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

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

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

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

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

Animal Control Services: Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Animal Control: What’s the Goal?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Developing a Cost Structure

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

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

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

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

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

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

County commissioner Wes Prater.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Type of Services?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mission vs. Mandate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bringing Others to the Table

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next Steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

North Main Task Force Positions

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

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

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

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

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

North Main Task Force Positions: Council Deliberations

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

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

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

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

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allen Creek Preschool Site Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shell Station Rezoning

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

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

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

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

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

AAA Site Plan, Rezoning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

South University Park Improvements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supplemental Argo Livery Parking

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

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

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

Greenbelt Commission Reappointments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Water, Sewer Rate Increases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sakti3 Tax Abatement

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

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

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the Sakti3 tax abatement.

Sustainability Grant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Electronic Pollbooks for All Ann Arbor Precincts

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

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

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

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

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

Annexation Rezonings

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sidewalk Repair Ordinance

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: R4C/R2A Report

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

Comm/Comm: Human Rights

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

Comm/Comm: Smart Meters

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Energy Farms

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

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

Next council meeting: Monday, June 4, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First-Quarter Budget Update

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

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

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

First-Quarter Budget Update: General Fund Revenues

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

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

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

First-Quarter Budget Update: General Fund Expenditures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First-Quarter Budget Update: Non-General Fund Items

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

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

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

First-Quarter Budget Update: Issues to Watch

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

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

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

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

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

First-Quarter Budget Update: Board Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Annual Millage Rate

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

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

Annual Millage Rate: Board Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Urban County Annual Plan

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

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

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

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

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

Urban County: Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Urban County: Board Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bond Re-Funding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sugar Creek Drain Bond

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

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

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

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

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

Project LIFT Funding

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

A staff memo noted that while Washtenaw County

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

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

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

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

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

District 7 Swearing-In

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

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

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

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

Communications & Public Commentary

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

Communications: Animal Control Services

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communications: Public Commentary

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

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

Absent: Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Future Governance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Governance: Four-Party Agreement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Governance: Articles of Incorporation

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

AATA board members Charles Griffith and Sue Gott.

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

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

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

Five-Year Program

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy Discussion

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

Policy Discussion: Washtenaw Corridor – Bus Stops

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy Discussion: Express Commuter Service

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outlook: Uncertainty, Optimism

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

Outlook: Uncertainty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outlook: Optimism

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

AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein.

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

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

New Service Initiatives: Vanpools

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

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

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

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

Vanpools: Software

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

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

Vanpools: Software – Public Comment

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

Vanpools: Software – Board Deliberations

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

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

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

New Service Initiatives: Airport Service

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

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

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

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

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

New Service Initiatives: Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti Work

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Service Initiatives: E. Medical Center

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

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

Other Initiatives: Bus Shelters

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

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

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

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

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

Budget Update

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

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

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

Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

Next regular meeting: Thursday, June 21, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]

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

AAPS superintendent Patricia Green at a fall 2011 meeting. (Photo by the writer.)

The board is beginning its first evaluation of the one employee for whom it is directly responsible – superintendent Patricia Green. Green joined the district on July 1, 2011, and will undergo her first formal evaluation by the board during an executive session scheduled for June 20, 2102.

At the May 16 board meeting, trustees agreed to a process for soliciting input on Green from members of the AAPS community, including parents, principals, staff, board associations, bargaining groups, and specific people invited by trustees to participate.

The board also tentatively agreed to direct the AAPS administration to form a committee representing a wide range of stakeholders to study the sustainability of transportation services in the district. And board members affirmed the “differentiated instruction” approach to teaching used throughout the district, in lieu of maintaining a separate “gifted and talented” program.

This report covers the non-budget portions of the May 16 school board committee of the whole meeting. The budget discussion during this meeting was covered in an earlier report.

Superintendent Evaluation Process

As vice president of the board, trustee Christine Stead is charged with coordinating the annual evaluation of the superintendent. At the May 16 meeting, Stead presented the board with an evaluation rubric for their consideration, and led trustees through a discussion about including other members of the AAPS community in the evaluation process via a survey instrument.

Superintendent Evaluation: Survey Instrument

The rubric Stead presented was developed by the Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB), and contains suggestions for rating superintendents as ineffective, minimally effective, effective, or highly effective in 11 categories: relationship with the board; community relations; staff relationships; business and finance; educational leadership; personal qualities; evaluation; progress toward the school improvement plan; student attendance; student/parent/teacher feedback; and student growth and achievement.

Stead pointed out that the MASB tool is incomplete, because the state has not yet determined metrics it will require for measuring student growth and achievement. She suggested that the board should use the MASB tool to think about which categories are most important, and how the board wants to measure them as the state clarifies its requirements. For now, however, Stead suggested that the board should use the same tool it has used for superintendent evaluations in the past. She requested that board secretary Amy Osinski send a copy of the old tool to trustees, and that trustees return it to Osinski with any suggested modifications within seven days.

Superintendent Evaluation: Community Feedback

Stead asked her board colleagues if they would like to include an element of community feedback in Green’s evaluation, and they expressed general agreement that they would. Stead explained that the methodology used in the past invited a selected group of AAPS community members to complete the same survey instrument used by the board.

Trustee Susan Baskett pointed out that not many districts are doing “360-degree evaluations,” but said that the AAPS has always valued input from the community. [This type of evaluation involves a broader range of feedback, rather than just input from an employee's supervisors. For example, it can include input from people who are managed by the person being evaluated.] Trustee Glenn Nelson said that people write to the board all the time asking for that evaluation instrument.

Board president Deb Mexicotte reviewed how the collection of community feedback has been done in the past. First, board members, including the superintendent, make a list of people they would like to survey, which is intended to reflect a broad range of people in the district. Surveys are then sent to those people confidentially, along with representatives from a set of “standard stakeholders,” Mexicotte said, including bargaining units, principals, staff members, board associations, and parents. All the input that comes in is then aggregated by the board secretary and presented to the board during a closed session. “We struck a compromise between something information-seeking, but not ‘FOIA-able,’” Mexicotte said, referring to disclosure under the state’s Freedom of Information Act.

Trustee Simone Lightfoot said the process seems “secretive and not inclusive,” and suggested that the board seek broader input, such as a survey of all parents. However, several trustees weighed in against this approach.

Andy Thomas said that opening up the survey very broadly would produce negatively-skewed responses, because those responding would not necessarily be representative. Lightfoot argued that the current approach of selecting who gets to fill out a survey is skewed as well. Baskett pointed out that opening the survey up to everyone could mean that the board would get opinions from people who have never met Green, and that would not be fair. Lightfoot asked, “Will it be a requirement that [survey respondents] have met Green?”

Irene Patalan said she was very interested in the opinions of people who have had “professional encounters” with Green, such as meetings, interactions, planning, or other discussions. Lightfoot said she is also interested in hearing from the “not so well-placed and those that are moderately to minimally knowledgeable.” Mexicotte said, “If there are people you want heard, you can put them on the list.” Lightfoot replied that she did not have a list of people in mind, but would like instead to make the process available to everyone.

There are some people in the community who might not have had the opportunity to work with Green, Baskett said, but the board should hear from them, too. She suggested, “The broader community will know that we are doing this evaluation and will have the opportunity to reach out to us as public servants, and we can decide if we want to take their input or not.”

Stead stated that if you have not met a person, you cannot give feedback on that person. She said it would not be constructive to solicit input from everyone in the district, and that seeking “favorability ratings” would not be a good use of public funds. “I’m very interested in [the opinions of] people who have met with and worked with our superintendent enough,” Stead said. “I am less interested in [the opinions of] people who have only read articles in annarbor.com.”

Mexicotte, Thomas, and Nelson each spoke about the fact that evaluating the superintendent is a primary task of the board itself, and that while the board can certainly choose to solicit public comments – and indeed will very likely get e-mails related to this – trustees ultimately have to make the decisions themselves.

Lightfoot argued that the board owes it to people to solicit broader input, and that the board should be less concerned with controlling what people say and more concerned with evaluating their comments. “We want all the taxpayers to give us $45 million [a reference to the technology millage that voters approved on May 8], but we only want those who have met the superintendent to weigh in,” she said.

“If we are getting complaints that people do not have access to the superintendent, then it’s a double-edged sword to say we cannot allow input if they haven’t met her,” Lightfoot added.  “…I want the public to write me.”

Superintendent Evaluation: Next Steps

Baskett suggested that it has always bothered her that the board secretary has been the person to aggregate the public comments while keeping them all confidential. She recommended getting someone from outside of the current administration to do that task. She noted that her suggestion was “nothing personal” against board secretary Amy Osinski, “who we know and love.” Baskett suggested that former deputy superintendent of instruction Lee Ann Dickinson-Kelley – or someone else nearby, retired, and familiar with the district – could objectively collect the data.

Stead asked if the board wanted to do a favorability poll, and trustees indicated they did not. She then asked if the trustees wanted to create a list of people to survey, consistent with past practice, and they indicated that they did. Stead asked for suggestions about how many people each trustee could add to the list. Mexicotte suggested five to seven, but added that there should be no official limit.

Osinski said the board has usually sent out about 70 surveys, and 50-60 are typically returned.

Stead then charged Mexicotte with identifying people who could be the collection point for community feedback. Mexicotte said she would identify someone within 48 hours. Patalan said that if there was not time to find an alternate person, Osinski could perform the task this year and that would be fine.

Mexicotte asked Green if she would like to say anything, and Green replied that she had enjoyed listening to the discussion.

Stead concluded that within seven days, a data collection person will have been identified, and the board will have provided feedback on the survey tool and lists of community members to survey. Then, she said, the tool can be sent out to the community members, who will have 1-2 weeks to respond. The board will then meet in executive session on June 20 to conduct the superintendent evaluation.

Transportation Committee

Deb Mexicotte invited Simone Lightfoot to speak about a subcommittee that Lightfoot has been interested in setting up. Lightfoot introduced the idea of creating a board subcommittee to look at sustainable solutions to the transportation issues facing the district, and suggested the group could include Ann Arbor city councilmembers, the mayor, students who ride the bus and their parents, and transportation experts from the University of Michigan. She added that the board should “hold harmless” transportation services while the committee worked on a sustainable plan.

Mexicotte said it is not required that the board both set up a committee to study this and hold transportation harmless – that is, not make cuts to the transportation budget – until the study is complete.

Andy Thomas questioned whether a board committee with community representatives and members of other organizations is really a “subcommittee” of the board. Mexicotte, Susan Baskett and Glenn Nelson cited examples of other committees that have included participation by outside organizations or community members. Mexicotte pointed out that the committee that was created to redraw attendance boundaries after Skyline High School was built was an administrative committee, not a board committee, and that it worked well because it had a specific task.

Baskett asked for clarification on the difference between an administrative committee and a board committee.

Mexicotte answered that the difference is who is charging the committee, and directing its work and reporting cycle. The advantage of creating a board committee on transportation is that the board would have complete control over the process, she said. The disadvantages of forming a board committee rather than an administrative one, she said, are that board members might not be the experts needed to do the work, and it’s more work for board members as “citizen-volunteers.” She suggested that the board could task a group with creating the best plan possible to transport students if high school busing is completely eliminated in 2013-14.

Christine Stead suggested that rather than form a new committee at all, the board could ask the existing transportation safety committee (TSC) to look into this. Mexicotte suggested also considering the city-schools committee.

Lightfoot said it’s not fair to talk about eliminating transportation until the impact is discussed. “It seems like we are going to vote on the budget and then look at all the detail. How can I reconcile that black, brown, and economically disadvantaged students will take the brunt of these cuts?” she asked. Responding to the suggestion to use the TSC, Lightfoot added, “I am not for reinventing wheels. I am for inventing wheels that need to be invented, though.” She said she liked the idea of cross-governmental units, like the city-schools committee, working together.

Baskett pointed out that in the past, she has known people to feel “used” on administrative committees that are “top-heavy,” and said she wants to be sure the board affords community residents a real voice. Mexicotte said that challenge would be the same whether the committee formed is led by the board or by the administration.

Nelson suggested that it would be appropriate to create an administrative committee to take up this issue, and Irene Patalan agreed. Lightfoot said she would be amenable to that. But Lightfoot wondered what would make the process any different than what is already in place. Mexicotte answered, “The reason it’s different than people sending us things is that there is a structure, an agenda, milestones, and an expectation of an outcome. That’s what different – even though at the beginning you have a million ideas on a table, there is a process to work through them.”

Stead and Thomas each pointed out that it’s not realistic to think about transportation as sustainable. Thomas said there are two points of view in this debate – one that views maintaining lower class sizes as the most important goal, and another that views offering transportation services as an issue of social equity – that is, that transportation must be preserved, even if it means lowering the quality of education for all.

Baskett said she would support the formation of an administrative committee on transportation as a way to engage the community in future planning, and pointed out that people might suggest options that the board has not considered. She added that members of both the city-schools and TSC committees could be invited to join the new committee.

Mexicotte indicated that she was of two minds. On the one hand, she said, the administration has already vetted this budget, and she questioned pulling out one topic for extra consideration. But on the other hand, she said she was open to forming a committee, if the board thinks it requires a different level of scrutiny.

Baskett said she does not feel assured that the administration has sufficiently studied every issue. She said she has felt uninformed of the administration’s work in determining the impacts of their budget recommendations. Responding to Baskett, Nelson noted the budget proposal did have a column that listed impacts.

Nelson then said that from his perspective, what differentiates transportation somewhat is that it’s inter-governmental. He said an internal transportation committee would not be as effective as one with representation from the schools, the city, and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA). Mexicotte said she found Nelson’s argument compelling.

Patalan called on district parents to help get kids to school. She said she is very interested in working with different governmental entities with the expertise of different communities and different PTOs (parent-teacher organizations). Patalan also said she believes that when the administration makes suggestions, it means they have done their best.

Stead said she would also support an administrative committee on this issue, regardless of the budget. She noted that the district could use work on placing crossing guards, and working with the city on not ticketing parents for idling their cars during pick-up and drop-off if driving to school increases due to transportation cuts. [The city of Ann Arbor does not currently have an anti-idling ordinance, although the issue has been discussed.]

Mexicotte asked for agreement from the board would like to put together a framework for charging the administration to engage in a comprehensive assessment of the sustainability of transportation in this district, with a wide range of stakeholders. The group would report back to the board by December of 2012 or January of 2013 at the latest.

Stead responded by saying  she had a different view on the milestones of the committee, adding that if transportation is fully eliminated, “we want that group to be working hard over the summer.”

Mexicotte said the board could discuss the specific charge to the committee at the next regular board meeting on May 23.

Gifted and Talented Programming

In response to a request from Christine Stead, the AAPS administration brought a report to the board explaining why the district does not have a discrete gifted and talented program, but instead focuses on employing “differentiated instruction” in all classrooms. Superintendent Patricia Green said their report would give some background on how differentiation works in AAPS. Alesia Flye, AAPS deputy superintendent of instruction, added that she will also describe “differentiated instruction” and speak to how it is used to meet the needs of higher-achieving students, and how it relates to the district’s strategic plan.

Gifted and Talented Programming: Administrative Presentation

Differentiated instruction, Flye explained, is teaching in a way that meets the instructional needs and learning styles of all students in a classroom. It is instruction that is inquiry-based, open-ended, multi-faceted, concept-centered, interdisciplinary, interest-based, and student-selected. Flexible skill-grouping is also a major component of differentiated instruction.

Flye note that differentiated instruction is well-suited to meeting the needs of both gifted students and high achievers, and that AAPS will be providing professional development to strengthen the use of differentiated instruction throughout the district.

Flye then highlighted elements of differentiated instruction used in AAPS by core subject area, and noted that overall there is a “no ceiling” policy, meaning students can always achieve higher levels of learning. In English language arts, Flye said, elementary students receive small group instruction; middle school students use My Access software to reach writing instruction far above grade level; and high school students have access to accelerated and advanced placement (AP) classes. Glenn Nelson added that AAPS students also take courses at the University of Michigan and Washtenaw Community College.

Susan Baskett asked how small group instruction is implemented in elementary classrooms. Dawn Linden, AAPS assistant superintendent of elementary education, said that literacy class would begin with whole group instruction, and then students work in leveled reading groups, with the teacher rotating from group to group. In math, Linden said, the district is piloting a guided math program that is similar. Green added that this model very significantly does not create fixed groups of students, but flexible ones. “Without flexibility,” she said, “you are tracking students – this is not that.”

Science classes at the elementary level, Flye said, are taught with an inquiry-based approach and the program supports cross-curricular tie-ins. In middle and high schools, AP courses are offered, along with magnet programs, career and tech ed internships, and a variety of extracurricular options for enrichment, such as robotics and the Science Olympiad.

In social studies, Flye noted, secondary options include AP classes, an accelerated American studies course, humanities, magnet programs, community resource classes, and integrated/blended classes.

Linden connected differentiated learning to personalized learning plans, which are a key part of the district’s strategic plan. She explained that the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) test, parent conferences, and detailed report cards offer teachers tools to identify realistic goals for every student on a quarterly basis.

Flye said that AAPS has not been consistent about providing uninterrupted blocks of time for literacy and math instruction at the elementary level, but that her team is working closely with all the buildings to achieve this. Green noted that “what has traditionally been done is those master schedules are set around the specials [art, music, physical education, library, and humanities] and those become the drivers, but this will totally reverse that.” She said that standardizing instruction blocks will make better use of district resources, and be a step forward instructionally.

At the secondary level, Linden said, personalized learning plans bring in career development and contain both short and long-term goals.

