DDA board action came at its April 2, 2014 meeting. The resolution of support will be used as part of an application, due April 28, for a U.S. Department of Transportation TIGER 2014 (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) grant.

The lead agency for the study, which is now in its second phase, is the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. This second phase is an alternatives analysis. The alternatives analysis phase will result in a preferred choice of transit mode (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and identification of stations and stops. The study first winnowed down options to six different route alignments. At the April 2 meeting, DDA board member Roger Hewitt reported from the technical advisory committee for the study, on which he serves, that those six routes had been further reduced to two possibilities. Additional modeling work is being done on those two alternatives.

Hewitt said at the meeting that the final report on the alternatives analysis would be expected by the end of the summer, adding that the project is over time but under budget.

Hewitt also reported that expectations were low that the federal TIGER grant would be received during this year’s funding round – but said it was important to put the project on the radar of federal agencies.

The first phase of the project – a feasibility study completed in 2011 – concluded that there was sufficient travel demand in the corridor to warrant some kind of high-capacity transit system.

This brief was filed from the DDA offices at 150 S. Fifth Ave., where the DDA board holds its meetings. A more detailed report of the meeting will follow: [link]

AAATA board chair Charles Griffith was interviewed after the meeting by Andrew Cluley of WEMU radio. (Photos by the writer.)

The AAATA board had already given approval to say yes to the township’s request to be added as a member – on Sept. 26, 2013. And Ypsilanti’s city council – the other recently-added jurisdiction – had given approval of the move at its Oct. 15, 2013 meeting. The Ann Arbor city council had considered the question at its Oct. 21, 2013 meeting, but had postponed action until Nov. 18, 2013.

The addition of Ypsilanti Township as an AAATA member will increase the number of positions on the AAATA board from nine to 10, with the additional member appointed by the township. Board chair Charles Griffith indicated at the Nov. 21 meeting that the name of Larry Krieg would be put forward by township supervisor Brenda Stumbo for confirmation by the township board of trustees. It’s hoped, Griffith said, that Krieg would be able to attend the next meeting of the board, on Dec. 19, as a member. Krieg attended the Nov. 21 meeting as an audience member. During public commentary at the meeting, Krieg called Ypsilanti Township’s admission into the authority a “victory for regionalism and common sense.”

In its one piece of new business on Nov. 21, the board approved an increase to the AAATA’s contract with Advance Security, to allow for around-the-clock security service coverage at the Blake Transit Center construction site. According to the staff memo accompanying the board resolution, the additional security is required until the new building can be outfitted with doors, windows and locks. The last time the board approved the annual contract it was for $205,000. The increase brought the annual value of the contract to $242,000. The BTC is now expected to be completed by the end of January 2014.

Another highlight of the meeting was a presentation on a comparative analysis the AAATA is conducting of its performance, using statistics from the National Transit Database, and a set of 20 peer transit authorities. The peer set was determined by a tool that is available through the Florida Transit Information System (FTIS). Three key metrics were presented at the Nov. 21 meeting: operating cost per service hour, rider trips per service hour, and operating cost per rider trip. While the AAATA’s operating cost per service hour is greater than its peer group average, according to the AAATA that’s counterbalanced by the number of rider trips per service hour – which leads to a lower cost per rider trip than its peer group average. In this report, The Chronicle presents that data as well as examples of other kinds of data that can be compared across the peer group.

The AAATA board also gave some discussion to a recent presentation given to its planning and development committee from Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) staff on plans for US-23. MDOT intends to use an Active Traffic Management (ATM) system to direct traffic and decrease congestion in the US-23 corridor – because there’s no funding to add an additional lane. That’s hoped to be implemented by 2016. The ATM system would involve upgrading the median shoulder, installing intelligent transportation system (ITS) equipment, constructing crash investigation sites and periodically using shoulders as travel lanes. The plan will also include widening three bridges from North Territorial Road to Eight Mile Road. The AAATA has been asked by MDOT to consider providing park-and-ride service from those bridges.

During the meeting, the board also watched a video that has been produced to explain the connector study – an alternatives analysis for the corridor running from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street, then further south to I-94. The alternatives analysis phase will result in a preferred choice of transit mode (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and identification of stations and stops. The study has winnowed down options to six different route alignments.

At its Nov. 21 meeting, the board also heard its usual range of reports and communications.

Urban Core Planning

The Ann Arbor city council’s Nov. 18, 2013 vote to approve Ypsilanti Township as a member of the AAATA was mentioned at several points during the AAATA board meeting. The admission of Ypsilanti Township comes in the context of a plan to increase transportation service in the member jurisdictions – the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township – likely through a millage that voters would be asked to approve sometime in 2014. The current “urban core” effort is more limited in scope than a countywide effort the AAATA made in 2012. On Nov. 14, 2013, the AAATA concluded a series of 13 public meetings to explain the service plan expansion and to get feedback on it.

Urban Core: Ypsi Twp. Membership

During his report to the board, CEO Michael Ford noted that the Ann Arbor city council had voted unanimously to approve the admission of Ypsilanti Township to the AAATA. Ford’s announcement drew applause. He called Ypsilanti Township’s admission to the AAATA a “critical development” in the urban core program and he appreciated everyone who’s been involved, thanking several AAATA staff members: Michael Benham, Mary Stasiak, Bill DeGroot, Deb Freer, and Chris White. He called it a team effort. Ford also extended his appreciation to Ypsilanti Township supervisor Brenda Stumbo and clerk Karen Lovejoy Roe for their diligence and support throughout the process.

During question time, board chair Charles Griffith echoed the thanks to AAATA staff on the Ypsilanti Township membership question. He also thanked members of the Ann Arbor city council. He said he took his “hat off to Ward 3 city councilmember Stephen Kunselman, who promised he’d help shepherd it through. Congratulations to everybody for getting that done.” Griffith also recognized the extra time and work that staff had put into the series of 13 public meetings. Griffith said he was eager to hear the compilation of all the comments, and the possible revisions that the AAATA might want to consider.

The likely AAATA board appointee from Ypsilanti Township is Larry Krieg. Krieg serves on the Ypsilanti Township planning commission, writes the blog Wake Up, Washtenaw!, and has addressed the AAATA board advocating in support of various transit initiatives over the last few years.

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Krieg thanked AAATA staff who did the presentations on the urban core plan: Michael Benham, Chris White and Deb Freer. He said they’d been very diligent and well organized. The addition of Ypsilanti Township to the AAATA was a “victory for regionalism and common sense.” Having a concern about where people come from and where they’re going is not really something that will create a vibrant economic region, he said. No one community’s government in the county or in the region is sufficient to build up the kind of economy that’s needed, he said. He was glad that the AAATA is working to bring the county and the region together.

Larry Krieg, who is the likely appointee to the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority board from Ypsilanti Township.

Following up on Krieg’s commentary, board chair Charles Griffith noted that Krieg had been nominated to represent Ypsilanti Township on the AAATA board. Griffith hoped Krieg would be sitting with the board in the near future. CEO Michael Ford noted during his report to the board that he hoped Krieg would be sitting at the board table at the board’s next meeting, on Dec. 19.

Ford had asked Krieg before the meeting started: “Will I look forward to seeing you soon?” Krieg told Ford that he’d been nominated by Ypsilanti Township supervisor Brenda Stumbo, but that the appointment would still need confirmation by the board of trustees. Krieg told The Chronicle that Stumbo has checked about potential conflicts between Krieg’s service on the AAATA board and Krieg’s service on the citizens advisory committee of the southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority (RTA). Indications based on inquiries through Dennis Schornack – who is senior advisor to Gov. Rick Snyder on transportation strategy and provides staff support for the RTA – were that there would not be any conflict.

Urban Core: 5-Year Plan

During his report to the board, Ford said that feedback on the urban core “listening tour” – a series of 13 public meetings held from mid-October to mid-November – was being compiled. Updates to the 5-year plan would be made where they make sense and where they’re appropriate, Ford said. He also reported that a community survey that had begun in late October was nearing completion. Among the questions being asked include questions about specific services and the willingness of survey respondents to support transit services financially. An issues analysis is being prepared for the board to consider, Ford said, which would include the 5-year plan, funding, survey data, peer review, and equity analysis, including Title VI analysis. That analysis would first be presented to the standing committees and then at some point to the full board.

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Jim Mogensen noted that during the AAATA’s series of public engagement meetings that were held over the last month, there’d been a lot of focus on making sure that the people in the urban core are “paying their way.” So he drew the board’s attention to the suggestion from MDOT for the AAATA to serve park-and-ride lots between North Territorial and Eight Mile Road on US-23 and the idea of paying for buses out of the millage. He felt those were issues that needed to be made very clear in the AAATA’s 5-year plan.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Mogensen responded to the idea that an issues analysis on the 5-year plan would come before the board. Alluding to the Title VI analysis, he suggested that when you increase service, the AAATA won’t have a problem. But what happens if the AAATA doesn’t increase the service because the millage doesn’t happen. He wanted that scenario to be a part of the analysis.

When Sue Gott reported out from the planning and development committee, she noted that the committee had received some public comment at that meeting expressing appreciation for the series of public engagement meetings.

That’s reflected in minutes from the Nov. 12, 2013 PDC meeting, which include the following:

Vivienne Armentrout stated she had attended one of the public meetings about proposed service improvements for the Five Year Transit Improvement Program and said they were very well organized. The meeting she attended was interactive and encouraged dynamic discussion between the presenters and the meeting attendees.

Gott agreed that the urban core meetings had been very well managed.

Blake Transit Center

The new Blake Transit Center, currently under construction on Fifth Avenue across from the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library, factored into the board’s discussion in more than one way. The board got a construction update, handled an item on increased security during the final construction phase, and received an update on the upcoming sale of the city-owned property just south of the BTC.

BTC: Construction

During his report to the board, CEO Michael Ford said that just before the board meeting, some of the board members and he had taken a quick tour of the under-construction Blake Transit Center. A lot of progress is being made, he said, but there’s obviously a lot more work to do. Ford said that AAATA maintenance manager Terry Black had to leave the tour he was leading to attend to a power outage at the AAATA main headquarters on S. Industrial Highway, which was affected by an area-wide outage in the southern part of town. The AAATA is moving forward with portable trailers to serve the function of the old BTC, which was demolished in early November. The new building is supposed to be finished by the end of January 2014.

During question time, Charles Griffith, who’d been along on the tour, said it was pretty fun to see that new building take shape. It’s possible now to imagine what it’s going to be like for passengers. He’s looking forward to the facility being open.

BTC: Security

The board considered an increase of the $205,000 annual contract with Advance Security, authorized by the board at its April 19, 2012 meeting, to bring the annual value of the contract to $242,000.

BTC under construction on Nov. 21, 2013. View is from Fifth Avenue looking southwest.

The increase will allow for around-the-clock security service coverage at the Blake Transit Center construction site. According to the staff memo accompanying the board resolution, “This additional security service is required until the installation of doors, windows and locks has been completed on the new building to help prevent trespassing, vandalism, loitering, etc.”

That increase in the contract amounts to 18%. Under the AAATA procurement policy, increases of contracts over 10% require board approval. That’s why it was before the board on Nov. 21, 2013. When the board approved the $205,000 in April 2012, that was for the fourth year of a contract first authorized by the board on March 19, 2009 for one year. That contract increase came before the board because it increased the amount of the contract from the previous year by more than 10% – from $150,000 to $205,000, or 36.7%. That new contract was based on hourly wages between $14.33 and $19.67 per hour for a regular shift, and between $21.50 and $29.51 for extra hours and holidays.

The April 2012 increase in the Advance Security contract was based on the need to make the hourly wages in the contract meet the city of Ann Arbor living wage standard, which was adopted by the AATA board at its June 16, 2011 meeting.

The increase the board was asked to approve at its Nov. 21 meeting was for $30,000. The living wage policy had previously increased the amount from $205,000 to $212,000 – an amount that did not require board approval.

BTC: Security – Deliberations

In reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations (PMER) committee, Roger Kerson noted that the committee had reviewed one action item: the increase in the security contract. “We basically need more people watching the [BTC] project.” About the extra expense, Kerson said, “We kinda need to spend the money.” He also pointed out that the AAATA’s security expenses have gone up considerably because of the living wage. That means the AAATA is spending more on people at the lower end of the compensation scale – for the security contract and likely for the janitorial contract as well.

When the board came to the item, Charles Griffith noted that the board had heard during committee reports the rationale for the need to change the contract. The board voted without further deliberations.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the Advance Security contract increase.

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Jim Mogensen told the board he’d worked on the living wage campaign in Ann Arbor 14 years ago when that effort was made, so he was glad that the AAATA had adopted the city’s living wage ordinance. He drew the board’s attention to the fact that one of the citations of the actual wage likely had a typo in it.

BTC: Dahlmann, Y Lot

During his report to the board, CEO Michael Ford noted that in the context of the city council’s action to approve a sales agreement with Dennis Dahlmann for the old Y lot downtown – which is just south of the Blake Transit Center – board chair Charles Griffith would be assigning a subcommittee to work with Dahlmann. Ford noted that the rider agreement included a requirement that Dahlmann work with the AAATA toward its goal of not using on-street areas for bus boardings. From the rider agreement:

Discussion with AAATA. Purchaser agrees to discuss with the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority (the “AAATA”). in good faith whether the Purchaser can help facilitate AAATA’s goal of limiting on-street bus transit and/or storage on Fifth and William within the immediate area of Blake Transit Center. This covenant shall survive Closing.

Ford said he looked forward to working with Dahlmann to meet “our collective goals.”

MDOT: US-23

During his report to the board, CEO Michael Ford noted that the planning and development committee (PDC) had received a presentation from MDOT staff on improvements on US-23 between North Territorial to Eight Mile Road. [Former AAATA board member Paul Ajegba was one of two MDOT staffers who gave the presentation.]

MDOT intends to use an Active Traffic Management (ATM) system to direct traffic and decrease congestion in the US-23 corridor – because there’s no funding to add an additional lane. That’s hoped to be implemented by 2016. The ATM system would involve upgrading the median shoulder, installing intelligent transportation system (ITS) equipment, constructing crash investigation sites and periodically using shoulders as travel lanes. The plan will also include widening three bridges from North Territorial Road to Eight Mile Road.

The AAATA has been asked by MDOT to consider providing park-and-ride service from those bridges. Ford said the AAATA would be considering that request to see how it fits into the AAATA’s work plan.

CEO of the AAATA Michael Ford conferred with staff during the meeting.

Sue Gott reported out from the planning and development committee that the committee had spent quite a bit of time discussing the MDOT presentation, to understand the type of modeling that had been done by MDOT to identify the congested nature of US-23 and how the proposed use of the shoulders addresses congestion management. Gott felt there was an understanding that AAATA staff would follow up with MDOT about the potential for AAATA to be a partner for construction and operation of a new park-and-ride lot to be located along the corridor. Gott looked forward to more feedback from staff about the traffic modeling and the benefits and the opportunities for thinking about an HOV (high-occupancy vehicle) lane – allowing there are some state restrictions on HOV lanes. She concluded that there was some opportunity, and that the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) would also be looking at this issue.

In reporting out from the PMER committee, Roger Kerson commented on the presentation that the committee had received from MDOT about US-23. He ventured that MDOT is not going to re-do the exit ramps twice. “If you wanted to have a park-and-ride near one of those spots,” Kerson said, “this is the time to do it.” On the other hand, the AAATA has the urban core initiative and the connector project going on. He characterized the US-23 project as intruding on the AAATA’s agenda, even if it’s not in AAATA’s plan – because MDOT can proceed with its project on its own. “It’s their road. If they want to not widen it, but make it wider, they can!” he quipped.

Board members Sue Gott and Roger Kerson.

During question time, Kerson said he wanted to throw on the table a timeline for the AAATA to interact with MDOT’s US-23 project. His sense from MDOT is they have a schedule – so he thought that as an organization the AAATA board needs to spend some time thinking about it. A park-and-ride is not a part of any of AAATA’s recent plans, but it’s an opportunity to do it in an efficient way – with MDOT willing to contribute land acquisition. One concern, which Anya Dale had raised at the committee meeting, is that it’s making individual vehicle operation and travel easier. So it’s not clear if setting up a park-and-ride lot at that location is the AAATA’s best action, Kerson said.

Kerson wanted some time to reflect on what it is that the AAATA wants to do. It raises a lot of questions that he didn’t know the answers to. Ford said there are some additional parties that he wants to talk to. Staff is putting together some information for the board. Ford recognized it’s a “meaty issue.”

Charles Griffith ventured there is already a park-and-ride lot at the North Territorial interchange. Responding to Griffith, Chris White explained that there’s a distinction between a carpool lot and a park-and-ride lot. Griffith wondered if MDOT would not be seriously considering rebuilding the carpool lot anyway. He was curious to know how dependent MDOT’s decisions would be on a decision by AAATA to serve that lot. Griffith noted that the lot is well used, saying he uses it himself on trips to Lansing, when he carpools with colleagues.

Connector Study

The board got an update on the connector study – an alternatives analysis for the corridor running from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street, then further south to I-94. The alternatives analysis phase will result in a preferred choice of transit mode (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and identification of stations and stops. The study has winnowed down options to six different route alignments.

The board also watched a video that has been produced to explain the project. Later in the meeting Roger Kerson asked who had produced the video. Community relations manager Mary Stasiak indicated that it had been produced by Quack!Media.

During his report to the board, CEO Michael Ford noted that on Nov. 14 three public meetings had been held to highlight the six different potential alignments for a route and station locations. About 50 people total had attended the meetings, he said. Ford characterized most of the feedback as positive or constructive. The board was shown a 4-minute video that has been produced to explain the connector study. Spring 2014 is the timeframe for sharing the preferred alternative with the community, Ford said.

Board chair Charles Griffith said the connector study was approaching an interesting phase in selecting routes. He was eager to see some of the modeling results. From the community and business perspective, he ventured, “it’s going to change the look and feel of the city in some significant ways.” He urged the rest of the people in the community who were interested in how the city is going to look in the future to get engaged and weigh in.

During question time, Sue Gott thanked board members who were able to attend the meetings on the connector. She encouraged other board members who could not attend to take the time and effort to review the materials. She wanted the board to be engaged and to “maintain pace” with the study. Now modeling will be done and the outcome of that modeling will shape the study committee’s recommendation of a preferred alternative. The degree to which board members can stay engaged and ask questions will be very helpful, she said.

In spring 2014 that committee will be looking to make a recommendation, so it will be important for all of the AAATA board members to maintain enough connectivity to the study to be able to support the outcome, Gott said.

Disability Issues

Sue Gott reported out from the planning and development committee that the committee had begun a review of the capital and categorical grant program. They’d been assured there’s enough funding for the projects in the program. Part of paratransit improvements would include purchase of buses for A-Ride instead of having the contractor provide the vehicles. AAATA currently owns six small A-Ride vehicles, but under the new capital program, AAATA would own all vehicles for the A-Ride program to increase flexibility and give the AAATA a higher level of control.

In reporting out from the PMER committee, Roger Kerson said that board member Jack Bernard had raised some issues about the AAATA website with respect to accessibility – involving selection of colors. Making sure the website is accessible would continue to be on the AAATA’s agenda, he said.

Rebecca Burke reported from the AAATA’s local advisory council (LAC), a group that provides input and feedback to AAATA on disability and senior issues. She reported that the group had met on Nov. 12. She noted that Jack Bernard had attended the meeting as the liaison from the board to the LAC. She felt that would improve communication between the board and the LAC.

Michael Benham, strategic planner for the AAATA, had given the LAC a shorter version of the 5-year improvement plan presentation, Burke said. She called the question-answer period very productive. A representative from Jewish Family Services had attended the meeting to explain their accessibility plan, and expressed an interest in providing a paratransit option in the county. The LAC had also approved a change to its bylaws to reflect the addition of the word “area” to the name of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.

AAATA board member Jack Bernard.

Bernard followed up Burke’s remarks by calling his first meeting a really wonderful meeting. The committee had heard from citizens at the meeting, who’d come with specific stories about their experiences using the AAATA’s services. He’d found the AAATA staff to be “incredibly receptive” to hearing those experiences. He said that staff had provided good approaches to dealing with various issues. He’d gotten the impression that those who attend the meetings to share their concerns are still very happy with the service. Bernard also encouraged other board members to “stick your head into that meeting.” He felt they’d find it refreshing, and they’d see the staff interacting with passengers.

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Carolyn Grawi, Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living director of advocacy and education, noted that she works with and behalf of people in the community with disabilities. She said she loved the fact that the peer analysis included the paratransit service. Oftentimes people with disabilities are not included in such reports. Grawi also reported that Barrier Busters is now a member of Partners for Transit.

Peer Analysis

AAATA staffer Julia Roberts gave the board a presentation on a peer review analysis. Some of the information from the report had been presented at the final public engagement meeting for the 5-year improvement plan held on Nov. 14 at SPARK East in Ypsilanti. [.pdf of presentation slides]

To determine its peer group, Roberts explained that the AAATA had relied on a tool that is available through the Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) based on recommendations from the Transit Cooperative Research Program. The tool relies on the following criteria to establish a “likeness” index between a transit agency and other transit agencies nationwide:

• urban area population
• total annual vehicle miles operated
• annual operating budget
• population density
• percent of college students
• population growth rate
• percent service purchased
• percent low-income population
• annual delay (hours) per traveler
• freeway lane miles (thousands) per capita
• percent service demand-responsive
• distance between agencies

Based on the “likeness” index, it’s possible to select the top 20 (or any number) of other transit agencies to analyze in comparison to the AAATA. Measured on the above criteria, the most similar 20 organizations to the AAATA are transit agencies in these peer communities: Peoria, IL; Lexington, KY; Moline, IL; Lansing, MI; Syracuse, NY; Savannah, GA; Champaign-Urbana, IL; Roanoke, VA; Concord, CA; Erie, PA; Kalamazoo, MI; Harrisburg, PA; Fort Wayne, IN; Rockford, IL; Shreveport, LA; Hartford, CT; Fort Collins, CO; Scranton, PA; Gainesville, FL; and South Bend, IN.

To illustrate how the AAATA compares to that peer group, Roberts then presented charts for three key metrics for the fixed-route service: (1) operating cost per service hour; (2) rider trips per service hour; and (3) operating cost per rider trip. While the AAATA’s operating cost per service hour is greater than its peer group average, according to the AAATA that’s counterbalanced by the number of rider trips per service hour – which leads to a lower cost per rider trip than its peer group average. Using the same tool, The Chronicle was able to replicate the AAATA’s result in determining the peer group as well as the comparative analysis for those three metrics. In the charts below, the AAATA is always presented in the leftmost bar, and the other transit agencies are presented from left to right in their rank order of “likeness.”

AAATA Operating Expense per Revenue Hour compared against FTIS Top 20 peers. Top 20 peers to AAATA are based on Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) analysis. Data from Integrated National Transit Database Analysis System (INTDAS), developed for Florida Department of Transportation by Lehman Center for Transportation Research, Florida International University, http://www.ftis.org/intdas.html, accessed Nov. 22, 2013.

AAATA Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour compared against FTIS Top 20 peers. Top 20 peers to AAATA based on Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) analysis. Data from Integrated National Transit Database Analysis System (INTDAS), developed for Florida Department of Transportation by Lehman Center for Transportation Research, Florida International University, http://www.ftis.org/intdas.html, accessed Nov. 22, 2013.

AAATA Operating Expense per Trip compared against FTIS Top 20 peers. Top 20 peers to AAATA based on Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) analysis. Data from Integrated National Transit Database Analysis System (INTDAS), developed for Florida Department of Transportation by Lehman Center for Transportation Research, Florida International University, http://www.ftis.org/intdas.html, accessed Nov. 22, 2013.

The Chronicle performed additional comparative analyses on the same peer group set. The average headway – a measure of how frequent the service runs – shows that the AAATA provides service more frequently than its peer group. A lower number indicates more frequent service:

AAATA Average Headway compared against FTIS Top 20 peers. Top 20 peers to AAATA based on Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) analysis. Data from Integrated National Transit Database Analysis System (INTDAS), developed for Florida Department of Transportation by Lehman Center for Transportation Research, Florida International University, http://www.ftis.org/intdas.html, accessed Nov. 22, 2013.

The AAATA’s buses are slightly newer than its peer group’s buses:

AAATA Average Age of Fleet compared against FTIS Top 20 peers. Top 20 peers to AAATA based on Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) analysis. Data from Integrated National Transit Database Analysis System (INTDAS), developed for Florida Department of Transportation by Lehman Center for Transportation Research, Florida International University, http://www.ftis.org/intdas.html, accessed Nov. 22, 2013.

AAATA buses have slightly better than average fuel consumption, measured against its peer group:

AAATA Miles per Gallon compared against FTIS Top 20 peers. Top 20 peers to AAATA based on Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) analysis. Data from Integrated National Transit Database Analysis System (INTDAS), developed for Florida Department of Transportation by Lehman Center for Transportation Research, Florida International University, http://www.ftis.org/intdas.html, accessed Nov. 22, 2013.

The AAATA provides fewer route miles of service per square mile of its service area compared to its peer group:

AAATA Route Miles Per Square Mile of Service Area compared against FTIS Top 20 peers. Top 20 peers to AAATA based on Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) analysis. Data from Integrated National Transit Database Analysis System (INTDAS), developed for Florida Department of Transportation by Lehman Center for Transportation Research, Florida International University, http://www.ftis.org/intdas.html, accessed Nov. 22, 2013.

The AAATA spends very close to its peer group average on maintenance per mile of service:

AAATA Maintenance Expense per Revenue Mile compared against FTIS Top 20 peers. Top 20 peers to AAATA based on Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) analysis. Data from Integrated National Transit Database Analysis System (INTDAS), developed for Florida Department of Transportation by Lehman Center for Transportation Research, Florida International University, http://www.ftis.org/intdas.html, accessed Nov. 22, 2013.

The AAATA buses travel about the same as its peer group average before they break down:

AAATA Revenue Miles Between Vehicle Failures compared against FTIS Top 20 peers. Top 20 peers to AAATA based on Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) analysis. Data from Integrated National Transit Database Analysis System (INTDAS), developed for Florida Department of Transportation by Lehman Center for Transportation Research, Florida International University, http://www.ftis.org/intdas.html, accessed Nov. 22, 2013.

The AAATA has about the same farebox recovery ratio as the average of its peer group:

AAATA Farebox Recovery compared against FTIS Top 20 peers. Top 20 peers to AAATA based on Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) analysis. Data from Integrated National Transit Database Analysis System (INTDAS), developed for Florida Department of Transportation by Lehman Center for Transportation Research, Florida International University, http://www.ftis.org/intdas.html, accessed Nov. 22, 2013.

The AAATA provides more passenger trips per employee than its peer group average:

AAATA Trips per FTE compared against FTIS Top 20 peers. Top 20 peers to AAATA based on Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) analysis. Data from Integrated National Transit Database Analysis System (INTDAS), developed for Florida Department of Transportation by Lehman Center for Transportation Research, Florida International University, http://www.ftis.org/intdas.html, accessed Nov. 22, 2013.

Roberts also presented data from the AAATA’s paratransit operation: operating expenses per service hour, rides per service hour and operating expense per service hour. Whereas its fixed route service shows significantly more trips per service hour compared to the peer group average, the AAATA’s paratransit service provides about 20% fewer rides per service hour than the peer group average. Roberts said that this is countered by the fact that AAATA provides more than twice as many service hours and service miles than its peer group average.

In concluding the presentation, Roberts noted that the AAATA carries about 6 million passengers annually – or 50% more passengers per service hour than its peer median. The AAATA’s fiscal performance is strong, she said, and the AAATA’s commitment to quality is “unwavering.” One of the highest priorities of management is to “control operating expenses, while meeting increasing ridership demands,” she said. So the AAATA would keep working to identify and implement efficiencies to reduce costs.

Peer Analysis: Board Discussion

Commenting on the peer group comparative analysis, Sue Gott asked that the presentation be emailed to board members. Jack Bernard asked how the peer data helped identify what the AAATA should focus on. “What does that peer data tell us that we want to work on next?” He wanted to know how the peer review sets the AAATA’s trajectory and agenda for the future.

Eric Mahler said he also thought the peer review was very helpful. He was curious to know about additional financial metrics: How does the AAATA compare on overall financial health?

From left: AAATA manager of service development Chris White and controller Phil Webb. Webb was turning on White’s microphone, so that his remarks would be picked up by the CTN recording.

Some back-and-forth between Michael Ford and Mahler focused on what kind of information Mahler wanted. Manager of service development Chris White noted that the National Transit Database doesn’t include balance sheets. He was not sure that the NTD would provide an indication of overall financial health.

Controller Phil Webb indicated that when he thinks about overall financial health, he thinks in terms of reserves, debt structure, working capital and that kind of information. It would require looking at the audits of each transit organization.

The comparables could be a little tricky depending on what kind of accounting those agencies used. Mahler said he didn’t want to create extra work for anyone. If it was already part of the study, then he’d wanted that to be included. Charles Griffith also expressed interest in seeing a more detailed report on the comparative analysis

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

At its Nov. 21 meeting, the board entertained various communications, including its usual reports from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the planning and development committee, as well as from CEO Michael Ford. The board also heard commentary from the public. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: RTA

During his report to the board, CEO Michael Ford noted that Richard “Murph” Murphy will not be seeking another board term on the Southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority. That position is expected to be filled by the end of the calendar year, Ford said. It’s an appointment made by the chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, Yousef Rabhi.

Comm/Comm: Financial Report

In reporting out from the PMER committee, Roger Kerson said the financial reports had some typical first-quarter anomalies, and the AAATA was a little bit under its reserves. But that was expected to be straightened out in the next few months, Kerson said.

Comm/Comm: Ridership

In reporting out from the PMER committee, Roger Kerson noted that ridership is now looking flat compared to a year ago – as compared to the steady increases that had been seen previously. Kerson said Chris White’s best guess was that it had something to do with gas prices – because they are not as high as they were last year. Kerson noted that the AAATA had not lost riders when gas prices went down, which to him indicated that you keep the riders you attract due to increased gas prices.

During his report to the board, CEO Michael Ford noted that the AirRide service to Detroit Metro Airport was averaging over 1,200 riders per week in the last five weeks. On Nov. 15 an additional trip had been added, bringing the total to 13 round trips daily, Ford said.

Comm/Comm: Birthdays

During public commentary, Jim Mogensen bridged a four-decade span by highlighting a city council resolution from 1970 congratulating Jerry Lax, who was Ann Arbor city attorney at the time, on his birthday. Mogensen noted that Lax had attended the city council’s Nov. 18 meeting – as the AAATA’s legal counsel – and that had reminded him of the resolution, which he had in his files. Mogensen read aloud the resolution.

