View looking northeast at Division and Huron. A chain link fence around the construction site has been installed in anticipation of construction for the 413 E. Huron project. (Photos by the writer.)

While there’d been some speculation earlier in the day that Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) would not be able to attend the May 13 session – which was a continuation of the meeting that began on May 6 – he was present for the meeting. And his support of the project was crucial in providing the six-vote majority it needed. Taylor was joined in the vote by mayor John Hieftje, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

A decision on the site plan for the project, which will offer more than 200 apartments with more than 500 bedrooms, had been previously postponed on April 15, 2013, April 1, 2013 and March 18, 2013. The council recessed its May 6 meeting at around 11:30 p.m. just as it reached the 413 E. Huron site plan. So when the meeting resumed on May 13, the site plan was first on the council’s agenda.

Councilmembers who voted against site plan approval for 413 E. Huron gave pointedly specific reasons for voting no – citing traffic safety issues or failure to comply with aspects of the East Huron character district, or other aspects of the city code. It was a clear contrast to the approach a previous council had taken nearly 40 years ago in 1975, when then-councilmember Bob Faber explained his vote to deny approval of a site plan this way: “Finally, I will vote against this and I will move that the attorney and the planning director tell us why we voted no because obviously we don’t know yet and see what he can do with that in the court …” That decision had led to a losing lawsuit.

It was fear of losing a lawsuit that councilmembers cited in voting to approve the 413 E. Huron project.

After voting on the 413 E. Huron project, the council finished off the substantial number of remaining items on its agenda.

The council gave initial approval to changes to the city’s public art ordinance. The proposal includes removing the requirement that 1% of all capital project budgets be set aside for public art. Drawing some discussion from councilmembers was an additional change to which they gave preliminary approval. The additional change allows the council the flexibility to return money to its fund of origin, which might be set aside for public art in the FY 2014 budget. The council takes up the ordinance changes for final approval on June 3.

Another ordinance change to which the council gave initial approval is a change to utility improvement charges for undeveloped property. That will also appear on the council’s June 3 agenda for final approval.

In addition to initial approval of changes to those two ordinances, the council gave initial approval to rezoning of two different parcels – a property at 490 Huron Parkway and on South State Street. The property on Huron Parkway is proposed to be rezoned from R3 (townhouse district) to R1B (single-family dwelling) and would allow the currently vacant 1.22-acre site, located north of Ruthven Park, to be divided into three separate lots.

The State Street Center project is located adjacent to a new Tim Hortons restaurant, which opened last year near the intersection of State and Ellsworth. The rezoning request is from O (office) to C3 (fringe commercial). It would make the actual zoning consistent with the city’s official zoning map, which had been mislabeled. The site plan calls for demolishing a vacant 840-square-foot house and building a one-story, 1,700-square-foot building with a drive-thru Jimmy John’s restaurant facing South State Street.

An expansion to the Theta Delta Chi house on State Street near the University of Michigan campus was given quick approval after first appearing on the April 15 agenda and getting bumped to the May 6 agenda, when the council postponed all remaining items due to the late hour. The council didn’t reach the Theta Delta Chi item until the May 13 session.

And the council gave approval to two items affecting the Ann Arbor fire department – one to accept a federal grant that will pay for exhaust fume removal systems at fire stations, and another to appropriate funds to replace protective gear worn by firefighters.

The University of Michigan appeared in connection with two different agenda items. One resolution authorized a contract for the city worth more than $600,000 in connection with a vehicle-to-vehicle study – for which the UM Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) won a $14 million federal grant. That won quick approval from the council.

The other item related to UM involved a right-of-way agreement for placing electrical conduit under Tappan Street – so that an emergency generator can serve a law school dorm. The resolution reflected a disagreement between the city and the university about whether the agreement was a transfer of land interest. The university insisted the council treat it as such a transfer, with an eight-vote majority requirement. The resolution received only seven votes, and thus failed.

Councilmembers passed two resolutions necessary to impose a special assessment on property owners along Miller Avenue, to help pay for construction of new sidewalks. And the council authorized a contract with Coca-Cola as the vendor for Ann Arbor’s city parks – but not without concern expressed by some councilmembers about the company’s human rights record and the nutritive value of soft drinks.

Receiving more discussion than they typically do were confirmations of mayoral appointments, in particular that of Eric Mahler to the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. Four councilmembers voted against Mahler, though that was still not enough to derail his appointment. Dissenters argued in part that it’s important to expand the total pool of people who are appointed to boards and commissions. Mahler has served two terms on the city planning commission. Dissenters also cited an alternate candidate, unnamed at the meeting, who was thought to be preferable to Mahler – because she would be able to represent the disability community better. The alternate candidate was LuAnne Bullington.

413 E. Huron

The site plan submitted by the owner of the project, located on the northeast corner of Division and Huron streets, is a mixed-use residential building with 216 apartments, two layers of parking, and retail space on the ground floor. A council decision had been previously postponed on April 15, 2013, April 1, 2013 and March 18, 2013.

Before that, the planning commission had voted 5-3 on the project, which did not achieve the 6-vote majority on that 9-member body necessary for a recommendation of approval. That vote came at the commission’s Feb. 5, 2013 meeting. It followed an earlier decision by the commission on Jan. 15, 2103 to postpone a recommendation, pending input from the Michigan Dept. of Transportation.

The development was presented as a “by right” project – and Ann Arbor city planning staff had offered their analysis that the project meets all applicable regulations.

413 E. Huron: Legalities of Zoning Decisions – History

At the May 6 session of the council’s May 6 meeting, a booklet highlighting nine legal points had been circulated to councilmembers, which several speakers cited in their remarks during the project’s public hearing. The booklet subsequently received a point-by-point response from the city planning staff as well as the developer. And responding to those responses, an addendum was provided to the booklet. In the addendum, a 1996 city council decision was cited in which a site plan for a Burger King restaurant was denied.

Drawing on previous Chronicle reporting from 2009 – in connection with the City Place site plan approval for a development on South Fifth Avenue – that Burger King proposal was also presented as a “by right” project. It involved a plan by Burger King to construct a restaurant at Ashley and Huron streets – 206 W. Huron. The council minutes of that meeting indicate that speakers at the public hearing cited traffic and pedestrian hazards from the drive-through. A main area of contention seemed to be the traffic flow in and out of the fast food restaurant:

Jonathan Reid, traffic engineer representing the petitioner, stated that his traffic study shows that external traffic flow, sight distances and stacking room at this location would not be a problem for the proposed use, and that the internal one-way traffic flow would not be hazardous to pedestrians crossing the driveways.

The apparent legal basis on which city council (on a voice vote) ultimately denied approval of the Burger King site plan was to disagree with Burger King’s traffic engineer and to cite point (c) below:

5:122 (6) Standards for site plan approval.
A site plan shall be approved by the appropriate body after it determines that:
(a) The contemplated development would comply with all applicable state, local and federal law, ordinances, standards and regulations; and
(b) The development would limit the disturbance of natural features to the minimum necessary to allow a reasonable use of the land, applying criteria for reviewing a natural features statement of impact set forth in this Chapter; and
(c) The development would not cause a public or private nuisance and would not have a detrimental effect on the public health, safety or welfare. [Emphasis added]

That case contrasts with an earlier one from 1975, in which a decision not to approve a site plan seemed explicitly to be given no particular legal basis: Hesse Realty, Inc. v. City of Ann Arbor, a case reviewed in 1975 by the Court of Appeals of Michigan. The summary of that case includes a quotation from councilmember Robert Faber during deliberations on the project:

We are supposed to be acting on sound planning considerations. Quite obviously we are just running around picking at straws and seeing a piece of light here and seeing a piece of dark there. … Of course, I’m going to ask that the attorney and planning staff try to come up with something. … Finally, I will vote against this and I will move that the attorney and the planning director tell us why we voted no because obviously we don’t know yet and see what he can do with that in the court …

In that case, the court found that the city of Ann Arbor had failed to base its decision to deny the site plan on legitimate evidence, and therefore found in favor of Hesse Realty.

413 E. Huron: May 13 Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off the discussion by calling the site a unique and significant location. She noted that a lot had been heard from outside expert voices. She asked the developer’s representatives to come to the podium, then questioned them about the traffic patterns that would result from construction of the building by noting that the developer had chosen to use an existing curb cut onto Huron Street. That resulted in an acute angle – 81 degrees.

The entrance onto Huron Street for the 413 E. Huron project from the site plan drawings.

Briere also expressed concern beyond the acuteness of the angle, noting that use of the existing curb cut put the driveway onto Huron opposite from a driveway access onto Huron from The Varsity, a high-rise residential building on the opposite side of Huron from 413 E. Huron. She asked the developer how the impact of the turning motions onto Huron would be addressed.

Conor McNally, Carter’s chief development officer, described the angle as 71 degrees but was subsequently corrected by another member of the development team, Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting. Ophoff noted that it’s 81 degrees. That’s within the range allowed by Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) standards – which allows a 15-degree variance from 90 degrees.

Briere understood that people exiting the driveway are expected to turn right. But she wanted to know about the people who would be entering the driveway to access the underground parking. Ophoff explained they’d be coming from both directions. The intent is that mostly people would approach from the east and make a right turn into the driveway. But he allowed there’s no practical way to limit left-turn traffic for eastbound traffic. That could be done with signs, but people would ignore it. That can also be done by educating the residents of the building, he said.

Briere ventured that the amount of traffic in various directions would depend on who the residents are and where they wanted to go. But she’d read that the expectation was most residents would be exiting by turning right (west) onto Huron. If half of them really wanted to head east, she wondered how that would affect traffic on Division and Ann Streets. Ophoff explained that such residents would have two choices – one of them turning right on Division, proceeding to Ann Street and turning right again. That would add, during peak hour periods, about one additional car per six minutes on Ann Street, he indicated. The other option is to go one more block to Fifth Avenue and make a series of left hand turns.

Ophoff ventured that the main discouragement to residents from trying to make a left (eastbound) turn out of the driveway would be the difficulty in making that turn. During peak hours, he said, eventually you’d weigh putting up with a 20-second delay or just turn right and make a series of other turning movements. The pattern just works itself out. McNally also pointed out that the curb design mitigates against left turns out of the driveway, saying there’s a “pork chop” that will prevent exiting traffic from turning left onto Huron. A driver would have to jump a curb to do that, he said, or take a very wide angle to turn left.

Susan Friedlaender, an attorney for the developer, pointed out that MDOT is required to look at these issues when it approves a permit for a driveway. Briere countered by telling Friedlaender that even though the developer’s team might have answered the questions several times, the council would still ask them.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) questioned whether the project complies with requirements of the East Huron 1 character district. He highlighted the language that describes how the building should be seen “in the round” and have open space in the front. From the city code:

East Huron 1 and 2. The East Huron Character Districts center along the eastern portion of the Huron Street civic corridor. These areas differ from most of downtown in that the uses are primarily institutional and are seen “in the round” with open space surrounding them. The intent for these districts are to continue the tradition of free-standing buildings with open space in front, incorporating design that includes signature building elements that give landmark qualities to properties.

Kunselman said the council had heard time and again that the project is “by right,” but in his view it did not conform to the requirements of the East Huron character districts. The building wouldn’t be seen “in the round” because it’s being built lot-line-to-lot-line, he said. And there’s no open space in front of the building. It also doesn’t continue the tradition of a freestanding building like Sloan Plaza. Kunselman stated: “I will not be supporting the project.”

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) led off her remarks by saying, “Wow, this is a big moment tonight.” She noted the council had spent months looking at the issue. Councilmembers individually, and as a group, had had so many different facts and opinions communicated to them, she observed. It’s tough to figure out the right thing to do, Petersen said.

Her concern early on was the amount of shading on the adjoining properties. Her understanding was that the slight reduction of some of the massing on the north side of the building resulted in no significant shading on two of the properties. For the property immediately adjacent to 413 E. Huron, she allowed, any structure over four stories would increase shading on the property. But for the homes of Norm and Ilene Tyler and of Ray Detter, she said, there wouldn’t be a significant increase in shading.

But she still had concerns about the overall massing of the building. It still seemed out of character to her. She asked if there was anything further the developer would be willing to do, to make the building more consistent with the other buildings on the block. Conor McNally, the developer’s representative, pointed to efforts made to reduce some of the massing by removing some of the units from the top of the building. He noted that massing had been an issue since the very start. A lot of money had been spent to change the building design in ways suggested by the design review board, he said – by changing the facade treatments and materials. More recently, a step had been taken to remove some density from the top of the building. The building is now considerably below the floor area ratio (FAR) allowable under the code. Further substantive reductions in density are unlikely to be considered, he said, adding that alternatives were considered in a lot of detail.

Councilmembers Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) questioned whether the unit mix would actually attract young professionals – in addition to students – as contended by the developer. If a different unit mix had been pursued, that would have resulted in a better building geometry, she said. Conor McNally pointed out that 60% of the units are 1-2 bedrooms and that had stayed fairly consistent from the start. He felt the mix would attract graduate students and younger professionals. There’s nothing bigger than a four-bedroom unit, he noted. He pointed to 411 Lofts across the street on the south side of Huron Street, which he described as having a unit mix like that of 413 E. Huron. And 411 Lofts, he said, had a nice mix of young professionals, graduate students and upperclassmen. That’s the mix to which 413 E. Huron is meant to appeal, he said.

Lumm questioned whether that mix had an effect on the project’s ability to conform to the character district. McNally responded that this was more a function of the design of the building. He noted that he disagreed with Kunselman’s view that the project doesn’t conform to the East Huron character district, saying that the district contains a range of building types. The definition of the character district encompasses a range – from the very “stark” design of the Campus Inn to historic churches and historic homes. He felt the 413 E. Huron building fits into that range and is therefore consistent with the character district.