Flye closed the presentation by summarizing the gifted and talented programming in two comparable districts – in Utica, Mich., and in Waterloo, Iowa. In Utica, she said, students are identified at the end of third grade and participate in enrichment activities led by teachers or parents outside of the school day, such as social studies olympiad, science olympiad, Lego robotics, and chess club. In Waterloo, Flye explained, the district pays for a special teacher who provides direct support to academically gifted and talented students in the classroom and offers them some extended activities.

In both cases, Flye said, formal identification of academically gifted and talented students leads to a program serving roughly 3% of the district’s students.

Gifted and Talented Programming: Board Discussion

The board expressed appreciation for the presentation, and support for the idea of focusing on differentiated instruction over creating a separate program for academically gifted and talented students. Their primary questions related to the testing necessary to support a differentiated instruction model.

Simone Lightfoot argued that the amount of testing is a concern, and asked if any more tests would be added. Flye said that no more tests would be added and that the district is “data rich.” Flye added the challenge is teaching teachers to use data to plan instructionally for each student, and noted that the NWEA test is a tool that provides immediate information – it really helps cater instruction to individual students.

Lightfoot asked whether any of the other tests being used can be replaced with the NWEA, and Flye said the district is looking into that. Green added that in both of the previous states where she had worked, districts she was in had done just that. “We cut back on testing that we did not feel was value-added.”

Deb Mexicotte said she agreed entirely that AAPS should be looking at its testing schedule, and ask whether “some tests that we know teachers are comfortable with are meeting our needs anymore.” She expressed skepticism that the redesigned state assessment would be rolled out on time and that it would be a good tool. She suggested that AAPS might be able to pursue a waiver if the NWEA test meets the state testing requirements. “I would rather we did the one that served our students best,” she said. Flye said a waiver might be an option.

Andy Thomas said he would like the district to continue doing differentiated learning in lieu of having a gifted and talented program. Flye agreed, and said that AAPS has not yet maximized its potential in terms of differentiated instruction. “We can get more out of our staff in terms of instructional delivery,” she said.

Christine Stead said she is worried about the effectiveness of differentiated learning in the district, and also about the awareness of differentiated instruction in the wider community. Saying that she worries about charter schools using the lure of a gifted and talented program to pull students away, Stead suggested that AAPS needs to figure out how to compete effectively by articulating how its top students are continuing to progress. She said she thinks the NWEA test will help show that, but that the story of how differentiated learning is happening needs to be captured and communicated.

Stead also suggested that tenure reform could allow the district to offer incentives to teachers to ensure that all students are progressing and not “capping out.” She said she would like to see that AAPS is able to reward teachers who can respond to differentiated groups.

Linden observed that consistency is the district’s biggest problem. Master teachers are differentiating on a daily basis, and AAPS needs to highlight what is being done. She also noted that some teachers are still uncomfortable with the NWEA tool.

Stead said that the NWEA should serve as the foundation for personalized learning plans at the elementary level, and that perhaps there should be additional parent conferences held midway through the school year. “We need to spend more time and energy packaging these things, showing the data,” she asserted.

Nelson said he likes the “no ceilings” approach, and does not like labeling kids. In addition to aggregate scores, he suggested that individual stories could illustrate the differentiated approach, such as a 10th grader taking a calculus class at the University of Michigan.

Baskett wanted more information about the opportunities to take college courses, and information about related costs. She said there are equity issues in terms of how such information is communicated in the district. Mexicotte asked the administration to send out those numbers to the board.

Flye said the district is creating a curriculum pathways document that will illustrate the complete path for elementary, middle school, and high school – all the AP classes, dual enrollment options, and all the routes through programs. Green said she is also trying to work differently with community centers and the NAACP to see if information can be disseminated through those organizations. Lightfoot urged the district to be sure the pathways document is simple to understand and not convoluted.

Irene Patalan said this approach really resonated with her as a parent and as a former teacher.

Mexicotte said it would be nice to have a phone number of someone who has complete understanding of the curriculum pathway, and that it opens doors to be able to have a conversation. She also said she really likes the idea of stories, and noted that as a special needs parent, differentiated instruction is “the word.”

Along with “no ceilings,” Mexicotte said she wants to ensure that there are “no floors and no doors, either.” For example, she said, placement testing is so rigid that it practically prevents students from being able to do it. Saying she appreciates differentiated instruction and wants the district to make it stronger and better, Mexicotte added that she also likes it because there is no gatekeeper. She also suggested that the district look into allowing accelerated students to take more than seven classes by expanding online learning options. Flye said that she was supportive of online options.

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice president Christine Stead, secretary Andy Thomas, treasurer Irene Patalan, and trustees Susan Baskett, Simone Lightfoot, and Glenn Nelson.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, May 23, 2012, at 7 p.m. in fourth-floor conference room of the downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AADL 2012-13 Budget

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AADL 2012-13 Budget: Millage Rate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AADL 2012-13 Budget: Line Item

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

There was no discussion on this item.

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

Financial Report

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

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

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

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

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

Director’s Evaluation

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

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

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

From the letter:

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

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

AADL director Josie Parker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friends of the AADL Space-Use Agreement

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

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

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

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

Director’s Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absent: Nancy Kaplan, Barbara Murphy.

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

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

AAPS board president Deb Mexicotte led the trustees in their budget discussion at the May 16 committee meeting. The formal budget presentation from the administration will come at the May 23 meeting.

That still leaves a $7 million gap to be addressed as the district faces a $17.8 million deficit for the 2012-13 school year, which begins July 1. There was general agreement on the board to use some amount fund equity to meet the budget targets, but no agreement about how much to use. Hypothetically, the entire $17.8 million shortfall could be covered by drawing on the fund equity the district has to start FY 2013, which is $18.73 million.

But without some cuts and revenue enhancements, that fund equity would be close to just $1 million by the end of the year, which is a half percent of the district’s currently proposed  expenditure budget for FY 2013 – $194 million. In addition, it would leave insufficient reserves to manage cash flow through the summer. And by the end of the following year, fund equity would be projected to be negative $23.5 million.

At the May 16 meeting, most trustees expressed support for leaving Roberto Clemente Student Development Center in place in its current form for at least another year, while evaluating the program’s educational effectiveness. Much of the board sentiment on Clemente was reflected in an exchange between trustees Simone Lightfoot and Glenn Nelson near the end of the three and half hour budget discussion. Lightfoot asserted that Clemente’s parents are “not caught up in test scores – they are just happy that their children want to go to school” and that their students are getting “some basics in place – social and mental.” Nelson responded, “I’m willing to grant that in that part of education, they are doing a good job, but for $18,000 [per-student cost], I’d like both the academic and social/emotional learning.”

The administration’s budget proposal called for the elimination of between 32 and 64 teaching positions, but trustees were in broad agreement that there should be no cuts to teaching positions, if at all possible. Nelson suggested that by hiring less-experienced new teachers to replace retiring teachers, the district would still be able to save roughly $960,000, without incurring any rise in class sizes. Trustees expressed support for that approach, which board president Deb Mexicotte dubbed the ”Nelson model.”

While trustees showed a consensus about maintaining teaching staff levels, they were divided on the issue of transportation. Lightfoot suggested a “hold harmless” approach to transportation this year – as the districts forms an administrative committee with broad stakeholder participation to develop a sustainable transportation plan. Taking almost an opposite view on transportation was trustee Christine Stead, who advocated several times during the meeting that all non-mandated busing should be cut. Based on the board discussion, busing for Ann Arbor Open will likely be preserved via a cost-neutral plan that relies primarily on common stops at the district’s five middle schools. Also likely is that the 4 p.m. middle school bus and the shuttles to and from Community High School will  be cut. Some board members also indicated an interest in “phasing out” busing to the magnet programs at Skyline High School.

The board took no formal votes during their committee-of-the-whole-meeting on May 16. However the board’s consensus on various issues, convey to the AAPS administration, will inform the final budget proposal. That final proposal comes to the board for a first briefing and public hearing on May 23.

In addition to the budget discussion, the May 16 committee meeting included four and a half additional hours of discussion on: discussing gifted and talented programming in the district; outlining the superintendent evaluation review process; and creating a framework for a broad-based committee to study the sustainability of transportation in the district.

Budget Discussion Process

Board president Deb Mexicotte began by outlining an approach to the budget discussion that would first identify areas of consensus on the proposed budget reductions. After that, it focused the board’s conversation on areas where opinions diverged. The idea was to determine “what [the board] will be able to tolerate” as it addresses the $17.8 million budget deficit. AAPS superintendent Patricia Green added that her administration had brought additional information to inform the discussion.

The board held three rounds of discussion. In round one, trustees briefly considered each of the 27 proposed reductions put forth in the administration’s budget proposal , and were encouraged to reach consensus on items that could be eliminated with very little or no discussion.  During this round trustees agreed on cuts to 13 budget items totaling $1.9 million.

In round two, trustees discussed each of the remaining 14 budget items in detail, but did not try to come to consensus about how to balance them against each other. This round ended with an administrative presentation and lengthy board discussion on the Roberto Clemente Student Development Center.

In round three, trustees tried to reach consensus on a subset of the remaining suggested reductions – in the context of the required fund equity that would otherwise be needed to balance the FY 2012-13 budget. In the end, trustees were able to agree on another $2.8 million of cuts.  They disagreed on the question how much of the remaining $7 million deficit to address by using fund equity versus deepening the budget cuts. Almost all the consensus cuts came from the administration’s core budget proposal (Plan A). The exception was a 10% cut to the district-wide discretionary budgets, which was part of the suggested second-tier of additional cuts (Plan B).

The Chronicle has organized this report by first listing the cuts the board adopted with little or no discussion. After that, discussion and general agreement reached by the board on the remaining proposed reductions are grouped into the following categories: Clemente, transportation, teaching staff, and other district-wide cuts. The report concludes at the same point the trustees’ discussion ended – with a brief discussion of next steps in the process, and general agreement that AAPS should pursue revenue enhancement via advertising.

Line Item Cuts – Round One

The board’s first pass at line item reductions yielded $1.9 million in savings. Mexicotte led trustees through a comprehensive list of the 27 proposed budget reduction options one by one and asked if there was consensus to retain each item on the list of cuts. She started a list of any items on which the board wished to have more extensive discussion on chart paper set on an easel at the front of the room.

Via this method, the board agreed to the following 13 reductions with very little or no discussion:

1. Eliminate four high school counselors ($400,000);
2. Eliminate middle school athletic directors ($37,500);
3. Eliminate funding for athletic entry fees ($58,000);
4. Move lacrosse to club sport status ($93,000);
5. Outsource noon-hour supervision ($75,000);
6. Eliminate district subsidy for summer music camps ($60,000);
7. Reduce budget for substitute teachers ($200,000);
8. Combine bus runs for Bryant and Pattengill elementaries ($16,560);
9. ITD restructuring ($200,000);
10. Move Rec & Ed director and office professional positions to Rec & Ed budget ($205,000);
11. Eliminate the early notification incentive for retiring staff ($40,000);
12. Enact Phase V of energy savings capital improvements ($500,000); and
13. Reduce health care costs ($100,000).

Regarding the reduction in counselors, Stead asked for clarification on whether the positions would come from attrition or retirements, and which schools would be affected. AAPS deputy superintendent of instruction Alesia Flye said that three of the four positions would be reduced via retirements – one each at Forsythe and Scarlet middle schools, and Huron High School. Those three schools can reduce one counselor and still meet the contractual counselor-student ratio of 1:325, Flye said, but a staff reassignment would be needed to fill the position left by retirement at Scarlett. The fourth counseling position would be eliminated  at Pioneer High School – a suggestion that came from that school’s administration.

Trustee Susan Baskett questioned whether the reduction in counselors would have an effect on the district’s ability to enact the new counseling and guidance programming, which was presented at the February 2012 committee of the whole meeting.  Flye said it will be a challenge to deliver some of the new plan’s services, and that a reduced number of counselors at each building could be problematic down the road.

Trustees got clarification that the athletic entry fee was beyond the fees associated with regular conference participation for all sports. Baskett asked whether students would have less exposure to recruiters. AAPS deputy superintendent of operations Robert Allen answered that recruiters would still be able to come to many events.

Mexicotte tallied up the total amount saved from the above cuts, and it came to $1,985,060. Trustees agreed to employ all four of the revenue enhancement suggestions proposed by the administration (Schools of Choice, Medicaid reimbursement, MPSERS offset, and best practices incentives), totaling $6 million.

That left $9,814,940 as the remaining amount the board was still looking to cut as it moved into the next phase of discussion.  [$17.8 million – $1,985,060 – $6 million = $9,814,940].

Roberto Clemente Student Development Center

At the May 16 meeting, four people addressed the board during public commentary on the topic of the Roberto  Clemente Student Development Center. AAPS administration also presented a new set of information for board review, including a set of options for relocating or restructuring the school, and a large amount of data on achievement, attendance, graduation rates, staffing, course offerings, and cost comparisons between the six district high schools. Additional board discussion on Clemente, including its summer school program, followed the administrative presentation.

Allen introduced the proposed reduction to Clemente as potentially saving $400,000, which included savings related to the building, principal, office professional, custodian, and utility costs. Moving the Clemente summer school to Pioneer would save another $80,000.

Clemente: Public Commentary

Barbara Malcolm, a community liaison at Clemente, asserted that the board members are no longer representing the community that elected them. She said she has been appalled by “actions, lies, and deceit” and that the school board has lost much of its credibility in the community. Malcolm said the district still faces the same level of attacks on blacks, poor people, and disenfranchised students as it did when she was a student at AAPS. She said it was shameful that Mexicotte has called Clemente “racist” and “a one-way street.” Calling superintendent Patricia Green an “outsider” who was “not part of the community, only paid by it,” Malcolm accused Green of dismantling a pillar of the community. Malcolm asked Green at least to “own” a statement Green had made at the beginning of her tenure as superintendent that Clemente was not on the chopping block. She argued that AAPS needs to educate all students, “not just those who do well on standardized, biased tests.”

Charlae Davis said that if the process is sloppy, the outcome will be sloppy, and said she had serious concerns with the budget proposal process. She argued that denying families and students a role in the planning process is a form of oppression and said the process has been “victim-blaming.” She asked board members to consider whether they would be satisfied with this process if their own children were at Clemente.

Georgina LeHuray shared the story of her grandson’s switch to Clemente and the positive effect it has had on him. She argued that test scores are the wrong measurements to use in evaluating Clemente, and asked what will mean the most to these kids in 10 or 15 years – test scores or [the support] they get from these people at Clemente. LeHuray urged the board, “If you save one kid at Clemente, it’s worth every damn tax dollar we put on these kids … Do not fail these kids. Appreciate what you’ve got at Roberto Clemente.”

Clemente staff member Pat Morrow asserted that AAPS has failed the children who attend Clemente. She argued that achieving high test scores is not as relevant as getting a high school diploma, and said that sending Clemente students back to the comprehensive high schools would be setting them up to fail. “We can get kids into colleges, Morrow said, “and they can go onto be productive citizens.” She said the board needed to let the Clemente community know right now what its fate is.

Clemente: Short-Term Focus

Green said the presentation her team brought to share was developed in response to questions from the previous committee of the whole meeting about what the options the district had to make changes to Clemente. Lightfoot noted that she was not comfortable getting this information for the first time at 11:20 p.m.

Flye reviewed how Clemente is made up mostly of 9th and 10th graders, but includes some upperclassmen as well. The goal of the program, she said, is to help students return to their home school by making use of smaller learning environments, among other program features. Flye said that the administration’s short term goal was to maintain the philosophy, initiatives, and structure of the Clemente program, with the long-term of possibly redesigning the program.

Green added that the district has been talking about the possible redesign of alternative programs, and noted that A2 Tech’s name change came out of those talks. She noted that when she had been interviewing for the position in Ann Arbor, she heard that cutting alternative programs had come up during last year’s budget discussions. Green also addressed an accusation made repeatedly at recent board meeting public commentary sessions about a statement she made on Clemente’s future: “When I had visited over there early in the year, at the time I was asked, ‘Are you planning on closing the school?’ I said there had been no conversation about that – it was very early in September. None of these conversations had taken place.”

Clemente: Restructuring Options

Flye described four options for restructuring Clemente:

1. Relocate Clemente to the A2Tech building and run both programs separately;
2. Relocate Clemente to A2Tech and create a blended version of both programs;
3. Relocate Clemente to a dedicated space in either Pioneer or Huron; or
4. Integrate Clemente students into their home high schools, with the Clemente program principal coordinating support of Clemente students in the comprehensive schools.

Flye then explained why (option 1) and (option 2) were not seen as desirable. She briefly touched on how (option 4) was envisioned, and then went into detail about how (option 3) could work.

Flye noted that there might not be enough space to keep the programs fully separate in the same building (option 1). She also said that the principals of A2 Tech and Clemente had said it would not work well to blend the programs (option 2), because the two programs have such different areas of emphasis. Clemente targets mostly 9th and 10th grade students, Flye said, while A2 Tech targets older students.

If Clemente students were integrated into their home high schools (option 4), Flye said that some instruction could be delivered by Clemente staff, that some instruction could consist of “touchpoint” classes delivered with technological enhancements, and that” wraparound services” would be offered.

On the topic of relocating the Clemente program to Pioneer or Huron (option 3), Flye and Green suggested that modified schedules could be used to keep Clemente students totally separate from other students if that was desired. The modified schedules might include separate lunch periods, or alternative starting and ending times. At the comprehensive high schools, Clemente students would benefit from an enhanced set of opportunities, they said, including sports, arts, career and tech education and other electives, while maintaining Clemente’s mentoring approach and weekly “rap sessions.”

