said. Rec & Ed director Sara Aeschbach told commissioners that players had been surveyed about their preferences, and the strong preference was to preserve the summer season. Using the neighborhood ballparks is too difficult in the fall, because it gets dark earlier. She said players are excited that the fields will be improved.

Gwen Nystuen asked about the material that would be used under the team benches. Will it be a pervious surface? Water drainage is important, she noted. Warba replied that the area will be designed with an angle to allow water to flow off the surface. Pervious materials weren’t considered, he said, though there’s still time to make changes.

Colin Smith, Ann Arbor's parks and recreation manager.

Smith noted that the majority of players wear cleats, which would create problems for any pervious surface. He also pointed out that significant stormwater improvements will be made in that section of Veterans Memorial Park, as part of the Dexter-Ann Arbor street repair project.

Nystuen said that in general, whenever they can install pervious surfaces, it will make a difference in helping address stormwater runoff.

Christopher Taylor asked whether the ballpark renovations would coordinate in any way with the possible skatepark construction at Vets. Smith replied that it’s unlikely the skatepark construction will begin by August – it’s more likely that work on the project will start in the spring of 2013. In response to another query from Taylor, Smith indicated that construction equipment used to build the skatepark isn’t expected to damage the work done on the ballfields.

Mike Anglin said he assumed that the parks staff had coordinated this project with the road work being done along Dexter-Ann Arbor. Yes, Smith said. The stretch of Dexter-Ann Arbor along Veterans Memorial Park, east of Maple, will likely be closed from April through November. That’s another good reason for the fall season to be canceled, Smith said, adding that a lot of coordination will be needed.

Julie Grand observed that rates for using the fields at Fuller and Olson parks increased after those fields were renovated. Would rates also be increased at the ballfields after renovations?

Aeschbach said that Rec & Ed charges fees to cover the cost of prepping the fields for play, and those costs won’t change. It’s up to the city, she said, to set the actual rental rates for the fields. Many user groups no longer play on city fields because of the damaged conditions, she said, so demand isn’t high. Perhaps after the fields are renovated, the city can check to see if those groups will return and pay a higher rate.

Smith noted that this project is in line with the philosophy of taking care of and restoring what the city already owns. The ballfields are eyesores, he said, and not good for playing. In addition, Veterans Memorial Park is located at one of the major entry points into town – the corner of Maple and Dexter-Ann Arbor roads. The area needs attention, he said, and the city is undertaking a major effort to do that, in part to respond to feedback from users.

Outcome: Commissioner voted unanimously to recommend approval of the $982,333 contract with RMD Holdings for ballfield renovations at Veterans Memorial Park, West Park and Southeast Area Park. The recommendation will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

West Park Update

Commissioners had received an update on problems at West Park nearly a year ago, when Craig Hupy – head of systems planning for the city – spoke at PAC’s February 2011 meeting. At that time, Hupy had described the situation with the stormwater infrastructure there as a “catastrophic failure.”

PAC got a more detailed briefing at its Jan. 24 meeting. Parks planner Amy Kuras introduced Nick Hutchinson, a civil engineer and one of the project managers in the city’s public services unit, who was on hand to give an update on the status of swirl concentrators at West Park. It was a shortened version of a similar presentation he’d given at a public forum on the topic earlier in January. Kuras reported that forum had been well-attended.

Nick Hutchinson, an engineer and project manager with the city of Ann Arbor, updated PAC on the status of infrastructure renovations at West Park.

Hutchinson began by giving a brief history of stormwater management in West Park. Originally, north and south branches of Allen Creek flowed over the surface through the land that’s now West Park. In the early 20th century, Washtenaw County built drains through the park to collect stormwater, and directed the flow of Allen Creek into underground pipes. There’s also a sanitary sewer main that runs underground through the park. Hutchinson showed a map that indicated the location of the floodway and floodplain running through the park, as well as the location of the sewer main and county drains.

Over the years, conditions worsened. Deteriorating recreational facilities and uncontrolled flooding in the park led to certain areas being underused.

In 2010, the city renovated West Park, including its bandshell, basketball courts and pathways. The project also included upgrades for stormwater management, Hutchinson said. [The total project, supported in part by federal stimulus funds, cost about $4 million.]

The stormwater portion of the project included installation of some water treatment units – swirl concentrators – on the west side of the park, in the north and south branches of the Allen Creek drain. The purpose was to divert some of the water from the stormwater system, treat it, and remove pollutants before reintroducing it into the system to flow eventually into the Huron River.