Lumm then addressed the issue of the retention wall on the Sloan Plaza side of the site. The response from city planning staff on this issue had been that the additional detail will be provided at the stage of obtaining construction permits, not at the site plan review. Lumm wanted to have the additional detail now, saying it was a unique structural situation. She didn’t think there was an adequate understanding of soil conditions.

In response, McNally noted first that the first four feet of the 413 E. Huron property won’t be touched either above or below grade. At about four feet in, the earth retention system for the underground parking structure will start. He then described the retention system that will be used to build the underground parking garage. He described vertical elements that will be drilled, not pounded, into the ground. Between the vertical elements, there will be lagging. [It's similar in design to the kind of system used to build the Library Lane underground parking garage earth retention system.]

McNally described how borings had been done by the developer’s geotechnical consultant to understand the conditions under the surface. And he pointed out that constructing buildings close together is something that happens frequently. He described vibration monitors than can be installed to immediately alert the construction crew. The foundation design details would be worked through with the city’s building department, he concluded.

Briere then took up the issue of the loading and unloading area and traffic on Division Street. She described the loading/unloading area as “not very big.” She ventured that trash collection would require a garbage truck to back out onto Division, which could cause traffic to back up on Division. She asked McNally to describe how deliveries would work.

Service drive diagram showing the 413 E. Huron trash pickup plan.

McNally pointed out that the loading dock was moved off the street at the suggestion of the design review board. It had originally been planned as a loading dock directly on Division, he said – which is similar to what North Quad and 411 Lofts have. He allowed that a large truck would not have the ability to make a full turn in the 20-foot wide area. So such a truck would need to back out or else back into the drive. But a smaller delivery truck, like a UPS truck, might be able to manage a three-point turn. He compared the configuration to that of other large buildings downtown. He said the project team had worked with the city extensively on the details of the garbage collection. He described how the truck would pull in nose-first and pick up the compactor to empty it.

Briere brought up how one of the Zaragon buildings and The Landmark building have difficulty with trash collection. She asked McNally what had been done to ensure there’s sufficient space for the trash, compost and recycling. McNally ventured that The Landmark and 413 E. Huron would be expected to generate about the same amount of trash. At The Landmark, they have a small compactor and 2-yard dumpsters, he said. So they have to stack them up. He thought the problem there related to where those dumpsters were stored, which made it “unsightly.” McNally described how the compactor at the 413 E. Huron building would be designed to use 8-yard dumpsters. He said they’d work with the property management to figure out the right frequency for pickup. There’d never be a situation where a dumpster would be stored out on the curb, he noted.

Briere asked what provisions had been made for recycling and composting. McNally allowed that for composting, he didn’t think there were any provisions. For recycling, there were bins and recycling rooms on every floor of the building, he said. That would be collected by building management, he said. Briere told McNally she expected him to come up with solutions for composting – because the city does food composting now, and expects to move toward plate scrapings, including meats and fats in the next year. She expected the project to have full composting capacity for its tenants. McNally ventured that would come mostly from the retail operation. Briere stated that it’s not unrealistic that the tenants will demand the ability to compost. She described efforts being made by University of Michigan students in this regard.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) then brought up the issue of requirements for special exception uses. The question is whether the underground parking garage would require a special exception use. Planning manager Wendy Rampson fielded the question, by explaining that the parking structure use is a secondary, accessory use, not a principal use. Rampson explained that the key is that the parking use is customarily incidental to the primary use, which is residential. For whatever reason, she said, the city of Ann Arbor code has not historically stated that parking is an accessory use. So if you look through the zoning ordinance, you wouldn’t find that stated.

By way of additional background, part of the issue is the zoning code’s listing of permitted uses, special exception uses, and prohibited uses in the areas zoned D1 and D2. The listing shows separate items for “parking structure” and “parking lot.”

Parking Structure          S  Section 5:104
Parking Lot-Principal Use  S  Section 5:104

-

The fact that the “parking lot” item includes the phrase “principal use” formed part of an argument made by Susan Morrison – who’s legal counsel for near neighbors of the project (Ilene and Norm Tyler) – in a May 13 letter to the council. Morrison argued that the phrase’s omission for the “parking structure” item indicates that the listing of “parking structure” is not intended to be limited only to a principal use. [.pdf of Susan Morrison's May 13, 2013 letter]

Rampson explained to Warpehoski that a property can have multiple principal uses. She illustrated the difference between an incidental use and a principal use by taking the example of a car wash that 413 E. Huron could hypothetically establish in the service drive. If the vacuum hoses and water were provided for residents of the building to service their own cars, the city would treat that as an incidental use, she said. If the facilities were meant for other paying customers, then the city would treat it as a principal use.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) asked where customers to the retail portion of the building will park. She wondered if they would use the underground parking facility. McNally told her that the underground parking would just be used by the residents. He thought perhaps 8-10 spaces would be available at grade level in the service drive for retail tenants. A significant amount of parking will not be provided for the retail establishments, he said. The expectation is that the retailers will rely on foot traffic. The 6,500-7,000 square feet of retail space would most likely be split between two different retailers, he said, but that’s not certain. When Kailasapathy ventured that the amount of parking wouldn’t be adequate, McNally responded by comparing the approach taken by other downtown retailers.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Margie Teall (Ward 4) brought up the issue of the bur oak on the property to the north of the site and its critical root zone. She asked Rampson to explain how setbacks work. Rampson explained that setbacks are determined from “the ground to the sky.” She explained that the underground parking structure extends beyond the footprint of the building. Teall asked how the natural features part of the ordinance allowed the developer to intrude into the critical root zone of the tree. Rampson explained that the root zone is required to be identified on the site plan. But the code doesn’t require mitigation for off-site impact. However, the developer has proposed to do maintenance on the tree for five years, Rampson said, if the property owner is willing.

Rampson also explained that in the view of the city staff who reviews the natural features ordinance, the actual root zone of the tree is unlikely to be as expansive as indicated – because currently much of the area is already paved over. And previously a building had stood there.

Kunselman returned to the issue of principal use and accessory use for the parking structure component of the building. He highlighted the argument made by Susan Morrison that “parking structure” in the list was not limited only to principal uses. He argued that under the city’s view, any of the other uses could be accessory uses if they were a part of the building, and he doubted if that were the intent of the ordinance. Rampson ventured that “principal use” was included for “parking lot” use in the listing only for clarificational purposes. The chart was a new format for the staff, she explained. Kunselman contended that it was a matter of interpretation, and the council could send the project back to seek a special exception use permit.

Kunselman also returned to the issue of the East Huron character district and the open space description. Rampson explained that Kunselman was talking about the intent statement, not a regulation with numerical requirements – like streetwall height, massing and articulation. It’s an “explanatory piece,” she said. The intent statement might be used, she said, to evaluate whether a rezoning were appropriate. It’s not a regulatory component in the zoning ordinance, she said. Kunselman contended that the regulations conflict with the intent. Rampson responded by saying that it’s for the body making the regulations to determine that there’s an incongruity – and then to try to bring those incongruities into alignment. Kunselman replied that he had a hard time understanding why the intent statement would be given less weight than the other parts of the code.

Briere followed up on the character overlay district and the rules about setbacks and streetwall height. Although they were done at the same time, Briere couldn’t remember why the rules were done in a way that “don’t match.” Rampson questioned Briere’s conclusion that they don’t match. Rampson and Briere went back and forth on this issue.

Briere questioned the description that said there should be open space, in contrast to the numerical table, which indicated that the front setback was supposed to be 0-10 feet. She said she couldn’t understand how the council had allowed that inconsistency. Rampson explained that the council’s discussion had centered around the idea that it was desirable to pull buildings toward Huron Street, away from the residential neighborhood to the north. Briere ventured that the allowance of a zero setback was designed to maximize floor area ratio (FAR). Rampson countered that it was to allow a reasonable amount of depth for a building footprint.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) brought up the issue of the criteria for site plan approval. The council is being asked to approve something based on a lot of presuppositions, he said. There’s too much confusion, he added, and there’s a lack of certainty. He cited the public safety, health and welfare clause. The welfare of many people would be affected, he said. He cited the possible decrease in values of nearby parcels.

Anglin asked about City Apartments at First & Washington, which is currently under construction: What would the height of the building be when it’s finished? Rampson looked it up: 104 feet. Anglin feared that the site plan for 413 E. Huron will change from the one that the council is approving. He raised the possibility that changes will be approved administratively – which was done with the City Apartments project. Anglin noted that for the City Apartments project, changes were made as a result of the hydro-geologic conditions that were discovered.

Anglin wanted to make the health, safety and welfare clause the primary consideration. He’s heard too many things that seem arbitrary and conflicting. MDOT’s approval didn’t mean much to him, Anglin said, because the city is responsible for the safety of its residents, not MDOT. Anglin felt that the developer had ignored public input as well as many of the city’s master planning documents. The council has a right to speak out for the people of the city, he said.

Petersen referred to previous public commentary on May 6: What will be your legacy? She was baffled that the parcel wasn’t zoned D2 back in 2009, and instead was zoned the higher-density D1. The legacy began in 2009 when it was intentionally zoned D1, she said. Even if a lawsuit were won by the city, she said, that will cost the city a lot of money. She worried about the long-term consequences of a lawsuit, when the university is buying up city land. She feared a legacy of ill will from developers. Literal hisses came from the audience at that point. She had prefaced her remarks by saying that she knew it would be unpopular with many people in the room. She also feared that failure to approve the project – viewed in the longer term – would go against the council’s priorities of fiscal responsibility, economic development and affordable housing.

Petersen stated that she continues to be disappointed in the massing of the building and would encourage the developer to reduce the massing.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Kunselman came back to the issue of setbacks: The developer has the ability to move the building back 10 feet, he ventured. Rampson confirmed that Kunselman was right – as Division and Huron are both secondary streets. Kunselman allowed that moving the building back would reduce the number of bedrooms. But moving the building back 10 feet would also allow the building to meet the intent of the character district’s description of open space in front of the building. Kunselman again stated he would be voting against the project.

Lumm also said she didn’t think the project conforms with the statement of intent in the East Huron Street character overlay district. She appealed to the criteria for site plan approval and said she found that the project hasn’t met all the standards. She adduced master plan land use access goals, among others, that she did not feel were met by the project.

Warpehoski reported that when he was first elected (in November 2012), this project was something he’d sat down with city staff to talk about. He said the design has come a long way since the originally proposed building, but he felt the building simply is too large for the area. In the various enforceable regulations in the code, he felt like previous councils hadn’t gotten everything right. He was not serving on the city council at the time, and he didn’t mean to say that he would have gotten everything right. The belief that not everything was right was a reason prompting him previously to vote for the moratorium. He described piles of papers and full email inboxes with communications from residents and the developers and their attorneys. He had listened to it all and had questioned it all. He’d weighed the risk. What level of risk was he willing to take?

Warpehoski cited Kunselman’s statement on a different occasion – when the council was deliberating on a possible moratorium – that Kunselman doesn’t like to gamble with other people’s money. That had been running through his head a lot over the last week, Warpehoski said. He added that he was not afraid of a lawsuit, but weighed the cost of losing a lawsuit. He referred to millions of dollars of damages, and called that “too rich for my blood.” He also feared losing the concessions in design that the developer had made. Either way, he didn’t see a good outcome. He called his anticipated vote “a very pit-in-my-stomach-sickening vote yes.” Warpehoski’s expression of his intent to vote for the project drew hisses from the audience.

At that point, assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald asked the council to amend the resolution to refer to the proper date of the development agreement, which the council did.

Teall described how she didn’t like the massing of the building but wasn’t willing to risk the taxpayers’ money. She called it the toughest decision. She said she didn’t want to try to assign blame – saying she thought the council would be blamed for something, either way. She thought there was merit to the consideration of legacy – on both sides. The legacy of being regarded as a city that’s toxic to economic development was also a risk, she said. “I don’t like a lot about this building,” she said. But she didn’t want to risk the taxpayers’ money. She said she would very reluctantly vote yes, but added “I’m not happy about it.”

From left: Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) recalled the history of the A2D2 process and noted that it wasn’t done in a vacuum. She said that nobody got everything they wanted. She recalled the community consensus that density would be restricted to the downtown, which kept it out of neighborhoods. She described the tension that had played out between the planning commission and the council about which areas would be zoned D1 and which would be D2. “It’s very easy in hindsight to say we should have done this or we should have done that.” The council had done what it thought was right at the time, she said.

Higgins pointed out that some changes have been made to the project since it was originally proposed, saying that there’s less massing than the original proposal. She contended it never happens that everyone says: “Yippee, let’s build this building and we’re all for it.” There’s always friction where downtowns rub up against residential neighborhoods, she said, and you’ll never be able to satisfy everyone.

Higgins said she’d known many of the people for years who’d addressed the council, and said they’d almost swayed her. But she reported that after the last public hearing, she started hearing from a lot of people who wanted to see the building constructed. Why didn’t they come and talk to the council about that? It was because they didn’t realize that it was that big a deal, she explained. Not everyone participates in the same way.

Those who’ve been a part of the conversation in the council chambers over the last few months are well connected and are very concerned about how the city should look, Higgins said. But that’s not the only voice, she cautioned. There are 80,000 other people in the town who don’t always have the same viewpoint as those in attendance at the council meeting, Higgins said. She indicated she’d be supporting the project. She allowed that wouldn’t make those in attendance happy. She hoped the developer would continue to look at the project and make some additional accommodations. She had to weigh the opinions of the city attorneys and the city staff as well.

Following Higgins, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said his inclination was to say “what she said,” but he’d already prepared other remarks. Taylor acknowledged the various detriments that the project will cause – massing, shading, a poorly designed service drive and potential inconveniences in traffic. He described the tension between Huron Street, which can bear great density, and Division Street, which is residential. The A2D2 had tried to balance that tension. And he noted that the project satisfies the regulations – which he characterized as inadequate to embody the city’s desires.