AAPS executive director of physical properties Randy Trent led the administration in describing the spaces within Pioneer and Huron that could house Clemente. At Pioneer, he said, there are seven classrooms in the D wing that could be available, along with an eighth room upstairs that could be used if necessary, an administrative area, a separate entrance, and a large lecture facility that could be used for the weekly rap session. Clemente would displace math classes currently using the space, which Pioneer’s administration said would be a good change for the school, Flye added.

At Huron, the available space would be an isolated area with eight classrooms would be on the third floor of the arch, Trent explained, noting that students would have to walk through the entire building to reach the space. Flye allowed that world language and language arts classes would be impacted by the classroom shift at Huron. However, she reported that Huron’s administrative team had indicated it would not be a problem to relocate those classes and provide office space to accommodate the Clemente program.

Stead questioned how much would be saved by relocating the program intact under (option 1) or (option 3) versus blending the program with A2 Tech under (option 2) or integrating Clemente students in to the comprehensive high schools under (option 4). Allen answered that only the blended program in (option 2) would save the targeted $400,000. The other three options would save around $200,000 – because those options preserve Clemente’s administrative costs.

Lightfoot asked if there had been any consideration of ways that $200,000 could be saved while leaving the Clemente family as it is – like marketing the program to bring in more School of Choice students, or opening it up to more 8th graders. No, Flye answered. Lightfoot asked when such alternatives would be considered. Mexicotte responded to Lightfoot by saying that the board would use the meeting to decide whether to move forward with one of the options presented by administration, or make no change to the program.

Clemente: Data

Flye presented the board with data on Clemente’s student achievement, attendance, graduation rates, staffing levels, and course offerings, and comparative data on student achievement, graduation rates, and cost per student for all six AAPS high schools.

Chart 1. Average cost per student at Ann Arbor Public School high schools. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

AAPS director of student accounting Jane Landefeld said that it was challenging to determine the degree of student academic growth at Clemente, because students enter the program at all times of year and stay for different lengths of time. Landefeld said she had reviewed the transcripts at the end of the second trimester for each of the 87 Clemente students enrolled at that time, and determined that 39 of the 87 (45%) then had higher GPAs than they had had when entering the program. However, she also noted that many of Clemente’s classes are slower-paced, and so “it’s a bit like comparing apples and oranges in terms of which classes they are taking.”

Trustee Andy Thomas questioned the relevance of graduation rates – because the goal of Clemente is to return students to their home school for 11th and 12th grades. Landefeld confirmed that students do not graduate from Clemente because “Clemente is a program, not a school.” She explained, however, that “somewhere along the way, the state listed it as a school, so if a student ends at Clemente, they are considered graduating from Clemente.” Stead suggested that AAPS should communicate to the state that Clemente has been misclassified as a school.

Chart 2. Michigan Merit Exam scores by subject by AAPS high school. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Nelson asked about the capacity of Clemente’s building. Trent explained that the building has 18 classrooms, which can fit up to 15 students each, with some larger rooms as well. Nelson noted that many classes at Clemente have fewer than 15 students. Flye added that Clemente strives to keep class sizes averaging 10-12 students. Landefeld stressed that Clemente gains students throughout the year, so the number of students fluctuates. There are  currently 104 students in the Clemente program, according to the analysis of student growth presented by Landefeld.

Mexicotte said that when she was first elected to the board, Clemente’s enrollment was around 170 students. She pointed out that for the purposes of current discussion, the board has been using a population of 100 students.

Clemente: Long-Term Focus

In the long term, Flye said, Clemente and other alternative programs in AAPS could be redesigned to offer expanded distance learning opportunities made possible through digital technology, and additional course offerings. The administration could also continue to explore the implementation of a middle college concept, and more flexible day and evening schedules. Flye concluded by saying that AAPS will continue to develop early interventions for at-risk students.

Clemente: Board Discussion

Baskett asked if there was any discussion of team-building – in a scenario where Clemente students are moved back into the comprehensive high schools in any way. Flye said the schools would welcome them, and that team-building with staff and students was acknowledged to be a very important part of the process.

Thomas said he had a number of concerns, beginning with the fact that decisions about Clemente should take program effectiveness into account, as well as potential cost savings. Regarding the student achievement data presented, Thomas said that on one hand, the fact that 0% of Clemente students are proficient in writing [See Chart 2] seems like “a pretty strong indictment of the Clemente program.” However, he said, the real question is, “At what level are students when they enter the program, and where are they at the end of one year, two years?” Thomas said that student growth is not being clearly measured except by GPA, which he argued was an “imperfect” measure.

Thomas also expressed concern about the timeline of implementing any changes in the Clemente program by fall 2012, and said that the district needs more time to prepare. He suggested that AAPS keep Clemente intact for one year, during which it completes a comprehensive evaluation of the program based on data, not anecdotal evidence. “And if that costs $200,000 or $400,000 plus transportation costs, that’s the price that we pay for not dealing with this earlier in the year,” Thomas said.

Stead said her thoughts on Clemente were similar. She said she was willing to trade off all transportation to preserve education as the district’s primary mission. She said she could support a change to Clemente that is led by a focus on the program, and would be discussed for a year by the principal, parents, families, and students involved. She felt like the district is now “trying to retrofit” a solution.

Directing her comments to two Clemente students still in attendance at the meeting [at 12:30 a.m.], Stead called the Clemente achievement data “extremely concerning,” and said, “You can roll your eyes and say it’s not important, but I can tell you – these numbers are important.” She agreed that Clemente warrants further review and discussion, and that while there is not time to fix it this year, “We need to do right by these students.”

Lightfoot said that she believes Clemente has done a “great job,” and that she is interested in the district considering better marketing of the program so that perhaps AAPS can “get it up to capacity” and bring in new revenue.

Nelson said that how he will vote on preserving Clemente will come down to where the money comes from, saying, “If it comes from the 32 [teaching positions districtwide], I just can’t go there. I really believe in those 32 [teaching positions].” If the money for Clemente would be taken from fund equity, Nelson said, he would “want to be convinced by the evaluation people that in fact there is reason to think there is something different we are going to know eight months from now because I find the achievement data very disturbing.”

Responding to Lightfoot directly, Nelson questioned how AAPS could effectively market this program when the test scores at Clemente are so much worse than at the comprehensive high schools. Nelson questioned whether performance at Clemente was actually decreasing the achievement gap and asserted, “The averages for African-Americans would go up if you took these students out of the mix.”

Lightfoot said that she was also upset by the data, but noted that African-Americans’ scores are low throughout the district, not only at Clemente. She asserted that Clemente’s parents are “not caught up in test scores – they are just happy that their children want to go to school” and that their students are getting “some basics in place – social and mental.” Nelson responded, “I’m willing to grant that in that part of education, they are doing a good job, but for $18,000 [per-student cost], I’d like both the academic and social/emotional learning.”

Trustee Irene Patalan said the test scores as well as the money do concern her, noting that the per-student cost at Clemente is closer to $19,000 than $18,000. She said she feels an urgency to help the students at Clemente be successful as soon as possible, and that she would like a recommendation from the AAPS administration about which option to take.

Patalan also mentioned that her children had been in alternative programs within AAPS, and that she was very much an alternative school supporter. She shared some of the history of the district’s “Middle Years Alternative” program that was housed within Forsythe but had almost complete autonomy. Patalan said she is not afraid of “putting programs together and sharing spaces.”

Baskett said that she was tired and would refrain from commenting. But Mexicotte asked her to please share her thinking now. Baskett obliged, saying that if the district moves to change the status of Clemente now, it will not be done right. “The driver will be money, and not the quality of education for all our children,” she said, “I think, Irene, you are wrong on this one.”

Thanking the administration for the presentation, Baskett suggested that an evaluation of Clemente should include a qualitative element, saying, “When you talk about measuring climate, we need to capture that as well.”

Mexicotte began by clarifying that the comments ascribed to her during public commentary were things that she had reported having heard over the years about Clemente, not comments that she had made personally.

She continued by saying that while she appreciates that Clemente students have positive feelings about their school, the achievement data have troubled her for many years. “Are we going to say that these data points are not going to be what we are judging our achievement gap on across the district?” she asked. Mexicotte said that if the district wanted to decide not to judge “growth to proficiency” with test score data, then it would need to decide what else to use as metrics.

Mexicotte suggested the district needs to set expectations about test scores, and what kind of cost per student figures it would like to see. She suggested that the district study Clemente over a two-year time frame to determine if it should be marketed, moved, or adjusted in some other way, and noted, “If the program is really something we want for our students, we shouldn’t be gatekeeping as hard as we are.” Mexicotte also suggested that art and music should be brought back to Clemente in its current location.

Outcome: The board agreed to leave the Clemente program intact for at least one year while assessing its educational effectiveness. Stead suggested that in terms of the targeted savings in alternative high school programming, AAPS administration should have a conversation with A2 Tech one more time to see if any savings can be found in that program.

Clemente: Summer School

Green explained that the impetus behind moving Clemente’s summer school is to have all the secondary summer school programs located at one site – Pioneer High School.

Baskett noted that part of the transition to Clemente is the summer school program, which is not just academic. Allen said that not all Clemente students attend summer school, and that $20,000 out of the $100,000 Clemente summer school program can be preserved to add services to the traditional summer school program, which focuses on credit recovery. Flye reported that Clemente principal Ben Edmondson has said that Clemente summer school students are also working primarily on credit recovery, and that summer school helps to provide a consistent routine for them.

Thomas said moving the Clemente summer school to Pioneer is an opportunity to achieve some efficiency. Flye noted that moving the program would also give students more opportunities in terms of course selection. Green added that the board should decide as soon as possible what the location will be – because Clemente needs to start preparing its summer program.

Trustees asked for clarification on the costs related to summer school. Landefeld explained that there are only fees for courses that are taken for extra enrichment, as opposed to courses taken for credit recovery, and that scholarships are available. Baskett asked if there is busing for summer school. Allen said there is no busing for summer school in general, but that Clemente students would be transported, and that it would likely cost less to bus them to Pioneer than to the Clemente building.

Outcome: The board agreed to move the Clemente summer school program into Pioneer High School to achieve an $80,000 budget reduction.

Teaching Staff Reductions

The administrative budget proposal includes the elimination of 32 FTEs (full-time equivalent positions) in teaching staff in Plan A, 48 FTEs in Plan B, and 64 FTEs in Plan C. Trustees were in agreement that they are not interested in cutting any teaching positions.

Nelson suggested retaining the number of teachers, but hiring new teachers to replace those who are retiring. He asked for confirmation on comparative salaries, and Allen confirmed that there is roughly a $30,000 spread between retiring teachers (whose salaries and benefits cost nearly $100,000 each) and new teachers (whose total cost to the district is roughly $70,000).  Nelson suggested that 32 FTEs at $70,000 would be $2.24 million, which means that if the number of positions were preserved, but less expensive teachers were hired, the district could save $960,000.

Stead, Thomas, Patalan and Mexicotte all agreed about the importance of retaining teachers. Stead said this is one area where the primary mission of the district is clear, and that she could not justify cutting one more teacher. Thomas said he is willing to compromise on everything else, but that cutting teaching positions would be unacceptable, even if it means dipping into fund equity.

Transportation

Trustees considered a variety of cost-saving measures in transportation services. There was disagreement among trustees about how much transportation they were interested in cutting this coming year – from none to all of it. Two people addressed the board during public commentary on the topic of transportation.

Transportation: Public Commentary on Busing to Ann Arbor Open

Ann Arbor Open Coordinating Council (AAOCC) co-chair Sascha Matish passed out a set of handouts to the board outlining the impact of eliminating busing to Ann Arbor Open on subgroups of the school’s population. She noted that busing is used by 95% of the school’s 22 African-American students, and 68% of the school’s 57 economically disadvantaged students (who receive free or reduced-price lunch). Matish also passed out an aerial map of the Ann Arbor Open area, and requested that the board view a video created by the AAOCC of morning traffic near the school to give trustees a sense of the traffic back-ups already facing families on a daily basis. Again, Matish suggested that cutting busing would severely compromise student safety.

The other co-chair of the Ann Arbor Open Coordinating Council (AAOCC), Jill Zimmerman, also addressed the board. Referring to a set of bar graphs distributed to trustees, she noted that Ann Arbor Open’s MEAP scores are higher than the district averages in math and reading. She also pointed out that districtwide, the percentage of students scoring “proficient” or “advanced proficient” in 8th grade is lower than the percentage of students scoring “proficient” or “advanced proficient” in 3rd grade. However, the gap between 3rd-grade achievement and 8th-grade achievement is smaller among Ann Arbor Open students than it is across the district. “When we are talking about equity and closing the achievement gap, what Ann Arbor Open does matters,” Zimmerman asserted. “Our kids are doing better, and we think it’s because of what we are doing.”

Zimmerman also briefly reviewed an alternate busing proposal created by the AAOCC, which was sent to board members and AAPS administration before the meeting. The alternative proposal relies on common stops at middle schools and would more than halve the cost of busing to Ann Arbor Open.

Transportation: 4 p.m. Middle School Bus

Nelson said that he has consistently heard from middle school parents about the value of the after-school middle school program. Thomas suggested that the middle school principals could use some of their discretionary funds to keep the 4 p.m. bus if they wished.

Stead reiterated her theme that she does “not see transportation as being more important than education.” She noted that transportation is not required, not funded, and is not more valuable than a teacher. She argued that the community could come together and provide transportation, but could not come together and provide teaching. Baskett argued that there are many people in the community who would not be able to come together to provide transportation, saying, “You can call a carpool on your iPhone. Other families do not have phones.”

Mexicotte said she was inclined to leave the 4 p.m. middle school bus in place for another year, because a few years ago the district completely restructured middle school and lost a lot of extras and opportunities.

Transportation: Mid-day Shuttles to/from Community High School

Mexicotte noted that students get themselves to Community High School, and Baskett asked how many students this affected. Stead asked if AATA could be approached to provide shuttles, and Margolis answered that AATA buses don’t run often enough to make it work. Stead asked if Community students could Skype into classes at the comprehensive high schools. Allen allowed that yes, that would be possible.

Thomas said he was in favor of this reduction, and noted that Community shuttles are a “big-ticket item.”

Transportation: Busing to Choice Programs – Ann Arbor Open, Skyline Magnets, Roberto Clemente

Green presented a proposal crafted in the previous week by her staff that offered a cost-neutral alternative to continuing Ann Arbor Open busing – by consolidating routes at middle school common stops. Lightfoot expressed frustration that a new proposal was drafted for the Ann Arbor Open portion of the transportation cuts only, and said that she wants to be sure the district is doing the same for everyone, not just “the squeaky wheel.” Baskett commented that the administration’s proposal was very similar to one crafted by Ann Arbor Open parents and presented by them to the district.

Several trustees expressed discomfort about eliminating busing at Ann Arbor Open – because of the inequity of that would arise from offering busing to all other students of the same grade levels (K-8). Nelson disagreed, saying that he was fine with cutting Ann Arbor Open busing to reach the cost savings goals.

Regarding transportation to Clemente, Thomas said he believes AAPS will have to maintain transportation to the building if it stays open – because there is no other way to get there.

Baskett said that providing busing to the magnet programs that are part of Skyline High School was a promise that the district made to the community, and was meant to ensure better diversity in the magnet programs. Baskett asked how many students in the magnet programs rely on transportation provided by AAPS. Landefeld explained that about 30% of Skyline students are bused, roughly 100 per grade level on average. Thomas said he’d consider eliminating magnet transportation before eliminating all high school busing. Mexicotte pointed out that not everybody who takes a bus to Skyline is in a magnet program, and suggested that the district should keep transportation for the magnet programs for now, but consider phasing it out.

Lightfoot said the she feels like she’s “operating in the dark” when it comes to transportation choices, like she has to “choose now and see the fallout later.”

Transportation: Skyline Starting/Ending Times

Lightfoot said she did not like moving Skyline’s start time up by 15 minutes, because she has a concern about the earliness of high school days in general. Baskett said that as the district makes use of its newly forming, community-wide committee on transportation, the decision about Skyline’s starting and ending times could be revisited and reversed. A change to Skyline’s starting and ending times would require a memorandum of understanding with the teachers’ union, as noted earlier by Allen.

Transportation: High School Busing/All Busing

Almost all the trustees expressed general concern that there was not enough advance time this year to eliminate high school busing or all busing in a responsible way. Stead disagreed, and continued to push for the elimination of all busing as a way to leave more money in the district’s fund balance.

Stead said she would be more inclined to work on creating an entirely new program for transportation, and to begin concerted conversations with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to work on that as soon as possible. She added that she wanted to remind the board the district had a “horrible experience” with transportation this year. The district had to adjust transportation spending by $800,000 mid-year, while maintaining a “fragmented” system with “little bits of transportation here and there,” she said.

Outcome: Trustees agreed to maintain busing to Clemente and to the Skyline magnet programs. Busing to Ann Arbor Open will likely continue under a modified plan, which will save the district $98,000. The board plans to cut the 4 p.m. middle school bus ($85,284) and mid-day shuttles to and from Community high ($230,184), as well as achieve $266,400 in savings by moving the Skyline starting and ending times up by 15 minutes.

Other District-Wide Cuts

The board also agreed to cuts to police liaisons, site-based budgets, and district-wide discretionary budgets.

