HUD’s Community Challenge Planning Grant grant was awarded to support the Washtenaw County Sustainable Community project, which focuses on the Washtenaw Avenue corridor spanning Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Pittsfield Township and Ypsilanti Township. County administrator Verna McDaniel had announced news of the grant award at a Nov. 17, 2011 working session of the county board.

According to the grant application, the project focuses on “removing barriers to create a coordinated approach to expanding existing affordable and energy efficient housing options and connecting them to job centers and healthy food through an enhanced multi-modal transportation corridor.” It’s part of the Reimagining Washtenaw project, which has been underway for several years. The joint county/city of Ann Arbor office of community & economic development, led by Mary Jo Callan, is taking the lead on the project.

In addition to the county and four other jurisdictions, partners in the project include the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, Arts Alliance, Community Housing Alternatives, Eastern Michigan University, Food System Economic Partnership, Growing Hope, Habitat for Humanity, SEMCOG, Ann Arbor SPARK, University of Michigan Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute, Washtenaw Area Transportation Study, Washtenaw County Public Health, and the Ypsilanti Housing Commission.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the Washtenaw County administration building at 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Jennifer L. Hall, the new Ann Arbor housing commission executive director, talks with commission board member Andy LaBarre before the board's Dec. 21, 2011 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Most of the Dec. 21 meeting focused on a presentation by Hall. She gave an overview of local affordable housing demand, and looked at how the housing commission’s operations might address some of those needs. In part, her talk set the stage for possible land acquisition. Later in the meeting, the commission entered into closed session to discuss two potential properties it might buy to add to the city’s public housing stock.

On one of the properties Hall suggested constructing a rental project consisting of 22-37 detached single-family units and duplexes, ranging between 1-5 bedrooms. For the other property, she proposed building a 15-unit complex of detached 2-4 bedroom condos and duplexes, which would eventually be sold to low-income homeowners for $140,000 each. Funding for these projects would come from a variety of sources, including state and federal grants and loans.

The locations of the properties weren’t disclosed in open session. But Hall said she was looking for direction from the board on pursuing the two projects. If the projects move forward, more details would be discussed in the public portion of upcoming meetings.

Hall also floated the idea of changing the format of board meetings and of the information that commissioners receive in their meeting packets. She proposed cutting back on staff reports, presenting them quarterly instead of monthly. That way, more of the board’s meeting time would be freed to focus on strategic planning issues, she said.

Hall also suggested changing the way that meeting minutes are written up. Instead of including a detailed description of the board’s discussions, she said, the minutes could provide a summary of the discussion and a note about the outcome, if a vote is taken. Some commissioners expressed concerns about truncating the minutes dramatically. Board president Marta Manildi said the AAHC board would like a richer level of detail than what’s provided in Ann Arbor city council minutes, which she described as too terse.

During the time available for public commentary, two residents of Miller Manor – an AAHC apartment complex on Miller Avenue – raised concerns about security issues in the building. Manildi told them that their comments would be forwarded to a working group of staff that’s addressing security problems at all AAHC properties.

Affordable Housing in Metro Ann Arbor

Jennifer L. Hall began by telling commissioners that the topic of expanding the housing stock isn’t one she’d ideally choose for her first presentation as AAHC executive director. She noted that staff is doing a lot of work regarding maintenance, security and other operational issues.

But Hall told the board that two opportunities exist for possible land acquisition that could help add to Ann Arbor’s affordable housing stock. And she said it’s important to strike when those real estate opportunities arise. Her presentation was intended to set the stage for a strategic discussion, leading up to a closed session in which she’d provide more details about the two properties in play, including their location. The board could then give direction on the start of due diligence toward a potential acquisition. Depending on that direction, commissioners could eventually vote in open session at a later meeting on the real estate acquisition.

Affordable Housing: Context of Needs and Funding

It’s important to see how AAHC fits into the broader context of affordable housing in Washtenaw County, Hall said.

In 2007, the county did a comprehensive affordable housing needs assessment, looking at the gaps between the type of affordable housing that’s needed, and the type of housing that’s available. [The entire report is available to download from the Washtenaw County website.]

The assessment analyzed household characteristics, such as whether residents were disabled, had large families, or were low income. Different types of households have different needs – handicapped accessibility, for example, Hall said. Analysis of the county’s housing supply included the age and types of structures, as well as housing costs.

Other factors in the needs assessment touched on quality-of-life issues, such as proximity to employment sources, quality of schools, and access to services like groceries and medical offices. Hall also noted that the assessment looked at changes in affordability, measured in terms of housing values or rental costs, and the local levels of poverty and unemployment. Hall noted that the assessment was done in 2007, “before the economy went crazy,” so in some ways things have changed considerably since then.

Hall pointed out that Ann Arbor has benefited from its student population, in terms of federal funding, because students typically report poverty-level incomes. And because federal funding to communities from the U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) is based on formulas that are tied to poverty levels, Ann Arbor receives more funding than it otherwise would, Hall explained. HUD is looking to change that formula, she added, but the formula hasn’t been changed yet.

Affordable housing is defined relative to income levels – what is affordable to a higher income family is not necessarily affordable for a lower income family. For federal funding purposes, affordable housing means that a household is paying 30% or less of its gross income for housing, including utilities, taxes and insurance. Several HUD programs provide affordable housing assistance for low-income families – AAHC is one of the local entities that receives funding from these HUD programs.

HUD 2011 income chart for Ann Arbor metro area, which includes all of Washtenaw County. (Links to larger image)

Hall reported the median income for various household sizes in the Ann Arbor metro area, which includes all of Washtenaw County. For a family of four, the median income is $86,300.

All of the other income definitions used by HUD are based on a formula, she explained. A family of four is considered low income if the household earns no more than 80% of the area median income. But that 80% figure can’t exceed the national median income, she said. So for the Ann Arbor market, with generally higher income levels, low income is set at $64,200 – instead of the $69,040 that corresponds to 80% of median income.

Assuming no more than 30% of income is spent on housing, Hall described maximum monthly housing costs for different income levels. For a family of four earning the area’s median income, monthly housing costs should be $2,158 or less. For a low-income family of four earning $64,200, monthly housing costs should be $1,605 or less.

Ann Arbor’s owner-occupied housing market is getting more expensive compared to other areas nationally. According to data from the National Housing Conference, in 2011 metro Ann Arbor (Washtenaw County) ranked as the 87th most expensive housing market among the nation’s 209 metro areas, Hall reported. The median home price for the Ann Arbor metro area was $162,000. Just two years earlier, the median home price was $136,000, and metro Ann Arbor ranked 132 among the 209 metro areas, she said.

For the rental market, metro Ann Arbor also ranked 87th among the 209 markets in 2011, with an average monthly rent of $882 for a two-bedroom apartment. But that is a drop in the rankings from 2009, when the area ranked 51st with an average monthly rent of $940.

Commissioner Leigh Greden commented that if you looked at the Ann Arbor market alone – not including the rest of Washtenaw County, where house values and rents are generally lower – the cost of housing would be even higher than the amounts reflected in the metro area data.

Hall observed that as people search for affordable housing and move further away from where they’d prefer to live, they often increase the amount they pay for transportation to get to work or to necessary services, like grocery stores. That increased cost often isn’t factored in to their housing decisions, she noted, and the more distant location can end up being more expensive overall.

Turning to rental housing, Hall noted that in an ideal world, every household would live in a unit it could afford – there would be units available for all income levels. But “unfortunately, that’s not the way the market works,” she said. There’s a mismatch of availability and income, with some families paying more than 30% of their income for rent, and others paying far less than 30%.

Affordable Housing: Fair and Equitable

Introducing the issue of fair and equitable housing, Hall noted that compared to the rest of Washtenaw County, Ann Arbor is a community with more jobs, good schools, public transportation – all of the things you’d want for everyone. And the Ann Arbor city council has been more supportive of low-income rental housing than governing bodies of other communities, she said. But while there are pockets of poverty in Ann Arbor – on the southeast side, for example, or the Arrowwood Hill Cooperative in the north – much of the county’s poverty is concentrated in the Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township area, Hall said.

Marta Manildi, president of the Ann Arbor housing commission board.

HUD has traditionally provided more funding for low-income housing in low-income areas. But Hall noted that a fair and equitable approach would be to make affordable housing available throughout the community, not just in low-income areas. HUD seems to be moving in that direction, she added. For example, the $3 million “sustainable community” grant that was recently awarded by HUD explicitly requires that low-income housing not be built in low-income areas.

Commissioner Gloria Black noted that the Ann Arbor city council might be supportive of this integrated approach, but what about Ann Arbor residents? Hall replied that she has never seen a new construction project for affordable housing that was supported by 100% of the neighbors. “That doesn’t mean you can’t get it done,” she added. It means you need to meet with neighbors and explain the project, she said, get their input and hopefully address their concerns.

As an example, Hall cited the Near North project, a residential affordable housing complex planned for North Main Street and spearheaded by the nonprofit Avalon Housing. It was originally planned to be a four-story, 60-unit structure, but was redesigned to three stories and 39 units in order to address concerns from the neighbors, she said, even though the smaller scale made financing the project more difficult. [Specific objections of neighbors related to the scale and massing of the building.]

Marta Manildi observed that in general, getting the acceptance of neighbors might be related to the quality of the project.

Affordable Housing: AAHC’s Role

Hall spoke about the role of the Ann Arbor housing commission in a continuum of affordable housing throughout Washtenaw County. On one end are shelters for people who are homeless, including the Delonis Center, SafeHouse Center (for victims of domestic violence), Interfaith Hospitality Network’s Alpha House (for families), and SOS Community Services, which runs a housing access hotline. At the opposite end is market rate housing that is affordable. Within those extremes, Hall outlined a range of other housing assistance and types:

• Transitional housing (Dawn Farm, Michigan Ability Partners, Home of New Vision)
• Group homes (Synod House, Washtenaw Community Health Organization)
• Senior assisted-living (Area Agency on Aging 1-B, private sector)
• Nonprofit supporting housing (Avalon Housing, Michigan Ability Partners, Community Housing Alternatives)
• Senior housing (Lurie Terrace, Cranbrook)
• Public housing (Ann Arbor Housing Commission, Ypsilanti Housing Commission)
• Tenant vouchers (Ann Arbor Housing Commission, Ypsilanti Housing Commission, Michigan State Housing Development Authority)
• Private developments (Windsong)
• Cooperatives (Arrowwood, Pine Lake, Forest Hills, University Townhomes)
• Houses for homeownership (Habitat for Humanity and other nonprofits)
• Units within private developments (First & Washington, Stone School)

AAHC manages two main programs: (1) the Section 8 voucher program for Washtenaw, Monroe, and western Wayne counties; and (2) public housing units in Ann Arbor. For Section 8, over 1,400 vouchers are in use by tenants to subsidize rent in privately-owned properties. In addition, 37 vouchers are tied to specific projects: 20 for Avalon Housing’s Pear Street apartment complex; five reserved for a to-be-determined Avalon property; and 12 for assisted living in units managed by Area Agency on Aging 1-B. There’s also one homeowner voucher, Hall said, for an AAHC lease-to-own property.

The public housing units managed by AAHC are located throughout the city of Ann Arbor. AAHC units include Miller Manor, Baker Commons, North Maple Estates, Hikone and Hillside Manor, among several other properties. The inventory of 360 total units includes 30 single-bedroom units, 163 single-bedroom units for the elderly or disabled, 166 family units with 1-5 bedrooms, and one three-bedroom lease-to-own family unit.

Hall noted that the AAHC’s last development – two duplexes on North Maple – was completed in 1998. Most of the AAHC housing stock was built in the 1960s and 1970s, she said. It’s aging, and requires a lot of investment to maintain.

AAHC’s mission is to provide low-income housing, Hall noted. Very few sites in the city can be developed for that, so when opportunities arise, it’s important to look at possible acquisitions as an option to increase the number of affordable housing units in the city, she said.

Ann Arbor housing commissioner Leigh Greden.

Greden asked whether opportunities exist to work with the county treasurer on acquiring foreclosed properties. Hall told Greden that working with the county treasurer was an option, but she noted that most tax-foreclosed properties are located outside of Ann Arbor.

Regarding the possible acquisition of additional AAHC properties, Manildi asked whether the need for expansion is a function of the need for additional affordable housing units, or a function of the need to replace existing units that are in poor condition.

Hall replied to Manildi by saying that both reasons are driving the discussion. The previous AAHC executive director, Marge Novak, had started the process of evaluating all the public housing units to see if the units need rehabbing or should be torn down and rebuilt. In two cases, existing units are located in floodplains, Hall said, so rebuilding isn’t an option. Baker Commons, located at Packard and Main, is an example of a complex that needs reinvestment, she said.

But overall, “there’s a huge shortage of affordable housing,” Hall said.

Black observed that AAHC has only one lease-to-own property. It seems there’s a focus on rentals and a movement away from homeownership, she said. She wondered whether AAHC should try to convert apartments to condominiums that tenants could purchase, and move them off of public housing assistance.

Hall responded to Black by noting that AAHC originally had 50 lease-to-own properties, and all but one of those tenants had been able to purchase their homes. Manildi noted that it’s not clear whether it’s better for a tenant to rent or own. She allowed that stability is important – in terms of residents remaining in the same location and maintaining the property. But it’s not clear that there’s an economic advantage to ownership, Manildi said.

Hall agreed, pointing out that in addition to housing costs like mortgage payments and utilities, homeowners also incur costs like roof replacement and other maintenance. The foreclosure crisis was caused by people being overextended, buying houses that they couldn’t afford, she said.

But isn’t homeownership the American Dream? Black asked. People might take better care of their homes if they owned the property. Just because people are poor doesn’t mean they don’t have a vision for homeownership, she said. The goal should be to eliminate the need for public housing completely, Black added. The government doesn’t want to be in that business, and low-income residents don’t want it, either. Andy LaBarre weighed in, saying “I’m not quite sure we’re there yet.”

Hall returned to the issue of demand, noting that when AAHC last opened its Section 8 waitlist in 2006, more than 3,000 people applied. That comment prompted someone in the audience to ask when the Section 8 waitlist would be opened next. When it opens, he added, “there’s going to be a stampede.”

Section 8 waitlists are opened for new applicants every two to four years. Wenisha Brand, AAHC Section 8 housing manager, reported that she hoped to open the waitlist soon, but there is no firm date yet. When those decisions are made, the information would be posted on AAHC’s website, as well as in other public locations.

Affordable Housing: Potential Acquisitions – Homeownership

While still in open session, Hall provided some details about two possible AAHC projects – one for eventual transition to homeowners, and another for rental. She said the board could continue this discussion at its January meeting, and that local attorney Rochelle Lento has offered to provide pro bono assistance for the real estate transactions.

The first possible project would involve constructing a 15-unit complex of detached 2-4 bedroom condos and duplexes. It would be a “green” construction project, which would make it eligible for certain grants. The project could be pursued in partnership with the city’s parks department, which is interested in a portion of the property for the parks system, Hall said. Habitat for Humanity is another potential partner.

Development costs for this first project would total an estimated $3.74 million, or $249,000 per unit. That total includes acquisition costs ($160,000), construction ($2.1 million), site improvements ($400,000), developer/staff fee ($450,000), professional fees ($300,000), homeowner education workshops ($30,000) and soft costs, such as financing ($300,000).

Several financing sources are available, Hall said, but the main financing would be a construction loan estimated at $1.855 million. Other sources include a Federal Home Loan Bank grant ($225,000), the city of Ann Arbor’s housing trust fund ($50,000), brownfield tax-increment financing ($560,000), green construction and private grants ($300,000), a portion of the $3 million HUD Community Challenge grant ($340,000), education grants and fees ($10,000), and HUD funding through the Community Development Block Grant and HOME programs ($400,000).

Down payment assistance would be available to qualifying low-income families, Hall noted. The units would be sold at an estimated $140,000 each – affordable for residents in the 50%-80% of the area’s median income. Deducting $125,333 in anticipated grant subsidies from the $249,000 development costs would result in a $123,667 loan repayment per unit, Hall explained. If the homes are sold at $140,000, that leaves a $17,000 profit margin for AAHC per unit.

Affordable Housing: Potential Acquisitions – Rental

Turning to the rental project, Hall told commissioners it would involve between 22-37 detached single-family units and duplexes, ranging between 1-5 bedrooms. As with the other project, the property acquisition might occur in partnership with the city’s parks system, and would aim to be a green construction project. Avalon Housing might be another potential partner, Hall said.

Fewer details were available on the specific financing for this rental project. Possible funding sources include low-income housing tax credits, HOME funding, a Federal Home Loan Bank grant, a 221(d)3 mortgage insurance and loan, Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) bond financing, and a HUD Section 202 or 811 grant.

Hall wrapped up her presentation, and the board moved into closed session to discuss the possible land acquisitions.

Closed Session: Land Acquisition

At the beginning of the Dec. 21 meeting, the board had voted to change its agenda so that the planned closed session could be moved up on the agenda. Commissioner Leigh Greden had to leave the meeting early, and the timing of the closed session was changed to accommodate him.

The closed session lasted about 30 minutes, and Greden left the meeting when commissioners returned to open session. Board president Marta Manildi reported that the group had discussed only one of the two properties, and had deferred discussion on the second property until a future meeting.

AAHC Board’s Role, Meeting Format

Toward the end of the Dec. 21 meeting, AAHC executive director Jennifer L. Hall brought up a discussion item about the board’s monthly meeting format and information packet. She said she’d like the board meetings to be focused on strategic planning and big-picture issues. Currently, much of the meeting time is taken up with staff reports on AAHC’s day-to-day operations.

Saying she didn’t think that was the best use of the board’s time, Hall proposed cutting back on staff reports, suggesting they be presented quarterly instead of monthly. The board’s main responsibilities are fiduciary and strategic, Hall said, and she wanted to spend more time on those issues.

Ann Arbor housing commission board member Gloria Black, left, talks with Wenisha Brand, AAHC Section 8 housing manager.

Commissioner Gloria Black said she had no objection to Hall’s suggestion, but she wanted to ensure that the board was regularly updated on concerns that AAHC residents raise during public commentary. The board should be notified of how AAHC staff have followed up on those issues, she said.

Commissioner Andy LaBarre supported the change in format, saying it made sense and would make the meeting more efficient, with time for useful dialogue on strategic issues.

Commissioner Ron Woods asked for more details about the proposed format change. Hall explained to Woods that the current board packet for each meeting includes a level of detail that she doesn’t feel is necessary – for example, a report on vacancy rates for each AAHC property. Perhaps quarterly reports on finances and operations, with a summary overview, would be more appropriate, she said. Woods noted that he’s found the current reports useful, but he’d support anything that would make the organization more efficient.

Board president Marta Manildi indicated that her initial reaction was positive. The board has worked hard on “nitty gritty” areas over the last two years, she said, and it’s time to focus on long-term and strategic issues. At the same time, she added, the AAHC’s culture is not to set itself apart from the residents it serves or from the staff. It will take a certain judgement about the level of operational detail that the board needs, she concluded. They should try a new format, and the board can give feedback about whether it’s working, she said.

Hall also suggested changing the way that meeting minutes are written up. Instead of including a detailed description of the board’s discussions, she said, the minutes could provide a summary of the discussion and a note about the outcome, if a vote is taken.

Black expressed concerns about paraphrasing the board’s deliberations in the minutes. Hall described a spectrum of options – from a recording of everything that was said during the meeting, to a summary that provides a gist of the conversation. Manildi quipped that too much detail would result in terminal boredom, but that the city council minutes are too terse. The AAHC board would like a richer level of detail than what’s provided in city council minutes, she said.

Hall suggested providing more detail in the minutes when the board discusses a critical policy question. For other issues, a summary could be given instead of a blow-by-blow report.

LaBarre requested that the board’s electronic information packets be reduced to 3MB or less, to make them easier to access on a mobile device. Deputy director Nick Coquillard said AAHC will likely start posting the packets online, just like the meeting minutes are already. Manildi commented that making the packets accessible online would be a good move in general, to make the information more easily available to the public.

AAHC has installed a computer kiosk at its Miller Manor offices, Coquillard noted. It allows residents to access the commission’s website, the city of Ann Arbor’s website and other online resources. The goal is to add similar access at AAHC’s four community centers and at Baker Commons, he said. Coquillard explained that the kiosk is simply a computer monitor that hooks up to the city’s IT infrastructure, so the cost – and risk of theft – is minimal.