Taylor stated that the council’s task is not legislative, but rather administrative, and he extended that to the idea that the task is actually judicial. The council should approach the issue as a court would and should strive to be impartial. That’s the council’s obligation, he said. The council’s role is sharply limited, he said. He would be voting for the project. He had no doubt who’d have the upper hand if the developer and the city came to blows. When the head, the heart and millions of taxpayer dollars are in conflict, he said, the head has to win.

He didn’t believe there was a justifiable reason for voting against the project. Taylor did not fear losing a lawsuit, he said, but he feared losing an eight-figure lawsuit. Taylor stated that his duty is unwelcome but also clear. The developer has chosen not to reduce the density of the project for only one reason, he said – for profit. “They should own it and admit it,” Taylor said. But he allowed it’s their right. He hoped the developer might bring forward an amended plan that reflects the idea of being a good neighbor.

Kailasapathy said she couldn’t fathom how the parcel was not zoned D2. No one is saying that the developer doesn’t have a right to build something there. But the developer is meeting only the minimum requirements, she said. She hoped the developer would go back to the drawing board. She indicated she’d be voting against the project.

Briere thanked her council colleagues for their coherent thought. No one is proud of this development, she contended. The council feels a little bit helpless, she said. A previous decision on a “by right” project resulted in City Place being constructed on Fifth Avenue, Briere noted. “This is a terrible way to make decisions.”

Briere called for evaluating the entire set of information the council has received. She found the project doesn’t meet all the requirements, and could cause a nuisance. While the project fit the limited numeric zoning regulations that are quantifiable, the intangible elements shouldn’t be ignored, she said. So she’d be voting against it.

Lumm then explained again why she’d be voting no. She echoed the code requirements cited by Briere that she thinks the project fails to meet. Among those, she highlighted the traffic issues.

Mayor John Hieftje complimented the opponents of the project. He stated that it was not a NIMBY opposition. He described how he’d worked to gain acceptance of a different plan that envisioned a 20-story building and scaling down as it moved toward Sloan Plaza. That would have been a “planned project,” he said. But that plan didn’t go forward. The building that has been proposed, he said, doesn’t honor the site. But he said his decision comes down to an unwillingness to take the legal risk. It’s too large a risk, with too small a chance of succeeding, he said.

Outcome: The council voted 6-5 to approve the 413 E. Huron site plan. Voting against it were: Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Voting for it were: Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), mayor John Hieftje, Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4). A few in the audience expressed their displeasure at the outcome of the vote, calling out statements like “Shame on you!” and “Disgusting!”

Percent for Art Funding

The council was asked to take the initial step toward changing the city’s public art ordinance, so that capital improvement projects are no longer required to set aside 1% of their budgets for public art – up to a maximum of $250,000 per project.

The ordinance change would mean a fundamental change from the Percent for Art approach to funding.

The main change is to eliminate in the ordinance any reference to a specific percentage for art in a capital project budget. Also, art funds would not be pooled as they are now – which entails setting aside money from projects into which it would be difficult to incorporate public art. Under the amended approach, city staff would work to determine whether a specific capital improvement project should have enhanced design features “baked in” to a project – either enhanced architectural work or specific public art. The funding for any of the enhanced features would be included in the project’s budget and incorporated into the RFP (request for proposals) process for the capital project.

At the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting, a vote was taken to extend a moratorium on spending of public art funds – through May 31. The council had originally enacted the moratorium on spending at its Dec. 3, 2012 meeting.

The action to impose a moratorium came in the context of a failed millage proposal in November 2012, which was meant to provide an alternative funding mechanism to the Percent for Art approach. The millage proposal was put forward in part in response to objections that voters had not explicitly approved the Percent for Art mechanism, which taps all capital funds – even those deriving from fees and millages designated for other purposes.

At the Dec. 3, 2012 meeting, a committee consisting of Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) was appointed to recommend amendments to the city’s public art ordinance. The committee has met several times and has made recommendations on revisions to the ordinance.

Percent for Art Funding: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) led off deliberations by offering an amendment to the ordinance change. Her amendment would allow the council to amend the FY 2014 budget to return to the respective funds of origin some or all of the funds required to be allocated under the current ordinance.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that the task force had left the budget issue alone – because the task force had hoped the ordinance change would be voted on sooner than now. Her understanding from talking to the city attorney’s office was that if the ordinance change were enacted before the start of FY 2014 – which is July 1, 2013 – then Lumm’s amendment to the ordinance would not be necessary.

Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias said that if the council wants to undo the FY 2014 public art budget appropriations made the following week on May 20, then the council would, with Lumm’s amendment, be able to do that.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) ventured that the FY 2014 budget could be amended at anytime during the budget year. Elias indicated that would be legally possible, but if the funds were appropriated, and then were used, it could be difficult to undo.

After some back and forth about the timing issue, the council voted unanimously to accept Lumm’s amendment to the ordinance change.

Briere noted that she and Petersen had worked to come up with a survey for the city’s Open City Hall on public art. It’s available now, she said.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give initial approval to the change in the public art ordinance. It will come back for final approval on June 3, 2013.

Utility Improvement Charges

The council was asked to give initial approval to changes in the way utility improvement charges are calculated. If the changes are given final approval at a subsequent meeting, the charges would be calculated differently for the next two years. That would give the city time to hire a consultant to give a more comprehensive review to the charges.

The charges are due when a single- or two-family property connects to water and sewer for the first time. The charges are paid by either the contractor/developer or the property owner, depending on who makes the request for a connection. [.pdf of connection charge comparison]

The action on improvement charges comes after the council had debated proposed increases to the charges at its Jan. 22, 2013 meeting and ultimately rejected the increase for this year.

Utility Improvement Charges: Council Deliberations

The item was introduced by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who explained that she and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) had worked together on it and they’d been joined by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) as a sponsor. Briere said the goal was to make certain that Ann Arbor’s improvement charges are equitable and reasonable. Another goal was to make sure that all the improvement charges are consistent across the board.

The proposal, Briere explained, would generally speaking create an opportunity for infill development that did not result in a property owner having to pay improvement charges that totaled nearly half the cost of the lot to build on. As an example, she gave a parcel cost of around $100,000 with the improvement charges of around $42,000.

Kailasapathy cited the high cost of the connection fees as an obstacle to infill development. For water and sanitary sewer lines, she explained, repair and replacement is covered by the capital repair replacement portion of the user rates. It’s important to note that a lot what is connecting now is not going to pay for the operational costs of the plant and systems for treating or providing water or collecting or treating sewage, she noted. That’s fair, she added, because developed and undeveloped lots would pay for the initial construction of the connection, but only the developed lots would continue to pay for the maintenance costs of the infrastructure.

Under the ordinance revision, when you connect, you are only paying for the repair and maintenance portion of the costs that you haven’t paid up to that point, Kailasapathy said. The revised rates are reasonable compared to the previous rates, she said – about $10,000 compared to $40,000. She felt the city could do even better. Part of the proposal is to have a consulting firm come in and crunch the numbers to create an equitable solution for the future.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked public services area administrator Craig Hupy to weigh in. He said that Kailasapathy had explained the ordinance revision really well. He thought that the improvement charges were due for a review. He was comfortable with what’s being proposed and with the review that would take place over the next two years – given Michigan law and national practices.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said he’d heard from a resident who’d invested in some property. The resident felt that through the years he’d satisfied all the requirements the city had imposed. Anglin wanted to know what the methodology was before 2004.

Hupy explained that the improvement charge was imposed without factoring in any cost forwarding or cost recovery for “the cost of money or of maintaining the investment over the years.” Anglin ventured that a lot that was worth $10,000 in the 1970s might have appreciated in value to around $100,000 and because of that increase in value, it would be required to make a significant contribution. Hupy responded by saying he wasn’t following Anglin’s question. The property value doesn’t factor into the contribution to the water and sewer system, Hupy explained, but rather to the general fund.

Anglin compared it to making a reservation at a hotel and not using the room – saying that you couldn’t be charged for that. When you pay your taxes that fund police and fire services, you’re not asked to reflect on the history of payments that you didn’t benefit from, he said.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Responding to Anglin’s request for an explanation, Kailasapathy illustrated with an analogy of buying a car. As an example, she suggested that she and Briere were buying a car together. They each put in $10,000 to buy a car. Briere decides she’ll use the bus instead, but when she needs to use the car – say, five years from now – she’ll start using it. But Kailasapathy would use it daily from the start. That would mean Kailasapathy would pay for all the gas and parking and other expenses. But annually, to keep the car in good condition, Briere might contribute $500 for general maintenance. So five years later, when she doesn’t want to use public transit any longer, Briere and Kailasapathy would split gas and parking charges.

Under the revised ordinance, Kailasapathy explained, property owners would only pay something analogous to the annual maintenance. Previously, they were charged for the equivalent of the gas and parking charges as well – the depreciation.

Anglin then asked a resident, Steven Sivak, to come to the podium and share his experience. Sivak is an architect who is planning to build a house on Pomona Street. He described how there were 480 vacant lots in the city. He didn’t know how many of those were “bird sanctuaries” that weren’t big enough to support a house.

Sivak responded to Anglin’s questions. He told Anglin that the lot he’d purchased two years ago for $115,000 would have a $38,000 “improvement charge” in addition to the “connection charge.” “Assessment charges” had been imposed since the beginning of time. But in 2004, he said, then-public service administrator Sue McCormick had instituted improvement charges and connection fees. The connection fees accurately describe just the metering and the tap-in charges, he said. The improvement charges were a new item imposed on lots starting in 2004. The effect is that it’s too expensive to build on the lot. Houses in his neighborhood have values in the $200,000-$350,000 range, so a $40,000 improvement charge can’t be easily absorbed into that cost. That’s why last year only four lots paid the improvement charge and were developed. Sivak reported that Hupy had told him that.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he’d support the ordinance change. He noted that while Sivak had described lots worth $100,000, over in Ward 3, which Kunselman represents, some of the lots themselves were worth only $40,000.

Briere stressed the point that if the policy changed, that simply meant the policy had been changed. You don’t fault somebody, Briere said, for paying less today than somebody else paid two days ago. Rates are adjusted all the time, she said. She said it gives the city an opportunity to look at bringing all the improvement charges together in a uniform fashion – for single-family or multi-family or commercial properties. Right now they’re not consistent, she said.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) got clarification about which properties the ordinance changes applied to – single-family and duplex, not commercial. Higgins recalled the discussion the council had had not long ago when it voted not to implement increases in the improvement charges.

Briere clarified that annexation charges were a completely “different kettle of fish.”

Outcome: The council unanimously gave initial approval to changes in the ordinance on utility improvement charges.

490 Huron Parkway Rezoning

The council was asked to give initial approval to a rezoning request for 490 Huron Parkway from R3 (townhouse district) to R1B (single-family dwelling).

Aerial view of 490 Huron Parkway, outlined in black. The major road running west of the site is Huron Parkway. The land on the far west of this image is the site of Huron High School.

If given final approval at a subsequent council meeting, following a public hearing, the rezoning would allow the currently vacant 1.22-acre site, located north of Ruthven Park, to be divided into three separate lots. City planning staff had recommended the rezoning, and noted that the adjacent parcel at 500 Huron Parkway is also zoned R1B.

However, the proposal did not win approval from the city planning commission at its Dec. 18, 2012 meeting.

At that meeting, planning commissioner Bonnie Bona said she couldn’t support the rezoning. With 70,000 people commuting into Ann Arbor each day, it didn’t make sense to build single-family homes in that area. “Single-family homes should be built in townships, where they don’t want bus service,” she said. Only six of nine commissioners were present – and because a rezoning needs six votes to achieve a recommendation of approval, the request received a denial on a 5-1 vote.

At the council’s May 13 session, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reported that residents in the area support the rezoning. Questions had been raised about the stabilization of the hill. She thanked the staff for sending an inspector out to confirm the slope was stabilized.

Outcome: The council unanimously gave initial approval to the rezoning.

State Street Center Zoning

The council was asked to approve a rezoning request for State Street Center, near the intersection of State and Ellsworth. A site plan for the project has not yet received council action.

The project calls for demolishing a vacant 840-square-foot house on this site. In its place, the developer plans a one-story, 1,700-square-foot drive-thru Jimmy John’s restaurant facing South State Street. A one-story, 6,790-square-foot retail building will be built behind the restaurant. The driveway off South State Street would be relocated and widened. The site would include 39 parking spaces, as well as covered bicycle parking between the buildings.

Aerial view of State Street Center project near South State and Ellsworth.

The project is estimated to cost $900,000. The property, which is located in Ward 4, is owned by Jack Schwarcz of Oak Park, Mich.

The site plan approval would be contingent on dedicating a 50-foot South State Street right-of-way to the city prior to any permits being issued.

The development is located adjacent to a new Tim Hortons restaurant, which opened last year. However, there is no driveway connection between the two sites. Planning staff indicated that such a connection was encouraged, but is not happening at this time.

The project was approved by the city planning commission at its April 2, 2013 meeting. It had originally been on the commission’s March 19, 2013 agenda. At that time, the city’s planning staff recommended postponement after discovering that the city’s official zoning map had been incorrectly labeled. It showed the site as zoned C3 (fringe commercial). The developer had made plans based on that erroneous labeling. But during background research for this proposal, planning staff discovered that the site actually had been zoned as O (office) in 2003.

Outcome: Without deliberations, the council gave initial approval to the rezoning.

Theta Delta Chi

The council was asked to give approval to an expansion of the Theta Delta Chi house at 700 S. State. The property is located at the southwest corner of State and Monroe streets.

Aerial view of Theta Delta Chi property, at Monroe and State streets.