Comm/Comm: Partridge

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Thomas Partridge addressed the board. He asked for board leadership in removing discrimination and poor performance and “outright incompetence” in operation of AAATA programs like the senior ride program and the A-Ride program – the AAATA’s paratransit programs. Those programs have been long-standing sources of neglect, abuse and discrimination, he contended. He’d called for such reforms at several meetings over several years. But the contractor is still sending out vehicles that shouldn’t be on the road and drivers with questionable ability and poor attitudes, he claimed.

During public commentary at the end of the meeting, Partridge recalled that 50 years ago in November 1963, he was doing homework as a Michigan State student with the expectation of a good November weekend – an expectation that was upset with the assassination of president John F. Kennedy. He had come into office with high spirits and energy. Kennedy had called on everyone to contribute, Partridge said, and had declared that a torch had been passed to a new generation. Partridge wanted us to live up to Kennedy’s vision.

Present: Charles Griffith, Eric Mahler, Sue Gott, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale, Gillian Ream Gainsley.

Absent: Susan Baskett, Eli Cooper.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Dec. 19, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the fourth-floor boardroom of the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown location, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

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

DDA board chair Leah Gunn checks her cell phone before the start of the Nov. 7 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

But the DDA board’s agenda was relatively light. It did not include any voting items, and consisted of a series of reports and commentary – some of it in preparation for the board’s upcoming annual retreat on Nov. 16.

Sketching out the retreat for the board, Pollay told them that for the first time in the nearly 17 years she’s served as executive director, there is no “next big project.”

A big project the DDA is just completing is the construction of the Library Lane underground parking garage on South Fifth Avenue. The construction bills for that project were included in last year’s (FY 2012) budget, but not all of them came in by year’s end. So as board member Roger Hewitt reported, the first quarter financial statements for this year include bills that were originally budgeted for last year. When all the construction bills are paid, a budget adjustment will be made, he said. In any case, he characterized the DDA’s financial position as strong.

The board was also briefed on the public parking system, which the DDA manages under a contract with the city of Ann Arbor. Chronicle coverage of the parking report came earlier in a preview article.

The board got an update on two projects recently proposed for the downtown, which have now undergone review by the city’s design review board, and for which citizen participation meetings have been held: 624 Church Street, next to Pizza House; and 413 E. Huron at Division Street. The next formal step for both of those projects will be submission to the Ann Arbor planning commission.

At the meeting it was reported that the developer of the 413 E. Huron project also has a possible interest in the city-owned properties that are included in the scope of the Connecting William Street (CWS) planning project, which the DDA is overseeing. The board got an update on CWS – the process is expected to result in a recommendation made to the city council before the end of the year.

The board also got an update on the review of an issue that mayor John Hieftje has pushed the DDA to address for the last three years: bicycle riding on downtown sidewalks. For now it looks like the DDA is not likely to move forward on that issue, until the problem is more clearly defined.

DDA Board Retreat

The board has scheduled its annual retreat for Friday, Nov. 16. The location will be Zingerman’s Events on Fourth from 10:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Board Retreat: Executive Director

Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, previewed the board retreat. Pollay told the board that the facilitator for the retreat, Kerry Sheldon, would be meeting with board members in advance of the retreat as well as with other stakeholders to arrive at a framework for the discussion. What are the things the DDA could be doing to achieve its mission – which is to make investments in public improvements to strengthen the downtown area and attract new private investments.

This retreat is a chance to take a step back, Pollay said. For the first time in her nearly 17 years at the DDA, there is no “next big project.” So Sheldon is shaping an agenda to allow the board to take a few minutes to think about strategies and then to think tactically about how to implement those strategies. The DDA is really good at some things, she said, so what are those things and how can the DDA do more of them? Another important consideration is to think about what the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor SPARK and other organizations need from the DDA in order for help those organizations be successful.

Board Retreat: Public Comment – Culinary Institute

A suggestion to the board for a topic of discussion at their retreat came during public commentary at the start of the meeting – from Elmer White. He hoped the program he’d be describing could be up and running by September 2013 with a small student body of 6-12 students. The three basics in life are food, clothing and shelter, he said. The economy is turning from a manufacturing economy to a service economy, he stated. In one of the latest issues of the Ann Arbor Observer there’s coverage of the St. Andrew’s breakfast program that provides food to indigent homeless people. Another Observer article mentions a young chef from Ecuador who is now preparing fine food at the restaurant that’s located where the Parthenon used to be, he said. [The new restaurant at the corner of Liberty & Main is called Lena.]

It had occurred to White that we have schools of architecture for shelter, schools of design for clothing, but what about food services? He allowed that there’s a culinary program at Washtenaw Community College, and a culinary program at Schoolcraft, but those programs, as good as they are, prepare people to be able to put food on a lot of plates in a banquet context, he said – cafeteria and buffet-style restaurants. He described such restaurants as restaurants “with a small ‘r’.” He told the board that he frequently eats at Applebee’s, but described the menu there as “How many different ways can we prepare chicken breasts?”

The restaurants “with a capital ‘R’” are in downtown Ann Arbor, White said, and they’ve become a destination for people in surrounding counties. So how do those people get trained, who prepare food in downtown Ann Arbor restaurants? That food is prepared individually to order from a short menu that changes from week to week. He wondered if it were an apprenticeship program, or was accomplished through happenstance.

So White suggested creating something called the Culinary Institute of Ann Arbor, which he said would become the best culinary institute between Montreal and San Francisco. The word “cuisine” does not refer just to French food, White told the board, but rather it’s using food from the region. He saw the possibility of forming a partnership between Food Gatherers, St. Andrew’s and the Delonis Center, and other sponsors of a charitable nonprofit. [Though it does not appear to be exactly what White is suggesting, Food Gatherers currently operates a Community Kitchen job training program at the Delonis Center, a homeless shelter in downtown Ann Arbor.] That money would be used to purchase the food to be prepared. It would generate very good publicity nationwide for the Ann Arbor DDA, White concluded.

Development

It’s not unusual at any given monthly meeting for development to occupy at least part of the discussion by the board of the downtown development authority.

Development: Church Street

Ray Detter reported from the previous night’s meeting of the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council. The meeting was almost entirely devoted to two student housing developments. One is located on East Huron Street at Division and the other is located on Church Street in the South University area.

A 14-story project that was filed for design review is located at 624 Church Street, next to Pizza House. Dennis Tice, owner of Pizza House, is listed as one of the developers, along with 624 Partners LLC and Opus Group of Minnetonka, Minnesota. [.pdf of 624 Church Street proposal]

Detter noted that since the last meeting of the DDA board, both projects have gone before the design review board and have had citizen participation meetings. The Church Street project Detter described as having been treated “very gently,” supporting the DDA’s decision to accept the developer’s request to provide required parking offsite in the city’s public parking system, which is administered by the DDA. The major criticism of the project, Detter reported, was that it looked a lot like the two Zaragon projects.

Development: East Huron Street

By way of background, the 27-page proposal for 413 E. Huron calls for 213 apartments, about 3,000-square-feet of street-level retail space, and 163 on-site underground parking spaces. [.pdf of 413 E. Huron proposal to the design review board] The complex would consist of two main towers and an “inset upper level garden and pool courtyard,” according to the proposal. [.pdf of site rendering]

In the case of the East Huron project, the reaction of the design review board and the public was that the project needs to be redesigned. “Nobody likes this project,” Detter contended. The developer had made some minor changes after the design review board’s meeting and before the citizen participation meeting, Detter said, adding that most people present did not consider that to be nearly enough.

So the next morning, four members of the development team met at Sloan Plaza [an eight-story residential building standing just to the east of the proposed East Huron development] with seven members of the design guidelines citizen review committee – a group that is different from the design review board, and made up of representatives of the eight downtown and near-downtown residential organizations. The group included Doug Kelbaugh, former dean of the University of Michigan college of architecture and urban planning. Detter described the meeting, held in a room on the eighth floor overlooking the location of the proposed project, as “very cordial.”

The message conveyed to the developers was in line with that heard at the design review board, Detter reported. Namely, the building’s massing and bulk needs to be reduced to allow sunlight to the north and improve the pedestrian experience on Huron Street. The project was trying to “cram too much” onto the site. It was suggested that the elevator be moved to the southwest corner of the building, with Detter suggesting that maybe the building could be built higher than the height limit constrained by by-right zoning, if the project were proposed as a “planned project” and provided for larger setbacks. The project should show greater respect to the character area where the site is located, he said. Detter noted that the developers had been mistaken about the character area initially – because they said they were supposed to design a building that related to the new Justice Center at Fifth and Huron.

The meeting at Sloan Plaza was followed by two additional meetings, both of which mayor John Hieftje had attended. One of those meetings was with the neighborhood groups and one was with the developer, Detter reported. The goal is to make the project better before it gets presented to the planning commission. Detter allowed that the design review board makes recommendations that have only voluntary – not mandatory – compliance. Detter said that the developer is also looking at the parcels in the Connecting William Street area, with an eye toward possibly developing one of those city-owned parcels. So the goal is to make the East Huron Street project as good as it can possibly be, Detter concluded.

Development: Connecting William Street

An update on the Connecting William Street (CWS) project was provided by DDA board member Joan Lowenstein. She reported that the public outreach phase has been completed. From August through October, a total of 20 events had been held.

DDA board member Joan Lowenstein.

The form of those events included traditional meetings, webinars, and small group presentations. [For Chronicle coverage of one presentation, see: "Planning Group Briefed on William St. Project."] Over 170 people participated, she said. History and context was provided, along with draft scenarios. Feedback on various components of the project as well as general thoughts were collected. The feedback has been summarized and is currently being digested, and will be available on the DDA website soon.

The CWS leadership outreach committee had met in October to start reviewing the feedback and begin thinking about the draft recommendations. The staff and the DDA’s consultant have been working on draft recommendations and will meet on Monday, Nov. 12 at 3 p.m. Lowenstein felt it would be one of the more important meetings, because the committee would see a draft of the presentation that would ultimately be made to the city council.

Development: Beyond Downtown

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Ray Detter told the board that the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council had started considering the nature of who they are as a council, given that their interests goes beyond the downtown. He cited as examples the desire to be a part of conversations about rail transit and the future of the North Main corridor.

Financial Status Report

The quarterly financial report for the first three months of FY 2013 was presented by Roger Hewitt. He prefaced it by saying it had been anticipated that the transactions for the entire Library Lane underground parking garage were going to be completed in the previous fiscal year. That had been done to ensure there were no negative fund balances for the previous fiscal year. In fact, not all of the construction costs were billed during the previous fiscal year, so some of those costs are showing up as expenses on this year’s balance sheet.

The current year’s budget was set based on the assumption that the construction invoices would already be paid. So Hewitt described the quarterly report as “not overly helpful at this point.” As soon as all the bills have come in on the construction for the Library Lane garage and the Fifth and Division streetscape projects, a budget revision would be presented that accurately reflects what actual expenditures have been – he hoped that would happen in the next three months. [.pdf of FY 2013 first quarter financial statements]

DDA board member Roger Hewitt.

After walking the board through highlights of the financial statements, he concluded that overall the DDA’s financial position, measured by fund balances, is much better than had been anticipated two years ago.

The TIF (tax increment finance) fund balance stands at $6.8 million. The housing fund balance is a little over $1 million. The parking fund balance is about $5 million. And the parking maintenance fund stands at about negative $0.5 million, because a transfer of funds to that fund has not yet been made. All those fund balances would decrease once the final payments are made in connection with the Library Lane parking structure, Hewitt said. Still, when all is said and done, the DDA would have healthy fund balances, he said.

Hewitt attributed the better financial picture to a combination of increased usage of the public parking system and rate increases. Hewitt also reviewed the parking report in detail, which The Chronicle previewed in earlier coverage: “Ann Arbor Parking Data: Slower September.”

Transportation

Transportation was a theme common to a number of reports.

Transportation: Bicycles on Sidewalks

Reporting out from the operations committee, John Mouat summarized some discussion that the committee has had recently on the topic of bicycles on sidewalks.

By way of background, the issue has been pushed by mayor John Hieftje as one that the DDA should be addressing. He’s been bringing it up for at least the last three years, including mentions at the Jan. 6, 2010 and Dec. 7, 2011 meetings of the DDA board, and more recently at the Sept. 5, 2012 meeting.

Mouat reported that he and DDA research and planning specialist Amber Miller had talked through the basic parameters of the issue – which is perceived mainly as a safety challenge related to bikes on sidewalks downtown. They’d talked about where the problem areas are: South University, South State Street and Main Street. So it’s not all of downtown that is perceived as problematic. Miller has also pulled together information about existing ordinance information, and maps of bike routes and “sharrows,” as well as information about what other communities are doing.

DDA board member John Mouat.

Mouat told the board that in his mind, there are three elements to consider for this issue: education, enforcement, and design. He noted that Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, had touched based with the Ann Arbor police department on the topic of ordinance enforcement. But Mouat indicated that he thinks it’s a real challenge to define the problem. His understanding is that the police department doesn’t have a record of people calling in complaints or a record of injuries.

There are things that people hear about and feel, Mouat allowed, and there’s a real safety issue that someone could come out of a door and get hit by a bike. But there’s also a perception that’s involved. If you’re walking down the street and there’s a bicycle “bombing toward you,” do you feel endangered? But defining the problem is a real challenge – because asking the police to commit resources to enforcement is important to think about, he said. If a police officer is in a patrol car and sees a bicyclist riding on the sidewalk, is that something that the officer should stop and address?

Mouat reported that he’d talked to Stephen Dolan, executive director of parking and transportation services at the University of Michigan, to see if Dolan thinks bicycle riding on sidewalks is an issue on campus. According to Mouat, Dolan perceives it as a cultural and educational issue. “I don’t know quite where that leaves us,” Mouat said. It would be possible to talk about everything from signage to “this, that and the other thing,” he said. His own view is that very likely, a high percentage of people who are riding a little bit recklessly on the sidewalks are students. How you educate a new group of thousands of people is a challenge. Mouat concluded that he was a little bit at a loss as to how to proceed, until the problem could be better defined.

Transportation: Bicycle Cage

Mouat gave an update on the bicycle cage for the Maynard Street parking structure. By way of background, it’s a 50-bike storage facility that would have the footprint of two automobile parking spaces. [.jpg of footprint]

The authorization of $30,000 from the DDA’s parking fund – for design, fabrication and installation of the bicycle storage facility – was given at the board’s Oct. 3, 2012 meeting. Similar “cages” in other cities use a chain-link fencing material. However, the DDA hopes a more aesthetically pleasing option can be identified.

At the DDA board’s Nov. 7 meeting, Mouat reported that the cage is currently being designed.

Transportation: Connector Study

Roger Hewitt gave an update on the transportation connector study, noting that the Ann Arbor city council has now funded the final piece of the project. The $60,000 remaining for the $300,000 local match required by the $1.2 million grant to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority had essentially been split 50-50 between the city of Ann Arbor and the DDA. The DDA board had authorized $30,000 for the study at its Oct. 3, 2012 meeting.

The corridor that’s the subject of continued study runs from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street and farther south to I-94. The funding approved by the council on Oct. 15 would support an alternatives analysis phase of the study, which will result in identifying a preferred mode (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and the location of stations and stops.

The next steps will include public process, Hewitt said. A series of workshops will take place in the first part of December at locations like Briarwood Mall and downtown Ann Arbor. The format might be more of a “drop in” style, which would involve placing some dots on maps. The goal of the outreach is to get as much community input as possible about where people want to go.

Transportation: Blake Transit Center Groundbreaking

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, getDowntown director Nancy Shore alerted the board to the groundbreaking that would be taking place for the new Blake Transit Center downtown – on Nov. 19 at 11 a.m. [The AATA board gave final approval of a roughly $8 million budget for the transit center at its Oct. 18, 2012 meeting. The location will house offices for getDowntown.]

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

Absent: Newcombe Clark.

Next regular board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2012, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

Margie Teall (Ward 4) peruses a map showing forecasted congestion on Ann Arbor roads under a “do nothing” scenario. Transportation program manager Eli Cooper had distributed the map to councilmembers at their Oct. 15 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

A study that’s required as part of Ann Arbor’s approach to building a new train station will move forward with a $550,000 funding resolution approved by the council. The same resolution also includes a clause stating that construction of a new train station would be put to a popular referendum before proceeding.

The budget amendment, which passed with exactly the eight votes it needed on the 11-member council, allocated the $550,000 to provide new matching funds for a federal grant. The grant had been awarded through the Federal Railroad Administration’s High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program. Dissenting on the vote were Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) was absent. Recent feedback from the FRA indicated that the city of Ann Arbor could not use previously expended funds to count as the local match – which had been the city’s original understanding.

The council also approved $30,000 for the continued study of a transportation connector between the northeast and south sides of Ann Arbor. The corridor runs from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street and farther south to I-94.

The council actually voted twice on that issue at the same meeting. On the first vote, the resolution failed. But a few minutes later, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) – who had initially voted against it – asked for reconsideration of the vote, and changed her vote to support it, as did Mike Anglin (Ward 5). The council had previously considered and rejected funding for the study at its Sept. 4, 2012 meeting. But councilmembers reconsidered that vote two weeks later on Sept. 17, 2012, which resulted in a postponement until Oct. 15. The second reconsideration by the council during the Oct. 15 meeting required a suspension of the council’s rules, which don’t permit a question to be reconsidered more than once.

Wrapping up the transportation themes of the evening was a public call for volunteers to serve on the new 15-member transit authority board, recently incorporated under Act 196 of 1986. While it had been previously assumed that the seven Ann Arbor appointments to the new authority’s board would serve simultaneously on Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s board, legal questions about simultaneous service on the two boards led to mayor John Hieftje’s announcement to recruit other volunteers.

The first two of the seven Ann Arbor nominations needed for the new transit authority board were made at the Oct. 15 meeting: Susan Baskett, who currently serves as a trustee on the Ann Arbor Public Schools board; and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who currently serves on the city council. Derezinski will be leaving the council in mid-November, because he did not prevail in his August Democratic primary race. His last city council meeting will be Nov. 8.

Nov. 8 would also mark the last council meeting for Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who did not seek re-election. However, Smith announced on Oct. 15 that she would not be able to attend the Nov. 8 meeting, which meant that the Oct. 15 meeting was her last. She bid her colleagues farewell, and kind words were offered around the table.

It was a resolution from Smith that prompted the main non-transportation topic of the evening – an attempt to establish a formal policy to use the net proceeds of city-owned land sales to support affordable housing. The council approved a version of the policy, but it was far more restricted than Smith’s original proposal, which the council had considered but postponed on Sept. 17.

Smith’s initial proposal would have directed 85% of the net proceeds from the sale of any city-owned land in the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district to be deposited in the city’s affordable housing trust fund. During the month-long postponement, the council’s budget committee discussed the proposal and made a recommendation that for only one city property – the Fifth & William lot, where the former YMCA building previously stood – the net proceeds from any future sale would be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund. The budget committee also recommended that any other properties be considered on a case-by-case basis, considering all needs of the city. And that’s essentially the recommendation that the council adopted.

In other business, councilmembers authorized an extension to a third year for the city’s coordinated approach to funding for human services. And the council took the first step toward dissolving the sign board of appeals and transferring its responsibility to the zoning board of appeals. The council also accepted a total of $1 million in grants for city parks, and added about 125 acres to the city’s greenbelt program. And a $200,000 study was authorized to prevent flooding in the southwest part of the city.

A symbolic vote – calling for the U.S. Congress to send a constitutional amendment to the states to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission decision – resulted in passage, over dissent from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). 

Ann Arbor Rail Station

The council considered a $550,000 funding resolution for the study of a transportation connector. The same resolution also includes a clause stating that the construction of a new train station would be put to a popular referendum before proceeding.

The $550,000 provides new local matching funds for a federal grant. The grant had been awarded through the Federal Railroad Administration’s High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program.

The Ann Arbor city council had previously voted 9-2 to accept the federal money at its June 4, 2012 meeting. That acceptance was based on the understanding that around $701,600 in already-expended city funds could count toward a required 20% match on up to $2.8 million in federal funds.

But the FRA subsequently informed the city that none of its previously incurred expenses are eligible to count toward the match on the grant, which would fund completion of a preliminary engineering and environmental assessment for a new rail station in Ann Arbor. The lower amount of $550,000 is based on 20% of a now lower-estimated cost for the study, which had originally been estimated to cost $3.5 million.

The Oct. 15 resolution directed the city administrator to seek as much as $300,000 in contributions from “other eligible local partners” to offset the cost of the local match. If the full $300,000 could be identified – from sources like the University of Michigan, the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority – that would leave the city’s eventual share at $250,000.

As part of the city’s FY 2013 budget, $307,781 had already been allocated for the rail station study – as a contingency if the University of Michigan did not pay invoices associated with some already-completed work. The contingency became a reality in August when the city and the university agreed that the money was not actually owed under a memorandum of understanding between the two bodies.

Those already-expended funds had been used in connection with work associated with the Fuller Road Station – for conceptual planning, environmental documentation efforts and some preliminary engineering. At the time, the Fuller Road Station project envisioned a 1,000-space parking structure for the university. The university withdrew from the partnership early this year. The city paid for that work from its major street fund, alternative transportation fund, and previously existing economic development funds over the past three years.

As a result of the recent FRA determination, none of that previously expended money can be counted as the local match on the federal grant. City of Ann Arbor transportation program manager Eli Cooper described the work as “stale,” because too much time has elapsed since it was done.

Fuller Road Station was a conceptual pre-cursor to what is now called the Ann Arbor Rail Passenger Station. In partnership with the University of Michigan, the proposed Fuller Road Station included a 1,000-space parking structure to be built in conjunction with a new rail station on an identified site nestled between Fuller Road and East Medical Center Drive, adjacent to the UM medical campus. The location is controversial because it’s on city parkland. However, UM withdrew from that project earlier this year, on Feb. 10. The university decided instead to revisit its earlier plans to build additional parking on Wall Street.

A resolved clause in the Oct. 15 resolution stipulates that the council will submit the construction of a new rail station as a ballot question to Ann Arbor voters: “RESOLVED, That at or before the completion of a final design for the Ann Arbor Station project, City Council will set a date by which the City will submit the question of moving forward with construction to a vote of the citizens of Ann Arbor; …”

The political strategy of offering a vote to reduce opposition to the project resulted in previously withheld support from the Ecology Center, an Ann Arbor nonprofit. In an email sent on Oct. 15 to all members of the city council, executive director Mike Garfield wrote about the possible plan for a rail station to be located at the Fuller Road site: “Before tonight … we were unable to support the plan,” he wrote, citing the change in the long-term use of city parkland. “It may be legal to build a parking structure or multimodal station on city parkland, but it was not what voters thought they were approving when they voted – overwhelmingly, each time – for parkland acquisition millages. If the City wants to build a nonpark facility, like a train station or multimodal station, no matter how great the public benefits, then the City owes it to voters to seek their approval first.”

Garfield’s email concludes: “Tonight’s resolution ensures that the City will maintain its commitment to parks, and potentially removes the conflict between two of our community’s great key values. We urge you to support the resolution.” [.pdf of Ecology Center email text]

At the council’s Oct. 15 meeting, mayor John Hieftje used Garfield’s letter as a key element in his argument for the resolution.

Ann Arbor Rail Station: Public Commentary

Several people spoke on the matching funds at public commentary, some for and some against.

Rita Mitchell began by saying she likes trains, and that she likes parks. She said she supports improved train service for Ann Arbor, and noted that train travel is an alternative that reduces the use of cars and its attendant pollution. She described the current station’s site, owned by Amtrak, as a “great location for a train station,” having served the community well for over 170 years. The Depot Street location is within a short walk of local businesses and other properties that could support development, she said. In contrast, she said, the Fuller Park location is surrounded by city parks and land held by the university. She felt that a serious look should be given to some creative use of the Depot Street location.

From left: Nancy Shiffler, Rita Mitchell and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Mitchell opposed using parkland for a train station, contending that it puts all parkland at risk for repurposing. She described the referendum in the council’s resolution as “vague,” saying it wasn’t clear whether the vote would be about a train station or the use of a park. She asked the council not to be so shortsighted as to turn a park into a train station, describing the Fuller Road site as part of a green necklace of parks that run through Ann Arbor. She noted that the environmental assessment would need to support the Section 4(f) requirement in federal legislation – that a transportation project constructed on parkland will be approved for federal funding only if there is no prudent and feasible alternative.

Mitchell characterized the late addition of the item to the meeting agenda as a political ploy to approve the use of general fund dollars before the swearing in of newly elected councilmembers. She contended there’s no need to rush to approve the funds and maintained that a ballot referendum is not needed at this point, if the site has not been selected.

Kim Easter described herself as a lifelong Ann Arbor resident. For the last 15 years, she’s lived half a block away from the train station, she said. She’s seen firsthand the number of cars backed up along Depot Street every morning and evening – and knows that they’re on the way to good jobs at the UM hospital. “The jobs are good and the people are good, but their cars are not,” she said. It would be great if we could get those folks into town without having to deal with the fuel they’re burning and without needing to provide parking for them. She applauded the council for considering multiple options. If Ann Arbor could become a meaningful and viable transit hub, she applauded the council for considering that. She felt like the station needs to be located where people are headed, and she would welcome a train station in whatever place makes the most sense for the city. If Ann Arbor could be made the transit hub that it could be, it would be a huge gift to the people of Ann Arbor and would leave a real legacy for the community. It would be a benefit to the city and to the region, she said.

Nancy Shiffler spoke on behalf of the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club. She reminded the council that the grant requires an analysis of alternative sites for the environmental assessment and the preliminary engineering study. A decision to use parkland must demonstrate that there’s no prudent or feasible alternative to using parkland. She applauded the intent to include a thorough public participation process for the project. She felt that a start to that process should include a solicitation of comments on the work plan for the grant. She called the resolution’s description of a proposed public vote “unclear.” If the Fuller Road site is selected, then the vote should include a determination on whether to repurpose existing parkland, she said. If the Amtrak site is selected for an upgraded, renovated station, then the need for the vote is less clear, she said. She contended that the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club is not opposed to trains or train stations. But they did question the appropriateness of putting those facilities in a city park.

Gwen Nystuen observed that the resolution asks for a half million dollars of general fund money. She complained that the current expenses to date have not been provided to the public. She said the project had morphed from a combined parking garage and rail station to just a rail station with unknown specifications. She contended that there’s yet to be a single public hearing before the city council on the subject. She said she’s asked questions for three years about the project. In 2009 and 2010, the community had been assured that no general funds would be required. The newest version of the station had been presented when the FRA application was made. And without public discussion, she contended, the Fuller Road site was designated as the preferred alternative.

Nystuen noted that selection of the Fuller Road site would require that no reasonable alternative exists other than the use of that city parkland. She contended that the city had not included in its previous study what she called “the most obvious alternative,” the current Amtrak station. On Aug. 22, she had asked once again what the status was of the environmental assessment and the funding of the rail station. Councilmember Christopher Taylor had answered her query immediately on Aug. 23, she reported: “Thanks for writing. I hope all is well with you. I’m afraid I don’t have any of that information. I’m sure staff can track down to-date spending, but as for the future, proposals for design, spending and funding are all still inchoate.” So far she’s heard nothing else. If parkland is considered, it should come “way early” to a vote of the people, she concluded.

Larry Deck spoke on behalf of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition. The WBWC supports multimodal connections that integrate biking and walking seamlessly into the transportation system.

From left: Larry Deck of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition and Eli Cooper, the city of Ann Arbor’s transportation program manager.

Transportation is a core function of government, just like public safety is, he said. As an individual, he offered his perspective on the two sites: the Fuller Park site and the current Amtrak site. The current site has a couple of advantages, he said. First, it already exists, and second, it’s closer to downtown. But a disadvantage to the current site is that it’s difficult to provide access to it with public transit. An effort to make improvements to the site to accommodate future needs might have an impact on the possible future of the MichCon/DTE site across the tracks. That site has the potential for becoming a high-value park, he said.

The Fuller Road site has a number of advantages, he observed, including that there’s room for a proper station. It’s close to the hospital, which is a major employer for the city and the region. It’s located on a major transit corridor, so it’s easier to provide good public transit access to the station. It would also be easy to provide good bicycling and walking access, by improving the trail system in the area, he said. The loss of parkland could be looked at as a trade for the parkland the city might obtain, once the environmental cleanup is done. The main disadvantage is the cost, he said, but it takes investment if we want to improve things. He said that rail travel – both high-speed and commuter rail – is crucial to the future economy of the region. If we want to create a better future, we have to invest in a better future, he concluded.

Christine Green introduced herself as a resident of Washtenaw County, as well as a staff member of the Michigan League of Conservation Voters who also works with the Michigan Environmental Council. From her role with those two organizations, she said, she’d learned that improved rail transportation will create jobs and improve commuting and travel options for Michigan residents, as well as attracting tourists. Increased rail will make for cleaner cities, she said, and reduce carbon emissions. The Ann Arbor Amtrak station is already one of the busiest train stations in the state. The Detroit-to-Chicago route is of primary importance at the state and the national level, she said. The problem is that already 65,000 people are driving to work in Ann Arbor every day.

Green indicated that about $400 million is being spent to repair tracks, purchase new railroad cars and to expand service. Amtrak, she’s been told, is planning to add two more trains per day, and MDOT is planning to run a commuter service between Ann Arbor and Detroit. The Amtrak ridership could possibly double, she said, and the current station is not large enough to handle the increased capacity. The location and layout of the current station won’t accommodate commuter traffic, she contended, because it’s hard to get public transit into the location and it’s already congested. With 20,000 people – counting workers and patients – coming to the University of Michigan hospital every day, it makes sense, Green said, to locate a new station where they could walk to the hospital or take a bus to some other location in the city. Building a new rail station is good for economic development, she said. The increased service could take as many as 2,000-3,000 cars out of the commuter traffic volume every day, she said.

Vivienne Armentrout began by saying that the item before the council was not about whether they loved rail. The agenda item asked the council to make a specific financial decision, for a specific decision – to provide matching funds for a federal grant. She recalled that for months if not years, mayor John Hieftje had given assurances that no more general fund money would be spent on the Fuller Road Station.

By way of background, that kind of assurance was given at the council’s March 1, 2010 meeting:

Mayor John Hieftje used his time for communications to respond to criticism of the Fuller Road Station that the council had heard during public commentary.