Public Commentary

Two people spoke during public commentary at the beginning of the Dec. 21 meeting, both addressing security issues.

David Guidas noted that he had spoken to the board about three months ago regarding security concerns at Miller Manor. One of his concerns is that the apartment doors can be easily kicked in. He held up an example of a metal wrap-around security plate that he’d purchased and was planning to install on the door to his apartment. He said he’d let commissioners know how it worked out.

Tracy Odgers told commissioners that she had lived at Miller Manor since 2003, and reported that there are all kinds of security problems. Security cameras in the building are really outdated, and theft is an issue – a VCR had been stolen in the middle of the day, she said. Odgers suggested updating the security cameras, and installing them in more locations, including hallways and elevators.

Public Commentary: Commissioner Response

Marta Manildi told the speakers that there is a working group of AAHC staff focused on security issues, not just at Miller Manor but throughout the city’s public housing properties. She said the comments would be forwarded to that group, and she thanked them for their input.

Gloria Black, the board’s representative for residents of AAHC properties, told the speakers that it takes a long time to address these concerns, but she wanted them to know that their comments had not fallen on deaf ears.

Present: Gloria Black, Leigh Greden, Andy LaBarre, Marta Manildi, Ronald Woods. Also: AAHC executive director Jennifer L. Hall; AAHC deputy director Nick Coquillard; Weneshia Brand, Section 8 housing manager; Kevin McDonald of the Ann Arbor city attorney’s office; Sharie Sell of the city’s human resources department; Margie Teall, Ann Arbor city council liaison.

Next meeting: Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2012 at 6 p.m. at Baker Commons, 106 Packard in Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

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

Russ Collins (left) shakes hands with former board member Gary Boren, who was recognized for his service at the DDA's Sept. 7, 2011 board meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

The Near North decision came over the objection of three board members, who expressed concern over unanswered questions about the project’s timeline. Avalon had also requested that the intent of the resolution be expressed in the form of a contractual agreement and that the period of the grant be two and a half years, instead of the maximum two years normally attached to DDA grants. The additional time is needed in order to cover a sufficient period to achieve LEED certification.

Representatives of the construction trades, who objected to the selection of the Grand Rapids-based Rockford Construction as the general contractor for the Near North project, as well as a resident spoke against the DDA’s grant award during the time allowed for public participation.

The three votes against the grant renewal came from Newcombe Clark, Roger Hewitt and Russ Collins. With the absence of board members Keith Orr and Bob Guenzel, the 12-member board still achieved the minimum seven votes it needed for approval of the grant.

Despite his absence from Wednesday’s meeting, Guenzel was voted as the new chair of the DDA board, filling a vacancy in that position left when the recently elected chair, Gary Boren, was not nominated for reappointment to the board when his term expired on July 31. Boren was on hand to accept a resolution of appreciation for his service on the board.

In connection to the officer election timing issue, Clark asked for a review of the board’s bylaws by the board’s executive committee. Clark has raised the issue during the July officer elections for the last two years. Because the mayor has been reticent about his intended appointments, DDA board members have elected their officers for the coming year without knowing if all board members with expiring terms will be reappointed. Clark asked that the bylaws possibly be changed so that board officers are elected after appointments are made, so that it’s clear who will be serving on the board.

In other business, the board unanimously passed a resolution of support for the RiverUp! program amid some discussion of the appropriateness of the resolution – in light of the fact that the Huron River does not flow through the DDA tax district.

The board also passed a resolution encouraging the Washtenaw County board of commissioners to enact an economic development tax on county residents. About half of the tax proceeds would go to Ann Arbor SPARK. The resolution came at the request of DDA board member Leah Gunn, who also serves on the Washtenaw County board. The Ann Arbor city council had previously passed a resolution encouraging the county board to enact the tax. The county board gave initial approval to the tax later that evening.

As part of the reports from various board committees, Roger Hewitt stressed that the parking rates and hours of enforcement discussed at the previous week’s operations committee meeting were merely the start of the discussion. The DDA is currently discussing what kind of proposal it will present to the city council at a November joint work session on parking. Under its new contract with the city to manage the public parking system, the DDA’s authority to set rates and hours of enforcement comes with specific requirements on public input.

The city council also has directed the DDA to explore alternate uses for some of the city-owned surface parking lots in the downtown. Board members got an update on the status of the DDA’s effort to plan how to implement that directive. 

Near North Housing Grant

The board was asked to consider renewal of a grant to Avalon Housing that board members had originally approved in early 2010 for the Near North affordable housing project on North Main Street.

The grant is for $400,000, with another $100,000 available if the project achieves certification under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) – a green building certification system. The grant would be paid when the project receives a certificate of occupancy. Avalon must also have an agreement in place with the city/county office of community development to ensure that income eligibility requirements are met for all residents.

A vacant house on North Main Street on the site of the planned Near North housing project.

The income eligibility requirements for the 39 units in Near North are based on affordability as defined for two categories of apartments. For 25 apartments, rents must be affordable to households with incomes at less than 50% of area median income (AMI). The remaining 14 apartments are for supportive housing and will have Section 8 rent subsidies.

The Near North project is outside the DDA tax district boundary, but is within the quarter-mile radius established by DDA board policy for such housing fund expenditures.

The planned unit development (PUD) for the Near North project was given approval by the Ann Arbor city council on Sept. 21, 2009.

Near North Grant: Public Commentary

Michael Appel, Avalon’s associate director, led off public participation time by describing the request for an extension of a previous grant the board had authorized to Avalon for its Near North affordable housing project. He sketched out the basics of the project: There would be 39 units on North Main Street, the main entryway to downtown. The project will meet the city’s housing goals, he said.

Appel ticked through some of the timeline points for the project. He noted that Avalon was awarded the DDA funds early in 2010.

By way of background, it was at the Jan. 6, 2010 meeting that the DDA board took that vote. By board policy, grants automatically expire at the end of the fiscal year following the year they are awarded. That board policy was established by a vote of the board at its March 4, 2009 meeting.

While the DDA grant period has come to be thought of as a two-year period, two years is actually a maximum in calendar terms. That maximum could occur if a grant were awarded in early July, just after the start of the DDA’s fiscal year – the grant would be good through the end of the fiscal year, ending on June 30 two years later. But if a grant is awarded in early June, the end of the next fiscal year would be only 13 months away.

In a followup email to The Chronicle, Appel clarified some of the dates, which he’d inadvertently misstated in addressing the board. The accurate timeframe for Avalon’s application for tax credits was spring 2010. The tax credits were awarded in the summer of 2010. Appel went on to explain that a key piece of funding – brownfield tax credits from the state of Michigan – were eliminated by the legislature during tax reform legislation after the 2010 elections. By the summer of 2011 new legislation had been passed, which preserved the brownfield funding source.

In addressing the board, Appel stressed that the general contractor Avalon had selected [Rockford Construction] had worked hard to solicit a wide range of bids for subcontractors. Around 1,500 solicitations had been sent out, he said.

Appel concluded with two specific requests of the DDA. He noted that the DDA doesn’t typically sign grant contracts, but rather works off of resolutions. Avalon was requesting that the resolution before the DDA staff include authorization of the DDA staff to draw up a formal contract. The four-minute time limit on public speaking time expired before Appel could get to his second request: to extend the grant period beyond the usual timeframe, which would have ended the grant period on June 30, 2013.

The rationale for the extension was based on the need to have the building in operation for some period of time in order to gather sufficient data to achieve LEED certification. The DDA’s grant makes $100,000 contingent on achievement of LEED certification and the other $400,000 contingent on a certificate of occupancy.

Tom Yax spoke on behalf of U.A. (United Association) Local 190, a union of plumbers, pipefitters, service technicians and gas distribution workers. He told the DDA board the local union basically supports the awarding of the grant.

However, Yax described his union’s opposition to the award of the general construction contract to Rockford Construction, because of Rockford’s location in Grand Rapids and concern that, as general contractor, Rockford would award subcontracts to non-local workers. When you give work to outside contractors, Yax said, they make money, then leave the community, and they don’t do any charity work in the community. Yax described a range of community efforts by the union. He encouraged the use of local businesses and contractors. Every dollar spent locally passes through the economy six times, he said.

So Yax explained that the union was against awarding the grant unless assurance could be given that there would be local contractors. Why spend money on contractors who leave? he asked. Near North is a prevailing wage job, so there’s no reason not to hire local contractors with local workers, he said.

During the time for public participation at the end of the meeting, Margaret Schankler introduced herself as a resident who lived behind the Near North property. She called it unfortunate that the board had extended its usual grant period to December 2013, but that they didn’t have four minutes for additional public participation before the vote.

By way of background on public commentary, the DDA board entertains public participation at the start of its meetings by allowing up to four people to speak – it’s possible to sign up in advance. If fewer than four people sign up, people from the audience who have not signed up are invited to address the board. In no case are more than four people allowed to address the board at the start of the meeting.

Later, at the conclusion of the meeting, an unlimited number of people can address the board. The time limit for all speakers is four minutes. Public bodies like the DDA board are required under the state’s Open Meetings Act to allow any member of the public to address them during their meetings.

Schankler told the board that she’d heard the phrase “closing in a few weeks” more times than she could count. She commended board member Newcombe Clark for asking questions. She noted that the neighborhood had worked with developers and negotiated something they thought the whole neighborhood could live with. That had come after the neighborhood had urged Avalon to build a much smaller project – but they’d been told it needed to be that large to make the numbers work. She criticized the fact that only 14 of the 39 units in Near North are for supportive housing.

She said that the still-unbuilt units of Near North are being counted as replacements for the 15 units that Avalon is eliminating in connection with its project at 1500 Pauline. Considering the 1500 Pauline project and Near North, the two projects together result in no net gain for supportive housing in Ann Arbor, she said.

Schankler also contended that the existing houses (now vacant for two years) previously rented for rates that were half what will be charged for the new units. She also pointed to the high cost of construction for the new units – $378 per square foot. She told the board that’s twice as much as it would cost to build a two-bedroom condo.

Schankler criticized the lack of more publicly documentable progress on the project. She also criticized the fact that the existing houses had been allowed to deteriorate beyond repair, which she contended was intentional in order to ensure brownfield funding.

Now, the DDA had a chance to step back from the project and to redirect scare resources more wisely inside the DDA district. [The Near North project is outside the DDA tax district, but within the quarter-mile radius the DDA board has set as the area in which it's willing to invest housing dollars. In this the DDA has relied on advice from its legal counsel that it is legal to take this approach.]

Also at the end of the meeting, during time allotted for public participation, Ron Motsinger of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local Union 252 told the board that the local union represented hundreds of building contractors in all trades. He pointed to current levels of unemployment in some trades of over 33%. Local workers are hurting for jobs, he said. He had been excited to see the Near North project come in, but was disappointed that Rockford Construction was chosen as the general contractor.

Motsinger contended that Rockford has a track record of not using local contractors. Hutzel, a 150-year-old local company, had not been notified to bid on the project. He had no confidence Rockford would use local labor. Motsinger said the local had done $100,000 worth of charity and community work, citing specifically that it had bought scoreboards for Skyline High School. It really would have been nice to make sure it’s local people who are hired, he said. There are local general contractors who could have done the job. He said it was disappointing to see the resolution rushed through.

Rob Turner who represents District 1 on the county board of commissioners, also addressed the board at the end of the meeting. He is the owner of Turner Electric Service Inc. in Dexter. He said he was excited when the Near North project was approved – it helped poor people and he was happy for that. It could also help the building trades, he said. But when he heard that Rockford Construction had been selected as the general contractor, he was disappointed. As an alternative, he mentioned O’Neal Construction as a local general contractor who has experience with federally-funded projects.

Turner described Rockford as dealing with “non-responsible bidders.” Non-local firms don’t shop and buy locally, he said. He acknowledged that his firm was asked to bid on the Near North project. However, he’d received the invitation to bid just one week before. He’d tried to get a set of plans online but was unable to obtain them that way. They had been available physically in Grand Rapids and Bloomfield Hills, he said. He asked the board if that kind of bid process sounded conducive to local contractors. Given that the grant contract is not done, he said, he thought some language could be added to ensure that local companies had better access to the work.

Near North Grant: Board Deliberations

When the board took up the issue of the grant renewal, Appel was asked to the podium to clarify the nature of Avalon’s request. Appel explained that Avalon anticipated closing on their deal in the next month or so. The other funders will want written assurance that the $400,000 plus the $100,000 (contingent on LEED certification) is committed from the DDA. When Avalon closes, Appel said, the other funders will want to know that the $500,000 commitment is secured. DDA executive director Susan Pollay had told him, Appel said, that it’s not DDA standard practice to create a grant agreement.

DDA board member Newcombe Clark.

The second part of the request was a longer-than-usual grant period. If renewed now, then June 30, 2013 would be the natural expiration, he said. Appel requested that it be extended through Dec. 31, 2013, because by then the building would be operating long enough to achieve LEED certification.

Joan Lowenstein asked what the potential impact would be if the decision were put off until the operations committee could again review it and bring it back to the board. Appel said he was worried that a delay could affect the closing on the deal. Lowenstein invited Appel to talk about the bidding and the local contracts, which had been raised during public participation time at the start of the meeting.

Appel said that Avalon had looked at a number of issues in selecting a general contractor. Among them were the contractor’s experience in Washtenaw County, the experience building this type of housing, and experience with the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA). Avalon had selected Rockford Construction because Rockford brought the most to the table, including experience in Washtenaw County. Before issuing bids, Appel said, Avalon had made sure that local subcontractors were well represented. For the early bid packets, only one-quarter came from western Michigan, where Rockford is located.

Appel said that because the project has federal funding, it brings with it various requirements for oversight – that includes prevailing wage requirements. There’s a highly-regulated open bid process. The bids were widely circulated for anyone to download the specifications, Appel said. He said he understood and respected the desire to support local businesses. Federal regulations make sure that everybody has access to the bidding process, he said.

Appel cautioned that a delay at this point would not allow Avalon to bring a document to the closing that showed the funding is secure.

Board member Newcombe Clark indicated that he thought the urgency was generated by the DDA board’s bylaws, not by Avalon’s timetable.

Pollay explained that the Avalon grant had sun-setted on June 30, 2011. The renewal had been discussed at the previous week’s operations committee meeting, Pollay said.

Clark said he had supported the Near North project and that he still supported it. He wanted to see it “come out of the ground,” he said. But Clark he said he also wanted to see his questions answered. He felt the DDA board was being rushed into creating closing documents, and the extension was for longer than the DDA’s usual grant period – it was for a 2.5 year extension. He’d wanted to explore several questions. Clark concluded that he could not support the project, based only on the information he had.

Responding to a question from board member Leah Gunn, Appel explained that the overall Near North project is relying on the DDA grant money – other funders need to know that the DDA’s commitment is there. Clark chimed in, “We’re free equity.”

Appel continued by saying that a copy of a DDA board resolution is not what real estate attorneys are accustomed to seeing at a closing. He said Avalon needed something that third parties would understand in the context of a real estate closing. Board member Roger Hewitt observed that the board was being asked to support the resolution when the document doesn’t exist yet.

Mayor John Hieftje said that the DDA’s offer of a grant was very sincere and he didn’t have a problem putting it in writing. He said he trusted the executive committee of the DDA board to do that. [According to DDA board bylaws, the executive committee consists of the chair, vice chair, treasurer and recording secretary. The last former chair is a non-voting member, and the executive director is a non-voting ex-officio member of the executive committee.]

Hieftje said that Avalon has to balance a lot of different factors with other entities that are larger than the DDA. Timing issues are hard. He said the DDA had committed to the Near North project a long time ago. Board member John Splitt also indicated that he had no problem with voting for the resolution. Board member John Mouat also supported the project. He noted that an incredible amount of time and work has been put in to make the project work. He said the DDA board owed it to the community to support it.

Responding to the concerns raised by representatives of trade unions, Gunn explained that the board doesn’t have the ability to say who gets a contract. She also noted that new state legislation forbids CUB (Construction Unity Board) agreements – it’s not for the DDA to decide. [CUB agreements are negotiated between local trade unions and contractors, and require that contractors who sign the agreement abide by terms of collective bargaining agreements for the duration of the construction project. In return, the trade unions agree that they will not strike, engage in work slow-downs, set up separate work entrances at the job site or take any other adverse action against the contractor.]

Comments from Hieftje and Gunn established that the city of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County both needed to take action to revise policies to make them conform to the new state legislation on CUB agreements.

Clark asked for information on the site plan and whether it needed to be renewed with the city. Lacking other information, he said, he had to default to his own expertise. Clark said he did not want to go through the winter with vacant houses sitting on the site. He lamented the fact that the board did not have more time to consider the resolution.

Board member Sandi Smith said she’d been trying for seven years since she’d been appointed to the DDA board to spend the housing fund balance. It’s been difficult to add even a single unit of affordable housing, she said. If the DDA were to pull its commitment from the Near North project, it’s not as simple as picking another project that comes along. It would take a lot of time to develop another project. The DDA has been familiar with the Near North project for a long time, Smith said. She echoed Clark’s sentiment, however, that the houses need to come down. There’d been problems with people squatting inside them, she said.

Clark then suggested that out of the $500,000 grant, $100,000 be slated specifically for demolition and be paid upfront, not made contingent on a certificate of occupancy or LEED certification. If the project meets the DDA’s goals and the board is already willing to spend the money, then “Let’s have lots, not squatter places.” Lowenstein, who was chairing the meeting, noted that Clark’s suggestion would need to come in the form of an amendment to the resolution.

Smith seconded Clark’s suggestion that the DDA would front the $100,000 to Avalon to carry out the demolition of the houses. Hewitt said he was supportive of the project, but still had the same concern that the board would simply be trusting that everything will be worked out. The board needs better documentation, he said.

Smith asked if the demolition could be incorporated into the terms of the grant contract. Mouat felt it would further complicate what is already very complicated. He felt the board needs to be supportive of the project and make it happen as soon as possible. Adding a condition on the demolition would be another hindrance, he said.

Board member Russ Collins “called the question” on the amendment earmarking $100,000 for demolition of the existing housing on the Near North site.

Outcome on amendment: Clark’s amendment earmarking $100,000 for Avalon to demolish the houses on North Main received support only from one other board member, Russ Collins.

Almost immediately after the vote on the amendment, Gunn called the question on the main resolution.

Outcome on resolution: The board approved the $500,000 grant extension to Avalon, with dissent from Clark, Collins and Hewitt.

Near North Grant: Coda on Calling the Question

At the conclusion of the board meeting, Hieftje asked that the board bylaws be reviewed with respect to the parliamentary procedure of “calling the question,” to ensure that everyone has a chance to speak twice before the question has been called. He said he’d had his hand raised to speak on the Near North question and didn’t get to say something.

By way of background, under Robert’s Rules, the parliamentary move to close debate is actually called “moving the previous question.” More colloquially it’s referred to as “calling the question.” The motion needs a second, then requires a vote with 2/3 majority. The motion itself is not debatable, however.

At Wednesday’s meeting, the calling of the question on both occasions did not receive a vote. When something like this happens, contrary to the rules of procedure, it’s always in order for someone to raise a point of order to insist on the proper administration of the rules. Had Hieftje done so, it’s possible that his desire to speak might have been recognized at that point.

Parking Rates, Enforcement

At the meeting of the DDA board’s operations committee meeting the week before, on Aug. 30, 2011, the committee meeting packet included a set of items proposed to be included as part of the agenda for a joint city council/DDA board working session scheduled for  Nov. 14. The board did not have an item on its Sept. 7 agenda concerning parking rates.

Parking Rates, Enforcement: Background

A recent report in AnnArbor.com left the impression with some readers that a set of items in the Aug. 30 committee materials was already a recommendation of the DDA board. The article did not include the context of the DDA’s April 2010 Parking Report, which is referenced in the committee meeting materials.

That parking report had been produced by the DDA in response to a city council directive, given in late 2009. The city council directive had stemmed directly from a resolution considered by the city council, but not passed at that time, calling for the extension of parking meter enforcement hours.

The city council’s idea to extend evening enforcement hours was part of a strategy to replace revenue that the city had projected for new parking meters the city had wanted to install in areas near the downtown – against the advice of the DDA. The city wound up not installing most of the meters.

