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

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

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

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

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

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

Rezoning for 1320 S. University

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rezoning for 1320 S. University: Public Hearing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rezoning for 1320 S. University: Commission Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absent: Erica Briggs.

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

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

Details of the service include a one-way fare of $12 for advance reservation (and limited refundability) or $15 with re-fundability up to time of departure. Round trip fare would be $22 for advance reservation (and limited refundability) or $30 with refundability up to time of departure. The resolution also provides for an introductory promotional offer of $10 one-way and $20 round trip. Volume discounts also may be available for groups of up to eight people traveling together. [.pdf of resolution establishing fare structure]

AATA CEO Michael Ford has previously described the intent of the service to provide 12 daily trips each way, with a very limited number of stops, in order to achieve a trip time of around 40-45 minutes.

The board previously authorized the negotiation of the contract with Indian Trails. A resolution separate from the one setting fares establishes a two-year contract with Indian Trails at a cost of $2.56 per service mile, with the total cost for the contract not more than $700,000 per year.

Including stops, the AATA has previously described an airport route as long as 70 miles round trip. [On I-94, it's roughly 51 roundtrtip miles from downtown Ann Arbor to the entrance of Detroit Metro.] At the lower end of the regular fare offered on a 70-mile round trip, the service would need to average around eight passengers per bus to cover the cost of the Indian Trails contract on fares alone. [(70*2.56)/22 = 8.14]  [.pdf of board information packet]

The Feb. 16 AATA board meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. in the fourth-floor boardroom of the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funding a Rail Station

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wall Street Controversy Led to Fuller Road Location

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After the City-University MOU

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timing of the Decision to Halt Fuller Road Project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuller Road Station Timeline Overview

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

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

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

For actual coverage of the announcement that the Fuller Road Station project has been suspended, see: “UM, Ann Arbor Halt Fuller Road Project.”

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

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

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

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

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

Four-Party Transit Agreement

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

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

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

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

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

Four-Party Transit Agreement: Public Commentary

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

AATA FY 2102 revenue pie chart.

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

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

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

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

Four-Party Transit Agreement: Council Deliberations

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

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

Four-Party Transit Agreement: Council Deliberations – 1%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Four-Party Transit Agreement: Council Deliberations – Termination

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: The amendment clarifying withdrawal options was approved unanimously.

Four-Party Transit Agreement: Council Deliberations – Postponement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wastewater Treatment Contract

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

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

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

Wastewater Treatment Contract: Public Comment

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

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

Schlansker is a former aerospace engineer for Allied Bendix.

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

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

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

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

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

Wastewater Treatment Contract: Council Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arlington Square PUD

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arlington Square PUD: Public Hearing

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

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

Arlington Square PUD: Council Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liquor Hearing Officer & Transcript Fees

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

Ward 2 councilmembers Tony Derezinski and Jane Lumm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re-Funding Bonds

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

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

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

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Leasing Ordinance

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: DDA TIF Report

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Recognition of Volunteers

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

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

Comm/Comm: Energy Website

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

Comm/Comm: Year of the Co-op

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Student Visitors

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Fifth Avenue Underground Parking Garage

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

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

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Warming Center, Affordable Housing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John U. Bacon

It’s been five days since the Super Bowl, just enough time to give us a little perspective on the whole thing. Was it a football game? A concert? A competition for the Clio Award? Or some bizarrely American combination of all three?

Let’s start with the least important: The football game. You might have caught bits of it, squeezed between the ads and the show. How could you tell when the game was on? Those were the people who ran really fast, and wore clothes.

For the Super Bowl’s first 30 years, most of the games were boring blowouts. I suspect even the players can’t recall the scores of those snoozers.

But the ads and the halftime shows were hard to forget, and often featured a member of the Jackson family having his hair ignited or her wardrobe mysteriously malfunction.

But lately, it’s been the other way around. Ten of the past 16 games have been barn burners – and the rest of the stuff is putting us to sleep.

This year’s Super Sunday delivered another exciting game, showcasing two big-time quarterbacks battling to the last second. The game even featured a first: one team scored a touchdown against its will. The New York Giants had the ball on New England’s 6-yard line, but they wanted to kill more time off the clock before they scored, so New England wouldn’t have any time left to mount a comeback.

But the Patriots didn’t want the Giants to do that, so they got out of the way like matadors avoiding a raging bull, and let Ahmad Bradshaw run into the endzone untouched. But he didn’t want to score, so he stopped on the one yard line, turned around, all but begging the Patriots to tackle him, and fell backwards into the endzone like Jacques Cousteau flipping into the ocean.

It was almost as strange as the halftime show, when Madonna put forth even less effort.

As a commentator, one of my favorite subjects to address is anything but Madonna. I’ve always considered her a mediocre singer and songwriter, whose main talent is somehow becoming rich and famous with less actual talent than the karaoke singers at your local bowling alley.

So it’s given me great pleasure to ignore her. But this time, I just can’t.

I used to think the worst Super Bowl halftime show had to be the one in 1989, when an Elvis impersonator and magician named Elvis Presto – get it? – managed to both befuddle and bore the crowd at the same time. Which, it now occurs to me, is actually a pretty difficult trick.

But no, Elvis Presto’s musical magic show was positively scintillating compared to Madonna’s performance. I discovered something worse than Madonna singing, and that’s Madonna lip syncing her way through her worn out repertoire and dull dancing. Let us never speak of it again.

The most authentic element of this year’s Super Sunday extravaganza – when the team with the ball did not want to score and the team that didn’t have the ball did not want to stop them, and the women paid millions to sing didn’t sing at all – was an advertisement, of all things, that they’d filmed weeks earlier.

Once again, Chrysler came through with the best two minutes of the entire event, this time thanks to Clint Eastwood.

When Eastwood said, “People are out of work and they’re hurting, and they’re all wondering what they’re gonna do to make a comeback. People of Detroit…almost lost everything,” he delivered the most honest line of the day – then followed that up with an equally convincing declaration: “We find a way through tough times. And if we can’t find a way, then we’ll make one…. This country can’t be knocked out with one punch. We get right back up again and, when we do, the world is gonna hear the roar of our engines.”

When he finished, I was so riveted I was ready to do some actual riveting.

So, a year from now, if you want to see a heartfelt performance, you’ll have to skip the game and the halftime show, and wait for the Chrysler ad.

For the second year in a row, no one did it better.

About the author: John U. Bacon is the author of “Three and Out: Rich Rodriguez and the Michigan Wolverines in the Crucible of College Football.” 

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our publication of columnists like John U. Bacon. 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!