Other District-Wide Cuts: Police Liaisons

Stead suggested that removing the police liaisons would cause increase safety issues. She cited five bomb threats at Forsythe Middle School and two bomb threats at Skyline High School as evidence. Baskett pointed out that the bomb threats were unsubstantiated. But Stead argued that students are staying home from school and getting physically sick with worry because of them.

Thomas said that it is not clear to him that having police liaisons is having any effect on the bomb threats in any way whatsoever. Stead countered that when she has talked to principals, they believe that the sheer presence of the officers helps to reduce disciplinary issues. Nelson stated that he believes five teachers will have a greater impact than three police liaisons for the same cost.

Stead argued that the city will not hire these police officers if AAPS releases them, and that the robberies in her area have gone up as police numbers across Ann Arbor would be decreasing.

Baskett pointed out that overall, crime in Ann Arbor has actually decreased, and that these three police liaisons have seniority in the Ann Arbor police department and would be reassigned within the community. She said that a police officer could arrive any building in the district in less than 10 minutes, and that she would rather have teachers than police officers. Patalan said she agreed with Baskett, Nelson, and Thomas.

Discussion: District-wide Discretionary Budgets

Mexicotte reviewed the administration’s proposal on discretionary budgets. She said that a 5% cut to these budgets – which cover building-level costs such as professional development, paper, and supplies – would save $250,000. A 10% cut would save $500,000. Thomas suggested “bumping that up” to possibly as much as a 15% cut. However, Allen and Flye suggested that would have a dramatic effect on the ability of a building to function effectively.

This was one area in which the board included a reduction from Plan B of the suggested reductions – Plan A of the budget proposal had suggested cutting discretionary budgets by 5%, and Plan B took the reductions to 10%.

Discussion: Site-Based Budgets

Site-based budgets in AAPS fund have been available to school improvement teams (SITs) to use as they see fit. Patalan said that while it was a small amount of money, she appreciated that each SIT was able to decide how to best use it to serve that school locally. Still, she said, she understands the need to cut it.

Outcome: The board agreed to eliminate police liaisons ($350,000) and site-based budgets ($250,750). They agreed to cut district-wide discretionary budgets by 10%, saving $500,000.

FY 2012-13 Budget – Next Steps

After the board worked through the list of possible reductions for the third time, Mexicotte tallied up the cuts tentatively agreed to by the board. The cuts totaled $4,805,678, leaving a $7 million of deficit [$17.8 million deficit, minus $4.8 million in cuts, minus $6 million in revenue enhancements]. She asked the board if they would be willing to use $7 million of fund equity to balance the budget. Their responses were mixed.

Part of the board’s decision about how much fund equity to use will be based on projections of school funding – this year and into the future. One person addressed the board at public commentary on the topic of school funding.

Next Steps: Public Commentary on School Funding

Steve Norton reported that the state of Michigan is currently projecting funding for the School Aid Fund (SAF) to increase, but cautioned that the board should not assume this unexpected revenue will accrue to benefit local districts. Norton pointed out that the state may choose to save the extra SAF funding to reduce the pressure on the state’s general fund, which is forecasted to be lower than expected this year and next.

Norton also suggested that the community begin a conversation about private giving to support schools. He noted that the East Grand Rapids public schools educational foundation has raised $350,000 in one year to offset the budget cuts facing their district. Norton said it’s hard to get people to dig deep, but that “we are at a point that if we can’t get the rest of our citizens to move forward with a countywide enhancement, and can’t convince legislators [to provide adequate school funding], maybe we should move forward to do something ourselves.” Norton suggested as an example that the Ann Arbor Public Schools Educational Foundation could launch a campaign to cover the cost of transportation.

Next Steps: Fund Equity

Mexicotte said that Norton had made a very good point during public commentary, and that there is no guarantee based on past history that the SAF would see any increase. At this point, she said, if the board does not give different direction to AAPS administration, a balanced budget would be achieved by taking $7 million coming out of the fund balance.

Thomas said he would be willing to use $7 million of fund equity, but Stead was adamant she would not be. When pressed, Stead said she might find it acceptable to use up to $5 million, and added that it was “poor planning to sit here for six, seven, eight hours.”

At 1:15 a.m., as the board appeared unable to make further progress, Mexicotte responded, “If this is as far as we can get now, it’s as far as we can get.” She explained that the administration would take the board’s input from the meeting, and present a final budget on May 23. After that, she said, the board can have additional discussion and move forward.

Nelson said that starting from a $17.8 million deficit and getting to within $2 million of addressing it is not bad for one evening. He thanked Mexicotte for her facilitation, and said that he was open to staying longer to continue discussion, but also fine with waiting to continue discussion on May 23. “Then the administration can come back and give us … an option with $7 million use of fund equity, and then those of us who want to can argue for $5 million.”

Nelson also noted that Senate Bill 1040 – a retirement reform bill which as of May 17 was passed by Michigan state senators and is moving on to consideration by the state House of Representatives –could be helpful in resolving the budget. “There is a chance that more than $2 million could come out of it, and with luck, we could be done,” Nelson said.

Stead disagreed, saying that part of what’s driving up the mandated employer contribution rate to the state retirement system is that many districts are laying off staff. She said she is very concerned about how things will look a year from now, because current layoffs are not part of the figures being considered.

Lightfoot said that while she would prefer not to use $7 million of fund equity, she could support it if the district committed to make the next year be strictly focused on planning to be more prepared to make cuts in the future.

Next Steps: Advertising

Just before the meeting wrapped up, AAPS superintendent Patricia Green said she had one quick question for trustees, and asked if they would give her and her staff direction on the revenue enhancement ideas that administration had previously presented.

AAPS director of communications Liz Margolis reviewed the suggested advertising possibilities – digital billboards, scoreboard advertising, and website banners. She said she felt the trustees had given clear direction against pursuing the creation of billboards on the properties of Wines, Pioneer, and Huron, but reiterated the suggestion for allowing banner ads across the top of the AAPS website.

Margolis said that the company AAPS would work with has worked with Plymouth-Canton Community Schools (PCCS), and when Margolis had talked to the Plymouth-Canton director of community relations, they spoke positively of the partnership. The first-year revenue from allowing banner advertising would be at least $22,500, said Margolis, and would be projected to increase to $250,000 by the third year. She noted that Plymouth-Canton’s revenue has increased by 30% every month, and that the terms of the agreement will be shifting from a 60/40 revenue share with the advertising company [in favor of AAPS] to a 50/50 split if the district does not commit soon.

Maintaining a commitment to local advertisers had been a concern expressed by trustees at their March 21 meeting, when the advertising proposal had been presented to the board.  Margolis said that it would cost about $500 a month for a rotating ad, which would price it equal to what it costs to run ads locally in other venues. This would give local advertisers another daily advertising spot, she said, and the ad company would also bring in regional and national ads to the AAPS website. Finally, Margolis noted that many community members have suggested the district engage in website advertising, and added that AAPS would have full discretion to have any objectionable ads removed immediately.

Margolis also sought approval to begin the process of re-equipping the high schools with new scoreboards, which would be paid for by an advertising company and would show ads during sporting events. She said the high schools would be eager to receive the new scoreboards. In a follow-up discussion after the meeting, Margolis explained to The Chronicle that the scoreboard equipment, valued at $270,000, would come at no cost to the district. After enough ad revenue is earned to pay back the cost of the equipment, future ad revenue will be split 50/50 between the district and the advertising company, she said.

Outcome: The trustees agreed to pursue website banner ads and the scoreboard advertising.

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice president Christine Stead, secretary Andy Thomas, treasurer Irene Patalan, and trustees Susan Baskett, Simone Lightfoot, and Glenn Nelson.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, May 23, 2012, 7 p.m., at the downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 South Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor, Mich. 48104. [confirm date]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R4C/R2A Zoning: Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The report’s introduction ends with this caveat:

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

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Non-Conformance

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

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

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

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

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

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

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: R2A District

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

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

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: R4C Rezoning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Overlay District

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

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

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

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

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

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

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Density Calculation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Parking Standard

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

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

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

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

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

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Lot Combinations

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

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

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

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

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

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Conclusion

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

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

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R4C/R2A Zoning Report: Commission Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R4C/R2A Zoning Report: Commission Discussion – Next Steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absent: Wendy Woods

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

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

Supporters of the Roberto Clemente Student Development Center filled the board room for the May 9 meeting. (Photos by Monet Tiedemann.)

Sentiments expressed during a heated public commentary section were later echoed during agenda planning, as two of the board trustees questioned administrative work being done behind the scenes to prepare for possible budget reductions. The budget does not need to be approved by the board until June 30. A second public forum on the budget will be held on May 14 at 6:30 p.m. in the Huron High School cafeteria.

Several speakers at the May 9 meeting thanked the community for passage of the technology bond millage two days earlier.

Also at the May 9 meeting, trustees considered approving two new easements with the city of Ann Arbor, and awarded a set of bids for physical properties work. They also took a first look at the district’s new anti-bullying policy, as well as a set of other policy updates presented by AAPS administration.

Finally the board reviewed the proposed 2012-13 budget of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD), and shared its concerns about it. Local school boards are required by law to review the WISD’s budget, but have no vote in its actual approval.

2012-13 Budget

The proposed 2012-13 budget was first presented by AAPS administration in April. The Chronicle has pulled out of the May 9 meeting all budget-related threads and presented them as follows: public input; public commentary on Roberto Clemente; public commentary on music camp; public commentary on busing to Ann Arbor Open; clarification on public commentary; agenda planning; items from the board; and the Ann Arbor Education Association report.

2012-13 Budget: Public Input

Since the budget proposal was presented, the board has invited public comment on the proposal during its regular meetings as well as at two community budget forums – one already held on May 7, 2012, and one on May 14 at 6:30 p.m. in the Huron High School cafeteria.

AAPS board president Deb Mexicotte.

At the May 9 meeting, the board also set an official public hearing on the budget as part of the May 23 regular board meeting. Board president Deb Mexicotte explained that the budget hearing will function as an additional public commentary session devoted exclusively to public input on budgetary concerns. She also explained that, unlike regular public commentary for which citizens are required to sign up before the meeting, the budget hearing “can only be signed up for at the moment … Anyone who is here during that time can comment.”

Thomas asked if the length of the budget hearing is the same as the length of regular public commentary (45 min), and Mexicotte confirmed that budget hearings have typically also been 45 minutes long, which means that in total, the public input offered at the May 23 meeting could extend to an hour and a half. She clarified, that typically there is very little commentary during the public comment section, but people had sometimes talked during both opportunities.

As noted during Mexicotte’s president’s report at the May 9 meeting, the board will next meet as a committee of the whole [on May 16 in the Tappan middle school media center at 5:30 p.m.]. Update: Around noon on Monday, May 14, AAPS announced the committee meeting would be changed from Tappan to the Balas administration building at 2555 S. State St. The reason for the change was to allow for the possibility that the meeting could go past 10:30 p.m.

At that committee meeting, the board will hold a budget discussion, among other items. Committee meetings are open to the public, and typically offer an opportunity for public commentary as well. Other items on the committee meeting agenda are the district’s gifted and talented programming and the superintendent evaluation process.

2012-13 Budget: Public Commentary – Roberto Clemente

Twenty people spoke to the board about the proposed restructuring or closure of Roberto Clemente Student Development Center, which is projected to save $400,000.

Clemente’s founder, Joe Dulin, started off the public commentary on the school. He said that sharing a building with another school would be tantamount to closing Clemente completely. He compared board members who don’t know Clemente to Mitt Romney, who he said “doesn’t know poor people.” Dulin said that discussing the closure of Clemente pits Clemente’s families and staff “against the system,” and that “shifting to another school means we’ve lost rights.”

Many of Dulin’s points were reiterated by other speakers, with the energy in their statements rising as public commentary went on. Gregg Pratt, a social worker and community organizer, led the crowd of supporters in a chant: “Our school, our choice, our students, our future,” and closed with “We demand you keep [Clemente] open and we’re not going to stop.”

Sherry Weatherspoon, a longtime member of the Clemente community said she was angry at the decision-making of this board and this administration. She suggested that A2 Tech and Community High Schools be merged together, but that “there is a good reason for Roberto Clemente to be alone.” Weatherspoon added, “I will fight this board and future boards ‘til my dying day – by any means necessary.” Saying the salaries of the administration need to be cut just like everybody else, she called superintendent Patricia Green’s salary “outrageous,” and asserted that deputy superintendent Robert Allen appears to be doing Green’s job anyway. After she had spoken more than 30 seconds past her allotted time, and after a few requests to bring her comments to a conclusion, Mexicotte asked her to please step away from the podium.

Cassandra Parks, whose brother and nephew attended Clemente also drew attention to administrators’ salaries, saying, “The Balas [AAPS administration] building is not on the same financial diet that the rest of America is on.” Clemente alumnus and staff member David Malcolm suggested that Joe Dulin deserved accolades for saving many lives. “One [accolade] could be leaving our building alone … Leave us alone. Go find some money from somewhere else.” He also pointed out, “All of these kids that you are voting out today will be the voters tomorrow.”

Other speakers, too, stressed the familial aspect of Clemente. “Clemente is nothing but support – every teacher is looking to make sure you succeed,” said student Quentin Havlik. Parent Tara Cole noted that parents are given phone numbers for all staff members, which might not work for all schools, but is part of Clemente’s “open communication” policy. Jacob Mercer credited the school with “saving [his] family,” as the size of the school made it possible for a teacher to learn that his family was about to become homeless and helped them find a house to rent. Steven Ward, a University of Michigan professor and volunteer at Clemente, pointed out that it’s not common to hear repeatedly about how a school “saves lives” and that “to hear it over and over again is really meaningful.” Marcus Buggs, who witnessed his father’s shooting death as a child, said simply, “My family is being gunned down right now.”

Multiple students expressed disappointment that only one of the board members, trustee Christine Stead, took them up on their offer at the last board meeting to visit Clemente, and said that only four of the seven trustees had ever visited the school. They asked questions including: “What will control the final decision?” “How can it be possible to make an informed decision?” and “How can a final decision be made based on preconceived knowledge?” Student Tevin Cole said members of the board are showing apathy about a decision that would change students’ futures for good. Student Cierra Reese and other students asked the board to vote in front of them, if board members truly respected their voice and their time.

Another theme that ran through the comments was the question of why the board would choose to change a program that was so successful the way it is. Lexanna Marie Lyons, a Clemente teacher and counselor, pointed out that the philosophies of Clemente and A2 Tech are very different. Clemente parent Tara Cole added that combining the two programs will destroy them both, and that Clemente students would be subjected to bullying if they were re-integrated into the schools that “rejected them in the first place.” Cassandra Parks argued that the concept of Clemente works and called Pioneer and Huron “drop-out factories.”

Many speakers noted that Clemente’s location “away from other schools, distractions, and bus lines” was critical and argued that attendance would decrease if the program was moved. They argued that the program cannot be replicated, and that it would not be able to recreate the “culture of achievement” that motivates Clemente students in a new location. Parent Wilber Miller commended the board for creating Clemente, giving it a magnificent building, great teachers, a great principal, and supporting it so it could become a thriving community. “Let there be more testimonies, more tomorrows, more good news to come. Keep Roberto Clemente as it is,” he urged.

2012-13 Budget: Public Commentary – Music Camps

Four people addressed the board about the elimination of a $60,000 subsidy supporting summer music camps.

Parent Theresa Angelini said the Interlochen experience is one that students never forget, and that the “investment is more than matched by families.” She said that the model of cost-sharing, in which the district pays 18% and the parents pay 82%, “seems to be a model for education.” Her son Brandon Angelini also spoke, saying that band camp allows students to be friends with people they would otherwise never meet, creates smaller communities within the comprehensive high schools, and creates unity among high schools across the district.

Parent Amy Higgins noted that the band staff believe that the camps will end if this subsidy is cut. She urged the board to consider the return on investment for each of the things “on the chopping block” and said the $60,000 helps to “close the gap.” Higgins pointed out that AAPS has Grammy-winning schools and that the music program is an “engine for success” that brings people to the district.

Student Ales Chmiel said the Interlochen camp provides students with an amazing opportunity to play in front of thousands of people and enables all students to prosper.

2012-13 Budget: Public Commentary – Busing to Ann Arbor Open

Seven Ann Arbor Open parents addressed the board about the proposed cuts in “transportation of choice” totaling $266,400, which includes all general education busing to Ann Arbor Open, Skyline, and Roberto Clemente.

Jeff Hayner asserted that busing offered opportunities for socializing beyond the classroom that were beneficial to kids, and urged the board to reconsider. “Well-run public schools are a bargain, but poorly-managed public schools are a burden to society,” Hayner said. He argued that the board was violating the public’s trust, and asked why there were no administrative salary cuts in the proposed budget.

Multiple parents pointed out that the most vulnerable students would be those most affected by the loss of busing. “You are basically telling me that we have to switch schools. It’s targeting families much poorer than mine and it’s just not fair,” argued Tracy Jensen. Carol Sickman-Garner noted that Ann Arbor Open is a public school, should be accessible to all children in the community, and that Ann Arbor Open students should receive the same services as their K-8 peers. Sharon Simonton added that many working parents do not have the job flexibility to pick up children at 2:30 p.m. every day, and that elementary children are too young to ride the city buses home by themselves.

Saftey concerns were noted multiple times. Jill Zimmerman argued, “there is not enough time to ensure our children’s safety with this plan” if the board does not approve the final budget until next month. She questioned the district’s plan for addressing the doubling or tripling of auto traffic, and whether there would be time to talk to the city about traffic build-ups and access to Mack pool. She also questioned whether there would be eonough time, between now and next year, for parents to organize the carpools alluded to at the last board meeting.