The city council’s revenue replacement strategy was put together by Sandi Smith, who is both a city councilmember (representing Ward 1) and a DDA board member. Included as part of Smith’s revenue replacement strategy was the assignment of revenue from two city-owned lots – 415 W. Washington and Fifth & William – directly to the city of Ann Arbor.

Additional context includes a planned joint working session with the city council. At its Aug. 30 meeting, the operations committee discussed items to be proposed to the council at that joint working session. The session, scheduled for Nov. 14, is contractually required as the result of a new agreement struck in May of 2011 under which the DDA manages the city’s public parking system. From the contract:

Joint Working Session. As part of the annual established calendar for City Council Working Sessions, City Council shall designate one working session in the fall of each calendar year as a joint working session with the DDA. The agenda for the working session shall be prepared by the City Administrator in accordance with Council Rules and in consultation with the Executive Director of the DDA. It is recommended that a portion of such agenda be dedicated to a discussion of operations under this Agreement and the utility of creating a joint study committee to address areas of mutual interest.

The timeline for rate increases stipulated in the contract requires three DDA board meetings, over the span of at least two months. The contract calls for announcing and indicating in writing the intent to increase rates at a DDA board meeting. At the next subsequent board meeting, members of the public must have an opportunity to address the board on that issue. And the board is contractually bound not to vote on the rate increase until the board meeting after that.

Based on the assumption that the DDA would not formally proceed with the contractually-stipulated changes to rates or enforcement hours before the council/DDA joint working session on Nov. 14, the DDA board could not take a vote on those changes until its February board meeting. On that scenario, the announcement of intent would come at the board’s December meeting, the public hearing would take place at the January meeting, and a vote could take place at the February meeting.

Parking Rates, Enforcement: Possible Agenda Items

In broad strokes, on Aug. 30 the operations committee was presented with possible items for the Nov. 14 joint working session that fell into two broad categories: hours of enforcement and parking fees. The note on hours of enforcement indicates that a possible item on the working session agenda could be a recommendation to extend the current on-street meter enforcement hours (currently from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.) to 10 p.m.

The possible agenda items for parking rate changes include: increases in monthly permit parking for some structures and lots; increases in entrance fees to some structures; and increases in miscellaneous categories like art fair and meter bags.

Possible agenda items for rate changes also include adjustment downward of some parking fees, as part of a proposal to set rates based on demand. On-street spaces in highest demand would have a higher rate ($1.80/hour); on-street spaces in lowest demand would have a lower rate ($1.00/hour); and on-street spaces in the middle of the demand range would not have their rates changed.

Demand is defined in terms of the amount of revenue currently brought in by each meter. The pilot program described in the committee’s packet would be implemented in a rectangle bounded by State Street on the east and First Street on the west. Huron and William streets would be the respective north and south boundaries of the pilot program to set meter rates based on demand.

Parking Rates, Enforcement: Public Commentary

Maura Thomson, executive director of the Main Street Area Association (MSAA), addressed some recent talk about proposed changes to parking rates and enforcement hours. Back in late 2009, a resolution was considered by the city council that contemplated evening enforcement hours. [Chronicle reporting from that timeframe includes "City-DDA Parking Deal Possible" and "Most Aspects of Parking Deal Approved"] Thomson reminded the DDA board that in 2009, merchants were vocal in opposition to evening enforcement. [Within hours of the appearance on the city council's agenda of the resolution calling for evening enforcement, the Ann Arbor Area chamber of commerce had fired off a memo in opposition.]

In the wake of that city council discussion [which ultimately did not result in a formal call for evening enforcement], the DDA was then asked to come up with a plan. Thomson said that the MSAA was involved in that work through participation in focus groups. The MSAA had also surveyed its membership, Thomson said. She indicated that there was overwhelming opposition to extending enforcement hours. There was also a sentiment that some kind of free parking component needs to be included. She said it feels like “we’re back to where we started.” Part of the balance of higher rates and longer enforcement hours outlined in the April 2010 parking report produced by the DDA is a free parking component as part of the demand management strategy, Thomson said.

Thompson was alluding specifically to a passage from the April 2010 report that reads:

Free structure parking is being used in other Michigan cities with mixed use downtowns, as the offer of free is very attractive and easily understood. The DDA believes that every parking space has value, but if used correctly, using this pricing strategy may lessen demand at the meters and extend parking more broadly throughout the system.

Thomson asked the DDA board to consider that aspect of the plan – it allows for a positive communications strategy. She was dismissive of a free parking component based on the hours of enforcement early in the morning [also discussed in the report]. If we’re all being honest, she said, the free component from 8-9 a.m. has no correlation to evening enforcement. She compared that strategy to saying that enforcement of meters from 6-8 a.m. would have a positive impact on parking revenue. So she asked that “truly free” parking be tied into any plan to extend hours of enforcement.

Tom Murray introduced himself as a member of the MSAA and owner of Conor O’Neill’s on Main Street. He warned that if the DDA enacts the plan as currently discussed, people will go elsewhere for entertainment. Addressing the issue of employee parking in the evening, Murray said that the DDA was directed to provide a plan to communicate specific options for evening employees. But the discussion from the last committee meeting the previous week didn’t indicate any specific options, Murray said.

Murray ventured that his staff would continue to find a way to get outside and feed the meters. Customers, on the other hand, won’t go outside and they’ll receive tickets – that will become a problem. Murray said that when we read about employees, we forget that employees are also customers. We need to incentivize employees, not punish them. A truly free parking component needs to be explored, Murray said.

Murray encouraged the DDA to find creative ways to reach out to employees. Employees would take advantage of alternatives if they are safe and affordable, he said. He also suggested that the entire program should be on a pilot basis, not just the meter rate schedule. The plan current under consideration hurts downtown, Murray concluded.

Addressing the board at the time for public commentary at the end of the meeting, Jessica Johnston of Falling Water on Main Street asked the board to reconsider any decision to extend hours of parking enforcement. Based on face-to-face interaction with her customers, she told the board there would be a negative reaction to it. The downtown economy is already fragile, she cautioned, and she ventured that the dinner crowd could be eliminated by the proposal.

As part of his report from the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council, Ray Detter said the advisory council continues to support the DDA’s effort to implement parking/transportation demand management. He said some of the things in the media he’d read were not terribly accurate. He stated that the advisory council had always assumed that the possibility of extending hours would include a free component.

At the start of public commentary, Joan Lowenstein, who was chairing the meeting, had stressed that public commentary is not the occasion for a back-and-forth kind of thing. However, board members do sometimes use their own time at the board table to respond to concerns raised during public commentary.

And in response to the public commentary, board member Roger Hewitt stressed that the operations committee meeting had been the start of a discussion – he appreciated the input from the public. Hewitt said he felt the way the proposal had been characterized in media reports was unfortunate.

Naming Guenzel Chair, Thanking Boren

On the agenda were resolutions to name Bob Guenzel as board chair and Leah Gunn as vice chair, and to thank Gary Boren for his service on the board. [Guenzel did not attend the board's meeting.]

Naming Guenzel, Thanking Boren: Background

The board had been without a chair because board member Gary Boren, who had been elected to that post by his board colleagues at their July 6, 2011 meeting, was not nominated by mayor John Hieftje for reappointment. Boren’s term expired on July 31. Boren was replaced on the board by local attorney Nader Nassif.

Guenzel, who retired last year as Washtenaw County administrator, was elected vice chair of the board at the July meeting. Gunn’s other public service currently includes representing District 9 on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

The evening before the DDA’s board meeting, at the Sept. 6 city council meeting, three nominations to the DDA board were on the agenda for confirmation: Joan Lowenstein (reappointment), John Mouat (reappointment), and Nader Nassif (new appointment replacing Boren). The nominations had been announced at the council’s previous meeting, on Aug. 15.

At the council’s Sept. 6 meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) made the rare request that the council’s confirmation of the mayoral nominations be done separately on roll call votes for each nominee. The votes on the appointments of Mouat and Nassif were unanimous. However, Kunselman voted against the reappointment of Lowenstein. All other councilmembers present voted for her.

Naming Guenzel, Thanking Boren: Board Deliberations

At the DDA board’s Sept. 7 meeting, Newcombe Clark noted that the board is tasked by its bylaws to elect officers at the July annual meeting. [That has historically come before the mayor has chosen to announce whether he would be reappointing board members whose terms were expiring later in the month.] Clark reminded board members that he’d raised the issue at the last two annual meetings. From The Chronicle’s report of the 2011 annual meeting:

Roger Hewitt nominated current vice chair Gary Boren to serve as chair.

Newcombe Clark asked if Boren’s term was being renewed – that is, would he be reappointed by the mayor to serve on the board? By way of background, outgoing chair Joan Lowenstein’s term on the board ends on July 31, 2011, as do the terms for Gary Boren and John Mouat. Boren has been a vocal proponent of the idea that the DDA is an independent corporate body and not an arm of the city of Ann Arbor.

Last year, Clark had pointedly abstained from voting in the officer elections over the lack of information about reappointments to the board. From Chronicle coverage of the July 7, 2010 DDA annual meeting:

Abstaining from each of the officer votes was board member Newcombe Clark.

Clark explained to The Chronicle after the meeting that there’d been no indication from the mayor whether the two board members whose appointments are expiring July 31 – Jennifer S. Hall and John Splitt – would be reappointed. Clark said he could thus not be certain of the full range of choices for board officers.

Splitt was reappointed; Hall was not. Bob Guenzel was appointed instead of Hall.

In response to Clark’s question this year, Lowenstein said they did not know that yet. Mayor John Hieftje, sitting at the board table, did not offer any statement about whether he planned to nominate Boren for the city council’s approval for reappointment.

At Wednesday’s meeting, Clark stated that he would like to see the bylaws adjusted so that officer elections are not held until after the status of reappointments is known. Otherwise, he said, board members are being asked to vote for chair and vice chair without knowing if they’ll continue on the board. Nothing is lost and a lot is gained by making the change, Clark said. He stated that he wanted formally to ask the executive committee to look into it: “We owe each other more than this.”

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the resolution thanking Gary Boren for his service, as well as the resolution naming Bob Guenzel chair of the board. Boren, who attended the meeting to receive the recognition from his colleagues, made his way around the table and shook hands with the board members.

County Economic Development Tax

The board was asked to consider a resolution urging the Washtenaw County board of commissioners to use Act 88 of 1913 to levy a tax in support of economic development in the county. A public hearing on the tax was scheduled for the county board’s meeting later that evening.

At its Aug. 15 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council passed a similar measure urging county commissioners to levy the tax.

For the last two years, the county board has levied the tax. It has previously used a rate of 0.043 mill. (One mill is $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value.) This year, the county board is contemplating a millage rate of 0.05 mills. Because Act 88 predates the state’s Headlee legislation, the county board does not need to put the issue before voters in order to levy the tax. The county board could, by the Act 88 statute, levy such a tax up to 0.5 mills, or 10 times the amount it is considering for next year.

The Act 88 tax received initial approval by a 7-3 vote at the county board’s Sept. 7 meeting. The three commissioners voting against it were Alicia Ping (R-District 3), Wes Prater (D-District 4) and Dan Smith (R-District 2). Commissioner Ronnie Peterson was absent. A final vote is expected on Sept. 21.

The anticipated $688,913 in millage proceeds will be allocated to several local entities: Ann Arbor SPARK ($230,000), SPARK East business incubator ($50,000), the county’s dept. of community & economic development ($131,149), Eastern Leaders Group ($100,000), promotion of heritage tourism ($65,264), Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP – $15,000), Washtenaw 4-H, operated by the Michigan State University Extension program ($82,500) and Washtenaw Farm Council 4-H Youth Show ($15,000).

During the brief DDA board deliberations on the resolution, Leah Gunn, who also serves as a county commissioner, indicated that it was “very small millage,” that would cost $5.38/year for the average homeowner. It supports important economic development efforts like Ann Arbor SPARK and agriculture, she said. Gunn told her DDA board colleagues that she would appreciate them voting for it, so that she could take it to the county board of commissioners meeting later that evening.

Outcome: The DDA board voted unanimously in favor of the resolution urging the county board to levy the economic development tax.

RiverUp!

Before the board was a resolution expressing support of RiverUp!, a collaborative effort among several organizations – including the Huron River Watershed Council, the National Wildlife Federation, and the Michigan League of Conservation Voters – to improve the Huron River corridor.

The resolution states that the DDA will assist in wayfinding efforts that would help connect the river with visitors to the downtown, but it does not specify a budget for that effort. [For background on the RiverUp! initiative, see Chronicle coverage: "RiverUp! Focuses on Revitalizing Huron River"]

During board deliberations, mayor John Hieftje stressed that he’s been involved with the RiverUp! project since the beginning and expressed his support for the resolution.

John Mouat questioned the project’s relevance to the DDA. He said as much as he wished it did, the Huron River doesn’t flow through Ann Arbor’s DDA district. What caused him concern, he said, is when something becomes “a bit of a stretch” and he wanted to voice that as a general concern. He wanted to know specifically how support of the DDA board adds to the project.

Sandi Smith pointed out the focus on wayfinding in the DDA’s resolution. She said her thought in bringing forward the resolution is that a University of Michigan freshman might be standing on campus and not know about the recreation amenity just 3/4 mile to the north. She allowed that the DDA can’t relocate the downtown to the river, but it’s also important not to forget that it’s there.

Outcome: The DDA board voted unanimously in favor of the resolution expressing support of RiverUp!

Communications, Committee Reports

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

Comm/Comm: The Varsity, Alleys

Ray Detter reported out from the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council, which meets monthly on the evening just before the DDA board meetings. He noted that The Varsity at Ann Arbor would be coming before the planning commission on Sept. 20. [The Varsity is a proposed 13-story, 173-unit, 178,380-square-foot apartment building for approximately 418 students. It would include 77 parking spaces, and would replace the two-story office building and parking lot currently on the site, located on Washington Street, just west of the First Baptist Church.]

Detter said that the advisory council would continue to support the city’s newly enacted downtown design guidelines – the advisory council doesn’t oppose The Varsity. He reported that members of the advisory council had attended the design board review meeting for The Varsity, as well as the citizen participation meeting, and offered their suggestions. Detter said that in response to feedback, the developer had made some changes, but had not really addressed the issue of the view from East Huron Street.

Detter praised the work that the developer had done with the First Baptist Church, which had resulted in plans for a walkway connecting East Huron and Washington Street.

Detter said the hope was that the south entrance to that walkway on Washington would connect to the alley that runs between Washington and Liberty. That alley, Detter said, has been allowed to turn into a place for smelly dumpsters and urinating panhandlers. Detter reported that the advisory council had met with DDA executive director Susan Pollay, assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald, interim city administrator Tom Crawford and mayor John Hieftje.

As a result, Detter reported, that group has moved ahead to form a committee to develop a plan for the alley. Some of the goals are to get better placement of the dumpsters, add awnings, and install better lighting. He expressed the hope that it could be turned from a dangerous, dirty, disgraceful alley into an asset.

Comm/Comm: Downtown Parcels

As part of the report from the board’s partnerships committee, Sandi Smith reported that the committee continues to discuss how the DDA will implement a city council directive to explore alternate uses of some city-owned parcels in the downtown. Smith stressed that the idea is to build on all the work that’s come before, not to recreate everything.

Amber Miller, the DDA’s planning and research specialist, had sketched out a draft of a process, to which committee members had responded favorably. It involved two parallel tracks – a technical component and a community outreach component. Doug Kelbaugh, former dean of the University of Michigan’s college of architecture and urban planning, and Kit McCullough, who teaches at the college, attended the partnerships committee meeting. They’d previously pitched their services to the DDA to facilitate a public engagement process.

The two UM architecture faculty were receptive to Miller’s sketch and suggested that they could develop a “road show” as a presentation that could be delivered by DDA staff or some other person on multiple occasions to different community groups. The conversation about the alternative use of downtown parcels was to continue at the committee’s next meeting on Sept. 14.

Comm/Comm: Regular Parking Report

Roger Hewitt delivered highlights from the monthly parking report from July: hourly patrons were down 5%, revenues up 2%. Art fair revenue was down about $5,000 (2%) compared to last year. Hewitt said the weather had an impact, but the horrible, hot temperatures had put a smaller dent in revenues than he’d been anticipating. Responding to a question from John Mouat, Hewitt said the revenue from art fair parking is not budgeted separately. Russ Collins called the $5,000 variance not significant. Hewitt agreed that it’s “a drop in the bucket.”

Comm/Comm: Unaudited FY 2011 Budget Numbers

Roger Hewitt pointed to the unaudited financial statements from the end of the 2011 fiscal year. He noted that by state law the DDA has to amend its budget every year to reflect the best estimate of where the organization stands financially. The audit is in process now, and the DDA expects that the numbers will be the same at the end of the audit.

Of the items that Hewitt ticked through, the scaling back of expenditures on parking maintenance drew scrutiny from board member Newcombe Clark. He wanted to know if the amount reflected an additional revised downward expenditure on maintenance. Yes, answered Hewitt, but the reduced maintenance activity was still within the DDA’s engineering consultant’s recommendations.

Clark noted that painting is cosmetic unless you don’t do it for several years – then it becomes structural. Hewitt assured Clark that over a 10-year period, the DDA would spend the same amount it had originally planned. Hewitt described the DDA’s approach to maintenance as “fanatical,” so felt like the DDA was in very good shape with respect to the maintenance issue.

Hewitt noted that the fund balance had decreased considerably from a high of around $20 million several years ago and the DDA had spent down a good deal of it. Those numbers would continue to go down, he said.

Comm/Comm: go!pass

John Mouat reported that the getDowntown advisory board had advised increasing the cost of go!passes to employers from $5 to $10. With the popularity of the program, all of the funds had been expended, he said. However, the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) had passed a resolution at its last meeting adjusting the price it charges for go!pass rides over the next two years to calibrate it to the amount already pledged by the DDA for that period. That led Mouat to conclude that: “We’re covered for go!passes.” [For detailed Chronicle coverage of the go!pass AATA funding decision, see "AATA Reduces Charge for go!pass Rides"]

Comm/Comm: Bicycle Parking

John Mouat gave an update on information about bicycle parking downtown, provided by a DDA summer intern. Highlights included: 1,000 bike parking spaces downtown; 83% of bikes parked are locked to hoops instead of lampposts; the bicycle map has been updated; the last of new vegetable-shaped hoops have been installed at the farmers market.

Comm/Comm: Construction Updates

John Splitt reported that the Fifth and Division streetscape improvement project is mostly complete, except for the 300 block of South Fifth Avenue – that section will need to wait until construction of the underground parking structure on South Fifth is further along. On the 200 block of South Fifth, just some lampposts remain to be installed.

The underground parking structure site along Fifth Avenue is now is getting very busy, Splitt reported. Waterproofing work is being done on the east dog-leg side of the project. Columns and slabs are getting poured in the other two phases – the middle and the Fifth Avenue side. [The project is being built from east to west.]

Comm/Comm: State of the Downtown Report

At the board meeting, the previous release of the DDA’s State of the Downtown Report was acknowledged. The report features a raft of statistical information about the DDA district, including acreage, building square footage by category, population trends, real estate occupancy rates, crime trends, and the like. Interspersed through the text are photos, including a cover photo by Seth McCubbin.

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

Absent: Keith Orr, Bob Guenzel

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Oct. 5, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor DDA. 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!

Key elements of the policy: at least one city or county lien will be maintained on the property; liens with federal affordability restrictions will be in the highest lien position possible; liens that do not have federal affordability restrictions will be discharged if needed to facilitate reinvestment of outside funding; the city administrator is authorized to approve lien subordinations and lien discharges.

The city council had discussed a specific case related to the forgiveness of loans and subordination of liens at its May 16, 2011 meeting. The context there was the appropriation of funds for the demolition of houses to prepare for construction of the Near North affordable housing project, located on the east side of North Main Street between Kingsley and Summit.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The request to have such a policy came from the office of community development. It arose from two recent foreclosures on properties in Stone School Townhomes, one of three housing developments where the city currently has affordable housing covenants. The other two are Ashley Mews and Northside Glen.