He prompted city administrator Roger Fraser to speak to the issue of how the city’s portion of the project would be funded, by asking Fraser if it was the plan to use money from the general fund. Fraser’s answer: “No, sir.” Hieftje allowed, however, that the financing plan had not yet been formulated.

Armentrout continued with her remarks by adding up costs. The council had allocated over $300,000 from the general fund [as part of the FY 2013 budget adopted in May 2012] for expenses that turned out not to count as matching funds for the FRA grant, she noted. Now the council is being asked to spend $550,000 more. That brings the total to about $850,000. She noted that providing only $550,000 in matching funds [instead of $700,000] would leave $600,000 in federal money “on the table.” [The FRA grant is for up to $2.8 million, with a 20% match requirement – that is, a match of 4 federal dollars for every local dollar. The arithmetic for $600,000 is (700,000 – 550,000)* 4]

Implying that she felt the city would eventually spend the additional $150,000, she asked rhetorically: “Do you believe in your heart of hearts that money will be left lying on the table?” Adding that $150,000 to the $850,000 from her previous arithmetic, she ventured that the council will be spending a total of $1 million just this year. An investment, she said, comes with a reasonable expectation of return. If there’s not a reasonable expectation of return, then it becomes a gamble, not an investment. Because there’s currently no federal program that will grant funds for construction of the station, she concluding that spending the money on the study is a gamble.

Ann Arbor Rail Station: Council Prelims

The council’s deliberations on the issue began in effect long before the agenda item was reached.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) used the council communications time toward the beginning of the meeting in effect to begin deliberations on the local match for the rail station study. He thanked all those who’d addressed the council that night and previously. He characterized the process as like a river that has been continually changing its course. The Fuller Road Station was prompted by the University of Michigan’s need for additional parking, but that deal is now dead, he said. He characterized the process as a “labyrinth,” and said he was glad that the Sierra Club has remained strong and protective of the community. He called the Sierra Club as ultimately “good stewards” of transportation for the city. In an apparent allusion to Christine Green’s public commentary, Anglin said, “To those from outside who are urging us to build, thank you! Please come up with the money.” Lots of people are saying that the council should proceed, but Ann Arbor taxpayers are those who are paying the bill, he contended.

Responding to the public commentary from Nystuen and Armentrout, mayor John Hieftje said during communications time that he thought previously a train station would be built without general fund money. But the Fuller Road Station deal fell apart, he said. At the time he believed that to be true, and the city was counting on the University of Michigan to provide the local match.

Also during communications time, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) took the opportunity to commend a position paper written by a parks advocacy group. She described it as a helpful educational piece. [.pdf of "Fuller Park Is Not the Right Place for a Train Station"]

Hieftje responded to Lumm by saying he felt there was a lot of misinformation in the document.

Ann Arbor Rail Station: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) began the formal deliberations by stating his belief that there was widespread agreement that expanded rail service in the city of Ann Arbor would be a “public good.” The next step to achieve that service would be improvements to the rail station – either at the existing location or at the Fuller Park location, which he made a point to describe as “a parking lot for the university since early in the first Clinton administration.” [Taylor had used a similar description at the council's June 4, 2012 meeting when the council voted to accept the FRA grant.] We can’t make progress without investment, Taylor said. And that would require a local match of the FRA grant. He stated that the city has the means to make the match and urged support of the resolution.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) was concerned about the nature of the proposed referendum specified in the resolution. She described it as vital to the community’s sense of involvement in the process. The resolution doesn’t make it clear if the popular referendum is binding or advisory, she said. She allowed that it’s not possible to put language into the resolution about the exact nature of project on which the public would vote, how much it would cost, or the date of the vote. But she felt it would be possible to add one more resolved clause: “RESOLVED, That no such construction shall proceed unless approved by a majority vote;…”

When there was no objection to that addition from the city attorney, Stephen Postema, Taylor indicated he also had no objection.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) appreciated Briere’s amendment, which made clear that the intent of the resolution would be to have a binding referendum. But she noted that the council could change its mind. Lumm asked if the vote was proposed to be on a specific project on a specific site. Taylor indicated he thought the vote would require a high level of clarity – including a specific design, a specific site and how it would be paid for.

Briere indicated that it’s not possible to say now what would be in the ballot language. She allowed that the result of the FRA study could conclude that the current Amtrak station is the preferred local alternative, and in that case she felt that a rail station project would still warrant a vote of the people. But Briere indicated she would prefer the ballot question include a location and a funding mechanism and that everyone be aware of the schematic design. That would be her personal goal, but she allowed that she might not be on the city council at that point, so she wouldn’t guess what the council would put in the ballot question.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) felt the resolution had addressed a number of concerns that had been heard over time. For example, she’d heard some residents say that if people want a vote, “Go ahead and put it on the ballot, and I’ll vote for it.” She said she would delightfully support the resolution.

Briere said she didn’t have a deep commitment about the location, but she did have a deep commitment that the project requires community support. If the FRA tells the city that Fuller Road is the best site, then the vote would have to deal with the repurposing of parkland.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) felt that the resolution was making an assumption that the outcome of the study would be Fuller Park as the preferred local alternative. He felt like a vote could be held now, on the basic issue of whether to proceed at all.

Briere responded to Anglin by saying she’d heard exactly the opposite message as an argument for why we should not be voting to build a new library. That argument had been made, she reported, the previous Saturday at a meeting of the Ann Arbor Democratic Party. The argument against the library bond proposal had been: There is no design or concept, and it’s “buying a pig in a poke.” If the council put a question on the ballot about a rail station, then any rational person would come back with questions like: How big and how much?

Lumm said first we need to be crystal clear about what the purpose of the resolution is – to provide a $550,000 match using general fund money. That’s in addition to $300,000, she said, which the council had allocated as a part of the FY 2013 budget. In June the council had been assured in no uncertain terms that no additional city money would be used, she said. Reading from a prepared statement, she noted that the already-expended funds the city was counting on using to provide the local match don’t qualify. She didn’t know what the hurry is, she said, noting that the resolution had been added to the agenda on Friday before the Monday meeting. At some point, the council needs to stop throwing good money after bad or at least “hit pause,” Lumm said. She felt the city was well past that point. She calculated $2.7 million that had been spent so far – including $1.4 million in water and sewer improvements at the Fuller Road site, and the rest in consultants and studies. She called it a huge amount of money on a project for which the basic need has not been established, she contended.

In subsequent deliberations, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) took issue with Lumm’s characterization of the water and sewer improvements as part of the cost of the rail station, saying that had been communicated clearly by city staff as part of the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP), independent of any rail station.

Lumm went on to describe the costs of the construction itself, as estimated to be more than $60 million, with no indication of how that would be paid for.

By way of more specific background, the cost estimate of more than $60 million includes a bit less than $10 million for the train station building itself, $5 million for a platform north of the track, $11 million for a new set of south rails and a south platform, and $13 million for parking facilities. [For a detailed breakdown of the balance of costs: .pdf of conceptual construction costs]

We have to make choices and establish priorities, Lumm said. Proponents of the resolution have said this will go to the voters. “That’s awfully convenient … It’s interesting that in June, when the council first approved accepting this grant, no one said ‘boo’ about going to the voters.” In August, she noted the council had objected to the idea of asking voters for a city charter amendment that would have protected parks. It’s time to “hit pause” and not “sign a blank check on three days’ notice,” she said.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) noted that one of the “whereas” clauses in the resolution indicated the city was told by the FRA that the previously expended funds could not count as a local match. He asked to get a copy of any letter that the FRA sent, and wanted to know if it would be possible to delay action on the matching funds until the city has a statement from the federal government about what happened. He didn’t want to continue down a path where it wasn’t clear where the city’s money is going. He ventured that everyone at the council table supports trains. But he said it seemed to him that the study had already “launched itself.”

Eli Cooper, the city of Ann Arbor transportation program manager, responded to Anglin’s question about the notification from the FRA, which had been referred to in the resolution’s whereas clause. Cooper said the notification came in a face-to-face meeting in a conference room with officials from the FRA and from MDOT. Cooper said it was not cold and callous. FRA officials described how supportive FRA continues to be of the project. That’s the basis for bringing forward the resolution, Cooper said.

Anglin pointed to the same U.S. Department of Transportation Act (DOT Act) of 1966 Section 4(f) requirement that some of the speakers during public commentary had cited. Among other things, the section includes a requirement that development of a transportation project on publicly-owned parks show that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to using the parkland.

Anglin told Cooper that the burden of showing there’s no feasible and prudent alternative is “an abundant task.” Cooper indicated that the project team is well aware of the Section 4(f) requirements. Assuming the council acted favorably on the resolution, Cooper said, the alternatives analysis would provide rationale for the choice of the preferred alternative over any other sites. Something like 14 other potential sites had been identified in work done years ago, and all that information will be pulled together, he said. Cooper noted that the NEPA process for the environmental assessment requires public engagement, and he indicated that in the case of Ann Arbor, that would mean consideration by the park advisory commission, as well as public workshops.

Cooper stressed that federal grant funds are still available, and said he looked forward to drawing down the grant funds as the project is advanced.

Ann Arbor Rail Station: Interlude on Section 4(f)

The Section 4(f) requirement mentioned at the city council meeting refers to part of the 1966 U.S. Department of Transportation Act. That federal act became ensconced in part as Section 138 of Title 23 of the United States Code. It includes the stipulation that publicly-owned park and recreational lands – as well as wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites – cannot be used for transportation project development unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative.

However, in August 2005, Section 6009(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) revised Section 138 of Title 23. It simplified the process and approval of projects that are deemed to have only de minimis impacts on Section 4(f) lands. Specifically, even if the U.S. Dept. of Transportation determines that a transportation use of Section 4(f) property results in a de minimis impact, an analysis of avoidance alternatives isn’t required.

The definition of “de minimis impact” in SAFETEA-LU is as follows [emphasis added in italics]:

With respect to parks, recreation areas, or wildlife or waterfowl refuges, the Secretary may make a finding of de minimis impact only if the Secretary has determined, after public notice and opportunity for public review and comment, that the transportation program or project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of the park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge eligible for protection under this section;

The Fuller Road Park site that’s been under discussion includes a 250-space surface parking lot. The previous Fuller Road Station collaboration with the University of Michigan was planned to be confined to the footprint of that currently paved surface, and not to extend farther towards the Huron River, where a soccer practice field is situated.

Given a configuration with a rail station building, platforms and an appurtenant parking facility – all of which is still confined to the footprint of the current parking lot – it’s conceivable that an argument could be made for meeting the SAFETEA-LU “de minimis” standard. The argument would depend on a claim that the two activities currently undertaken on the parkland site – parking and soccer practice – would not be adversely affected.

In subsequent back-and-forth between transportation program manager Eli Cooper and Mike Anglin, Cooper indicated that the intent is to locate the infrastructure of the rail station on the smallest footprint possible.

Ann Arbor Rail Station: Continued Deliberations

Briere ventured that her understanding of an environmental assessment is not just that it looks at grass and trees, but everything in the surroundings – including road infrastructure and the impact of proposed construction on neighboring properties. Cooper told Briere that it includes even more than that. But he said that the amount of rigor attached to an environmental assessment is less than that associated with an environmental impact statement. The Section 4(f) issue was characterized by Cooper as a separate discussion. That issue is prepared for review by the FRA, and the FRA makes the determination as to whether the Section 4(f) standard is met.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

Anglin wanted data that would apply to development around that particular site. Cooper told him the analysis would extend to a quarter mile around the proposed site. As an example, he gave Lowertown, saying that for either of the sites – Fuller Park or the current Amtrak station site – rail station improvements would have a positive effect on economic development of Lowertown.

Hohnke noted he’d received many emails from people supporting the resolution, and some communication from the Ecology Center and the Clean Air Coalition supporting it. To him, it appeared the only local organization that has significant concerns with this is the Sierra Club’s Huron Valley Group. Even the national Sierra Club urges communities to invest in transportation alternatives such as high-speed rail. He felt that the significant consensus in the community is that moving forward with investments in high-speed rail is the right thing to do.

Responding to Vivienne Armentrout’s characterization – made during public commentary – of the expenditure as a “gamble,” not an investment, Hohnke said he had a different view. If you look back to 1991, the Chicago-to-Detroit route was one of the first five national rail networks identified in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act as having one of the most significant opportunities in the country for yielding benefit to the community. Over $400 million has been made through ARRA [federal stimulus] funds to build out the Chicago-to-Detroit high-speed rail network, he said.

An additional $300 million has been invested in rail stock, Hohnke said. MDOT reports a 115% increase in automobile traffic on I-94 between Detroit and Chicago since 1991 and sees significant increases going forward, he said. So MDOT is supportive of the high-speed rail initiatives. And that’s why MDOT has recently purchased the east-west tracks from Norfolk-Southern. He described all this as “a national commitment” to improving rail transportation that goes back 30 years. He added that for every dollar Ann Arbor puts in, under the terms of the grant, the city gets four dollars back from the federal government. He was supporting the resolution because it increases environmental stewardship and economic development and access to mobility, he concluded.

Mayor John Hieftje drew out from Cooper that Amtrak was talking about the possibility of doubling train frequency through Ann Arbor. Hieftje argued for the resolution by saying that we shouldn’t build for our current needs, but for “way down the road.” He asked Cooper to talk about the longer-term projections for ridership. Cooper described how ridership forecasting would be done by a consultant engaged for that purpose. He reported that a number of communities are doing station planning. He said that MDOT and Amtrak indicate the six trains a day would probably increase to 10 – which would be for intercity passenger trips.

Cooper continued by saying that MDOT is quietly developing a commuter rail program, in the guise of a demonstration, and has already refurbished passenger coaches. About a month ago, he said, MDOT had acquired a locomotive. So at this point, MDOT is “cobbling together” a set of rail cars that can run, once the track improvements are done. The intent for the demonstration is for 4-6 commuter trips a day. But from experience living in other parts of the country, he said, with trains running on 20-minute frequency from 6-9 a.m. and also in the afternoon, put together with the intercity service, that could result within 25 years in as many as 50 trains a day coming to Ann Arbor station. Later in deliberations, Lumm objected to using the other places Cooper has lived, like Philadelphia, as a benchmark.

Responding to a later question from Sandi Smith (Ward 1) Cooper indicated that the economic benefit to an area is part of the environmental assessment and the impact would be positive.

Briere recalled how she’s been listening to people talk about building a new train station since she’s been in Ann Arbor. When the current Amtrak station was built, she said, no one was excited because people wanted to stick with the Gandy Dancer, even though it had already become a restaurant. The current building is amazingly unimaginative and unattractive, she said, but it’s functional now. The question is whether it will be functional in the future. Since 2000, the community has been struggling with conflicting viewpoints, she said – one being that there will be increased rail service and the other being that it won’t ever happen.

Briere said she believes that increased rail transportation is extraordinarily desirable. But if we increase rail service, where then do people go, and how do we get them there? She characterized the current Amtrak station as in a residential neighborhood with “its feet in the water.” Parking is insufficient, she said. Parking on the opposite side of the tracks from the station and taking luggage across the Broadway bridges in January is hard, she said. There’s nothing convenient about the current station location, except that you could walk uphill and get to the center of town. But she maintained that the conversation should not currently be about where the station will be located. Rather, the question is: Is it our goal to build a new train station? Arguing about the right location is not her goal, Briere said.

If you don’t have a plan in hand, you’re not prepared when opportunity strikes, Briere said. Whether funds are currently available for construction of the project, she said, is “not in our hands.” But it’s in the city’s hands to say it has accepted a grant from the federal government. She’s committed to the idea that we need to plan, so she supported the resolution. It’s not her call to identify the location, but “it’s my call to fund the work to come up with the plan,” she concluded.

Hieftje followed Briere’s comments by reading a substantial portion of a letter of support that had been received from the Ecology Center. He contrasted the Ecology Center’s support with the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club’s position, which he contended seemed to be saying: If you don’t want to build the rail station where we say, then we don’t want it. Referring to the Fuller Road Station project, Hieftje said it didn’t work out and it was costly. Now we have a new path and a clean slate, he said.

Outcome: On an 8-2 vote, the council approved the $550,000 allocation of general fund dollars for the federal grant’s local match, over the dissent of Mike Anglin and Jane Lumm. Stephen Kunselman was absent. The resolution achieved the eight-vote majority that it needed to pass.

Transit Connector Study

On Oct. 15, the council considered a funding request for additional study of a transportation connector between the northeast and south sides of Ann Arbor. On the agenda was a request for $60,000, but that amount was reduced to $30,000 at the start of deliberations – in the context of a recent vote by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to contribute $30,000 from the public parking fund to the effort. The DDA vote came at the DDA board’s Oct. 3, 2012 meeting.

The corridor runs from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street and farther south to I-94. The funding would support an alternatives analysis phase of the study, which will result in identifying a preferred mode (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and the location of stations and stops. The timeline for completion of the study would be about 18 months.

A feasibility study for the corridor costing $640,000 has already been completed. That initial study concluded that some type of improved high-capacity transit system would be feasible – which could take the form of bus rapid transit, light rail transit, or elevated automated guideway transit.

The $30,000 discussed by the council on Oct. 15 was part of $300,000 in local funding sources for a $1.5 million study: $150,000 from the University of Michigan; $90,000 from the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority; $30,000 from the Ann Arbor DDA; and $30,000 from the city of Ann Arbor. The $300,000 satisfies a 20% matching requirement for a $1.2 million federal grant the AATA has received to complete the $1.5 million project.

The AATA has already given approval of a contract with URS Corp. to start the work, contingent on lining up the remaining $60,000 in local matching funds.

The city council had initially been asked to contribute $60,000. But the council voted on Sept. 4, 2012 to reject that request. Then the council reconsidered that vote two weeks later on Sept. 17, 2012. But on reconsideration of the vote, the council decided to postpone a decision until Oct. 15.

Transit Connector Study: Deliberations – Part 1

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) led off deliberations by asking for an adjustment down to $30,000 in light of the DDA’s resolution. Mayor John Hieftje confirmed with Smith that the council’s resolution could follow the DDA’s grant by allocating $15,000 in each of two years. The council revised the amount without substantive comment.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) recalled that when the council had considered the question the first time [and she'd voted against it], she had asked transportation program manager Eli Cooper how the connector could impact the lives of Ann Arbor residents. To Briere it was clear why it impacted the University of Michigan. She wondered if Cooper had ideas that evening that he hadn’t addressed on the previous occasion.

Cooper responded by providing a map depicting forecasts for congestion in Ann Arbor. In 2005, 28% of miles vehicle miles traveled were under congested conditions. That would increase to 50% by 2030, Cooper said.

Forecasted traffic congestion in Ann Arbor: 2005 compared to 2030.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she wouldn’t support the resolution. She objected to the fact that there were multiple city transportation initiatives. She wanted to establish priorities among the initiatives and then pursue them.

Responding to another question from Briere about what entity would operate the connector if it’s built – University of Michigan, AATA or AATA’s successor – Cooper indicated that can only be answered after the technology is identified and the location of routes had been settled. Then it would be possible to determine which entity is best positioned to operate the service, he said.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated that in his view, the $30,000 is a deeply prudent use of resources. Everyone believes that Ann Arbor will grow, he said, whether with residents or businesses. The goal of the connector study is to get additional data.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked for deletion of a “whereas” clause mentioning the city’s proceeds of the sale of a six-foot wide strip of land to the AATA – $90,000. She called that inappropriate. [During the council's first consideration of the question, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had objected to the same clause.]

Higgins drew out from Cooper that the precise starting point of the corridor could be considered to be east of US-23 and Plymouth Road, and that specific routing and alignment will be clarified in the course of the study.

The council’s subsequent discussion touched on Jackson Road and the North Main corridor before winding down to a vote.

Outcome: On its initial vote, the council rejected the $30,000 for the connector study, with the votes against it provided by Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) was absent. The 7-3 vote was one vote short of the eight votes it needed to pass.

Transit Connector Study: Deliberations – Part 2

Near the end of the meeting, just after Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted that she would not be able to attend the Nov. 8 meeting – her last as a councilmember – Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) told her colleagues that she wanted to reconsider the connector study vote. [Because she was on the prevailing side, it was her right to do so. However, a reconsideration of the council's vote that evening would mean that the question was being reconsidered for a second time – because that night's vote itself had been a reconsideration of the question. And the council rules prohibit a second reconsideration of a question. But the council rules do allow for the suspension of council rules.]

Higgins began by asking councilmembers to suspend the council rule on reconsidering a question twice. Her colleagues indulged her. She then moved for reconsideration of the question. She said that in light of the fact that the $30,000 could be allocated across two years, $15,000 per year, she felt that she’d voted incorrectly.

Responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle, Higgins elaborated:

After the first vote, I had some time to evaluate the reduced cost of $15,000 per year to the city to leverage $1.2 M in federal grant money that may not be available in the future. This is a reasonable cost to get to the heart of the matter regarding how we move people in this city.

Outcome: On reconsideration, the council approved the $30,000 for the connector study on a 9-1 vote, with the sole vote of dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Transit Board Membership

At the Oct. 15 meeting, mayor John Hieftje made a public call for volunteers to serve on the new 15-member transit authority board, recently incorporated under Act 196 of 1986. That call came during the council communications slot at the start of the meeting.

From left: Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and AATA legal counsel Jerry Lax. Other senior staff of the AATA attended the meeting in case there were questions from councilmembers, but there were none.

Also placed before the council for their consideration were two of the seven Ann Arbor nominations needed for the new Act 196 transit board: Susan Baskett, who currently serves as a trustee on the Ann Arbor Public Schools board; and Tony Derezinski, who currently serves on the city council representing Ward 2. Derezinski will be leaving the council in mid-November, because he did not prevail in his August Democratic primary race. His last city council meeting will be Nov. 8. [Hieftje also announced that it would be his intent to nominate Derezinski to take the place, as a citizen appointee, of an anticipated resignee from the city planning commission. After Nov. 8, Derezinski will no longer be able to serve on that body as the council's representative, as he currently does. The planning commission resignation has not been announced, but it's likely to be Evan Pratt, a Democrat running for the job of Washtenaw County water resources commissioner.]

While it had been previously assumed that the seven Ann Arbor appointments to the new transit authority’s 15-member board would serve simultaneously on Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s board, legal questions about simultaneous service on the two boards led to Hieftje’s announcement.

An application for all city boards and commissions is available on the city clerk’s website.

Ann Arbor’s seven representatives to the new authority’s board first need to be nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the city council – under terms of a four-party agreement ratified between the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the AATA. Under terms of that agreement, the AATA’s assets would not be transferred to the new authority, to be called The Washtenaw Ride, until voters approve a funding source for the expanded service to be offered.

The composition of the Ann Arbor contingent on the new authority’s board, as well as Ann Arbor’s eventual participation in the new Act 196 authority, could potentially be impacted by the delay in decision-making past the November election. Three new members will be joining the Ann Arbor city council. For more details and analysis, see previous Chronicle reporting: “Positions Open: New Transit Authority Board.”

Proceeds of Land Sales

Two items on the council’s agenda related to the topic of how to use the proceeds from the sale of city-owned land.

The first item was a proposal by Sandi Smith (Ward 1) to establish a formal policy that would direct 85% of the net proceeds from the sale of any city-owned land in the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district to be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund. Smith’s resolution had been considered previously on Sept. 17, 2012, but postponed until the Oct. 15 meeting with a referral to the council’s budget committee. Councilmembers Christopher Taylor, Sabra Briere, Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin and Marcia Higgins serve on that committee.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1).

Listed a few items later on the Oct. 15 agenda was a different resolution on the same topic, which came as a recommendation from the budget committee. During the month-long postponement of Smith’s resolution, the council’s budget committee discussed the proposal and made a recommendation that for only one city property – the Fifth & William lot, where the former YMCA building previously stood – the net proceeds from any future sale would be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

The budget committee also recommended that any other properties be considered on a case-by-case basis, considering all the needs of the city.

The wording of the budget committee’s resolution stipulated that for the Fifth & William site, the net proceeds of any sale “first be utilized to repay the various funds that expended resources on the property, including but not limited to due diligence, closing of the site and relocation and support of its previous tenants, after which any remaining proceeds be allocated and distributed to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund … ”

The relocation costs for previous Y tenants are estimated at around $1.3 million. The property’s purchase price in 2003 was $3.5 million. The council voted in 2008 to extend its five-year loan with the Bank of Ann Arbor for another five years, through the end of 2013. The interest rate is 3.89%. The interest-only payments work out to roughly $140,000 a year, of which the city has paid half. The Ann Arbor DDA has paid the other half of the interest payments. And when the YMCA building was condemned, the DDA also paid for the cost of demolishing it and abating asbestos – around $1.5 million. The total amount of local governmental costs associated with the property since 2003 is $7.7 million.

The kind of city policy considered by the council on Oct. 15 has a long history, dating back to 1996. And a previous policy of directing proceeds of city-owned land sales to the affordable housing trust fund was rescinded by the council in 2007. More detailed background is provided in previous Chronicle coverage: “City Council to Focus on Land Sale Policy.”

Resolutions urging the city council to adopt Smith’s proposed policy were approved by the board of the Ann Arbor DDA at its Sept. 5, 2012 and by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners later that same day. Leah Gunn, who chairs the DDA board, also serves on the county board of commissioners.

During initial deliberations at the council’s Sept. 17 meeting, Smith’s resolution appeared to have only mixed support on the council. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated he would only support the resolution if the proceeds from land sales were put toward the Ann Arbor Housing Commission specifically. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she could not support a percentage as high as 85%. Other councilmembers expressed skepticism at the value of a non-binding council resolution that future councils would not need to honor.

Another concern heard at the council’s budget committee meeting was that groups with other interests besides affordable housing – like greenway advocates – were also interested in “getting a bite at the apple” of city-owned land sale proceeds.

There are no imminent sales of city-owned land, but a current planning process could eventually result in one or more such sales. The DDA has undertaken a study at the previous direction of the city council, under the moniker of Connecting William Street. That process focuses on five city-owned parcels in the area bounded by Ashley, Liberty, Division and William streets. For Chronicle coverage of an earlier presentation on the project to the city’s planning commission, see “Planning Group Briefed on William Street Project.”

Proceeds of Land Sales: Public Commentary

During the first opportunity for public commentary, Thomas Partridge called on everyone of goodwill to join to build more affordable housing, give importance to accessibility and affordable housing, human rights and disability rights. He called on the council to direct all proceeds from the sale of city land to support of public housing.

Proceeds of Land Sales: Smith – Prelims

When the council came to Smith’s proposal on the agenda, which had been postponed from the council’s Sept. 17 meeting, Smith noted that the council’s budget committee had made a different recommendation. The committee’s recommendation had been added to the agenda as a separate item. She wanted the council to discuss her proposal and ultimately vote it up or down. She felt that she’d given a strong rationale at the previous meeting, and pointed to the documentation attached to the agenda item. It’s something we talk about a lot, she said – providing a lot of housing options and a diversity of housing. “We continue to talk about it and we continue to be unable to fund this change that we want to see.” The resolution is an attempt to find a mechanism to fund affordable housing in Ann Arbor, she concluded.

Mayor John Hieftje indicated he would save his deliberations for the budget committee’s agenda item.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) was supportive of Smith’s proposal in concept. [Teall serves as council liaison to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.] She wants to see the city make a commitment to the affordable housing trust fund. She thought it’s a great idea to use a portion of proceeds from land sales to do that. Smith’s resolution doesn’t give the entire amount to the affordable housing trust fund, she noted, because it subtracts expenses associated with the property. She wanted to see where this would go, if the percentage could be reduced to something like 60% instead of 85%.

In light of Teall’s suggestion, Smith indicated that she had some proposed language to revise the resolved clause.

Proceeds of Land Sales: Smith – Amendment

But the amendment wound up being proposed by Teall – changing the percentage from 85% to 60% of land sale proceeds to be deposited into the affordable housing trust fund. It also restricted the focus of the resolution to the geographic area of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) contended that the change made the resolved clause dramatically different, while Smith maintained that the two resolved clauses were only slightly different.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) thanked Smith for her work on the proposal, saying she has always been an energetic advocate for affordable housing. Hohnke was supportive of the objective, but had some concerns about the proposed means to achieve that objective. His preference was for a proposal that would not bind future city councils, and would encourage each council in the future to look at the needs of the city as a whole and where the funds need to be used. So he wouldn’t support the proposal.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) indicated that he agreed with Hohnke. He questioned whether it was good government for the council to bind itself to a percentage. Even if the council was free to change the percentage, it would create a momentum, he contended. He felt that such decisions should be made every year in the context of the overall budget.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated she appreciated Smith’s effort. Lumm’s objection was to the prescriptive aspect of the proposal. She ventured that she might support something in the 20% range. There’s no question that the needs for affordable housing are great, she said.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) characterized a recent presentation from the Ann Arbor Housing Commission as difficult to listen to. But he felt the solution to the problem of providing affordable housing “will come from outside of us,” from a federal mandate, he said.

Smith responded to Anglin’s mention of federal funding by noting that the city has been receiving less money from the federal government. So she was not as hopeful as Anglin that something on the federal level is actually going to happen. She wanted to have something in place that has to be undone, if it’s to be made different. She wanted a mechanism that forces the discussion to take place each and every time.

Outcome on the amendment changing the percentage to 60%: The amendment failed, with support only from Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Proceeds of Land Sales: Smith – Main Motion

After the council rejected the amendment lowering the percentage to 60%, Smith recognized that the resolution would fail as she quipped, “If you loved it at 60 you’re going to love it at 85!”

Lumm indicated again that she understood the motivation but would instead support the budget committee’s recommendation. [Lumm serves on the budget committee.]

Hieftje indicated that he had no confidence in future federal support for affordable housing. But he didn’t know if Smith’s approach is the right solution. The current council can’t tell a future city council what to do, he said.

Outcome: Smith’s resolution failed, with support only from Smith and Teall.

Proceeds of Land Sales: Budget Committee – Amendments

When the council arrived at the budget committee’s agenda item, Sandi Smith said she was glad to see there’s an acknowledgement in the resolution that the former YMCA property was acquired for a purpose – to preserve affordable housing units. After the costs associated with the site were deducted, however, she was not sure there’d be a significant enough investment left to make an impact.

So Smith offered an amendment to the effect that also for other properties, no less than 10% of any city-owned land sale should be distributed to the affordable housing trust fund.

Marcia Higgins ventured that land is so seldom sold by the city that such sales couldn’t be relied on. She stated that the council needs to have a conversation about how to deposit money into the affordable housing trust fund on a yearly basis.

Sabra Briere essentially supported Higgins’ perspective on the yearly, or routine, aspect of funding needs. The council really needs to identify recurring funds, Briere said. Previously, the city had made deposits into the affordable housing trust fund as the byproduct of the planned unit development (PUD) process. [Developers had the option of paying into the affordable housing trust fund instead of providing affordable housing units onsite].