Parents also stressed the desire for Ann Arbor Open to be given alternatives to cutting busing that meet the same savings targets. “We understand the budget crisis is real, and cuts have to be made and will continue,” Zimmerman said. She noted that Ann Arbor Open parents have repeatedly asked how much busing costs the district for Ann Arbor Open specifically. “If we had this information and more time,” she asserted, “We could suggest alternative cuts.” She added that the district’s attempts to reduce transportation costs in the past have not always yielded the projected savings.

Julie Roth suggested that the district get rid of the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) test implemented this year – because an online version of the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) could replace it soon. She said the funds supporting NWEA could be better used to save Clemente, busing, and other services that affect the most vulnerable students. She pointed out that former AAPS superintendent Todd Roberts was more visible in the schools than Green has been. Roth said Roberts had encouraged schools to be part of the solution by suggesting their own plan to reduce costs at the building level.

Parent Ruth Ann Church agreed with Roth, accusing the district of “forcing one and only one solution on the problem of needing more money” instead of allowing the principals a chance to suggest alternatives. “We need a board that will ask for the solutions and listen.”

2012-13 Budget: Clarification on Public Commentary

Trustee Andy Thomas addressed a claim made during public commentary that the loss of the $60,000 summer music camp subsidy would mean the end of the camps. Thomas indicated that it was his understanding some of this concern revolved around a question of liability insurance. He asked Green to clarify that from a practical and legal point of view, there is no reason the music camps could not continue if an extra $70 per student could be found. Green responded that the administration has looked into the question of liability, and is confident that “if this is an activity that is an offshoot of our program, our insurance would cover [accompanying teachers].”

Thomas also asked for clarification on whether the new MEAP test will be similar to the NWEA. Green said that by 2014-15, the state would like to have a test that allows the kind of benchmarking already being done in AAPS. She also pointed out that the NWEA test being used in the district allows AAPS to create personalized learning plans to be able to accelerate and remediate as needed. Green argued that eliminating it would do a disservice to students.

Trustee Simone Lightfoot asked for clarification on how parents get the data they need. Green suggested that parents should use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process. Lightfoot said that seemed cumbersome to her, and Green responded that without requiring FOIA requests, the district would be inundated with all kinds of requests for data and the district has to be sure it’s equitable. Trustee Susan Baskett pointed out that the cost of making a FOIA request could be a burden to some, making it an inequitable process, and suggested the district could come up with something better than FOIA in the future.

2012-13 Budget: Agenda Planning

During the agenda planning section at the end of the May 9 board meeting, Baskett and Lightfoot each questioned some of the work being done by AAPS administration to prepare the district for possible budget reductions the board could decide to make.

Regarding the possible closure or restructuring of Roberto Clemente, trustee Susan Baskett asked, “What is our plan with the transition?… It would help the community to know how it would work. Can we assure the public that it will be thought out?” Mexicotte said that discussing a transition plan would be “premature,” but that “there have been ongoing conversations with the administrators of the schools affected.”

Baskett and trustee Simone Lightfoot also asked about the status of talks between AAPS and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) about busing. Lightfoot asked, “Are we not going to have conversations about transportation and possible alternatives prior to approving the budget?” Mexicotte said the board would discuss transportation as part of the overall budget discussion to be held as part of the committee of the whole meeting on May 16. She added that at that time, the board could choose to put together a subcommittee or schedule a single meeting to discuss a single topic if necessary.

Lightfoot asserted that the board is not giving transportation the attention and time it’s going to require – because so much might need to be done before September. She asked how the meetings between AATA and the district were “evolving” and when the board would be updated on them. Green answered that there was a lot of conversation taking place, that the district had a meeting coming up with AATA’s CEO, and that she could summarize something for “the capsule,” a regular e-mail update from the superintendent to the board.

Lightfoot responded, “That’s unacceptable. We and the public should be getting more information on those meetings.” At the end of the meeting, during items from the board, Lightfoot invited the public to participate in a discussion being held by the AATA to get public input into their new transportation plans on Monday, May 14 at 7 p.m. at Malletts Creek branch of the Ann Arbor district library.

2012-13 Budget: Items from the Board

At the close of the May 9 meeting, Patalan reminded the community of the upcoming budget forum on May 14, at Huron High School, and said she would love for people to attend and give feedback. Saying she understood the anger she heard at public commentary, and supported everyone advocating for what is dear to them, Patalan urged the public to remember that “we [trustees] are human beings.” She added, “I am a little troubled by what seems like a lack of sticking to the rules of public commentary, a lack of respect for public commentary … and what is perceived by me as threats to the board, administration, or superintendent. We are truly working for the good of all of our students and it is hard when, once again, we have to make reductions.”

AAPS trustees Christine Stead (left) and Irene Patalan (right) listen to public commentary during the May 9 meeting.

Stead thanked the principals and students at Roberto Clemente and A2Tech for “spending so much time with [her] in the past couple of weeks.” She singled out her four student hosts at Clemente as being “fabulous students, very informative” and for asking some really great questions of her during her visit. Stead encouraged the community to engage in a constructive way to change the law regarding local tax levy authority. “It’s insane that in this country we cannot exercise our own priorities,” she said. “… [A]s we hand out what Lansing has handed to us – the time has come to change the law and get back our own democratic rights.”

Nelson said that in the very short term, at the state level, the House bill on the School Aid Fund is considerably better than the Senate bill. He urged everyone who is listening who wanted to take constructive action in the short term to support the House bill.

2012-13 Budget: AAEA Report

Ann Arbor Education Association president Brit Satchwell used the bulk of his report to encourage taking action to change state funding for education, and pointed out that no matter what cuts the board decides to make, their effects will ripple throughout the system. “I want everybody who has come to advocate for programs to realize that it’s not the domino next to you causing the cuts … Coming here and advocating is not enough.”

Satchwell called the board’s upcoming decisions “impossible” in an environment of inadequate resources, and suggested trustees focus on meeting needs where they are the greatest, “like how when the body goes into shock, the blood rushes to the center of the body to keep the heart and lungs working even at the expense of the fingers and toes.”

Tech Bond

Mexicotte devoted her president’s report at the May 9 meeting primarily to expressing gratitude for the passage of the technology bond millage. She thanked trustee Glenn Nelson explicitly for his pivotal role in getting it passed, and offered Nelson a chance to thank each of the major players in the tech bond campaign.

Nelson first recognized AAEA president Brit Satchwell, superintendent Patricia Green, fellow trustees Christine Stead and Andy Thomas, AAPS director of communications Liz Margolis, and AAPS executive director of physical properties Randy Trent.

Nelson then thanked a number of “citizen volunteers” whose services he said would have been worth $1,000 a day in the consulting world, but who received no compensation: James Corey, who Nelson said was absolutely instrumental in facilitating local companies’ involvement with the bond; Parent-Teacher-Organizationp-Council leaders Donna Lasinksi and Amy Pachera; Patrick Leonard, who took charge of flyer distribution, and was able to get out double the number of flyers that were originally printed; Lorrie Barnett, who drafted the materials on the flyers and postcards; and Steve Norton, who oversaw communication, yard sign design and distribution, was the treasurer of the citizen’s millage committee, “and did 10-12 other things.” Nelson asserted that the district is “very fortunate to have all of these wonderful people.”

Mexicotte noted that if someone was not on Nelson’s list, it was because she did not warn him that she would be asking him to enumerate the campaign workers at this meeting. She then asked a Huron High School student to the podium, who reported that Nelson had participated in Challenge Day at his school and that Nelson is “a tremendous and wonderful person.” Nelson said that he would take great pleasure in watching the young man in the future.

Thomas asserted that the “spiritual and energetic and emotional leader” of the millage campaign was Nelson himself, and said that he “did it in a way that made everyone else feel like the decisions were communal … It was impressive – to be led without realizing you are being led.”

Green’s superintendent’s report also contained a list of thank-yous regarding the millage’s passing: to voters in the community for their support; to her executive staff for attending many community events; and to the bargaining units. “It does take a village,” she said, “and the village really responded … I hope we do very well implementing the next phase of this. [AAPS executive director of properties] Randy Trent – you have a lot of work ahead of you, and I know you are up for the job.”

During the agenda planning portion of the May 9 meeting, Baskett said that now that the tech bond had passed, she would like the board to have a discussion regarding its priorities in terms of hiring contractors. Mexicotte told Baskett that any trustee can bring forward a proposed policy for the board to consider. But Baskett said she would prefer to have trustees first have a discussion to see if they were all “on the same page” regarding hiring local workers, paying a living wage, encouraging bids from historically-underutilized businesses, and other such values before hiring contractors to carry out the work related to the tech bond.

During items from the board, Nelson and Patalan also thanked the community for passing the tech bond millage. Patalan said she was glad the board took the time to celebrate the people who helped to make it happen and the citizens who “are not giving up on the future.”

AAEA president Brit Satchwell also offered thanks for the tech bond’s passage on behalf of all educators, saying the community has given teachers the ability to do what they’re here to do – to prepare students for success in life in the outside world.

Easements for Northside and Pioneer

The board considered granting two easements to the city of Ann Arbor– one on the property of Northside Elementary School and another on the property of Pioneer High School, both for work related to water mains. AAPS executive director of physical properties Randy Trent explained to the board these are two different easements, one for work that the district has already done. Lightfoot asked how the easement could be granted for work after it was finished. Trent explained that the exact locations of water mains are not known until they are installed, and the sequence of installation followed by the easement is typical. When there is a water main and the city has easements, the city has responsibility for them. It works both ways very well, Trent said.

Outcome: The easements come back for approval at the next general meeting.

Physical Properties Bid Awards Approved

Trent was also on hand to answer board questions during a second briefing on six physical properties bid award recommendations. The bids are for: asbestos abatement; environmental consultation; integrated pesticide management; University of Michigan parking services; 2012 asphalt paving, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements.

Nelson asked Trent to explain how integrated pest management is approached in the district. Trent explained that the district always take the least toxic approach to managing pests as needed. Usually, he explained, pests can be managed with proactive monitoring, such as applying caulk if pests are entering through cracks, taking down hornet and wasp nests from the playground equipment before school starts in the fall, and hand-pulling poison ivy from school property. Lightfoot asked which pests the district is most burdened by, and Trent answered ants and bees.

Patalan noted that the ADA bid was for “Phase IV” of ADA improvements, and asked how many phases there will be. Trent answered that they will be ongoing as long as access can be improved, though there will be fewer in the future as the district has done a lot in recent years.

Mexicotte noted that the details on each bid were in the board packets, and Trent added that in all cases, the lowest qualified bidder is being recommended.

Outcome: The board awarded the bids unanimously approval as part of the consent agenda.

Anti-Bullying Policy

Mexicotte noted that the state has required all districts to create an anti-bullying policy that contains certain elements. Trustees asked AAPS deputy superintendent of human resources and general counsel Dave Comsa to list the nine required elements and point out where they were in the draft policy, which he did. Comsa also noted that the policy must be adopted by June 6, and that detail regarding the regulations will be created once the policy is approved.

Trustees made the following suggestions: amend language to make it clear that the policy includes behavior at school-related activities, not only behavior in school; develop a tool to track whether bullying is linked to racial, ethnic, or sexual orientation intimidation; add a timeline for resolution of bullying investigations; add something about how this policy appears in multiple media – because it will be part of the Rights and Responsibilities handbook as well; link the annual review of bullying incidences to the expulsion and suspension report; and be sure staff is trained to counsel students through the process.

AAPS deputy superintendent of instruction Alesia Flye said that some of the board’s suggestions would be addressed by the regulations as they are developed. She noted that students will be involved in creating some of the specific pieces of the district’s anti-bullying program, and that she is looking to develop a framework that is consistent throughout the district.

Mexicotte said the board has great interest in seeing the regulations as they are developed to understand how they reflect the spirit of the policy.

Outcome: The anti-bullying policy was reviewed as a first briefing item and will be returned to the board for additional review and comment before being voted on at the next regular meeting.

Policy Updates

The board reviewed seven expiring policies at this meeting – Student Reclassification-Retention (Policy 5160); Elementary Reclassification-Acceleration (Policy 5170); Field Trips (Policy 5300); Pilot Projects/Innovation (Policy 6120); Donations-Gifts and Bequests (Policy 7400); Parental Involvement (Policy 7800); and Parental Involvement Title 1 (Policy 7810).

No significant changes were suggested to policies 5160, 5170, 7400, 7800, or 7810.

Discussion of the field trip policy (5300) included the question of whether field trips could be required if they did not cost any money. Trustees suggested wording that stresses that missing a field trip would not adversely affect a student’s grades – either because a student does not go on the trip, or because a student is unable to participate in follow-up activities related to the trip.

Baskett suggested adding that “denial of field trips would not be used as a disciplinary action.” Thomas disagreed, saying that it is appropriate to deny participation in a field trip to an individual with a history of disciplinary programs who would be at risk to himself or others in a field-trip environment. Baskett noted that there is a sense of weeding out students early in the year from end of the year field trip opportunities. Mexicotte said the district might need to work to change the behavior of schools regarding this, and Green said that she is working to build in incentives with cooperative discipline that will help schools intervene early enough to change behaviors.

Lightfoot requested that Allen look into how athletic directors are choosing to transport students to sporting events, because some schools use buses and others use private vehicles.

Regarding the pilot projects policy (6120), Mexicotte said she had been part of crafting this policy in an attempt to bring oversight of significant academic programs to the board level, but that it “somehow just cannot work within our environment.”

Nelson pointed out that this policy just restates what is already law in terms of the board’s responsibility. “We just need to assert periodically through the agenda-setting process that we would like certain reports,” he said.

Mexicotte pointed out that without a policy like this at all, there were major programs going on at schools that the board did not know about, but that in the current fiscal climate, that appears to not be happening anymore, so perhaps the policy is no longer necessary.

Lightfoot, Thomas, and Baskett expressed interest in maintaining the oversight provided by this policy, and Mexioctte suggested perhaps the policy’s name is getting in the way of its being used.

Green said she likes consistency, and that “pilot project” has not been consistently defined. She also noted that the policy could be seen as constraining creativity.

Outcome: These policies will return to the board for more discussion and a vote at the next regular board meeting.

WISD Budget

Stead gave a presentation on the Washtenaw Intermediate School District’s 2012-13 budget, which had been furnished by the WISD to member districts. She noted that AAPS and other member districts are mandated by law to review the WISD’s general fund, and that AAPS would review the special education budget as well.

The presentation was in the board packet, and Stead read through it, highlighting the role of the WISD, the services it offers AAPS, and the various teaching and learning initiatives in which WISD is involved. Trustees expressed interest in getting brief descriptions for each of the roughly 50 teaching and learning initiatives – as a part of their information packets for their next meeting.

Stead then reviewed expenditure categories, sources of revenue (primarily property tax revenue), projected reimbursement rates, and the projected decrease in the WISD’s fund balances. She noted that AAPS is interested in the reimbursement rate for special education services, which has decreased since 2010, and is projected to continue to decrease as property values continue to decline.

Mexicotte pointed out that the recent special education millage renewal was a renewal of the rate, not the amount. The reimbursement rate is lower in part because the millage did not replenish the same amount of funds, she said. Nelson said that one of the things the board has a responsibility for is to think about things on the revenue side. Stead also pointed out that earmarked federal grant money, such as the IDEA grant, could also decrease.

Thomas asked what was included in “central services” in the WISD budget – because the WISD’s central services budget is almost three times as high as the corresponding item for AAPS. He also said he would like to see how much it costs to operate High Pointe.

Nelson said that he was in favor of approving the WISD budget, but would like to make two suggestions – that the transportation services provided to cooperating districts be broken out by district, and that the WISD work to establish closer relationships between itself and its member districts. Lightfoot also expressed interest in seeing the breakdown in transportation costs, as well as projections about their possible role with Head Start.

Mexicotte said she was really struck by the precipitous drop in the WISD’s fund balance, and asked what WISD will do when it is depleted. She suggested that the WISD should provide a line-by-line breakdown of its budget and offer explanations of each item. Also, she said she would like to see the amounts for the specific things AAPS should be paying attention to, such as the consolidated substitute teacher program, and programs for which AAPS gets specific support.

Association and Student Reports

Five associations are invited to make regular reports to the school board: the Black Parents Student Support Group (BPSSG), the Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee for Special Education (AAPAC), the Parent Teacher Organization Council (PTOC), the Ann Arbor Administrators Association (AAAA), and the Ann Arbor Education Association (AAEA). The Youth Senate is also invited to speak once a month, as are representatives from each of the high schools.

At this meeting, the board heard from a student representative from Ann Arbor Technological High School (A2 Tech), the AAPAC, and the AAEA. Comments from AAEA were included above, in sections of the meeting report about the budget and the tech bond.

Association and Student Reports: A2 Tech

A2 Tech student Hannah King offered the board her story of how she became a student at A2 Tech. She described how she had been at Community High School and done well initially, but as classes became harder, she began to not do as well. Finally, after the first semester of her junior year, Community dean Jennifer Hein suggested that she transfer to Skyline permanently or attend A2Tech to recover some credits, and then be able to return to Community for her senior year. Her time at A2 Tech has been successful, King said, and the smaller class sizes have allowed her to learn how to become a better student. She is now planning to continue her journey to art school in the future.

King also read the statement of DeAndre Booker, another A2 Tech student who was called into work and was therefore unable to attend the meeting. She noted that Booker’s boss had said he would be fired if he did not come to work, so he had no choice but to go.

