The pink arrow marks the location of the Gordon Hall property, where Civil War Days will be held on June 8-10, 2012. Green blocks are properties protected in part through the city of Ann Arbor's greenbelt program. The green line with red dots is the Ann Arbor greenbelt program boundary for eligible properties. As the map shows, several protected properties lie within Webster Township. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Host for the re-enactor units will be the 4th Michigan Regiment, Company A, led by captain Russ Paul. Also expected at Gordon Hall for Civil War Days this year are the following units: 17th Michigan, Company E; 21st Michigan, Company H; U.S.S. Michigan Marine Guard Battery B; 1st Michigan Light Artillery; and the Confederate Bledsoe’s Battery.

The decision to grant a festival permit came after the board had turned down the permit at its previous meeting on April 17 by a 4-3 vote. The resolutions considered by the board at its two recent meetings differed in a significant way. The resolution rejected at the April 17 meeting stated that the festival would be granted “… with egress and ingress over Webster Township grounds and conservation easement with no parking on Webster Township grounds only Scio Township.”

The resolution ultimately approved by the board stepped back from trying to describe how parking on and crossing of the property would be handled, and instead simply stipulated that the DAHS had to comply with the conservation easement on the property.

Dan Ezekiel, chair of Ann Arbor’s greenbelt advisory commission, attended the April 24 meeting and addressed the township board on the commission’s behalf. Although the Gordon Hall property lies outside the Ann Arbor greenbelt boundaries, the city of Ann Arbor and Webster Township have partnered on a number of other conservation easements in their collaborative effort to preserve open space. He wanted to encourage the board to defend the easement on the Gordon Hall property and not set a precedent that violating a conservation easement is acceptable.

After the meeting, Ezekiel indicated in conversation that he was, in fact, a history buff and was hoping to attend the Civil War Days – he hoped not as a picketer. 

Land Preservation Background

By way of background, a “conservation easement” is a way for a municipality to preserve land without purchasing it and becoming the owner of the land. A conservation easement is a legally enforceable agreement – between a landowner and a government agency or a land trust – for the purpose of conservation.

Voters in several local municipalities – including the city of Ann Arbor, Webster Township and Scio Township – have approved millages to fund the purchase of development rights (PDR). PDR is a common mechanism for protecting undeveloped land by letting owners keep their property for farming or other specified uses but preventing its development. Development is prevented through  a conservation easement.

A conservation easement restricts real estate development, commercial and industrial use, and certain other activities on a property to a level agreed to in the terms of the easement. In the case of the conservation easement on the Gordon Hall property, different parties have different perspectives on what’s allowed under terms of the easement.

Among land preservationists, it’s assumed that there might eventually be violations to terms of the easements. But if those violations happen, they’re more likely to occur when the property changes hands. So, as a part of every land preservation deal, Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program sets aside funds in an endowment, which will be used to cover expenses to monitor and enforce the greenbelt’s conservations easement – by legal action, if necessary. The Ann Arbor greenbelt’s endowment fund stands at roughly $445,500.

The Gordon Hall Civil War Days festival permit is an issue that piqued the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission’s interest last year. From The Chronicle’s coverage of the commission’s Dec. 14, 2011 meeting:

In addition to serving on Ann Arbor’s GAC, Tom Bloomer serves on the Webster Township farmland and open space preservation board. At [the Dec. 14, 2011] GAC meeting, he reported on a situation that’s arisen in Webster Township, which has implications for Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program.

Webster Township’s land preservation program was created in 2005. One of its first actions was to preserve land that includes the historic Gordon Hall, he said. The Dexter Area Historical Society had purchased the land and Gordon Hall from the University of Michigan about 10 years ago, and subsequently sold the development rights to Scio and Webster townships, through conservation easements to those townships.

Last summer, Bloomer said, the society approached Webster Township with a proposal to hold a Civil War re-enactment on the site. The event didn’t conflict with terms of the conservation easement, he said, but the society also wanted permission for spectator parking – and that did conflict with the easement. The township eventually agreed to a one-year exception to allow parking for several hundred vehicles, with the understanding that an exception wouldn’t be granted again, Bloomer said. It was fortunate that there was no rain during the event, so minimum damage was caused to the land.

However, the historic society now wants to amend the conservation easement so that parking for this kind of event would be allowed, Bloomer told GAC. The township’s farmland and open space preservation board has recommended denying that request, he said. The decision will ultimately be made by the Webster Township board of trustees, but the preservation board is looking for support from other land preservation entities – like GAC – before the township trustees vote.