Briere didn’t think that mechanism should be restored – because she’d always felt that making affordable housing dependent on bending the zoning rules put an uncomfortable incentive in place. She felt the same way about making the adequate funding of affordable housing dependent on the sale of public land. If the council did not want to sell the land, that shouldn’t mean there’s no money going into the affordable housing trust fund. Briere said she’d rather the council did something honest than doing something “to make us feel good.” She ventured that the council’s upcoming budget retreat would be a good occasion on which to discuss the topic.

Margie Teall felt that the rarity of property sales is a red herring. The idea is to take the opportunity when it’s there to shore up the affordable housing trust fund. A commitment is needed to indicate the community’s values, she said. Given that Smith was asking only for 10%, she couldn’t imagine that there’d be a higher need that would preclude allocating 10% to help people who are homeless.

Smith encouraged other councilmembers to support the amendment, saying that the city needs to find a way to get ahead of the game, instead of always being behind.

John Hieftje said, “I’m wrestling with this.” He appreciated what the budget committee had proposed – because the resolution stressed consideration of all the needs of the city. He didn’t want to mislead people into thinking the council would be bound by the 10% figure. He suggested that instead of naming a percentage, that the phrasing in the resolution about the needs of the city could be modified to say: “including affordable housing.”

Briere suggested that Hieftje’s amendment to Smith’s amendment could be strengthened to read: “especially the need for affordable housing.”

During deliberations on the amendment to the amendment, Teall said she was happy to support what Smith brought forward – because it’s more of a commitment.

Lumm indicated she could live with 10%.

Outcome on amendment to Smith’s amendment: The council voted to consider an amendment that would include the phrase “especially the need for affordable housing,” instead of Smith’s amendment, which explicitly stated allocating 10% for affordable housing. Voting for the elimination of the explicit percentage were Sabra Briere, Tony Derezinski, Margie Teall, Marcia Higgins, Carsten Hohnke and John Hieftje.

Some confusion ensued, because some councilmembers understood the vote on the amendment to Smith’s amendment to bring the discussion back to the main motion, which it did not. So Christopher Taylor pointed out the parliamentary gaffe and the council took a voice vote on the amendment. It passed unanimously, which brought the council back to the main motion.

Smith was content that the conversation has started again about this issue and that the council had spent time at two meetings to discuss the funding of affordable housing. It had fallen off the radar, she said, even though it’s a community value.

Teall added that she’d just then received an email from Nicole Adleman, executive director of the Interfaith Hospitality Network, urging support of funding for affordable housing.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the budget committee’s recommended land sale policy as amended to include the phrase, “especially the need for affordable housing.”

Human Services Coordinated Funding

The council considered a resolution that would continue a coordinated approach to human services for a third year.

The “coordination” referenced in the approach takes place among five local funders in the private and public sectors: Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, United Way of Washtenaw County, the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, and the Washtenaw Urban County.

During a presentation at the city council’s Sept. 17, 2012 meeting, Mary Jo Callan – head of the city/county office of community and economic development – described the purpose of coordinated funding as creating a public/private partnership to focus on key areas and to create increased coherence in investing in nonprofits.

The process has three parts: planning/coordination, program operations, and capacity-building. The city has historically funded program operations – shelters, after-school programs, counseling programs and the like.

The six priority areas targeted by the coordinated funding process, with the lead agencies, are: (1) housing and homelessness – Washtenaw Housing Alliance; (2) aging – Blueprint for Aging; (3) school-aged youth – Washtenaw Alliance for Children and Youth; (4) children birth to six – Success by Six; (5) health – Washtenaw Health Plan; and (6) hunger relief – Food Gatherers.

The total process puts $4.935 million into local human services nonprofits.

The extension of the coordinated funding approach for a third year means that nonprofits receiving funding currently would not need to reapply for support. The item on the council’s Oct. 15 agenda was not a resolution on funding allocation, but rather one that commits to using the same process for distributing funds, once funding decisions are made.

The extension by one year would allow for the evaluation process for the pilot period to finish – which Callan thinks will be done by January and would be available in January and February. It would also allow a better opportunity to provide the outcome data on the program so far.

At her Sept. 17 presentation, Callan counted a number of goals that had been achieved through the coordinated approach: identification of agency capacity concerns; single program description and program budget; reduced number of contracts; no required board resolution; single reporting procedure and timeline; auto-disbursement of payments regardless of funder; grantee feedback mechanism; volunteer reviewer feedback mechanism; and enhanced communication between funders and increased understanding of needs.

At that meeting, she also revealed that a private family foundation donor had expressed interest in making a significant contribution to the program, pending the outcome of a thorough evaluation of the coordinated funding approach. So the extension of the pilot program would allow for the delivery of a report on that evaluation.

Human Services Coordinated Funding: Council Discussion

At the council’s Oct. 15 meeting, Callan reviewed the coordinated funding approach.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) wanted to know what the funding commitments are. Callan explained that the council’s resolution that evening would not be a funding action. It would simply mean that the same process would be used to distribute funds for an additional year. It would essentially mean that no new RFP (request for proposals) will be issued, Callan said.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the extension of the coordinated funding approach to a third year.

Parks Grants

Acceptance of a total of $1 million in parks grant funding was considered by the council. Of that amount, $700,000 was for a skatepark, to be located in the northeast corner of Veterans Memorial Park. The other $300,000 was for renovations to the Gallup Park livery. The grant awards had been previously known.

Sources for the skatepark funding included $400,000 in matching funds from Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation and a $300,000 grant from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund. The city council authorized the application for the MNRTF grant at its March 21, 2011 meeting.

At that same March 2011 meeting, the council authorized applying for $300,000 of MNRTF grant funding for improvements to the city’s Gallup Park livery and entry area. The improvements include: barrier-free parking and docks for kayaks and fishing, trail renovations, livery building upgrades, patio renovations, landscaping, and wayfinding signage.

Outcome: Without significant deliberations, the council approved the receipt of the grants on three separate unanimous votes.

Ann Arbor Greenbelt Acquisitions

The council considered adding two properties totaling 125 acres to Ann Arbor’s greenbelt – land protected by acquisitions through the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage.

The council considered purchase of a vacant parcel adjacent to the Kuebler Langford Nature Area with about 0.91 acres. The fair market value of the land was determined to be $110,000, with the additional $13,000 accounted for through closing costs and due diligence. An environmental site assessment will be completed before closing. [.jpg image of parcel map]

From left: city administrator Steve Powers and Dan Ezekiel, chair of the city’s greenbelt advisory commission.

A second, much larger property totaling around 124 acres was also considered as a greenbelt acquisition through a purchase of development rights – the Donald Drake farm in Lodi Township. The requested expenditure from millage funds amounted to $483,450. Of that amount, $23,867 will go to cover costs related to closing, due diligence and a contribution to the greenbelt endowment. The total purchase price of the land is $549,478, with the city of Ann Arbor’s share supplemented by $109,895 from Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation and $1,000 from Lodi Township.

Part of the Drake property is currently being farmed. The city applied for USDA Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) grant funds in March 2012 to acquire development rights, but did not receive funds for this property. The strategy recommended by the city’s greenbelt advisory commission is to consider the farm as two parts – a northern and southern part. The GAC recommendation was to acquire development rights on the southern portion of the farm now, but to re-apply for FRPP funds in 2013 for the northern part of the farm.

The city’s 30-year 0.5 mill greenbelt tax was established by a voter referendum in 2003 for the purpose of “funding the acquisition of land for parks and the acquisition and management of land and land rights in undeveloped and developed land both within and outside the City of Ann Arbor for the purpose of preserving and protecting open space, natural habitats and the City’s Source-waters.”

Greenbelt: Public Comment

In the course of receiving a mayoral local food day proclamation, Dan Ezekiel – chair of the greenbelt advisory commission (GAC) – noted that the Drake farm is one of the few remaining operating dairies. The county had also come through, and will make a contribution on the purchase, he noted. GAC is doing its best to promote local agriculture, he said.

Greenbelt: Council Deliberations

Regarding the vacant parcel, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) observed that it’s an area adjacent to an interesting park, and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) characterized it as essentially an expansion of a park inside the city.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the acquisition of the parcel next to the Kuebler Langford Nature Area.

About the Drake farm, Lumm complained that while the guidelines for selecting land to protect are based on the leverage of taxpayer dollars, the county’s participation is only 20%. She characterized the county’s contribution as only “token.”

She didn’t think it was an effective leveraging of taxpayer dollars, contending that it’s nowhere near the target of 33%. She contended a higher standard should be applied, to ensure that taxpayer dollars are leveraged effectively.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who serves as the council’s representative to the greenbelt advisory commission, called the Drake farm a “particularly valuable purchase of development rights.” The parcel has unique woodlands, he said, and is one of the few remaining dairy farms. GAC pays attention to the guidelines mentioned by Lumm, he said, and he suggested that it’s useful to look at the program as a whole. Sometimes opportunities come up where there’s a greater amount of leverage, but sometimes it’s not possible.

After some back and forth between mayor John Hieftje, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl, it emerged that the property is split into two halves. The northern half will be targeted for acquisition of development rights next year. Hohnke felt that the leverage will be great on that one.

Lumm first declined Hieftje’s offer for a rollcall vote, but when Briere pointed out that the minutes would not reflect her dissent unless a rollcall were taken, she asked for the call of the roll on the vote.

Outcome: The council approved the acquisition of development rights on the Drake farm, over Lumm’s sole dissent.

Stormwater Study

The council considered a resolution that authorized an agreement with the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner’s office for infrastructure improvements to ameliorate flooding risk in the southwestern part of Ann Arbor. For the study, the resolution authorized the use of $200,000 in city funds already held by the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner’s office.

The area to be studied includes part of the Malletts Creek drainage district, bounded by Ann Arbor-Saline Road, I-94 and Scio Church Road. The area includes the Churchill Downs and Lansdowne sub-creekshed drainage areas. [.jpg of partial area map] Potential improvements include detention, pipe upsizing, and green infrastructure.

A staff memo accompanying the resolution mentions the heavy rains on March 15, 2012, which resulted in street flooding in that part of the city. The city council heard complaints from the public at its meetings after the flooding. A map of historical flooding in the city – obtained by The Chronicle through appeal of an initially denied request made under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act – shows that respondents to a survey conducted in the mid-1990s reported they’d experienced street flooding in the same areas that the flooding occurred earlier this year.

A resolution passed by the council at its Aug. 9, 2012 meeting had directed city staff to start negotiations with the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner to conduct the study.

Outcome: Without significant deliberations, the council unanimously approved the stormwater study.

Citizens United Resolution

The council took a symbolic vote on a call for the U.S. Congress to send a constitutional amendment to the states to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission decision. In broad terms, the court’s 2010 ruling prohibited the government from restricting political campaign spending by corporations and unions.

Citizens United Resolution: Public Comment

Stuart Dowty spoke on behalf of a group of concerned citizens who are worried about money in elections. He figured that most people were familiar with the Citizens United case. He was delighted to see that the item was on the agenda and he thanked the resolution’s sponsors. He anticipated some of the objections that some councilmembers eventually did express, namely that it’s not an issue on which a local city council needs to express a point of view. It’s a national issue and goes to the fundamental issue of democracy in our country, he said.

Is it appropriate for a local body to express a view on this? Dowty asked. Is it a local concern? The answer is a resounding yes, he contended. “It affects you,” Dowty told councilmembers. The ruling in Citizens United affects not just federal and state elections, but also local elections. This fact was made clear in a case that arose in Montana, he said. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned on a 5-4 vote a 100-year-old Montana statute that prohibited corporate contributions directly to candidates. The decision out of Montana made it clear that the Citizen United decision applies to local officers and local office holders, Dowty concluded.

Citizens United Resolution: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she didn’t agree with the Citizens United decision, but observed that it was a U.S. Supreme Court decision. Generally her policy is not to support messages to the U.S. Congress. She didn’t think the city council needs to articulate a position, she said. She felt that weighing in on the topic isn’t a part of her job and ventured that the resolution didn’t have any real impact. So she wouldn’t support it.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that although he would be happy to lend his name to a message of this kind, the resolution went beyond the local sphere.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she didn’t feel that such a resolution was a distraction from the council’s business. The council would stay at the table no matter how long it takes. She followed up with Dowty’s point during public commentary, saying that the Supreme Court decision affects local elections. She didn’t want corporate influence affecting who sits around the table. So she was in support of it.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) indicated he’d support it, though he said “it’s a close one.” As a “thinking community,” he said, he felt Ann Arbor could add a voice to an issue of national importance.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she’d asked herself if there was a local angle. She allowed she’d heard about influence of corporate money on national politics, saying that seemed quite distant from her life. Then she realized that it would be possible for someone with sufficient revenue to fund a PAC (political action committee) in Ann Arbor and attempt to influence the outcome of elections. To Briere, it’s a matter of local equity and national equity. She allowed that the council should talk about things that influence our local life – and she’s convinced the resolution does affect our local lives.

Mayor John Hieftje felt that the council should consider such issues only rarely. He recalled the vote the council took against the war in Iraq, which he felt had an influence on Michigan’s congressional delegation. It behooves the council to take action on this, he said, and it’s not something that can be left to our children.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) agreed that it’s an important issue, but felt that councilmembers have a stronger voice as individuals. She contended that hundreds of emails and phone calls would be more effective. As an individual she does support the resolution, she said.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) assured Higgins that she could still vote for the resolution and support it individually. Teall felt it’s part of her job to take the issue to a broader audience.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) felt that if cities unite, the people will understand what’s at stake.

Outcome: The council passed the Citizens United resolution on a 7-3 vote, over the dissent of Christopher Taylor, Marcia Higgins and Jane Lumm. Stephen Kunselman was absent.

Dissolution of Sign Board of Appeals

The council considered an initial approval for the transfer of responsibilities now performed by Ann Arbor’s sign board of appeals (SBA) to the zoning board of appeals (ZBA). Changes to ordinances, like the one considered in connection with the dissolution of the SBA, require an initial council approval followed by a second approval given at a subsequent meeting.

The move would eliminate the seven-member sign board of appeals, which currently has only three members, according to the city’s online Legistar system. According to a staff memo accompanying the agenda item, during the fiscal year 2012 the SBA heard six appeals and none the previous year. Appeals previously heard by the SBA would now be heard by the ZBA.

One of the advantages cited is that staff support time for the sign board would be eliminated. The dissolution of the SBA has been under discussion since 2008. The city’s planning commission discussed the issue on March 30, 2010, and more recently at its Sept. 6, 2012 meeting, when it recommended the change.

Dissolution of SBA: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked for an explanation of the change. Margie Teall (Ward 4) indicated that in her experience – involving a proposed billboard on Eisenhower – the SBA meets very rarely, so it was difficult to schedule a hearing. City administrator Steve Powers added that the change would streamline the appeal process, and would incorporate signage into the city’s uniform development code as a part of the ZORO (zoning ordinance reorganization) project. It would also make for more efficient use of time by the public and the staff.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) felt like signage issues would come up more frequently in the future. The signs that are allowed at the corner of Madison and South Main, and other areas are starting to look “a bit too ostentatious, to say the least,” he said. Anglin described it as living in “some sort of place where you’re going to maybe get on a ferris wheel.” Before shifting responsibility from the SBA to the ZBA, he felt the city needed to get a clearer idea of what kinds of signs should be allowed. Some communities have very severe restrictions on signage, he said. Advertising is getting more and more ubiquitous, he continued. The values the city holds will be reflected in the signs that are allowed, he said. In his neighborhood, Anglin said, the pizza parlor surprises him with the signs that they use. He didn’t want it to be the case that the city council was approving something just because the planning commission had looked at it and in general he seemed to question the idea that boards and commissions gave matters the kind of independent review they deserved.

Mayor John Hieftje encouraged Anglin to swing back his attention on the resolution. Anglin indicated he felt he was speaking to the fact that the proposal was about transferring decision-making authority from one body to another. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) spoke from her experience having served on the ZBA several years, saying that the ZBA takes cases very seriously. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) indicated that the planning commission’s discussion had been very thorough. The change simplifies government, he said. What Anglin was talking about was the underlying zoning ordinance, Derezinski ventured. He characterized the proposed shift from the SBA to the ZBA as more of an administrative change.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give the dissolution of the SBA its initial approval.

Airport Lease

The council considered a resolution to continue a lease with Solo Aviation Inc. – through at least June 30, 2015 – for office and terminal ramp space at the Ann Arbor municipal airport for aviation business operations. The lease provides for an additional three-year extension.

The terms of the lease stipulate $18.892 per square foot. According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, Solo Aviation is a fixed-based operator offering flight instruction, discovery flights, fueling, aircraft maintenance and service. Solo employs 30 people at the Ann Arbor municipal airport facility.

Outcome: Without discussion, the council unanimously approved the lease with Solo Aviation.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Sidewalk Gaps

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) recalled that there’d been no real consensus on a resolution the council had considered on Sept. 17, 2012 on the topic of filling sidewalk gaps. She’s subsequently heard a lot about people’s desire to come up with a mechanism – not necessarily the funds – to eliminate sidewalk gaps. She’s heard concerns about safety for kids walking to school, the nearest park or the store.

Comm/Comm: North Main Task Force

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) gave a brief report from the North Main corridor task force, which held a public meeting on Oct. 3. She characterized the meeting as well-attended with a nice variety of opinions aired. Another meeting public meeting will take place in November.

Mayor John Hieftje said at the meeting – in the context of Smith’s announcement that she would not be able to attend her final meeting as a councilmember on Nov. 8 – that he would be nominating her to be added to the task force as a citizen member. She currently serves as a representative of the city council.

Comm/Comm: Library Bond

Kathy Griswold, a former member of the Ann Arbor Public Schools board who serves as treasurer of a group called Protect Our Libraries, was there to talk about sustainability. The connection to the council’s agenda was a vote to distribute the city’s draft sustainability goals to surrounding municipalities. [State statute requires that when a city's master plan is revised – in this case to incorporate the sustainability goals – the changes must be distributed to adjoining jurisdictions before the master plan is changed.]

She showed the council a map of the district that the Ann Arbor District Library serves, which coincides nearly exactly with the Ann Arbor Public Schools district. She called the $65 million library bond proposal on Nov. 6 an attempt to bring lots of traffic downtown to park in the parking structure and eat on Main Street. [The 30-year bond would fund construction of a new downtown library at 343 S. Fifth, next to the city's new underground parking structure.] That’s not consistent with sustainability goals, she said. The downtown library building was built and renovated when it was part of the public school system, she said. AAPS had launched a major initiative to bring all its buildings into compliance with the Americans with Disability Act. The AADL could do the same thing without demolishing the downtown building. She questioned whether this is the right time to take on such an enormous financial debt. If AAPS still oversaw the AADL, we wouldn’t be asked to consider a bond to demolish a perfectly good building, Griswold said.

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

Absent: Stephen Kunselman.

Next council meeting: Thursday, Nov. 8, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. Council meetings are typically held on Mondays, but this meeting is pushed back due to the Nov. 6 general election. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]

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

The council actually voted twice on the issue at the same meeting. On the first vote, the resolution failed. But a few minutes later, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) – who had initially voted against it – asked for reconsideration of the vote, and she changed her vote to support it, as did Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Voting against the proposal on the second and final vote, which got more than the eight yes votes it needed to pass, was Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) was absent. The key votes in favor were those of Higgins, who had been absent when the funding had been considered and rejected at a Sept. 4, 2012 meeting, and Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who had voted against it at that Sept. 4 meeting.

The corridor runs from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street and farther south to I-94. The funding approved on Oct. 15 would support an alternatives analysis phase of the study, which will result in identifying a preferred mode (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and the location of stations and stops. A feasibility study for the corridor costing $640,000 has already been completed. That initial study concluded that some type of improved high-capacity transit system would be feasible – which could take the form of bus rapid transit, light rail transit, or elevated automated guideway transit.

The council’s choice to help fund the project came at least partly as a result of a decision by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board – made as its Oct. 3, 2012 meeting – to contribute $30,000 to the study. The DDA’s contribution had been contingent on the city making a $30,000 commitment as well.

The total of $300,000 in local funding sources for the $1.5 million study is now: $150,000 from the University of Michigan; $90,000 from the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority; $30,000 from the Ann Arbor DDA; and $30,000 from the city of Ann Arbor. The $300,000 satisfies a 20% matching requirement for a $1.2 million federal grant the AATA has received to complete the $1.5 million project.

The AATA had already given approval of a contract with URS Corp. to start the work, contingent on lining up the remaining $60,000 in local matching funds.

The city of Ann Arbor had initially been asked to contribute the entire $60,000. But the council voted on Sept. 4, 2012 to reject that request. Then the council reconsidered that vote two weeks later on Sept. 17, 2012. But on reconsideration of the vote, the council decided to postpone a decision until Oct. 15.

The timeline for completion of the study would be about a year and a half.

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]

DDA board member Roger Hewitt looks at a sample of the roof material that will be installed at Baker Commons. (Photos by the writer.)

Getting approval from the board was a $260,000 request from the Ann Arbor housing commission (AAHC), the bulk of which will pay for the emergency replacement of the roof on Baker Commons, a 64-unit public housing complex located at the intersection of Packard and Main streets. The sharply pitched roof will be made of steel, and is expected to last for 50 years, though it’s guaranteed for 20. Overall the board was positively inclined toward the request, but board member Newcombe Clark also wanted a clearer idea of how the DDA’s contribution fit into the AAHC’s capital maintenance and replacement schedule.

Also getting approval from the board was a resolution that authorized negotiating an arrangement for around 42 parking spaces in the public parking system for a proposed residential development at 624 Church St. The 13- or 14-story, 83-unit apartment building will include about 181 beds – a residential use that allows the project to qualify for a by-right “premium” under the city’s D1 (downtown core) zoning code.

The parking spaces for 624 Church St. can be provided through a contribution-in-lieu (CIL) program instead of providing them on site. That CIL program is administered by the DDA, because the DDA manages the public parking system under a contract with the city of Ann Arbor.

While the CIL authorization was perhaps at first glance only about housing, not transportation, two other items on the agenda were more obviously transportation-related.

A transportation connector study got a $30,000 contribution from the DDA. It’s contingent on the city of Ann Arbor contributing $30,000 as well, which is not a certainty. The total of $60,000 in city sources is part of $300,000 in local matching funds required for an already awarded $1.2 million federal grant. The remaining $240,000 is coming from the University of Michigan ($150,000) and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority ($90,000). The corridor to be studied runs from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street and farther south to I-94. This alternatives analysis phase of the study is to result in identifying a preferred mode – such as bus rapid transit or light rail – and the location of stations and stops.

The board also authorized a 50-bike storage facility that would have the footprint of two vehicle parking spaces. The “cage” will be located in the downtown Ann Arbor’s Maynard Street parking structure.

In addition to the monthly parking report, the board received an update on the electric vehicle charging stations that are located in public parking structures.

Baker Commons Roof

The board considered a resolution to authorize $260,000 for the roof replacement at Baker Commons, a public housing unit in downtown Ann Arbor.

Baker Commons offers 64 of the roughly 360 public housing units managed by the Ann Arbor housing commission. The DDA’s allocation includes a small amount for other energy-saving investments in the building.

Jennifer L. Hall, the commission’s executive director, had addressed the board at its Sept. 5, 2012 meeting and also spoke to board members on Oct. 3.

Baker Commons, on the corner of Packard and Main streets, is the only AAHC property within the Ann Arbor DDA district. The roof has had ongoing leaking problems, according to Hall’s presentation at the Sept. 5 meeting, and the housing commission has undertaken periodic patches. However, in the last year or so it is gotten much worse, Hall reported. There has been leakage into housing units and damage to the roof trusses.

The housing commission is planning to put a steel roof on Baker Commons, even though the upfront cost is about three times more than an asphalt roof. A steel roof will be more durable. Some of the benefits for the steel roof include: no off-gas; resistance to wind, fire, mildew, insects and rot; extended life for air-conditioning units; decrease in attic temperatures; and decreased energy use overall. It also decreases the heat-island effect, according to Hall. She also pointed out that the product chosen by the housing commission is made in Michigan.

Baker Commons Roof: Public Commentary

During public commentary, AAHC executive director Jennifer L. Hall addressed the board about the request. She had also appeared before the board at the previous month’s meeting. She described how the AAHC provides low-income public housing in the city – a total of around 360 units. Of those, 64 units are located at Baker Commons, the facility that she was requesting funds to support. She described the residents of Baker Commons as mostly elderly or disabled, all living in one-bedroom units.

Hall described the Baker Commons roof has having ongoing structural problems. It had shown such a rapid deterioration that it needs to be replaced before the winter, she said. The choice of a steel roof, as opposed to asphalt, she said, reflects the AAHC’s desire to try to use more durable, longer-lasting products. Because the building is six stories tall, she said, replacing the Baker Commons roof would require the use of scaffolding and would be fairly expensive, regardless of the material used. [At the DDA's September meeting, Hall had described the upfront material cost of steel compared to asphalt as about three times as much.] She felt that the roof would last 50 years or longer.

With part of the $260,000 request, the AAHC would be installing devices – like sensors and programmable thermostats – that would result in reducing energy costs to the building. That saved money could be put back into the building, she said. Hall told board members that AAHC would like to put a sign out front of Baker Commons thanking the DDA. She said she’d love to be able to tell the city council, when she addressed that body the following week, that the DDA is supporting the AAHC in this way.

Ray Detter reported from the downtown citizens advisory council (CAC), saying that group strongly supports the Baker Commons request. The CAC would like to see a carefully constructed program for all affordable housing so that those needs are met, but not just necessarily in the downtown.

Baker Commons Roof: Board Discussion

Sandi Smith led off deliberations, saying that the board had now heard twice from the executive director of the Ann Arbor housing commission, Jennifer L. Hall, with the request. She described the location of Baker Commons as solidly within the DDA district. The DDA had the ability to provide money from the DDA’s housing fund as well as from its TIF (tax increment finance) fund.

From left: DDA board members Sandi Smith and Leah Gunn.

“To me, this seems like a no-brainer,” Smith said. She characterized it as an investment in sustainability, and consistent with the goal of having affordable housing within the downtown. Joan Lowenstein pointed out that Baker Commons is housing that is already in the downtown. It’s to the community’s advantage that it stays nice and presentable and doesn’t fall apart. It’s not a question of whether to build more housing or not – it’s already there, and it’s part of the DDA’s job to help take care of it, she said.

Newcombe Clark responded to the characterization of the replacement of the roof as an emergency. He wanted to know if there’d been any conversation about depreciation accounts and capital reserves. A roof is only one piece of a building that might fail. Smith noted that the AAHC had conducted an audit on all its buildings. The roof was looked at three years ago and had deteriorated rapidly – much sooner than anyone had expected. AAHC is absolutely behind in its budgets for maintenance and repair of housing commission properties. There’s no doubt it’s underfunded, she said, and there’s no apparent stream of funds that can be put toward that. The steel roof reflects that AAHC is taking a longer-term approach. The steel roof is guaranteed for 20 years, but Hall had said a steel roof would typically last for 50 years, Smith noted.

Clark wondered if there were a “pipeline” of other AAHC needs that will likely come to the DDA board as requests. Asked to come to the podium, Hall described Baker Commons as one of the better-maintained buildings owned by AAHC. She described how AAHC gets a capital fund allocation each year from HUD [the U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development] that has to cover all AAHC properties. So AAHC has a five-year plan for all its properties, which identifies the highest needs, she said. However, AAHC funding from HUD keeps getting cut, so AAHC is behind in addressing its capital needs.

Several projects are being undertaken at Baker Commons, including the replacement of all windows and flooring, she said. The flooring will be linoleum instead of carpet, because residents complain that the carpeting can’t be kept clean. As far as upcoming request to the DDA, she mentioned the flooring as well as a parking lot improvement – probably a year or two from now. The possibility of solar or wind energy was also something being contemplated for the future. Baker Commons is not by any means one of the worst properties, she said, adding that in fact it’s one of the best.

Newcombe Clark before the DDA’s Oct. 3 meeting started. Beside him is fellow board member John Mouat.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Hall returned to address the board during the final occasion for public commentary. She described an effort to access private financing – driven in part by HUD’s encouragement to do that in the long term. The idea is to convert public housing to partial private ownership through long-term vouchers. She indicated that this might be something the AAHC would approach the DDA to help facilitate.

Clark allowed that the DDA had the money to spend on this, but also noted that the housing fund could be used to construct new units. So it would be important to know if the DDA was being asked to fund a depreciation schedule. If so, he’d like to know what the depreciation schedule is. He called an emergency roof replacement “a symptom of a larger problem.”

Mayor John Hieftje, who serves on the DDA board, observed that funding from HUD showed a downward trend over several years, so he appreciated that a roof is being funded that will last for a very long time. Roger Hewitt got clarification from Sandi Smith that $246,000 of the allocation was coming from the DDA’s housing fund and $14,000 from the TIF fund.

Outcome: The $260,000 allocation for Baker Commons roof replacement was unanimously approved.

624 Church St. Parking Spaces

The board considered a resolution that would authorize negotiation of a contract with a residential development at 624 Church St. for up to 42 parking spaces in the public parking system, which is managed by the DDA under a contract with the city.

The proposed building at 624 Church St. in downtown Ann Arbor would be a 13- or 14-story, 83-unit apartment building for approximately 181 beds. The project exceeds the basic 400% floor area ratio (FAR) specified under the D1 (downtown core) zoning, but qualifies for a premium based on the residential use. [FAR is a measure of density – the ratio of the square footage of a building divided by the size of the lot. A one-story structure built lot-line-to-lot-line with no setbacks corresponds to a FAR of 100%. A similar structure built two-stories tall would result in a FAR of 200%.]

For the basic 400% FAR, no parking is required. But for the excess amount, the city’s parking code requires that parking be provided. One option for handling the required parking is to use the “contribution in lieu of parking” program.

Ann Arbor’s “contribution in lieu of parking” program was authorized by the city council on April 2, 2012. The program allows essentially two options: (1) purchase monthly parking permits in the public parking system for an extra 20% of the current rate for such permits, with a commitment of 15 years; or (2) make a lump sum payment of $55,000 per space. It’s option (1) that the 624 Church St. project will be pursuing.

At the Sept. 26 meeting of the DDA’s operations committee, the development team for 624 Church St. pitched the parking proposal to the committee. Given the added capacity in the public parking system resulting from construction of the new underground parking garage – Library Lane, which offers over 700 spaces – committee members were generally positively inclined to make an arrangement for 40 permits somewhere in the parking system.