Booker’s story begins when he was 16 years old, living with his sister. He had dropped out of school to take care of his mother, who had a worsening mental disability, and his sister told him he would need to be in school or move out. At 17, he left home and went into independent living through a program called Fostering Futures in Ypsilanti. He began to attend school at Huron, but struggled due to the large class sizes, the lack of time to build relationships with teachers, and his perception that they weren’t concerned about him. After transferring to A2 Tech, he felt cared for, and has been able to thrive due to extra help received during and after school. Booker has received scholarship offers, has applied for college, and credits A2Tech with making him into the “peaceful, strong, and determined” young man he is today.

Nelson said he appreciated King’s excellent report and Baskett thanked her for reading both her story and her peer’s story. Nelson then asked for more detail describing the decision process that led to transfering to A2Tech. King reviewed her conversation with Hein, how she wanted to make the choice that would allow her to return to Community because of her interest in its art program, and how her parents had been part of the decision, too.

Nelson said King was the kind of student the district is proud of. Patalan agreed “You know what you want for your future, and you are doing what you need to do to get what you need fore your future – that is something to be commended. The board is proud of that.”

Baskett also commended A2Tech principal Sheila Brown for attending the meeting to support her students.

Association and Student Reports: AAPAC

Kelly Van Singel gave the report for the AAPAC. She thanked the SISS staff for providing a district update at the AAPAC’s recent meeting and expressed happiness that the tech bond had passed. Van Singel said she “appreciates the cabinet member’s efforts to work within the budget reality we are all facing.”

Van Singel noted that the AAPAC is conducting surveys on the special education experience within AAPS. She said that special education busing has had a lot of late arrivals and early departures and cautioned that these issues could result in compliance issues regarding students’ individualized education plans, such as loss of instructional time. Van Singel said the AAPAC requests that the board keep working on addressing transportation concerns.

Awards and Accolades

This meeting included a number of awards and accolades.

Tappan Band Ensemble

An ensemble of students from the Tappan middle school band performed for the board at the start of the May 9 meeting. Their director, Fred Smith, thanked everyone for their support of these and other music students, especially parents. After the two selections played by students, Mexicotte thanked them on behalf of the board, and said the performances were wonderful. Patalan added that she was very impressed, and that it was a nice way to start a meeting.

E3 Award

AAPS director of communications Liz Margolis introduced representatives from the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti regional chamber, who announced that AAPS was being awarded an E3 award for the health sciences technology program at Pioneer and Huron. The E3 awards, they explained, are granted to “exemplary educational endeavors,” and the health sciences technology program is just that. In its 33rd year, the program includes class time studying anatomy and physiology, as well as internships in the community that allow students to explore health careers. Teachers Lynn Boland (Huron) and Cathy Malette (Pioneer), who co-administer the program, were on hand to accept the award.

Proclamations

The board read and unanimously supported two proclamations – one celebrating school nurses in honor of National School Nurse Day, and one celebrating teachers in honor of National Teacher Appreciation Week and National Teacher Day. Green also thanked teachers and nurses as part of her superintendent’s report.

Superintendent’s Report

In addition to the accolades given to teachers and nurse, Green commended the following: elementary students who succeeded in the Knowledge Master Open; student poetry winners; students who won an innovative design challenge to convert a gas-powered car to an electric car; a student curating a cartography exhibit; entrants into the Michigan youth arts festival; short story entrants in the Ann Arbor District Library short story contest; students participating in a documentary competition; a Michigan high school football all-star; district choirs and sports teams; contributors in a large food drive; and a teacher who won an award for the best short fiction collection of 2011.

Agenda Planning

Baskett requested an update on the Rising Scholars program, as well as an update on the district’s equity and cultural competency work.

Lightfoot requested updates on the International Baccalaureate program, and Mexicotte said it has been placed on the agenda of one of the summer board meetings, along with updates on the Early College Alliance (ECA), and Widening Advancement for Youth (WAY) programs.

Lightfoot also asked when the board would have an opportunity to discuss its relationship with the Pacific Education Group, and Mexicotte said that would be included in the discussion on equity and cultural competency.

Items from the Board

Thomas reported on his attendance at music programs in the district. He highlighted the middle school orchestra and choir concerts and said it was rewarding to see the progression of development through the three years (6-8 grades). Thomas also brought to the board’s attention a new recreation facility – the Argo Cascades, on which he had the privilege of being the first official traveler. He said it was a wonderful experience and said he would be glad to host any of his fellow trustees and AAPS administrators who would like to try it.

Baskett thanked the Bryant-Pattengill community for their recent event celebrating parent volunteers.

Nelson praised Thurston elementary’s recent International Night event, and said that international nights are “one of the really great things we do here in AAPS.” He also invited everyone to a district-wide art exhibit opening to be held in the Slusser Gallery on the University of Michigan’s north campus at 7 p.m. on Monday, May 14.

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice president Christine Stead, secretary Andy Thomas, treasurer Irene Patalan, and trustees Susan Baskett, Simone Lightfoot, and Glenn Nelson.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, May 23, 2012, 7 p.m., at the downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 South Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor, MI 48104.

Left to right: Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) are asking to be recognized to speak as Jane Lumm (Ward 2) gives her views on public art. (Photos by the writer.)

Public art was featured in two specific agenda items. One was a presentation of the annual public art plan given by Wiltrud Simbuerger, a member of the city’s public art commission. The council gave the presentation a basically positive reception.

But the second agenda item required a vote – on a $150,000 piece of art proposed by Ed Carpenter, to be hung in the lobby of the new Justice Center. The city’s public art commission had selected Carpenter from responses to a request for proposals. A vote on the artwork, a piece called “Radius,” had been postponed from the council’s April 2, 2012 meeting over concerns about public access to the Justice Center lobby, where the sculpture will be hung.

A nearly one-hour debate unfolded about the Carpenter piece, with the specific artwork serving as a kind of proxy for a rehash of previous council debates on the city’s Percent for Art ordinance. The ordinance requires that all city capital improvement projects include 1% for public art, up to a cap of $250,000 per capital project. For capital projects that aren’t suitable to have public art incorporated into them, the 1% is “pooled” for use in some other public art – which must be related to the purpose of the funding source. For example, the fountain outside the new Justice Center, designed by German artist Herbert Dreiseitl, is funded with money pooled from 1% of some sanitary sewer projects, drinking water projects, and stormwater management projects.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) proposed an amendment that would have canceled Carpenter’s project and appropriated the art project funds to invest instead in the city hall building. That amendment failed, but piqued mayor John Hieftje into announcing that he’d be sponsoring a future resolution to take $50,000 from public art funds, and deposit that amount into the general fund. That move is susceptible to the same critique made by several councilmembers as well as the assistant city attorney against Lumm’s amendment: The public art ordinance prohibits transfer from public art funds to other funds. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) stated that he would be content for the council simply to violate that ordinance. Carpenter’s sculpture eventually was approved over the dissent of Kunselman and Lumm.

Besides public art, the council approved the city’s portion of the State/Ellsworth traffic roundabout project, which includes an improvement for a water main connection – to pipe water from a well on the property of Ann Arbor’s municipal airport to the city’s water treatment plant. The airport also made it onto the agenda in the form of a resolution that settled outstanding legal issues surrounding the construction of hangars on the property.

Prompting extended discussion by the council was a resolution that invalidates sidewalk occupancy permits for vendors in a specific area around Main Street between Huron and William, whenever Main Street is closed down for special events.

The council delayed action on a tax abatement for the battery technology company Sakti3, pending review by the city council’s budget committee. And the council authorized another five-year extension of its contract with Waste Management to haul the city’s trash to a landfill.

The council also heard its usual range of public commentary. The public hearing on the fiscal year 2013 budget enjoyed light participation. The council will vote on that budget, and any amendments, at its May 21 meeting.

Public Art

The council had two public art-related items on its agenda: a presentation of the art commission’s annual plan, and the approval of a $150,000 sculpture for the new Justice Center. Submission by the public art commission of an annual plan to the city council is a requirement of the city’s public art ordinance.

From the ordinance:

The oversight body shall … by April 1 of each year, submit to City Council a plan detailing potential projects and desirable goals to be pursued in the next fiscal year; …

Public Art: Annual Plan

The council received a presentation on the public art commission’s annual plan from Wiltrud Simbuerger, a member of the commission.

The city’s public art commission had discussed the public art plan for FY 2013 at its March 28, 2012 meeting. The plan describes projects that AAPAC intends to work on between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013. [.pdf of FY 2013 annual public art plan].

1. Develop a master plan for 2013-2016 that will create community engagement and expedite work of the commission.
2. Advance the following projects that are underway, meeting all deadlines. All the projects have task force oversight, approved budgets, and are in various stages of completion. The projects are: (1) installation of Ed Carpenter’s “Radius” sculpture in the lobby of the Justice Center by November 2012 ($150,000); (2) a mural in Allmendinger Park by Mary Thiefels, to be completed by September 2012 ($12,000); (3) two additional murals by August 2013 ($40,000); (4) artwork for a rain garden at Kingsley and First by August 2013 ($27,000); (5) artwork for the East Stadium bridges by the fall of 2014 ($400,000); and (6) installation of artwork in the Detroit Institute of Art’s Inside|Out project by the spring of 2013 (budget TBD). That project involves installing framed reproductions from the DIA’s collection at outdoor locations on building facades or in parks.
3. By June 2012, identify and prioritize new projects for FY 2013, allocating existing funds using agreed-upon criteria of type, location, and community involvement. The criteria will be defined during the master planning process.
4. By Aug. 1, develop and begin to implement an effective communications plan about the uses and value of public art and the operation of the commission.
5. Collaborate with commissions, organizations, and agencies to accomplish public art projects.

The first objective – developing a master plan – included details on its purpose. The intent of the master plan is to: (1) guide AAPAC’s efforts to include public art throughout the city, involve community groups and create substantial visibility for public art as an integral part of community life and a city asset; (2) train commissioners and task force members with the goal of increased community knowledge, engagement and advocacy for public art; and (3) better integrate the public art administrator with every city department with the goal of increasing public art in the city.

Simbuerger concluded her presentation by thanking Aaron Seagraves, who provides staff support to the city’s public art commission as the city’s public art administrator.

Public Art: Annual Plan – Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked about the public art budget and request for proposals that’s connected to the East Stadium bridges project – $400,000. Simbuerger clarified that the 2014 date in the annual plan was not the date that the RFP would be issued, but rather the date of anticipated completion for the public art associated with the bridge project. The RFP is currently under review by the city attorney’s office, Simbuerger explained.

Lumm said the reason she was asking about it is that a lot of people see architecture as art. The Broadway bridges are like that, she ventured. She said she’d been told that the East Stadium bridges can’t be that nice, because there’s not enough money. She wondered if art could be incorporated into the bridge design.

Simbuerger indicated that the bridge design is done, so there’s some room for flexibility on only a few things, like railings or sidewalks. The art commission can’t influence the basic design of the bridge anymore, she said. Art could be added to the bridge, she said, and there’s also a park next to the bridge as well as a fence that leads up to the bridge along Stadium Boulevard – which could potentially serve as locations for public art.

Lumm concluded her remarks by commending the planned mural project at Allmendinger Park, for involving the community. The project, by local artist Mary Thiefels, will incorporate found objects into a mosaic on the pillars of the park’s bathroom building.

Later in the meeting, Lumm cited those earlier remarks she’d made – to argue against mayor John Hieftje’s contention that she was attacking public art. That discussion centered around the second public art-related agenda item – approval of a $150,000 piece of art for the lobby of the new Justice Center. The Justice Center is also known as the police-courts building. The overall construction project for the new building, which connected city hall with the new Justice Center, is also known as the municipal center building project.

Justice Center Art: Background – Building

The proposed public art project would be located in the lobby of the new municipal building called the Justice Center – on the northeast corner of Huron Street and Fifth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor. The Justice Center houses the 15th District Court and the Ann Arbor police department.

The sculpture is called “Radius” by Ed Carpenter of Portland, Oregon. Previously council had postponed approval of public art funds for Carpenter’s project at its April 2, 2012 meeting.

A rendering of Ed Carpenter's proposed "Radius" sculpture in the southwest corner of Ann Arbor's Justice Center lobby. This image was revised from earlier drawings by the artist to include more glass, at the request of a selection task force. (Links to larger image)

Because it houses the district court, the building features airport-style security measures at the entrance, and visitors must surrender electronic devices like cameras and cellphones to be locked in cubicles during their visit to the building. Concern about accessibility by the public to the public art was the subject of councilmember deliberations that led to the postponement on April 2.

The council expressed interest in using the delay to explore the possibility of moving the security screening to a point well past the entrance in the interior of the building. The visibility of the proposed sculpture from outside the building was also a point of discussion at the April 2 as well as at the May 7 meeting.

At the May 7 meeting, before the council began its deliberations on the Justice Center lobby art, city administrator Steve Powers indicated to the council that the question of public access to the lobby and art had been reviewed by city staff. He suggested that he was prepared to go into detail on that issue, or that the information could be reviewed by the city council’s building committee. He noted there are some details on use of the building by the police department that have an impact on its 24/7 accessibility. Powers also said that staff had some answers about the visibility of the art itself from the exterior of the building. The visibility of the art and the accessibility to the building, he said, are two separate issues. He noted that moving the security checkpoint would have a budgetary impact.

At its Jan. 25, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor public art commission had unanimously recommended selecting Carpenter for the $150,000 project. A task force had recommended the selection of Carpenter’s proposal from three finalists.

Carpenter plans to create a hanging sculpture of dichroic glass, aluminum, stainless steel and lighting, including LED spot and flood lighting. Among the reasons for recommending Radius, the task force cited the sculpture’s metaphor: That the activities in the Justice Center have a “rippling” effect throughout the community, which echoes the water sculpture by Herbert Dreiseitl that’s located in the plaza outside the building.

Ann Arbor’s public art funds come from the application of the city’s Percent for Art ordinance, which requires that 1% of all capital projects (up to a limit of $250,000 per capital project) be set aside for public art.

Justice Center Art: Background – Ordinance

There was confusion on the part of councilmembers about how the public art ordinance actually works and where the money for Carpenter’s sculpture had originated. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) was convinced that the source of funds for the Dreiseitl fountain – located outside, on the side of the building facing Huron – was the same as the source of funds for the interior piece. Kunselman pointed to the metaphor of the “rippling” effect that Carpenter’s sculpture was supposed to mirror, which was similar to the “water theme” that is supposed to justify the expenditure of sewer, stormwater and drinking water funds on the project. He also pointed to the original interior art pieces commissioned from Dreiseitl, which were planned to tie thematically to the fountain with lit blue spheres. [Those pieces were proposed but not authorized to be created, because of budgetary concerns.]

By way of background, the ordinance describes two ways that pieces of public art can be funded. They can be funded as pieces of art that are integrated into or stand on the site of some capital improvement project. The budget of all such projects must include 1% for public art.

But not every capital improvement project lends itself easily to the integration of public art or even a piece of art that can stand on the site of the capital improvement project. It’s also possible that the size of a capital improvement project would not generate adequate funds to contemplate funding a piece of art. In those cases, the 1% of the project’s budget is “pooled” together, and can be spent on a piece of art that is “related to the purposes of that fund [which paid for the capital improvement project].”

From the ordinance:

1:834. Inclusion of public art as part of a capital improvement project …
…
(3) Funds for public art that are included as part of a capital improvement project financed from a City fund other than the City’s general fund shall be accounted for within that fund and may be used as part of that capital improvement project for the creation, purchase, production or other acquisition of art incorporated as a part of the capital improvement project, including art located on the site where the project is located.

(4) Funds for public art that are included as part of a capital improvement project financed from a City fund other than the City’s general fund may instead be pooled in a separate public art fund within that fund. Public art funds that are held within a city fund other than the general fund shall be expended only on projects that are related to the purposes of that fund.

(5) Funds in pooled public art funds may be used for the creation, purchase, production or other acquisition of art for display in public spaces or facilities; for extraordinary maintenance, repair or refurbishment, including structural reconstruction, and for relocation, alteration and removal of public art.

The funding strategy for the Carpenter sculpture contrasts with that of the Dreiseitl fountain, which used “pooled” funds. The fountain had an initial budget created from pooled funds from other capital improvement projects – projects that were paid for out of drinking water ($210,000), sanitary sewer ($510,000) and stormwater ($30,000) funds.

In contrast, the Carpenter sculpture is funded from the Justice Center (aka police-courts or municipal center) building fund. The amount initially available for public art from that project was $250,000. One percent of the project budget would have been more than $250,000, but the ordinance caps the total public art allocation from any project at $250,000.

That building fund stemmed from various sources. At the council’s Nov. 21, 2011 meeting, then-public services area administrator Sue McCormick said that ordinarily, city staff would not go back and trace how much of that $250,000 could be attributed to various sources. However, because they’d been asked to do that by councilmembers, McCormick said that of the $250,000, around $50,000 could be “associated” with the general fund.

That $50,000 was a number batted back and forth by councilmembers at their May 7 meeting – it’s the amount that mayor John Hieftje said at the meeting that he wants to take out of public art and put back into the general fund. He said he wanted to settle that issue once and for all.

Hieftje’s proposal came in response to a gambit by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) to amend the resolution on the Carpenter sculpture – to cancel the project and to put the public art money into city hall building renovations. Either proposal would founder on the language of the public art ordinance, a portion of which assistant city attorney Mary Fales wound up reading aloud, in an apparent attempt to ground the council’s discussion in the options that are legally available. From the section that Fales read aloud:

1:835. Disbursement of public art funds.
…
(3)Funds for public art that are included as part of a capital improvement project or that are part of a pooled public art fund may be not be transferred to any other fund, encumbered or utilized for any purpose except the purposes specifically set forth in this chapter.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated that he did not believe it is necessary for the council to follow its own ordinances. Ordinances are there for the staff to follow, he suggested, not for the council.