When a property is foreclosed, the affordable housing covenant automatically terminates.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Before the Feb. 22 council meeting, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) chatted with Dennis Hayes about the medical marijuana licensing ordinance. The council delayed taking action on the ordinance. (Photos by the writer.)

However the council chose to delay some of its business due to the absences of four members – Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2). By way of explanation for the four absences, mayor John Hieftje offered the fact that it’s vacation week for the Ann Arbor Public Schools.

The delayed business included a set of proposed licensing rules for medical marijuana businesses. The council heard from advocates of medical marijuana during public commentary at the start of the meeting, but when they reached the item on their agenda, the seven councilmembers who attended the meeting decided to postpone their vote on the issue without deliberating on or amending the licensing proposal. It marks the fifth time the council has decided not to take an initial vote on the licensing, dating back to Dec. 6, 2010. The council must take two votes on any new ordinance.

Also delayed were two easements – one for pedestrian access and one for public utilities – from Glacier Hills Inc., a retirement community. Under the city charter, eight votes are required for approval of such easements. Rather than have the easements fail on a 7-0 vote, the council chose instead to postpone action.

During his communications, city administrator Roger Fraser gave the council a broad-strokes overview of potential impacts that Gov. Rick Snyder’s proposed state budget could have on the city of Ann Arbor. In a roughly $80 million general fund city budget, the $2.4 million projected shortfall – on which current reduction targets are based – could increase by $0.5 million (to $2.9 million) or by $1.7 million (to $4.1 million), depending on how state revenue sharing and state fire protection grants are handled in the state budget. The state’s fiscal year begins on Oct. 1, but the city of Ann Arbor must finalize its own budget in May, for a fiscal year starting July 1.

During public commentary, the council heard a suggestion that Ann Arbor follow the example of Ypsilanti and add parking lots to its snow-clearing ordinance. And during its communications time, the council scrutinized the city’s snow removal performance in connection with a recent storm. Snow began falling the previous Sunday afternoon, accumulating to at least six inches – and more, in many areas – by early Monday morning, when the snow stopped. Highlights from city administrator Roger Fraser’s report on the snow removal effort included the fact that two of the city’s 14 large plowing vehicles were down for maintenance and the fact that forecasted amounts of snow were much lower than what actually fell.

During public commentary, the city also heard from Douglas Smith regarding a Freedom of Information Act appeal that involved redaction of police reports. Over the last several months, Smith has addressed the University of Michigan regents and the Washtenaw County board of commissioners on a range of specific cases that all relate to the general issue of civilian oversight of police power.

Medical Marijuana Licensing

Before the council again was consideration of a set of licensing requirements for medical marijuana businesses. The council has now delayed its initial vote on the licensing requirements at five meetings, dating back to Dec. 6, 2010. The most recent postponement is until March 7, 2011, the council’s next meeting.

The vote that was again postponed is the first of two votes the council must take on any new ordinance it enacts. At its meetings over the last few months, the council has heard extensive public commentary on medical marijuana, but that commentary does not constitute a formal public hearing, which will be held at the same meeting when the council votes on final approval of the licensing, provided it eventually gives initial approval to the licensing system.

At its Oct. 18, 2010 meeting, the council gave its initial approval to a set of zoning regulations for medical marijuana businesses, but it has not yet given its final approval to those regulations. The council’s strategy is to bring licensing and zoning forward at the same time for a final vote.

The context for development of zoning regulations was set at the council’s Aug. 5, 2010 meeting, when councilmembers voted to impose a moratorium on the use of property in the city for medical marijuana dispensaries or cultivation facilities, and directed the city’s planning commission to develop zoning regulations for medical marijuana businesses. Subsequently, the city attorney’s office also began working on a licensing system.

At its Jan. 3, 2011 meeting, the council heavily amended the licensing proposal. At its Jan. 18 meeting, the council was poised to undertake further amendments to the licensing proposal, including many that concerned limiting the amount of information that is required to be divulged by those associated with license applications. However, the council did not amend the proposal further at that meeting. The council undertook additional amendments to the licensing proposal at its Feb. 7, 2011 meeting.

The moratorium on additional properties in the city to be used as medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation facilities was extended by the council at its Jan. 18 meeting to go through March 31, 2011.

Medical Marijuana: Public Commentary

Dennis Hayes, who has addressed the council on the topic of medical marijuana at several previous meetings, told councilmembers that every time he comes back to speak to them, he finds they have more and more in common. He said that as they worked through the ordinance, they are discovering that they have common interests – a common concern for patients. He told the council he’d be sharing with them a possible solution to confidentiality problems associated with labels. He asked the council to consider greater flexibility in the number of licenses granted, so they would not be assigned a false sense of economic value. He also called for protections for property owners who lease to medical marijuana businesses.

Chuck Ream – who addressed the council over a year ago on the subject of medical marijuana, and who has spoken during public commentary several times since then – thanked the council for the progress that’s been made so far on the issue. He said the current draft language on lists of suppliers is problematic: “A cultivation facility or dispensary shall keep records of the persons from whom they received marijuana in any form, and shall make the records available to the City for review upon request.” The objective, Ream said, is that the marijuana dispensed in Michigan come from the Michigan program and to make the origin of the product traceable. While those are good goals, he said, the chance of patients’ and caregivers’ names winding up on permanent lists needs to be minimized.

One approach, Ream said, would be to require that product dispensed at a dispensary come from members of the dispensary. A dispensary should be able to demonstrate compliance with that requirement, he said. Any records, however, should only be maintained for 30 days. He also called for an appeals procedure, and for the possibility of selling a businesses with an accompanying license.

Medical Marijuana: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) opened deliberations by noted that with only seven members present, and a requirement that the council have six votes to pass anything, she suggested that the ordinance be postponed until the council’s next meeting, on March 7.

Outcome: Councilmembers voted unanimously to postpone the medical marijuana licensing ordinance until its next meeting on March 7, 2011.

Glacier Hills Easements

On the council’s agenda were two easements for the Glacier Hills retirement and nursing facility. One involves pedestrian access and the other is for public utilities. By city charter, the council needs an 8-vote majority to approve the easements. With only seven members present, the council decided to postpone their vote.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to delay voting on the Glacier Hills easements.

Golf Task Force, Golf Fees

The council’s agenda included two golf-related items: (1) an increase in certain fees for the two city courses, Huron Hills and Leslie Park; and (2) the reappointment of the golf courses advisory task force.

Golf: Public Comment

Addressing the city council in support of the fee increase was Paul Bancel. He suggested bringing the decision back for review at the mid-year point. He told the council that he’d served on the city’s golf courses advisory task for the first two years of its existence. He thanked the council for adopting a 5-year plan for addressing the golf course finances, and observed that the golf courses yield more net cash than any other activity in the city’s parks and recreation program. He referenced the Jan. 31, 2011 memo written by community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl, which put the fixed overhead at Huron Hills at $269,000 per year. Against that, Bancel said, the council should consider the $350,000 of cash per year that the course brings in. Golf is the best use of the land at Huron Hills, Bancel said.

Bancel went on to suggest that the golf courses advisory task force should be a commission – that would ensure that it would have minutes, a formal chair, and include public comment. He forecast that in three years, the courses would have no debt. He suggested keeping the courses simple and profitable.

Golf: Task Force

On the council’s agenda was the renewal of the mandate of the city’s golf courses advisory task force, first appointed in 2008. Its members are: Stephen Rapundalo (city council); Julie Grand (park advisory commission); Bill Newcomb and Ed Walsh (citizens with demonstrated golf operations expertise); Thomas Allen (Ann Arbor citizen with group golf play experience); Barbara Jo Smith (Ann Arbor golf courses patron); and John Stetz (citizen and member of a neighborhood association adjoining a golf course). The task force is chaired by Rapundalo.

The council’s deliberations consisted of Mike Anglin (Ward 5) expressing his support for the work of the task force and thanking them for their work so far.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to reappoint the city’s golf courses advisory task force.

Golf: Fees

The council also considered a proposal to authorize a fee increase at the city’s golf courses.

Power golf cart rentals for 9 holes at Leslie Park and Huron Hills will increase from $7 to $8; for 18 holes, the rental fee would increase from $13 to $14. City staff estimate the increases would generate $25,000 in additional revenue per season. Weekend fees for 9 and 18 holes at Leslie Park golf course will increase by $2 and $1, respectively, and the twilight fee would increase to $16, up from $15. These increases would generate an estimated additional $12,500 in revenue per season. In addition, the council approved raising the senior citizen qualification age to 59 for the 2011 season. That’s part of a consultant’s proposal to incrementally increase the qualification age from 55 to 62 by adding one year to the minimum age annually.

The actions came to the council in advance of the regular budget, so that the rates can be in place for the opening of the courses in the spring. The new rates had previously been recommended for approval by the city’s park advisory commission at its Feb. 15 meeting.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the increased golf fees.

Avalon Housing’s 1500 Pauline Project

Before the council was the approval of the site plan for an Avalon Housing project at 1500 Pauline Blvd. that would construct 32 dwelling units and 39 surface parking spaces. The plan includes demolition of four existing apartment buildings – known as the Parkhurst Apartment complex – containing 48 units. The new construction would include six new buildings totaling 53,185 square feet. Five of the buildings would include one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments and three-bedroom townhomes. The sixth building would be a community center with a playground.

Detail of the play area that's a part of the 1500 Pauline site plan.

Estimated cost of the project is $8 million. That cost includes an upfront developer’s fee of 15% – typical for nonprofit projects like this – as well as costs associated with relocating current residents and paying for their housing at an alternative site for up to five years, as mandated by federal law under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act.

Avalon expects to fund the project through a combination of sources, including Low Income Housing Tax Credits, HOME program subsidy (HUD funds allocated through the Michigan State Housing Development Authority and the Washtenaw Urban County), the Federal Home Loan Bank, and private loan funds.

The proposal complies with the site’s R4B zoning. The city’s planning commission approved the site plan at its Jan. 20, 2011 meeting on a 7-0 vote.

1500 Pauline: Public Hearing

Addressing the council during the public hearing on 1500 Pauline was Lily Au. Au also has spoken about the project at a public hearing on the annual plan of the Urban County, at the Urban County’s Jan. 25 meeting – the council did not have an action item on its agenda for the Urban County plan. She criticized as too high the overhead costs for nonprofit agencies as well as the costs associated with building affordable housing. She called for removing nonprofits from between funding sources and the target homeless population.

Au criticized the 1500 Pauline project for reducing the number of units from 47 to 32. She said that the $8 million project would result in a 10-15% developer’s fee. “We need to say no,” she said.

Speaking basically in support of the project was Levi Murphy, a current resident at Parkhurst. He said he’d attended all the meetings and that he supported the demolition of the buildings – they weren’t structurally sound, he said. He did, however, object to the decrease in the number of 1-bedroom units from 21 to 6.

Associate director of Avalon Housing, Michael Appel, reviewed for the council how Avalon had become involved in the property in early 2009, when they’d merged with Washtenaw Affordable Housing Corp. (WAHC) – 1500 Pauline had been a WAHC property, he said. It was clear that the property was suffering from deferred maintenance and high vacancy rates, he said. After representatives from the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) had walked through the property, he said that MSHDA decided they were not willing to invest in the existing buildings. That conclusion was confirmed, Appel said, by Avalon’s own architects and engineers.

Responding to complaints about the reduction in density, Appel explained that the 32 units is the maximum allowed by current zoning. The proposal had been supported by the city’s Housing and Human Services Advisory Board, he said. To address the smaller number of 1-bedroom units, Avalon will try to make available other 1-bedroom units that it manages in the city.

Wendy Carty-Saxon, Avalon Housing’s director of housing development, described the new site plan as better than the current one, because it opens it to the surrounding neighborhood instead of turning it away physically from the community, as the current one does. The site and the units themselves would be completely accessible, she said. Some of the units would be townhomes and would integrate green design. Of the 32 units, 16 would be supported by project-based vouchers and 16 would be targeted for the 30% annual median income (AMI) level. The timeline includes demolition by the end of this year, she said, with new construction completed by the end of 2012.

Carole McCabe, Avalon Housing’s executive director, told the council that the whole process of merging with WHAC had been difficult and had taken longer than expected. For the 1500 Pauline property, they’d taken two years to look at every other option. She thanked the city’s planning staff for their help and invited councilmembers to go on a tour of Avalon properties in the city.

1500 Pauline: Council Deliberations

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said he was aware of the current site’s problematic design and the condition of the property from his work as a volunteer with Meals on Wheels, delivering meals to people who live there. With respect to the site’s relative location in the city, Anglin said it is ideally situated, in close proximity to a variety of amenities on West Stadium Boulevard.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked for some clarification of the developer’s fee. He also wanted to know how long the units would remain affordable. Appel told Kunselman that the developer’s fee of 15% would be paid whether the property was rehabbed or new construction were built – it’s part of the rule set they work with. About the term of affordability, Appel said the tax credits they hope to use to fund the project would entail at least a 15-year affordability period, and the agreements with MSHDA require a 45-year period of affordability.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the 1500 Pauline site plan.

Hutton Appointed to Environmental Commission

Before the council was the confirmation of Susan Hutton’s nomination, made at the previous council meeting, to fill the vacancy on the city’s environmental commission (EC) left by Steve Bean – who chose not to continue his service on the EC. Bean had served on the EC since it was created in 2000.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who serves as one of two council representatives to the commission – the other is Margie Teall (Ward 4) – had announced at the council’s previous meeting that he was nominating Hutton to fill Bean’s spot. Hutton is development director at Leslie Science and Nature Center. At that meeting, Hohnke had also announced that there would be another vacancy soon on the EC and that the council was actively soliciting applicants. [Anya Dale's term on the EC ended on Feb. 20, 2011.]

Whereas most nominations to boards and commissions are made by the mayor, then confirmed by the city council, nominations for positions on the EC are made by the city council.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve Hutton’s appointment to the city’s environmental commission.

Police Cars

The council was being asked to approve the purchase of five police cars – Crown Victoria Police Interceptors – for $20,730 each, a total of $103,650. The purchase was made from the low bidder, Signature Ford in Owosso, Mich. The city of Ann Arbor selected from among the bids made under the cooperative bidding programs of the State of Michigan, Macomb County and Oakland County in an effort to leverage higher volume into lower cost. In this case, the lowest bid came through Macomb County’s program.

The city’s fleet services does not generally use the age of a vehicle as an absolute metric to determine replacement. Instead, each vehicle is evaluated based on the vehicle’s age, miles/hours of use, type of service, reliability, maintenance and repair cost, and general condition. Hours of use is considered an important metric, because much of the mileage a city vehicle sees is city driving, which causes more wear and tear on vehicles.

However, the vehicles being replaced with the purchase of the five patrol cars are not evaluated with the same process as other vehicles in the city’s fleet. Police union contracts require that vehicles used by their members not exceed 80,000 miles or 6 years, whichever comes first. The five vehicles to be replaced will exceed the contractual criteria in the next year.

At the council’s meeting, mayor John Hieftje invited city administrator Roger Fraser to comment by observing that he thought the city was getting a really good price on the vehicles. Fraser noted that the price of the vehicles does not include all the various piece of police equipment –  to outfit the new cars, the department would be recycling much of the old equipment from the vehicles to be replaced. Fraser said that these were likely the last Crown Victorias the city would be purchasing – Ford is ending production. The city might decide not to buy all five Crown Victorias, and instead purchase a new model that Chevrolet is making available in late summer or early fall, Fraser said.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) wanted to know if the Chevy model would have mileage as good or better than the Crown Victorias – she was told the Chevy would have better mileage.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to authorize purchase of five new police cars.

Communications and Comment

There are multiple slots on every agenda 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: State Budget – Shared Revenue, Fire Grants

City administrator Roger Fraser gave the council an update on how the city might be affected by Gov. Rick Snyder’s recently proposed state budget. The main impact, he said would come from state revenue sharing.

He reminded the council of the history of state revenue sharing. Four decades ago, the state legislature had relieved local units of government of the authority to levy any taxes except for property taxes and income taxes. But they’d recognized that this hampered local governments’ ability to generate revenue. So to balance that out, they’d introduced a constitutional provision to ensure that the state shared a portion of the state sales tax revenue with local governments. This is the so-called “constitutional” part of state shared revenue.

Shortly after that, Fraser said, the state realized that they were collecting more money through the sales tax than was needed to run the state, so they enacted an additional statute that provided a mechanism to give back additional money to local units. This is the so-called “statutory” part of state shared revenue. The statutory portion of state shared revenue is discretionary, year to year, but the constitutional part depends purely on the amount of total sales taxes collected.

Fraser said that last year, the city of Ann Arbor received roughly $1.9 million in statutory state shared revenue. Its constitutional portion was roughly $7.3 million. [The city website's budget page includes a chart of the history of state shared revenue payments to Ann Arbor. The roughly $9.2 million in state shared revenue made up about 11.5% of the city's general fund budget last year.] Snyder’s budget proposal, said Fraser, reduces the statutory portion by 1/3 – replacing the roughly $300 million statutory portion allocated last year with a $200 million pool that would be distributed to local units on a competitive basis – depending on how innovative and collaborative local units have been.

Fraser said he felt that Ann Arbor is “ahead of the curve” with respect to how well the city would compete for those funds. But the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, is now assuming a 1/3 cut, or around $600,000 less than the city had previously forecasted for the statutory state shared revenue. [Up until Snyder's announcement of his proposed budget, the city had assumed stable levels of state shared revenue.] Against that cut, Fraser said, the constitutional portion looks like it will be about 4% greater than last year – because of greater sales tax revenue statewide – which for Ann Arbor translates to an additional $300,000.

Less conspicuous than other proposed cuts by Snyder, Fraser said, was a proposal to eliminate reduce the program by which the state funds fire protection for public institutions. [Because public institutions – like the University of Michigan, for example – do not pay property taxes, yet still require fire protections from the local units where they're located, the state makes grants to those local units to cover those costs. The amount of the grant is an ongoing point of controversy for local Ann Arbor officials, because they contend that the grant does not cover the true cost of fire protection for the university.] For Ann Arbor, eliminating reducing the fire protection grant would mean a loss of an additional $165,000 per year. [Clarification: The governor's proposal is to reduce the fire protection grant program by 15%, not eliminate it, and when applied to the roughly $1.1 million received by the city annually under the program, gives Fraser's figure.]

Putting the two kinds of state revenue sharing together and adding in the fire protection grant, Fraser concluded that the net loss for Ann Arbor’s budget would be between $500,000 and $1.7 million – or 0.6% to 2.2% of the city’s general fund budget.

Comm/Comm: Snow Removal – Public Comment, Council Discussion

Jonathan Shaheen spoke to the council about snow removal, specifically in parking lots. He noted that the city has an ordinance requiring that property owners clear snow from sidewalks adjoining their property. The Ann Arbor city ordinance reads in relevant part:

All snow and ice which has accumulated prior to 6:00 a.m. on a public sidewalk adjacent to property not zoned residentially shall be removed by the owner or occupant by noon.

Shaheen noted that there is no similar rule for parking lots. He related to the council how he lives near the University of Michigan campus and pays $75 per month for a spot in a parking lot. He said the lot had been plowed three or four times this winter, but it has snowed more frequently than that. He described how his car had become stuck on Sunday evening trying to make his way to his parking spot. The city of Ypsilanti, he said, has an ordinance that applies to parking lots. In relevant part, the city of Ypsilanti’s ordinance reads:

The owner or manager of any parking lot shall remove all snow from the parking lot within 24 hours from the first accumulation of such snow.

Shaheen suggested that the city of Ann Arbor adopt a similar ordinance. Shaheen described how it’s possible to call the management company to complain, but when it comes to student housing, the tendency is for them to pass the buck. Sometimes you can get results by threatening to pro-rate rent or by calling student legal services, but that should not be the way that this kind of thing is handled, he said. He said that he and his wife, who works in Detroit, could live somewhere else, but they prefer to live in Ann Arbor. The situation with snow in parking lots, however, is a real disincentive to live in Ann Arbor, he concluded.

During communications time, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) took the occasion to acknowledge that they’d heard many complaints about the quality of the snow removal in the city. By way of background, the quality of snow removal in the city is a common topic for newspaper columnists as well as city councilmembers. At the December 2009 budget retreat, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) broached the subject with public services area administrator Sue McCormick. The Chronicle reported the exchange this way:

Rapundalo, citing his northern Ontario roots, described snow removal in Ann Arbor as “abysmal.” McCormick countered with her own bio, growing up in the Upper Peninsula, and explained that small pickup trucks were not used to plow snow on city streets, because they would be subjected to mechanical stress they’re not designed for. She suggested that in approaching field operations staff, who manage snow removal, a useful approach for Rapundalo would be to query: “Why do I observe this?”