Another part of the stormwater management was to remove a nominal amount of water from the stormwater pipes by disconnecting the inlets from North Seventh Street and sending some of the water back to the surface, as it had flowed historically. Water was diverted to a series of bioswales that led to wetlands and ponds as it flowed east through the park.

When construction was being completed around November 2010, Hutchinson reported, a sinkhole appeared on the west side of the park near the drain’s north branch, where the swirl concentrators were located. “These are maybe some of the things that didn’t go quite right on the project,” he said, “that we are still trying to address now.”

The contractor investigated and discovered that the lid on a swirl concentrator had caved in. Cameras were sent down into the other units and it was discovered that all four units on the north branch were in some stage of failure.

This photo, part of the meeting packet for the Jan. 24 park advisory commission, shows the installation of a swirl concentrator at West Park in the summer of 2010.

Hutchinson explained how the swirl concentrators are supposed to work. Water is diverted from the main stormwater pipe through a device called a diversion manhole, containing a 3.5-foot “weir wall” that prevents the water from flowing directly into the main stormwater system. Instead, the diverted water flows into a large cylinder, where it swirls around in a vortex. The solids in the water are forced to the center of the unit, where the velocity of the swirling is slower and the solids settle down to the bottom. The water exits into a pipe on the other side of the unit and is reintroduced into the stormwater system.

During normal conditions or a light rain, most of the water is diverted. But in heavy rainfall, only a portion of the water is diverted – the rest flows over the weir wall and continues directly through the stormwater system, without passing through the swirl concentrators.

A total of eight swirl concentrators were installed – four on the north branch, and four on the south branch. Each unit cost about $66,000, including construction. They were initially installed in June of 2010.

In August of 2010, the four units in the south branch were taken offline because of concerns that the weir wall wasn’t operating correctly, Hutchinson said. The wall wasn’t allowing higher flows to pass through the system during heavy rains. Then in November of 2010, after the swirl concentrator collapsed on the north branch, all four of those units were also taken offline. The weir wall was removed from the diversion manhole, and a bulkhead was installed to block the pipe that led to the swirl concentrators. Since then, water has flowed directly through the stormwater pipes – none of it is diverted to the swirl concentrators. The stormwater system is functioning as it did prior to 2010, Hutchinson said.

In late 2010, the city hired Orchard Hiltz & McCliment (OHM) to look into the situation. OHM began by doing a forensic investigation of the swirl concentrator failures, and determined that the lids of those units were too thin, causing the collapse. ”It was essentially a manufacturing flaw,” Hutchinson said.

OHM also reviewed the prior design of the diversion manholes and weir walls, and conducted some site-specific stormwater modeling to get an understanding of how stormwater behaves in the system. They used that information to present some ideas for improving the system, Hutchinson said. [In November 2010, city council authorized an additional $119,000 for OHM to complete these tasks. That brought total payment to OHM for the West Park project to $324,000. An August 2011 city staff memo indicated that the city expects to recover any additional costs due to the failures, either from the manufacturer or the firm that made the initial design, Beckett & Raeder Inc.]

With a failure of this magnitude there are legal issues, Hutchinson said, including disputes regarding who’s at fault – the contractor (Site Development Inc.) or the manufacturer (AquaShield Inc. and L.F. Manufacturing). He said he couldn’t discuss those issues, except to say that the parties seem to be getting very close to reaching a resolution. The legal issues shouldn’t hold up completion of the project, he said.

Next steps include refining the design of the diversion manholes and weir walls. In addition, residents have raised concerns about manhole covers being popped off during heavy rains, because of pressure from excess water in the system. So OHM is looking at redesigning the system to provide some relief options so that pressure will be eased during storms.

Another public meeting will be held on Feb. 13 at Slauson Middle School. At that meeting, city staff will review OHM’s draft design, and discuss the technical issues that led to the design, Hutchinson said.

In May and June of 2012, the manufacturer will make repairs on the units. Following that, the city will hire a contractor to make the changes that OHM proposes to the diversion manholes and weir walls. City staff hope to have that work completed by July of 2012, Hutchinson said.

West Park Update: Commission Discussion

John Lawter asked whether there are concerns that the shutdown of the swirl concentrators is affecting water detention capability, making it difficult to control floodwater. No, Hutchinson said – the purpose of the swirl concentrators isn’t water detention, but rather to improve the water quality as it flows through.