But the operations committee was not willing to commit to offering spaces in the Forest Avenue parking structure, which is the closest parking facility to the project. That was reflected in the Oct. 3 resolution considered by the board, which describes how it will be decided “at a later date where these 42 parking spaces will be assigned, including in the Forest Avenue parking structure or within other nearby campus-area public structures … ”

The 624 Church St. address is next to Pizza House. Dennis Tice, owner of Pizza House, is listed as one of the developers, along with 624 Partners LLC and Opus Group of Minnetonka, Minnesota. [.pdf of 624 Church Street proposal] When Pizza House expanded in 2006, the project included foundations that would allow for a taller building to eventually be constructed. The new project would demolish an existing two-story house located south of the restaurant, replacing it with a 14-story building over the southern portion of the restaurant and above the former house and loading zone area. The design by local architect Brad Moore would include a rooftop plaza and garden. [.jpg of proposed 624 Church Street project]

624 Church St. Parking Spaces: Public Commentary

During public commentary, Dennis Tice introduced himself as the owner and operator of the Pizza House, on top of which the project would be built. He introduced project architect Brad Moore, who spoke on Tice’s behalf.

From left: architect Brad Moore and attorney Scott Munzel.

Moore described the project as an addition to the Pizza House structure – a residential tower with 13 occupied levels and a roof plaza as an amenity. It will be constructed over two-thirds of the site, he said. The original Pizza House restaurant took up the northernmost third of the site, he said. An addition to the restaurant takes up the middle third of the site. And on the southernmost third of the site stands a two-and-a-half story house, which would be demolished, he said. The new construction would occupy the southern third and extend over the top of the middle third of the site. When the restaurant addition was designed, it included a foundation system that could handle an additional vertical addition. So part of the project is already “in the ground,” Moore said.

Because of the narrow footprint of the southern third of the site, Moore continued, the developer can’t find any way to accommodate parking on site – which would be required for the residential premium FAR. So what’s being requested is to satisfy the parking requirement by contracting for 40-42 spaces in the public parking system, as provided in the city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) program. Moore stated a preference that the spaces be located in the Forest structure, but said he understood it’s up to the DDA to figure out the location.

Moore noted that the Oct. 17 meeting of the design review board would mark the first occasion on which input would be received from the city about the project. But in terms of the process, the developer needs to be able to say whether the parking will be available and can be provided through the city’s CIL program.

Local attorney Scott Munzel addressed the board in support of the Opus Group, which is developing the project. Munzel described Opus as an experienced real estate developer, including student rentals as well as more typical multi-family developments. Opus is a regional entity, he said, with offices in Indianapolis and Chicago as well as on the east coast. Opus is a good solid developer to undertake the project, Munzel said. Obviously, he added, the site is part of the South University Avenue commercial district and he characterized the project as appropriate for the location. Opus had asked Munzel to appear to strongly urge that the spaces to be provided through the CIL program would be provided in the Forest parking structure, across the street from the project. However, Munzel allowed that Opus understands it’s a systemwide decision.

Ray Detter, reporting from the downtown citizens advisory council (CAC), said he felt the 624 Church St. project seems to take care that it follows the design guidelines. He added that this contrasted with a different project also currently proposed on East Huron Street. [For more detail on the two projects, see "Two Projects File for Design Review"]

Detter said the CAC also supported the off-site parking request being made under the CIL program.

624 Church St. Parking Spaces: Board Discussion

Roger Hewitt noted that under the relatively new A2D2 rezoning process, there’s a provision for projects that are required to have parking if they exceed the 400% FAR. Under the CIL option for providing the required parking, Hewitt noted, there’s an option to sign a contract with the DDA to have monthly permits. There’s also an option to make a lump sum payment to the DDA. For this project, the request is to sign a contract for up to 42 spaces, Hewitt said.

Newcombe Clark drew out the fact that the 624 Church St. project is a “by-right” project. Hewitt described the project as above 400% FAR, but it’s not a planned unit development (PUD).

On clarification that to meet the “by-right” standard, a contract had to be made for spaces somewhere in the public parking system, Clark wondered why a reference needed to be made to the Forest parking structure in the resolution. DDA executive director Susan Pollay confirmed that the CIL policy is silent on where the spaces would be – it simply requires that the contract for the spaces specify permit prices at 20% greater than the going rate.

Clark was concerned about the ability of the DDA to implement demand management strategies – pointing out that there’s a greater utility to the developer to have the spaces provided at the Forest structure. When the Forest structure was rebuilt, it was constructed with just 590 spaces, and the demand for parking in that area is increasing. In terms of the project approval, the city needs confirmation from the DDA that 42 spaces are available somewhere in the public parking system.

Clark wanted to eliminate the statement in the resolution that referred specifically to the possibility that the parking spaces would be provided in the Forest structure.

Several board members seemed amenable to Clark’s attempted friendly amendment. But mayor John Hieftje was satisfied by the original statement’s “or.” Clark felt it was still “anchoring” in the course of negotiations. Board chair Leah Gunn, who was presiding over the meeting, deemed that Clark’s amendment was no longer considered friendly – and would need a board vote and a formal move by Clark to bring it to a vote. Clark was content not to move for the amendment, but noted that 42 spaces in the Forest structure is a significant percentage of the deck. Keith Orr was successful in adding a friendly amendment that mentioned the use of demand management principles.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved contracting for 42 spaces in the public parking system for the 624 Church St. project.

$30K for Transit Connector

The board was asked to consider a resolution allocating a total of $30,000 over two fiscal years as a contribution to a $1.5 million project – the study of a transportation connector between the northeast and south sides of Ann Arbor. The corridor runs from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street, then farther south to I-94. This alternatives analysis phase of the study is to result in identifying a preferred choice of technology (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and the location of stations and stops. The decision to help fund the project was made at the DDA board’s Oct. 3, 2012 meeting.

The grant from the DDA to the project would come from parking revenues, split equally between the current fiscal year (2013) and next year. It also would be contingent on the city of Ann Arbor providing $30,000 to the project, too.

The additional $30,000 from the DDA – when added to $150,000 that the University of Michigan has pledged,  $90,000 from the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, and a possible $30,000 from the city – would bring the total local funding to $300,000. That would satisfy the 20% matching requirement for a $1.2 million grant the AATA has received to complete the $1.5 million project.

The AATA has given approval of a contract with URS Corp. to start the work, contingent on lining up the remaining $60,000 in local matching funds.

Whether the Ann Arbor city council would decide to allocate $30,000 to the project is an open question. Previously, when the council was asked to provide $60,000, the proposal was rejected. The council voted on Sept. 4, 2012 to reject it, then reconsidered that vote two weeks later on Sept. 17, 2012. But on reconsideration of the vote, the council decided to postpone a decision until Oct. 15.

Part of the political mix is the need for the 11-member council to achieve an eight-vote majority – because the resolution reflects a change to the city budget. If the council approves the money on Oct. 15, it will be without the vote of Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who previously voted for the funding, despite some strongly expressed concern. Kunselman announced at the council’s Oct. 1 meeting that he would not be able to attend the meeting on Oct. 15.

And based on the Sept. 4 deliberations, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) would be likely votes against it. That means approval would require unanimity across the rest of the council, including Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). While Higgins was absent for the Sept. 4 vote, Briere was present and voted against the funding.

$30K for Connector Study: Board Discussion

Roger Hewitt reviewed the process to date. He noted that the project is following federal guidelines for funding. The first phase had been a feasibility study and has already been completed. The alternatives analysis phase is to look at technology and routes, which will produce a locally-preferred alternative, he said. He described it as a “transit spine” through the city.

Hewitt described the study as lasting about 1.5 years at a total cost of $1.5 million. Of that amount, a federal grant will pay for $1.2 million. The $90,000 from the AATA and $150,000 from UM leaves a balance of $60,000 for local matching funds that must be identified, he said. Hewitt noted that the Ann Arbor city council would be taking up the issue at its Oct. 15 meeting, but he did not review the complications of the council’s action up to now.

Hewitt called it “critical” for the DDA to be involved – as the DDA looks at the increasing parking numbers. As more people visit downtown and work in downtown, they need to be able to get into the downtown some other way, he said, noting that “we’re going to run out of parking capacity faster than we thought we were, and we’re certainly going to run out of street capacity faster than we thought we were.”

So Hewitt said he was proposing that the DDA fund half of the remaining local share – $30,000 to be split into two $15,000 chunks over the next two fiscal years. Hewitt also stressed that the allocation is contingent on the city contributing $30,000 as the final share. “We want to be in lock step with what the city council is doing,” Hewitt said. If the city council doesn’t see it as appropriate, he said, “so be it.” The advantage of being able to leverage federal funds is critical not just for the study, but for the eventual construction of a transportation connector.

Sandi Smith felt that the proportionate share was right for the University of Michigan, given that UM will get a huge benefit – because the institution needs to move people back and forth between its campuses.

Keith Orr said that an additional benefit to contributing to the project was that it would increase the amount of money the DDA is putting toward alternative transportation. He saw it as important to be at the table.

Responding to a question from John Splitt, Hewitt indicated that the timing of the contribution was not as important as the commitment.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the contingent $30,000 for the transportation connector study.

Bike Parking Cage

The board considered authorization of $30,000 from its parking fund to pay for a 50-bike storage facility – to be located in the downtown Ann Arbor Maynard Street parking structure.

The money covers design, fabrication and installation of the bicycle storage facility. Similar “cages” in other cities use a chain-link fencing material. However, the DDA hopes that a more aesthetically pleasing option can be identified.

Bike cage footprint.

The facility is designed for commuters who would pay a rental amount for use of the “cage.” Bicyclists would still be responsible for securing their own bikes in racks inside the cage. The revenue from the rentals would go to the DDA to compensate for the lost revenue from the automobile parking spaces. The getDowntown program, which is formally a creature of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, would receive a yet-to-be negotiated portion of that revenue in exchange for managing the program. The getDowntown program already manages some downtown bicycle lockers.

Based on discussion by DDA and getDowntown staff at a Sept. 26 DDA operations committee meeting, the current intent is to make the cage available only to holders of the go!pass – a bus pass that downtown employers can purchase for their employees at a cost of $10 per year. The cost of the go!pass rides is subsidized by the DDA.

Also at the Sept. 26 committee meeting, it was reported that Barracuda Networks believes that as many as 25 of its employees are potential users of the bike cage facility. Barracuda was recently granted a tax abatement by the Ann Arbor city council in connection with its move from Depot Street to a downtown location immediately adjacent to the Maynard Street parking structure, where the cage is to be located.

Bike Parking Cage: Board Discussion

John Mouat gave a brief overview of the proposal. He hoped that it could become a model for other locations. He noted that Barracuda Networks – which is moving to that location – might have as many as 25 potential users. Roger Hewitt observed that some of the bike lockers previously were located at the Maynard Street structure. He said based on his own observations, there’s clearly a need for bicycle parking in the area. He characterized it as a good pilot project. Mouat added that the bicycle cage fits into the idea of connecting different parts of town.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the allocation for the Maynard Street bicycle cage.

Parking Report

Roger Hewitt gave the monthly update on parking usage, the most recent numbers coming from August 2012. The total number of spaces has gone up, he noted – thanks to the opening of the Library Lane underground parking garage on South Fifth Avenue. Revenues continue to be strong he said. – a 14% growth in revenue compared to a year ago. Patron counts are also up slightly for the hourly parking. The Library Lane structure had just opened and a lot of people don’t know it’s there, he said, yet it still contributed $43,000 to the total, which means that at least some people have found it and are using it.

Permit sales continue to be very strong, he said. Some people have moved their monthly permits from Liberty Square to the new Library Lane structure. [The DDA is offered reduced rates for those who choose to make that move. About 100 people have taken advantage of the offer.] Hewitt called it an encouraging report, adding that it indicates the system is growing faster than the DDA thought it would. It would be a focus of the operations committee to deal with the increased parking demand.

Total hourly patrons. Chronicle charts of Ann Arbor public parking system from DDA data.

Total system revenue. Chronicle charts of Ann Arbor public parking system from DDA data.

Revenue by space: Focus on structures. Chronicle charts of Ann Arbor public parking system from DDA data.

Revenue by space: Focus on surface lots. Chronicle charts of Ann Arbor public parking system from DDA data.

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: Board Retreat

Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, reported on the scheduling of the board retreat. [It's now been finalized at Nov. 16 from 10:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. at Zingerman's on Fourth.]

Comm/Comm: Proceeds of City-Owned Land Sale

Sandi Smith reported on the supportive resolution the DDA board had approved at its meeting the previous month – which encouraged the city council to adopt a policy that would deposit the proceeds of city-owned land sales to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. The issue has now been referred to the council’s budget committee, Smith said, and the committee is “chewing” on it and will come back to the full council on Oct. 15. [Based on a committee meeting held on Oct. 1, it seems likely that any policy directing proceeds of city-owned land sales to the affordable housing trust fund would be limited to just one property – the Fifth and William surface parking lot, which was the former location of the YMCA building. For other city-owned properties, the committee seemed more inclined to decide on the use of proceeds on a case-by-case basis.]

Comm/Comm: Connecting William Street

Joan Lowenstein gave an update on the scheduling of additional public engagement events associated with the Connecting William Street project.

The project’s leadership and outreach committee will meet on Oct. 17 at 3 p.m., Lowenstein said. That will be the first meeting in a while – because the group was waiting until data had been gathered from the public engagement process. That still puts the committee on track to make a recommendation to the city council in December.

As a part of the recommendation, the committee wants to be clear to the council about what the DDA is willing to invest and what the public should be willing to invest in the area covered by the CWS process, Lowenstein said. The committee had begun discussing the issue at its regular meeting and continued at a special meeting. The committee had discussed making infrastructure improvement along the same lines as those made for Fifth and Division streets.

The committee had also looked at use of TIF (tax increment finance) dollars for other public improvements – like stormwater and drinking water. Lowenstein reported that within the CWS study area, the city has already been gradually improving the infrastructure, so it’s not like it has to be done from scratch, she said. The committee is also looking at how investments in transportation and parking would support more residents and businesses, she said. That includes increasing bike lanes, pedestrian improvements, and pathways that would connect Main Street to State Street. Sandi Smith followed up by saying that the connections were also crucial – when often the focus was just on the surface parking lots.

Comm/Comm: Bicycles on Sidewalks

Ray Detter, reporting from the downtown citizens advisory council (CAC), recalled how nearly a decade ago, Dick Shackson had succeeded in advocating for the installation of the first “walk your bike” signs on State Street and East Liberty. Since then, Detter said, the number of pedestrians, cyclists and sidewalk diners in the downtown had increased enormously, he said. He had been asked by the CAC  to give full support for an expanded “walk your bike” program on the most congested sidewalks in downtown – at the same time that a commitment is made to making the streets safer for everyone. [For background, see this Dec. 8, 2003 Ann Arbor News article: "Proposal would turn riders into pedestrians – DDA hears recommendation bikes be walked"]

Reporting from the DDA’s transportation committee, John Mouat said that a sub-committee had been formed to look at the issue of riding bicycles on downtown sidewalks. Mouat is on the sub-committee, along with Russ Collins and John Splitt.

Comm/Comm: Electric Vehicle Charger Project

The board got an update from Dave Konkle on the electric vehicle charger project in the public parking structures. Konkle introduced himself as the former energy coordinator for city of Ann Arbor, who’s now consulting on energy projects for the DDA.

He characterized the electric charger as near completion, and showed the board members a preview of the website that will display data about usage of the chargers. [At the time of the presentation to the board, the website was not yet launched. Shortly after Konkle spoke to the board, it went live.

Eighteen charging stations are located in six different public parking structures. The website displays which of the chargers are available in real time. The website also tracks the net number of miles that have been supplied to cars using the public charging stations. Currently the electricity used to charge a patron's car is free as long as the parking is paid for. That could change in the future, Konkle said. When the system was set up, flexibility was built in so that if the DDA wants to charge for the electric use, that's easy to implement – by adding a card reader. Decisions will be made as demand grows, he said.

Konkle used the example of the stations at the Forest parking structure to illustrate how the website works. He described how a group of users of the two stations had evolved. They'd contacted Konkle with some requests. They'd figured out that the cord to the charger will reach as far as an immediately adjacent space not designated for use of the stations – so they'd asked that those spaces also be designated as reserved for the electric charging station. The group has created a window system to indicate when they think their car will be done charging. Konkle quipped that they are Midwesterners, so they feel bad if they park there for eight hours with no one else able to use the charger. So the group has exchanged cell phone numbers, Konkle reported, and they move their cars around throughout the day. More charging stations have been requested, Konkle said.

Usage at the Fourth and William structure is also high, Konkle said. To give board members a rough idea of how much the electricity is costing, he said 10 kWh of electricity is about $1.20. So every day, each charging station is costing around $1.20 or slightly more, he said.

Konkle characterized the usage as good compared to other cities. Other cities would be jealous to see the usage, he said, and would never believe the kind of usage that is being achieved at Forest. Usage is above what was expected, he said. Before the installation, he'd told members of the project team that some people would look at 18 chargers as far too many for the usage they'd get, while others would say that was too few.

Present: Newcombe Clark, Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat.

Absent: Nader Nassif, Russ Collins.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2012, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

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

The grant from the DDA to the project would come from parking revenues, split equally between the current fiscal year (2013) and next year. It also would be contingent on the city of Ann Arbor providing $30,000 to the project as well. Part of the rationale for the DDA is a situation described by DDA board member Roger Hewitt: A likelihood that the additional capacity of the public parking system, even enhanced by the new 700-space Library Lane underground garage, would be exceeded sooner than expected.

The additional $30,000 from the DDA – when added to the $150,000 that the University of Michigan has pledged,  $90,000 from the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, and a possible $30,000 from the city – would bring the total local funding to $300,000. That would satisfy the 20% matching requirement for a $1.2 million grant the AATA has received to complete the $1.5 million project.

The AATA has given approval of a contract with URS Corp. to start the work, contingent on lining up the remaining $60,000 in local matching funds.

Whether the Ann Arbor city council decides to allocate $30,000 to the project is an open question. Previously, when the council was asked to provide $60,000, the proposal was rejected. The council voted on Sept. 4, 2012 to reject it, but reconsidered that vote two weeks later on Sept. 17, 2012. But on reconsideration of the vote, the council decided to postpone a decision until Oct. 15.

Part of the political mix is the need for the 11-member council to achieve an eight-vote majority – because the resolution reflects a change to the city budget. If the council approves the money on Oct. 15, it will be without the vote of Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who previously voted for the funding, despite some strongly expressed concern. Kunselman announced at the council’s Oct. 1 meeting that he would not be able to attend the Oct. 15 meeting.

And based on the Sept. 4 deliberations, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) would be likely votes against it. That means approval would require unanimity across the rest of the council, including Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). While Higgins was absent for the Sept. 4 vote, Briere was present and voted against the funding.

The timeline for completion of the study would be about a year and a half.

This brief was filed from the DDA offices at 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301, where the DDA board holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The authorization, which the AATA board gave at its Sept. 27, 2012 meeting, is conditional on additional local funding – in the amount of $60,000. The $60,000 would be part of a total $300,000 local match for a $1.2 million federal grant.

The corridor runs from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street and farther south to I-94. This alternatives analysis phase of the study is to result in identifying a preferred choice of technology (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and the location of stations and stops.

The Ann Arbor city council voted on Sept. 4, 2012 to reject the $60,000 request, but reconsidered that vote two weeks later on Sept. 17, 2012. But on reconsideration of the vote, the council decided to postpone a decision until Oct. 15.

In the meantime, some of the requested $60,000 might actually be provided by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Initial indications to the AATA were that the DDA’s budget constraints would not allow a contribution to the local match. But at a Sept. 26, 2012 meeting of the DDA’s operations committee, it was decided that the full DDA board would be asked to consider a connector study funding resolution at its Oct. 3 meeting. The DDA resolution would specify a $30,000 total contribution by the DDA, in two $15,000 payments to be made in each of the next two years. Members of the DDA’s operations committee wanted to make the $30,000 contingent on the city of Ann Arbor providing the other $30,000.

The $60,000 is a portion of $300,000 in local funding that has been identified to provide the required match for a $1.2 million federal grant awarded last year to the AATA for the alternatives analysis phase. The breakdown of local support was originally intended to be: $60,000 from the city of Ann Arbor; $150,000 from the University of Michigan; and $90,000 from the AATA.

The timeline for completion of the study, which would be done by URS Corp., would be about a year and a half. Part of the AATA board’s rationale for moving ahead with the contingent authorization of the contract relates to the time that has elapsed since receiving a bid from URS to do the second phase of the study. According to an AATA staff memo, URS has held the price for the work at the original bid price – for now.

A feasibility study for the corridor costing $640,000 has already been completed by URS. That initial study concluded that some type of improved high-capacity transit system would be feasible – which could take the form of bus rapid transit, light rail transit, or elevated automated guideway transit. That study had been funded through a partnership with the city of Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor DDA, University of Michigan and the AATA. Chronicle coverage of that feasibility study includes: “Transit Connector Study: Initial Analysis“; “AATA: Transit Study, Planning Updates“; and “Washtenaw Transit Talks in Flux.”

This brief was filed from the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library, where the AATA board holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Left to right: Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and former councilmember and planning commissioner Jean Carlberg. (Photos by the writer.)

Five significant items had been added: (1) a proposal to suspend temporarily the footing drain disconnection program in one area of the city; (2) a proposal to waive temporarily the city’s living wage requirement for certain nonprofits; (3) a proposal to establish a sidewalk gap elimination program; (4) a resolution on dealing with proceeds of city-owned land sales that competed with one already on the agenda; and (5) reconsideration of allocating $60,000 for a transit study – funding that the council had rejected at its previous meeting.

The first two items were added on Friday, Sept. 14. The second two were added the day of the meeting (Sept. 17), with the fifth item added at the council table. Of the added items, the council approved only one – to suspend temporarily the footing drain disconnect program. The rest were  postponed, withdrawn or voted down.

Postponed was the resolution added by Mike Anglin (Ward 5) to establish a committee of city officials and 10 residents – two from each ward, to be selected by councilmembers for respective wards – to address the issue of city-owned parcels in downtown Ann Arbor. The citizen committee to be established by Anglin’s resolution would study the available options for use of proceeds from the sale of downtown city properties.

Also postponed was the resolution that Anglin’s proposal was essentially challenging, which was brought forward by Sandi Smith (Ward 1). Smith wants to direct the proceeds from city-owned land sales to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. Her idea – which she first floated to her council colleagues in an email written in late August – enjoyed the support of nonprofits, as well as the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board and the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

While Anglin’s resolution was postponed until Oct. 1, Smith’s was referred to the council’s budget committee and postponed until the council’s Oct. 15 meeting.

Also postponed was a requested $60,000 contribution to fund further study of a transportation connector – for the corridor running from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street and farther south to I-94. The outcome of this phase is to identify a preferred choice of technology (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and the location of stations and stops. The council had voted down the proposal at its Sept. 4 meeting, but it was brought back for reconsideration on Sept. 17, only to be postponed until Oct. 15. The $60,000 is meant to be the city’s share of a $300,000 local match for a $1.2 million federal grant that has already been awarded.

Withdrawn was the proposal to waive a requirement of the city’s living wage ordinance for those nonprofits that receive funding from the city to deliver human services. The ordinance has a provision for a hardship waiver, but states that a nonprofit must submit a plan for eventual compliance within three years. No nonprofits had submitted such plans, meaning that the council’s resolution would have amounted to an attempt by the council to amend the living wage ordinance through a simple resolution, which it cannot do. When the council reached the item on the agenda, it was withdrawn, with an indication that an ordinance revision would be brought forward to a future meeting.

Also at the Sept. 17 meeting, the council heard about an item related to nonprofit funding for human services that will be brought forward on Oct. 1: a request to continue the two-year pilot program for coordinated funding. That news came during a presentation from Mary Jo Callan, head of the city/county office of community and economic development.

Voted down was a plan to initiate a 5-year program to eliminate sidewalk gaps in the city. Councilmembers voting against the resolution pointed to the fact that the city’s non-motorized transportation plan takes a comprehensive approach to identifying such gaps. They feared that people might mistakenly believe that certain gaps would necessarily be filled through this program, and raised concerns about equity. The resolution sought to identify independent funding sources to pay for such projects – the city’s strategy in the past has been to levy special assessments on owners of property adjoining the sidewalks.

The footing drain disconnect program was the only one of the late additions to the agenda on which the council took final action. In the general vicinity of the Lansdowne neighborhood, where some houses have already had sump pumps installed as part of the disconnect program, residents have reported that during heavy rains, the overland stormwater flows and the sheer volume of water in the city’s stormwater system prevent sump pumps from being effective. At an Aug. 22 neighborhood meeting, residents had called for a moratorium on the program. That’s essentially what the council’s resolution did.

Flooding was also a topic included in other council business that had been placed on the agenda through the regular agenda-setting process. The council approved an update to the city’s hazard mitigation plan. It will allow the city to receive already-approved federal funds for demolishing two out-buildings located in the floodway at the city-owned 721 N. Main property.

Also related to emergency preparedness, the city council authorized the purchase of a light rescue vehicle that can be used by firefighters to respond to medical calls. Because its staffing requirement is just two firefighters instead of three, the use of the vehicle would allow response to medical calls without diminishing as much of the department’s response capability for fire calls.

The council also gave final approval to rezoning of an Eden Court property to public land.

Land Sale Policy

The council was asked to consider two resolutions related to the sale of city-owned land. One had been brought forward by Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who first outlined the idea to other councilmembers in an email written three weeks prior to their Sept. 17 meeting. It involved directing the proceeds from city-owned land sales to the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

A second resolution had been added to the council’s agenda the morning of Sept. 17 by Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Anglin’s resolution called for establishing a committee of 10 residents – two from each ward, to be selected by councilmembers from each ward – plus other city officials to address the issue of city-owned parcels in downtown Ann Arbor.

Anglin’s resolution was not specific about how the committee was supposed to address the issue or in what timeframe.

Land Sale Policy: Anglin’s Resolution

At the start of the meeting, Anglin’s resolution was moved ahead of Smith’s on the agenda – at Anglin’s request, because he felt that if Smith’s resolution were approved it would render his own resolution moot.

The citizen committee to be established by Anglin’s resolution would study the available options for use of the proceeds from selling downtown city properties.

Councilmember Mike Anglin (Ward 5). In the foreground is his wardmate, Carsten Hohnke.

The resolution included language like “a transparent process to gather citizen preferences for use of the City land in the DDA district, including whether to sell or lease the land to the private sector.” So it appeared to be an attempt to establish in some sense a parallel process to one that the DDA has undertaken at the previous direction of the city council, under the moniker of Connecting William Street. That process focuses on five city-owned parcels in the area bounded by Ashley, Liberty, Division and William streets. For Chronicle coverage of a recent presentation on the project to the city’s planning commission, see “Planning Group Briefed on William Street Project.”

Anglin’s resolution was moved ahead of Smith’s, over Smith’s objection.

Land Sale Policy: Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge called on the council to support affordable housing, affordable transportation and jobs. He also called for access to free and low-cost education from pre-school through graduate school. Ann Arbor should be known as the education city and as standing for progress in political, social and economic areas, he said. The city needs to give great attention to voter access, for the disabled and seniors and others who have transportation challenges. The council needs to give greater attention to the homeless in the city. He contended that in one stroke, the council could wipe out homelessness for 2012 and for all time.

Ingrid Ault introduced herself as a Ward 1 resident and spoke in support of Smith’s proposed policy on the sale of public land. She was speaking as a member of the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB), which has the purpose: “To make recommendations to the City Council, City Administration and the Office of Community Development regarding policies and programs to address the needs of low income residents of the City of Ann Arbor. To monitor the implementation of the City’s housing policy and the creation of a City Housing Coordinator to oversee, carry out and coordinate these policies.” It’s a community goal to provide services that meet the basic human needs of impoverished and disenfranchised residents to maximize the health and well-being of the community, she said. In 2004, the goal of adding 500 rental housing units was established. Since that time, 322 units have been added, but 100 units were lost with the demolition of the downtown YMCA building and 79 units were converted to market rate units. That’s a net gain of just 156 units, leaving the community short of its goal of 500 units, she said. It’s time to take the community’s housing goals seriously.

The Ann Arbor Housing Commission had received 18,000 applications for 1,400 vouchers – which means the need clearly exceeds capacity, Ault said. HHSAB unanimously endorsed the resolution, Ault said. Public land is an asset, and when assets are sold, they should be reinvested in the community, she said. It’s not just the right thing to do, it’s the economical thing to do. She cited a study that showed for every dollar invested in nonprofits, a return of $12-14 in non-local funds was received.

Jean Carlberg told the council it was nice to be back. [She previously served on the city council, representing Ward 3.] She told the council she was there as a board member of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance (WHA). The main task of WHA is to deal with homelessness, she said. Over the last year, over 700 singles called the housing access line, saying they were in a housing crisis. Over 600 adults and 900 children in families called the housing access line. The most efficient way to help people is to prevent them from becoming homeless, Carlberg said.

Dave DeVarti spoke in favor of Sandi Smith’s resolution on proceeds of land sales being deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

But currently, the community doesn’t have the housing it needs, in order to re-house people who’ve lost their housing. WHA can’t find units in Ann Arbor at rents low enough, Carlberg reported. The cost that accrues to the community from not being able to keep people in stable housing is tremendous, she said. For example, without stable housing, children sometimes have to change to a different school district – because they have to move to stay with another family member or friend, she said.

David DeVarti told the council it was great to be there for the last council meeting of the summer, and wished them a happy Rosh Hashanah.

He told the council he supported the land sale policy. When it was in effect previously, it had helped create affordable housing, he said.

It’s a continuing challenge to maintain a diversity of housing options. But when the city needed a couple of million dollars for the financing plan for the new police/courts building, he reminded the council, the policy was rescinded. But now that project has been built and is in use. So it’s time to restore the policy to once again commit ourselves to the support that affordable housing requires, DeVarti concluded.

Land Sale Policy: Anglin’s Resolution – Council Deliberations

Anglin led off deliberations by noting that the city is currently contemplating the use and the possible sale of city-owned downtown property. In the interest of transparency and the public’s ownership of the property, Anglin felt like the public should be the first group consulted. He contended that he’s seen the city defend the property rights of private owners, but not be as aggressive about defending the public’s rights with respect to publicly-owned land.