At Tuesday’s council meeting, Anglin noted that more snow had fallen than was forecast. Yet he’d had a guest at his bed and breakfast who’d driven in from Rochester, New York and was surprised at the poor progress of snow removal by Monday morning. The city needs to do a better job, Anglin said. He also criticized the way that city plow trucks block driveways with huge amounts of snow. He said he’d gone out and helped one resident shovel their driveway clear. He concluded that the city needed to respond better to these type of events. [Resident complaints also have included snow that gets plowed onto already cleared sidewalks.]

City administrator Roger Fraser responded to the issue by saying that he’d asked city staff to prepare a more detailed report on snow removal activity during and after the storm. He acknowledged that everybody scrutinizes the city’s snow removal performance – it’s visible to everyone. He assured the council that the city is doing the best it can with the equipment it has. The city has 14 large plowing vehicles, he said, but two of them were down for repairs. The city has additional vehicles equipped with plows, he explained, but they are used for cleanup after the heavier plow vehicles have gone through. The lighter vehicles cannot push the same volume and weight of snow as the heavier vehicles – something that was particularly relevant for the recent storm, because the snow was unusually wet and heavy.

Fraser went on to describe how pre-treatment of the streets with salt/sand mix had begun at 10 a.m. on Sunday. The city’s preparations had been based on predictions of 1-2 inches of snow followed by freezing rain, he said. In the early afternoon, the forecast changed. The snow didn’t stop until 5:22 a.m. on Monday morning. The city had completed two passes of plowing of the main streets by Monday morning, he said. When the plow trucks began heading into the residential neighborhoods, they discovered within the first five hours of plowing that the ridge left by the plows was going to trap vehicles on the street. So they extended the city’s goal of completing residential plowing within 24 hours of the snow stopping. By 5 p.m. Tuesday, he said, the plowing was complete, with the exception of the city’s cul-de-sacs.

Fraser said in the course of the plowing, city crews had helped more than 100 cars that were stuck. He characterized the city’s approach to preparations for snow in the context of the likelihood of such storms, which he put at less than 3%. Given that less than 3% of snowstorms are like the one the city just experienced, Fraser said, the city does not plan for these events – because they are rare. [By "plan for," Fraser appeared to mean budgeting and making capital investments in plowing equipment.] There are certain places around town that are trouble spots that have been recognized since the 1970s, said Fraser – Glen and Huron, for example. Fraser also noted that a water main break had hampered efforts during the recent storm.

Given that cars parked on the street hampered snow removal efforts, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked about declaring a snow emergency – what were the protocols? By way of background, the city’s code provides for a way to restrict parking on the street as follows:

Prohibited parking for snow removal.

(a) Whenever the City Administrator finds, on the basis of snow, sleet, freezing rain, or on the basis of a weather forecast, that weather conditions make it necessary to restrict parking to allow removal of existing or forecasted snow, the Administrator may declare a snow emergency and put in effect an odd/even parking prohibition on some or all city streets by providing notice of the prohibition in the manner prescribed by this section.

(b) When an odd/even parking prohibition is in effect, no person shall park a vehicle or permit a vehicle owned by him or her to remain parked on the following described portions of any street; provided, however, that the parking prohibition of this subsection does not apply during the hours of 8:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight, so that vehicles can be positioned to comply with the next day’s prohibition.

(i) On days having uneven dates, vehicles are prohibited from parking on the side of the street having even street addresses.

(ii) On days having even dates, vehicles are prohibited from parking on the side of the street having uneven street addresses.

Mayor John Hieftje, in subsequent comments, responded to Smith by saying that based on past experience, declaring a snow emergency would entail ticketing hundreds of vehicles, which doesn’t go over well, because many residents don’t have other options for places to park.

By way of background, on at least one occasion, the city council wound up waiving or reducing fines for tickets handed out during a snow emergency, due to complaints from the community. Related to the snow emergency declared on Dec. 25-26, 2002, the council voted on Jan. 6, 2003 to waive or reduce fines for tickets issued. Margie Teall (Ward 4) did not participate in the 2003 vote – apparently someone in her household had received a ticket.

At Tuesday’s meeting, Fraser observed that television and radio stations he listened to had been advising people not to go out unless they had to. Fraser responded to a suggestion from Anglin that the city engage private contractors on an as-needed basis when there’s a major storm. Fraser suggested that private contractors were typically already engaged – they were at capacity. It would be hard to get a guarantee from a private contractor for service, he cautioned.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she understood the limits of the equipment and the personnel. But she asked why the city of Ann Arbor snow plowing update page was not updated more frequently. Fraser responded by saying that it is a recurring problem of adequate staffing to update that page. A partial response to that issue, he reminded the council, was their authorization of funds last year for a pilot system to track snow plow vehicles with GPS units and sensors, which would provide a dynamic map of plowing activity.

Fraser said that the sensors for indicating whether a plow blade was flipped to its engaged position and for monitoring the salt/sand spreaders had not yet arrived from the supplier – but that GPS units were currently being installed on some snow plowing trucks.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) reminded everyone that the people who were out driving the plowing vehicles had worked really hard – they deserved a lot of credit, he said.

Anglin asked about cross training of staff so that more people could use the equipment. Fraser indicated that in 2004-05, the city had done an assessment of its vehicle fleet. They had equipped all vehicles capable of plowing snow with a blade and provided training for the operators of those vehicles for plowing snow. At the time, that had resulted in a doubling of the number of vehicles that are able to plow, Fraser said. The city has kept the same strategy.

The basic message Fraser delivered to councilmembers was that the city staff was maximizing their use of resources based on the policy direction the council had set historically. That policy is essentially that the city will not pursue acquisition of snow removal equipment that might well be more effective than the current fleet, but that could also wind up never rolling out of the garage for an entire winter. The council could choose to revisit that policy, he said.

Comm/Comm: City Hall “Water Event”

City administrator Roger Fraser reported on a “water event” in city hall, which is getting some renovations in connection with the adjoining new municipal center. He described how the heat had been shut off in the east end of a property storage room, on the side closest to Huron Street. The lack of heat had resulted in a water valve freezing, which was attached to a 4-inch pipe. Much of the water simply drained across the garage floor to a proper drain. But there was also a 6-inch open pipe in the floor that led to the basement, where it was also open on the other end. That had led to water flowing into the basement below. It was the “worst of serendipity,” said Fraser. He did not repeat the quip he’d made towards the conclusion of the council’s last budget work session, comparing the city hall renovations to the movie “The Money Pit.”

As far as damage from the water, Fraser said that some flooring had been laid with glue that had not yet set, so that would need to be replaced. There are a number of new walls that have been constructed, which appear to be okay, he said. The delay would put them about a month behind. The contractor’s insurance will pay for the additional costs, he said.

Comm/Comm: Civilian Oversight of Police Power

Douglas Smith addressed the council on the topic of two cases involving alleged sexual assault by University of Michigan athletes. By way of background, in the last several months, Smith has addressed the UM regents and the Washtenaw County board of commissioners about a range of specific cases. Before the council meeting, Smith explained to The Chronicle that the common theme tying these cases together is the importance of civilian oversight of police power.

Smith told the council that he was appealing the denial of a Freedom of Information Act request he’d made concerning allegations of sexual assault against two University of Michigan athletes: Brendan Gibbons, a football player, and Jordan Dumars, a basketball player. Smith noted that the police reports produced in response to the FOIA request were heavily redacted. All names of suspects and witnesses were redacted, he said, which made it difficult to assess which witness was saying something about what suspect. Extensive redaction also obscured the elements of the alleged crimes.

One page of a redacted police report provided to Douglas Smith in response to a request made under the Freedom of Information Act.

Smith continued by saying that he was interested in how the university and the prosecutor handled the investigations. Smith said the report showed that Dumars was asked how he learned he was under investigation, and Dumars explained that a university official had told him. Smith said that if the university official had informed Dumars based on communication between police departments, then a revelation to the suspect that he was being investigated may well have been improper.

Smith added that in the Gibbons case, the victim was pressured not to press charges – a university department of public safety report includes a description of a different football player saying, “if she does [press charges], I am going to rape her, because he didn’t.”

The name of the football player who made the threat is redacted from the report, Smith said. He wondered why the city attorney’s office would protect the identity of someone who would threaten to rape someone. Smith said that an unredacted version of the Gibbons report was released to AnnArbor.com about a year ago, which Smith contended shows that the city attorney’s redactions are “arbitrary and capricious.”

Present: Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Kunselman, John Hieftje.

Absent: Stephen Rapundalo, Christopher Taylor, Carsten Hohnke, Marcia Higgins.

Next council meeting: Monday, March 7, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the Washtenaw County administration building, 220 N. Main St. [confirm date]

Damon Thompson, operations manager for the Washtenaw County/city of Ann Arbor office of community development, talks with Ypsilanti city planner Teresa Gillotti after the Jan. 25 Urban County meeting.

Nonprofits are vying for funds from the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, the Urban County, and Washtenaw United Way. Nearly 60 nonprofits applied to the first phase of the process, in which they were asked to supply basic financial and governance documents. Of that group, 51 were qualified to respond to a request for proposals (RFP) that was issued Jan. 28.

It’s still unclear how much funding will be available, but it could be less than the nearly $5 million that was awarded from these groups last year. Budgets for Ann Arbor and the Urban County haven’t been finalized, and the 2011 county budget is facing about $1 million in as-yet-undetermined cuts.

At last week’s meeting, three members of the Urban County’s executive committee – Pittsfield Township deputy supervisor Barb Fuller, Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber and Ann Arbor city councilmember Margie Teal – were appointed to review applications for the coordinated funding process. All governing boards of the four entities involved in this cycle’s funding will appoint members to a review committee. The fifth partner – the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation – will fund capacity-building grants to nonprofits identified as needing help with internal operations, like infrastructure and staff development.

Also at last week’s meeting, Urban County members got an update on an annual plan being developed for the U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development (HUD), which provides funding for low-income housing and neighborhood projects. The plan will include a list of proposed projects located within the Urban County area that would be eligible for HUD funding. To gather more input, a needs assessment public hearing is set for the Feb. 22 meetings of both the Ann Arbor city council and the Urban County.

Two people spoke during public commentary, both criticizing Avalon Housing for its handling of two low-income housing projects: 1500 Pauline, and Near North. The nonprofit was defended by Leah Gunn, who chairs the Urban County executive committee – she called Avalon one of the “stars of community development.”

Coordinated Funding Update, Appointments

Mary Jo Callan, head of the county/city of Ann Arbor office of community development (OCD), gave an update on the new coordinated funding approach for local nonprofits. It’s a project that was in the works for well more than a year, and was finally approved by local funders – the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, the Urban County, Washtenaw United Way and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation – late last year.

The idea is for the county’s major local funders of nonprofits to coordinate their efforts, managed by OCD staff and focused on six main areas: housing/homelessness, aging, school-aged youth, children from birth to six, “safety net” health and food/hunger relief. In the past, these five funding entities have provided about $5 million annually for local human services nonprofits. [For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "Urban County Finalizes Funding Model"]

In an email to The Chronicle, Callan said the amount of total available funding isn’t yet determined. In past years, funding from the five groups has totaled nearly $5 million, but that could be lower this year. Last year, the city of Ann Arbor awarded almost $1.3 million, but at a Jan. 31 working session of the Ann Arbor city council, city staff discussed potential cuts to that amount. Washtenaw County funded $1.1 million to human services last year, while the United Way gave out $2.3 million – though a portion of that went to grants for capacity building and planning/coordination activities, according to Callan. The Urban County provided $300,000 last year to human services nonprofits, using funds from the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program.

At the Urban County meeting, Callan explained that the funding process is being handled in two phases. The OCD issued a request for qualifications (RFQ) and received 58 responses from nonprofits. The RFQ asked for basic finance and governance documentation, such as audits and bylaws. Based on those materials, seven nonprofits were eliminated from further consideration.

In the next phase, a request for proposals (RFP) – issued on Jan. 28 – will be followed by a mandatory pre-bid meeting on Feb. 4. It’s an online application process, Callan said, and proposals will be due on March 4.

A review committee will evaluate the applications, and ultimately make recommendations for funding. [The boards of each of the funding entities retain final funding decisions, and will vote on allocations from their own pot of funding, based on OCD recommendations.] Four of the funders – Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, the Urban County and United Way – will each have three representatives on the review committee. At the Jan. 25 Urban County meeting, the group selected its three reps: Barb Fuller, Pittsfield Township’s deputy supervisor; Paul Schreiber, mayor of Ypsilanti; and Margie Teall, an Ann Arbor city councilmember.

Callan said that Ann Arbor’s representatives would be nominated by the city’s housing & human services advisory board. Leah Gunn, a county commissioner who chairs the Urban County executive committee, reported that the board of commissioners planned to appoint three staff members as its representatives. [The next day, on Jan. 26, at the administrative briefing for the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, a preview of the Feb. 2 board agenda included the three nominees for the review committee, who'll need to be appointed by the board: Hazelette Robinson, community relations director for the Washtenaw Community Health Organization; Susan Sweet Scott of the county's Employment Training & Community Services (ETCS); and Michael Smith of the county's veteran affairs office.]

Callan told Urban County members that it’s been illuminating to review the materials provided so far and get a sense of the health of local nonprofits. They divided the RFQ responses into three tiers, she said: 1) those that met all the conditions – things like having a board that actually met, she quipped – and that were approved to move forward; 2) nonprofits that could apply for funding, but with certain conditions; and 3) those that were disqualified because they didn’t meet the basic threshold – for example, not having an audit for the past several years.

The second tier is by far the largest group, Callan said. This group includes nonprofits that have an executive director who hasn’t received a formal evaluation every year, to situations that are much more serious, she said. OCD staff discovered some very significant red flags – in terms of governance and finance issues – at a couple of agencies that have historically been funded every year, Callan said, though she didn’t identify those nonprofits by name. The nonprofits in this group have been notified that they can apply for funding, she said, but can’t move forward until certain issues are addressed.

Through this process, the OCD staff is discovering that some nonprofits have a lot of capacity to provide services, Callan said. Others need help and can be strengthened, while some are really struggling. Now they have a clearer way to measure that, she said. Those nonprofits that need help might be eligible for capacity-building grants, funded by the United Way and the community foundation. At the same time, she said, there are some nonprofits that in the next year or two will need to find a parent agency, or possibly cease to exist.

Callan said they’ll have a better idea of how this will shake out as they move through the coordinated funding process over the next few months. According to a schedule handed out at the meeting, the review committee will be evaluating proposals in March. The Urban County executive committee will vote on human services funding recommendations at its March 22 meeting. A public hearing on the human services recommendations will be held at the Ann Arbor city council’s April 18 meeting, with a vote on those awards taking place on May 2, as part of the city’s 2011-12 budget. The county board of commissioners will vote on the recommendations at their May 4 meeting. Award letters will be sent to recipients on May 23.

Annual Plan Update, Quarterly Project Report

Damon Thompson, OCD’s operations manager, gave an update on a draft of the annual plan that the Urban County must submit to the U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) in mid-May. Much of the funding that’s allocated by the Urban County comes from two HUD programs: the HOME Investment Partnerships program and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program.

In addition to getting suggestions from Urban County members for projects to include in the plan, a needs assessment public hearing is set for the Feb. 22 meetings of both the Urban County and the Ann Arbor city council. The public hearings are a forum for residents to come and make requests for projects in their neighborhoods that they feel should be funded in the coming year.

Thompson also reviewed a quarterly project report of HOME and CDBG funding allocated over a three-year period, from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2012. They are about 17 months into that period, he noted. The quarterly report shows projects that are underway in each Urban County jurisdiction, and their estimated cost. It also shows the percentage of total HOME and CDBG funds that have been allocated in each jurisdiction, compared with a target percentage previously approved by the Urban County. [.pdf file of Urban County quarterly project report]

For example, Ann Arbor is approved to receive 48.22% of all HOME and CDBG funds for this area over that three-year period. To date, the city has received $2.847 million in funding for 31 projects – including nine projects managed by Avalon Housing for nearly $780,000. Ann Arbor has now allocated almost all of the HOME and CDBG funds that it is authorized to receive.

In response to a question about how the percentage-wise approval of funds to each community is determined, Mary Jo Callan explained it’s a HUD formula based on several factors, including the percentage of residents living in poverty and the condition of a jurisdiction’s housing stock.

Public Commentary: Affordable Housing

Two people spoke during the time set aside for citizen participation.

Lily Au noted that she has in the past spoken out against the coordinated funding model. [Over the past several months she has often appeared at the Ann Arbor city council, Washtenaw County board of commissioners and Urban County meetings to speak on this issue.] Now that it’s been approved, she said, it is important to limit the administrative fees, so that more money goes directly to the nonprofits. Au also criticized Avalon Housing for its proposed affordable housing projects at 1500 Pauline and on North Main, known as Near North. [The city's planning commission recently approved a site plan for 1500 Pauline – the project will next be considered by city council; the Near North project received city council approval in September 2009.] Apparently there’s money to build expensive new projects, Au said, but not money to rehab existing properties or for the homeless. Avalon takes “fat” development fees for these projects, she said. “We need to curb this.”

LuAnne Bullington also criticized the Near North project, listing the various government entities that are helping to fund it, including the Michigan State Housing Development Authority and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Taxpayers are dumping more than $12 million into the project, she said, yet only 14 of the 38 units will be for affordable housing, she contended. Meanwhile, over 4,500 people in the county are homeless – is this really the best use of our money? she asked.

Public Commentary: Response

Paul Schreiber, Ypsilanti’s mayor and a member of the Urban County executive committee, asked staff members to address the comments by Au and Bullington.

Jennifer L. Hall, housing manager for the office of community development, began by saying that it’s very expensive to bring low-income housing on line, especially rental housing that includes support services, like the kind that Avalon provides. The Near North project is intended to offset the loss of single-room-occupancy (SRO) housing that was lost when the city tore down the old YMCA, she said.

All of the units at Near North will be affordable housing, not just the 14 that Bullington mentioned, Hall said – that’s a requirement of the funders, she said. The units will all be available to residents earning 50% or less of the area’s average median income – though typically, residents earn far less, she said, or have no income at all. When asked by Ann Arbor Township supervisor Mike Moran if there was any distinction related to the 14 units, Hall said that 14 apartments will be set aside for special needs residents, who require an additional layer of support services.

Mary Jo Callan expressed frustration at the public commentary, saying she was disappointed that Au had left the room before hearing a response. [Au later returned – she had apparently left to photocopy some materials that she distributed to people at the meeting.] Callan clarified that her office does not charge the 10-15% administrative fees that Au claimed they took from coordinated funding. Callan said they’ve tried on multiple occasions to talk to Au, but “she doesn’t seem interested in talking or learning the facts.” Callan said she and her staff are willing to talk to anyone who’s interested in facts.

Leah Gunn, a county commissioner who chairs the Urban County executive committee, defended Avalon Housing, calling the organization one of the “stars of community development.” The nonprofit provides housing as well as support services that help people stay in their homes, she said. Noting that the Downtown Development Authority has funding available for affordable housing, Gunn said that as a DDA board member, she was proud to support Avalon.

Next meeting: Tuesday, Feb. 22, 2011 at 1 p.m. at the Washtenaw County Learning Resource Center, 4135 Washtenaw Ave. [confirm date]

This painting of blue houses is not in Avalon Housing's site plan for its affordable housing proposal at 1500 Pauline. It's part of a display by fifth grade students in the lower level of the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, where the Jan. 20 planning commission meeting was held.

The project will include demolishing the existing structure and constructing five one- and two-story buildings and a community center. Though commissioners supported the project, some raised concerns over the relocation of current residents and the fact that the new complex, when completed, will have fewer units – 32, compared to the current 47 apartments. Of those, there will also be far fewer one-bedroom units – six, compared to the current 21.

Representatives from Avalon told commissioners that the lower number was sustainable – 35% of the units will be set aside for residents who’ll receive supportive services. They also said the location was more suited for families, and that there’s more need for two- and three-bedroom affordable housing units in the city.