The city planning commission had recommended the project for approval at its Feb. 21, 2013 meeting. Commissioners also granted a special exception use for the building.

The item had been postponed from the council’s April 15 session. The April 15 meeting lasted until 3 a.m. – and all remaining items on the council’s agenda at that point were postponed until May 6, including the Theta Delta Chi site plan. The May 6 meeting was recessed and continued on May 13.

The proposal includes expanding the square footage from 12,386 square feet to 14,752 square feet by making an addition at the rear of the fraternity house. The property is zoned R2B (two-family dwelling district and student dwelling district), and the size of the lot would allow for occupancy of up to 50 people. However, the fraternity is not proposing to increase its current occupancy of 33 residents.

The new addition will include an expanded restroom and shower facilities, common space, a resident manager’s apartment, and a bike room with nine bicycle spaces. According to a staff memo, the project entails moving the driveway, which is accessed off of Monroe Street, about five feet to the east. To do this, the fraternity will need to enter into an agreement with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and shift two on-street parking meters a few feet to the east.

The project also will require several variances from the city’s zoning board of appeals, including: (1) permission to alter a nonconforming structure (due to height and setbacks); (2) variances from Chapter 59 (off-street parking) to reduce the number of parking spaces required and allow one parking space in the front open space; (3) a variance from Chapter 47 (streets) to reduce the drive opening width; and (4) a variance from Chapter 62 (landscape and screening) to reduce the conflicting land use buffer width.

Other changes planned for this project include converting a yard on the south side of the house into a large patio. That area is currently used for parking. A new shed for a dumpster, recycling carts, and bike storage is proposed near the southwest corner of the site.

The fraternity is adjacent to apartment buildings and across the street from the University of Michigan law school.

Deliberations on the site plan were scant. Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who also serves on the planning commission, encouraged councilmembers to support the project. She called it an excellent example of infill development, which was very respectful of the neighborhood. The developer is a fraternity, she said, and was looking to expand the floorplate.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the Theta Delta Chi site plan.

Hideaway Lane

The council was asked to approve a proposal to build 19 single-family houses on a 4.6-acre site on Hideaway Lane off Traver Road – near the city’s Leslie Park Golf Course. The planning commission had recommended approval of the plan at its March 19, 2013 meeting.

Aerial map showing the location of the Hideaway Lane project.

Action on the planned project’s site plan and development agreement had been postponed at the planning commission’s Feb. 5, 2013 meeting. At that time, the city’s planning staff had cited the need to resolve several outstanding issues, such as determining the project’s impact on the property’s natural feature and mitigation requirements. Traver Creek runs along the site’s western border.

Also needed was preliminary approval from the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner. On Feb. 5 the commission’s vote to postpone was 5-3, with dissent from Bonnie Bona, Kirk Westphal and Diane Giannola. The item had come up late in the Feb. 5 meeting – after 11 p.m., following a long discussion and public hearing on the controversial 413 E. Huron project.

At the commission’s March 19 meeting, the recommendation from staff was to approve the project’s site plan and development agreement, which the commission did unanimously. In separate votes, commissioners also: (1) authorized the project’s anticipated disturbance of the natural features open space, and (2) recommended approval of an alternative mitigation plan for the site.

The project is located on the site of a development that began in 2005 but was never completed – and the site plan for that earlier development had expired. Currently, there are nine townhomes and one single-family home on the property, as well as infrastructure for additional development. The site is zoned R4A (multi-family dwelling district). The proposed new homes would all be two stories with either two or three bedrooms. The planned project proposal calls for spacing the houses 10 feet apart. Because the city’s zoning ordinance requires a minimum building spacing of 20 feet, the spacing modifications allowed under a planned project are being requested.

The developer is listed as Trowbridge Homes of Hideaway LLC of Auburn Hills, Mich.

At the council’s May 13 session, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that it’s the third attempt to develop the parcel. The infrastructure is already in place – including the plumbing, electricity and the streets. It’s not a very dense project, she said. It’s planned as a single-family development. She said there are no sidewalks along Traver Road in front of this parcel.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wondered if sidewalks are required. Briere noted that sidewalks are considered an improvement and are not a requirement.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wondered if that meant not following the non-motorized plan for the city. He felt that should become a standard requirement for new developments.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson clarified that a sidewalk is proposed for part of the front of the parcel and for the interior. Mayor John Hieftje clarified that a resident of the development would be able to take an interior sidewalk and access a public sidewalk to go in a westerly direction.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the Hideaway Lane project.

Fire Department Federal Grant

The council was asked to accept $87,876 in federal grant funding for the fire department. The grant, which comes from the Department of Homeland Security under the auspices of the Assistance to Firefighters grant program (AFGP), is for a specific project for which the local fire department applied.

The project involves installing vehicle exhaust capturing systems – so that diesel fumes don’t accumulate inside the fire stations. The federal grant requires a local match of $21,969 (25%). That local match is being made with money from the city’s general fund.

Outcome: Without discussion, the council unanimously approved receipt of the Homeland Security grant.

New Gear for Firefighters

The council was asked to authorize $150,000 worth of firefighter gear to be supplied by Phoenix Safety Outfitters.

According to the labor contract between the city and the International Association of Firefighters Local 693, the city is required to provide two sets of turnout gear for each firefighter – in accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards.

According to the staff memo, at least 20 sets of gear are due for scheduled replacement, and 14 more sets of gear are needed in order to equip seven new hires.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she was happy to see both of the firefighter-related items on the agenda.

Outcome: The council approved the purchase of the firefighter gear.

$600K for UM Smart Vehicle Study

The council was asked to consider an agreement with the University of Michigan that would result in $622,884 for the city of Ann Arbor as a result of a much larger grant that was awarded to the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI). UMTRI received a $14.9 million grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation to pilot the use of vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) safety technology in the city.

The money will be used by the city of Ann Arbor to install telecommunications fiber, sensors and electronic equipment, as well as some network support.

The pilot study undertaken by UMTRI will be a large-scale test of connected vehicle technology that will take place over a 30-month period. Data will be collected through wireless communications between vehicles participating in the program and roadside equipment.

After the study, the city will own the fiber and equipment that was installed with the grant money.

Outcome: Without deliberation, the council voted unanimously to approve the contract with UM.

UM, City Right-of-Way Issue

The council was asked to grant a right-of-way occupancy for the University of Michigan to install conduits in Tappan Street. The purpose of the conduits under Tappan Street is to connect a new emergency generator to the Lawyers Club buildings at 551 S. State Street. The Lawyers Club and the generator are located on opposite sides of the street.

The item was treated as if it required an 8-vote majority – that is, as if it conveyed an interest in land.

According to the staff memo accompanying the agreement, it could have broader implications – because the agreement on the Tappan Street conduit could serve as a template for long-term occupancy agreements. The city and the university legal staff appeared to have reached an understanding on how to disagree about the significance of the agreement. According to the memo:

The University has insisted that each occupancy agreement be processed as if the document grants to the University an interest in land, even if it doesn’t. The City does not believe that the occupancy agreement grants to the University any interest in land. As drafted, it grants to the University an interest in land only to the extent it grants to the University, by its terms, an interest in land.

Nevertheless, in accordance with the University’s request, but without agreeing that the agreement grants an interest in land, the document was submitted to City Council for approval with a requirement of 8 votes as if it granted an interest in land.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked for an explanation of how the resolution did not confer any rights to the land under Tappan Street.

Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias explained that the city did not view the transaction as a land transfer. She explained that UM had wanted to prevent the council or some future council from acting in a “whimsical, capricious or arbitrary” manner and simply revoking the rights under the agreement “because it felt like it.” She allowed that she was exaggerating the university’s position at the negotiating table, saying the council had never acted in an arbitrary or whimsical way.

The city has the ability to control the rights of way, Elias said. The resolution accommodates the city’s rights, which are protected, she said. Briere responded, saying she did not see this as an opportunity for the university to come back and say they want the street vacated.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) raised the issue of Tappan Street’s status as a platted road. He doubted it was possible even to convey a platted road. This kind of arrangement has been done with license agreements in other situations, Elias said, but the university wasn’t willing to do that.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wondered if the transaction could be done as a lease. Elias replied that a lease is an interest in land. Anglin asked if there was a similarity to fees that are received from telecommunication companies for equipment in the rights-of-way. Elias gave a general explanation of how those telecom fees work.

Outcome: The vote was 7-3, with dissent by Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). Because Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) left the meeting early, the item had only seven votes in support. So the item failed to win approval.

Steps Toward Special Assessment for Miller Ave.

The council was asked to authorize two steps required to establish special assessments on properties on Miller Avenue in Ann Arbor. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the properties will be special assessed for sidewalk improvements ($5,976) and curb/gutter improvements ($3,429) totaling $9,405.

One of the resolutions directed the city assessor to prepare a special assessment roll. [.pdf of table showing parcels and amounts] The second step was to set a public hearing on the matter – for June 3, 2013.

Outcome: With scant comment, the council approved both resolutions.

Contract with Coke

The council was asked to act on a recommendation by the Ann Arbor park advisory commission – made at PAC’s April 16, 2013 meeting – to approve a five-year contract with Coca-Cola Refreshments.

A 10-year contract with Pepsi Bottling Group of Michigan is set to expire in June of 2013. In vying for the new contract, only two companies responded to an RFP (request for proposals). According to a staff memo, the other bidder was disqualified after failing to meet the bid deadline. The memo did not name that company, but deputy parks and recreation manager Jeff Straw told commissioners at the PAC meeting that it was Pepsi who had missed the deadline.

The new contract will cost the city an estimated $25,000 annually for non-vending items, but the city expects to generate $47,500 in revenues from the beverage sales. In addition, Coca-Cola Refreshments will provide an annual sponsorship fee of $10,000 to the parks and recreation unit, and give a 96-cents-per-case rebate on each case that’s sold. These funds will be used to provide scholarships to low-income kids for parks and recreation programs. The case rebate is estimated to bring in $700 to $1,000 each year for scholarships, according to Straw.

The company also will provide 50 cases of free product each year for public special events, and will sponsor four special events annually with product sampling and free giveaways. The firm also will provide recycling containers with credit for returnables.

Concessions and vending are located at Leslie Park Golf Course, Huron Hills Golf Course, Veterans Memorial Park, Buhr Park Pool and Ice Rink, Fuller Park Pool, Mack Indoor Pool, Gallup Park Canoe Livery and Argo Canoe Livery.

On May 13, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) led off deliberations by saying that he’d support the resolution, because only one vendor had responded. But he shared concerns related to public health based on sugared beverages. His deeper concern related to human rights issues in Colombia about Coca-Cola, and environmental issues in India. He pointed to a UM student effort to remove Coca-Cola products.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) noted that this was reviewed by PAC. He mentioned that the discussion by PAC had included an interest in pursuing local vendors. Community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl explained that the contract expires on June 6, 2013.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) wondered if vending machines with either Coke or Pepsi would be possible for city hall. Not under this RFP, explained city administrator Steve Powers.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) urged that a wider pool of respondents to the RFP be pursued. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) highlighted the sponsorship fee and the rebate per case that Coke would provide. It’s unfortunate that Pepsi missed the deadline, but “Coke’s coming through,” she said.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) lamented the fact that the council had relatively little flexibility to decline to approve the contract. She agreed with Warpehoski’s point about sugar beverages.

City administrator Steve Powers.

Powers said if council’s desire was to specify beverage types, that would need to be put into the RFP. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wondered if the five-year term of the contract could be shortened. She felt that in five years, many people would have forgotten the conversation.

Petersen reminded people that Coca-Cola owned a lot of brands other than soda with sugar – including Dasani water and Minute Maid. Powers confirmed that the bestseller last year was Gatorade, followed by bottled water.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the Coke contract.

Appointments

The council was asked to approve several appointments and was notified of several nominations for consideration at subsequent meetings.

Appointments: HHSAB, Commission on Disability Issues

The first two appointments were Sheila Steinman to the commission on disability issues, and a reappointment of Ingrid Ault to the housing and human services advisory board.

Other than a brief remark from Sally Petersen (Ward 2), who serves on the city’s commission on disability issues, the two appointments, which had been nominated at a previous meeting, drew no deliberations. Petersen pointed out that Steinman goes by the name “Re.”

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the appointments of Steinman and Ault.

Appointments: Housing Board of Appeals

For the city’s housing board of appeals, mayor John Hieftje had nominated Leon Moore as a replacement for Dick Fleece, who’s the director of Washtenaw County’s public health department. The board has a provision requiring a representative from the health department – and Moore was nominated to fill that role. Moore is not a city resident, however. That means his confirmation would require a seven-vote majority, under terms of the Ann Arbor city charter.

Hieftje led off discussion by mentioning that information had been provided by email about the nature of Moore’s appointment. By way of background, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had indicated preference for an alternate candidate, which prompted a response from Hieftje, sarcastic in part, explaining the rationale for Moore’s nomination. [.pdf of email from John Hieftje to Stephen Kunselman] Hieftje mentioned that the board had some appeals that it needed to hear, so the appointment was important to be made.

After the deliberations on the AATA appointment (see below), Moore’s appointment was handled. Kunselman noted that there would be another vacancy. He got confirmation from Hieftje that Donna Tope – Kunselman’s preferred candidate – would be nominated to fill another vacancy.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to confirm Moore’s appointment to the housing board of appeals.

Appointments: Ann Arbor Transportation Authority

Initially, the council had been presented with both Eric Mahler’s name as an appointee to the AATA board as well as Leon Moore’s name as an appointee to the housing board of appeals. The original intent was that these appointments would be voted on together.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) began the discussion among councilmembers on both appointments with an apparent allusion to the appointment of Mahler, who is finishing out a second term on the planning commission this summer, though he will not continue in that capacity. Anglin felt that many of the same people were being appointed to multiple boards and commissions. That was of concern to him. He felt it might be appropriate to appoint a “handicapped person” to the board. He also felt it was important to consider who the leaders of the community were who might have people behind them, who could then be useful in bringing more community members to support the efforts of a particular board.

