AAPS board member Christine Stead. Across the table from Stead (and Deb Mexicotte, who's seated to Stead's right out of the frame) are board members Glenn Nelson and Susan Baskett. (Photos by the writer.)

Contending that any increases would do little to rectify the compounding losses of funding since the passage of Proposal A, trustee Andy Thomas summarized the state’s budget plan as: “One hand giveth and the other hand taketh away.”

Trustees also agreed to move to a paperless system of board documents. In other business, the board agreed to change the district’s liability insurance carrier, and joined an emerging advocacy group – the Washtenaw Alliance for Education.

Also at the meeting, the board heard from two sets of students, after making a conscious effort recently to increase student engagement at the board level.

The board also engaged in an uncommon back-and-forth with members of the audience, which stemmed from public commentary about a Thurston Elementary School teacher who’s been placed on administrative leave. 

Budget Update

AAPS superintendent Patricia Green introduced deputy superintendent of operations Robert Allen to discuss the potential for state funding increases, as well as possible changes to transportation services that would impact the budget. AAPS is in the process of crafting its 2012-13 budget, which is estimated to require another $14 million in budget reductions. The district has already cut nearly $50 million out of its budget over the past five years.

Budget Update: State Budget

At the Feb. 8 meeting, Allen reported that that Gov. Rick Snyder’s proposed state budget for FY 2012-13 was anticipated to include an increase in funding to K-12 schools. Allen said he would welcome any increase in the per-pupil foundation allowance, and noted there might also be a state effort to mitigate the rising retirement costs faced by school districts across Michigan.

Trustees expressed concern that a slight increase in state education funding would do little to rectify the fact that schools are being funded at 2001 levels, even before adjusting for inflation. “Calling it an increase is disingenuous,” said trustee Christine Stead. She cited increased testing requirements, tenure reform, and all-day kindergarten as examples of new, unfunded state mandates. Those unfunded mandates, she argued, should counter any perception of a higher foundation allowance as an increase. Andy Thomas summarized his view of the state’s funding of K-12 education: “One hand giveth and the other hand taketh away.”

On Feb. 9, the governor did reveal his proposed budget to the state legislature. In general, it does not call for an increase in districts’ foundation allowances – the per-pupil amount that public schools receive from the state. Instead, the governor’s proposal would offer extra funding to districts that meet at least five of six best practices: (1) having a “dashboard” of statistics on their website; (2) being the policyholder for health insurance; (3) opening up seats in the district through “schools of choice”; (4) monitoring student growth in each subject at least twice a year; (5) offering dual enrollment (concurrent enrollment in high school and college) options; and (6) offering online or blended learning. A small amount of additional funding would also be available to defray pension costs faced by districts, as well as to reward districts that show student academic growth and/or are making efforts to consolidate services.

Budget Update: RFP for Transportation?

Allen reported that he had followed up on a board request to look into joining Ypsilanti and Willow Run schools in issuing an RFP (request for proposals) for transportation services. Ypsilanti and Willow Run currently participate in a transportation consortium with AAPS, which is managed by the Washtenaw Intermediate School District. Allen said he found no opposition to AAPS joining in the RFP process.

Trustee Simone Lightfoot pointed out that joining the RFP process with Ypsilanti and Willow Run was only one of five suggestions the board had given administration to explore in terms of providing transportation services, and she confirmed that Allen was continuing to explore all options, including partnering with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA). Allen said all options are still being considered, and noted that participating in the joint RFP process might also yield data about how much it might cost AAPS to privatize transportation services on its own.

Stead added that AAPS should move efficiently to identify areas in the budget that are highly likely to be impacted by budget reductions. That way, the district will have as much time as possible to plan for the implementation of any reductions with the AAPS community and families. She also requested that Allen include an estimate of how much fund equity must be maintained so that the district will not have to borrow money to make payroll.

Beyond Lightfoot’s brief mention, the possibility of collaborating with the AATA to serve the school system’s transportation needs was hardly discussed at the board’s Feb. 8 meeting. The board had discussed the possibility of collaborating with the AATA in more detail at its committee-of-the-whole meeting on Jan. 25.

Since then, conversations between AAPS and the AATA have started. In his monthly written report for the upcoming Feb. 16 AATA board meeting, AATA CEO Michael Ford wrote to the AATA board:

Ron Copeland [operations manager], Phil Webb [controller], Chris White [manager of service development] and I [Ford] met with the AAPS Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, and Director of Communications last week. This was our second meeting to explore how AATA service could assist in their efforts to reduce transportation costs. Since the first meeting, we have developed some opportunities for the 2012‐13 school year that would replace 2‐5 AAPS high school bus routes with students using existing AATA service. AATA and AAPS staff will be working in the next few weeks to develop the details.

The Superintendent expressed her pleasure with how this effort is proceeding. Later last week I met with AAPS Board Trustees Simone Lightfoot and Susan Baskett. I shared the details of our meeting with AAPS representatives and our coordination efforts. We also discussed opportunities to provide enhanced communication to parents regarding potential changes that could better help with their understanding of what public transit is, what it can do, and the ease of use.

We agreed to meet again and look at some longer term solutions such as identifying grant opportunities, raising local awareness and gathering data to pinpoint the needs of where high school student are in need of public transit, but don’t have a voice nor access to navigate public transit services to school.

During the agenda planning portion of the Feb. 8 meeting, trustees Irene Patalan and Simone Lightfoot each requested that a date be assigned to review the transportation options, including the WISD report of operational statistics. Board president Deb Mexicotte suggested that the board should bundle the WISD review with a discussion about the RFPs and conversations with AATA.

BoardDocs: Electronic Document Management

The board has been considering a move to paperless document management system for at least six months. BoardDocs, a paperless board documents system, was first introduced to the board at its July 2011 board retreat. The issue was on the Feb. 8 agenda for a second briefing and a board vote.

Board Docs: Description and Cost Information

Board secretary Amy Osinski made a brief presentation to the board highlighting the pros and cons of moving to BoardDocs. She also outlined the related cost information.

As benefits, Osinski noted ease of use, ease of access, and greater transparency. She explained how the public would be able to follow along with the agenda online, and how complete videos of each meeting would be uploaded to BoardDocs within a day of the meeting. The video capture would be done by Community Television Network, she said, which will also continue its livestreaming and replaying of the meetings on community access television. The video capture for BoardDocs would be uploaded as a YouTube video, and could have each section of the meeting tagged according to the agenda.

In addition, Osinski continued, using BoardDocs would allow all previous meeting documents to be scanned and searched by the public, from one central place. All documents would be formatted consistently, and agenda changes would be automatically e-mailed to everyone.

BoardDocs does allow for personal notes to be taken by board members during public meetings, and though they are only accessible through each trustee’s login, Dave Comsa – AAPS deputy superintendent for human resources and general counsel – pointed out that if notes are taken as part of a deliberative process, they could be made to be shared. He also counseled board members not to e-mail or text each other during a meeting.

Board president Deb Mexicotte responded, “It is not our intention to ever text or e-mail from the board table.” Trustees around the table nodded in agreement.

Osinski wrapped up the “pros” by noting efficiency and cost savings in staff time, ease of policy management, a “metasearch” capability that allows users to search board documents of other BoardDocs’ client-districts, the lack of need to maintain and pay for physical storage space, and BoardDocs “outstanding customer service.”

She then acknowledged that there are a few drawbacks to making the switch to a paperless system.

There would be a learning curve in terms of getting accustomed to everything being electronic, she said. Osinski also noted that access to a computer and the Internet would be required to access board documents, which could pose a limitation for some families. She also pointed out that the board might be limited in terms of meeting locations. However, she said she could mitigate constraints on location by creating a “hot spot” in her computer that could be used by all trustees to access the Internet during meetings. Finally, Osinski noted that confidentiality is not 100% guaranteed, though trustees countered that the same is true with paper documents.

Andy Thomas asked what would happen if Osinski’s computer was supposed to be the “hot spot” for Internet access, but she was not able to attend the meeting. Osinski replied that there would be redundancy training and that the district would have others who could sit in for her. She also noted that she has only missed three board meetings in eight years.

The annual cost for BoardDocs would be $9,000, a nearly $2,200 increase per year compared to creating paper board packets, Osinski said. The cost for the first year includes $1,000 in training and implementation costs. The product can be fully customized, comes with 24-hour tech support 365 days a year, allows the district to archive up to 10 years of data, and includes all upgrades. Also, the district maintains all ownership of its data.

Osinski presented a set of references to the board and opened the floor to discussion.

BoardDocs: Board Discussion

Christine Stead pointed out that BoardDocs would not save money – although it would significantly lighten Osinski’s workload, the district was not planning to decrease her position.

Trustees expressed gratitude to Osinski for her presentation and asked a few clarifying questions about hardware requirements, system capabilities, and confidentiality.