He reviewed how every councilmember would get a chance to appoint someone to a 10-person committee. [The proposal is in some ways reminiscent of Anglin's bid to establish a citizen's committee back on Feb. 1, 2010 in connection with the 415 W. Washington property. That committee would have been open to any citizen who wanted to participate.] The committee would also have access to the resources of the city staff.

Anglin apologized for the late timing of the item’s addition to the agenda. He felt it would lead to a much more open discourse.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said that when she saw the email come through that morning from Anglin about the addition to the agenda, she found herself confused. There are not clear-cut deliverables, she observed. She asked Anglin if the committee was supposed to decide how to use land or how to allocate funding? Anglin responded by saying the purpose was to get a diverse set of potentials. If the meetings of the committee result in a conclusion that it’s a good idea to sell a piece of property, that would be given as a suggestion to the council. He called it “parallel to and in conjunction with” the DDA’s Connecting William Street process.

Briere responded by saying that one of the issues Anglin’s resolution talks about is DDA boundaries. If the idea is to look at just the five parcels within the bounds of the Connecting William Street process, that’s one thing, she said. But if the idea is to look at the DDA district as a whole, that’s another.

Briere wondered if Anglin’s committee was intended to be a standing committee that would meet perpetually as part of an ongoing process. She repeated, “I’m really confused.” Anglin said the intent was for each councilmember to choose a person from their ward that they felt would be “the most passionate person about the downtown.” The committee would set its own parameters about how to proceed. By establishing a committee, Anglin said, the council was asking for public input, but was not trying to direct the public by giving them a limited set of choices.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) also indicated she was confused. She noted that the city council had given a directive to the DDA to look at city-owned properties in a specific area, which it’s now implementing as the Connecting William Street process. That process, she observed, has a subgroup of citizens that has been directing it. They’ve conducted 17 different community meetings on the process of examining what could happen on the five city lots. She wondered how Anglin’s committee improves on the process that’s already been undertaken and how it relates to that process in a meaningful way.

Anglin said the committee he’s proposing would decide that issue for themselves. He had heard concerns that the First and William Street lot was not included in a discussion of Connecting William Street. [One reason that the parcel is not included is that the future of First and William was decided through a council resolution passed on July 6, 2009.] Anglin weighed in on the idea of citizen committees as contrasted with committees of stakeholders. He felt that such stakeholders reflected a preconceived idea, and he hoped that the citizen committee would not do that. He hoped they would work diligently. He didn’t see such a committee as conflicting, but rather as an adjunct to the Connecting William Street process. The committee would have the same resources available to it as the CWS group, he said.

Mayor John Hieftje said he sees some merit in Anglin’s idea but wanted to see it postponed until some additional clarity could be achieved. He felt there might be some way to have the two groups working together.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he appreciated Anglin bringing it forward, but wanted some additional time to contemplate it. So he moved to postpone the resolution until Oct. 1.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) described Anglin’s resolution as being prompted by Smith’s resolution about the sale of city land. So she wanted to see the council act on Anglin’s resolution that night. She disliked the fact that the resolution had been added that same day. She felt that the council did that kind of thing too much.

Anglin appreciated the council thinking of a postponement. He described the resolution as laying out in some broad brushstrokes how committees might be established in the future. He indicated he was not opposed to a postponement, and allowed that the resolution could be fleshed out more clearly. Hieftje indicated his support for a postponement. He stressed that there’s no initiative before the council right now to sell any property.

Left to right: Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Dave DeVarti.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said it’s interesting that the council is having a discussion about how to use the proceeds of city-owned land. He felt it’s important to broaden the discussion beyond affordable housing or beyond just the sale of the old YMCA lot. He took to heart Hieftje’s observation that there’s no pending sale, so the council was entertaining a lot of discussion about something it was not contemplating doing anytime soon. He wanted to see a community discussion that went beyond the DDA and said that Anglin was on the right track. He felt that Smith’s resolution is focusing the discussion on one aspect of what could be done with the proceeds of city land – to support affordable housing. However, Kunselman allowed that 10 people on a committee might be a little too broad.

In light of Anglin’s willingness to see the proposal postponed, Lumm indicated she’d support postponement. She supported the idea in principle, and observed that there was a real estate committee when she had previously served on the council, which she felt worked well.

Outcome: The council postponed Anglin’s resolution until the council’s Oct. 1 meeting.

Land Sale Policy: Smith’s Resolution

The policy on the disposition of land sale proceeds has a long history dating back to 1996. A previous policy of directing proceeds of city-owned land sales to the affordable housing trust fund was rescinded by the council in 2007. More detailed background is provided in previous Chronicle coverage: “City Council to Focus on Land Sale Policy.”

The ease with which the previous policy was rescinded in 2007 factored into the council’s deliberations.

The key resolved clause of Smith’s resolution read:

Resolved, That proceeds from the sale of public land in the City of Ann Arbor be directed first to reimburse any funds expended relating to the disposition of the property. Of the remaining proceeds, if the property is in the Downtown Development Authority District 5% are to be directed for public plaza or open space creation, renovation or improvements within the DDA District; 10% are to be directed to any project designated in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan, and 85% are to be directed to the Ann Arbor Housing Trust Fund, all regardless of budget year.

Resolutions urging the city council to adopt such a policy were approved by the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority at its Sept. 5, 2012 meeting and by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners later that same day.

Land Sale Policy: Smith’s Resolution – Council Deliberations

Sandi Smith led off deliberations on her own resolution by reviewing some of the history of the affordable housing trust fund. She noted that there’d been no city contribution to the fund since 2009. Besides the city’s general fund contribution, an additional source of revenues had historically come from developers who offered payment in lieu as requirements of planned unit development (PUD) proposals.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) touched base with city administrator Steve Powers before the meeting.

However, with new downtown zoning adopted by the city council – known as A2D2 – such PUDs will be few and far between, by design. While she supports diversity in the downtown, she felt that a good strategy would be for the sale of properties downtown to fund affordable housing outside the downtown.

The affordable housing trust fund will allow leveraging of state and federal funding, she said. With no policy in place, the proceeds from the sale of city-owned land would simply go into the general fund. She argued that it’s prudent and wise to reinvest in long-term assets. She asked her city council colleagues to join the DDA and Washtenaw County boards in supporting the resolution.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said he applauded the aim of the resolution, having served as the council’s liaison to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission. He wanted to know how the proposal jived with the Connecting William Street work going on right now with the DDA. Does Smith’s proposal affect that?

Smith characterized the two as only tangentially related. The Connecting William Street process is to assemble information about the city-owned parcels in a way that could eventually be used to bring them to market – whether that’s in a year or in a decade. The process is about finding out what the community’s values and wishes are. Smith said her resolution affects what the city does with the proceeds. That’s a question worthy of a robust discussion, she added: What do we do with that money, if and when it becomes available?

Derezinski ventured that obviously the sale of all the parcels would not happen at one time. The city doesn’t know what kind of offers might come in. He ventured that decisions about the use of the property could affect the amount of the proceeds from the sale of the land. Smith allowed that’s the case. If the city puts heavy restrictions on a property, that would affect the sale price, she said. An equally interesting policy discussion would be: What could the DDA do with TIF contributions, as contrasted with lowering the potential sale price of the land?

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked for clarification about the intended scope of the resolution. Smith replied that there’s no direction in the resolution about what happens in the event of a sale of city-owned land outside the DDA district. That was intentional, she said, because she’d reviewed the findings of the real estate committee back in the mid-1990s and found that of the parcels defined as “excess,” very few were still available.

Lumm also asked about the 10% of the net proceeds that Smith’s resolution specified for projects in the city’s CIP (capital improvements plan). Smith told her she imagined that would be determined by staff or council at the time of a sale.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he couldn’t support the resolution. Going back to “the old way” won’t get us more affordable housing units, he contended. While he’d heard talk about leveraging money, time and time again he kept seeing it fail. He felt that something different should be tried. He also felt the council was ahead of itself – because no property was currently contemplated for sale. The old policy had been repealed in 2007, he noted, when he’d served his first stint on the council – and it was so easy to do, he noted. It only took six votes to rescind the previous resolution. It’d be easy to repeal any policy the council might establish now, because the future is so unknown.

Kunselman allowed that he would support the resolution if all of the proceeds were designated to support the Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC) – because that property is already owned by the city, and that’s where he knows there’s a need. As support for the fact that the AAHC has needs, he alluded to a housing commission property on Platt Road that wasn’t mowed over the summer. He said the council needs to be visionary and think of something different.

Lumm agreed that the city’s record on creating affordable housing units isn’t good. She noted that the DDA’s resolution of support doesn’t specify the numerical percentage, but simply specifies that some percentage would be allocated from land sales. She indicated she might support something along the lines of 10-20%, but not 85% as Smith’s resolution stipulated.

Mayor John Hieftje said he was interested in making sure that any debt was paid off that’s associated with city-owned land. He noted that any policy would be only as strong as a six-councilmember majority, so it would be an advisory resolution. He could support some significant percentage, but stressed that the city might have great capital needs. He cautioned that the city was not yet out of the woods for the greatest recession in history.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) felt that the issue fell under the purview of the council’s budget committee, so she proposed postponing the matter until the council’s Oct. 15 meeting, with a referral to the budget committee.

Kunselman said he’d support the postponement and referral to committee.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) felt it made a lot of sense to postpone, and encouraged the budget committee to think about a funding stream that might be identified that is less susceptible to six votes of the council.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) agreed with Hohnke that it’s a basic budget question. She said she’d support a greater percentage allocation than Lumm, something well over 50%. She supported the postponement and referral to the budget committee.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) supported the postponement but cautioned against “make work.” He noted there were no sales imminent, and no current piles of money that the council had to decide on. What the council does now will not exert any control or have bearing on the actions of future councils. He said he fully agreed that the proceeds of land sales should be reinvested in assets, not in operating expenses. But what the council says in 2012 in a non-binding resolution will have little bearing on a council in 2015, he concluded.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated agreement with many of the things that had been said. She had thoughts about possible amendments to reflect her own concerns, one of which was that the scope of the resolution was restricted to the DDA district. She was content with referral to the council’s budget committee.

Smith indicated she would support referral to the budget committee, saying that the council needs to maintain the focus on affordable housing – whether that’s through the affordable housing trust fund or the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

Outcome: The council postponed Smith’s resolution until the Oct. 15 meeting, referring the question to the city council’s budget committee in the meantime. The council’s budget committee consists of Higgins, Briere, Lumm, Anglin and Taylor.

Connector Transit Study

Brought back for reconsideration at the council’s Sept. 17 meeting was a resolution to fund continued study of a transportation corridor from the northeast of Ann Arbor to the city’s southern edge.

The council had failed to approve a requested $60,000 appropriation from the city’s general fund at its Sept. 4, 2012 meeting.

The 4-5 vote on the budget item on Sept. 4, which required an eight-vote majority on the 11-member body, reflected a strategic move by some councilmembers – who wanted to be on the prevailing side, which by council rules would have allowed them to bring the item back for reconsideration.

The city’s $60,000 is supposed to help the study move ahead with an alternatives analysis. The corridor runs from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street and farther south to I-94. This alternatives analysis phase of the study is to result in a preferred choice of technology (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and identification of stations and stops.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) moved for reconsideration of the connector study funding.

The city’s $60,000 is a portion of $300,000 in local funding that has been identified to provide the required match for a $1.2 million federal grant awarded last year to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority for the alternatives analysis phase. The breakdown of local support is intended to be: $60,000 from the city of Ann Arbor; $150,000 from the University of Michigan; and $90,000 from the AATA.

In November 2011, Michael Ford – CEO of the AATA – had updated the AATA board on the possible timeline for the alternatives analysis. He said that phase would take around 16 months.

A feasibility study for the corridor costing $640,000 has already been completed. That initial study concluded that some type of improved high-capacity transit system would be feasible – which could take the form of bus rapid transit, light rail transit, or elevated automated guideway transit. That study had been funded through a partnership with the city of Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, University of Michigan and the AATA. Chronicle coverage of that feasibility study includes: “Transit Connector Study: Initial Analysis“; “AATA: Transit Study, Planning Updates“; and “Washtenaw Transit Talks in Flux.”

Connector Transit Study: Reconsideration

The move to reconsider the connector study decision came at the start of the Sept. 17 meeting, during the segment designated for agenda approval. The motion was made by Margie Teall (Ward 4), who voted with the prevailing side (those opposing it) on Sept. 4.

Teall’s motion was met with complaint from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who felt that the item should have been added to the agenda ahead of time.

Responding to Lumm, mayor John Hieftje claimed that it had to be added at the meeting itself – a claim that was supported by city attorney Stephen Postema, who cited the council rule pertaining to motions to reconsider previous questions, highlighting “at the same or the next regular meeting” for special emphasis:

RULE 12 – Consideration of Questions
When a question has been taken, it shall be in order for any member voting with the prevailing side to move a reconsideration thereof at the same or the next regular meeting; but, no question shall a second time be reconsidered.

[In the past, however, the council has used placeholder items to reserve a spot for a motion to be made. As an example, an item reserving a spot for a motion to suspend the council's rules, a motion to reconsider and the main question – the Heritage Row PUD – was placed on the council's Dec. 6, 2010 agenda as part of the regular agenda-setting process, prior to the meeting. Another approach to giving notice of intent to reconsider an item would have been to add the item –  12-1084 – through the council's regular agenda-setting process for Sept. 17. Then precisely at the point when the council reached 12-1084 on the agenda, the mayor as presiding officer could have asked for a motion to consider the item, as is required for any item on the agenda. That potential motion, if made by someone who voted on the prevailing side, would have been the required motion for reconsideration, thus conforming with the council's Rule 12 on when such motions are to be made and who can make them.]

Connector Transit Study: Council Deliberations

Deliberations were scant. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) indicated she wanted to postpone the item, because she had remaining questions and noted that Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, was not available that night.

John Hieftje observed that Cooper was not available due to a religious holiday [Rosh Hashanah]. Hieftje asked councilmembers to send in their questions well in advance of Oct. 15, and not wait until the last minute. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked that the additional information – which Hieftje had said Cooper could share with the council – be provided to the council as soon as possible.

Smith’s move to postpone was met with parliamentary skepticism from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who noted that it had already been defeated previously. City attorney Stephen Postema assured him that the question was in front of the council properly – so what the council did with it at this point was up to the council. [The council had the full range of options in front of it for dealing with the resolution. Once it's reconsidered, it's as if the previous action had never taken place.]

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the issue until its Oct. 15 meeting – after bringing the resolution back for reconsideration at its Sept. 17 meeting.

Nonprofits

Two issues affecting nonprofits were on the agenda. One related to a possible exemption from the city’s living wage ordinance. The other related to the coordinated funding approach that the city participates in to allocate money to nonprofits that provide human services.

Nonprofits: Living Wage

Added to the council’s agenda on Friday, Sept. 14 before the Monday, Sept. 17 meeting was a resolution related to an exemption from the city’s living wage ordinance for certain nonprofits – those that provide human services.

Left to right: Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Mary Jo Callan, head of the city/county office of community and economic development.

The living wage is defined by city ordinance Chapter 23, Section 1:815, and was increased slightly earlier this year in order to conform with the ordinance. The new wage was set at $12.17/hour for those employers paying health insurance and $13.57/hour for those employers not paying health insurance.

The city ordinance applies to the wages that must be paid by companies that have contracts with the city worth more than $10,000. Passed in 2001, the ordinance initially stipulated in that year that workers of vendors holding contracts with the city had to pay their employees a minimum of $8.70/hour if the contractor provided employee health care and $10.20/hour if not. But the ordinance provides a mechanism for increasing the living wage based on federal poverty guidelines.

The resolution originally on the Sept. 17 agenda was an apparent attempt to invoke an exemption provided in the ordinance that allows the city council to grant an exemption from the wage requirements, if the city council determines that:

…the application of this Chapter would cause demonstrated economic harm to an otherwise covered employer that is a non-profit organization, and the City Council finds that said harm outweighs the benefits of this Chapter; provided further that the otherwise covered non-profit employer shall provide a written plan to fully comply with this Chapter within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed three years, and the City Council then agrees that granting a partial or complete exemption is necessary to ameliorate the harm and permit the non-profit organization sufficient time to reach full compliance with this Chapter.

However, the city council’s agenda item did not name any specific nonprofit employer or provide any written plans submitted by nonprofits for eventual compliance with the ordinance. A request made by The Chronicle under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act for such plans was turned down – because no such plans had been submitted. It appears that the resolution would have amounted to an attempt to change the city ordinance through a simple resolution, which is not a legal way to proceed.

In any case, Ann Arbor’s living wage ordinance does not appear to be consistent with the most recent case law in Michigan. A Michigan Supreme Court order from April 7, 2010 left in place an unpublished court of appeals opinion that found a Detroit living wage law to be unenforceable.

When the council reached the item on the agenda, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted that while the issue identified in the resolution is significant, the resolution did not resolve the problem, because it would not change the ordinance. She indicated she’d work with the housing and human services advisory board and have an ordinance change ready for the council’s next meeting – on Oct. 1. However, she wanted to withdraw the resolution from consideration that evening.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) noted the council previously had debated the idea of exempting nonprofits, and a process was put in place to provide an accommodation for that. She questioned the urgency at this point in time.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) responded to the question of urgency, saying there’s a nonprofit that isn’t receiving its funding from the city, because it can’t currently meet the living wage requirement. The housing and human services advisory board, on which she and Smith serve as city council representatives, had received a presentation on that, Lumm said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) expressed concern that the council was picking winners and losers. Given that the resolution had been withdrawn, councilmembers ended their discussion.

Outcome: The resolution was withdrawn so it could undergo further review by the city’s housing and human services advisory board.

Nonprofits: Coordinated Funding

Mary Jo Callan, who heads up the city/county office of community and economic development, led off her update to the council by passing out a list of successes she believes the program has achieved in the first two years of the coordinated funding approach. Those included:

• Identification of agency capacity concerns
• Single program description & program budget
• Reduced number of contracts
• No required board resolution
• Single reporting procedure and timeline
• Auto-disbursement of payments regardless of funder
• Grantee feedback mechanism
• Volunteer reviewer feedback mechanism
• Enhanced communication between funders & increased understanding of needs

Callan described the approach as one that brings together local funders: Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, United Way of Washtenaw County, the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, and the Washtenaw Urban County.

The purpose of coordinated funding is to create a public/private partnership to focus on key areas, she said, to create increased coherence in investing in nonprofits.

The process has three parts: planning/coordination ($310,000), program operations ($4.4 million), and capacity-building ($225,000). Planning and coordinating assesses what the needs are in the community, and what the best practices are to inform the funding. Program operations is the part that the city has historically funded, she explained – shelters, after-school programs, counseling programs and the like. That’s where most of the investment is made. Capacity building contributes to the health of the nonprofit sector, Callan said, but also helps individual nonprofits be in a better position to meet the needs of the community.

The six priority areas targeted by the coordinated funding process, with the lead agencies, are: (1) housing and homelessness – Washtenaw Housing Alliance; (2) aging – Blueprint for Aging; (3) school-aged youth – Washtenaw Alliance for Children and Youth; (4) children birth to six – Success by Six; (5) health – Washtenaw Health Plan; and (6) hunger relief – Food Gatherers.

The total process puts $4.935 million into local human services nonprofits, so it’s the most substantial source of nonprofit dollars in the community, Callan said. The bulk of that goes into program operations.

When she’d approached the city a year and a half ago to embark on a coordinated funding process, she’d described the projected benefits. Essentially, if you read down the list, every one of the benefits is being accomplished, she said.

One of the highlights Callan drew out was the fact that it’s the first time the community has invested explicitly in planning and coordination. About coordination, Callan said: “It’s not free and it’s not easy.” Unless you have someone whose sole focus is planning and data and best practices and bringing people together, the funding doesn’t come together in a coherent way, she said.

A full outcome report will be available later in the fall, Callan said.

As a result of the coordinated approach, the funders had learned a great deal about the community, Callan told the council. What happened previously is that a nonprofit would approach one of the funders and share a little bit of an issue, but not necessarily want it shared more widely, because they were afraid. What the coordinated funding approach had allowed is for some key agencies to approach the group of funders in a way that’s supportive and helpful instead of punitive. It also allows the funding investments to be better informed, Callan said.

What’s been learned so far from the planning and coordinating effort is that there are key areas of need. Nonprofits can share in administration. She said there’s not a lot of duplication of services – for example, there are not too many shelters. But there is a lot of duplication at the level of overhead. Rather than saying we need fewer nonprofits, Callan said, the idea is to say: Can you share back-office support? She reported more interest in that.

Callan also indicated there’s been interest in planning for executive director transitions. She noted that it’s happened twice since the coordinated funding approach was started. When an executive director leaves, they take a huge piece of the organization with them, Callan explained. She said that nonprofit leaders had been approached with the idea that it’s okay if you’re planning to leave, but “don’t just leave.” The funders might be able to engage with the nonprofit’s board to help create a smooth transition, she said. That way the nonprofit is not destabilized.

Callan also indicated that additional program capacity needs to be added to the eastern side of Washtenaw County.

On the horizon, Callan said, the funders are working with a national level external evaluation firm – paid for by a private funder. The private funder had expressed an interest in investing in the coordinated funding approach, but wanted the program to undergo a formal evaluation process. For the policy makers who had supported the coordinated funding approach, they’d be getting the best evaluated initiative they’d seen in a while, Callan ventured. But the promise to nonprofits had been that they would not spend existing resources to figure out if the coordinated funding approach was a great model.

So a private entity had approached the office of community and economic development and said: If I like what I see, I want to become an investor in coordinated funding. An additional hoped-for benefit for coordinated funding was that it would stimulated additional resources, and this is an example of that, Callan said.

Next steps would include asking the city council to consider an extension to the third year for program operating funds as part of the coordinated funding process. She reminded the council that the planning and capacity building happen every year, but the program operation funding is on a two-year cycle. She told councilmembers they’d be asked to extend that by one year. That way, nonprofits would not need to reapply – but she allowed it would be dependent on the availability of funds in the city budgeting process.

The extension by one year would allow for the evaluation process to finish – which she felt would be done by January and would be available in January and February. It would also allow a better opportunity to provide the outcome data on the program so far.

Outcome: This was an informational item and did not require a council vote.

Sidewalk Gap Program

The council was asked to approve a resolution that would establish a five-year program to replace sidewalk gaps in the city of Ann Arbor. The resolution had been added to the council’s agenda by Mike Anglin (Ward 5) via an email sent to the city clerk on the morning of the Sept. 17 meeting.

From the city’s non-motorized transportation plan:

The plan identifies over 75 missing [sidewalk] segments along the major roadways. These areas are confronted with a number of challenges that have prevented sidewalks from being constructed. Steep grades, e.g., hills and ditches or swales as well as vegetation including trees and shrubs are often times found where a sidewalk gap exists. Although the Plan defines the gaps and recommends they be filled, staff has to define the improvement and develop projects for the construction of the sidewalks. At this time there is no cost estimate to complete the sidewalk system and that effort will need to take place as an essential first step. Once the cost to complete the system is known funds will need to be secured. City code requires that properties along a corridor where a sidewalk or non-motorized path is to be located participate in the cost of the improvement to the extent that the property benefits from that improvement.

The resolved clause of Anglin’s original resolution read:

RESOLVED, That City staff will develop a 5-year program to fill sidewalk gaps;

RESOLVED, That City staff shall engage the public and give priority to school walk zones;

RESOLVED, That funding for the program shall come from Act 51 funds; and

RESOLVED, Staff shall present its program to Council during the FY14 budget cycle.

The memo to council offering city staff perspective cautioned against allocating Act 51 money to fund the program:

Act 51 funds cannot be used for “stand alone” sidewalk projects. The work would have to be done as part of a road improvement project. Saying Act 51 will fund the program without knowing the total cost of the program is risky. Act 51 is what is used for street maintenance (snow plowing, pot hole repairs, some street sweeping, traffic sign maintenance, signal maintenance and upgrades). The sidewalk program could take a significant amount of funds. Additionally, I would think it would be desirable for attorney’s opinion on funding as it relates to special assessment. Sidewalks have been built using special assessment funds, developer investments or grants. Is there an equity issue by leaving the special assessment process/ contributions out?

Sidewalk Gaps: Public Comment

Kathy Griswold expressed her support for the program to eliminate sidewalk gaps. She said it was important to balance the interests of special groups against the “silent majority.” She pointed to a location on the side of Geddes Road that was in need of attention.

Sidewalk Gaps: Council Deliberations

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) described the proposal as emerging from a variety of community interest groups. He noted that the proposal gives priority to school walk zones. He felt that was important due to the decrease in school bus service, which meant that children are walking farther to school. He described the proposal as giving the effort to eliminate sidewalk gaps a “shot in the arm.”

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) proposed a friendly amendment that instead of specifying Act 51 as a source of funds, the clause on funding should be changed to read: “Staff shall present options for funding this program during the FY 2014 budget cycle.”

But Anglin wanted to include a mention of Act 51 in the resolution.

City administrator Steve Powers cautioned against specifying Act 51 as a source of funds for eliminating stand-alone sidewalk gaps. He didn’t want to mislead anyone. Hearing that from Powers, Anglin agreed to Briere’s amendment.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) wondered if the city didn’t already have a plan for eliminating sidewalk gaps – the city’s non-motorized transportation plan. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, told Hohnke that the non-motorized plan identifies the locations of gaps, but it’s not exhaustive. There are locations lacking sidewalks that are not part of the non-motorized plan, he said. It’s the larger gaps on the more heavily traveled streets that are included in the plan, Hupy said.

Hohnke ventured it would it be fair to conclude that on approval of the resolution, the city staff would be integrating the non-motorized plan with a larger program. Hupy allowed that was true, but told Hohnke that a gap in knowledge had been identified – as to where all the sidewalk gaps are in the city. Hupy didn’t have confidence the city has a complete picture of where the gaps are.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) raised the equity issue, by noting that over the last year, residents of Ward 1 have been talking about Newport Road. Various options of bike lanes or sidewalks had been considered, she said. A real obstacle was the fact that the residents who live along Newport would likely be the funders of the improvement – through a special assessment – whereas the residents who live behind those residents would be the actual beneficiaries. After some back and forth with Hupy, Smith indicated she wouldn’t support it due to the equity issue.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he values the sidewalks in his neighborhood and he thought the equity issue was an important one. But he criticized the resolved clauses on the resolution as indefinite. He proposed a wholesale replacement of all the resolved clauses with the following:

Resolved: The city administrator is hereby directed to provide a report to the city council prior to Sept. 15, 2013 regarding the feasibility and if appropriate, the methodology for filling sidewalk gaps throughout the city of Ann Arbor.

The goal of the resolution is to develop a plan and explore whether the plan is feasible. He felt that this resolution was a cleaner way of going about it.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) questioned the long lead time. Taylor said it was his understanding that this was an appropriate timeframe, based on his conversation with city staff. Teall alluded to an ongoing conversation with neighbors on Scio Church Road, who were hoping for something to move quicker than that. Taylor ventured that if the report were done earlier, then it’d be done earlier.

Hupy told Teall that he didn’t see that night’s resolution as conflicting with the project that might be developed for Scio Church Road.

Mayor John Hieftje said he had doubts that the equity issue can be surmounted. Residents had made significant expenditures through special assessment by the city. On one occasion, a special allowance was made, but residents still paid, Hieftje said.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she had liked the part in the friendly-amended original resolution that referred to the budget cycle.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked Powers what the budget projections were – he recalled a deficit was being projected for next year. Powers noted that those had been very early projections and there might be a deficit.

Kunselman said he was a little hesitant to go too far ahead by allocating staff time to this. He called it a daunting effort. It could be misleading to the public, who might think that the city was going to solve sidewalk gaps in the coming year – but they won’t be eliminated in that timeframe. He called it nothing but “teasing” the neighbors and a little bit much to “chew on right now.” He noted that he lives in a neighborhood with no sidewalks.

Briere said that one way or another, the idea is to get the city staff to start thinking about how to improve the process of filling sidewalk gaps. That can be done with a tighter or looser timeframe. There are so many critical gaps on routes to school or adjacent to parks that create problems for residents throughout the city. She thought concerns about the budget impact were reasonable. She described the conversation as one that has not been around the council table but rather in the neighborhoods as people struggle to get to their designations. Taylor’s amendment was reasonable, she felt, but provides less guidance, because it does not prioritize the school walk zones. She was not enthusiastic about the longer timeframe.

Hieftje said he had a problem with the whole thing. If there were to be a priority, then school walk zones would be important.

Smith noted that if you look at where elementary schools are located, just by their nature, you’ll prioritize kids walking to school. For her, it was the equity issue.

Outcome on Taylor’s amendment: The council approved Taylor’s amendment. Voting for it were mayor John Hieftje, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).

Derezinski expressed concern that the whereas clauses indicated the city is aware of various dangerous conditions. He wondered if it was potentially a legal liability for the city to recite that list of dangerous conditions. City attorney Stephen Postema told Derezinski that the recitals were general enough that it did not pose a risk.

Left to right: Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Briere noted that the resolution is about sidewalk gaps – that it did not mean that a whole subdivision necessarily needs to have sidewalks added.

Kunselman indicated he felt like the city was addressing the issue over time and that the council doesn’t need a report.

Responding to the idea that the report would overburden staff, Teall asked Powers if it would it be too much. Powers responded by saying essentially that if the council directs it, the staff will do the work.

Briere felt the resolution strengthens the city’s position as it participates in discussions with the school district about getting kids to school. She wanted elimination of sidewalk gaps to become a priority.

Lumm felt the resolution focused some needed attention on sidewalk gaps. She felt it’s reasonable to have the city administrator come back a year from now with a report on whether it’s feasible.

Hieftje felt like the ability to actually address the gaps would not come until the 2015 budget.

Hohnke felt it’s important to recognize that sidewalk gaps are not the only mobility issue. He wondered why the council would elevate sidewalk gaps above pedestrian islands, midblock crossings, or bike paths. He felt the non-motorized plan already addressed the issue.

Outcome: The amended resolution failed, receiving only five votes on the 11-member council. It received support from Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Anglin, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

Footing Drain Disconnect Program

The council considered a resolution to suspend temporarily the city’s footing drain disconnect program in the area of the Lansdowne neighborhood on Morehead and Glen Leven. The resolution was added to the council’s agenda on Friday, Sept. 14 before the Monday, Sept. 17 council meeting. It came in the context of a meeting held by city officials with neighborhood residents at the Pittsfield branch of the Ann Arbor District Library on Aug. 22. At that neighborhood meeting, residents called for a moratorium on the footing drain disconnect program.