Are there problems in terms of how much water the units can handle? Lawter asked. If too much water is sent through the units, Hutchinson replied, the water will simply bypass the units and flow over the weir wall, going directly into the stormwater system. Capacity is not a concern. The redesign of the weirs and diversion manholes will ensure that the right amount of water gets in, he said.

Lawter raised the issue of basements flooding in that area, and wondered whether that problem is related to the situation at West Park. An improperly designed weir structure could cause back-ups upstream, Hutchinson said. Any design that’s installed in the future will be studied to ensure that it doesn’t cause any upstream disturbances, he added.

Sam Offen noted that this concern was raised by residents at the January public meeting on West Park. Offen agreed that the issue either needed to be resolved through the new design, or that information should be provided to residents to explain the situation.

Offen also asked how construction would affect the active areas of the park. The work will happen on the park’s west side, Hutchinson said. Access to the ballfield, bandshell and paths will be undisturbed. Kuras added that there are three entrances to the park off of Seventh Street. The north and south entrances will be closed, but the middle entrance will remain open.

Mike Anglin asked whether there was any data related to water flow through the system that was collected prior to the installation of the swirl concentrators. OHM collected flow data in the spring and summer of 2011, Hutchinson said, by putting monitoring devices in the stormwater pipes.

Anglin asked whether the city was making an effort to talk with residents whose basements have flooded. Hutchinson replied that the current project doesn’t entail working with residents. The project is specific to West Park infrastructure.

Kuras added that at the recent public forum on the West Park situation, some people brought up the issue of basement flooding. City staff knows that they need to address the broader issues related to the entire Allen Creek area upstream from West Park, she said.

Hutchinson noted that some neighborhoods – like Maple Ridge – experienced flooding in 2011. At that time, the pipes had been returned to their pre-2010 condition, he said, so the flooding they experienced wasn’t related to changes at West Park, he said.

Report on Fuller & Olson Athletic Fields

Commissioners received an update on conditions of the city’s Fuller Park and Olson Park athletic fields, which were renovated in 2009-2010. The first post-renovation scheduling of play occurred in 2011, from March through November.

From left: Jeff Straw, Ann Arbor deputy parks and recreation manager; Matt Warba, supervisor of field operations; and Jessica Black, parks and recreation customer service manager.

Jessica Black, parks and recreation customer service manager, described how the six Fuller Park fields were used during the spring, summer and fall playing seasons. [.pdf of Fuller fields layouts in 2011] She noted that the two fields at Olson Park are always used as full fields, but that some Fuller Park fields are split into half fields. There are also seasons when the fields are taken out of play and allowed to “rest.”

Black provided a breakdown of the types of users, noting that “soccer is definitely our No. 1 use.” Teams playing soccer accounted for 65% of the use of fields, 15% were lacrosse teams, and the remaining 20% was split between flag football and ultimate frisbee.

A total of 15 teams used the fields throughout 2011, including eight teams that returned from previous years and seven new teams. There were youth and adult teams, and University of Michigan club sports.

City staff had determined that 35 games per field per season was the maximum number of games that should be allowed, in order to maintain the condition of the fields, Black reported. For the three seasons in 2011, Olson and Fuller fields were used at about 79% capacity, she said. At the six Fuller fields, 679 games were played out of a possible 875. At Olson’s two fields, 175 games were played out of 210 possible games.

Jeff Straw, the city’s deputy manager of parks and recreation, briefed commissioners on revenues from the fields. Rates were set at $60 per hour for most of the full fields at Fuller and for the two Olson fields. Half-field rates at Fuller were $40 per hour. For field #6 at Fuller, the rental fee was $32 an hour for a full field, and $20 an hour for a half field. [Previously, rates ranged from $16 an hour to a high of $31.50 an hour, depending on a variety of factors, including residency (Ann Arbor residents were charged lower rates) and time of day (rates for prime time, between 4-8 p.m., were higher). PAC recommended rate increases at its January 2010 meeting.]

Based on the maximum number of games allowed, the six Fuller fields could have brought in a maximum of $70,280. But because the fields were not used at full capacity, Fuller fields recorded $54,608 in revenues during 2011. Of that, $5,400 was later refunded due to weather cancellations, Straw said.

For Olson’s two fields, $21,000 in revenue was collected, but $1,500 was refunded because of cancellations. Those two fields had the potential to bring in $25,200 in revenues, if played to capacity.

Factoring in refunds, the eight fields at Fuller and Olson had a total of $68,708 in revenues during 2011.

Total estimated expenses were $82,688. Major line items were administration and scheduling costs ($25,000), mowing ($18,368) and fertilizing/aerification/overseeding ($18,800).