Osinski reiterated that using BoardDocs is as safe or safer than using paper. She noted that in 11 years of business, BoardDocs has never had a security breach, adding, “… but you can never say never.”

Deb Mexicotte told Osinski, “I think it is the right thing to do and we will all get used to it. But one of the most compelling things is how excited you are about it.” Simone Lightfoot agreed that Osinski had made a good case for the switch to BoardDocs, and had allowed it to grow on trustees who had been more reluctant.

Susan Baskett asked about the timing of implementation and training, and Osinski said it would be a six-week implementation, or until everyone is comfortable with it. Glenn Nelson suggested a target of having BoardDocs fully implemented at the board’s April 11 meeting.

Outcome: Trustees unanimously approved moving to BoardDocs, a paperless document management system, as part of the consent agenda.

Liability Insurance Renewal

Superintendent Patricia Green introduced deputy superintendent of operations Robert Allen to explain the shift in the district’s insurance premium costs. The district’s liability insurance is renewed annually on Feb. 1.

Allen explained that the bids that came back from the district’s insurance agent, the Hylant Group, were significantly higher than last year. That led Allen to request that Hylant re-bid the district’s coverage with other insurance carriers. After examining a set of new bids, Allen said, he recommends switching insurance carriers from Zurich to Affiliated FM – not to lower the cost of insurance premiums, but in order to lower the amount of increase.

Allen also explained that it’s reasonable to have expected an increase in premium costs, given the district’s claim history over the past two years. As examples of claims made under the district’s coverage, Allen noted an increase in computer theft, a lightning strike at Northside Elementary, a flood in the boiler room at Forsythe Middle School, a transformer failure at Pioneer High School, and an exhaust fan fire at Ann Arbor Open.

Trustees asked if the coverage from the new carrier is equivalent. Allen explained that it’s actually a bit more extensive in terms of flood coverage and crime risk mitigation, but that everything else is pretty much consistent.

Simone Lightfoot asked if Affiliated FM is a known company, and Allen answered that yes, they are one of the biggest companies in school liability. Susan Baskett asked if the company was local, or was a historically-underutilized business (HUB). Allen said he would get back to the board about the firm’s location, and that he did not believe is was a HUB.

Outcome: Trustees approved the shift in liability insurance carriers as part of the consent agenda, which also included three sets of minutes approvals.

Washtenaw Alliance for Education

Deb Mexicotte asked Glenn Nelson to review a resolution he wrote for AAPS to join the Washtenaw Alliance for Education (WAE), a consortium of school districts in Washtenaw County focusing on legislative issues.

Nelson summarized the proposed resolution as having four themes: (1) closer coordination among the Washtenaw County school districts; (2) improved communication between board members and superintendents; (3) continued, more intense work on coordination and collaboration of service provision within the county, such as transportation and human resources; and (4) being a vehicle for advocacy on state legislation.

Christine Stead suggested that because the board had already discussed the WAE extensively during its organizational meeting on Jan. 18, the board should consider their Feb. 8 discussion as a second briefing. She also noted that approving the resolution to join WAE at the Feb. 8 meeting would allow AAPS to share the news at the legislative breakfast on Feb. 13. Trustees agreed to move the item to the consent agenda, but it was later pulled out for a full reading of the resolution.

Andy Thomas asked for clarification on who would be part of the WAE. Nelson explained that each district will have three seats on the WAE board – two district board members and the superintendent. For AAPS, Nelson, Stead, and Green would sit on the WAE as AAPS representatives. Thomas also asked Nelson to explain that this would not have any impact on taxpayers.

Nelson responded that there would be no increase in trustee salary for sitting on the WAE. “This will decrease our school board wages from 25 cents an hour to about 20 cents an hour,” he quipped. Mexicotte noted that 25 cents an hour is “not too far off,” and pointed out that trustees are paid $130 a month in total for their service.

Trustee Irene Patalan said this was “the exact right step,” and expressed her hopes that “better things will happen for our students with this kind of alliance.”

Nelson noted that the school districts in Washtenaw County are diverse, and that when the WAE takes a position on a piece of legislation, it would need to be with a consensus of the districts present. This means, he said, if the WAE finds ways to make things better for students in these diverse districts – representing rural, urban, small town, affluent, and distressed areas – it could be a model for the state.

Green added that she worked with a similar alliance in her previous position in Pennsylvania. She said that if a WAE were in place, it could provide a venue to discuss transportation and other regional issues. She also noted that as AAPS is embarking on professional development for social and emotional learning, the WAE could offer revenue enhancement opportunities. “That’s part of the richness this model can provide,” Green said.

Outcome: The resolution to join WAE was approved unanimously after being moved to the consent agenda, and then pulled out for a full reading of the associated resolution.

Length of Board Terms

Deb Mexicotte reviewed that new state legislation now requires the district to hold board elections every even-numbered November, which had caused the board to consider switching from four-year to six-year terms in order to prevent the possibility of a majority of the board turning over in one election. As it now stands, every other election will allow four seats to potentially turn over on the seven-member board.

However, Mexicotte continued, based on the board’s discussion at the previous meeting on Jan. 18, it seems that trustees feel that sticking with four-year terms is in the best interest of the district. She noted that in the past, large swings of the board membership have not been the norm, even when they have been possible.

Trustees expressed general agreement for four-year terms.

Christine Stead added that the amount of legislation passed on K-12 education last year, such as this law requiring even-numbered year elections, was “ridiculous… Who does this serve?” she asked.

Andy Thomas noted that moving to hold board elections in even-numbered years will make the cost of campaigning significantly higher, and moving to six-year terms could limit the candidate field even more by increasing the time of the required commitment.

Mexicotte agreed. “This is the right level of commitment. I don’t want to make the bar any higher than it already is.” She noted that by not approving a resolution to follow the new law, “We did what we could to register our displeasure.” At best, she said, this new election mandate does nothing to improve the education of students, and at worst, has made it more difficult for citizens to serve on the board.

Outcome: The board took no action, leaving their board terms at four years.

Student Engagement

The board often invites segments of the student population to perform at the beginning of board meetings. At the Feb. 8 meeting, board members heard from Riot Youth, a group for LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning) students and their allies. In addition, the board has broadened its invited associations to include regular reports from a wider group of students. The Feb. 8 meeting saw the first installment of high-school-specific student reports, from Pioneer High School.

Student Engagement: Riot Youth “Gayrilla Theater Project” Presentation

Riot Youth, a group for LGBTQ students and their allies, explained that social support and social justice were the goals of their group. They reported that they had conducted a climate survey concerning sexual identification, race, appearance, and other items, covering 1,200 students in four schools. They explained that they had taken the survey results, along with personal stories, and woven them into the “Gayrilla Theater Project,” inspired by the name of the Guerilla Girls theater project.

Riot Youth representatives then noted that the state of Michigan has just passed an anti-bullying law that requires all districts to have an anti-bullying policy. Saying that they would be back the following week to talk to the board specifically about their suggestions of ways to add to the AAPS anti-bullying policy, they then performed a brief skit for the board.

The skit focused on the marginalization of queer youth in AAPS, and noted that 10.5% of students surveyed identified themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or questioning. These students face a lack of queer sexual health information in health classes, regular verbal abuse, higher risks of physical harassment and suicide, and ongoing isolation, they said. According to the skit, only 62% of queer students feel safe in AAPS, and teachers, counselors and staff members rarely intervene when LGBTQ youth are harassed.

We tell our stories because we are good students not realizing our potential, they said. “We are an at-risk population.”

Deb Mexicotte and Glenn Nelson thanked the Riot Youth for performing and said they would be pleased to continue the conversation. “We really think we can make things better for you,” Mexicotte said.

Student Engagement: Report from Pioneer Students

Four students from Pioneer High School – Charlie Geronimus, Aidan Geronimus, Javon Williams, and Chelsea Racelis – gave a report to the board. The students began by explaining a new schoolwide communication system, which allows for greater student feedback to student council and administration. They noted that lunch time has been going well, and has brought the school together as a whole. They also reviewed a school-wide student council goal of sending Pioneer’s special education students to the Special Olympics. They said the whole student body has really backed the goal, which will require $6,000, but said that they hoped the board would choose to allocate money for Special Olympics in the future.

Pioneer High School student Charlie Geronimus addressed the board.

In terms of the budget, the Pioneer students noted that the arts programs in the district are incredibly rich, and noted that Pioneer students will be playing at Carnegie Hall later this year. “We have an incredible amount of talent in the music department, but we are faced with threats of our budgets being cut. We would like to ask when the budget cuts come around that you could keep in mind the excellence this district has had in the arts,” the students said.

The Pioneer representatives also praised their principal, Michael White. They said he is doing an amazing job, but that some kids still don’t care. “Classrooms are being run as if everyone is in the 10% [of students who don’t care]. The 90% that know what they’re doing – they don’t need to be disciplined so much.”