Another project on the agenda – a site plan and special exception use for 630 Oxford – was postponed, as recommended by city planning staff. The Phi Kappa Psi fraternity wants to turn an existing rental duplex into their chapter’s permanent home, housing up to 24 residents. The housing director and some board members for the neighboring Delta Gamma sorority came to Thursday’s meeting to object to the plan, saying they did not want fraternity culture to disrupt their quiet neighborhood.

Commissioners also unanimously recommended approval of the annexation of 1575 Alexandra Blvd., a vacant 0.82-acre lot now in Ann Arbor Township. The lot is surrounded by the city’s Riverwood Nature Area – its owner plans to build a single-family home on the site.

Also at Thursday’s meeting, Wendy Rampson of the city’s planning staff reminded commissioners of a public meeting on Wednesday, Jan. 26 to get community feedback on draft recommendations for R4C and R2A residential zoning district ordinance revisions. The meeting runs from 6-8 p.m. at the lower level of the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave.

1500 Pauline Redevelopment

The nonprofit Avalon Housing submitted its site plan for the 1500 Pauline project in December. Now called Parkhurst Apartments, the complex – located west of Fritz Park, between Seventh and West Stadium – includes 48 apartment units housing federally subsidized low-income residents. Of those units, one is used for community space, 21 are one-bedroom units, and the rest are two- and three-bedroom apartments.

The plan is to tear down the existing building and construct a new five-building complex with 32 units, a playground and community center, at an estimated cost of $8 million. That cost includes an upfront developer’s fee – typical for nonprofit projects like this – as well as costs associated with relocating current residents and paying for their housing at an alternative site for up to five years, as mandated by federal law under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act.

Avalon expects to fund the project through a combination of sources, including Low Income Housing Tax Credits, HOME program subsidy (HUD funds allocated through the Michigan State Housing Development Authority and the Washtenaw Urban County), the Federal Home Loan Bank, and private loan funds.

The city’s planning staff recommended approval of the project’s site plan.

1500 Pauline: Public Hearing

Saying that he lived at 1500 Pauline, Gladwin McGee wondered why the apartments were in such disrepair, when they had been renovated relatively recently – in the late 1990s. He also questioned why the number of units were being reduced, given that there’s a lack of affordable housing in Ann Arbor.

Jim Mogensen noted that he was speaking for himself, but that he’s past president of the nonprofit Religious Action for Affordable Housing. It’s important that this site remain a place for affordable housing, he said. It’s also important that there are as many two- and three-bedroom apartments as possible – those units are harder to find than one-bedroom apartments, he observed. He also spoke about the cost of the project, saying that in nonprofit projects like this, most of the money is paid upfront for the development costs – unlike for-profit projects, which recoup their costs over time.

Michael Appel, associate director of Avalon Housing, told commissioners about the history of the complex. It’s owned by Washtenaw Affordable Housing Corp., which renovated it in 1999. It had been managed by a series of private management companies, he said, until Avalon took over operations in 2009. The complex has suffered from operating losses and deferred maintenance – that’s why they need to tear it down and rebuild. The architect who inspected the complex found hundreds of immediate and short-term issues that needed to be addressed to keep the property up to code.

In previous years, it has only met code after “substantial” subsidies by the city, Appel said. Another factor: The Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) determined that because of the significant infrastructure problems, they weren’t willing to invest in the project unless it were rebuit – “leaving us with a very tough choice,” Appel said. They’re working with tenants on relocation – it’s a process that’s tightly regulated by federal law, he said, and the joint city/county office of community development is involved. He wrapped up by saying if they gain approval that night from the planning commission, they could be on the city council’s Feb. 21 agenda and meet a March deadline to apply for state tax credits through MSHDA. The end result, he said, is that tenants will have a much nicer place to live.

Wendy Carty-Saxon, Avalon Housing's director of housing development, speaks to the planning commission during a public hearing on the 1500 Pauline site plan.

Wendy Carty-Saxon, Avalon’s director of housing development, reported that they’d held two community meetings and two meetings for residents – both had elicited positive responses, she said. [.pdf file of summary from those meetings] The design of the new site will open it up to the neighborhood, she said, providing more “eyes on the street” which will help with security issues. The question of density – how many new units to build – was a difficult one, she said. But they tried to look at what would be sustainable to operate in the future. The 32 units they’re proposing fit with the site’s current zoning, she said. It’s also similar in size to Carrot Way, another Avalon supportive housing project. They wanted to preserve the number of two- and three-bedroom units, she said, and add a modest community center. The site will also have improved barrier-free access.

Lekendrick “Levi” Murphy told commissioners that this is his third year living at 1500 Pauline, and that he likes the neighborhood. As a single male, he said the reduction in one-bedroom units was pressing on his mind. It’s important to be aware of how people are treated as they’re relocated, he said, and to look at who will be allowed to move back in. By and large, the residents there now are “fine people,” he said, adding that he likes the proposed site plan.

John Milroy has lived for 10 years in a house on Northwood, neighboring the complex. He attended one of the community meetings held by Avalon, and said that they seem like they want to do the right thing. He said he had no reason to object to the project, and looked forward to not having to look at a crumbling parking lot anymore. He said he supported the project.

1500 Pauline: Commissioner Deliberations

Wendy Woods began by asking for clarification of the types of units that are currently available at the complex. There are 21 one-bedroom units, with the remaining units divided between two-bedroom and three-bedroom apartments, Avalon’s Wendy Carty-Saxon said. One of the three-bedroom apartments is used for community space.

Woods noted that in another Avalon project being built on North Main – called Near North – the nonprofit had argued that there was a shortage of one-bedroom apartments, and that’s why Near North needed to have more one-bedroom units. Woods asked for Avalon staff to help the commission understand how they can rationalize a reduction in one-bedroom units for the 1500 Pauline project, which will include only six one-bedroom apartments.

Michael Appel said it was largely an issue of location. Near North is closer to downtown, opening onto Main Street. It didn’t seem ideal for larger family-sized units. In contrast, 1500 Pauline is in a neighborhood setting, on a less-busy street, next to a park. They also were working with the city/county office of community development, and OCD staff felt that more two- and three-bedroom units were needed. One reason why there are fewer overall units is that they felt the higher density in the past led to some of the problems at the complex, he said.

Woods asked what kind of problems they’ve experienced. Appel explained that in the two years they’ve been managing the complex, the issues of stability, safety and turnover related to higher density. If you compare on a bedroom-per-acre basis, 1500 Pauline has higher density than Carrot Way or many other public housing units.

They’re trying to preserve low-income housing on that site, he said, and were given the option of redeveloping it or losing it – without reinvestment, it would go bankrupt. That drove the decision to redevelop, and they then tried to determine the appropriate mix of units, he said.

Michael Appel and Carole McCabe of Avalon Housing answer questions from Ann Arbor planning commissioners about the 1500 Pauline project at their Jan. 20 meeting.

Carole McCabe, Avalon’s executive director, stepped up to the podium to address Woods’ question. There’s no one more committed than Avalon to expanding affordable housing in this community, she said. But the issues of density are real, and they struggle with them. They have a full wait-list for both single residents and families, McCabe said, but they had limited options at this location.

Jean Carlberg said that one troubling aspect is the relocation of residents in one-bedroom apartments – only six of the 21 tenants will be able to move back in, she noted. She asked for more details on the relocation effort, and whether for some tenants, their relocation would be into permanent housing.

Because the project is federally funded, they are bound by the Uniform Relocation Act, Appel said. They have to work with tenants to find new housing, pay for their moving expenses, and provide a subsidy for the new housing for up to five years. [These costs are built in to the project's estimated $8 million budget.] The office of community development is helping with that process, he said. They anticipate that many of the current tenants will apply to return when the 1500 Pauline is rebuilt, about 18 months from now.

McCabe added that they have a team offering support services, and they’ll be very involved in the relocation process. Within the affordable housing stock that Avalon oversees, they have more one-bedroom units than two- or three-bedroom units, she said.

Evan Pratt clarified with planning staff that the current complex is non-conforming to zoning on that site – that is, it has more units now than the existing zoning allows. In contrast, the number of proposed units does conform to zoning there. [The site is zoned R4B, for multi-family dwellings.] He also pointed out that the Near North project was a planned unit development (PUD), which allows for greater density.

Kirk Westphal said he hoped everyone would agree that the site should be redeveloped, rather than lose available funding – that perspective caps his comments a bit, he said. In general, given the context of the site and the city’s master plan, the commission would be amenable to PUDs, especially for affordable housing projects.

Westphal took issue with the link between density and safety problems, noting that in many cities there are neighborhoods with higher density that are quite safe. His understanding was that for this site, the issue was more related to a staff-resident ratio.

He said he liked the new design – the old building layout was outmoded. He clarified that the proposed playground is technically a public one, then questioned how the public would know that, given that there’s no sidewalk planned from Pauline to the playground. Would there be signs?

Planning commissioner Erica Briggs, left, talks with Chris Cheng of the Ann Arbor planning staff before the commission's Jan. 20 meeting started.

Chris Cheng of the city’s planning staff said they expected the playground to be used mostly by residents, and that they hadn’t discussed signs or a sidewalk. Erica Briggs concurred with Westphal that it would be more inviting to the general public if a sidewalk were installed from Pauline. Carlberg observed that people would end up creating a path themselves, so Avalon might as well put one in where they wanted it.

Briggs also asked about the neighboring park, noting that in the summary of comments from the community/resident meetings that Avalon held, some people had noted that they didn’t find it safe, and that there are flooding problems there. Cheng said they’ve talked with parks staff about improving the paths in Fritz Park, but it’s not connected with the site plan.

Briggs then asked Avalon to clarify the difference between affordable housing and supportive housing. Wendy Carty-Saxon explained that 35% of the units in the new project would be set aside for supportive housing, with Avalon providing services to tenants, depending on their needs. Often they end up reaching out to other tenants as well, she said. When Briggs began to pursue that line of questioning, Eric Mahler – the planning commission chair – cut her off, noting that they needed to focus their deliberations on issues related to the site plan.

Diane Giannola said she supported the project, and that it would be a benefit to the neighborhood.

Mahler also expressed support, but said the proposal seemed short on details about the design. David Esau of Cornerstone Design, the project’s architect, said they wanted to keep it in scale with the neighborhood, with one- and two-story buildings. They haven’t signed off on all the materials, but it would be largely brick and siding – standard residential construction, he said – and would meet the city’s new energy code.

Outcome: The planning commission unanimously recommended approval of the 1500 Pauline site plan. It will now be forwarded to city council for approval.

Phi Kappa Psi on Oxford

The University of Michigan chapter of Phi Kappa Psi is requesting site plan approval and a special exception use for a property at 630 Oxford, between South University and Hill. The house is now a rental duplex, allowing for up to eight occupants. The special exception use would allow for a fraternity to occupy the building, with a maximum of 47 occupants, based on the size of the lot. The fraternity is requesting permission for up to 24 occupants, including a resident director.

The site plan calls for 10 parking spaces in the rear of the lot, though that number may be revised. Planning staff has asked for more information and changes to the plan, and recommended postponement.

Phi Kappa Psi: Public Hearing

Six people spoke during the project’s public hearing, including two people representing Delta Gamma, whose sorority house is adjacent to the site and who oppose the project.

Allan Lutes of Alpha Management Group spoke on behalf of the owners. [The owners are listed in the site plan application as BH630Ox LLC, at 2112 Vinewood in Ann Arbor, where Big House Rentals is located.] This isn’t a project that was prompted by seeing a For Sale sign, he said – they carefully selected this site, considering the neighborhood and the city’s master plan, he said. They feel the site plan is consistent with the area’s zoning, and they won’t need variances.

It’s in a neighborhood that already includes many sororities, fraternities and University of Michigan housing, Lutes said. The plan is to preserve the building’s outside architecture, and to add additional screening to buffer it from neighbors. They plan to use the basement as their “gathering space,” Lutes said, for minimum impact to the surrounding houses, adding that it “at times may get a little loud.” He noted that they have letters of support from five neighbors.

Saying he’d been on the fraternity’s alumni board for 15 years, David Frayne told commissioners that Phi Kappa Psi had the simple goal of obtaining permanent housing. Though the fraternity had been at the University of Michigan since 1876, they are currently leasing a house on South State from another fraternity, he said – it’s an older building, and not adequately maintained. They look forward to having a house that members can be proud to live in, Frayne said, adding that the project has support from the local alumni network. They’re making provisions to have a resident director on site, and intend to maintain the character of the house and the integrity of the neighborhood, he said.

Mary Higgins identified herself as the house director for the Delta Gamma sorority, a position she’s held for 12 years. The sorority’s house is located just north of 630 Oxford. They are opposed to the project, she said, though they don’t oppose the fraternity itself. It’s a quiet neighborhood, and what they object to is the fraternity culture, Higgins explained, adding that she was also speaking on behalf of the Knight-Wallace Fellows, a journalism program housed at 620 Oxford. The street is narrow and can’t accommodate more cars, she said. Higgins also cited concerns about garbage, noise and “loud and unruly parties,” adding “we do not look forward to this move.”

Phelps Connell said he was a board member of a fraternity in the neighborhood, and that they welcomed the arrival of Phi Kappa Psi. His board supports the site plan, Phelps said. He didn’t identify which fraternity he represented, but said the chapter had been in its location in the Oxford neighborhood for about 100 years – though “I haven’t been on the board that whole time,” he quipped.

Saying he was there representing the undergraduates at Phi Kappa Psi, John Gray – a senior majoring in business – defended the character of the fraternity. He cited a list of honors that the chapter had received. Members strive for excellence in themselves and their community, Gray said. He noted that they had been paired up with Delta Gamma for a social event last year, “and got along with them quite fine” – a comment that elicited laughs from others in the room.

Carol Makowski, chair of the alumni board for the Delta Gamma sorority, told commissioners that they should find out whether Phi Kapp Psi was planning to have an on-site resident director. That could change the character of the house, she said.

Phi Kappa Psi: Commissioner Deliberations

Eric Mahler, the commission’s chair, began by noting that if the project is postponed, anyone who spoke at the public hearing could speak again at the project’s next public hearing.

From left: Planning commissioners Wendy Woods, Diane Giannola and Erica Briggs, and Wendy Rampson, head of the city's planning staff.

Jean Carlberg commented that one of the standards for granting a special exception use was that the project “will not be detrimental to the use, peaceful enjoyment, economic value or development of neighboring property, or the neighborhood area in general.” She hoped that a resident director would be a “bonifide adult” who would be on site at all times.

Allan Lutes of Alpha Management Group responded, saying that the alumni group has every intention of having a live-in advisor who’s not an undergraduate. They plan on building a private two-room suite at the back of the house for that person. As for concerns about fraternity culture, he conceded that there have been some stupid and foolish acts at fraternities, and it’s hard to counter a cultural conception based on “Animal House.”

He noted that this fraternity employs his professional management group to oversee the facility, and his staff would be at the house several times each week. In addition, unlike some fraternities, Phi Kappa Psi is a member of UM’s Interfraternity Council. The IFC has standards of behavior that, if not adhered to, result in sanctions, Lutes said, like social probation.

Carlberg raised another issue: Did they have sufficient parking spaces for 24 residents? Lutes said that zoning requires even fewer spaces than the eight they’re proposing. At their current location, he said, there are 31 residents and 10 spaces, so they’re estimating that eight should be sufficient.

Evan Pratt noted that having a resident director wasn’t written into the special exception use – Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, said it wouldn’t hurt to make that explicit. Pratt then asked whether there would be any bedrooms in the basement, in addition to the common area. They might put in two bedrooms there, Lutes said. When Pratt observed that the house was relatively small for 24 residents, Lutes said the “occupant load” reflected how students preferred to live – in singles and doubles – and was lower than what was permitted by city code.

Wendy Woods said she was glad they planned to postpone action, because there was additional information needed. It would be helpful to see the proposed floor plan, for example, and to find out what maximum occupancy was allowed for parties. Occupancy is dictated by the fire code – Rampson said they could get that information for commissioners.

Woods also asked whether residents had been notified about the proposal, and what kind of input they’d given. Lutes reported that they had distributed letters to residents within 500 feet of the parcel, providing the full site plan and contact information. They hadn’t been contacted by any neighbors, and only one person had attended the meeting, representing the Oxbridge Neighborhood Association. Lutes characterized her opinion of the plan as neutral.

The representatives from Delta Gamma told commissioners that they hadn’t received the mailing.

Outcome: The planning commission voted unanimously to postpone action on the 630 Oxford site plan and special exception use.

Present: Erica Briggs, Jean Carlberg, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Evan Pratt, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods. Also: Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff.

Absent: Bonnie Bona, Tony Derezinski.

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, Feb. 1 at 7 p.m. in the Washtenaw County administration building’s boardroom, 220 N. Main St. [confirm date]

At the Nov. 16 meeting of the Urban County, Mary Jo Callan, director of the city of Ann Arbor/Washtenaw County office of community development, reviewed key points of the coordinated model for funding human services. (Photo by the writer.)

Two people – Steve Dobson, past chair of the local United Way board, and community activist Lily Au – spoke to the group during public commentary, taking opposite sides of the issue. But there was little discussion among committee members before the vote. Mary Jo Callan, head of the county/city of Ann Arbor office of community development, briefly recapped a detailed presentation she’d given in September, outlining how Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County and the Urban County would join with the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation and Washtenaw United Way to coordinate their funding to local nonprofits.

The coordinated funding, managed by Callan’s staff, will give priority to programs and services addressing six key areas: housing/homelessness, aging, school-aged youth, children from birth to six, “safety net” health and food/hunger relief. In total, the five funding entities provide about $5 million annually for local human services nonprofits. The Urban County – a consortium of 11 local governments – contributes roughly $350,000 of that amount.

The committee also voted on three items related to affordable housing efforts: 1) implementing “green” construction standards for builders funded with federal HUD dollars, 2) approving a draft budget and annual request for proposals (RFP) for developers of affordable houses funded through the Urban County, and 3) making changes to the budget tracking for the Urban County’s homebuyer program. All votes were unanimous.

Coordinated Funding for Human Services

The Urban County executive committee had been briefed by Callan at their September meeting, when members had also raised some questions and concerns about the proposal. They had been expected to vote on the issue at their meeting in October, but it was cancelled due to severe weather advisories that day. The governing bodies of the four other entities involved in the coordinated funding model have already voted to join the effort.

Coordinated Funding: Public Commentary

Prior to the start of Tuesday’s meeting, Lily Au distributed several handouts, including a financial statement from the local United Way’s annual report, as well as past news articles and blog posts about problems with the United Way in other states and on the national level. During public commentary, Au began by saying that she is a Christian and it’s her religious responsibility to work for the poor. She said she doesn’t like the coordinated model – among her criticisms is a concern that it concentrates power in the hands of the office of community development. She cited a rumor that when this model is put in place, the county will silently withdraw its funding for human services. If that happens, they’ll just end up spending more money on the jail, she said. She noted that the county has given assurances that there will be no co-mingling of private and public monies, and she’s grateful for that. Au concluded by saying that the ACLU and the Interfaith Council for Peace & Justice are following the issue closely.

Steve Dobson told the committee that he was speaking on behalf of the local United Way – he is past chair of that nonprofit. “Needless to say, I see an entirely different picture” than the one portrayed by Au. A task force on this project began meeting more than a year ago, he said, trying to find a way to accomplish their shared objectives with resources that were stretched. After months of analysis, the board of the United Way and the other entities all unanimously endorsed the approach. He said the approach provides for improved accountability, reduced costs, improved efficiencies for nonprofits, and a greater impact of financial resources that all the entities collectively invest in the social safety net. Dobson noted that the United Way is committed to reaching out to areas of the county outside of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. He said he hoped the Urban County would also unanimously approve the funding model. “It will be a huge step forward in the difficult times that lie ahead.”

Coordinated Funding: Committee Discussion

Mary Jo Callan gave a brief overview of the coordinated model, noting that it aims to coordinate funding priorities, nonprofit applications and interventions, and proposal reviews. She reminded committee members that each funding entity would retain authority over the way it ultimately allocates the funds that it provides to nonprofits.