Commenting on the financials, Matt Warba – the city’s supervisor of field operations – said he didn’t think it was anyone’s intent to make the fields self-sufficient. But it’s getting close, he added, and that’s encouraging.

Warba also noted that April and May of 2011 were especially rainy months – the city had to cancel play on 25 days out of a 45-day period because of rain. Warba also noted that the irrigation system at Olson failed during the summer, resulting in turf loss. That system has been repaired.

Report on Fuller & Olson Athletic Fields: Commission Discussion

Karen Levin asked how 2012 expenses are expected to compare to 2011. Warba replied that costs generally are expected to remain static.

Sam Offen wondered how revenues compared to previous years. Colin Smith, manager of parks and recreation, said it would be difficult to compare since the rates were lower in the past, prior to the renovations. He hadn’t asked his staff to bring those figures.

Gwen Nystuen asked how long it would be before the city would need to invest in another major renovation of the fields. Warba replied that it would be possible to maintain the fields without major renovations. They’re taking a cautious approach, he said, by resting fields periodically so that they can be kept in good condition. The city staff has to balance demand for the fields against maintenance.

Julie Grand, chair of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission.

Nystuen noted that because the fields are fenced in, that keeps people off when it’s raining. That was the intent, Warba said. Olson fields aren’t fenced, however, and in some cases players have jumped the fences at Fuller, he said. One field had to be taken out of play for a month because of the damage caused when people played on a field that was supposed to be closed. Warba said the city will likely hire a temporary worker next season to patrol the fields – it would be cheaper than having to repair damage to a field if players jump the fence.

John Lawter asked whether the city is meeting the need for this kind of play, or could they do more? Smith noted that the fields are at 79% capacity, so there’s space available. However, there’s more demand than capacity for prime time slots – between 4-8 p.m. Black reported that the staff has set the maximum number of games at 35 per field per season. If the city were to add more games in order to accommodate more teams, that might not ultimately meet the teams’ needs, because the condition of the fields would deteriorate. “It’s a balancing act,” Black said.

Smith said the city wants to avoid having to make another major investment in renovating the fields. If demand is high, it’s possible to look at adding fields in other parks, he added, or possibly to acquire more land for that purpose.

Julie Grand asked if the city is doing outreach to groups that might have a lower impact on the fields – sports that don’t involve as much running and kicking as soccer, for example. Black said that at this point, there hasn’t been that kind of outreach.

Gwen Nystuen called the overall report encouraging.

Communications: Allen Creek Greenway, Leslie Science Center

Every meeting includes opportunities for public commentary and communications from commissioners and staff. No one spoke during either of the slots for public commentary at the Jan. 24 meeting.

Communications: Allen Creek Greenway

Gwen Nystuen brought up the issue of the Allen Creek Greenway. She noted that mayor John Hieftje had mentioned there might be action taken soon on the city-owned 415 W. Washington property, which has been identified as a potential part of a greenway. He’d made these comments at the Jan. 23 city council meeting. She wondered if there was any additional information about that.

[Hieftje had indicated that talks were continuing with the group that had been formed to look at the city-owned 415 W. Washington lot. The council passed a resolution giving direction for the effort at its Feb. 1, 2010 meeting, nearly two years ago. The resolution calls for the arts and greenway communities to lead fundraising and development of a vision for the parcel’s use. The site, across from the YMCA, is currently providing revenue to the city as a surface parking lot. It was previously the city’s maintenance yard. At the Jan. 23, 2012 council meeting, Hieftje said the group continues to meet – the biggest challenge remains the building. He said a report on the status of the project would be given at the end of February.]

Christopher Taylor, an ex-officio member of PAC who also serves on city council, said he didn’t have any further information at all. Nystuen then reminded commissioners that the greenway is one of PAC’s priorities. The City Apartments project at First and Washington, by the developer Village Green, is moving ahead, she said. That residential development will include parking spaces, she added, which will free up the need for spaces at the city-owned First and William surface lot that’s located in a floodway. That lot could become part of a greenway, she observed.

Park commissioner Gwen Nystuen and city councilmember Mike Anglin, an ex-officio member of the commission.

The time has come for PAC to actively pursue the greenway, Nystuen said, adding that the city council passed a resolution recently in support of a greenway.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, noted that a council resolution was passed on Aug. 4, 2011 expressing general support for the idea of a greenway. There have been conversations, he said, about applying for a grant from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund, to turn the 415 W. Washington site into a park. The city staff is looking into that. The process would be similar to the way that the trust fund application for the skatepark had been handled, Smith explained. Staff would first come to PAC for a recommendation to apply. That recommendation would be forwarded to city council, which would need to approve the application.