There is a level of respect that students are expected to give, they said, but they don’t feel like they are getting back the respect from some teachers that they deserve. Citing teachers who have no lesson plans, use tests printed off the Internet, or otherwise slack off, the representatives requested a mechanism, such as a drop box, where they could give direct input into teacher evaluations. “Teachers need to do their homework,” the Pioneer representatives said, “We would appreciate the ability to more easily bring it up to tell you when teachers are not doing their jobs.”

Multiple board members thanked the Pioneer students for their presentation, and for sharing their voices. Simone Lightfoot and Susan Baskett each noted appreciation for their attire – all four students were dressed in formal business clothes. “Image is important,” Lightfoot said, “and your bold diplomacy is great. I look forward to you holding us accountable.”

Baskett asked if they had had input into the school climate survey recently done at Pioneer. Student council president Charlie Geronimus answered that he believes the climate at Pioneer has improved since White was made principal. “I can’t speak to things like what Riot Youth was talking about,” he said. “But just because I haven’t seen it, doesn’t mean it’s not going on.”

Superintendent Patricia Green added that the board will be given a report on last year’s climate surveys at the next committee-of-the-whole meeting.

Administrative Leave for Thurston Teacher

Sherry Murphy, a teacher at Thurston Elementary School, was placed on administrative leave on Nov. 28, 2011. It prompted public commentary at the Feb. 8, 2012 board meeting.

Administrative Leave for Thurston Teacher: Public Commentary

Three parents spoke to the board about the placement of a Thurston 4th grade teacher on administrative leave, with no explanation given to parents or students.

Charlie Adams, mother of a 4th grader with dyslexia who was specifically placed in Murphy’s class due to her 30 years of experience, said that her child has been “thrown to the gallows” with the long-term substitute the class was given. Adams also pointed out that her daughter had numerous substitutes in her first two years at Haisley Elementary, and that she was finally stable academically. Adams said she has requested that her daughter be moved to another class to no avail, and said the current situation is unacceptable. Adams said the students miss Murphy desperately, and called her disappearance from the classroom “mysterious.”

Kristen Mogbo added that her 4th grader has the “math version of dyslexia,” and had also been placed in Murphy’s room specifically because of Murphy’s experience and skill set. Most troubling, Mogbo said, is the absolute lack of communication. She said she is not looking for personal details, and respects the need for confidentiality, but is requesting a timeline of when the situation might be resolved. “I don’t understand why administrative issues are being worked out in the midst of a school year,” Mogbo said. “I keep being assured that Dr. Murphy has done nothing wrong… I am extraordinarily distressed with the secrecy of the whole thing. Is there any form of response possible?”

Ben Colmery argued that his expectations have been crushed, after finally getting his daughter’s dyslexia addressed, to have Murphy removed from her classroom. He noted that he and his wife have their daughter tutored twice a week, and are doing their part to help, but he said that Murphy was critical to his daughter’s academic success. Colmery noted that Murphy was placed on administrative leave with 10 minutes’ notice, and was told not to discuss anything with anyone. But in this town, Colmery said, “There are no secrets.”

Before Colmery could continue, board president Deb Mexicotte interjected. She apologized for interrupting, but said she wanted to be sure that Colmery was “protected,” and warned, “If you make allegations, there are opportunities for people to allege illegality.”

Colmery asked, “Are you telling me I’m a risk for libel?” Mexicotte answered that the board was interested in what Colmery had to say on a macro level.

Colmery paused briefly, and then continued with his statement, saying that it appears to him that the district’s decision to remove Murphy was an economic consideration, not any other. “The thing you need to understand,” he said, “is my daughter is not a car on an assembly line … She is my daughter. I am her advocate.”

Administrative Leave for Thurston Teacher: Comment from AAPS

AAPS superintendent Patricia Green asked Dave Comsa, AAPS assistant superintendent for human resources and legal services, to address the public commentary about Murphy. Comsa said he could not get into specifics regarding personnel matters, but said that there is a certified, highly qualified substitute teacher in the classroom. He continued by saying that the reason for Murphy’s absence had nothing to do with economics, and that the district was working as fast as possible to resolve the situation. Mexicotte noted that the confidentiality rules are in place to protect not only the district, but also the employees.

A member of the audience then addressed the board, saying that Murphy had asked for the “gag rule” to be removed­­­­­­­.

The board does not typically respond to comments that are made from the audience. However, Mexicotte acknowledged the audience member’s comment, noting that the district is bound by legal and contractual circumstances.

Green invited Dawn Linden, AAPS assistant superintendent of elementary education, to comment. Linden said that although she understands parents’ frustration, the district “does not know about a return date [for Murphy]” and cannot share any additional information. Linden also reiterated Comsa’s statement that the long-term substitute in place is highly qualified.

A member of the audience again spoke, saying that Murphy’s substitute was not “highly qualified,” and again Mexicotte acknowledged the comment, saying that the term “highly qualified” is being used in the same sense as the state of Michigan uses it.

Mexicotte then asked Green to speak to one parent’s contention during public commentary that his daughter had experienced an excessive number of substitutes. Green answered that “the ripple effect of making the changes requested have been pondered, and there are implications that would create another situation if the requests are honored.”

An audience member again asked if the board could at least offer a timeline for resolution of the situation, and argued that if the children are not getting Murphy back as a teacher, they should be told so they can mourn that, and say goodbye. Mexicotte answered that she appreciated the speaker’s frustration, and directed administration to work through the process as efficiently as possible.

Trustee Christine Stead added that she would like to know if the families involved at Thurston could be walked through the process more, while still protecting confidentiality, saying “that might be helpful in this case.”

An audience member again said she was disappointed, and said that her requests to have her daughter moved were not unreasonable at all. Mexicotte then ended the somewhat rare discussion between the board and audience members, saying that the board appreciated her comments and had directed administration to respond as they are able. But Mexicotte concluded that the board needed to move on with the meeting.

Mexicotte then stood and gestured to the parents who had spoken about Murphy. Mexicotte and the parents left the board meeting room together. Mexicotte returned to the board table roughly five minutes later.

All-Day Kindergarten, Test Scores

AAPS is currently weighing the possibility of moving to an all-day kindergarten program district-wide instead of the combination of half-day, all-day, and extended-day options it currently offers. The impetus for possibly moving to all-day kindergarten is the apparent intention of the Michigan legislature to cut kindergarten per-pupil funding by half for all students enrolled in a half-day kindergarten program.

All-Day Kindergarten: Public Comment

Tina Richmond, parent of a first grader at Haisley Elementary School, addressed the board on a range of issues, saying she believed the district was operating at a bit of a “trust deficit.” She said she was dismayed to learn that the district has been accepting the full foundation allowance for kindergarten students, but not offering all-day kindergarten at all schools. Her options at Haisley, she said, had been to drive her daughter to another district school [one with all-day kindergarten] for six years, or to pay $4,000 for an all-day kindergarten option at Haisley. Richmond also noted that her daughter’s kindergarten class had 27 students, and that parents had had to beg for an aide.

Richmond also noted that she was pleased that the new MEAP (Michigan Educational Assessment Program) cut scores would more accurately reflect student achievement. But she was “disappointed that a district with such credentials would give such low achievement scores.” She urged administrators to be realistic in their communication with parents about the MEAP cut score changes. “I’m not a parent who is out there thinking we’re great,” she said. “What we’re doing is coming up to the national standards.”

“Cut scores” are defined in a FAQ posted on the Michigan Dept. of Education website: ”Scores for all state assessments are reported in ranges called performance levels. Both MEAP and MME [Michigan Merit Examination] use four performance levels: Advanced, Proficient, Partially Proficient, and Not Proficient. A cut score is the point on the scale that separates one performance level from the next. Cut scores were approved by the State Board of Education.”

All-Day Kindergarten: AAPS Discussion

Later in the meeting during agenda planning, Simone Lightfoot said she wanted to clarify some of Richmond’s comments on all-day kindergarten, saying “the sooner we can get [information on all-day kindergarten] out, the better.” Deb Mexicotte added that the way kindergarten funding has been used in the district was a “traditional structure that had been in place for a very long period of time.”

Superintendent Patricia Green asked deputy superintendent Alesia Flye to speak briefly about the communication being done with parents regarding the change in MEAP cut scores. Flye said communication has been sent at the building level and district-wide, and that all districts in the state of Michigan are being aligned.

Also during the agenda planning portion of the meeting, Glenn Nelson suggested that the board address the question of whether to move to all-day kindergarten as soon as possible. “I know that the administration has been working and I realize that work needs to get to a certain place, but let’s be conscious that that is an important issue that can be brought as soon as it’s ready,” he said. Green said a report on all-day kindergarten would be coming to the board “very shortly.”