For the Urban County, the executive committee would vote on how funds from the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program would be distributed. [The Urban County is a consortium of Washtenaw County, Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and nine townships, responsible for allocating federal funding for low-income housing and other community development projects. The funds are managed by staff of the joint county/city of Ann Arbor office of community development (OCD). For additional background on the Urban County, see Chronicle coverage: "Urban County Allocates Housing Funds"]

Callan reviewed the six areas that have been identified as community priorities, with funding to be allocated proportionally, based on a five-year historic funding trend: housing/homelessness (37%), “safety net” health (37%), children from birth to six (13%), aging (6%), school-aged youth (6%), and food/hunger relief (1%).

Margie Teall, the Ann Arbor city councilmember who serves on the Urban County executive committee, moved to approve the funding model. Karen Lovejoy Roe, the clerk for Ypsilanti Township, offered an amendment stipulating that there would be no increase in administrative fees paid to the office of community development. Callan observed that none of the federal funding allocated to human services nonprofits by the Urban County is spent on administration – it’s all used to fund services, she said. And in general, there’s a cap on the amount of administrative overhead that can be used from federal funds, she noted. However, she said if the committee wanted to clarify that as an amendment, they certainly could. Teall accepted it as a friendly amendment.

Outcome: The Urban County executive committee voted unanimously to approve the coordinated funding model for human services, as amended.

2011-12 Affordable Housing

Jennifer L. Hall, housing manager for the office of community development, briefed committee members on several issues related to the Urban County’s affordable housing initiatives. The group took votes on three items: 1) implementing “green” construction standards for builders funded with federal HUD dollars, 2) approving a draft budget and annual request for proposals (RFP) for developers of affordable houses funded through the Urban County, and 3) making changes to the budget tracking for the Urban County’s homebuyer program.

Green Construction Standards

Hall recommended that the Urban County approve adopting the Enterprise Green Community Building Standards for all housing projects funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Enterprise, a nonprofit based in Columbia, Maryland, supports affordable housing initiatives – its green building standards are one of only a few accepted by HUD.

Starting with next year’s funding cycle, compliance with the standards would be mandatory for projects that receive HUD funds through the Urban County, Hall said.

Mandy Grewal, an Urban County executive committee member and Pittsfield Township supervisor, asked whether the standards would significantly increase the cost of these projects. Hall responded by saying there will be short-term costs, but that will result in longer-term energy savings. It will increase the cost of each project, she said – that might mean they’ll do one less project per year, but it would be worth it. Adopting the standards would also help them be more competitive for future HUD funding.

In response to queries by Darrell Fecho, manager of Scio Township, Hall said that these standards will not apply to single-family rehab projects at this point, but that they could return to the Urban County committee for a discussion about that in the future.

Affordable Housing RFP

Every year, Hall said, the office of community development (OCD) issues a request for proposals (RFP) for developers like Avalon Housing or Community Housing Alternatives to propose affordable housing projects funded by HUD. However, OCD staff doesn’t yet know how much funding they’ll receive from HUD in the 2011-12 fiscal year, she said, and they might not find out until the spring. Because they need to move ahead in developing an annual plan, OCD staff drafted a budget based on funding received for the current fiscal year. From that, they’ve calculated how much will be available for affordable housing projects solicited via the annual RFP.

The draft budget assumes that the city of Ann Arbor will receive $974,639 in funding through HUD’s HOME Investment Partnerships program – as it did this year. Some of that money is already allocated, including $300,000 to be used to close a financing gap for Avalon Housing’s Near North project. Another $400,000 would be used for a Jackson Road green construction demonstration project, to be managed by the office of community development. That leaves $274,639 available for projects funded through the RFP. In addition to Ann Arbor HOME funding, the rest of the Urban County is expected to receive $691,284 in HOME funds available for the RFP projects.

The budget for HUD’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program includes $175,000 that Ann Arbor is setting aside for housing projects within the city limits – those will also be part of the RFP funds. Hall said that if any other municipality wants to include some of its CDBG allocation as part of this RFP, they should let her know.

Other than funding, Hall mentioned that the main difference between the 2011-12 RFP and the previous year’s RFP is the inclusion of green building standards.

Outcome: The Urban County executive committee voted unanimously to adopt the affordable housing RFP, contingent on HUD funding.

Budget Tracking for Homebuyer Program

Last year, the Urban County approved an increase in the maximum amount that could be allocated to a homebuyer – through its HUD-funded programs – from $47,500 to $60,000, with the condition that the additional $12,500 be used for energy efficiency measures and green construction. OCD staff and its contractors have been tracking the spending of that $12,500 for each project. They’ve encountered some unexpected “weird” issues, Hall said – for example, if energy-related items are donated to groups like Habitat for Humanity, it’s challenging to account for that, since it’s not an expenditure.

With the new mandatory green construction standards, this tracking would need to occur for all projects, Hall said, and would become a burden. So the staff was requesting that the $60,000 maximum be retained and that the energy efficiency measures and green construction standards be met, but that the separate tracking requirement to account for the $12,500 in expenditures be eliminated.

Outcome: The Urban County executive committee voted unanimously to eliminate the $12,500 budget tracking requirement for its homebuyer program.

In Part 2, we wrap up other topics of the meeting. One common theme was capital investments in the community’s physical infrastructure of various kinds.

Michael Nearing, city of Ann Arbor engineer, was available for any city council questions on the East Stadium bridge project. (Photo by the writer.)

The council allocated a total of $313,000 for three different permanent affordable housing projects in Ann Arbor.

The city’s East Stadium bridge replacement project received discussion in the form of a resolution that authorized the city to go after state funding for the third time in the last three years. The anticipated construction start for fall of this year has been postponed until spring 2011 – the earlier date had been tied to the city’s application for federal funding, which was rejected this February.

The ongoing construction of the police/courts building, directly adjacent to city hall (the Larcom Building), received some tangential discussion in the form of an explanation from Roger Fraser about the recent closure of city hall due to elevated carbon monoxide levels. The police/courts building was also the subject of public commentary that prompted some extended remarks from the mayor – which were covered in Part 1 of this report.

Another construction project that will likely factor into the upcoming primary election campaigns is Fuller Road Station. The city-university collaboration to build a combined parking deck and bus station, which might eventually serve as a commuter rail station, was taken up during the council’s communications time. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and mayor John Hieftje both responded to some cautionary remarks made by Mike Anglin (Ward 5), which he made based on a recent park advisory commission meeting.

In business related to ethics and rules, the council voted on two occasions to excuse the participation of Taylor in a vote, because of a conflict of interest posed by his employment with the law firm Butzel Long. They also satisfied the requirement of a recent lawsuit settlement that they formally consider a rule about their use of government email accounts – by voting to remand consideration of the issue to council’s rules committee.

Housing

The issue of affordable housing was addressed during public commentary as well as in specific items of council business. One item considered by the council bundled $313,000 of support for three different initiatives: support for the recently re-organized Ann Arbor Housing Commission ($138,000); one to support the efforts of the nonprofit Avalon Housing in connection with its merger with the Washtenaw Affordable Housing Corp. ($50,000); and a foreclosure prevention initiative involving the county treasurer’s office, the Michigan State University Extension, Housing Bureau for Seniors, and Legal Services of South Central Michigan ($125,000).

The council also voted to swap out a previously approved allocation for emergency shelter that had been drawn from an inappropriate fund.

In its final item of business related to housing, the council appointed a resident member of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC). That comes the wake of the council’s recent decision to replace the entire commission.

Housing: Public Commentary

Speaking as a member of the city’s housing and human services advisory board, Barbara Eichmuller asked the council to pass their resolution that allocated $313,000 to maintain existing affordable housing in Ann Arbor, as well as to prevent tax foreclosures. It’s costly and time consuming to replace units, she said. She urged the council to support the Ann Arbor Housing Commission as it transitions to a new business model. As a Realtor, she said, she sees every day how painful foreclosure can be. She concluded that it was a wise use of the money.

The vice chair of the housing and human services board, David Blanchard, also addressed the council on the issue of the $313,000 proposed as a housing trust fund expenditure. He described the programs as really important and salient. The funds need to be released now, he said. The AAHC has come and asked for the money – it’s essential for them to be able to retool. Avalon had come and explained that the Washtenaw Affordable Housing Corp. merger has produced a real strain on them.

Preserving basic housing stock is part of a basic strategy, Blanchard said, and foreclosure prevention needs to take place now. The county’s blueprint to end homelessness has been around for years, and looking back, there hasn’t been an increase in actual affordable units, he cautioned. What we have, he said, is “a band-aid” – there’s no other way to get around it. He spoke of the need to weather this crisis and cautioned that there won’t be a great explosion in funding in the next few years.

By way of background, Blanchard recently served as legal counsel for the case of Caleb Poirier, a resident of Camp Take Notice, a self-governed encampment of homeless people. Poirier was charged with trespassing as a result of the tent encampment’s location. The charges were eventually dropped. Poirier was in the city council audience Monday night to hear Blanchard and Lily Au – who’s an advocate for the camp – deliver their remarks to the council.

Delivering a monologue during public commentary, with herself in the role of a homeless person, Lily Au began: “I’m homeless, I have a mental illness.” In that role she described how a volunteer had driven her to Ypsilanti, she had little money left on her Bridge card, and the Delonis center serves only one meal on Saturdays and Sundays. The contents of her backpack, she said, included a Bible, which she read to sustain herself, plus her medication. She reported that Camp Take Notice had accumulated $200, but it can’t be spent, because that’s money set aside for moving, in case the Michigan State Police raid the camp. The camp is located near the interchange at I-94 and Ann Arbor-Saline Road. Referring to the parking issues on the council’s agenda, Au said that she would like to become a car, because at least then she’d have a good parking structure to live in.

By way of historical background, the rhetorical device relying on the idea that Ann Arbor has better housing for cars than for people can be traced back at least as far as Tim Colenback’s public comments at the council’s Sept. 21, 2009 meeting:

Colenback went on to enumerate some of the city’s parking structures, saying how pleased he was to have so many great places in the city where he could “house his car.” He asked that the city think of making the same commitment to housing people as it does to housing cars.

Housing: Funding Allocation

The item before the council bundled $313,000 of support for three different initiatives. At a January 2010 meeting devoted to the subject, the city council council was made aware that they’d possibly be asked to support a re-organization of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC) with an allocation of up to $138,000, which they approved on Monday night. From Chronicle coverage of the Jan. 11 meeting: “Housing Commission Reorganizes“]:

The options for addressing the $138,163 difference, [consultant Kerry] Laycock said, included using AAHC reserves, looking at funds held by affiliated nonprofits, using in-kind services from the city of Ann Arbor, and the sale/lease of maintenance vehicles as a part of the outsourcing contract. But Laycock gave city councilmembers a heads-up on Monday night that the AAHC could be asking them for money from the Ann Arbor general fund as well.

The second item bundled into Monday’s council resolution went to support the efforts of Avalon Housing in merging with the Washtenaw Affordable Housing Corp. – that support was a housing trust fund allocation of $50,000. The merger of Avalon with WAHC was planned originally to take place during 2008-2009, but as the staff cover memo to the resolution describes, one of the major players’ support, which had been assumed, has not materialized:

[...] Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA), which was a key partner in the commencement of this merger, has taken increasingly conservative underwriting standards and is unwilling to invest in projects that they previously would have funded.

The 114 units of affordable housing maintained by WAHC, and now absorbed by Avalon, are distributed among three locations: Gateway Apartments – a 43-unit complex located on West Michigan Avenue in Ypsilanti – and two Ann Arbor locations, at 1500 Pauline and 701 Miller.

Although the Washtenaw Urban County has continued to support other Avalon-administered properties, at a recent meeting the Urban County executive committee reallocated $740,000 in funds previously designated for Gateway – moving $640,000 to Habitat for Humanity of Huron Valley for housing purchases and rehabilitation, and $100,000 to the Ypsilanti Housing Commission for Parkview Apartments, a 144-unit complex. [Chronicle coverage: "Urban County Allocates Housing Funds"]

The third program bundled into the city council’s resolution was $125,000 of support for a foreclosure prevention initiative involving the county treasurer’s office, the MSU Extension, Housing Bureau for Seniors, and Legal Services of South Central Michigan. According to the cover memo accompanying the resolution, the city’s contribution of $160,000 to the program in FY 2009 served 410 mortgage and tax foreclosure clients for a cost of an average $390 per household. Preventing foreclosure is analyzed as more cost effective than providing housing and human services to people after they are forced to leave foreclosed properties.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who sponsored the resolution, pointed out that the trust fund was being tapped to support permanent housing, not for human services. The money was all going to maintain currently existing permanent affordable housing, she said, urging her colleagues on the city council to support it.

An attempt by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) to separate out the three projects for separate votes got no traction from his council colleagues. His motion to amend the resolution in a way that would separate them out failed, because no one seconded the motion.

Kunselman indicated that he thought it was the first time the city council had ever given support to Avalon for its merger activities with WAHC. Mary Jo Callan, who heads the joint city/county office of community development, clarified that 18 month ago when the merger began, the council had authorized $195,000 for merger activities. That evening’s resolution brought the total to $245,000, she said. Kunselman asked if this was all that would be expected. Callan indicated that for these particular activities, yes.

Kunselman observed that the council was making an investment in low-income housing where Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) had not been willing to re-invest and that it was past the date when they thought it would be wrapped up. Kunselman noted that according to a staff report, there would be $95,000 of unobligated funds in the housing trust fund. He wanted to know if that projection for the unobligated portion included the interest-only payment from the purchase on the YMCA lot. If so, Kunselman wondered if at some point the interest-only payment would come from the city’s general fund.

Kunselman allowed that the Burton Road project, which had previously been forecast to eat up a lot of the housing trust fund, will probably be unobligated. But Kunselman said it still made him “queasy,” because the general fund is supporting it. He expressed concern that there seemed to be no long-term plan and that the city was filling in gaps where the “heavy-hitters” are backing off. [By "heavy-hitters," he was referring to MSHDA]. Kunselman said that he was not sure he saw this as a good plan. He also wondered about the $130,000 for the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, indicating to city administrator Roger Fraser that he thought Fraser planned to put the amount into the budget. Fraser responded by saying he’d have to look at the issue.

Outcome: The resolution to allocate $313,000 to the three affordable housing initiatives was unanimously approved.

Housing: Funding Allocation Swap

An item that received no discussion – but served as a reminder of the allocation for emergency shelter that the council had approved at its Nov. 6, 2009 meeting – amounted to a book-keeping adjustment. The city council had appropriated a total of $159,500 in Ann Arbor Housing Trust Funds (AAHTF) for that purpose. However, a city attorney review determined that provision of an emergency rotating shelter is not an eligible AAHTF activity.

So the part of those funds designated for that purpose – a $30,500 contract with the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County – was swapped out Monday night for Ann Arbor city general funds.

Outcome: The re-allocation of the funds for the rotating shelter was unanimously approved.

Housing: Appointment of Housing Commissioner

As part of the city council’s decision on March 15, 2010 to replace the city’s housing commission board, the council restored two of the commissioners to the five-member body, one of whom was the commissioner who satisfied the legal requirement that one member be a resident of the housing stock administered by the commission – Deborah Gibson. However, Gibson, who’d been re-appointed to the board for only a one-month term, resigned in light of the council’s action, which forced the city to find a replacement for her on an accelerated schedule.

Mayor John Hieftje said at Monday’s meeting that 1,500 letters had been sent out, and that they’d received 18 applications. After winnowing through them, Sasha Wombley Womble had been nominated. Ordinarily, appointments are made in a two-step process, with the first step being the nomination, and the second step the confirmation at a subsequent meeting. Hieftje asked that the council confirm Womble’s appointment in a one-step process, because the housing commission board was to meet on that Wednesday.

Outcome: The council confirmed Sasha Wombley’s appointment to the housing commission board in a one-step process.

Construction Projects

The city council entertained discussion of a major construction project by approving a third attempt to secure funding from the state of Michigan for replacing the East Stadium bridges. The bridges span the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks and South State Street. Another planned major construction project – Fuller Road Station – received some discussion during council communications, hinting that the primary election campaign season could be starting to warm up. Reduction of warming was a benefit touted during public comment in support of porous pavement to be used in a Sylvan Avenue project. And the council received awards for two construction projects already completed.

Construction: East Stadium Bridges

The item before the council was an authorization to apply for funding from the state of Michigan’s local bridge program, administered by the local bridge advisory board (LBAB). The application is based on the understanding that the LBAB may have up to $6 million to award for FY 2013 for projects across the state. The city intends to apply for $3 million to support the East Stadium bridge replacement project, which carries a price tag of $23 million.

A timeline overview of some of the bridge’s history:

• 1917: Bridge is built.
• 1973: Voters approve a millage to fund a bond to repair the East Stadium bridge. The proposed bond sale on the ballot included $800,000 for creation of a citywide bicycle system using existing streets and new pathways, and $360,000 designated for repair of the Stadium bridges. At the time the debate centered on whether the new bridge design should accommodate a wider roadway for State Street. On the same ballot was a transit millage, which passed as well – the same millage that supports today’s AATA.
• 2006: City of Ann Arbor is awarded $766,000 from Michigan’s local bridge program, but the city allowed the award to expire a year later, because the amount did not go far enough towards funding the project – the alternative to expiration would have been to spend the MLBP money towards bridge reconstruction.
• 2006: The city pays $1,249,467 to Northwest Consultants Inc. (NCI) for preliminary design engineering for the comprehensive bridge project that included bridge replacement, a transmission water main, storm sewer, and a South Main non-motorized path.
• 2007: After a biannual inspection of the bridge, weight limits were reduced on the span. The limits were set as follows: 31 tons (reduced from 38 tons) for one-unit trucks (e.g., school or AATA buses); 39 tons (reduced from 48 tons) for two-unit trucks (e.g., a single-trailer semi); 44 tons (reduced from 54 tons) for three-unit trucks (e.g., a semi with two trailers)
• 2007: On Sept. 18, 2007 and Oct. 2, 2007 at Pioneer High School’s cafeteria, informational workshops are held on a comprehensive project to address replacement of the span over State Street as well as the one over the railroad, including non-motorized improvements (i.e., sidewalks) extending along Stadium Boulevard to Main Street and south along Main to Scio Church road. Those workshops  are well attended, especially by members of the Ann Arbor Golf and Outing Club, which is located near the bridges.
• 2007: On Dec. 29, 2007 there are reports of “medium-sized pieces of concrete” falling off one of the 16 pre-stressed concrete box beams supporting the roadway.
• 2008: Early January re-inspection by city staff and bridge engineering consultants leads to the short-term recommendation of a traffic control order further reducing weight limits: 19 tons for one-unit trucks (e.g., school or AATA buses); 24 tons for two-unit trucks (e.g., a single-trailer semi); 26 tons for three-unit trucks (e.g., a semi with two trailers).
• 2008: In March, the vision for a comprehensive renovation of the bridges meets with a funding setback. The Michigan Department of Transportation awards only $760,000 for the project, though the total cost was estimated at that time at around $35 million.
• 2008: On Oct. 22, 2008 Northwest Consultants Inc. performs biennial inspection.
• 2009: In early February, the engineering consultant for the bridge, Northwest Consultants Inc., is called back to re-examine the bridge. A 7/8 inch deflection of the beam is found. [Chronicle coverage: "Discontent Emerges at Caucus" and "Building Bridges"] Bridge safety rating has dropped to 2 on a scale of 100.
• 2009: In March, traffic is rerouted so that it’s limited to the northern lanes, and does not pass over the beams showing deflection. [Chronicle coverage: "How the E. Stadium Bridge Gets Monitored" and "Council Gets Update on Stadium Bridges"]
• 2009: On Sept. 15, 2009 the bridge inspection consultant, Northwest Consultants Inc., inspects the East Stadium bridge over South State Street, and recommends removing the five southernmost beams.
• 2009: On Oct. 5, 2009 the city council authorizes expenditure to remove five beams.
• 2009: On Oct. 28, 2009 and again on Dec. 1, 2009, public meetings are held to discuss design.
• 2009: In November, five beams are removed from the bridge.
• 2009: In November, the state’s local bridge advisory board awards no funds for the Ann Arbor bridge project, citing the lack of any other non-city funding available for the project. [Chronicle coverage: "State Board: No Funding for State Bridges "]
• 2010: In February, the US-DOT announces the final recipients of the federal TIGER grant – they do not include the city of Ann Arbor.