The program was created in 2001 by the city, in response to backups of sanitary sewers into residents’ basements during heavy rains. The problem is caused by the connection of footing drains to the sanitary sewer system, instead of to the stormwater system. At one time, such connections were consistent with city code, but they are now prohibited. The existing connections, however, put more stormwater into the sanitary system than it can handle. The footing drain disconnect program requires residents to install sump pumps in their basements as part of the disconnection from the sanitary system.

In the general vicinity of the Lansdowne neighborhood, where some houses have already had sump pumps installed as part of the program, residents have reported that during heavy rains, the overland stormwater flows and the sheer volume of water in the city’s stormwater system prevent sump pumps from being effective. The water that’s pumped from the sump to the surface simply cycles back into the sump and results in flooded basements.

The council’s Sept. 17 resolution suspending the program acknowledges that the area “has encountered unique, historical creek bed patterns and overland storm water drainage issues, which have impacted the implementation of the FDD [footing drain disconnect] program …” The resolution further acknowledges that “communication between this area and the city needs improvement …”

The city council heard complaints from residents in that area during public commentary earlier this spring about localized flooding in the vicinity. And at its Aug. 9, 2012 meeting, the council had directed staff to begin negotiations with the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner to find “opportunities for stormwater conveyance and stormwater quality improvement in the area of the Malletts Creek drainage district bounded by Ann Arbor-Saline Road upstream to I-94 and Scio Church Road.” [.jpg of partial area map] The resolution approved by the council on Aug. 9 directed staff to bring an agreement to the city council with the water resources commissioner by Oct. 1, 2012.

That council directive came two days after the Aug. 7 primary election was held. Results from the precinct in Ward 4 where the flooding has taken place were nearly decisive enough in favor of challenger Jack Eaton to win the Democratic nomination over incumbent Margie Teall. But Eaton’s total fell short of Teall’s by 18 votes across the ward. And a recounted total put the difference at 20 votes.

The resolution suspending the footing drain disconnection program for the specific area of the city does not specify a date by which it might be re-activated. However, the resolution directs several actions, including: “Analyze and/or address existing issues in the local stormwater system to improve stormwater drainage/conveyance and address the existing surface flooding that residents are experiencing in this area. Clarify the methods and consequences of opting out of the program.”

Footing Drain Disconnect: Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) told the council that she and Margie Teall (Ward 4) were bringing the resolution forward after much discussion with residents in the Lansdowne neighborhood – the Village Oaks area as well as Glen Leven. Based on several heavy rains, the city was experiencing overland flooding in three areas where it had not been seen before.

City administrator Steve Powers and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) during a recess in the Sept. 17 meeting.

In March of this year, she said that a rain had settled over the area of the city for about an hour and a half that had generated an “overland water issue.” In addition, there had been more problems with the footing drain disconnect program in this area of the city than anywhere else. She stressed that the action that the council was being asked to take had been requested by the neighbors. She asked Craig Hupy, public services area administrator, to brief the council.

Hupy described the footing drain disconnect program in other parts of the city as relatively straightforward.

In this area, however, he said the land was heavily laced with historical creek beds, which are now “expressing themselves.” He showed the council some slides that overlaid 1947 aerial photography with current building footprints. When the footing drain disconnect program was first started, he said, the city did not have the ability to match up the aerials against the current built environment. That’s one of the tools that the city used to look at the March 2012 storms and try to figure out “what the heck was going on.” The city is now taking a pause to re-study the area.

Hupy showed the council a slide of the overlay in the area of Churchill. He noted that the dark squiggly lines are creekbeds and that a number of homes are sitting in historic creekbeds. That has two effects, Hupy said. One is that the footing drains in that area are “very productive” – that is, a lot more water flows into them than anticipated. Another effect is that the water will want to follow the path of the historic creekbed, so there are overland flow issues.

Hupy then showed a slide of the Village Oaks area, with an orchard to the left, and historic creeks running through where some of the current houses are on Village Oaks. He showed the council how Mallets Creek had been shoved to the south to get it out from under houses that would otherwise be sitting in a creekbed.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) had a question about the developer mitigation program, which the resolution would leave in effect. That program requires that when a development adds flow to the sanitary system, the development must remove from the system – through footing drain disconnection elsewhere – 1.2 times the amount that the development would add. It’s a program that holds the system harmless to increased development, Hupy said.

Hupy noted that as the city has disconnected footing drains, they have been monitored. The city has also monitored the run times on the sump pumps that the city has installed. Some of the run-time monitors have been on pumps since Day 1, but others have been moved around to different locations in the system. From that monitoring, Hupy said, the city has extrapolated to estimate what removals of stormwater are being achieved from the sanitary system. But the city has not looked at the sanitary system itself to confirm the estimates from this method. The system study would likely be “in seven figures” Hupy said, and is already programmed as part of the city’s capital improvements plan. It would be paid for by the sanitary sewer fund, Hupy said.

Left to right: city administrator Steve Powers and public services area administrator Craig Hupy.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked about the last two resolved clauses – the developer mitigation program and the ability of a property owner to proceed with a footing drain disconnection. Hupy clarified that this was included simply to give clarity. Briere wondered if there were a time constraint for acting that night, as opposed to postponing it for three weeks.

Hupy calculated backwards from spring 2013 to undertake a systemwide study – in time to have monitors installed in the system to measure the spring rains. From getting council approval to hiring a consultant to issuing a request for proposals, Hupy said he’d like to get started sooner not later.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) confirmed with Hupy that the suspension of the program would not affect any of the consent orders about discharge into the Huron River, which Hupy thought had been removed back in 2006.

Responding to a question from Kunselman, Hupy said that the study the city will be working on with the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner’s office are separate and different studies – but they will feed back and forth to each other, Hupy said.

About the footing drain disconnection program, Kunselman wondered: When does it end?

Hupy responded to Kunselman by saying the last major backup was in 2000. He noted that in the five study areas that were the main focus of the initial program, the city had tackled a lot of the problem. But he estimated that only about 50% of identified problems had been addressed. Another 50% exists in the rest of the city. The attractiveness of the approach the city is taking, he said, is that it’s incremental. You can keep chasing the problem as you identify specific problems. For the “piped solution,” you have to start at the treatment plant and work your way back. When the footing drain disconnect program was established, Hupy said, it was thought it’d take decades to complete the project. Starting around 2000, not quite 50% had been disconnected. He added that those had been the easier 50%, because they were clustered. Hupy indicated that he hoped he would not still be addressing the council about the program when it ends.

Responding to councilmember questions, Hupy described the negative impacts of pursuing a solution that simply made the sanitary sewer pipes bigger – among them, that it would require a larger wastewater treatment plant.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to suspend temporarily the footing drain disconnect program.

Hazard Mitigation Plan

The council was asked to approve an updated hazard mitigation plan.

The plan is required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for grant funding. The city has received a grant from FEMA for the demolition of two city-owned properties located in the floodway at 721 N. Main, but during the processing time for the grant, the city’s hazard mitigation plan lapsed. So until the city has an updated hazard mitigation plan, the grant money from FEMA will not be available.

The city recently hired a new emergency management director, Rick Norman, who was introduced to the council at its Feb. 21, 2012 meeting. Updating the plan was one of Norman’s priorities.

The demolition of the buildings at 721 N. Main factors into planning for the North Main and Huron River corridors. The council has appointed a task force to study the corridor, and has directed that the group make recommendations on the use of the 721 N. Main property by Dec. 31, 2012. The city’s current hope is to make the property the subject of a Michigan Department of Natural Resources trust fund grant application, in the annual competition for such awards.

The basic ranking of potential hazards, which are all discussed in detail in the plan, is: (1) Convective Weather (Severe Winds, Lightning, Tornados, Hailstorms); (2) Infrastructure Failures; (3) Severe Winter Weather Hazards (Ice/Sleet Storms and Snow Storms); (4) Fire Hazards: Structural Fires; (5) Hazardous Materials Incidents: Fixed Sites; (6) Extreme Temperatures; (7) Hazardous Materials Incidents: Transportation; (8) Flood Hazards: Dam Failures; (9) Flood Hazards; (10) Civil Disturbances; (11) Transportation Accidents: Land and Air; (12) Public Health Emergencies; (13) Sabotage & Terrorism; (14) Petroleum and Natural Gas Pipeline Accidents; (15) Nuclear Power Plant Accidents; (16) Fire Hazards: Wildfires; (17) Oil and Gas Well Accidents; (18) Nuclear Attack; (19) Drought; (20) Earthquake, Subsidence; (21) Fire Hazards: Scrap Tire Fires; and (22) Infestation.

Outcome: The council approved the hazard mitigation plan without significant deliberations.

Eden Court Rezoning

The council was asked to consider final rezoning of the property at 5 W. Eden Court so that it’s designated as PL (public land). It’s immediately adjacent to the Bryant Community Center. The Ann Arbor city council voted nearly a year ago, at its Sept. 6, 2011 meeting, to appropriate $82,500 from its open space and parkland preservation millage to acquire the property.

The 2011 taxes on the property were estimated at $1,400, which will be eliminated from the city’s tax base. The parcel is expected to be used to expand the community center’s programming services. It could also be used in other ways in support of the city’s parks and recreation system.

During her staff report given to the city planning commission on June 5, 2012, city planner Alexis DiLeo said the property contains a single-family home that will be used by the community center to expand its operations. Eventually, the center would like to renovate the interior and build an addition to connect the two buildings, she said. The center is managed under contract with the nonprofit Community Action Network. CAN gave an update on its activities most recently at the Aug. 21, 2012 meeting of the city’s park advisory commission.

Outcome: Without discussion, the council voted unanimously to approve the rezoning of the Eden Court property.

Seneca Avenue Rezoning

The council was asked to direct planning staff to initiate the rezoning of six parcels on Seneca Avenue, Onondaga Street and Geddes Avenue from R1B (single-family dwelling district) to R1C (a different type of single-family dwelling district). Property owners had requested the rezoning.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, rezoning the six parcels to R1C would make the entire block R1C zoning, and would make three existing non-conforming lots conform with the size requirements of R1C (7,200 square foot lot area and 60 foot lot width). Also, the three existing double lots could be divided at some time in the future to create additional single-family lots.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) led off deliberations by noting that the rezoning had been requested by residents of the area. Because of the age of the current zoning, and development that went in different directions, he said, some of the parcels are non-conforming. Residents had approached him and asked him to present the resolution.

City planning manager Wendy Rampson indicated that the planning staff is not really sure why the parcels were zoned differently, except that the lots are larger. The city’s master plan recommends single-family zoning for the area, she said. When the planning staff examines it more closely, she said, a historical search would be done, and planning staff would come up with a recommendation.

Sabra Briere (Was 1) asked Rampson to review the procedure for land division, which would be allowed if the rezoning were given approval. Rampson said it requires application to planning and development, but it’s not required that the planning commission or the council approve it. The city is essentially obligated to approve an application for land division, as long as it meets zoning. Responding to a question from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Rampson indicated that the division of land can’t create prohibited configurations – for example, there must be vehicular access, and a land-locked parcel is not allowed.

Rampson indicated that only a preliminary review had been done. The initial review indicated that R1C would be appropriate.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) noted that by approving this resolution, the council would be asking the planning staff to take on the task of reviewing the rezoning. He wondered if the planning staff had sufficient capacity to undertake that review and still keep the citywide R4C/R2A review process on track. Rampson responded to Hohnke by saying that planning staff would essentially treat this rezoning request as a development review. It would not require the same scale of effort that the rezoning of Golden Avenue had required several years ago. She added that it seems clear that the neighbors are all in agreement. She concluded that it was a long way of saying it should not be a problem for planning staff to handle.

Outcome: The council  initiated the rezoning of six parcels from R1B to R1C.

Light Rescue Fire Truck

The council was asked to authorize the purchase of a light rescue truck, to be staffed with two firefighters at a cost of $264,597. The purchase is to be made from Ferrara Fire Apparatus.

The light rescue truck will replace a heavy rescue vehicle, which is staffed with three firefighters. The heavy rescue vehicle dates from 2001 and was scheduled for replacement in 2015. It will be retained by the department as a reserve engine. An even older heavy rescue truck, dating from 1991, which is currently in reserve, will be sold at auction.

The city is contemplating a reconfiguration of its fire stations, which would re-open an old station but close two others, leaving three stations. For more detail on the station plan and the city’s rationale for it, see Chronicle coverage: “A Closer Look at Ann Arbor’s Fire Station Plan.” A series of public meetings to discuss the fire station plan has been scheduled.

Outcome: Councilmembers approved the purchase of a light rescue truck.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Police Report

Chief of police John Seto gave the council an update on a few incidents that had happened over the last few weeks. Since the student move-in, there’ve been large crowds on South University and some assaults in the student area. There were also three robberies that took place during the same night, all with a similar description, he said. By not filling some specialized positions, Seto said, the AAPD had been able to respond to that situation with increased staffing, adding positions to patrol. That’s in addition to overtime positions that are generally filled on weekends in September, to respond to the added call load.

Seto told the council he’s also been meeting with the University of Michigan police chief to coordinate information. Officers have been making contact with and working with business establishments on South University Avenue. On weekend nights they’ve deployed officers on foot and on bicycles to respond to the large crowds there. He concluded this response by AAPD has had an impact, because no serious incidents were reported from the last weekend. The department would continue with that approach as long as there are large crowds in the area. He also reported that significant arrests have been made.

He alerted the community that a meeting for neighborhood watch captains would be held on Thursday, Sept. 27 from 6-8 p.m. at Burns Park Elementary School. That will be the first of four such meetings, Seto said.

Mayor John Hieftje asked about the amount of overtime that was being generated by the department’s response to the situation on South University. Seto indicated that the amount of overtime used depends in part on the number of home football games – and this year there are only six. He’s been staffing with overtime when needed.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), looking ahead to the next fiscal year, wondered if it would be useful to hire additional officers rather than using overtime. [The city of Ann Arbor's Open Book shows that year-to-date, a bit less that a quarter of the way through the fiscal year, $189,265 has been spent out of an overtime budget of $898,968, or 21% of the budgeted amount.]

Comm/Comm: Washtenaw Avenue

Reporting from the planning commission, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) gave an update on Washtenaw Avenue, which he described as a multi-jurisdictional corridor – covering the city of Ann Arbor, Pittsfield Township, Ann Arbor Township and the city of Ypsilanti. He characterized as “results” of the Re-Imagine Washtenaw project the Arbor Hills Crossing development, which will include very wide sidewalks. He pointed to a future “super transit” stop that will be located near the intersection with Platt Road. He also reported on a Michigan Dept. of Transportation non-motorized project that’s going in under US-23. People will be able to walk underneath US-23, he said.

Comm/Comm: Disabilities

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) reported that he and Kirk Westphal, who serves on the planning commission with Derezinski, had contacted AARP, which is very interested holding some kind of disability summit in Ann Arbor. The details are not finalized, but SEMCOG, AATA, the Michigan Municipal League, Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA), and the University of Michigan have expressed interest.

Comm/Comm: Praise for Demolition

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) mentioned that two buildings in Ward 1 have been removed: the former St. Nicholas Church on North Main Street, and 219 W. Kingsley. The depression that’s left at the Kingsley property will form a rain garden. Smith allowed that she usually doesn’t applaud the destruction of things.

Comm/Comm: Sidewalk Repair Using Risk Fund

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) called the council’s attention to the fact that the board of insurance minutes, which were included in the consent agenda, included a resolution that provided for use of the city’s risk fund to pay for sidewalk repairs adjacent to properties located in a township. City treasurer Matthew Horning was asked to the podium to explain that many township islands exist in the city. The sidewalk millage approved by voters last year does not allow for use of millage funds to repair sidewalks next to township properties. The board of insurance felt it would be a prudent use of risk funds to mitigate risk and to improve safety, he said.

Comm/Comm: Sustainable Living

Kermit Schlansker told the council he’d attended a recent lecture by environmentalist Bill McKibbon. Schlansker said he was disappointed that although the problem was defined, there were no solutions. We have to face up to the fact that we must change our lifestyle to survive, he said. We don’t need more economical cars, we must eliminate them, he said. The first element of the plan is to plant at least 10 trees for every person. That would mean a million trees for Ann Arbor, he said. Volunteers would be needed, who could be taught how to plant trees from seeds – but it’s something that first graders can learn to do.

The process of building a sustainable world is too big a project for the city, Schlansker allowed, but the city could build a model for how that might work. The only geometry for shelter that is sustainable is apartment houses, he contended, with factories located nearby. We need to cut energy expenses by 60% and establish experimental energy farms. We need to learn how to use sewage for fertilizer. To save our children, he contended, we must give up single-family houses and cars, and use geometry and hard worked to build a sustainable society.

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

Next council meeting: Oct. 1, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

One item was apparently not handled the way that the majority of the council wanted, due to the absence of two councilmembers – Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Left to right: Ann Arbor city councilmembers Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). (Photos by the writer.)

That item was a $60,000 appropriation – the city’s portion of a $300,000 local match for continued study of the Plymouth/State corridor, from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street, extending south to I-94. The local match is needed for a $1.2 million federal grant that has been awarded for the study. This alternatives analysis phase follows a basic feasibility study. The current study is supposed to result in a preferred choice of technology (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) as well as identifying stations and stops.

Because the $60,000 transfer from the general fund was a change to the city budget, it needed the votes of eight members on the 11-member city council. When Mike Anglin (Ward 5) led off the roll call by voting against it, it was clear that the council would have no more than seven votes in favor – because Jane Lumm (Ward 2) had already made plain during deliberations that she’d be voting against it. So some councilmembers voted against the resolution in order to be on the prevailing side. That gives them the right under parliamentary rules to bring back the item to the council’s next meeting for reconsideration. At that meeting it’s possible, but not certain, that supporters of the funding will have the necessary eight votes.

Several items on the agenda dealt with land use. The council gave final approval to a rezoning request for Knight’s Market, which will allow for expansion of the market at Spring and Miller streets. Winning initial approval was a rezoning requested by the developer of proposed townhouses on Catherine Street – from its current planned unit development (PUD) zoning to R4C (multi-family residential). Rezoning for part of a parcel in connection with a planned Speedway gas station at Maple and Miller also got the council’s initial approval. A related site plan for the station got its one and only required approval.

Also connected to land use was the council’s addition of two more properties to the greenbelt, using about $0.5 million in city funds from the open space and parkland preservation millage. The land from the two properties totals around 226 acres. Lumm cast a lone vote of dissent.

The council also authorized disbursements of community events funds to 13 organizations totaling $44,778, the bulk of which went to the Ann Arbor Summer Festival’s Top of the Park.

And the council set a public hearing for Oct. 1 on a tax abatement for Barracuda Networks. The firm is relocating to downtown Ann Arbor from its current location on Depot Street, in part to accommodate an additional 144 employees it expects to hire by July 1, 2014.

$60K for Transit Study

The council was asked to consider allocating $60,000 of general fund money for a study of a transportation corridor from the northeast of Ann Arbor to the city’s southern edge.

The measure needed eight votes to pass on the 11-member council – not a simple majority of six – because it was a change to the budget.

The contribution from the city of Ann Arbor is meant to help the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority move ahead with an alternatives analysis for the corridor. The corridor runs from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street, continuing south to I-94. This alternatives analysis phase of the study would result in a preferred choice of technology (such as bus rapid transit or light rail, for example) and identification of station and stop locations.

The city’s $60,000 would be a portion of $300,000 in local funding that had been identified to provide the required match for a $1.2 million federal grant awarded last year to the AATA for the alternatives analysis phase. The breakdown of local support is intended to be: $60,000 from the city of Ann Arbor; $150,000 from the University of Michigan; and $90,000 from the AATA.

In November 2011, Michael Ford, CEO of the AATA, had updated the AATA board on the possible timeline for the alternatives analysis. He said that phase, in which a preferred technology and route with stop locations would be identified, would take around 16 months.

The AATA board information packet for its June 21, 2012 meeting described the hoped-for $60,000 contribution from the city of Ann Arbor.

The resolution in front of the council highlighted the fact that the AATA had recently purchased from the city a six-foot-wide strip of land on the former Y lot, immediately to the south of the location for the planned new Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor. The strip of land was priced at $90,000, based on an independent appraisal. The AATA board approved its side of that deal this spring at its April 26, 2012 meeting. The city council had approved the land sale almost a year ago, at its Sept. 19, 2011 meeting. The total parcel area was 792 square feet. A more general discussion of the city’s policy on the proceeds of city-owned land sales will unfold over the next few weeks.

A feasibility study for the corridor costing $640,000 has already been completed. That initial study concluded that some type of improved high-capacity transit system would be feasible – which could take the form of bus rapid transit, light rail transit or elevated automated guideway transit. That study had been funded through a partnership with the city of Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, University of Michigan and the AATA. Chronicle coverage of that feasibility study includes: “Transit Connector Study: Initial Analysis“; “AATA: Transit Study, Planning Updates“; and “Washtenaw Transit Talks in Flux.”

$60K for Transit Study: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) had sent several written questions to city staff about the connector study funding prior to the Sept. 4 council meeting. One of those was about the possible use of the city’s alternative transportation fund – instead of the city’s general fund – to pay for the study.

She led off the council’s deliberations essentially by questioning the accuracy of information she’d received about the use of the alternative transportation fund, which receives its revenue from Act 51 money. [Act 51 handles the distribution of revenue from fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees.]

She told city transportation program manager Eli Cooper that she didn’t see why the alternative transportation fund couldn’t be used to pay for an alternative transportation study. The written answer Lumm had received from Cooper was this: “Act 51, the source of the alternative transportation fund, does not allow for capital planning programs beyond street and non-motorized transportation.” Cooper noted that Act 51 has a provision in it called the “comprehensive transportation fund,” which covers a whole array of transportation. But the distribution of Act 51 money to local communities is more narrowly focused, Cooper explained. Local Act 51 money is for major streets and non-motorized transportation. Lumm ventured that major streets are involved in all the various alternatives – unless we’re looking at something out of the Jetsons, she quipped.

Lumm then pressed for an answer to a question she’d submitted about why the item had not been in the FY 2013 budget. The written answer she’d received was this: “It was included in the CIP [capital improvements plan] for FY 2014. The timing of the investment has been accelerated due to the interest of the stakeholders and availability of grant funding.”

Lumm told Cooper that as far as the item being in the CIP, to that she’d say: “So are lots of things.” She noted that the AATA was notified about the grant in December 2011 – well in advance of the development of the budget and the council’s adoption of it [in May 2012].

Cooper told Lumm that although the AATA was notified by Congressional offices in December that the grant would be coming, it wasn’t a certainty and the paperwork hadn’t been completed at that time. The AATA still had to go through the process of negotiating a fair local share amount from the local partners, he explained. The $60,000 request reflects a belief in the feasibility of a higher-capacity advanced technology transportation system in the corridor – and federal support was made available through the work of the Federal Transit Administration and the region’s Congressional delegation. Given the participation of other local stakeholders, this was the best timing staff could do to bring the request forward, Cooper said.

City administrator Steve Powers, who started on the job about one year ago, offered that he’d take responsibility for the timing. He’d been learning Ann Arbor’s budgeting process and was still learning the specific details of the project. The “missed timing” is ultimately his responsibility, Powers concluded.

Councilmembers Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked where Cooper saw the project going after this phase? What would the memorandum of understanding between the city, the University of Michigan and the AATA include? Cooper indicated that it’s an 18-month and $1.5 million project. The feasibility study had shown the city who will benefit – whether that’s the University of Michigan, the downtown, and the community at large. After the alternatives analysis, better information will be available about the type of transportation technology and the cost and the various beneficiaries. At that point, it would be brought back to the city council on a “more informed basis,” Cooper explained.

In the case of the alternatives analysis study, Cooper said, it’s a situation where the one of the local partners – the University of Michigan – had volunteered 50% of the local match. He didn’t have a set answer, but in a year and a half, he expected that he’d have better information about proportionate shares of building a system – assuming the council gave its authorization to the $60,000 request.

Anglin said he had objected to the countywide transportation plan because it had included a rail station at the Fuller Road location, and it looked like the connector study was dealing with that location as well. As the University of Michigan looks at its bus system and the frequency of service that’s needed in that corridor for the university’s needs, this might be a better system for them than they have now. This seems like a system that services the university, he said. On the southern end of the corridor, Briarwood Mall is served by traffic from the interstate. He didn’t see the need to bring a connector service that far south. The part that’s needed is the part that provides a connection between the university’s campuses. He called it unfortunate that this becomes wrapped up in claims of ridership by the AATA. He asked Cooper if UM ever thought the connector could be entirely the university’s project.

Cooper told Anglin that as he has been involved in the conversation, it’s not been a matter of trying to measure how much one party would benefit. Instead, he characterized it as a “bunch of stakeholders around a table.” With respect to the future ridership, an unanswered question currently is: Who would be the owner and operator of the system? Cooper pointed out that the university had convened an advanced transit technology forum, which the city had attended. Cooper said he looked at this as collaboration. Ridership on the system – whether it’s a bus rapid transit system or a light rail system – will benefit both the university and the city’s downtown.

Cooper observed that the city had recently completed construction of the underground parking garage in the downtown, and said the city needs to have transit to complement the investment in the parking structure. As a transportation planner with gray hair and many decades of experience, he said, he would recommend continuing to provide support for all types of mobility. The feasibility study had shown that there’s a substantial demand, Cooper said. He allowed that Anglin is correct – a large part of that demand comes from the university.

However, the benefits will accrue to the entire community, Cooper said. The people taking trips provided by a connector transit system will not be competing for space on the road system. We’re moving beyond the automobile and the bus – whether that’s bus rapid transit, light rail or commuter rail, he said. This will continue to require study to find the most efficient and effective way to use public resources. There’s no denying the fact that these are capital intensive programs, he allowed. It will require support from the federal, state and local governments – and private partners as well, he said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) supported many of Anglin’s questions about who benefits from the system. She also had some basic factual questions.

How many bus trips take place between the UM medical campus and north campus? Briere asked. Cooper gave a per-day passenger figure of 30,000. The frequency of buses is 60-70 per hour during peak periods, he said. That means there’s more than one bus a minute during peak hours, Briere ventured. Given that frequency and assuming 20 people on a bus, that would be a lot of car trips. Briere wondered, however, what that frequency of bus traffic might be doing to the road infrastructure. Cooper allowed that there’s clearly a relationship between gravel haulers and the impact on roads, but said that buses aren’t as heavy as those types of vehicles. He was not aware of any undue wear on Fuller Road as a result of the bus traffic.

Briere clarified that use of Act 51 money to make non-motorized improvements adjacent to Fuller Road is an appropriate use of Act 51 money. Cooper responded by saying that a minimum of 1% of Act 51 money must be allocated to non-motorized transportation improvements. Briere got confirmation from Cooper that it wouldn’t be appropriate to use Act 51 money to study the possibility of constructing a light rail system down Fuller Road.

Lumm followed up by getting clarification that light rail is one of the technologies that could be an alternative. Cooper clarified that this was the case and that each of the alternatives came with a specific associated cost.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) got confirmation that the DDA is not contributing to the local match for this particular study. He wanted to know why. Cooper’s understanding was that the DDA is not currently in a financial position to participate. However, the DDA would like to be involved in the ongoing discussion, with the possibility that the DDA could be financially involved in future phases of the project. Kunselman summarized that by saying, “So they don’t have the money.”

Kunselman asked if there’s an expectation that another round of federal grants might be available after the preferred local alternative is selected. Cooper told him, “Absolutely.” The recently enacted MAP 21 (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century) bill continues to support new starts and small starts capital programs. Even in the tight times that are being felt in Washington D.C., with a number of reductions in different categories in the transportation bill, Cooper said, the transit capital starts program is strong in the federal bill.

Kunselman noted that there are a lot of different planning efforts going on – like the WALLY north-south commuter rail, for example. Kunselman was worried that Ann Arbor was “in competition with ourselves,” because clearly not everything could be funded. Cooper responded by saying he wasn’t in a position to say when each one of those planning investments would mature. But in metropolitan areas like Ann Arbor, there’s an ongoing transportation planning process. And federal funding is available for a variety of modes. In any community that has a light rail system, a commuter rail system or a bus rapid transit system, the majority partner has been the federal government. Cooper expected that the federal government will continue to invest in mobility for communities.

Kunselman ventured that a lot of federal grants go to the University of Michigan, but he wasn’t aware of any federal transportation grants going to UM. The connector would predominantly benefit UM, so he wondered if that’s something new and different from the federal government.

Cooper responded with a parallel to his experience with the Fuller Road station. When he spoke to folks in Washington D.C. they had said, “That’s the Ann Arbor station; we don’t know Fuller Road from Main Street.” So in advancing projects of this sort, Cooper said, the feds will see it as an investment in the city of Ann Arbor and the Ann Arbor urbanized area. The feds know there’s a university here, but they’ll see it as making an investment in Ann Arbor, he said. The analysis will be blind to who gets the benefit. As the partnership is defined, it’ll be important to look at rider share, Cooper said. However, when the federal government looks at investments of this type, the feds look at the community, and they’ll measure the willingness of all parties to secure the investment that the feds are willing to make, Cooper concluded.

Kunselman expressed his displeasure that the resolution included a sentence about the portion of the YMCA site being sold to the AATA for $90,000, with the description that the $60,000 was thus available. That’s general fund money, and it’s not in its own bucket inside the general fund, Kunselman said. He found the inclusion of that sentence as “over the top,” saying, “We don’t need to hear that part.”

Anglin got clarification that the timeframe for the study would be a year and a half. It would be the same project team that did the feasibility study [URS Corporation], Cooper said, a project that had been finished on schedule.

Anglin stated that he was a little uncomfortable with the request, because there are so many competing distractions we have as a community. He wanted to know how long the study would be valid. He felt that the university would be asking students to relocate to places where they need to be most of the time. He ventured that it might not be clear how many people will be moving between the campuses as time goes on. It’s difficult to project the needs of a community as complex as Ann Arbor, he said.

Responding to the question about the validity of the study, Cooper indicated that the locally-preferred alternative would need to be valid as long as it takes to move to the next step. Comparing the draft environmental assessment (EA) report for the Fuller Road station project, once it’s outside of a three-year timeframe, Cooper said, “we ourselves would want to refresh the data.” Comparing whether the city gets more or less, Cooper pointed out that the entirety of the connector system would be located in the city. He recognized that UM’s configuration will be an important consideration in forecasting travel demand. For that reason, the city and the AATA have worked closely with UM’s planner to understand those needs as they’re seen today, Cooper explained. [Sue Gott, UM's top planner, was the most recent appointment to the board of the AATA. Cooper also serves on that board.]