Association Reports

At its January organizational meeting, the board named five associations to make regular reports to the board, and instituted a rotational system of student presentations. The board associations are: 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 BPSSG, AAPAC, and PTOC addressed the board at the Feb. 8 meeting. A presentation from Pioneer students is described above, in the “student engagement” section of this report.

Association Reports: Black Parents Student Support Group

Leslie McGraw reported for the BPSSG, saying that the group did not meet in January, but did collect dates and locations of various Martin Luther King Jr. Day events. She noted that many BPSSG members also attended “Beyond the Bricks,” an event sponsored by the Ann Arbor Links Inc. group.

McGraw shared the URL of the group’s new website – www.dwbpssg.org – and said the group will be working to share suspension data with the community and discuss how to improve the statistics. She noted that Bryan Johnson of the BPSSG was one of a group of advisors working with superintendent Patricia Green on addressing discipline disparities.

Finally, McGraw reported on the Huron High School Rising Scholars Saturday school, which served more than 300 students over two weekends, and was open to all schools. Upcoming next steps for the BPSSG include the possibility of establishing a 501(c)3, and programming for National African-American Parent Involvement Day.

Association Reports: Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee for Special Education

Scott Zeleznik addressed the board for the AAPAC, beginning with comments on the recent alleged sexual assault of a special education student by another special education student at Eberwhite Elementary.

He suggested first that AAPAC is concerned that special needs students will be “vilified and further isolated by this incident.” He urged everyone to remember that bullying and abuse issues affect all children, and that special needs children are more likely to be victims than perpetrators – because of their inability to effectively speak for themselves in many cases.

Secondly, Zeleznik said the incident has prompted many parents to question whether to trust AAPS to protect their children and to inform parents of what is really taking place in the classroom, as they are legally required to do. He argued that abusive behaviors among students need to be identified and prevented from recurring, and suggested to administration that the district hold forums with parents to discuss the issue and how it relates to their specific school environment. He also noted that change needs to come from the administration in terms of securing student safety and well-being over the protection of colleagues.

The AAPAC has continued to hold Disability Awareness Workshops, Zeleznik continued, and he invited trustees to attend.

Association Reports: Parent Teacher Organization Council

Amy Pachera reported for the PTOC, noting that PTO officer training took place on Feb 8. The training is given by the NEW Center, she said, and reviews the fiduciary and other legal responsibilities of PTOs.

Pachera noted that the PTOC is in full support of the district’s upcoming technology bond, and looks forward to educating the PTOs about the bond. She also noted that the PTOC will be reviewing the district’s budget in overview at its next meeting, and will look at how the state budget and taxes affect the local budget.

Awards and Accolades

The board unanimously supported two proclamations: National School Counseling Week from Feb 6-12, and Principals Week from Feb. 13-17.

As a part of her superintendent’s report, Patricia Green recognized a number of students who received awards from the Presidential Scholars program, as well as Knowledge Masters Open winners, forensics competition winners, and various student groups who have raised money for certain local causes. She also praised the district’s music and humanities programs. Finally, Green invited everyone to attend the district’s upcoming Orchestra Night on Feb. 16 at Hill Auditorium, a free performance by all AAPS middle and high school orchestras.

Agenda Planning

Several trustees proposed items that they’d like to see on the agenda for future meetings.

Susan Baskett requested an update on the Rising Scholars program.

Simone Lightfoot asked if the board could look into what supports the district has in place for math, particularly the algebra strand, as she has heard many concerns about good students having difficulty with math.

Christine Stead added she would appreciate hearing about classroom-specific “key investments” the district could make to address math, MEAP cut scores, or other things. Deb Mexicotte clarified that the board was interested in considering adjustments to support for classrooms that may have been cut in the past, in order to better meet the district’s academic goals, and superintendent Patricia Green said that administration was looking at that.

Stead said she read an article in a Michigan Association of School Boards publication about how Birmingham schools are charging tuition to out-of-district students instead of participating in Schools of Choice. She noted that it was interesting that they were able to do that, and she wanted to be sure AAPS was aware of that. Schools of Choice students are actually a loss for AAPS in terms of the foundation allowance, because students bring their foundation allowance from their home district to AAPS, and Ann Arbor’s foundation allowance is higher than that of other surrounding districts.

Lightfoot also noted the possibility of charging foreign students tuition as part of an exchange student program. Green responded that she had a breakfast meeting last week with the new president of Washtenaw Community College – Rose Bellanca – and that the potential for such an exchange student program had been briefly discussed.

Items from the Board

Christine Stead noted that the Forsythe Science Fair was coming up on Sunday, Feb. 12, and encouraged people to come by. Also, she reminded her fellow trustees, “You’re just making it harder on yourselves if you have not started training for the Ann Arbor marathon.” She added that she was happy to help do what she could in terms of supporting them through training.

Simone Lightfoot said she had spent time this week with the Rising Scholars program and looked forward to assessing how the district can continue to support and expand that program. She said the program’s success shows her that kids will take any assistance they can get, including a balanced calendar. [A balanced calendar  could feature a shorter summer break and optional "intersessions" – one or two-week long academic or enrichment activities held during breaks in regular instruction, for example.]

Glenn Nelson said he had been happy to see a number of groups in the community coming together to address issues of student discipline, and noted his involvement in a community panel for Skyline High School’s accreditation review.

Susan Baskett thanked the ACLU and Student Advocacy Center for their recent event, and noted that she and Nelson had participated in a meeting of the district’s minority hiring committee.

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, March 7, 2012, at 7 p.m. at the fourth-floor boardroom of the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown branch, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rezoning for 1320 S. University

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rezoning for 1320 S. University: Public Hearing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rezoning for 1320 S. University: Commission Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absent: Erica Briggs.

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Thursday, Feb. 23 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Four-Party Transit Agreement

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

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

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

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

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

Four-Party Transit Agreement: Public Commentary

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

AATA FY 2102 revenue pie chart.

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

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

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

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

Four-Party Transit Agreement: Council Deliberations

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

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

Four-Party Transit Agreement: Council Deliberations – 1%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Four-Party Transit Agreement: Council Deliberations – Termination

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: The amendment clarifying withdrawal options was approved unanimously.

Four-Party Transit Agreement: Council Deliberations – Postponement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wastewater Treatment Contract

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

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

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

Wastewater Treatment Contract: Public Comment

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

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

Schlansker is a former aerospace engineer for Allied Bendix.

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

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

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

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

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

Wastewater Treatment Contract: Council Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arlington Square PUD

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arlington Square PUD: Public Hearing

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

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

Arlington Square PUD: Council Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liquor Hearing Officer & Transcript Fees

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

Ward 2 councilmembers Tony Derezinski and Jane Lumm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re-Funding Bonds

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

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

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

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Leasing Ordinance

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: DDA TIF Report

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Recognition of Volunteers

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

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

Comm/Comm: Energy Website

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

Comm/Comm: Year of the Co-op

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Student Visitors

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Fifth Avenue Underground Parking Garage

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

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

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Warming Center, Affordable Housing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Humane Society Update

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

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

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

In the previous two-year contract with HSHV, the county paid $500,000 annually for animal control – for services mandated by the state as well as additional work that did not fall under the mandate. The budget approved by the county board for 2012 cut that funding to $250,000, though commissioners also discussed the possibility of paying an additional $180,000 to HSHV if the nonprofit took over work previously done by the county’s animal control officers. HSHV officials have said that even $500,000 wasn’t sufficient to cover costs for all the work they do.

Plans for Restructuring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plans for Restructuring: Commissioner Discussion – Temp Assignments

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

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

Plans for Restructuring: Commissioner Discussion – Group of 180 Meeting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plans for Restructuring: Commissioner Discussion – Mission Statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plans for Restructuring: Commissioner Discussion – Retirements

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

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

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

Plans for Restructuring: Commissioner Discussion – Budget Outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plans for Restructuring: Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

Trial Court Renovations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trial Court Renovations: Commissioner Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda Briefings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absent: Barbara Bergman, Ronnie Peterson.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parking Finances

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

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

Parking: Overall State of the Fund

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

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

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

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

Parking: Monthly Report

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

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

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

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

Parking: Hourly Billing – Approval

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parking: Hourly Billing – Financial Impact

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parking: Hourly Billing – Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parking: Hourly Billing – Board Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Parking Management Incentive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communications, Committee Reports

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

Comm/Comm: Underground Garage Construction Update

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

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

Comm/Comm: getDowntown Survey

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

Comm/Comm: Vacancies, SEMCOG, William Street

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: 618 S. Main

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Murals

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

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Rezoning from D2 to D1

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

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

Absent: Newcombe Clark, Bob Guenzel, Keith Orr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medical Leave for County Attorney

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Countywide Transit

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

WEMU reporter Andy Cluley interviews county commissioner Wes Prater.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whitmore Lake Improvement Project

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

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

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

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

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

AFSCME Local 3052 Contract Approved

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

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

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

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

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

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

Workers Comp Contracts Authorized

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

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

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

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

Public Commentary: Towing Contract

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Commentary: Towing Contract – Commissioner Response

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

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

Absent: Barbara Bergman, Felicia Brabec, Ronnie Peterson

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ballfield Renovations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ballfield Renovations: Commission Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

West Park Update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

West Park Update: Commission Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report on Fuller & Olson Athletic Fields

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report on Fuller & Olson Athletic Fields: Commission Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gwen Nystuen called the overall report encouraging.