At Monday’s council meeting, Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked Homayoon Pirooz to take the podium – he’s head of project management for the city. She led off by asking him to explain what the local bridge program is.

The Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) makes funds available to cities every so often through the local bridge program, not every year, explained Pirooz. The city’s application last year was for the FY 2012 budget, and the city did not receive approval, he reminded councilmembers. Since that time, he said, the city of Ann Arbor has been in constant communication with MDOT, and MDOT has encouraged Ann Arbor to apply again – for FY 2013. So Ann Ann Arbor is applying for $3 million from the local bridge program.

The city has been working on additional funding strategies, Pirooz reported, and since June of last year there have been some successes and some disappointments. The major disappointment was Ann Arbor not being selected for the federal TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) grant, which would have paid for almost all of the project.

Among the successes that Pirooz reported was $8 million that the city could “almost count on” as part of an earmark in the federal surface transportation fund. There’s also an MDOT transportation enhancement grant, which could mean as much as $1.5 million to fund the non-motorized improvements that are part of the project. That would bring the non-city share of the $23 million project to $12.5 million. The design is expected to be complete this summer.

The construction, which had originally been announced to start in the fall of 2010, said Pirooz, had been tied to the application requirements of the TIGER grant.

Teall asked if the city was still going after some other federal grants. Pirooz said that there had been some talk of a “mini-TIGER grant” and the city would apply for that if it becomes available.

Mayor John Hieftje indicated that a formal announcement hasn’t been made of the second round of TIGER funding, but that Congressman John Dingell believes a second round of funding will happen.

If the construction starts in March of 2011, Teall wanted to know how long it would last. Pirooz indicated that it would depend on whether the bridge was completely closed to traffic during the construction period. If the bridge is completely closed to traffic, he said, the construction would take around 18 months. If one lane is left open, that would add six months to the schedule, he said. Teall confirmed with Pirooz that the longer the project takes, the more it will cost.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) confirmed that this would represent the third attempt to get funding from the state’s local bridge program. Kunselman also confirmed that the letter from MDOT indicates that the reason the city did not receive money during the most recent round of funding was that the city had no outside funding for the project.

Kunselman wanted to know why the city’s position was any different now than before, with respect to outside funding that had actually been secured. Pirooz indicated that the city was in the process of securing it, citing the $8 million in surface transportation funds. Kunselman confirmed with Pirooz that the $8 million was not “for sure.” Pirooz allowed that “nothing is for sure.”

Kunselman wanted to know what the city’s chances are. “Better than last time,” said Pirooz. Last time, he added, the city had ideas about sources, and the city told MDOT that, but the city couldn’t say how much from each source it could expect. Someone has to offer part of the funding and then the city can go after the other parts. Last time, the state’s local bridge program didn’t want to be the first award of money. This time, explained Pirooz, the city can tell the state that $8 million in federal surface transportation funding is in the works and that a $1.5 million transportation enhancement grant is in the works.

The tone of the conversation has changed, said Pirooz. Asked by Kunselman if the money had been promised, Pirooz said that no, it would not be wise for anyone to make that assumption. He estimated that the chances for getting funding from the state’s local bridge program was 70-80% this time, when last time it had been perhaps 30-40%.

Kunselman asked about the plan for the city to use two years worth of its street repair millage. City administrator Roger Fraser explained that the use of the street repair millage to fund the entire project had been the “fall-back plan.” Fraser said the city staff is trying to do “anything but that.” If the city was forced to do that, Fraser said, then “we’ll have a serious conversation with you.” That conversation would come as early as this fall, if the city can’t obtain the dollars.

When asked by Kunselman if the project would start this fall if the local street repair millage had to pay for all of it, Fraser stressed that the fall 2010 construction start had been based on a requirement of the TIGER grant application. It will now be a spring 2011 construction start, but funding needs to be in place by the end of the year.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked at what point the $8 million of federal surface transportation funding becomes certain. Pirooz indicated that in the process, the first step was WATS (Washtenaw Area Transportation Study) approval, and that’s been done. The next step, said Pirooz, is for SEMCOG (Southeast Michigan Council of Governments) to approve it, which the city believed it would. Once that happens, said Pirooz, the city had a promise that the surface transportation program would pay the $8 million. The one last piece is the federal highway bill – the surface transportation program is part of that, and it’s still in the Congressional approval process. As long as there’s a highway bill, said Pirooz, the $8 million will happen. There’s a “slim to none” chance that the highway bill won’t happen, he said.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the authorization to apply for funding from the state’s local bridge program to help pay for the replacement of the East Stadium bridges.

Construction: Fuller Road Station

Eli Cooper has presented the Fuller Road Station project on several occasions to different public bodies, most recently at an Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board meeting [Chronicle coverage: "AATA Gets Its Fill of Fuller Road Station"] Cooper also presented an update on the project to the city’s park advisory committee (PAC) at its March 16, 2010 meeting.

The city council appoints two of its own members as non-voting ex officio members of PAC: Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

At Monday’s city council meeting, during his communications time, Anglin reported that when Cooper had made his presentation at the March 16 PAC meeting, a lot of concerns were raised – noting that it is the park advisory commission, and that naturally they’re passionate about the parks – “as they should be,” he said. The city/university were working together, said Anglin, to build what most people see as a parking structure. Anglin said he shared some of their concerns, but also sees the larger vision [of a train station for commuter service] that could take place. The fact that there’s no guarantee that the train will become a reality is a concern to many people, he noted, especially at a time when the city is cutting expenses.

Taylor indicated that compared to Anglin, he had a somewhat different take on the PAC meeting, as far as the nature of the concerns that were expressed there. He suggested that among PAC members the main focus of concern was whether the city was getting a “sufficient deal” as expressed in the memorandum of understanding. The equity of the deal between the city and university was something that everyone would need to keep an eye on, Taylor said.

Mayor John Hieftje took up the issue of Fuller Road Station, saying that a question from the previous night’s caucus about when a specific set of information would be posted on the city’s website had been looked at by city staff. He also took the opportunity to respond to Anglin’s remarks on Fuller Road Station, pointing out that the last time the council had voted on it, Anglin had supported it.

Construction: Plymouth Green Crossings

The item that came before the council was a request for a change in the PUD agreement for the Plymouth Green Crossings project. What the change did was swap out a proposed restaurant for 26 temporary parking spaces plus 11 motorcycle spaces. At a planning commission meeting in February, the change received support of all five commissioners who were present, but fell short of the six votes needed to win an official “recommendation” from that body. [Chronicle coverage: "Plymouth Green Crossings Gets Every Vote, Still One Short"]

During public commentary at the city council’s Monday night meeting, Jim Mogensen told the council that the project had an interesting history. He said he first learned about it from a clerk’s report and he noticed that the project was going to need a water permit from the MDEQ. Mogensen said he just happened to be in the city hall building, and he asked Jerry Hancock about it, who said, What project?  [Hancock is Ann Arbor's stormwater and floodplain programs coordinator.]

Any citizen can call for a public hearing, Mogensen said, which he did. And that caused a delay, which gave Hancock some additional time to review the plan. Now there’s a bunch of underground detention tanks – which were required of the developer – that would not have otherwise been required. He asked the council to think about the tanks – whether it’s a parking lot or a restaurant, eventually the tanks will fail. If it’s a substantial building on top of the tanks, what do you do?

The other part of the project involves payments into the affordable housing fund by the developer, which the developer has experienced difficulty making, Mogensen noted. When a developer of a property has a problem, Mogensen observed, society will sort out the solution for the developer. What happens, though, when a tenant has a similar problem?

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously without discussion to approve the amended Plymouth Green Crossings PUD agreement.

Construction: Porous Pavement on Sylvan Avenue

Sylvan is a short one-block-long street running east-west, nestled into the upside down”V” formed by State and Packard streets, near Yost Ice Arena. At the city council’s Oct. 5, 2009 meeting, the city council had already approved an expenditure for $54,271 to pay for engineering services (from Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc.) for the Sylvan Avenue porous pavement project.

At that meeting, Margie Teall (Ward 4) had requested that it be pulled out of the consent agenda for individual consideration. Nick Hutchinson, a civil engineer with the city, fielded questions from Teall, in whose ward Sylvan Avenue is located. At that time Hutchinson indicated that the project should be finished in the spring of 2010.

At that October 2009 meeting, several benefits of porous pavement were drawn out. Many of them were the same as those mentioned at Monday’s meeting by Vince Caruso during public commentary. He noted that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considered it best practice: it reduces heat in the summer, it’s quieter under traffic load, requires less salt and plowing during the winter, because as the snow and ice melt, the water drains straight through.

The project’s budget is $481,245, drawing funding from the street reconstruction millage ($159,983) and the stormwater maintenance fund ($321,442). The stormwater funding portion of the project will be repaid as a loan secured by the office of the Water Resources Commissioner [formerly called the Drain Commissioner].

Before the council on Monday night was the approval of a construction contract with ABC Paving Co. for $343,875.

Outcome: The council approved the construction contract with ABC Paving Co. for $343,875.

Construction: Awards

The city council bore witness to the presentation of two awards from the Michigan chapter of the American Public Works Association (APWA). As part of their Project of the Year Awards, the city of Ann Arbor had won an award for the Huron Parkway-Nixon Road intersection improvements. The project won in the category of transportation projects under $2 million. The city also won an APWA award for the Harvard Drain and Nichols Arboretum stormwater enhancement project. The arboretum project won in the the environment category for projects under $2 million.

Making the award on behalf of the APWA was Evan Pratt, who is familiar to the city council as a member of the city’s planning commission. Pratt stressed that he was not part of the awards committee for the APWA. The APWA’s 29,000 national members, Pratt told the council, includes 800 members of the Michigan chapter.

Construction: Carbon Monoxide Levels

As a part of his city administrator’s report, Roger Fraser told the council that on the previous Wednesday afternoon [April 14], the carbon monoxide (CO) monitors in the building had started to ring shortly after 1 p.m., and that city hall – the Larcom Building – had quickly been cleared. They asked the fire department to come measure with their more sensitive equipment and firefighters had confirmed elevated CO readings in Larcom and the adjacent police/courts building currently under construction.

Speculation on Wednesday afternoon was that those CO emissions had come from several factors. There were strong winds out of south, and at the base of a hole where an excavator was working there were 8-inch uncapped wire feeds. Also, while work is being done in the basement, there is an opening in the south side of the building. The working theory was that diesel fumes were being sucked into the building through the wire feeds and the opening in the basement via the stair towers that have their base in the basement.

Overnight, there were clear CO levels, said Fraser. And the 6 a.m. test indicated clear readings. Staff had been told the day before that unless they heard otherwise, the plan was for everyone to come in to work as usual. After 7 a.m., the CO alarm went off again. “We were dumbfounded,” said Fraser. It turned out that a propane-operated skid loader working in the basement was emitting high levels of CO and was probably causing previous CO readings, not the excavator. Propane-operated equipment is not supposed to emit CO, said Fraser. The city has done additional sealing work and has looking into the issue of the skid loader, Fraser said.

City Charter and Council Rules

The city council considered a rule on email, and demonstrated in actual practice how a charter provision governs council conduct.

Charter and Rules: Email Rule Consideration

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who chairs the city council’s rules committee, asked that a resolution be added to the agenda that would formally direct the council’s rules committee to take up the issue of a rule on the councilmembers’ use of government email account to do its city business.

Whereas, The Council has agreed to consider the following amendment to the Council Rules: “City Council members will use their City e-mail accounts when sending e-mail communications about substantive City business, to the extent feasible. This rule does not cover communication to constituents or residents or communications regarding political activity.”

Whereas The Council considers it appropriate to have the Council Rules Committee review this Rule further;

RESOLVED, The Council formally considers this Rule and directs the Council Rules Committee to review the Rule further.

The consideration of the rule stemmed from a requirement in the terms of recent lawsuit that the city settled. [Chronicle coverage: "City Settles Lawsuit, Must Conduct Study"] The settlement agreement specified that:

21. As the City Council has previously been reviewing e-mail usage policies, the City Council will further consider the following amendment at the April, 2010 Council meeting(s), “City Council members will use their City e-mail accounts when sending e-mail communications about substantive City business, to the extent feasible. This rule does not cover communication to constituents or residents or communication regarding political activity.”
22. The Plaintiffs recognize that the City Council will address this through the council process and that this Agreement is not dependent on any particular result, other than the Council formally considering this possible amendment in some manner in April, 2010. The parties recognize that such a rule, even if adopted, is not binding on any subsequent Council and each new City Council enacts new rules after each general election.

There was no consideration by the council at Monday’s meeting in terms of a debate or discussion of the merits of amending their set of rules in the manner so specified. The scant discussion centered on an explanation from city attorney Stephen Postema that there was no requirement under the settlement terms that the council do anything with the rule. But Postema asserted that it was appropriate for the council to look at the rule. Postema did not repeat a previous statement he’d made to the media that to his knowledge the council used the government email system for their city business. Instead, he said he knew that councilmembers generally used the system, but allowed that there are difficulties in using it.

One of the issues that such a rule might address is the city of Ann Arbor’s failure under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to produce electronic communications by city councilmembers or other public officials that are sent using non-government email accounts. In The Chronicle’s most recent experience on April 13, 2010, the city failed to produce such records at least in part because the city does not consistently request of public officials that they produce writings from their non-government email accounts, which could be responsive to FOIA requests.

Despite a lack of discussion, by using the statement, “The Council formally considers this Rule …” the council can rely on the statement as a performative utterance to satisfy the requirement of the settlement agreement. Performative utterances, as explicated by J.L. Austin in his seminal work “How to Do Things With Words,” are sentences that are neither true nor false, but which are used to perform some act upon the world. Standard examples of these kinds of sentences include:

1. ‘I do’ in a marriage ceremony.
2. ‘I name this ship the “Queen Elizabeth.”‘
3. ‘I give and bequeath my watch to my brother’ as in a will.
4. ‘I bet you sixpence it will rain tomorrow.’

Some things are not achievable with a performative utterance, of course. For example, “I hereby lift this piano” does not effect a piano lifting.

Mayor John Hieftje was keen to emphasize that the settlement agreement would not cost the city anything, because the environmental study, which is also a requirement of the settlement, was being performed in-house.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the remand of the email rule to its rules committee.

The council’s rules committee will be adding the consideration of an email rule to its current work plan of developing an ethics policy for the council.

Charter and Rules:  Glacier Hills and Jolly Pumpkin

Some of the ethical considerations under which the council does its work are prescribed not by council rule or by an ethics policy, but by the city charter. Applied on two occasions Monday night was the following charter provision:

4.4 (f)  Except as otherwise provided in this charter, each member of the Council present shall cast a “yes” or “no” vote on each question before the Council, unless excused therefrom by a vote of at least six members.

The reason for excusing Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) from voting on those two occasions was also charter-based:

4.4 (i) A member of the Council shall not vote on a question in which the member has a financial interest, other than the general public interest, or on any question involving the member’s own conduct. If a question is raised under this section at any Council meeting concerning the eligibility of a member of the Council to vote on any matter, such question shall be finally determined by the concurring vote of at least six members of the Council, not including such member.

Specifically, Taylor explained to his council colleagues, his law firm Butzel Long represented a potential beneficiary of the council’s action in two cases.

First, Butzel Long represents Jolly Pumpkin. So the council voted to excuse Taylor from the discussion on a resolution that allowed for a new outdoor service area for the Main Street bar.

Outcome: The new outdoor service area for Jolly Pumpkin was unanimously approved.

Second, Butzel Long provided the bond counsel for the city’s Economic Development Corporation (EDC) in connection with an EDC project that Glacier Hills had applied for – it includes $23 million in bonds. So the council voted to excuse Taylor from the discussion of that project, which was approved. As part of the resolution, two people were added to the EDC board: Dan Slee and John A. Rasmussen, who are representative of neighborhood residents and business interests likely to be affected by the project.

Outcome: The resolution to approve the EDC Glacier Hills project was unanimously approved.

During public commentary at the end of the meeting, Stephen Ranzini, a member of the city’s EDC, thanked the council for passing the resolution and reminded the council to use their leverage with business owners, because the EDC had been allocated $17 million in tax-free bonding authority as part of the federal stimulus package. The Washtenaw County EDC, for which Ranzini also serves as vice chair, had been awarded another $33 million in tax-free bonding authority, said Ranzini. He noted that neither the city nor the county EDC had received any applications for funds – despite Ranzini’s attempts to to communicate through Ann Arbor SPARK, and through personal meetings. [See Chronicle coverage of Ranzini making the same point to the Ann Arbor DDA and of a recent Washtenaw County Economic Development Corporation meeting.]

Street Lights

Pulled out of the consent agenda for specific consideration was an item that approved a contract with DTE to convert 58 conventional streetlights to LED  fixtures. The location of the lights is the Hill-Packard-East University neighborhood, which was chosen in part in response to concerns about safety raised by some University of Michigan students in 2008.

As part of the contract, DTE is dropping the annual charges for the streetlights from $11,887 to $6,293.  The annual savings of $5,594 would result in a four-year payback on the city’s share of the $22,288 conversion cost. The city and DTE are splitting the conversion costs 50-50.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) called that kind of collaboration “exciting” and asked Andrew Brix to take the podium. Brix is the city’s energy programs manager.

Brix said that the city had been at the forefront in moving towards LED back in 2005. They’d been working with DTE on the issue. The state Public Service Commission had ordered DTE to produce a proposal for a uniform tariff for LED lights, Brix said, but they were “not there yet” based on what they submitted.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked about the safety issue and how the LED bulbs addressed it. Brix explained that the LEDs would produce “whiter” light and better color conditions. “You’ll be able to make out color,” he explained.

Asked by Margie Teall (Ward 4) what kind of fixtures were chosen, Brix said it was the same fixture used on Nixon Road – it was DTE’s choice, but the city was happy with it, he said.

Mayor John Hieftje noted that it’s difficult to work on something owned by someone else and that the city had to win DTE’s cooperation.

Brix broke down the statistics for streetlights: The city owns 800 streetlights outside the downtown. The other 5,500 are owned by DTE.

Christoper Taylor (Ward 3) said he wanted to “pile on the praise” for DTE taking the step. He also noted that in connection with the A2Fiber response to Google’s request for information, DTE had been a “100-percent partner” on the project.

Hieftje allowed that he’d been impatient at the pace that the LED conversion has been moving forward, but that from DTE’s point of view, they are setting a precedent, so DTE is reluctant to go too fast.

Crosswalks

Resident Kathy Griswold addressed the council once again on the topic of moving the mid-block crosswalk at King Elementary School from its mid-block location to a four-way stop intersection about 300 feet away. She reported that she’d sent an email that day to Todd Roberts, the superintendent of the Ann Arbor Public School system, asking him to email city administrator Roger Fraser stating his support for the move.

Griswold noted that the parents of children attending the school are instructing their kids to cross at the intersection, but that the school crossing guards can’t guard that crosswalk – they can only serve at the mid-block location. A request made under the Freedom of Information Act, said Griswold, had revealed over 50 emails, but the project had come to a halt in the fall of 2009. It seemed mysterious, she said. She expressed the hope that she’d only be at council a few more times talking about the crosswalk.

How many times has Griswold addressed the council on the King School crosswalk issue? Here’s a (possibly incomplete) chronology:

• 2009 Aug. 16 city council caucus [link]
• 2009 Nov. 5 city council meeting [link]
• 2009 Dec. 21 city council meeting [link]
• 2010 Jan. 4 city council meeting [link]
• 2010 Feb. 1 city council meeting [link]
• 2010 Feb. 16 city council meeting [link]
• 2010 March 15 city council meeting [link]
• 2010 April 5 city council meeting [link]
• 2010 April 18 city council caucus [link]

Also crosswalk related, during his communications time Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) reported out from the WATS policy committee that there would be a presentation on HAWK (High Intensity Activated Crosswalk) signals at the next meeting. The city is looking at the possibility of a HAWK signal for the crossing at Third & Huron, near the Ann Arbor YMCA.

Other Commentary

Appearing briefly during public commentary to thank the council was the new executive director of the Leslie Science Center, Greta Brunschwyler. She thanked city administrator Roger Fraser and said she look forwarded to continued partnership.

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

Next council meeting: May 3, 2010 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]