There were some applicants out there he’d encourage, Anglin said, particularly from the “handicapped community.” They represent a large percent of the users of the bus system and they’re in the most need, he said. That would make a strong statement to the rest of the community, he said – that the city is trying to use the AATA to support those who are less fortunate and who can’t drive themselves. He said he’d watched Mahler serve on the planning commission and Mahler had done a good job. But Anglin felt that others should be given an opportunity to serve as well. He ventured that perhaps the process of notifying people that openings were available was not effective. He suggested adding a section to the council agenda right after public commentary, for that purpose. For a board as important as the AATA board, he said, it’s important to find the best applicant instead of finding someone who is “willing to serve.”

Mayor John Hieftje responded to Anglin by saying he often spoke with members of boards and directors of organizations. And he indicated he’d been requested to find someone who was a minority and an attorney. With the retirement of David Nacht from the board – whom Mahler would replace – that left the board without an attorney as a member. Hieftje noted that Nacht had been instrumental in negotiating a contract with AATA’s union. Hieftje said he was also following through on a request to appoint someone with whom he had experience.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) agreed with Anglin about the appointment process. He said he couldn’t support Mahler “at this time,” though he appreciated Hieftje’s goals in making Mahler the nominee. But he noted that the council had received an applicant from the “disability community” who was able and knowledgeable about transportation issues. Kunselman offered that the AATA board currently has a city staff member [transportation program manager Eli Cooper] who is not a city resident. If that person were to remove himself, then there’d be a place for Mahler and for the applicant from the disability community, Kunselman said.

Kunselman said he didn’t understand the need for an attorney on the board, when the AATA hires outside counsel. Given the “legal snafu” last November, Kunselman felt it made no sense to have an attorney on the board, because it didn’t work last time. [Kunselman was alluding to technical legal requirements associated with the incorporation of an Act 196 transportation authority, which eventually got no traction.] He suggested that Hieftje could put the appointment on hold to give Cooper a chance to resign. Otherwise, he’d be voting against Mahler, he said.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) indicated agreement with the general sentiments of Anglin and Kunselman. She said it seemed to her that as the same names kept coming up, there seemed like a “professional class” of board and commission members. That itself has a negative impact. She heard people say that they weren’t in the “in group” so they wouldn’t bother applying. She questioned the idea of replacing a lawyer with another lawyer – given that the AATA hired its own legal counsel. Having a “disabled member” of her family – for whom she’d just obtained an ADA card – this is the place in local government where people’s needs can really be met. She noted that she sometimes uses the bus to get to work and she sees that a lot of people who are disabled use AATA buses. So she wanted to wait until someone from the disabled community could be appointed.

At that point, the votes on the two appointments – to the housing board of appeals and the AATA – were separated so that councilmembers could vote differently on the two appointments.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) drew out the fact that another vacancy on the AATA board also exists. Hieftje had nominated Susan Baskett for that vacancy, in an item that appeared on the agenda later in the evening. Lumm said she was torn because while Mahler is qualified, she felt that a voice representing the “disability community” is important. Lumm noted that she’d heard from people in Ward 2 about Route #14 changes – residents who had someone in their family for whom the service is inadequate. She felt like having a member of the disability community on the board would result in advocacy that could bring meaningful change. She reiterated that she was torn, saying Mahler did a good job on the planning commission.

Anglin suggested that if the council said to the “handicapped community” that they were not empowered, that would send a very strong message. It also sent a strong message to place someone on a board that really “has some bite.” The AATA board was such a board, Anglin said. We’ll all eventually probably need a bus, Anglin ventured. He uses the bus more now than he did before and really enjoys it. But most people were drivers and were lucky enough to be able to afford that, he said. In the handicapped community, he added, that’s not a possibility. Their opportunities are more limited. If they sat on the AATA board, they could bring their concerns straight to the board.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) ventured that Sally Petersen (Ward 2) might have more insight into the “disabled community,” given her service on the city’s commission on disability issues. First, Briere ventured that this was a nomination that was in front of the council, but she was corrected by her colleagues. Briere allowed that the debate was, in fact, appropriate given that it was now at the confirmation stage. She noted that the people in front of the council were the only candidates under consideration – and they’d be voted up or down. Alternate candidates wouldn’t be put forward that evening, she ventured.

In light of Briere’s remarks, Petersen inquired when it was appropriate to debate – at the nomination stage or the confirmation stage? She got clarification that the debate the council was having now was happening at the right time.

Petersen then recalled that she’d looked up on the AATA website a description of the local advisory council (LAC), which is an advisory group to the AATA that provide recommendations on disability and senior issues. There’s a specific council to advocate for people with disabilities, she said, but the fact that she had to look it up on the AATA website indicated to her that the LAC is insufficient to represent those with disabilities who regularly ride the AATA buses. Re Steinem had been recruited to the city’s commission on disability issues because Steinem was riding the bus and met another member of the commission. So having the LAC as the sole place for advocacy for the disability community was not sufficient, Petersen said. She felt it’s important for the AATA to have someone with a disability on their board.

Hieftje indicated he was aware of the LAC. He said he’d do his best to find an appointee from the “handicapped community” – then self-corrected to “the less-abled community.” [Up to that point, councilmembers had been using a range of different terms.] Petersen told Hieftje that she’d prefer that he use the term “people with disabilities” rather than “handicapped” or “less abled.” Hieftje told Petersen that if she’d mentioned that preference when others had used the term, he would have caught up to it by then.

That night, however, Mahler’s name was before the council as the nominee – not anyone else, Hieftje said. He ventured that it’s not needed to have a person from a certain community on a public body, in order for that community to be represented on the body. He stated that the council itself does its best to represent everyone in Ann Arbor. Mahler himself is a minority, Hieftje said. [Mahler is African American.]

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) said that as long as the council was discussing majority and minority communities, he ventured that no person represents the community to which they belong. He doesn’t represent the white community or the male community, for example.

Kailasapathy essentially echoed Warpehoski’s comments by saying she didn’t feel she could claim to represent the Asian community. But when you bring in people from a different community, you bring people with perspectives on issues that affect them. It’s a functional argument, she said.

Kunselman pointed out that Baskett, who was Hieftje’s other nominee to the AATA board, is also a minority. [Baskett is African American.] Kunselman would vote for Baskett, he indicated. She also had good qualifications in the area of transit needs for youth. Kunselman said he didn’t think Mahler would represent the “less abled” community as well as another person from whom an application had been received. Kunselman urged that Mahler be voted down and that Hieftje put forth the other applicant.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) was brief in his remarks: “Mr. Mahler is a man of skill, integrity and ability, and judgment.” He described Mahler as a trained professional. Taylor, an attorney himself, quipped that he feels it’s useful to have attorneys on boards. But he gave reasons for having them – including “issue spotting” and the incorporation of legal advice into deliberations. He also felt that it’s useful to have CPAs on boards as well as accountants and others. He’d support Mahler.

Briere addressed some of her remarks to Hieftje. She said it’s difficult to imagine a situation where the council would come to the table and be talking about a candidate as somehow unqualified, when those who are concerned about it have not communicated those concerns to him. So the council was having a conversation about the fact that somebody else might be better qualified or differently qualified, she observed. But the person in front of the council is Mahler, Briere said.

Briere noted that she’s not friends with Mahler, but has have served on the planning commission with him. If asked, she’d say she respects his judgment. But she’s not beholden to or intimate with him, she said. Briere thought he was qualified to serve on the AATA, which is the question the council is facing. She told Hieftje she thought she was hearing from councilmembers that they thought he should consider other factors in his future appointments. She felt Mahler brings the necessary skills to the table. She’d vote solely on whether she believed Mahler brought the necessary skills to the table.

Petersen agreed with Briere, saying that she doesn’t know Mahler or the other candidate – but she didn’t think it’s fair to vote against him because he doesn’t have a disability. That said, she told Hieftje, there was a lot of concern about the nomination and confirmation process. She cautioned against mixing that analysis with the confirmation of Mahler. She wanted to open the door to additional discussions.

Anglin wanted to know how many “handicapped people” had served in the history of the AATA board. He also wanted to know if the appointment was a standard 5-year appointment.

Outcome: Mahler was confirmed on a 7-4 vote with dissent from Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). As a coda, mayor John Hieftje stated that he would be looking for other candidates from the “less-abled community,” which resulted in a bit more back-and-forth on terminology.

Appointments: Nominations

Nominations put forward by mayor John Hieftje included Susan Baskett to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board and Paras Parekh to the city planning commission. Also included were the re-appointments of all members of the downtown citizens advisory council, whose terms have all expired. Hieftje also noted that Donna Tope was being nominated to the housing board of appeals.

The nominations will be on the agenda for a confirmation vote by the council on May 20.

The nominations to the downtown citizens advisory council generated discussion among councilmembers as well as public commentary at the end of the meeting.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) wondered why so many of the DCAC members are married couples. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) ventured that service on the DCAC is an activity that couples do together.

During pubic commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Mark Koroi reminded the council that he’d attended the May 6 meeting of the council and spoken during public commentary about the DCAC – and how the terms of the members had all expired. He’d learned after he left, he said, that it had been “jammed onto the agenda” the same day. He called it a big issue in the city that all the appointments had been expired. He complained that no opportunity had been made available before the council voted on it. [The council had received the nominations, but will not vote on them until May 20.]

Koroi pointed out that the DCAC is a required body under the state enabling legislation for downtown development authorities. He raised the specter of a lawsuit filed under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. He was critical of the performance of Ray Detter, who’s acted as chair of the DCAC.

Communications and Comment

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

Public Commentary

In addition to Mark Koroi, whose remarks are reported above, two other people addressed the council during public commentary time at the conclusion of the meeting.

Steve Baisheim characterized himself as a “walkaholic.” He described what makes areas walkable in the city and what makes people drive slow – narrow streets. He said he wanted to get more involved on various committees. He encouraged councilmembers to think about the idea of “mixed use.”

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a Democrat standing for progress. He asked the public to call in and encourage mayor John Hieftje to step aside. He contended that there was a tone that allows and condones corruption and discrimination.

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sumi Kailasapathy, Sally Petersen, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Chuck Warpehoski.

Next council meeting: May 20, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to 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!

Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber addressed the AATA board at its May 16 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber attended the meeting in support of the city’s request for membership, and the board unanimously passed a resolution acknowledging the request. The resolution also directed staff to prepare for a detailed discussion on the issue at the board’s planning retreat, scheduled for May 22. Board members were positively inclined toward the request, but wanted to be sure that due diligence is done to ensure all the implications are understood.

Because the addition of the city of Ypsilanti would require revision to the AATA’s articles of incorporation, there’s some interest by some board members in approaching the changes in a way that could accommodate the addition of more members than just the city of Ypsilanti. It’s possible that Ypsilanti Township, Pittsfield Township or other jurisdictions might request membership in the near future. A more comprehensive approach to revising the articles, or delaying until all jurisdictions are admitted to the AATA at one time, could eliminate the need to revise the articles multiple times in quick succession.

The possible membership of Ypsilanti in the AATA is part of an effort to continue working with “urban core” communities in the immediate Ann Arbor area – after a more ambitious effort to extend AATA governance and services countywide in the summer of 2012 failed to gain traction.

A revision to the articles of incorporation would likely include a change in the AATA board membership structure. Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje had indicated he’d support adding two seats to the current seven-member board, with one of the two additional seats to be appointed by the city of Ypsilanti.

Related to board membership, the May 16 meeting included a resolution of appreciation for the service of Jesse Bernstein on the board. He concluded a five-year term of service in April. Susan Baskett, currently an AAPS trustee, has been nominated as his replacement on the board. If she’s confirmed at the Ann Arbor city council’s May 20 meeting, she’ll join Eric Mahler as another new appointment. Mahler’s appointment to replace David Nacht was subjected to political wrangling at the council’s May 13 session, but he was confirmed on a 7-4 vote.

Ypsilanti Membership in AATA

The board was asked to consider a formal resolution acknowledging a request from the city of Ypsilanti to join the AATA.

By way of background, at the Ypsilanti city council’s April 23 meeting, councilmembers had made a formal request to join the AATA under the transit authority’s existing enabling legislation – Act 55 of 1963. For the city of Ypsilanti, joining the AATA represents a new way to generate more funding for transportation. Because the city already levies property taxes at the state constitutional limit of 20 mills, the city itself can’t add an additional tax burden.

But the AATA could ask voters of all member jurisdictions to approve a levy of its own – something that it currently does not do. And that would not count against the 20-mill state constitutional limit that Ypsilanti already levies. The city of Ypsilanti and the city of Ann Arbor each have a millage dedicated to transit, which is not levied by the AATA itself.

Adding Ypsilanti to the AATA would also require the cooperation of the Ann Arbor city council – to amend the AATA’s articles of incorporation. At a meeting of the urban core communities held on April 25, 2013, Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje indicated his support for the idea, suggesting that the seven-member AATA board could be expanded to nine seats, one of which would be appointed by the city of Ypsilanti.

Meetings among nearby surrounding jurisdictions – including the cities of Ypsilanti and Saline, and the townships of Ypsilanti and Pittsfield – have continued after the demise of an effort in 2012 to expand the AATA’s service and governance area to the entire county. The smaller group of government units has been presented with a set of increased services and various funding and governance options. Among those options is the possibility of Ypsilanti and other nearby jurisdictions joining the AATA.