Communications: Allen Creek Greenway, Leslie Science Center

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

Communications: Allen Creek Greenway

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communications: Leslie Science & Nature Center

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absent: David Barrett, Tim Berla, Tim Doyle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4-Party Transit Deal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4-Party Agreement: Context – Ypsilanti

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

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

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

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

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

4-Party Agreement: Context – Board Seats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4-Party Agreement: Mayoral Politics

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

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

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

4-Party Agreement: Summary of Amendments – Set One

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4-Party Agreement: Public Hearing – Who Spoke?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4-Party Agreement: Public Hearing – Money/Equity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4-Party Agreement: Public Hearing – Control

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4-Party Agreement: Public Hearing – Uncertainty

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

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

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

4-Party Agreement: Outcome

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

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

Resolution on Immigration

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

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

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

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

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

Immigration: Public Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immigration: Council Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolution on Public Act 297

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AATA Policing Contract

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

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

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

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

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

Wastewater Project Contract

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

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

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

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

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Downtown City-Owned Surface Lots

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Medical Marijuana

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

Comm/Comm: Budget, Public Safety

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Dragons, Council Rules, Warming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Leasing, Student Relations

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

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: General Praise

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

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

Comm/Comm: Vehicle Idling

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

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

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

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

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Wiltrud Simbuerger, showing other commission members some proposals from artists for a mural at Allmendinger Park. A local artist, Mary Thiefels, has been selected for that project. (Photos by the writer.)

The group unanimously recommended selecting Ed Carpenter of Portland, Oregon for a $150,000 art project in the lobby of the city’s Justice Center, located at the corner of East Huron and Fifth Avenue. A task force had recommended the selection of Carpenter’s proposal from three finalists. It’s a sculpture called “Radius”.

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 echos the water sculpture by Herbert Dreiseitl that’s located in the plaza outside the building.

The Justice Center, a new building next to city hall, houses the 15th District Court and the Ann Arbor police department. The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the city council for approval.

In other action, the art commission voted to select Ann Arbor muralist Mary Thiefels for a mural project to be located on pillars at a building in Allmendinger Park. A task force had recommended her selection from among four finalists. Her proposal entails asking neighborhood residents for artifacts to create mosaics at the top and bottom of the pillars. The task force recommended that they continue to work with Thiefels on designing the remainder of the mural in the middle sections of the pillars.

Commissioners liked the concept of “found object” mosaics, but questioned whether the $10,000 budget was sufficient. They ultimately voted to approve selecting Thiefels for the project, contingent on her submission of a revised proposal and budget, with additional input from the task force. This project is the first one in a pilot mural program started last year by former commissioner Jeff Meyers.

AAPAC also discussed possible artwork for four sites connected to the East Stadium bridges, which are being reconstructed. The two commissioners who serve on a task force for that project – Wiltrud Simbuerger and Bob Miller – indicated that the budget recommendation will likely be at least $250,000 for artwork there. The task force is currently developing a request for proposals to be issued in the coming weeks.

In the context of developing their annual art plan for fiscal 2013, which by ordinance must be delivered to the city council by April 1, commissioners decided to hold a retreat next month. In addition to shaping the annual plan, the aim of the retreat is to develop a master plan that would provide a broader conceptual framework to guide AAPAC’s decisions. Input from an online survey of the public will also be used – the survey remains open until Feb. 20, and has garnered more than 400 responses so far.

Commissioner Appointments

Marsha Chamberlin, the commission’s chair, began the Jan. 25 meeting by welcoming two new commissioners: Bob Miller and John Kotarski. Kotarski had been appointed by the city council at its Jan. 9, 2012 meeting to replace outgoing commissioner Margaret Parker. He has been a media consultant who previously worked for the Mount Clemens Schools. His three-year term expires Jan. 9, 2015.

At the city council’s Jan. 23, 2012 meeting, Bob Miller was appointed to replace Cheryl Zuellig, and Chamberlin was reappointed for a second term. The terms for Miller and Chamberlin run through December 2015. Chamberlin is president of the Ann Arbor Art Center. Miller has worked as a real estate agent and homebuilder, and has a fine arts degree from The School of the Art Institute of Chicago.

Both Miller and Kotarski have attended AAPAC meetings over the past few months as observers.

Chamberlin reported that mayor John Hieftje has identified another candidate that he intends to nominate for approval by the city council, but she didn’t want to identify that person publicly until the nomination was made. The person would replace Elaine Sims, whose term expired at the end of 2011.

Justice Center Artwork

On the Jan. 25 agenda was an item to consider approval of artwork proposed for the lobby of the city’s Justice Center, located at the corner of East Huron and Fifth Avenue.

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)

A task force had recommended the selection of Ed Carpenter’s proposal – a sculpture called “Radius” – from three finalists for the $150,000 project. Members of the task force who recommended Carpenter are Elaine Sims, Margaret Parker, Spring Tremaine, Karl Daubmann, Maureen Devine, Laura Rubin, Ray Detter, Margie Teal, Homayoon Pirooz, and Aaron Seagraves.

It will be the second major installation funded with money from Ann Arbor’s Percent for Art program, which captures 1% of each city capital project – capped at $250,000 per project – for public art. The first major installation is located in the plaza outside of the Justice Center and in front of city hall: A bronze water sculpture by the German artist Herbert Dreiseitl, that cost more than $750,000.

Carpenter’s proposal calls for creating a hanging sculpture of dichroic glass, aluminum, stainless steel and lighting, including LED spot and flood lighting. The intent of the artwork is to reflect how the work of the courts and police radiate out into the community. The Justice Center houses the 15th District Court and the Ann Arbor police department.

The task force cited several reasons for their choice. Among them:

• The artwork uses a great deal of the space in the lobby and makes the best use of the site.
• The reflective nature of the glass used in the design will incorporate direct lighting and reflective light, which will be visible from both indoors and outdoors, during the day and at night.
• The colored glass and moving reflections will add a mediating softness and color to the architecture of the lobby.
• The art’s metaphor that work within the Justice Center has a rippling effect throughout the community; the “ripple” metaphor is consistent with the Dreiseitl sculpture.

In his proposal, Carpenter wrote:

Like ripples from a stone tossed into a pond, “Radius” emanates outward through the Justice Center lobby, a reminder of the interconnectedness of the public with the agencies serving them, and suggesting a network of cause and effect in the public realm.

“Radius” is designed to involve as much of the lobby as possible, radiating from the southeast corner, visible from inside and outside, day and night. [Editor's note: The sculpture will be located in the lobby's southwest corner.] Lighting contained in its hollow center will illuminate gleaming glass and anodized aluminum details, creating elegant views of its expansive forms.

When sun strikes, dichroic glass elements will project and reflect colored light deep into the space in luminous compositions, slowly moving through the lobby in response to the arc of the sun and the passing of clouds.

Justice Center Artwork: Commission Discussion

John Kotarski noted that the task force had cited some issues they wanted the artist to address. Had the artist responded? Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, said Carpenter had submitted new renderings showing additional glass in the sculpture, which the task force had requested.

John Kotarski at his first meeting as a public art commissioner on Jan. 25.

Marsha Chamberlin asked whether the budget reflects those changes. [The budget of $150,000 includes a $9,000 line item for dichroic glass elements. Other major line items are for fabricated anodized aluminum elements ($35,000), installation ($20,000), lighting/electrical ($12,000), structural site work and ceiling refinishing ($12,000) and artist's wages/overhead ($25,700).] Seagraves said the artist had indicated that extra glass could be accommodated within the original budget.

Wiltrud Simbuerger wondered how quickly the work would be completed. There would be a six-month timeline, starting from the point of approval by the city council, Seagraves said.

Chamberlin noted that after the council approves the project, it typically takes an additional two months for the city attorney’s office to draw up a contract. She speculated that the six-month period would start sometime this summer, after a contract with the artist is signed. Kotarski asked whether it really takes two months for legal staff to prepare a contract. That’s been the commission’s experience, Chamberlin replied.

Chamberlin said she liked the project, and found it intriguing. Kotarski agreed, saying he especially liked the theme of the work. It puts the police and justice system at the center of the community, “as it should be,” he said. The ever-changing color and light reflects the community’s diversity, he added. It’s elegant, and light – it won’t disrupt the area at all. He also liked the fact that people can sit under it. Visitors are part of the center, and radiate out, he said – the artist ties this all together.