Justice Center Art: Initial Council Deliberations

Major John Hieftje opened the council deliberations by saying he’d be happy to vote for approval of the piece of art that evening, leaving the issue of access to the lobby for future resolution.

City administrator Steve Powers. Behind him is a poster for getDowntown's Commuter Challenge, which runs through the month of May.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated that her concern, dating back to a few weeks ago, was not about the art, but rather the use of the lobby space in the Justice Center. She’d talked with city administrator Steve Powers about the issue. She said she was not opposed to voting for the artwork; however, she was concerned about the possibility that the council’s building committee came back with a recommendation to change significantly the use of the lobby space. Will that piece of art still be the right piece of art for that location? She said she had every intention of asking that a council building committee be re-appointed.

Higgins asked interim public services area administrator Craig Hupy about possible changes to the use of the lobby space – to use more of the floor area in a utilitarian way. Hupy indicated that the piece of art is suspended from the ceiling, so it’s well above the floor space. His concern would be with the lighting of the piece. Public art administrator Aaron Seagraves explained that there’s internal lighting as a part of the artwork itself.

Higgins asked if the building committee determines that the proposed location in the lobby would not be the best place for the sculpture, is there another spot in the building where it could be installed? Seagraves indicated that for a suspended piece, that corner of the lobby is the best, or the only location, because there’s a drywall recess there – the rest is a plaster ceiling. It’s also the most visible corner, he said. He suggested it would be an option for the public art commission to fund an additional piece of art for the Justice Center.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that the piece of art has been designed to be viewed from outside the building. She noted that the location of the art is dependent on its size, so she asked if there’s a basic diameter for the sculpture. From the center to its farthest point, Seagraves said, the piece is 37 feet. Briere followed up by asking if the piece is “circular.” Yes, said Seagraves. Based on some ensuing confusion, it was clear that Briere intended the question to include the symmetric properties of “circular,” not just the rounded qualities.

Briere ventured that the piece was 74 feet across – no, said Seagraves, more like around 50 feet, because it’s not symmetric. [It's not clear if the participants in the exchange appreciated the irony of the name of the piece – "Radius."] Briere wanted to know if it would fit into the city hall building [which is adjacent to the Justice Center.] Hupy indicated that it wouldn’t be a matter of just moving the artwork over to another building – the suspension points would need to be adapted. Briere ventured that the piece of art had been designed specifically for the proposed location, a sentiment with which Hupy agreed.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said her initial concern had not been about the piece of art itself or where it is located. Rather, her concern was about the intended use of the Justice Center lobby and the ability of the public to see the art from inside the building. That had been the reason she’d asked for the postponement of the issue, she noted. Smith wondered if reappointment of the building committee would be needed or if city staff would be prepared to answer those questions about use and access.

Powers noted that there is currently 24/7 access to the Justice Center lobby. After hours, people can be buzzed in by the police department. Staff has looked at options of downsizing the footprint of the security checkpoint and relocating it. However, there are budgetary and space challenges, he said. There are four or five different options than can be provided to the city council or to a building committee of the council, Powers said.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who serves on the public art commission, indicated that the piece of art that’s been chosen, the work by Carpenter, is intended to hang in that specific spot. He felt it’s a beautiful use of the building.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she couldn’t imagine people needing to be buzzed in to see the art. She said she wanted to see renderings of the sculpture as viewed from outside the building. Based on what other councilmembers had said, she thought it didn’t sound like the council was heading toward postponing again. She said she’d be fine with appointing a building committee.

Lumm then introduced an amendment to the resolution by saying, “We’ll get this out of the way, I’m sure, but I’d like to make an option here for council to consider.”

Justice Center Art: Lumm’s Amendment

Lumm gave as background to her amendment her understanding of the city hall (Larcom building) renovation project. The bathrooms in the basement and the first floor had been upgraded as part of the municipal center project, she said. But there was no money in the building fund budget for bathroom renovations on other floors. So those renovations would be funded out of general fund money over two years, through the facilities budget in the public services unit.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) reacts with body language to the proposal by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) to cancel the $150,000 Justice Center lobby art project.

Lumm noted that the council had approved the first phase of the upgrade to bathrooms on other floors at the council’s April 16, 2012 meeting – at a cost of $93,438. Another $165,000 is needed for that project in 2013, she said. The community has been told that no general fund dollars were used on the municipal center, Lumm contended, so she proposed that the public art project be canceled. The $150,000 budget for that public art would, according to her amendment, go back into the municipal center building fund. The bathroom would then be funded out of the building fund.

Higgins said she did not consider those upgrades to be a continuation of the municipal center building project. The bathrooms that were renovated in conjunction with the municipal center renovation were done because of the installation of the new elevator, she said. The renovations now being done in addition are standard upgrades, she said, like those that would be done in any other facility. She appreciated the idea of canceling the art project, but would not support the amendment.

Briere asked under what circumstances the council can cancel a project and reallocate the dollars. Assistant city attorney Mary Fales clarified the funds from a canceled art project have to be reallocated to another art project.

Kunselman, Briere, Hupy and Lumm then engaged in a conversation about the original source of funds for the artwork. Seagraves told them that the Justice Center lobby sculpture by Ed Carpenter didn’t come from pooled funds, but rather from the municipal center building fund.

Hieftje stated that not all the funds generated for public art from the municipal center building fund [a total of $250,000] are general fund monies. He allowed that hypothetically, $50,000 of that $250,000 may have originated as general fund money. Hupy noted that the funds for the Justice Center came from a multitude of funding sources beyond just the general fund – that would have to be analyzed to identify the specific contributions.

The city’s chief financial officer, Tom Crawford, essentially agreed with Higgins’ earlier description of the bathroom renovations as not part of the scope of the municipal center building project. There’s been a lot of deferred maintenance on the building, he said. One of the expectations is that there’d be a higher level of regular maintenance needed.

Kunselman wanted to revisit the issue of the theme of Carpenter’s sculpture – to which fund’s purpose was the art’s theme related? Seagraves reiterated that it wasn’t funded with “pooled funds,” so there’s no requirement that it be related in theme to some specific fund’s purpose. It was funded out of public art money generated by the center’s building fund.

Based on some remarks by Crawford, Hieftje said he’d be interested in a resolution to take $50,000 and put it into the general fund – to resolve the question of whether general fund money was used for public art.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) tried to achieve some clarity on the question of what the legal, possible uses of the sculpture’s budget would be if the project were canceled. He ventured that even if the sculpture were voted down, the money would be required to be spent on public art. So he concluded that the whole notion of monies going back and being applied for a different purpose would be tantamount to overturning the Percent for Art ordinance.

Given that the money could not be spent on something other than art, Hohnke asked Lumm what the point would be of canceling the sculpture for the Justice Center lobby. Lumm indicated that the point was so that the money would not need to be spent on a piece of art. Hohnke responded by saying that as long as the Percent for Art ordinance is on the books, what Lumm is saying simply isn’t true.

Crawford confirmed that once money goes into a specific fund, it’s not just a normal budget action – once the money gets into that fund, it has to be used for that purpose.

Derezinski equated the conversation around the table to a debate on the approval of the allocation of funds under the Percent for Art ordinance. The council had already had this debate, he said, and the people who were opposed to cutting funds for the program lost. He characterized what was going on at the table that night as an attempt slowly to kill off the Percent for Art program. [The council last debated revisions to the public art ordinance at its Dec. 5, 2011 meeting, which resulted in some revisions, but not a reduction of the specific percentage from 1% to 0.5%.]

Briere responded to Lumm’s amendment by saying that it could be reduced to three questions: (1) Should the sculpture be canceled? (2) Can money allocated to the public art program be allocated to a different capital improvement project? (3) Does either of those reflect support for public art? With respect to the first question, Briere said that if the council voted the project down, that would cancel it. With respect to the second question, she felt that it wasn’t legal to reallocate the public art money in the way Lumm wanted to.

Smith added a fourth issue, which was an attempt to revisit the decision to build the Justice Center: “I gotta say, it’s there and it’s operating!” Reflecting on the Larcom building’s age, and the need to renovate bathrooms, she ventured that at 49 years of age things start to break that need to be fixed.

Higgins noted that the money that’s been budgeted has to be used on public art, even if the project is canceled. She thought the city has spent enough money on art at the Justice Center location – given the Dreiseitl sculpture. She suggested some other location in the city could be found.

Kunselman agreed that too much money had been spent on art at the Justice Center and repeated his belief that the Justice Center lobby sculpture budget had drawn on water funds, given the allusion to the “rippling effect” the sculpture was supposed to have. He observed that bathrooms also have a theme of water.

Kunselman then stated that although the public art ordinance is an ordinance, the council did not need to follow its own ordinance.

Hieftje picked up on Derezinski’s earlier point, by stating that it would be a more honest approach to attack public art directly instead of the way that Lumm was proceeding. The council had twice before had that direct debate, he said.

Hohnke added that if the council wanted to cancel the project, as Lumm’s amendment stated, then the council could just vote the project down.

Outcome on the amendment: Lumm’s amendment canceling the project and reallocating the money to renovate bathrooms failed, with support only from Lumm and Kunselman.

Justice Center Art: More Deliberations

Lumm responded to Hieftje’s characterization of her lack of support for the specific project as an attack on the public art program. She felt that was “an outlandish claim.” She pointed out that earlier in the meeting, she’d asked questions regarding the East Stadium bridges project about incorporating art into that project and had praised the Allmendinger mural project. She allowed that she’d voted in the past to reduce the percentage allocation in the public art ordinance. But her opposition to the project was not based on opposition to the public art program, she said, but rather based on how much the city is spending on the Justice Center building. She expressed her disappointment that the artist who was selected was from out-of-state.

Hieftje responded to Lumm by saying it wasn’t a vote against the project that he was calling an attack on the public art program, but rather Lumm’s attempt to reallocate the public art money to a different purpose.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) had opposed the construction of the Justice Center. But he noted that the proposed piece of art was different from the history of that building. He stated that as long as the Percent for Art ordinance exists, councilmembers should support public art. He described how someone could get access to the lobby after hours by getting buzzed in by police. He said the issue of better access could be pursued in the future and it’s important to do that. Given the amount of money that had been spent on art on the site, it’s important to figure out a way to draw the public in to view the art, he said.

Kunselman was not inclined to accept the idea that because the council had previously discussed the issue of the public art ordinance, the council could not or should not continue to discuss it. “We’re always going to be talking about this.” People could say it’s been discussed and voted on and that the majority rules and that councilmembers need to move on – but he cautioned against that. “Every council is different and there will be new councilmembers and this discussion will carry on for years until a methodology of funding public art is done that can be universally embraced.” He mentioned the possibility of a millage just for public art, or the removal of restricted funds from the public art program.

Kunselman indicated he would not support the project. Among the reasons he gave were horizontal bands of etched glass on the windows that won’t allow people to see it from outside, he contended.

Smith said she’d support the art project, but wanted to see the issue of the security checkpoint addressed as well.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) rearranges a chair before the May 7 meeting started.

Briere said that for her, the issue is whether the lobby can be casually available for a group of visitors who don’t want to go through the security checkpoint, emptying their pockets and taking off their shoes. Part of the reason that’s unclear is that there’s a cost factor involved, she said. She feared that the council would approve the art project, only to discover that the council is not also willing to fund the cost of making the art accessible.

Briere was not willing to let go of the concept that the lobby to the Justice Center should be available to the public. For that reason, she hoped to have the cost information available before the council votes on the fiscal year 2013 budget – a vote that will be taken on May 21. She said she is not against this piece of art, and she believes it can only be observed well from inside the building.

Hieftje indicated he’d support the piece of art, but also said work needed to be done on opening up the lobby of the Justice Center to make it more accessible. He mentioned three different receptions that have been held in the lobby without the security checkpoints.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated he’d support the artwork. But he wanted to address the issue of the “ownership” of the building. He said it’s been suggested that it’s only a limited few who benefit from the building – that it’s city workers and councilmembers around the table who benefit from changes to city hall. He disputed that wholeheartedly. He said it’s obviously core public space that is important to the city – of government, courts and police. It’s also the place people come to do a wide variety of business for various purposes, he said.

Outcome: The sculpture “Radius” by Ed Carpenter was approved by the council over dissent from Lumm and Kunselman.

State/Ellsworth Roundabout

The council considered an agreement between the city of Ann Arbor and the Washtenaw County road commission for a $2.52 million roundabout project at State and Ellsworth.

Roundabout design for State and Ellsworth. (Image links to higher resolution .pdf)

The current design calls for a roundabout that is 150 feet in diameter. All four approaches to the roundabout have two lanes entering and two lanes exiting, except for the northern approach from South State, which will include a third lane. The planned design features include non-motorized paths that connect with the existing sidewalk system and new on-road bike lanes. Underground electrical conduit will be installed for the possible future addition of advanced pedestrian-activated crossing signals (HAWK) or rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFB). [.pdf of State/Ellsworth roundabout layout]

Of the total $2.52 million project cost, $2.17 million is for the intersection improvements per se, and the remaining $350,000 is for a city water main improvement. That will replace a 20-inch water main, which serves to pipe untreated water from the Steere Farms wells on the Ann Arbor municipal airport property to the city’s water treatment plant.

The city of Ann Arbor is paying for the water main portion of the project as well as contributing $135,000 to the intersection improvement. The remaining cost is paid by the road commission ($135,000), Costco ($500,000) and a federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant ($1.4 million). Costco is building a store near the intersection that’s expected to open this summer.

State/Ellsworth Roundabout: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked that the item be pulled out of the council’s consent agenda, saying it’s a big deal and a big change. [Consent agenda items are voted together all in one go. The consent agenda includes those items considered to be routine, with contracts under $100,000. It's not clear how the roundabout qualified for inclusion under the consent agenda. In any case, an item must be pulled out of the consent agenda for separate consideration if any councilmember requests it.]

Lumm asked Homayoon Pirooz, head of project management at the city, to review the background, which he did. He noted that State and Ellsworth is a very busy intersection.

By way of background, the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) website provides a database of traffic counts for various intersections. For example, data available from that database shows that the northern leg of the intersection of State and Ellsworth was studied in November 2009 and showed a total two-way, 24-hour count of 26,733 on the north segment of State out of the intersection. That compared with a two-way count of 17,566 on the south segment of State, measured about seven months later. To get an idea of whether those counts are a lot or a little, here’s how that stacks up with counts from another intersection that many drivers would likely consider “busy” – Main and Stadium. The most recent counts available from WATS date from over a decade ago, in 1999 – 23,957 for two-way traffic on the north segment of Stadium out of that intersection.

Pirooz described the Washtenaw County road commission as having taken the lead on the project. He highlighted the jurisdictional issue – the fact that two legs of the intersection are locate in the city and two of them in Pittsfield Township. The two legs in the city are the State Street section north from the intersection and the Ellsworth section east of the intersection.

The city’s share of the intersection work, Pirooz said, is estimated to be $135,000. The plans are completed, he said, and a public meeting was held a few months ago. As usual, Pirooz said, some forum attendees were excited and others had reservations. [For Chronicle coverage of that public forum, see the March 6, 2012 planning commission meeting report.]

Lumm ventured that the forum was well-attended. She wondered about the inclusion of provisions for non-motorized infrastructure, wiring for pedestrian activated crossing beacons. She allowed that Pirooz is the expert, but she had difficulty understanding how it’d be safer for pedestrians and drivers. The idea of a roundabout is that traffic is expected to flow continuously – but motorists might be expected to stop for pedestrians. She asked for an explanation if that’s typical.

Pirooz explained that the roundabout is designed so there’s adequate distance between cars. He said that statistics of roundabouts show an improvement, measured by accident rates. He cited the new roundabout at Nixon and Huron Parkway as an example, noting there’d been concerns similar to Lumm’s that had been discussed before that roundabout was constructed. Pirooz explained that vehicles entering a roundabout are simply forced to slow down – you can’t go through a roundabout at 45 mph. He concluded that roundabouts are safer than standard signalized intersections.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) added his personal observations, saying that he’d worked with Pirooz when some roundabouts in Ward 2 were first proposed – Nixon and Huron Parkway, and Geddes and Earhart. Derezinski said a lot of people who opposed the roundabouts came to believe in them. The traffic through Geddes and Earhart now flows through beautifully, he said. It really is “a win,” he said, and there’d been a couple of requests for more roundabouts.

Pirooz commented that one of the new roundabouts is right at the entrance to Concordia University, and the school was concerned before construction about pedestrians on campus crossing the street to get to an athletic field. But the university is very happy with the roundabout, Pirooz reported, and feels that pedestrians are now safer.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she appreciated the use of roundabouts and noted that everyone had likely driven through them. But the Ward 2 roundabouts have a different environment than the State and Ellsworth location, she contended. There’s a lot of truck traffic that goes through the State and Ellsworth intersection, she said. The proposed roundabout design is 150 feet in diameter. She wanted to know if that design took into account the size of the trucks that go through the intersection, noting there are many major corporations located south of Ellsworth on State.