At the May 7, 2013 meeting of the AATA board’s planning and development committee, a rough outline of possible steps toward Ypsilanti’s membership was discussed. From the committee minutes:

• Ypsilanti Mayor Paul Schreiber would meet with the Ann Arbor city council to discuss the request to join the Authority;
• AATA would then adopt a resolution supporting Ypsilanti’s request and send it to the Ann Arbor city council;
• The Articles of Incorporation would need to be modified to include Ypsilanti, and then be sent to City Council;
• AATA would then ask the City Council to approve and file the Articles of Incorporation.

Ypsilanti Membership in AATA: Mayor Schreiber

During the public commentary period at the start of the meeting, city of Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber told the board he was there for a couple of reasons. First he noted that the Ypsilanti city council had unanimously passed a resolution requesting membership in the AATA. He appreciated the resolution on the AATA board’s agenda saying the AATA had received the request. There are a number of things that indicate Ypsilanti is very serious about being a partner in transit. The request for membership in the AATA is just one of those indications, he said.

What membership does for Ypsilanti is to make Ypsilanti a “player,” and what it does for the AATA board, he continued, is to give the AATA a stake in the eastern side of Washtenaw County. He noted that the AATA had been working hard over the last couple of years toward becoming more of a regional authority. Schreiber felt that Ypsilanti’s membership would be a small but solid step toward AATA being a regional authority. So he hoped that the AATA would accept the request for Ypsilanti’s membership. The diversification of the AATA with the addition of Ypsilanti, Schreiber said, will help “move the ball along” with other communities and really help create some momentum toward transit improvements.

Schreiber also noted that earlier that day, the Ypsilanti Downtown Development Authority board had passed a resolution allocating $20,000 to improvements at the Ypsilanti downtown transit center. Compared to the Ann Arbor DDA, he allowed, $20,000 might not seem like very much, but it’s 4% of the Ypsilanti DDA’s annual budget. That, along with the 3-to-1 margin of voter approval for Ypsilanti’s dedicated transit millage in 2010, were signs that Ypsilanti is very serious. He looked forward to working with the AATA board to make a stronger and more regional AATA.

Ypsilanti Membership in AATA: PDC Committee Response

In her report out from the planning and development committee, Sue Gott said the committee had discussed the Ypsilanti resolution. She felt she spoke for her colleagues when she said they were all pleased and felt positive about the resolution and moving in that direction. However, committee members wanted more information and background to make a careful fiduciary decision when it comes to proposing board action.

Ypsilanti Membership in AATA: CEO’s Response

During his report to the board, CEO Michael Ford thanked the Ypsilanti DDA for the $20,000 contribution to the Ypsilanti transit center and thanked Schreiber for Ypsilanti’s request to join the AATA. He noted that the governance committee of the AATA board had met to discuss Ypsilanti’s membership. He noted that there would be more discussion of that at the board’s retreat the following week, on May 22.

Ypsilanti Membership in AATA: Board Deliberations

Charles Griffith said that while the AATA is very interested in Ypsilanti’s membership and thinks very positively about it, there are still some questions that need to be addressed and talked about during the board retreat the following week. Griffith said the AATA also wants to have more discussion with other community partners who are in various stages of interest in terms of joining the AATA. [For example, Ypsilanti Township might be interested but township officials have indicated that the timing might not be right.] Griffith felt the resolution being considered by the board gave a good sense of the AATA’s interest and intent.

Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board member Roger Kerson.

Roger Kerson appreciated Schreiber and his colleagues putting the issue on the AATA’s agenda. Kerson called it reflective of the discussion over time – about how to expand the AATA’s service and how to meet the community’s needs of getting people to work, school and shopping areas. Kerson called the conversation about the addition of Ypsilanti consistent with the Ann Arbor city council mandate to continue the AATA’s discussion with surrounding communities.

Eli Cooper added his thanks to Schreiber and the Ypsilanti city council, and echoed what Griffith and Kerson had said. It’s important to note that “Travel does not respect jurisdictional boundaries,” he said. He said the consideration of adding Ypsilanti as a member was a giant step forward. The Ann Arbor area needs a strong transportation system and the idea of acknowledging the request and getting a better understanding of what it means to everyone is fundamentally important, he said. It’s important that as the AATA grows, it grows properly. Growth should take place with the right thought in mind and with the support of all involved parties, Cooper said. He’d be supporting the resolution and looked forward to the more detailed discussion that would follow. “It’s an exciting moment in time when we have a community wanting to join us and that we can make sure that we’re doing it in the best way possible,” Cooper concluded.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the resolution acknowledging the city of Ypsilanti’s request to join the AATA.

Ypsilanti Membership in AATA: Schreiber – Coda

Schreiber followed up with a turn at public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, saying he appreciated the board’s unanimous support in acknowledgment of Ypsilanti’s request. He reiterated the point that Ypsilanti had pledged the full transit millage to the AATA, which voters passed by a 3-to-1 margin in 2010. There’s due diligence that needs to be done to determine what the future looks like with Ypsilanti as a member, he allowed. Schreiber thought that adding more transit will cause property values to go up, and therefore the revenue from Ypsilanti’s transit millage would increase.

Farewell to Bernstein

AATA board member Jesse Bernstein attended his final regular meeting of the board on April 18, 2013. At the May 16 meeting, his former board colleagues approved a resolution acknowledging his five-year term of service, which began on June 16, 2008. Bernstein was not able to attend the meeting.

The resolution of appreciation approved by the board highlighted Bernstein’s turn as chair of the board, chair of the performance monitoring and external relations committee, and the executive search committee that resulted in the hire of CEO Michael Ford. The resolution also called out his role in the development of the AATA’s transit master plan and his service as chair of the unincorporated Act 196 authority board, which was part of an effort that culminated in the incorporation of that authority as The Washtenaw Ride, in the summer of 2012.

The Washtenaw Ride was an effort that ultimately found almost no traction, as municipalities across the county exercised their right under Act 196 to opt out of the authority after it was incorporated. The city of Ann Arbor, which had been expected to lead the countywide effort, opted out at the Nov. 8, 2012 meeting of the city council. Since that time, a more limited geographic focus on the “urban core” communities has resulted in a formal request from the city of Ypsilanti to join the AATA.

Board chair Charles Griffith noted at the May 16 board meeting that Susan Baskett has been nominated by mayor John Hieftje as Bernstein’s replacement on the AATA board. Baskett currently serves on the board of the Ann Arbor Public Schools, an elected position. The city council will be asked to confirm Baskett’s appointment at its May 20 meeting.

It’s possible that her appointment could be subjected to debate by the council. On May 13, the council approved Eric Mahler as David Nacht’s replacement on the AATA board on a 7-4 vote. Compared to typical votes on appointments, which are often unanimous, Mahler’s appointment was confirmed by a relatively narrow margin. At the May 16 board meeting, Griffith noted that Mahler had been confirmed by the city council, but Griffith didn’t remark on the dissenting vote.

The reasons given by dissenters for voting against Mahler included the idea that it’s important to widen the pool of members across all city boards. Mahler is finishing his second three-year term on the city planning commission – but he will not continue in that role. Dissenters also alluded to an alternate candidate they felt could represent the disability community better than Mahler.

The alternate candidate, LuAnne Bullington, has been a vocal critic of the AATA’s efforts to develop regional rail connections. The council’s debate, however, seemed focused more on issues of board candidates’ status as minorities or members of the disability community. Mahler and Baskett are both African American. Bullington is visually impaired.

Mahler was not able to attend his first scheduled meeting on May 16 due to illness, according to AATA staff.

Farewell to Bernstein: Board Remarks

After reading aloud the resolution acknowledging Jesse Bernstein’s service, board chair Charles Griffith said he was sorry Bernstein couldn’t be there to hear it. Bernstein had really committed a lot to the AATA, he said. Griffith really appreciated Bernstein’s leadership and appreciated serving on the board with him.

Roger Kerson said he appreciated Bernstein’s leadership, guidance and wisdom. When he reported out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee earlier in the meeting, Kerson said he missed the other two committee members Jesse Bernstein and David Nacht, who have now left the board. He quipped that he hadn’t needed his referee’s whistle at the most recent committee meeting, which consisted only of himself.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the resolution of appreciation for Bernstein’s service.

Regional Transit Authority

The southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA), created at the end of 2012 during the lame duck session of the state legislature, was a topic that threaded through several points of the board’s discussion. The RTA includes Washtenaw, Wayne, Macomb and Oakland counties, and the city of Detroit.

RTA: Source of Funding – LBO

During his report to the board, CEO Michael Ford said that the committees of the newly formed regional transit authority (RTA) were now active. The AATA had a presence at all the committees. He said that the RTA’s budget and finance committee was considering use of the state’s local bus operating (LBO) assistance to fund the RTA’s administrative operations. The AATA had received written notice about that from the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT), which indicated that less than 2% of operating expenses for the region might be sought. On May 29, AATA would be appearing before that RTA committee to report how the RTA’s use of those LBO funds would affect AATA’s operations.

In his report from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Roger Kerson noted that the RTA did need some kind of funding source. It’s still not clear how that’s going to work out. The AATA would continue to monitor whether the RTA would receive a small portion of what the AATA would ordinarily receive, and if that would wind up in the RTA’s coffers. He noted that it was important that the AATA is represented in all of the RTA’s committee structures.

Also during his report to the board, Ford said that language was being finalized in a state funding bill that would restore funding from the LBO that the AATA had lost last year, which had resulted in the AATA revising its budget to accommodate about $800,000 less in revenues. Ford said at the May 16 meeting that there’s currently a funding bill that would restore funding to the 30.6% level – which would return $800,000 to $900,000 to the AATA. It’s hoped that the bill would start to move through the legislature this week and that action would be taken on it before the recess in June, he said. [The AATA is currently maintaining slightly less than the 3-month operating reserve it's supposed to maintain. A recovery of $800,000 would bring those operating reserve levels back in line – the amount needed to conform with that policy is around $230,000.]

Eli Cooper observed that there was an ebb and flow of funding from the state. On the one hand, the AATA was hearing about the restoration of state funds from last year, but at the same time they were hearing that funds from that same funding source might be “re-guided” to the RTA. He wanted to know if the combined mathematics worked out as more for the AATA or less going forward.

AATA staff member Bill De Groot told Cooper that right now it’s difficult to say – given the difference in time between the approval of Gov. Rick Snyder’s budget and the RTA’s initial discussion. He said more would be known in the next two weeks.

Cooper observed that the AATA had tried to tighten its belt in order to provide service to the Ann Arbor community with the resources it has.

RTA: Commuter Express Service

Reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations, Roger Kerson said the AATA is continuing to look at funding options for its commuter express services from Chelsea and Canton. The AATA does not want to continue to offer the service without additional financial support from the communities where the service is originating. Kerson reported that the AATA has heard from Canton that they’re not interested in participating. The service needs to be self-supporting rather than being subsidized by Ann Arbor taxpayers, Kerson said.

Eli Cooper linked the RTA issue with Kerson’s report about Canton, saying that the RTA had been designed as a way to support inter-community transportation. He asked that AATA staff inquire whether RTA were a resource available to assure that there’s a cost-competitive and proactive stance to moving people from one part of the region to another. As the RTA looks for things that it can do, the express commuter service is perhaps something it could do. The AATA’s operation of the service, he said, has a fare-box recovery ratio of about double what the regular fixed-route service has. He called it a difficult policy decision to put an increased burden on the backs of the ridership.

Ford assured Cooper that this kind of conversation with the RTA was high on the AATA staff’s agenda.

Sue Gott picked up on Cooper’s remarks by linking back to a request she’d made earlier in the meeting for a clearer understanding of staff work load. She contrasted staff time invested in transportation service versus administrative activity. What she was hearing indicated a lot of demand for administrative staff time with respect to the RTA. She was concerned about not redirecting valuable and precious staff time away from other important duties. Ford indicated that he thought it was appropriate for the AATA to be represented at all the RTA committee meetings, but would provide Gott with a more detailed breakdown.

RTA: Citizens Advisory Committee

Board chair Charles Griffith noted that the RTA’s citizens advisory committee is being formed and inquired if there were a list of possible candidates. Ford told Griffith that there was some kind of list.

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

At its May 16 meeting, the AATA board entertained various communications, including its usual reports from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the planning and development committee, as well as from CEO Michael Ford. The board also heard commentary from the public. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Board Retreat

During his report to the board, CEO Michael Ford highlighted the AATA board’s annual retreat, which will take place on May 22.

AATA board member Sue Gott and CEO Michael Ford talked before the start of the May 16, 2013 meeting.

That retreat will take place at 12:30-5 p.m. at the Holiday Inn Express (Gresham Room), 600 Briarwood Circle. Ford said he expected a “robust exchange” among board members. He asked everyone to be ready to start at 12:30 p.m.

In her report out from the planning and development committee, Sue Gott put forward the idea that part of the discussion during the board retreat should include workload projections and costs associated with various activities. She wanted to see several ways of balancing workload and priorities that staff could provide.

The planning and development committee had talked to the retreat facilitator about prioritizing 2014 initiatives – beginning with existing customers and customer experience. [The facilitator for the retreat is Julia Novak, who also performed that function at the Ann Arbor city council's December 2012 retreat.]

Comm/Comm: Next Urban Core Meeting

Ford described a successful meeting of the “urban core” on April 25. That had included discussion of the city of Ypsilanti’s request to become a member of the AATA. The next meeting of that urban core group will take place on June 27 at Pittsfield Township hall, starting at 4 p.m., Ford said.

Comm/Comm: Consolidation of Planning Project Meetings

Ford also noted that in April there had been a suggestion to try to combine some of the community meetings – to address some of the fatigue that people might be experiencing about attending meetings.

So on June 18, he said, a meeting with an open house format will be held from 5-8 p.m. at the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library covering several projects: the connector study (from US-23 and Plymouth, through downtown Ann Arbor, southward along State Street to I-94), WALLY (north-south commuter rail between Ann Arbor and Livingston County) and the ReImagine Washtenaw project (a planning focus on Washtenaw Avenue between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti).