Connie Brown thanked the task force members for their work.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of Carpenter’s Radius sculpture for the Justice Center lobby. The recommendation will be forwarded to city council for a vote.

Mural Project at Allmendinger Park

The art commission was asked to vote on selecting Ann Arbor muralist Mary Thiefels for a mural project to be located on pillars at a building in Allmendinger Park.

A task force had recommended her selection from among four finalists. Members of the task force include Wiltrud Simbuerger, Connie Pulcipher, Aaron Seagraves, Mariah Cherem and Hannah Smotrich.

This is the first project in a mural pilot program originally proposed by former AAPAC commissioner Jeff Meyers. Following Meyers’ resignation in mid-2011, Simbuerger has taken the lead on this project. At the Jan. 25 meeting, she briefly outlined the proposals for four finalists chosen by the task force. In addition to Thiefels, other finalists were (1) Robert Delgado of Los Angeles, Calif.; (2) Bethany Kalk of Moorehead, Kentucky; and (3) Jefferson Nelson of Liberty Center, Ohio.

The task force decided to recommend Thiefels not because hers was the best artistic treatment, but because of her proposal’s involvement of the community, Simbuerger said. Thiefels’ proposal entails asking neighborhood residents for artifacts to create mosaics at the top and bottom of the pillars. In a sense, it would create a “library” of the neighborhood, Simbuerger told commissioners, and the task force really liked this concept. They also liked the fact that Thiefels has a concrete plan for how to execute the community involvement aspect of her project. [.pdf of narrative portion from Thiefels' proposal]

However, task force members had some issues about the imagery that Thiefels proposed for the middle of the columns, Simbuerger said. In her proposal, Thiefels described it this way:

My timeless design for the Allmendinger park will inspire all who encounter it year round. Each of the 12 pillars represent a month of the year, 3 pillars to a season. Seasonal activities illustrate the diversity and popularity of the park.

In the spring, lilac bushes blossom, children come out of hibernation to play hide and go seek, birds nest again in the oak and hickory trees, the playground comes alive with activity and laughter. On the summer pillars kites fly and sports abound, like basketball, volleyball, tennis, baseball, and soccer. On the fall pillars you see, colors changing, tree climbing, dog walking and frisbee tossing, sunny day picnics, and morning martial arts. Winter offers cross country skiing, snowshoeing, and snow angels.

I will paint these illustrations onto a third of each pillar space. The remaining area will be made up of tile or glass mosaic and a section of collected and found materials.

I intend to use striking and strong imagery, illustrating the activities with visual confidence. The figures, birds, and trees, could be painted in Kara Walker style silhouettes (to see visuals of Kara Walker’s work, visit: http://learn.walkerart.org/karawalker). They can be heavily modeled and detailed or played down (painted more like a wood block, stencil or silhouette). Grays and earth tones can be used instead of blacks to better harmonize with the surroundings.

Right now, those images might work if you’re close to them, but not necessarily if you’re driving by or looking at them from a house across the street, Simbuerger said. So the task force recommended that they continue to work with Thiefels on designing the remainder of the mural on the middle sections of the pillars. Thiefels is willing to do that, but her new proposal isn’t yet completed, Simbuerger said.

Mural Project at Allmendinger Park: Commission Discussion

John Kotarski began by saying he really liked the proposal, especially because it involves the neighborhood and because Thiefels is a local artist. It’s important to build a sustainable community of local artists, he said. Kotarski agreed that the task force should continue to work with her on developing the project.

Image depicting Mary Thiefels' mural proposal at Allmendinger Park.

Connie Brown liked the collaboration between the task force and Thiefels – that’s a good process, she said, and will result in a richer design.

Tony Derezinski also liked the concept, and noted that members of the Allmendinger family still live in this area. He reported that his wife used to work in the Allmendinger building at First and Washington. [The historic brick building contains offices now, but was originally the Allmendinger piano and organ factory.]

Commissioners discussed other projects that Thiefels had completed, including murals in Hillsdale, Dexter and downtown Ann Arbor – a mural depicting Michigan veterans, located in the alley on West Liberty between Ashley and Main. AAPAC had selected Thiefels for a 2011 Golden Paintbrush award from the city for that mural.

Marsha Chamberlin questioned whether the $10,000 budget was sufficient, considering the time and effort that would be required. Simbuerger agreed that it wasn’t much, but noted that it’s an amount low enough so that it doesn’t require the city council’s approval. Connie Brown clarified that the mural pilot program – approved by AAPAC in November 2010 – had designated a maximum $10,000 per project with the idea that multiple projects could be completed relatively quickly.

Simbuerger noted that the funding limit puts constraints on the types of materials that might be used, essentially limiting it to paint because of the cost. Bob Miller wondered whether there was any flexibility to add to the budget for materials.

Derezinski asked whether Thiefels is experienced at making bids on projects like this. Chamberlin reported that Thiefels has a company – TreeTown Murals – and has completed several projects. Chamberlin said she trusted that Thiefels could finish the project as proposed, within the amount budgeted. But it felt like AAPAC was setting up the program to encourage artists to cut corners, she added.

Chamberlin recalled that when Susan Skarsgard did the Imagine/Align project – a linear planting of daffodils at The Arb – it had been a major undertaking. Among other things, Thiefels’ project would entail cataloguing all of the contributed items to be used in the mosaic. It would be lovely to eventually have a story on the building’s wall to document the items, Chamberlin said.

Brown noted that this is a pilot program, so AAPAC could change it if they needed to.

Miller suggested that the commission ask Thiefels to submit a revised budget, one that would realistically reflect her work. At that point, the commission could discuss whether other funding might be available. After further discussion, Malverne Winborne made a friendly amendment to accept Thiefels as the artist for this project, contingent on her working with the task force to submit a revised proposal and budget.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to select Mary Thiefels for the Allmendinger mural project, contingent on asking her submission of a revised proposal and budget, with additional input from the task force. Work on the mural is expected to begin this summer.

Artwork for East Stadium Bridges

Wiltrud Simuerger gave an update on artwork for the East Stadium bridges project. The task force, which she leads, now includes Dave Huntoon, Joss Kiely, Nancy Leff, Jim Kosteva, Bob Miller and Aaron Seagraves.

The group met and talked about possible locations for artwork, Simbuerger said, within AAPAC’s framework of making it a high visibility project for a range of users – motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. They identified four locations: (1) on the East Stadium bridge itself; (2) on a fence in Rose White Park; (3) at the terminus of White Street, north of the bridge; and (4) on the stairs and underpass at South State Street. Artwork at any of these sites could be seen differently by various users, she said, depending on their velocity.

From left: Ann Arbor public art commissioners Bob Miller and Malverne Winborne.

The task force is developing a request for proposals (RFP) that will incorporate one or more of these locations. The proposal should also introduce an overarching theme, ensure the artwork’s high visibility, and address the diverse nature of the site, she said.

After the draft RFP is approved by the task force, it will be presented to AAPAC for consideration. Simbuerger said the task force is inclined to suggest a budget of $250,000 because it will be a high-visibility project: “That’s why we really recommend putting in some money.” Miller added that the amount suggested might be even higher.

Malverne Winborne clarified with Aaron Seagraves that $100,000 in funding was available directly from the bridge reconstruction budget, as the Percent for Art earmark. Other Percent for Art funds could be tapped, as long as the artwork relates directly to the original funding source. For example, artwork for the bridge could be funded with some of the $529,251 that’s available for public art from street millage projects.

Connie Brown said it’s difficult to allocate money for these kinds of public art projects without having a sense of how the projects fit into a broader plan. Marsha Chamberlin replied that the commission’s annual art plan is designed to provide that kind of guidance. [.pdf of current annual art plan, for fiscal year 2012]

The annual plan gives a list of projects and potential sites for public art, Brown said. It doesn’t provide an overall framework, one that answers the question of what the public art program hopes to accomplish more broadly for residents, she said.

John Kotarski agreed. Without a “conceptual narrative,” it’s hard to say whether a project is worth investing $100,000 or $400,000, he said. It’s challenging to evaluate sites by location, without a broader narrative or theme. Without that framework, he said, people might ask whether the Percent for Art program is just decorating the city.

Brown described it as the difference between being reactive or proactive. The commission needs an upper-level vision, she said.

Winborne noted that a budget for the East Stadium bridges artwork didn’t need to be set that night. Even after the task force makes a recommendation, a draft RFP would need to be reviewed by the city attorney’s office, he said. So the commission has time to discuss these issues further.

Strategic Planning

The discussion of the East Stadium bridges project – and the need for a broader conceptual framework to guide AAPAC’s decisions – led to talk of developing a master plan, in addition to the commission’s annual art plan.