Pirooz responded to Higgins by starting to describe the alternative to a roundabout, which would be to add more lanes. Higgins interrupted Pirooz, telling him she was not asking for more lanes, but rather was just making sure that the entrances to the roundabout can accommodate trucks. Trucks add another dimension to the traffic challenge, she said, and there’s a tremendous amount of truck traffic that goes through the intersection. Higgins told Pirooz she just wanted him to tell her he’d look at that issue. Pirooz replied, “We have and we will,” and Higgins indicated that was all she needed.

Pirooz indicated that he would expect trucks to be in the right lane as they navigated the roundabout. The roundabout is designed with the understanding there’s a large amount of truck traffic on the roads, he said.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the resolution on the State and Ellsworth roundabout.

Ann Arbor Airport Hanger Project

The council considered two change orders totaling $46,238 to resolve all remaining issues related to a lawsuit that CMA Design/Build Inc. had filed against the city in connection with the construction of hangars at the Ann Arbor municipal airport.

The original contract was approved by the city council on May 5, 2008 for $2.39 million, of which $1.101 million was for the local share. Because CMA failed to complete the project, Ann Arbor terminated the contract and CMA’s bonding company, North American Specialty Insurance Co., finished up the work. CMA filed suit against the city; and one of CMA’s subcontractors filed suit against CMA. Claims by CMA involved costs it incurred due to stop work orders issued by Pittsfield Township (where the airport is located) over jurisdictional questions between the city and the township.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the airport hangar change orders.

Landfill Contract

The council considered approval of the third five-year agreement since 2002 with Waste Management of Michigan – to dispose of the city’s trash in the Woodland Meadows landfill in Wayne, Michigan. For years 11 through 15 of the contract (2013 through 2017) the rates are as follows: $12.99/ton; $13.28/ton; $13.57/ton; $13.87/ton; and $14.18/ton. The increases reflect a 2.3% escalator. Responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle, city of Ann Arbor solid waste manager Tom McMurtrie explained that those rates don’t include the additional transfer charge of $12.12 a ton, paid to ReCommunity, which operates the city’s materials recover facility (MRF) and transfer station.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the city disposes of 62,000 tons of trash in the Woodland Meadows landfill per year. The city’s street sweepings and seasonal wastewater treatment sludge are also disposed there.

In 2002, the city council first approved the five-year contract, and then approved a five-year extension in 2007.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the contract with Waste Management.

Sidewalk Permits

The council considered a resolution that, beginning June 1, 2012, invalidates sidewalk occupancy permits and solicitor/licenses for a specific area of the downtown on occasions when Main Street is closed for special events between William and Huron streets. The special events include, but aren’t limited to, the Taste of Ann Arbor, Rolling Sculpture Car Show, the Children’s Holiday Parade, Green Fair, and FestiFools.

The area where sidewalk permits will be invalidated is the interior of the rectangle defined by Huron Street on the north, Fourth Street on the east, William Street on the south, and Ashley Street on the west. [.pdf of the area where sidewalk permits will be invalidated]

The resolution doesn’t apply to businesses that have been issued permits for permanent locations.

Council deliberations were driven by a request from Sandi Smith (Ward 1) to amend the resolution. She did not want to allow the resolution to prevent the city from granting permits for use of the Palio parking lot at Main and William or the parking structure at Fourth and William. In the context of the Connecting William Street planning project, being managed by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, Smith did not want to tie the city’s hands on uses for the two lots.

Mayor John Hieftje wondered what kind of uses Smith had in mind. [Both Hieftje and Smith also serve on the DDA board.] Both areas Smith had identified are within the geographic scope of the Connecting William Street project. People had talked about ways to use the Palio lot as open space. Non-parking activity on the lots might “leak out” into the sidewalk, she said. She just wanted to leave options open for the city.

From left: Maura Thomson, executive director of the Main Street Area Association, talks with councilmember Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Maura Thomson, executive director of the Main Street Area Association, was asked to the podium to clarify. She described such a resolution as being on a “wish list” for the MSAA for a long time. She stressed that it would invalidate sidewalk permits only when the streets are closed – for specific events. Further, she said, it applies to sidewalk and peddler permits. For activity on the Palio lot or in the Fourth and William parking structure, she ventured that approval could be obtained from the DDA, but there’d be no sidewalk permit or peddler permit involved.

Asked by Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) if Smith’s amendment impeded her, Thompson indicated she was mostly confused by it. When 7,000 people visit Main Street for Taste of Ann Arbor, she said, the more control over management she has in that area, the safer it is. The resolution is looking out for businesses that are open 365 days a year. She described how undesirable it would be for the owner of a bookstore, which contributes dues to the MSAA to help put on a special event, to have to watch a sidewalk peddler selling books in front of their bookstore.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wondered if the DDA proposed some non-parking use of a public parking lot, whether the city council would have something to say about that. He was not sure that the DDA’s contract with the city, under which the DDA manages the city’s public parking system, allows for that.

Smith indicated that she wasn’t at all opposed to the resolution. She was just trying to protect the city’s right to do something that it hasn’t thought about yet. She ventured that the DDA has no evil plans to take over the downtown for special events.

Derezinski suggested that the DDA and MSAA get along pretty well and the two organizations could work out things informally if they needed to.

Outcome on amendment: Smith’s amendment got support only from Smith.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the concept behind the resolution is to encourage people to frequent the businesses that are there year round, not just for an event. So she said she supported the resolution – because it might make a difference in how people spend their time and money when they go downtown for an event.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution invalidating sidewalk permits when Main Street is closed.

Sakti3 Tax Abatement

After a public hearing held at the May 7 meeting, the city council considered a tax abatement for Sakti3 – a battery technology spinoff from the University of Michigan. Sakti3 is led by UM professor Ann Marie Sastry.

A conversation during a May 7 council meeting recess, from left to right: Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), city administrator Steve Powers, Ann Marie Sastry of Sakti3, and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, the abatement would be on $151,433 of real property improvements and $1,374,861 of new personal property. According to a memo from city financial staff, the value of the tax incentive to Sakti3 over three years totals $36,000. The council had voted to set the public hearing on the tax abatement at its previous meeting, on April 16, 2012.

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

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

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

Sakti3 Tax Abatement: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge asked that mayor John Hieftje ensure that there’s an introduction to every public hearing by having a councilmember or the city administrator explain the substance of the resolution, before asking people to come forward to speak about it. Partridge asked Hieftje if he would do that with the Sakti3 resolution. When Hieftje did not respond, Partridge told him that Hieftje’s silence spoke for itself. Hieftje then told Partridge that the city attorney had informed Hieftje that Partridge needed to stay on the topic of the public hearing. At that Partridge said he was then ready to speak specifically to the requested tax abatement. Partridge said that Sakti3 and other companies need to justify their request, and he opposed the resolution – unless the company agrees to terminate the exemption when it can find finances on its own. He also warned that we should be cautious about battery manufacturing, due to the toxic chemicals that are used.

Sakti3 Tax Abatement: Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who chairs the council’s budget committee, asked that the tax abatement request be postponed, until it could be reviewed by the budget committee.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) stressed that there would be an expedited meeting of the council’s budget committee [on Wednesday, May 16 at 5:30 p.m.]. Sakti3 had developed a whole new technology, he said, and was quite worthy as a candidate for a tax abatement. He noted that representatives of the company had been present earlier in the meeting. He said he’d like to show Sakti3 the council’s ability to act quickly.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) appreciated Higgins’ request to postpone. Lumm said an analysis had been provided to her on the impact of the abatement, and the city of Ann Arbor actually does very little of this. She felt postponing was fine.

Outcome: The council postponed the tax abatement for Sakti3 until its May 21 meeting.

Street Closing: Monroe

There were several separate resolutions to approve street closings for special events. Mayor John Hieftje said he would lump them all together for one vote, unless someone objected. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) wanted separate consideration of a request from the University of Michigan law school to close Monroe Street for its dedication weekend, Sept. 7-8, 2012.

Smith indicated that she did not have an objection to the Monroe Street closing – that was not the reason she was requesting separate consideration. She wanted to highlight the fact that UM would like it closed on a permanent basis. Instead of a permanent closing, she said, she’d prefer to see requests for closing come before the council for specific occasions.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) – who’s a UM law school alum and has served as an adjunct professor at the school – responded to Smith by saying he loved part of her sentiment. [Derezinski has worked out of public view to facilitate a permanent granting of the public right-of-way on Monroe Street to the University of Michigan. See Chronicle coverage: "Column: Ann Arbor's Monroe (Street) Doctrine"] He highlighted the fact that the dedication would be attended by Elena Kagan, justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

During the final opportunity for public commentary at the meeting, Thomas Partridge suggested that when Kagan comes to Ann Arbor for the dedication ceremony, she should take cognizance of the willful disregard for justice here locally, and the total disregard – during an historic recession – of the needs for the most vulnerable, and for working residents who actually keep Ann Arbor operating on a day-to-day basis.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the Monroe Street closing, along with all the other street closings on the agenda.

Street Repair: Willard, et al

The council had on its agenda an item to approve a $206,900 contract with the E.T. MacKenzie Company for a project to reconstruct Willard Street, using permeable pavement. It’s a 21-foot wide, 700-foot long street that runs between East University Avenue and South Forest Avenue. The project covers replacement of curb and gutter, sidewalk ramps and installation of a permeable asphalt pavement.

The general topic of street repair was discussed by the council early in the meeting, during communications time.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wondered about Madison Street from Seventh to South Main – when would it be resurfaced? He felt that there could be more deterioration on streets where public buses travel due to vehicle weight. He felt that the buses are an important service, but could also be an annoyance, because of the impact they have on roads.

Back and forth between mayor John Hieftje and Homayoon Pirooz, head of project management, indicated Madison is in very poor condition, so it needs to be rebuilt from scratch – which would take a whole summer. The city is also resurfacing Seventh Street, and Madison is serving as a detour, so it’s a coordination problem, Pirooz said. But Madison is definitely on the list for 2013, he said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he thought that Madison had been done within the last 10-15 years – why is the city doing it again? Pirooz was not sure when the last time Madison had been reconstructed. He told Kunselman it’s possible it was just resurfaced, not rebuilt. Kunselman wanted the documentation on that. He picked up on Anglin’s comment about buses, by saying it’s also the bigger city trucks that are causing more rapid deterioration. The road along Madison is sloughing downhill, he said. Pirooz pointed out that resurfacing alone doesn’t help the road base.

When the council came to the Willard Street reconstruction, Kunselman questioned city engineer Nick Hutchinson about the cost of permeable pavement compared to regular pavement. Hutchinson indicated that the cost of the asphalt itself is about 1.5 times regular pavement; however, given the complete reconstruction required, the cost of the permeable asphalt as a component made the project more expensive – but not 1.5 times as expensive.

Hutchinson reviewed the number of permeable pavement installations in the city: (1) Easy Street, which has permeable pavers lining the sides; (2) Sylvan Street; (3) an alley in Burns Park; and (4) Willard Street. Kunselman noted that University of Michigan buses run for one block on Willard – how does permeable pavement hold up under heavy weight? Hutchinson said he believes the pavement will hold up very well – it’s designed in a heavy duty way. Kunselman wondered if permeable pavement might last even longer than traditional pavement, because there’s less freeze-thaw. Water drains through the courser material instead of being trapped inside it.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the Willard Street permeable pavement project.

FY 2013 Budget Hearing

Mayor John Hieftje introduced the hearing on the city of Ann Arbor’s FY 2013 budget by noting it will be on the council’s agenda at its next meeting, on May 21. According to the city charter, he observed, the budget needs to be approved by the city council by the end of its second meeting of May. [Last year, the second meeting in May was conducted in multiple sessions, stretching until the end of the month.]

Thomas Partridge said that despite Hieftje’s pronouncement that the budget is available on the Internet, he did not see a rush of residents to speak at the public hearing. He called for the budget resolution to be reviewed again by the individual city departments, before it’s put forward for passage at the council’s next meeting. Partridge stated that he is convinced the budget is based on the undemocratic principle of one tax rate for all, that it victimizes senior citizens and lower-income people, and people who need vital public services, which will not be provided by this budget. He called the proposed millage rates “conservative right-wing millage rates.”

Michael Benson introduced himself as a Ward 2 resident. He thanked the council for placing all the documents online.

Stephen Ranzini introduced himself as a resident of Ann Arbor, who wanted to address the declining quality of fire safety in Ann Arbor in the context of the budget. He began by telling the council a story about his nine-month-old daughter, who was baptized on Sunday, April 29 at St. Mary’s downtown. During the baptism, across the street in a residential high-rise building, there was a fire in the upper story of the building, he said. [According to an AnnArbor.com news report, a publication for which Ranzini writes op-ed pieces, an April 29 fire in the Maynard House – located at 400 Maynard St. – originated in a garbage chute located in the basement. It spread up to the first and second floor sections of the chute, according to the AnnArbor.com report, where firefighters were able to contain the fire. According to the report, firefighters also discovered a small fire on the 11th story, that had resulted from a resident leaving the stove on after hearing the building's fire alarm and evacuating the building.]

Ranzini said that while the firefighters responded in a timely way, they were not able to bring the tower truck or ladder truck to reach upper stories, because the trucks are currently out of repair. As a result, he contended, firefighters and residents were placed in harm’s way.

Ranzini called for the budgeting and hiring of 88 firefighters, not just the 82 in the currently proposed budget – of which only 76 positions are now actually staffed. Commenting on a proposed new station model for the department [which would use three stations instead of the current five], Ranzini cited a poll by AnnArbor.com that indicated overwhelming opposition to the three-station model. Rather than continuing to study that station model, he called on the city council to hire the full complement of firefighters who are budgeted, add six additional firefighters to this year’s budget, and replace or repair the tower truck and the ladder truck.

He described the current staffing levels as an “experiment with public safety” by the mayor.

Ranzini said he knew about the fire on April 29, not because of the fact that he was nearby, but rather because he’d received an anonymous communication from a firefighter. That communication was anonymous, he contended, because the fire chief has ordered firefighters not to talk to the press. Ranzini indicated that the executive director of the ACLU of Michigan has told him that if the city administrator does not correct that situation, a lawsuit might ensue.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Smart Meters

Nanci Gerler and Darren Schmidt had also addressed councilmembers on the topic of “smart meters” at the council’s April 16, 2012 meeting.

Gerler told the council that five other communities in Michigan have passed resolutions and bans on smart meters and she called on the Ann Arbor city council to do the same. The current installation by DTE Energy is going rapidly, she said, with 30 trucks working six days a week. She contended that DTE is not maintaining a list of opt-out requests. She went on to describe that many residents haven’t received notification or a knock on the door to alert them of the installation of the meters. Installation has occurred over people’s protests, she said. The utility company has accepted no responsibility for people’s health, she said.

Schmidt said he supports a halt to installation of smart meters. He described several patients with a history of symptoms that are hard to get rid of. After stumbling around looking for solutions, he said they found that many of their symptoms could be attributed to electromagnetic fields. While it’s possible get rid of other consumer wireless devices, people can’t get rid of smart meters, he said.

Comm/Comm: Localized Flooding

David Foster told the council he lives in the Lansdowne neighborhood a few houses down from the Fisher family, who’d addressed councilmembers at the council’s April 16, 2012 meeting. He described how his own house had received severe water damage during the March 15 storm. He described how there’d been a “river effect” on the streets, rendering them impassable. On the west side of his house, he reported, the water had flowed up over some block and into the basement egress window – a window that is required by the city. His basement had water seven feet deep, he reported. He noted that he’s 5-10 and his son is 4-2 – so the water would have been well over their heads, if they’d been home at the time. And they would have been in the basement, he said, because they’d have been seeking shelter from the tornado. He asked that the council acknowledge that a problem exists. It’s not a question of whether similar events will occur in the future – it’s a question of when, he concluded.

Responding to Foster’s comments, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) wanted to know if there could be an update on the meetings that Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated had taken place between residents and city staff. Higgins, who represents the ward where this localized flooding is located, told Lumm that staff are still analyzing the situation and that there’s nothing ready to report yet.

Comm/Comm: Advocacy for Most Vulnerable

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a Democrat and grandfather and a resident of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County – an advocate for those who can’t attend the meeting, the vulnerable people who are disconnected from the multimillion-dollar projects on the agenda. He called on the council to advance human rights, and public transportation, to give priority to the need to end homelessness and poverty and to provide access to expanded shelters, transitional housing and permanent housing. That should take precedence over talk about art commission projects, he said, which are unnecessary to the cause of human rights.

Comm/Comm: Energy Production

Kermit Schlansker opened by telling the council that every furnace now being sold is obsolete. He observed that heat is a byproduct of making energy, so furnaces could manufacture energy while generating heat. He described the process of “co-manufacturing” heat and energy.

Comm/Comm: Warpehoski’s Ward 5 Candidacy

Henry Herskovitz said that the report that the director of the Interfaith Council on Peace and Justice had entered the race for the Ward 5 seat on city council had come as a shock to members of the former ICPJ Middle East task force. [Herskovitz didn't name the director, but he was referring to Chuck Warpehoski.] Under the leadership of Warpehoski, Herskovitz said, the task force was summarily disbanded by the ICPJ’s board of directors. The task force had voted unanimously in 2006 to support the Palestinian call for boycotts, divestments and sanctions against Israel. Herskovitz attributed the disbanding of the task force to a few powerful supporters of Israel on the ICPJ board of directors. The task force, Herskovitz continued, had sought to resolve the dispute with outside professional mediation. Herskovitz characterized the board’s action, supported by Warpehoski, as overrunning democratic procedures. Voters in Ward 5 deserve representation by someone who embraces democratic ideals, Herskovitz concluded.

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

Absent: Margie Teall.

Next council meeting: Monday, May 21, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

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