The decision will impact more than just this piece of land, Bloomer said. It will affect Webster Township’s reputation as a conservator of land, and whether it can be trusted by its partners, including Ann Arbor, to adequately protect land in perpetuity.

The following month, at the commission’s Jan. 5, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor GAC passed a resolution encouraging the township board to strictly enforce all of its conservation easements. [.pdf of resolution]

Minutes of the Webster Township farmland and open space preservation board also reflect discussion of the issue. There’s an apparent disagreement about the interpretation of the Gordon Hall conservation easement – between the legal counsel for the open space preservation board and the legal counsel for the township. From the minutes of the April 9, 2012 meeting:

Old Business
A. DAHS easement parking.
[John] Westman reported that he still has not received, in writing, any information from the Township Attorney regarding parking on DAHS easement. Discussion took place regarding this issue. [Tom] Bloomer questioned why Township is not going on the advice of the Land Use Attorney, who is specialized in this area, but instead with the advice of the Township Attorney. Westman will let PDR Board Members know when this issue is on the agenda for the Township Board Meeting. Westman encouraged others to attend the Board meeting to express their concerns.

The wording of the resolution that the Webster Township board initially rejected appeared to try to give an interpretation to the conservation easement, or perhaps even implied a one-time amendment to the easement: “… with egress and ingress over Webster Township grounds and conservation easement with no parking on Webster Township grounds only Scio Township.”

The resolution considered and approved by the board at its most recent meeting did not try to characterize the specific logistical arrangements of crossing and parking, but rather required conformance with the easement: “… with the stipulation that they are in full compliance with the conservation easement.”

Initial Public Commentary

As required by the Michigan Open Meetings Act, the Webster Township board provided time for the public to address the body during its April 24 meeting.

Dan Ezekiel introduced himself as the chair of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission. He noted that Gordon Hall lies outside the boundaries of the Ann Arbor greenbelt area. So Ann Arbor does not have any direct interest in the conservation easement on the property, he said. He wanted to speak in general about the importance of maintaining easements, and if necessary enforcing them.

Dan Ezekiel of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission. In the background is Webster Township trustee Gary Koch.

Ezekiel told the board that the Ann Arbor greenbelt commission is very appreciative of the work that Webster Township has done to preserve open space. He said he is proud of the support that the Ann Arbor greenbelt had been able to give to the township. Working together, he said, Ann Arbor and Webster Township have secured conservation easements on several properties since 2005 – for example, the Bloomer and Nixon farms, the Webster Church property, as well as the Cares, Smyth and Merkel farms. All of those easements were funded partly by the city Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program, he said.

Ezekiel said the city and the township were working together to preserve the vibrant agricultural industry and the rural quality of the township, to prevent suburban sprawl, strip malls and manufactured home parks. He said he’s proud of the trust that’s grown up between the city and the township. Working together toward a common goal has built a reservoir of trust and goodwill, he said. Tom Bloomer serves on both Ann Arbor’s greenbelt advisory commission as well as the Webster Township farmland and open space preservation board, so he’s a good communication conduit between the city and the township, Ezekiel said. He noted that Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commissioner Liz Rother was also in attendance, as was Ginny Trocchio, the Conservation Fund staff member who supports the Ann Arbor greenbelt program.

Ezekiel told the board that trust between municipalities isn’t always the norm. Whenever Webster Township has told Ann Arbor it needs help in preserving a property, he said, the Ann Arbor GAC has always acted quickly, because GAC knows that the township has gone through a fair process to select the property and had made clear to a property owner who was selling a conservation easement what rights they were giving up. The process is transparent and everything is above board, he continued. Because of that, the public can trust the process. It would be tragic if anything were to break up the high level of trust between the township and the city, he said. Ann Arbor as well as the federal government have invested millions of dollars in conservation easements in Webster Township. So the city trusted the township to enforce those easements – otherwise those millions of dollars are worthless paper.

The industry standard is that any amendments to easements should enhance, not degrade, the conservation of the land. It’s only with great caution that any amendments at all should be made, Ezekiel said. Typically amendments to conservation easements are only for resolving ambiguity, he said.

Ezekiel noted that the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission had passed a resolution at its Jan. 5, 2012 meeting expressing the basic points he’d just reviewed. He thanked the township board for standing up for the Gordon Hall conservation easement the previous week.