Marsha Chamberlin pointed out that the commission’s approach has been from the bottom up, but they need to also look at it from the top down. They could look at what they’d generally like to achieve in the next three years, for example, then evaluate how specific projects would fit those goals.

Chamberlin initially suggested using part of AAPAC’s Feb. 22 meeting to talk about a master plan. But after further discussion, commissioners reached a consensus that a half-day retreat would be a better approach. Chamberlin proposed asking the mayor to expedite his nomination of the new commissioner, so that person could participate in the retreat. Connie Pulcipher of the city’s systems planning unit will be asked to facilitate. She has led AAPAC through similar exercises in the past, most recently in October 2011 to help commissioners prep for a Nov. 14 working session with city council.

No date has yet been announced for the upcoming retreat.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, informed commissioners that he’ll be making a presentation at a March 12 city council working session to give an update on the Percent for Art program. He noted that AAPAC needs to pass its next annual plan – for FY 2013 – in March, so that it can be presented to the city council by April 1, as required by the Percent for Art ordinance.

At AAPAC’s Dec. 13, 2011 meeting, Seagraves had led a discussion regarding the next annual plan. As a follow-up to that meeting, he’d subsequently surveyed commissioners via email about their priorities for the coming year. At the Jan. 25 meeting, he presented results of that survey, which five of the eight commissioners had completed.

Based on the survey input, Seagraves identified priorities in several categories for the city’s 2013 fiscal year, which runs from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013:

• Streets: (1) the southeast corner of Main & William; (2) the intersection of Main & Huron; and (3) the median at Washtenaw & Stadium.
• Water & Sewer: (1) dams – Barton, Superior; (2) manhole covers; (3) interpretive signs regarding sewer “lead throughs” in parks.
• Programs: (1) crosswalk designs; (2) banners; (3) bus stops.
• Other: (1) roofs at the farmer’s market; (2) Douglas Park on Washtenaw Avenue; and (3) Miller’s Creek streambank.

Seagraves noted that in addition to priorities from commissioners, results from a public online survey could be used to guide the annual plan. The online survey, which launched earlier this month, will run through Feb. 20. So far, about 400 responses have been received, Seagraves said.

John Kotarski said he didn’t complete the survey because he’d had trouble figuring out what kind of responses were being sought. Connie Brown said she didn’t complete it either – she’d been frustrated that the questions didn’t fit into a broader framework.

Wiltrude Simbuerger suggested using this for the basis of discussion at the retreat, but not relying on the survey results exclusively to develop the annual art plan.

Commissioners present: Connie Rizzolo-Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Tony Derezinski, John Kotarski, Bob Miller, Wiltrud Simbuerger, Malverne Winborne. Also Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: Cathy Gendron.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded programs like the Percent for Art, which is overseen by the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

School bus operated for Ann Arbor Public Schools headed north on State Street on Jan 27, 2012. Changes to the way AAPS provides transportation services was a major theme of the AAPS board's Jan. 25 committee meeting.

That led to a vigorous discussion of the district’s immediate and longer-term options to continue to function in a challenging fiscal and political environment beyond 2012-13. “Everything has to be on the table … Education is not going to be the same,” said trustee Susan Baskett.

Mexicotte agreed, saying the time for incremental change has passed, and that the district “might need to make some bold moves.”

As options to consider for the following year, trustees listed the following: redistricting; eliminating 7th hour high school classes; closing schools; sharing principals; passing a countywide enhancement millage; changing high school start times; moving more athletics extracurricular activities to a “club sports” model; increasing the number of online class offerings; changing state law; working with the University of Michigan to allow AAPS students to earn credit hours there at a reduced rate; and moving to a balanced calendar district-wide.

In some detail, the board also evaluated its options for busing – in light of news that the Ypsilanti and Willow Run public schools are considering pulling out of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District’s transportation consortium. That would leave Ann Arbor as the sole participant in the consortium.

Trustees directed administration to examine and make a recommendation on the following transportation options: improving busing within the current framework of the WISD; consolidating busing with Ypsilanti and Willow Run outside the WISD consolidation; bringing busing back into the AAPS budget with bus drivers remaining public employees; bringing busing back into the AAPS budget but privatizing bus drivers; eliminating busing entirely; or collaborating with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) to transport AAPS students.

Several trustees also made plugs for protecting classrooms from the effect of budget cuts, and even suggested lowering class sizes. AAPS superintendent Patricia Green suggested it was also important to relieve some of the pressure and anxiety felt by teachers and other district staff. “We are at the tipping point,” she said, “Five years of budget cuts can take its toll.”

Also at the Jan 25 COTW meeting, trustees heard updates on the AAPS preschool and family center programs, including some discussion of the county’s relinquishing of its management of the federal Head Start grant. And, the board was briefed on the implementation of the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP), a new assessment tool the board approved for purchase last May.

Budget Update

Superintendent Patricia Green introduced the budget update by urging the board to consider a “balanced approach.” Later, she clarified, “We have fund equity for a rainy day – it’s pouring. It is my recommendation that we use fund equity this year.” Robert Allen, the district’s deputy superintendent of operations, said that in his view, the district was “past the tipping point” in terms of acceptable budget reductions. He noted that Gov. Rick Snyder will be proposing his budget on Feb. 9. That will give AAPS an idea of what its foundation allowance will be, but  Allen reiterated that AAPS is anticipating the need to reduce the FY 2012-13 budget by $14 to $16 million.

At the Jan. 25 COTW meeting the board discussed the 2012-13 budget mostly in broad strokes, rather than focusing on the evaluation of specific budget reduction suggestions. Trustees aligned themselves philosophically behind the idea of dipping into fund equity, a topic about which they have previously been quite split. They also discussed the budget-creation process – specifically how to engage community members most effectively and to make their input as useful as possible.

Budget Update: Using Fund Equity

Trustee Andy Thomas suggested that the board should try to meet half of its budget reduction target by reducing expenditures and enhancing revenue, but should meet the other half by taking the money out of fund equity. He noted the one-time funding AAPS received from the state to reward state-identified “best practices,” and Medicaid reimbursement as unanticipated sources of revenue that could be used to offset any budget cuts.

Thomas was clear that using fund equity would stave off the more difficult decisions only for one more year – due to the structural funding deficit facing the district. However, he said, that would give the district another year to have the kind of conversations in the community about what major things could be done, and a year to get any of those plans in motion. Optimistically, Thomas also said that there could be a change in the priorities of the governor or state legislature as Michigan’s economy continues to recover.

Trustees each expressed support for Thomas’ proposal, at least in theory. “I don’t know whether I buy into the ‘half’ formula, but I want to be supportive of using fund equity instead of trying to solve it all through revenue enhancement and expenditure cuts,” Nelson said.

Mexicotte agreed philosophically, she said, with using fund equity to give the district a “respite.” She argued, “It’s been hellacious the last couple of years and it’s just too much. Our people don’t deserve it. Our students don’t deserve it.”

Even Stead agreed, whose position on using fund equity has been among the most conservative of her colleagues. “I would be more comfortable using fund equity if we feel like we can get some political change … I’m certainly comfortable being a little more risky.” Lightfoot expressed support at Stead’s evolving position, to which Stead responded, “I’m not proud of myself.”

Budget Update: Budgeting Process

Trustee Christine Stead suggested that the board should spend the next few months working with the community to develop budget solutions specific to the areas most likely to be impacted. She noted that it would be more effective to engage the community sooner in forming partnerships rather than dealing with informing everyone over the summer of the impact of budget changes. “I think we need to fast-track [the process] and help people focus on areas we already know will be impacted,” she suggested.

Mexicotte went a step further, saying, “The community forums are not going to get us where we need to be at this point … I think we need to use to expertise we have.” She suggested that the administration was in a better position than the community to know what cuts have been made over the past few years, and to suggest how to proceed. She also suggested that it might be time to stop making incremental adjustments and instead to “make some bold moves.”

Baskett suggested changing elementary school boundaries [redistricting], or altering start times at high schools. “Everything has to be on the table,” she said. Education is not going to be the same.” Stead suggested making further cuts to athletics, and instituting a balanced calendar district-wide.

Mexicotte said she would be on board with any suggested changes that would provide a budget solution while strengthening educational outcomes. “Let’s be bold. Let’s put it all on the table – whatever it is,” she suggested. “I would like to know the very best thinking of our team … I would like to know what its worth to redistrict, to close a building … I don’t know if that’s what I want to do, but if it [leads to] better outcomes, I want to know the options.”

Mexicotte closed by asking Allen and Green if they felt they had received appropriate direction form the board, and they said they had.

Transportation

The one area in which the board did dive into budget specifics was busing. That was prompted by news that Ypsilanti and Willow Run public schools decided this week to consolidate transportation services in their districts, and put out a request for proposals (RFP) for transportation services.