Smith noted that one issue for the 415 W. Washington property is that it’s located in a historic district – the Old West Side. So in addition to PAC, the city would need a recommendation from the historic district commission too, he said.

Finally, Smith reminded commissioners that the parks, recreation and open space (PROS) plan, which PAC approved, recommends that the first action should be development of a master plan to guide the creation of a greenway. That point bears consideration, he said.

Nystuen responded by asking what PAC could do to move this process along. This year her term on the commission ends, she said, and the greenway has been a priority for her for both of her terms on PAC. That’s why she feels some urgency about this issue, she added.

What PAC decides as a body is up to commissioners, Smith replied. They can give direction to develop a greenway master plan, or tell staff to move ahead on the grant application before a master plan is developed. Nystuen asked how other commissioners felt – should they put forward a resolution?

Mike Anglin, a city councilmember who’s a non-voting ex-officio member of PAC, noted that the city’s environmental commission – on which he also serves has previously served – sometimes deals with issues related to parks. Perhaps a subcommittee of the two commissions could be formed to discuss the greenway, he said. There’s federal funding available for water management, he said, which might be one aspect of the greenway. Anglin also noted that the arts community has been interested in that site – they should be included in the dialogue, too.

There are several interested parties, Smith said – parks, the county drain commissioner, the University of Michigan, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, the railroad owners, the Arts Alliance and others. That’s why having a master plan would be useful.

Julie Grand asked about a timeline for the grant application. It’s due April 2, Smith said. That means it would be necessary to secure a PAC recommendation in February, and city council approval in March. It’s also unclear how the historic district commission would fit into this process.

No doubt there’s strong interest in the community, Smith said. But it’s uncertain how to manage the project at this point. He noted that a task force had been formed in 2007 to evaluate development of a greenway that might incorporate the 415 W. Washington site as well as city property at 721 N. Main and First & William. The group couldn’t come to a consensus for the best use of 415 W. Washington, he said, so no decision was made. It seems like a public dialogue is needed to figure out the best option, he said.

Nystuen said she wanted to point out that the near-downtown area on the city’s west side has a shortage of green space. New residential developments will be bringing hundreds of young people downtown, so there will be an increased interest in recreational areas, she said. It makes sense to move forward with a greenway adjacent to downtown. Nystuen said it sounded like the best approach would be to put together a resolution for PAC’s February meeting.

Smith said he’s still waiting on direction regarding whether to apply for the grant. If he gets that direction, then of course the staff would bring a resolution to PAC, he said. Separately, PAC can do what it wants regarding the greenway – that’s not for him to say, Smith told commissioners.

Communications: Leslie Science & Nature Center

At the beginning of the Jan. 24 meeting, commissioner Sam Offen introduced the new executive director for the Leslie Science & Nature Center, Susan Westhoff. [Offen is a board member of the center.]

Sam Offen, an Ann Arbor park advisory commissioner, and Susan Westhoff, executive director of the Leslie Science & Nature Center. Offen also serves on the center's board.

Offen said that Westhoff started about a month ago and is already doing an excellent job. He noted there had been a recent public meeting at the center to discuss a master plan for pedestrian access there. [The center was previously part of the city's parks system, but was spun off as a separate nonprofit in 2007. The city continues to own the center’s property and buildings.]

Westhoff spoke briefly to commissioners, noting that the center and the city had a long history. She said she’s been working in nonprofit administration for about 15 years. She grew up in Canton and graduated from the University of Michigan. Her first nonprofit experience was at the University Musical Society, and she said she’s glad to be back in Ann Arbor.

Westhoff said she’d be happy to share the plans for the pedestrian pathway improvements that are being developed. Among other things, it will make paths to the center’s raptor enclosures ADA compliant. She also noted that the center has many great public programs, and highlighted the Feb. 12 “Hoo’s Your Valentine?” event that features the center’s barn owl.

Julie Grand, PAC’s chair, thanked Westhoff for coming and said she looked forward to collaborating.

Present: Doug Chapman, Julie Grand, Karen Levin, Gwen Nystuen, John Lawter, Sam Offen, councilmember Mike Anglin (ex-officio), councilmember Christopher Taylor (ex-officio). Also Colin Smith, city parks manager.

Absent: David Barrett, Tim Berla, Tim Doyle.

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2012 begins at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

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