Ford also gave brief updates on each of those projects. The number of alternatives for the ReImagine Washtenaw project had been reduced from six to three, which would be presented on June 18. Ford also reported some renewed interest in WALLY from Livingston County officials. Station design work continues for that effort, he said.

Comm/Comm: AirRide

During his report to the board, Ford gave an update on AirRide. It’s a service the AATA contracts with Michigan Flyer to provide transportation between downtown Ann Arbor and Detroit Metro airport. For the week of April 28, Ford said 1,657 passengers had ridden the service, which was the second-highest ridership of any week since the service was launched a year ago.

Comm/Comm: Blake Transit Center Construction

Ford also gave an update on the construction of the new Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor, on the block between Fourth and Fifth avenues. The footings are done, with the next step being the foundation walls. Utility work on site has started, which has resulted in displacement of several buses from Fourth Avenue to Liberty. Ford expressed his appreciation for the collaboration of city of Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor police department, the federal building, Ann Arbor District Library and the Ann Arbor DDA.

According to community relations manager Mary Stasiak, the basement of the building, which is now apparent on the site, will house a gray water cistern, boilers, and IT infrastructure.

Comm/Comm: New AATA Website

Ford reported that the AATA’s new website would go live on May 23.

Comm/Comm: Service Changes

Ford noted that input is being sought this month on service changes for some routes, with board action requested in June.

In his report out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Roger Kerson described the proposed service changes. For routes that are more congested, the intent is to make adjustments to make them faster. There’s a bus stop in the Briarwood Mall area that has to be changed. For Route 12B, the service is supposed to be spread out. The AATA is also looking at adjustments to NightRide, because it’s stretching capacity.

Comm/Comm: Finances

Kerson characterized the AATA’s finances as in good shape. Ridership is up and continues to increase, though not as much as in the previous year, which had been record-setting. Cash fares are over budget, he said. Costs for marketing and public relations are lower – because the costs associated with the urban core conversations are lower than what had been budgeted for a countywide initiative. Kerson ventured that the projected deficit may be whittled away.

Comm/Comm: Title VI

Jim Mogensen addressed the board at the second public commentary time of the meeting, speaking on the topic of Title VI.

Jim Mogensen addressed the AATA board on the topic of Title VI compliance.

He reminded board members that he’d talked to them over a long period of time about his concerns regarding Title VI. [At the March 21, 2013 board meeting, CEO Michael Ford had acknowledged that the AATA had been given a due date of Nov. 1, 2014 to submit documentation to the Federal Transit Administration to demonstrate compliance with Title VI – that there is no discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, low-income persons, or persons with limited English proficiency.]

Title VI needs to be a consideration as the AATA thinks about how to incorporate Ypsilanti into the AATA system. His position is that the fixed route system is the AATA’s system – not a system belonging to the various municipalities.

So the AATA needs to think that through. He held up a CD which he said was all the AATA route information in a computerized GIS format, and he noted that he had census data. He just wanted to let the board know that he’s really serious about the need for Title VI compliance.

Present: Charles Griffith, Eli Cooper, Sue Gott, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale.

Absent: Eric Mahler.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, June 20, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

The entrance to Recreation Park in Ypsilanti, where Rutherford Pool is located. (Photos by the writer.)

Commissioners also took steps that could lead to spending over $1.713 million on natural areas preservation. They voted to move forward with the acquisition of three deals for the county’s natural areas preservation program: 17 acres in Scio Township ($55,000); about 245 acres in Northfield Township (about $1.4 million); and 65 acres in Freedom Township ($420,000). The latter two purchases were approved contingent on completing due diligence assessments, followed by final approval from the commission.

In addition, WCPARC approved an initial step in replacing the HVAC system at the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center on Washtenaw Avenue, and heard reports on upgrades at several other facilities. Those include the nearly-completed major improvements and expansion of water parks at Rolling Hills and Independence Lake parks. Both are set to open Memorial Day weekend, kicking off WCPARC’s summer season.

In other news related to Ypsilanti projects, WCPARC director Bob Tetens reported that the Ypsilanti city council had recently passed a resolution reaffirming support for the east county recreation center project, proposed in the Water Street site near the Huron River. Tetens also presented a report on WCPARC’s marketing and communications program, which staff have expanded into new venues – including AATA buses. The effort is partly in preparation for a millage renewal coming in 2014.

Commissioners also discussed the desire to add another off-leash dog park in addition to Swift Run, which the county runs in partnership with the city of Ann Arbor. Interest is especially keen in light of Ann Arbor’s difficulty in finding a new dog park location. Some commissioners want to include a water element where dogs could play. Jan Anschuetz put it this way: “We’ve done so much to provide water recreation for people – now let’s do it for the dogs.”

Natural Areas Preservation Program

The May 14 agenda included three proposals related to the county’s natural areas preservation program (NAPP). Tom Freeman – former deputy director of WCPARC who now serves as a consultant for NAPP projects – presented all three proposals.

The commission’s meeting packet included a Nov. 13, 2012 memo from the Natural Areas Technical Advisory Committee (NATAC), which makes recommendations on the purchase of natural areas. The memo recommended property acquisitions for the current round (round 12). [.pdf of Nov. 13 NATAC memo] The memo ranked properties in five priority levels: highest (proceed to acquire as appropriate); second (of high interest if a partnership is possible); third (high interest, consider acquiring a portion); fourth (of high interest but requires additional research); and lowest (withdraw from further consideration).

The proposals on the May 14 agenda related to properties that had received NATAC’s highest or second-priority rankings.

NAPP is funded with a countywide millage of 0.2409 mill, which generates about $3 million a year and is in effect through 2021. NAPP has preserved about 2,500 acres of land – natural areas and farmland – since its inception in 2000.

NAPP: Sloan Property

The 17-acre Sloan property is located in Scio Township on the west side of Baker Road, south of the village of Dexter. It deserves protection, Freeman said, for its most significant natural feature: Mill Creek and its extensive floodplain, which both the township and WCPARC want to protect.

Map of the Sloan property in Scio Township, which was included in the WCPARC meeting packet.

The township and WCPARC collaborated in 2012 to purchase an adjacent 35 acres from the Sloans for $280,000, or roughly $8,000 per acre. A state Dept, of Natural Resources Trust Fund grant provided 75% of that cost, and WCPARC and Scio Township split the rest. Freeman explained that during the process of that first purchase, contamination on part of the site was discovered. He said the owner would use part of the proceeds from the current sale to clean up the contamination, which was related to the former use of the site for a nursery.

The Sloan property was categorized by NATAC as a second priority. The recommendation was that WCPARC provide $55,000 – or half the purchase price – and collaborate with Scio Township, which would pay the other half. Scio Township would acquire title to the property and assume management and stewardship responsibilities. Freeman reported that an appraisal found the property worth $110,000, or about $6,322 per acre. In addition, WCPARC staff obtained a phase 1 environmental assessment that found no recognized environmental condition. Also provided to commissioners were a boundary survey, legal description and certified survey drawing.

Outcome: Unanimous approval of the recommendation that WCPARC authorize committing $55,000 toward the purchase of the Sloan property, which will be matched with an equal amount from Scio Township. A written agreement with Scio Township will spell out the township’s responsibility to pay all development expenses.

NAPP: Primeau Property

The Primeau property – 66 acres in Freedom Township – was also recommended for acquisition. The property consists of two adjacent parcels, each 33 acres, on the east side of Ellsworth Road, north of Haab Road and south of Parker Road in the northeast section of Freedom Township. NATAC rated this property in the highest priority.

A tributary of Mill Creek dissects the property, which has a diversity of land types and steep slopes, with high quality woodlands on the upper areas that are 950 feet high, according to a staff report. The lower areas contain wetlands.

Freeman explained that NATAC was using, for the first time, a bioreserve map that the Huron River Watershed Council had developed. This map uses various criteria – including size; the presence of wetlands, rivers or lakes; potential to contain groundwater recharge areas; and the potential to harbor a high diversity of ecosystems. The map shows that almost 100% of the Primeau property is categorized as high quality. In addition, Freeman said, the woodland on the property is very high quality, with a clear understory unhindered by invasive species and trees of various ages. Commissioner Janis Bobrin expressed appreciation for use of the bioreserve map.

Williams and Associates appraised the property at $420,000, or about $6,383 per acre.

NAPP: Primeau Property – Commission Discussion

During WCPARC’s discussion, Freeman expressed confidence in the accuracy of the appraisal, considering the property is in Freedom Township.

Tom Freeman at the WCPARC May 14, 2013 meeting.

WCPARC director Bob Tetens explained that because of the new flexibility in use of NAPP funds, staff have been developing a plan for stewardship and maintenance, and looking for opportunities to have other entities take on long-term costs such as developing and maintaining parking lots. [A change in the NAPP ordinance, approved by the county board on Sept. 19, 2012, allows WCPARC discretion in dividing the use of its millage funds between purchase and maintenance/stewardship. For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "County Parks & Rec System Plans for Future."]

WCPARC president Robert Marans, in response to a question, described the criteria that Huron Clinton Metroparks use to purchase additional land: they only buy land consistent with their master plan for each park. That is different from NAPP’s statutory purpose, which is to preserve natural areas, not to create parks. To further clarify the difference between use of park money and use of NAPP money, Tetens used the example of the still-pending proposal to use park funds to purchase part of the Trolz property on the west side of the county to create a horse trail. [For background on that proposal, see Chronicle coverage of WCPARC's Nov. 12, 2012 meeting.]

Outcome: Unanimous approval of the recommendation to authorize preparation of a purchase agreement for the Primeau property for $420,000, contingent upon completion of all necessary due diligence examination of the property, and the commission’s final approval.

NAPP: Ramsey, Lippert, and Carr Properties

Three properties in Northfield Township – the Ramsey, Lippert and Carr parcels, totaling 256 acres – are being treated as one, Freeman explained, because the owners are using one realtor and the properties are adjacent. The land is located just east of Whitmore Lake on the border with Livingston County, along a section of Seven Mile Road that runs at an angle rather than the road’s primary east-west orientation.

Map showing potential land acquisition in Northfield Township for the county’s natural areas preservation program.

The exact acreage that WCPARC might purchase is not yet clear, because two of the three owners want to retain part of their land. The Lipperts own 111 acres and want to keep about 11, selling 100. The Carrs want to keep “a little,” Freeman said, perhaps one acre on Seven Mile of the 80 they own. The Ramseys are willing to sell their entire 69 acres.

Freeman described why the property is worth preserving. One reason is the large adjacent acreage, which is valuable in itself to keep habitat intact. Another factor is the ability to access all three properties from a single parking lot. In addition, the quality of the land – as measured by the Huron River Watershed Council’s bioreserve map – is high. Freeman said this will provide a worthwhile educational opportunity for Whitmore Lake schools, and be a resource for the whole northeast section of the county. He also noted a drawback he discovered while exploring a boggy area on foot – there’s a lot of poison sumac, which “gave me the worst case I’ve ever had.”

Bosserd Appraisal Services provided a value of $5,804 per acre. For the 248 acres that Freeman described, the purchase price would total $1,439,392.

NAPP: Ramsey, Lippert, and Carr Properties – Commission Discussion

Commission discussion focused on the dangers of poison sumac, which Freeman promised to address in three ways: placing trails where the sumac is not present; using boardwalks; and putting up warning signs with photos.

Discussion also brought out details about what portion of the property two of the owners want to retain. Carr wants to keep an acre on Seven Mile Road. Commissioner Dan Smith pointed out that this portion of the land will soon be improved – it has a sewer running along it now and is zoned for quarter-acre lots. Freeman described conversations he has had with township planners, and he is aware of the potential for more traffic on Seven Mile.

Finally, questions about NAPP’s fund balance brought out that there is plenty to cover the proposed $1.4 million purchase. The fund balance is about $10.2 million, Tetens said.

Outcome: Unanimous approval of the recommendation to authorize staff to prepare purchase offers for all three properties in Northfield Township at a price of $5,804 per acre, contingent on completion of necessary due diligence and the commission’s final approval.

Ypsilanti Projects

The commission discussed two projects at their May 14 meeting related to the city of Ypsilanti: (1) a proposal to grant the city $150,000 for Rutherford Pool, and (2) the proposed east county recreation center.

Ypsilanti Projects: Rutherford Pool

The topic of Rutherford Pool came up in WCPARC’s last two meetings when commissioners asked about the status of the project to replace the pool. Most recently, it was discussed at the commission’s meeting on April 9, 2013. The community pool, which is more than 40 years old, is located on the eastern end of Recreation Park at 975 North Congress Street.

On May 14, WCPARC director Bob Tetens recommended that WCPARC rescind its earlier decision to grant $50,000 and loan $75,000 to the project. Instead, his recommendation was now to provide a grant of $150,000 for the pool replacement. [.pdf of staff memo on Rutherford Pool]

County parks & rec commissioner Fred Veigel, who also serves on the county road commission, lives in Ypsilanti.

By way of background, the Friends of Rutherford Pool (FoRP) entered into an agreement with the city of Ypsilanti in 2003 to take over responsibility for the pool’s daily operation, maintenance and improvement, because the city no longer had the financial resources for that. Tetens told commissioners that by 2010, everyone realized the pool needed major work. Natatorium staff from Eastern Michigan University and pool staff from Ann Arbor parks & recreation had assisted in assessing the pool and concluded that it had to be replaced.

The FoRP began to raise money and to work on a design for a new pool. They secured grants from multiple foundations, corporations, community leaders, and citizens. [As of May 17, the FoRP website stated they are within $51,000 of their goal.] In August 2011, WCPARC agreed unanimously to provide $50,000 as a grant and $75,000 as a bridge loan. The city of Ypsilanti and FoRP also obtained a $300,000 Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources trust fund grant.