Allen explained that if Ypsilanti and Willow Run quit the existing consortium of districts getting transportation services through WISD, that would would leave only AAPS in the WISD consortium.  That would significantly increase management costs that have, up to now, been shared by the members of the corsortium. He also noted that there has been a lot of talk at the state level about the possibility of consolidating school districts. Green suggested that merging transportation operations may be the first step toward a broader consolidation of Ypsilanti and Willow Run.

Transportation: Board Response to Ypsi/Willow

Trustees asked why Willow Run and Ypsilanti public schools made the decision to band together, with an eye to withdrawing from the WISD consortium. WISD assistant superintendent for business services Brian Marcel responded that both districts are under a lot of financial stress and are likely trying to be sure they do their due diligence. He noted that if the WISD responds to the joint RFP put out by Willow Run and Ypsilanti, it would be “competing against ourselves.”

Trustee Glenn Nelson added that he thought the Ypsilanti/Willow Run RFP was motivated by a desire to privatize services in order to get out from under the state retirement system mandate, which is rising to an employer contribute rate of 27% of total salaries. Nelson suggested that the board should explore whether AAPS could join the RFP process. Nelson said that privatizing transportation services – with or without Ypsilanti and Willow Run – would yield significant savings, though he said he was not necessarily advocating for that.

Mexicotte said that it distressed her that Willow Run and Ypsilanti “did not make a phone call to say they were going to do an RFP.” Trustee Susan Baskett agreed, likening the situation to AAPS “getting dumped at the prom.” Mexicotte reiterated how AAPS had decided to stay in the WISD consortium even when all but three districts pulled out because AAPS was the “linchpin” needed to make it work for the other districts. “I’m trying desperately to hang onto a top-drawer educational system, and I feel like at every turn we are being thwarted,” Mexicotte said. She suggested considering taking buses and drivers back within AAPS, or alternately, cutting busing entirely.

Marcel said the WISD has tried to be responsive to AAPS, and that it was not a fair assessment to say WISD had not addressed inefficiencies. When AAPS decided to change its overall transportation policy this year, Marcel said, “that changed everything.”

Transportation: Evaluation of WISD Transportation Services

Trustees Simone Lightfoot and Christine Stead expressed concerns that the board has not been given a requested update on operational statistics from the WISD. The operational stats would include a detailed breakdown of on-time arrivals and departures, and accidents/incidents. Marcel said the WISD has provided the board with a financial report, and will be undertaking a customer satisfaction survey of parents in the spring.

Stead said continuing to receive transportation services from the WISD wouldn’t be compelling if two of the three districts pulled out of the consortium. She added that the operational statistics were necessary to decide if AAPS should continue to work with the WISD on transportation. Lightfoot agreed, saying that the spring was too late to receive this information.

Mexicotte suggested to Marcel that he meet with trustees one-on-one to address their frustrations. She noted that the board has made “numerous” requests for information from the WISD that it has not received.

Transportation: Special Education Busing

Thomas wondered whether AAPS would leave special education busing in the hands of the WISD regardless of what it decides to do regarding general education busing. Allen said that was definitely a conversation that should happen, and noted that the fact that special education buses carry low numbers of students to central locations makes the consolidation of those services particularly appealing.

Transportation: AATA

Lightfoot strongly advocated subsidizing the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to bus AAPS students rather than eliminating busing entirely. “AATA is thinking about its role,” she said. “We have a responsibility to work across government entities for the benefit of taxpayers.” [Lightfoot was one of 39 people who spoke at a public hearing on transportation held at a meeting of the Ann Arbor city council on Jan. 23. In her remarks, she encouraged increased collaboration between AAPS and AATA.]

Lightfoot also said she leaned toward supporting AATA rather than the WISD – because the AATA is in the business of providing transportation. She suggested that the AAPS could subsidize student bus passes, and that it’s important to give the community options, if AAPS eliminates busing entirely.

Baskett noted that if AAPS eliminates busing, many students will look to AATA to provide that transportation, and suggested that AAPS should give AATA a “heads up.”

Stead expressed concern with working with AATA while the transit authority is in the midst of a major transition to a countywide model. She noted that while Ann Arbor will still hold nearly half the seats on the restructured AATA board [7 of 15], it would not have a majority. Green agreed, saying that coordinating student transportation with AATA “is not as easy as it sounds, [and] … cannot happen on a short turnaround at all.”

Thomas noted that the basic problem with using AATA buses for students as he saw it was that AATA routes are “spokes of a wheel… intended to bring riders downtown, not to distribute people around the edge of the wheel.” Lightfoot said that AATA could be used to work in certain areas or at certain times of day, but Stead countered that AAPS cannot offer busing inequitably within student groups.

Nelson stated that there are models for this sort of cooperation, such as in Madison, Wisconsin. The strongest argument against the idea that it’s too hard, he said, is that this model works in other places.

Preschool/Headstart Update

Michelle Pogliano and Kecia Rorie – principal and vice-principal, respectively, of the district’s Preschool and Family Center – gave their annual report to the board outlining the various programs and services serving the youngest AAPS learners. The preschool serves children and their families from birth to five through four main programs – Head Start, the Great Start Readiness Program (GSRP), Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE), and Early On. Children can qualify for services in a variety of ways – based on low income, being “at-risk of school failure,” or having developmental delays or special needs.

Pogliano explained the impact on the preschool of Washtenaw County’s decision to relinquish management of the federal Head Start grant. At this time, she said, a request for proposals (RFP) has not yet been issued for another entity to take over Head Start, but it is anticipated that the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD) will submit a proposal to become the new grantee. If local management of Head Start shifts to the WISD as anticipated, Pogliano said, AAPS preschool will remain a “delegate site” and the program’s structure will remain the same.

Nelson noted that Head Start’s grantee is required to make a 25% match of federal funding for program costs. He expressed concern about how that will play out. He questioned what the WISD would have to cut in order to provide the matching Head Start funds, which he estimated to be about $400,000.

Stead pointed out that federal funding is also likely to decrease over the next ten years, leading to a cumulative reduction that could have a serious impact on the ability of Head Start to be sustainable. Lightfoot agreed, saying that she feared the program might be phased out all together.

Trustees praised the preschool staff members for their dedication, and expressed their support for the preschool, regardless of what happens to federal Head Start funding. Pogliano said the new grantee should be in place by April.

Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Assessment

AAPS deputy superintendent of instruction Alesia Flye, director of instructional technology Anne Reader, and director of student accounting, testing, and administrative support Jane Landefeld updated the board on the implementation of the Northwest Evaluation Association’s (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) assessment in the district this fall.

The board approved the purchase of the MAP in May 2011. It is an adaptive, computerized assessment of math and reading skills. The MAP is currently being administered to all AAPS students in grades K-5 and K-8 students at Ann Arbor Open at Mack and the Scarlett-Mitchell campus. It’s administered three times a year – in September, January, and May.

At the Jan. 25 COTW meeting, both Flye and superintendent Patricia Green acknowledged that the rollout of the new assessment tool had been rocky, but that staff is now more comfortable with it.

Green said there was a time this fall when the district had to decide whether to follow through with using the MAP. “There were complications with the implementation due to our archaic technology… It became a real nightmare,” Green said. She explained that after significant retooling of the product, by both the vendor and AAPS instructional technology department, “the glitches weren’t there this time around.”

Reader detailed how professional development has been used to teach AAPS staff how to administer the MAP, as well as how to use the data it provides. She walked the board through some examples of the reports and planning charts teachers can access, as well as how individual student data will be shared with parents. Use of student growth data among third grade teachers at Allen Elementary was highlighted.

Trustees expressed excitement about the uses of the growth-over-time data provided by the MAP, as well as the utility of looking at MAP data side-by-side with other information about students – such as classroom grades, other assessment scores, and demographic data.

Mexicotte noted that this work supports the “personalized curriculum” objective of the district’s strategic plan. Nelson and Thomas noted how MAP data can aid the district in closing the achievement gap.

Baskett requested that the information sent to parents about individual student data should be written in more user-friendly language and include suggestions on available resources for helping struggling students. Nelson agreed, saying, “If you tell someone they’ve got a problem, and don’t tell them what to do about it, you just cause stress and anxiety.” Green said that Flye has “tremendous talent” in communicating with families about student data, and that she was currently working on that.

Trustees also suggested there might be a need to increase the student accounting support staff as the district’s data management needs increase. Green agreed, “The workload is enormous.”

Agenda Planning

The board agreed to amend its meeting schedule to avoid meeting five weeks in a row – by canceling its Feb. 1 meeting, and switching the order of the next two meetings. The next regular meeting will be on Feb. 8, and a COTW meeting will be held on Feb. 15.

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

Absent: Treasurer Irene Patalan

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2012 at 7 p.m. at the downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

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