If assumptions change, Cooper allowed, the project might take on a different character. But overall, the UM planner, the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), the city staff and a consultant team were doing an analysis. Cooper said he was confident they have a grasp on the need, but agreed that it’s impossible to see all of the future. There could be other trip generators that emerge that had not been foreseen – but if the connector system is in place, that additional demand could be accommodated. If not, then a couple of different things could happen, he said. One of those things is that economic growth might not occur. Or the growth could occur without an investment like that of the connector, which would mean more vehicles on the roadway, Cooper cautioned.

Kunselman stated that he’d support the study, but agreed with Anglin that “We’re all over the place.” The idea that the city would make investments in mass transit, without knowing how to pay for operations, caused him a lot of concern, he said.

Kunselman complained that there are basic transportation services not being provided. Kunselman pointed out that if you go past US-23, there’s no bus to the UM medical center, which is a huge need for the community, he said. He then quoted something he’d written to an AATA board member after having lunch with that person. It included a portion of The Chronicle’s Aug. 16, 2012 AATA board meeting report:

AATA board member Charles Griffith, reporting from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, said that Routes #3 and #5, because of the increased ridership, have struggled a bit with staying on time and with overcrowding. So AATA is continuing to look at ways to address that. It’s not in the budget to increase the frequency of the service as the AATA had done for Route #4, he said – at least not at this time. Route #3 runs between Ann Arbor and Washtenaw Community College. Route #5 runs along Packard between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

Kunselman’s letter also complained that the AATA was providing commuter service to communities that didn’t support it with tax dollars [Chelsea and Canton].

Kunselman also wrote in his letter to the unnamed AATA board member that he wanted an opportunity to comment on the AATA’s budget as required under a 1974 agreement between Ann Arbor and the AATA. [.pdf of 1974 agreement] “We haven’t seen your budget,” Kunselman read aloud. He then noted the fact that Cooper is also a member of the AATA board, by saying, “Not you, … but you are an AATA board member, so I’m looking at you right there.”

The AATA budget is due to be adopted before the end of the month [September], Kunselman continued. It’s relevant to the $60,000 request, because as far as he was concerned, the city should not be spending that money, doing the business of the AATA, Kunselman said. He called the number of vehicles that are taken off the road through commuter services by the AATA a “drop in the bucket,” and suggested a better approach would be to get people to commute together through car sharing. [The AATA recently launched a service to promote group travel in the form of a vanpool program.]

Kunselman was skeptical of Cooper’s report that during peak periods the UM was running a bus a minute, calling it an “outrageous” claim. There’s no way there’s a bus each minute, he contended, and if there is, it’s for a very short period of time. He returned to his point about where the money for operations would come from. At that point, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) raised a point of order – that Kunselman had reached the end of his speaking time. He did not seem to have anything else that he wanted to add.

Lumm said she wouldn’t support the request for several reasons, including budget discipline and transparency. She described the approach as incrementally throwing money at transportation related initiatives, “without any clue” about how operating costs will be paid. Lumm pointed out that there are at least five planning initiatives: (1) Ann Arbor rail station; (2) countywide transportation; (3) east-west commuter rail; (4) north-south commuter rail; and (5) the connector study.

Lumm said there’s no idea of how to pay for any of these. The idea that these projects are of equal priority is simply not reasonable, she contended. She felt that very basic questions were not being answered. If it was a priority, then it should have been included in the budget for the year.

Briere got clarification from Cooper about how much the city had expended to date on the connector study – $80,000. That meant the total to that point would be $140,000, if the city authorized the $60,000.

Briere asked if this would be the last money the city would be spending on studies? Cooper’s response: Not at all. There are future phases, which would include detailed environmental assessment work. Responding to a question from Briere about costs, Cooper indicated that it would depend on the choice of outcome from the alternatives analysis study. If the preferred alternative is bus rapid transit, the cost would be an order of magnitude less than another fixed guideway system. “Got it!” Briere exclaimed.

Briere asked Cooper to explain why he felt that the $60,000 is an investment and not an expense. Cooper said it goes back to the city’s transportation plan update. The “do nothing” alternative – as compared to spending money on a transportation portfolio – would result in substantial congestion along almost every major corridor in Ann Arbor. Investments in transit alternatives would be able to diminish the pressure on the road system, Cooper said, so that more freely flowing conditions could be expected.

Briere asked what might happens if the city decided not to do the study, but then five years from now decided at that point to do it. What’s the chaos that the community would face? Cooper told Briere that “chaos” might be too strong a word. There would be an increasing discomfort created by increasing levels of travel demand – more cars on the road. Over the last decade or so, the city has seen a greater influx of workers – from the university – and now we’re seeing more into the downtown area, he said. The forecast for continued economic prosperity in Ann Arbor is a positive thing, but the side effects are that each new job filled by someone who doesn’t walk or bicycle to that job will put additional stress on the transportation system. That’s the reason for the investment – for the community to be able to move forward while preserving the quality of life, Cooper said.

Briere tried to clarify what she meant by “chaos.” Any construction of a connector system would cause a lot of disruption during the construction. So she was trying to get a sense of whether it would be more prudent to get a clearer sense of the demand before constructing something, or go ahead and try to anticipate demand: “That’s what I’m trying to drag out of you,” she said.

Cooper described the modeling as statistically derived, and said the majority of the future is already here. When the system is operating at 0-90% of capacity, it can still function. Going from 90% to 95% or 100% is a “pivot point” where there’s more demand than the system can sustain and the system breaks down. The timing recommendations are that the planning needs to begin now, so that the investments can begin to be made in the mid-term. In 2009, the mid-term was seen as 5-15 years, he said.

Briere asked what would happen if the council were not to provide the $60,000. Would there be an effect be on the federal dollars and on the UM and the AATA? Cooper responded by saying he was not aware of a specific deadline, but the federal grant processing is such that if the council acted that night, the AATA board can follow. And with the UM’s pledge, the project could begin almost instantaneously. If the council spends more time deliberating, then the project would progress on that adjusted timeline. If the council were to choose not to participate at all, the remaining stakeholders will need to reconsider, Cooper said – but he would not speak on behalf of UM, AATA, or the DDA.

Mayor John Hieftje.

Mayor John Hieftje said he saw the connector as part and parcel of a larger picture. He felt that the city could be sure of future job growth. Jobs would continue to come to the city even if the city did not seek them, because the UM continues to build its workforce, he said. But jobs bring traffic and congestion. The only way we can affect that – beyond carpooling and park-and-ride lots – is to expand transit. We won’t know the costs, and we don’t have a way of talking about the costs, he said. He cautioned against backing away from transit – offering as a sardonic possibility the idea that the council could also vote to say they did not want more jobs in the city.

Hieftje called it wise to invest $60,000 as part of a $1.5 million project. The city can continue to build parking structures, and accept more traffic in the city, or we can invest in transit, he said. He asked that councilmembers show a little bit of vision as the city looks to the future and tries to plan for that.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) sought confirmation from Cooper that UM is not a suitable federal grant recipient for a transportation system. Cooper said that UM is not categorized as a recipient of transportation dollars. But UM can help provide the local matching dollars for a federal grant. Taylor concluded that even though the UM can’t sign on the dotted line, a future city council could conclude: “We’re not going to move forward until we get X from the U.” And X could be operating expenses or the local match. Cooper confirmed Taylor’s understanding.

Taylor said he supported the $60,000 allocation, because he sees the council as a steward of the city – not just today, but also 5, 10 or 15 years from now. That requires an investment in planning, he said. And we can’t plan or invest without data.

Taylor said the objection that “we don’t know how we would fund it” doesn’t make sense to him, because this is not the time we’re planning to pay for it. The city councils in the future will have the ability to plan for that, he said.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) indicated that transportation is a high priority right now. He said it’s good to study and plan.

Lumm came back to her concern that the city is going down a path with multiple plans. The city’s priority shouldn’t be whatever someone gives it money for, she said.

Outcome: Voting against the allocation were: Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), and Margie Teall (Ward 4). With the absences of Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), the measure got only four votes. Voting for the resolution were: Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and mayor John Hieftje.

During the roll call vote, as it was apparent the measure would not reach the eight-vote requirement, Kunselman quipped that perhaps he’d change his mind – after indicating during deliberations that he’d support the resolution. Votes by Teall and Smith can be analyzed as strategic, because only a councilmember who is on the prevailing side – in this case, those who voted no – can bring an item back to be reconsidered. They’d ordinarily be expected to support a resolution like the $60,000 connector study.

If Hohnke and Higgins are at the table for a vote of the full council on Sept. 17, the resolution would at least have a chance at passing. Hohnke would almost certainly vote for it. But passage would depend on Kunselman not changing his mind, and either Higgins or Briere voting yes – neither of which would be a certainty.

Knight’s Market Expansion

In front of the council for final consideration was a plan to expand Knight’s Market, at the northeast northwest corner of Spring and Miller.

The market’s owner, Ray Knight, is well known for his family’s restaurant, Knight’s Steakhouse, located at 2324 Dexter Ave.  The grocery store has been on land zoned C1 (local business) and M1 (light industrial). Knight also owns two separate parcels adjacent to the market. One of those parcels – at 306-308 Spring St. – was zoned R2A (two-family dwelling) and M1, and contains two single-family homes and part of a parking lot. The third parcel at 310 Spring St. was zoned R2A and MI, and contains the other half of the store’s parking lot. All three parcels have been non-conforming in some way, according to a staff report, and are located in the 100-year Allen Creek floodplain.

The Knight’s expansion includes several components. What the council was asked to approve was a rezoning of 306, 308 and 310 Spring to C1. That rezoning will allow the building at 306 Spring to be converted into a bakery, although the intent is to leave the exterior of the house intact. The rezoning will also allow for approval of a site plan to build a 1,200-square-foot addition to the existing grocery store and to expand, reconfigure, and improve the existing parking lot. In addition, the council approved rezoning to C1 of 418 Miller Ave. – the site of the existing grocery. The council was also asked to approve the site plan.

The changes to the parking lot include providing three additional spaces (for a total of 17 parking spaces), a designated snow pile storage area, solid waste and recycling container storage enclosure, right-of-way screening, conflicting land use buffer, and rain gardens for storm water management. An unused curb cut on Miller Avenue would be removed and the curb and lawn extension would be restored there. A temporary storage building at 418 Miller would be removed. The house at 310 Spring will remain a single-family dwelling.

Because the request involved a rezoning – a change to the city’s set of ordinances – the council needed to vote on the item twice, at different meetings, and hold a public hearing. It had given the rezoning an initial vote of approval at its Aug. 9, 2012 meeting.

Knight’s Market Expansion: Public Hearing

Eric Cazepis spoke during the public hearing on the zoning change, introducing himself as the owner of the property directly across the street from the market.

Knight’s Market is the parcel highlighted in yellow. The flood plain is the green shaded area. The floodway is the blue shaded area.

He’s opposed to a change in the ordinance, citing his main concern as flooding. He observed that the property is in the flood plain, and it’s located at the bottom of a hill. He alluded to a mudslide that washed out the railroad tracks in May 2011 along Plymouth Road. He’s seen the street become like a river, as it became too much for the storm drain to handle. He grew up in the area, he said, and he’s seen flooding there. He wanted it to be on the record that he’s against the zoning change. He allowed that the Knights are a good family, but as a nearby property owner, he was opposed to the change.

The architect for the project, Dick Fry, also addressed the council. He told councilmembers that he’d studied the site with respect to the flooding issue. The city’s own department was also very thorough in checking calculations, he said. He said that all the stormwater would be kept on the site. It’s so low across the back of the site that it would flow to the north.

Fry showed the council some drawings, which he said the zoning board of appeals had suggested he do. The ZBA had some concern about the “blankness” of the market. He characterized the sketches as “nothing incredible” but he wanted to show the council some concepts for some awnings. And he noted that some nice improvements had already been done to the entrance of the market – for example, a 12-foot sliding door, he said.

The market will have “eyes on the street” from the butcher area. The building will look better with larger windows, Fry said. He mainly wanted the council to know that the water situation was addressed very thoroughly.

Knight’s Market Expansion: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported that she’d been able to attend the citizens participation meeting on the project. The big concern she’d heard expressed was about truck traffic. She felt the council needs to keep its mind open to ways to limit large truck traffic through the neighborhood. She allowed that supplies have to be delivered, but all the same, the traffic makes it difficult for neighbors, she said.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) stressed the importance of addressing what the zoning is currently – which is light industrial, or the kind of zoning that is appropriate to being adjacent to a railroad track. She noted that neighbors were concerned about what might go in if the Knights ever left. The rezoning would state that this is now “a commercial spot,” which she felt would protect the neighborhood from some of the other things that could be there.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) agreed with Smith’s point and with the planning commission’s recommendation. She noted the rain garden feature and the stormwater management on site. She was pleased to support Knight’s Market, which she called an “iconic Ann Arbor institution.”

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) described Knight’s as a business that has shown support for the community, saying the family has a lot of history and integrity. He felt that the expansion helps business and jobs for Ann Arbor. Anglin felt that concerns about flooding are addressed by the topography of the area – as there are areas where the water can disappear along the railroad tracks.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who is the city council’s representative to the planning commission, indicated he’d support it – because he felt that it legalizes what’s going on already. He acknowledged some of the reservations and concerns like truck traffic through the neighborhood, but said you can’t foresee every difficulty. He felt that it’s a solid project with solid people behind it.

Mayor John Hieftje said he understands the concern that Knight’s might not be there in the future, and that the zoning might allow a different owner to do something different. But as Smith had pointed out, he said, it’s a change for the better. He added that he hoped the Knight’s family would be there for a very long time.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved both the rezoning and the site plan for the Knight’s Market expansion.

Catherine Street Rezoning

The council was asked for initial approval of a rezoning request for a proposed three-story townhouse development with five housing units at 922-926 Catherine St. The rezoning request associated with the project had been recommended for approval at the July 17, 2012 meeting of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

The two vacant parcels are on the south side of Catherine between Ingalls and Glen, across from the University of Michigan School of Nursing building. The lots are located in the Old Fourth Ward historic district.

The development – which according to the owner, Tom Fitzsimmons, will be marketed to students, UM employees, young homebuyers, and empty nesters – entails rezoning the parcels from PUD (planned unit development) to R4C (multi-family residential). The PUD zoning is tied to a previous development that was approved but never built. The current site plan is contingent on approval from the city’s zoning board of appeals for variances from the conflicting land use buffer requirement. The two lots must also be combined as a condition before the city issues building permits.

Five garages would be part of the development, with nine parking spaces and bike storage located below the townhouses. A 24-foot-wide curb cut is proposed off Catherine Street for a driveway, which would run along the east side of the site leading to the garages.

The proposed building and site layout plans were approved by the Ann Arbor Historic District Commission on April 12, 2012. The planning commission also recommended approval of the variance from the city’s zoning board of appeals related to the conflicting land-use buffer requirement. That variance was later granted.

During public commentary at the planning commission’s meeting, several neighbors – including residents of the nearby Catherine Commons condominiums – spoke in support of the project. However, some of them raised concerns about backups in the stormwater system, which is already a problem along Catherine Street. Staff indicated that those issues are likely tied to design flaws on the site of Catherine Commons. Members of the development team told commissioners that an underground stormwater detention system on the site could improve the situation, and at the least would not make it worse.

Catherine Street Rezoning: Council Deliberations

At the council’s Sept. 4 meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off the discussion by asking why the city is only now rezoning the property back to R4C, if the PUD zoning approved in 1979 was not used to actually build the project.

City planning manager Wendy Rampson told Kunselman that the city has not historically gone back to rezone a property from PUD if the project was not built. Kunselman ventured that back in 1979, the economy had “kind of tanked.” Based on this experience, Kunselman wanted to know if Rampson though it would be a good idea get other PUD zoning “off the books” if the projects for which the zoning was established had not been built. As an example, he gave two North Main Street properties – the former St. Nicholas Church and the Near North project. To just let them sit doesn’t seem to make sense, he said.

Kunselman wanted to know who had initiated the rezoning of the Catherine Street property. Rampson described how the developer had been looking in the area for sites to build on, and identified the site. The developer felt it would be easier to develop under the R4C zoning. Rampson noted that until someone comes along and creates a site plan that fits the PUD zoning, nothing happens.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked if the project would be consistent with the R4C zoning that’s recommended in the report of a study committee that’s currently pending action by the planning commission. Rampson told Smith that it fit the current R4C zoning, except for a variance for a conflicting land-use buffer along the east side, which was granted by the zoning board of appeals. Smith pressed for an evaluation of the project against any recommended changes to the R4C zoning ordinance that are currently pending. Rampson responded by telling Smith that there’s not currently any new ordinance language, but rather just a report. City planning staff had not evaluated the project against that R4C study committee’s report, she said.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give initial approval to the Catherine Street rezoning request.

Speedway Rezoning

The council was asked to give approval to a site plan and rezoning for a portion of a parcel at North Maple and Miller, which will allow for development of a Speedway gas station at that location. The site plan and the rezoning for the gas station had been recommended for approval by the Ann Arbor planning commission at its July 17, 2012 meeting.

The project is located at 1300 N. Maple on a 1.39-acre site. The rezoning request would change the zoning from PL (public land) to C3 (fringe commercial).

Speedway rezoning. The perimeter around the property’s east and north sides is zoned PL (public land) and is being rezoned to make clear that, although an easement exists, the responsibility for the property is the private owner’s.

The plan calls for demolishing an existing 1,500-square-foot vacant service station building, which was built in the 1950s, and constructing a new 3,968-square-foot, single-story gas station and convenience store with five pumps. The gasoline pumps will be covered by a 28-foot by 121-foot canopy. Fourteen parking spaces will be provided next to the convenience store, and six bicycle hoops will be located on the south side of the building, adjacent to a sidewalk leading to Miller.

According to a staff report, underground storage tanks have been removed and an environmental analysis of the site is underway. If any environmental contamination is found, the owner will be required to remediate the site to meet requirements of the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality.

The staff report states that the city’s traffic engineer has reviewed a revised landscaping plan and confirmed that traffic issues have been addressed and the site plan meets the requirements of Chapter 47 (Streets) of the city code.

The plan will preserve all existing trees within the 25 feet at the back of the property, an area that includes an existing 5-foot-wide pedestrian path. In addition, seven oak trees will be planted along the sides of the proposed building, and required landscaping within the site will be provided.

The portion of the parcel that’s subject to the rezoning request is a path that circles the property along the east and north sides.

Speedway Rezoning: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) began by saying he’d walked the easement often during his youth, so he was curious about the description in the staff report that said the city doesn’t own the easement. Who does own it? he wondered. City planning manager Wendy Rampson explained that the property is owned by Speedway. But there’s an easement that provides the public with the right to cross the property. That does not give the city the authority over the easement, she explained, and the private property owner has responsibility for maintenance. If the property owner set up a gate or bollards that prevented people from crossing the property, then the city could enforce the right of the public to have access.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Rampson to explain why the property had ever been zoned as PL (public land). Rampson indicated that by looking through the city’s files, planning staff had not been able to determine that. Every era has its own set of practices, however, and she felt that it’s possible that planning staff at the time thought that the PL zoning would send a message that the property was to be used by the public. Rampson said the city does things a bit differently now. She said if the council chose not to approve the rezoning, it wouldn’t change anything on a practical level. But she felt that it’s “cleaner” to make it clear that the land is owned by the private property owner and that maintenance is the responsibility of the owner.

When the council came to the item on the site plan for the Speedway station, Kunselman called it “exciting” and added that it’s the most development that the Miller and Maple area had seen in decades. The gas station was the center of the neighborhood at one time, he recalled. He hoped it would spur new additional development as well.

Outcome: The council approved the site plan on a unanimous vote. The council also gave initial approval to the rezoning request, which was initiated by city staff.

The rezoning issue will need to come back for a second and final approval, as all rezoning requests must. Rezoning of land is a change to the city’s ordinances, and because of that an initial vote of the council is required, followed by a public hearing and a second vote at a subsequent meeting.

Greenbelt Acquisitions

The city council had two items on its Sept. 4 agenda that had been previously recommended for approval by the greenbelt advisory commission. Both were for the purchase of development rights, and included grants from the federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP).

The council was asked to approve $394,417 for the Robbin Alexander Trust farm in Webster Township. Of that amount, the city’s portion totaled $226,837 with the remaining $167,580 coming from the FRPP grant as a reimbursement. The greenbelt advisory commission had recommended approval of this deal at its June 7, 2012 meeting.

The 90-acre farm is located along Northfield Church Road in Webster Township. According to a staff memo, “the farm is considered large enough to sustain agricultural production and is in a location that will encourage additional farmland preservation activities. The property is surrounded by additional farmland that has been protected by the Greenbelt Program and Webster Township.” [.pdf map showing location of Alexander property]

The second item for consideration by the council was the purchase of development rights for the 136-acre Robert H. Schultz property located along Harris Road and Geddes Road in Superior Township. That deal totaled $523,567, including $294,247 from the city and $229,320 to be reimbursed to the city by an FRPP grant. Like the Alexander property, this land is also considered to be large enough for agricultural production and is located in an area that would encourage other farmland preservation. According to a staff memo, the property is surrounded by additional farmland that’s been protected by the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy, Washtenaw County and the greenbelt program. [.pdf map showing location of Schultz property]

Eight votes are required to pass PDR deals.

Greenbelt Acquisitions: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated that she supported greenbelt acquisitions that included local participation other than the city of Ann Arbor. She contended that often the city is paying more than half of the cost, however, with no other local participation. The two PDRs on the agenda that night were examples of that, she said.

There are only two funding sources associated with the two acquisitions, Lumm complained – the city of Ann Arbor and the federal government. There’s no other local participation, she said, which she called a lost opportunity. Saying she has raised concerns about the city’s share of funding in the past, she said she wouldn’t support the acquisitions on the agenda. In the past, she said, she’d supported such acquisitions even when she’d been uncomfortable. But for the items on that night’s agenda, she wouldn’t support them. She encouraged the greenbelt advisory commission to come forward with proposals that leverage the greenbelt dollars better, and that come closer to the original objective of the city’s share not being more than one-third of the total cost.

Mayor John Hieftje allowed that the ideal situation would be for the city to pay one-third of the cost and that this had been the discussion at the time of the millage campaign. He said the state of Michigan previously participated in such purchases, but with its financial difficulties, that state support has disappeared.

But for the most part, Hieftje continued, the city has paid about 50% of the cost. For some of the properties, the greenbelt advisory commission just feels they need to make a move, even though the financial arrangement might not be ideal. He observed that the federal FRPP grant was helping out with the purchases on the agenda that night, but it wasn’t known how many more years that program would exist. He described the map of greenbelt properties as starting to create a green “mushroom” that’s forming over the top of the city. The program is doing a whole lot of what voters in 2003 asked to be done, he said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) ventured that when millage dollars are used within the city, the city pays 100% of the cost, which Hieftje confirmed. Lumm responded by saying in those situations, city residents who are paying the millage were also getting 100% of the benefit – so she felt that was fine, because it’s fair to the taxpayers.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated he’d support the greenbelt acquisitions, although he understands Lumm’s concerns. He pointed out that the people in the county who are not taxing themselves to support a greenbelt program still face a reduction in the taxes generated when development rights are acquired – so those communities are taking a hit, he concluded. He called it a “backdoor contribution” that those communities wind up making. He said it would be nice if there was a greater sharing of financial contribution. The whole point, he observed, is to acquire pieces together so there’s some semblance of a “belt,” and the properties on the agenda were adjacent to other properties.

Kunselman wondered, however, at what point the city has leveraged all the millage money. He noted that Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) would not be serving as the city council’s appointee to the greenbelt advisory commission past November. [Hohnke chose not to seek another term on the council. He has attended only one of the greenbelt advisory commission's monthly meetings this year – in April.] At some point, Kunselman felt there should be a status report, so that the council understood how many more acres the commission felt that it could acquire.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) felt that Lumm’s position is well taken and there are times when more cooperation from other local entities would be preferable. Ultimately, though, the deals that the commission decides on are those they feel are best for the city, he said.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) appreciated the utility of guidelines, but also had faith in the work done by staff and volunteers on the greenbelt advisory commission. He was satisfied that the properties on the agenda meet the goals of the program.

Outcome: In separate votes on the properties, the council approved the purchase of development rights on the two properties. Jane Lumm (Ward 3) dissented on both votes, which meant that the requirement of an eight-vote majority was exactly met. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) were absent.

Community Events Fund Allocation

The council was asked to award a total of $44,778 from the city’s community events fund to a total of 13 organizations. The largest amount given to any one organization was $25,000 to the Ann Arbor Summer Festival for its Top of the Park series, followed by $6,000 to the Ann Arbor Jaycees for their summer carnival and Fourth of July parade. In many cases, the allocation from the community events fund was awarded to cover costs assessed by the city – for street closures, for example.

Here’s the complete breakdown of awards: Ann Arbor Jaycees ($6,000 for the Summer Carnival and the Fourth of July Parade); Main Street Area Association ($1,000 for the Rolling Sculpture Car Show); Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau ($1,500 for the NJATC and UA block parties); Ann Arbor Council for Traditional Music and Dance ($578 for the Dancing in the Streets); Kerrytown BookFest ($1,000 for the Kerrytown BookFest); Arbor Brewing ($1,000 for the Oktoberfest); Hikone-Ann Arbor Educational Exchange Program ($2,000 for the Hikone Exchange); Michigan Takes Back the Night ($1,700 for 2013 Take Back the Night); University of Michigan Alice Lloyd Scholars Program ($2,000 for FoolMoon and FestiFools); Champions for Charity ($1,000 for the Big House Big Heart run); Main Street Area Association ($1,000 for the Taste of Ann Arbor); Ann Arbor Summer Festival ($25,000 for Top of the Park); and The Center of Light Ann Arbor ($1,000 for the 3rd Annual Ann Arbor Inner Peace Festival).

Margie Teall (Ward 4) noted that this is an annual disbursement of funds and she felt it’s self-explanatory. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Teall to explain how the community events money gets into that fund. Teall said it’s general fund money. Mayor John Hieftje added that it’s money set aside every year to make sure that events happen to make the city a fun place to live. Teall noted that the amount of money that’s awarded has gotten smaller over the years. Hieftje added that the allocation covers expenses for things like barricades.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to make the community event fund allocations.

Hearing Set on Barracuda Tax Abatement

The third of four steps associated with a tax abatement for Barracuda Networks was considered by the council – setting a hearing on the tax abatement for Oct. 1, 2012.

The council had previously set a hearing on the establishment of an industrial development district (Michigan’s Act 198 of 1974) at 317 Maynard St. in downtown Ann Arbor and voted to establish that district at its Aug. 9, 2012 meeting. That set up the opportunity for Barracuda Networks to apply for a tax abatement as it moves from its current location on Depot Street to the downtown site. [.jpg of parcel map showing 317 Maynard] [.jpg of aerial photo showing 317 Maynard]

Barracuda is a computer network security company. On its application for the abatement, expected to be worth $85,000, Barracuda indicates that it currently has 155 employees who will be retained due to the abatement. The firm expects to add 144 employees by July 1, 2014. The property on which Barracuda is requesting the abatement ranges from cubicles and desk chairs to telephone network equipment and wiring.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to set the public hearing for Barracuda’s tax abatement.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Pedestrian Access

Kathy Griswold recognized that the council had a resolution on its agenda to accept an easement [at no cost to the city] on a parcel on the northeast corner of Liberty Street and Maple Road.

Easement at Maple and Liberty mentioned by Kathy Griswold during public commentary. Easement drawing superimposed on aerial photo by The Chronicle.

She noted that a sidewalk leading from a four-way stop to King Elementary School would not require an easement. [Construction of a sidewalk would allow moving the mid-block crosswalk to the four-way stop. It's a topic on which Griswold has addressed the city council many times in the past.] She also called for a review of the city’s crosswalk ordinance by an professional engineer. Included in the review, she said, should also be ordinances involving sight lines.

Comm/Comm: Public Art

Libby Hunter delivered her commentary in the form of a song, which has become her preferred way to address the council. She prefaced her performance by recalling “blue-light specials” at Kmart. That served as a play on the blue lights that are intended as an artistic feature of a fountain designed by German artist Herbert Dreiseitl. Dreiseitl’s fountain, located in front of city hall, was the first of the projects approved by Ann Arbor’s public art commission. The melody was taken from “Midnight Special,” which has been recorded by a number of artists. Hunter’s version featured lyrics derisive of mayor John Hieftje: “If you ever go to Portland, you see the Dreiseitl Park; mayor Hieftje had to have one, fix was in from the start.”

Hieftje didn’t comment on Hunter’s song during the council communication time following public commentary, but responded a couple of hours later at the end of the meeting. He said that people can say whatever they want at public commentary regardless of whether it’s true. He said he’d never visited Portland, and had never heard of Dreiseitl until his name was mentioned by the public art commission.

Comm/Comm: Sustainable Energy

Kermit Schlansker addressed the council on the topic of sustainable energy. He characterized GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s energy plan as “drill and burn,” while president Barack Obama’s plan was “too little too late.” He contended that Europe uses half the energy that the United States does. A first step would be to move poor people into low-energy-use apartment buildings on tillable land, he said.

Comm/Comm: Affordable Housing

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) alerted her council colleagues that for the Sept. 17 meeting, she’d be introducing a resolution to direct proceeds of city-owned land sales, to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. The final details are still being worked on, she said. Smith said she was “disheartened” by the city’s current ability to provide affordable housing, especially in light of the recent failure of the Near North project.

The policy has a long history dating back to 1996. The policy of directing proceeds of city-owned land sales to the affordable housing trust fund was rescinded by the council in 2007. More detailed background is provided in previous Chronicle coverage: “City Council to Focus on Land Sale Policy.”

Comm/Comm: Student Conduct

City administrator Steve Powers gave a brief report on activity over the weekend, with University of Michigan students moving back into the city. The Ann Arbor police department issued 112 citations from Thursday through Sunday – for minor in possession, noise, open intoxicants in public and other ordinance violations, he said. AAPD had staffed extra officers using overtime. That staffing pattern would continue for football Saturdays through the fall, Powers concluded.

Comm/Comm: Limousines or Taxis

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) serves as the council’s appointee to the taxicab board. He’d noticed two cases of companies operating in Ann Arbor recently that are known to be limousine companies but that are advertising themselves as taxis. This is not supposed to happen, he said – there’s an ordinance against it. He asked his colleagues to pass along their observations. He said he’d be taking up the issue with the city attorney’s office to look at enforcement against companies that are flouting the city’s taxicab ordinance.

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

Absent: Carsten Hohnke, Marcia Higgins.

Next council meeting: Monday, Sept. 17, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor  city council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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