Now, Tetens said, the cost of a replacement pool is more than originally anticipated – more than $900,000. He indicated that based on an outpouring of support from the community, this project is important. The pool is consistent with and complementary to broader efforts by the county parks & recreation commission to enhance recreational opportunities and the quality of life in the community. In addition, the debt repayment on the $75,000 bridge loan could provide a hardship for meeting the pool’s operating expenses.

Tetens said that because FoRP has succeeded in obtaining an MDNRTF grant, commissioners should consider making a contribution consistent with their past practice of providing an amount half or more of that state grant, or $150,000.

Commissioner Fred Veigel moved to rescind the original grant and loan totaling $125,000, and to agree to contribute $150,000 to the city of Ypsilanti to help complete the Rutherford Pool project. Commissioner Janis Bobrin seconded the motion.

Ypsilanti Projects: Rutherford Pool – Commission Discussion

Discussion first focused on whether the FoRP had a business plan that would adequately operate, maintain and fund future needs of the pool. What is the plan and who is responsible for carrying it out? Commissioners asked whether they could attach a condition to the WCPARC grant. The condition would be that there must be a business plan that meets approval of WCPARC staff.

Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Janis Bobrin and Bob Marans all spoke in favor of having such a plan. Commissioner Rolland Sizemore, Jr. promised to sit down and “make sure we have everything we need.” Near the end of the discussion, all agreed that what they wanted was an agreement that ensures the new pool will not need replacement “until after we are all dead,” as Bobrin put it. This brought the discussion to a close, with agreement that the motion needed no amendment.

Outcome: Unanimous agreement to rescind the earlier grant of $50,000 and $75,000 loan, and to approve a grant of $150,000.

Ypsilanti Projects: East County Recreation Center

Tetens provided a brief update on this project to build a recreation center, similar to the Meri Lou Murray Rec Center in Ann Arbor, on the northwest corner of the 38-acre Water Street redevelopment area on Michigan Avenue. [For background, see Chronicle coverage: "Public Gives Input On East County Rec Center"]

The Ypsilanti city council recently approved sale of property on the northeast corner of the site for a Family Dollar store. Tetens reported that the city council passed a resolution on May 7 supporting the rec center project, with only one negative vote – from Lois Richardson. The next step, he said, would be to build a new pedestrian bridge, then in 2014 construct a section of the Border-to-Border (B2B) trail on the east side of the property along the Huron River. Finally, in 2015, the recreation center would be constructed. Tetens reported that the city of Ypsilanti’s revised grant application to the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources – to extend the B2B into the Water Street redevelopment area – is under review.

Tetens said he expected to have the market study, being carried out by the Ann Arbor YMCA, for the June WCPARC meeting. [The Ann Arbor YMCA is partnering with WCPARC on this project.] Bob Marans said he had told Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber that the rec center would be to Ypsilanti what Frank Gehry’s museum was to Bilbao, Spain, and that the community planning meetings had shown strong support for the project. Commissioner Jan Anschuetz said “people were furious” over recent newspaper articles that said officials involved with Ypsilanti’s master plan revision were reconsidering the size, location, and feasibility of the rec center. She noted that having council reaffirm its support was critical.

Projects and Activities

Each month, WCPARC staff provide updates to commission members about ongoing improvements to WCPARC’s facilities, and activities at parks and natural areas. The reports include development projects, special initiatives, interpretive programs, and other happenings. Collectively, they provide an overview of the extent of WCPARC’s activities.

Projects & Activities: Meri Lou Murray Rec Center HVAC

Deputy director Coy Vaughn provided a description of the problem – that the HVAC system at the MLM rec center on Washtenaw Avenue is 23 years old and wearing out, requires too much staff attention, and uses too much energy. The proposed solution is a three-step replacement of the existing system. [.pdf of staff memo regarding rec center HVAC system]

The total cost to heat and cool the building in 2012, Vaughn said, was $76,525. A new control system would save about $23,000 a year and cost $108,000, returning the investment in 4.7 years.

The first step is to replace the pneumatic control system with a digital system, which Vaughn proposed to do after moving forward with a request for proposals (RFP). This step is needed partly because it’s “getting hard to find people who can fix pneumatic systems,” he said.

The second step would be to reset and calibrate the dampers and valves in the system, also known as balancing the system, he said, and would cost about $13,000. The third step – replacing the air-cooled chiller for $94,000 – would reduce operating costs from 2012’s $26,557 by an estimated $3,186 annually. Vaughn proposed to do the last step after issuing an RFP in the fall. The total cost, he said, was well within the budgeted $200,000.

There was no substantive discussion on this item.

Outcome: Unanimous approval of the recommendation to move forward with an RFP to install and calibrate a new digital controls system at the MLM rec center, and to authorize a second RFP to be issued this fall for the installation of a new chiller.

Projects & Activities: Marketing and Communications Report

In previous meetings, WCPARC director Bob Tetens had promised a staff report on renewed marketing and communications plans, partly to promote WCPARC’s offerings, and partly in preparation for a millage renewal coming in 2014. Meghan Bonfiglio, planner for WCPARC, prepared the report but was unable to attend the May 14 meeting, so Tetens presented the report.

He began by reminding commissioners that there are over 1 million visits annually to WCPARC facilities. Marketing covers a wide range of media: internet ads, paid ads in print media, social media; printed material such as brochures and maps; sponsorship of activities, programs and events; news stories; and videos. Starting this summer, WCPARC will have an ad on a large AATA bus for one month, costing $800. The bus goes on varied routes and so it will be seen around the AATA’s service area.

WCPARC uses social media: Facebook, Yelp, LivingSocial, and Groupon. WCPARC also provides promotional items, such as towels, magnets, bags, and bottles to celebrate events, including the opening of new trails, preserves, or park amenities.

Sponsorships are another means of marketing. Those include the kids’ zone at Chelsea’s Sights & Sounds festival, the Ypsilanti Pops Festival and Heritage Festival, Huron River Day, and events such as summer concerts, mountain bike and Fat Tire bike races, winter hikes, log cabin day at Parker Mill Park, geocaching, and the Walk & Wag event on behalf of the Humane Society of Huron Valley.

Videos include the history of WCPARC, which is available on the WCPARC website and YouTube. Staff have started to work on new, shorter videos, one for each park.

Tetens concluded by saying that the message – which is now “Here’s what you can do at our parks and preserves” – will be modified as the millage renewal gets closer.

Outcome: After brief positive comments, WCPARC accepted the report for filing.

Images of blue herons on a fence at the new Independence Lake Park spray-and-play zone, called Blue Heron Bay.

Projects & Activities: Independence Lake

Independence Lake Park has undergone substantial improvements in its water park, which is now a separate section called Blue Heron Bay. Most of the work is done, Tetens reported, as Vaughn showed slides of the new buildings, two new 12-foot-high water slides and other water features, improved picnic area, and parking. Signage will soon go up, and all is on track for a grand opening on Memorial Day weekend.

Projects & Activities: Rolling Hills

Rolling Hills park and water park have also been improved and enlarged. The new buildings – including a new ticket booth and bathhouse – as well as mechanical systems are complete, and the three new 32-foot-high water slides are being installed. The overall effect, Tetens said, is to “make the water park more open and inviting, since the new entrance brings you in facing the wave pool.” There is a new parking lot and new landscaping, which includes three acres of sod served by sprinklers. Rolling Hills will also open Memorial Day weekend.

[For additional background, see Chronicle coverage of WCPARC's July 24, 2012 meeting, when the projects at Rolling Hills and Independence Lake parks were discussed in detail.]

Projects & Activities: Sharon Mills Park

Vaughn reported that a new pedestrian bridge at Sharon Mills Park is set on the abutments, and final restoration work on disturbed soil is in progress. The park’s former bridge was built as part of the dam, he explained, and when it deteriorated staff determined it would be more cost effective over the long run to replace the bridge rather than restoring it.

Projects & Activities: Other Updates

Commissioners were provided with brief updates on a range of other items:

• Border-to-Border trail: Staff continue to work with the village of Dexter and Michigan Dept. of Transportation on the final 1/8-mile extension of segment D1, the River Terrace Trail, to connect the trail to the village at Central Street.
• Trinkle Marsh Preserve: The landscape restoration for the parking lot, and observation decks, are nearly done.
• Spike Preserve: A third section of boardwalk through a portion of wetlands was completed by Cross Lake Construction.
• Draper-Houston Meadows Preserve: The restoration of the boardwalk and bridge railing is in progress.

Financial Reports

Each month, WCPARC receives a report on claims to be paid that month, and on expenditures, income and fund balances for parks and recreation, and for the natural areas preservation program (NAPP).

Financial Reports: Claims in May 2013

Total claims for May were $408,280. Most of that was for parks and recreation, with expenditures of $387,741. By far the greatest expense was $270,058 in capital improvements, most of those at Rolling Hills and Independence Lake parks. NAPP expenditures totaled $20,539. Expenses for NAPP were related to due diligence activities pursuant to purchase of new land. [.pdf of May claims report]

Outcome: Unanimous approval for paying these claims.

Financial Reports: Fund Balance Statements

According to the fund balance statement as of April 30, 2013, parks and recreation income for the year to date was $6,458,836. Most income – $5,808,410 – is property tax revenue, with another $617,278 coming from fees and services. Expenses were $3,376,544.

WCPARC also budgets for an operating reserve of $6.7 million and funding commitments for partnerships of $925,000, which are recorded as expenses on the balance sheet. The beginning fund balance, on Jan. 1, 2013, was $12,950,815. The fund balance as of April 30, 2013 is $8,408,106. [.pdf of parks & rec fund balance statement]

The natural areas preservation program, which began the year with a fund balance of $10,263,644, has received $2,986,307 in revenue and spent $733,990, for a new fund balance of $12,515,960 as of April 30. [.pdf of NAPP fund balance statement]

Outcome: Unanimous approval to receive and file the financial reports.

Recreation Reports

WCPARC staff regularly report on the number of participants and amount of revenue at its operations that count participants and revenue. During the winter, the only facility that reports this information is the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center. In the spring and fall, the report includes Pierce Lake golf course. During the summer, Independence Lake and Rolling Hills parks are included.

Recreation Reports: Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center

Activity at the rec center has remained “flat,” according to WCPARC director Bob Tetens. Total participation as of the end of April was 125,106 this year. That compares to 124,824 last year and 133,430 in 2011. Revenue, however, was up this year compared to the last two years: $505,474 in 2013, $464,897 in 2012, and $500,927 in 2011.

The report also counts county residents and non-residents. Among membership users, non-residents remained a small percentage: 1.94% this year, compared to 0.85% last year and 0.47% in 2011. Non-residents were a much higher percentage of daily pass users, however: 7.15% this year, up from 5.34% last year and 4.88% in 2011. [.pdf of MLM rec center report]

Recreation Reports: Pierce Lake Golf Course

Weather, of course, has a huge effect on golf participation, Tetens reminded everyone. That 2012 had better spring golfing weather than the year before or after is obvious from the number of greens users, he noted: 2,534 this year, 3,268 in 2012, and 1,391 in 2011. Total revenue showed the same impact: $59,396 so far this year, compared to $86,166 last year and $33,657 in 2011. [.pdf of Pierce Lake golf course report]

Outcome: Unanimous approval to receive and file the reports.

Communications & Commentary

During each meeting, commissioners have the opportunity to raise issues or concerns. Here are highlights from the May 14 meeting.

Communications & Commentary: Dog Parks

Jan Anschuetz began by praising the dog park at Swift Run as wonderful, appreciated, and heavily used. But, she noted, it has flaws – there is no place for shelter from the wind, sun, or rain, for example. She expressed a hope for a gazebo.

Anschuetz acknowledged that pounding posts into the ground was not possible [because Swift Run was formerly a landfill and produces noxious gases]. WCPARC director Bob Tetens acknowledged the dog park’s shortcomings, but emphasized the danger of gas. Staff had, he said, been thinking about other places to establish dog parks, especially after the recent difficulty that the Ann Arbor parks staff has had in finding an acceptable spot for one in the city. [A proposal to place a new city dog park in Ann Arbor's West Park has met resistance from local residents. For background, see Chronicle coverage: "Parks Agenda: Downtown, Dogs, Dams, DTE." The Swift Run dog park, located at Ellsworth and Platt, is a joint project of WCPARC and the city of Ann Arbor.]

After other commissioners expressed a desire for another dog park, especially one with water, Tetens said that staff are looking at Rolling Hills, or perhaps off Medford at the County Farm Park – in Ann Arbor, near the recreation center.

Anschuetz closed the discussion with this: “We’ve done so much to provide water recreation for people – now let’s do it for the dogs.”

Communications & Commentary: MLM Rec Center

Board president Bob Marans said he had noticed the importance of the Meri Lou Murray recreation center as a social or gathering place for senior citizens. It is more than a place to exercise and has great importance to many people for that reason, he said, adding that this is another “tribute to the building.” [Marans is an architect who taught at the University of Michigan’s Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning.]

He suggested collecting comments and oral histories to use in publicizing the value of the facility in marketing, and as a tribute to Meri Lou Murray’s leadership. Murray, who was instrumental in founding the WCPARC, died last year.

Present: Pat Anschuetz, Janis Bobrin, Robert Marans, Nelson Meade, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Fred Veigel.

Absent: Evan Pratt, Patricia Scribner.

Staff Present: Director Bob Tetens, deputy director Coy Vaughn, and consultant Tom Freeman.

Next meeting: Tuesday, June 11, 2013, at 7 p.m. in the county parks and recreation department’s office at 2230 Platt Road in Ann Arbor, in the County Farms property.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission. 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!