Ray Tell told the board of trustees he hadn’t intended to speak, but hearing Ann Arbor’s concern about the greenbelt program had led him to want to address the trustees. He pointed out that at one time, the previous owner of Gordon Hall – the University of Michigan – had been planning to sell the land to develop condos. In that context, he did not believe that a once-a-year crossing of the land, or even parking on it, is all that big a deal. In the overall scope of things, he said, condos had been prevented from being built there.

The festival helps provide revenue to the nonprofit Dexter Area Historical Society, so that the organization can pay the mortgage on the Gordon Hall property, which it purchased from UM, Tell said. It’s worth reconsidering the issue even if for no other reason than to allow the historical society to pay off its debt. The historical society shouldn’t have to come before the board every year for permission, and he suggested that something along the lines of a 100-year agreement could be worked out.

Township Board Deliberations

Charles Estleman asked if there’d been any changes since the board’s meeting the previous week.

John Kingsley, who presided over the meeting as township supervisor, indicated he was aware of one contact, and he’d had discussions about the possibility of busing being provided [to mitigate the need for visitors to park on the property].

Webster Township supervisor John Kingsley and township clerk Mary Dee Heller.

But nothing has been determined about whether that can happen. He said he’d also heard there’d been a contact made by a land preservation board member that there might be some private resources available for shuttle services. But as for the board’s decision-making that night, they’d have to assume those services are not available. So if the board chooses to grant a festival permit, he said, there may or may not be shuttle service available – he hoped there would be.

Richard Kleinschmidt then made a motion to approve a festival permit for the Dexter Area Historical Society for Civil War Days held on June 8-10, 2012, with the stipulation that they are in full compliance with the conservation easement.

Estleman asked what would happen if DAHS turned out not to be in compliance.

Kingsley recalled that at the board’s meeting the previous week, when the permit had been voted down, they had discussed the possibility of citing and fining the DAHS for any easement violations. But he felt that is not going to be a realistic option. The motion is specific about the time limit – it’s for this year only. So the DAHS would need to come back next year for another permit. He hoped the board can continue the ongoing dialogue they’ve had with DAHS over the past 8-9 months.

Kingsley felt that the details can get worked out so the same situation doesn’t arise every year. He noted that the board does not grant any other organization permits for multiple years – they’re all annual permits. Basically, he said, DAHS needs to abide by the provisions of the easement, and if not, the board would be able to consider that with the request for next year’s permit. He reiterated that he did not feel that citing and fining ($500 per day) was a realistic option for dealing with the situation.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the granting of the festival permit to DAHS, with the stipulation that the conservation easement be adhered to.

Concluding Public Commentary

Donna Fisher of the Dexter Area Historical Society addressed the board briefly at the conclusion of the meeting, thanking the trustees. She said she wanted to get started early on the issue for next year so that it could get resolved.

Civil War Re-enactors

In a phone interview with The Chronicle, Russ Paul, who captains the Michigan 4th Regiment, Company A re-enactors, explained that the Gordon Hall event on June 8-10 will not include an attempt to re-enact one of the battles from the Civil War.

He pointed out that to do that, you’d need to have sufficient numbers of soldiers on the Confederate side as well. This year, the second year of Civil War Days at Gordon Hall, a Confederate cannon crew will make up the Confederate participation – Bledsoe’s Battery.

Other Union units expected this year include: 17th Michigan, Company E; 21st Michigan, Company H;  U.S.S. Michigan Marine Guard Battery B; and the 1st Michigan Light Artillery.

Responding to a question from The Chronicle about authenticity, Paul said that Civil War re-enactors have varying standards for authenticity. He characterized his unit as fairly middle of the road in that regard. While they’re not among the most extreme hard-core re-enactors, he said, visitors to their camp during Civil War Days won’t see any modern artifacts like pop cans or plastic coolers.

On the issue of authenticity, Paul summed up by saying that to him, it’s less important for a guy to have a museum-quality blue coat than to know something about soldiering.

Other Civil War Resources

For readers who are looking forward to Civil War Days at Gordon Hall and want to prep by doing some background reading, the University of Michigan libraries offer two possibilities.

From the Buell Family papers held by the Bentley Historical Library at the University of Michigan, Dr. Samuel Mills wrote to the parents of Franklin M. Buell on July 24, 1863 from the headquarters of the 4th Michigan at Camp Thomas at Winchester, Tennessee: "It is my unpleasant duty to inform you that your son Frank M., died at the hospital in this camp, at 3 o’clock a.m. this day;" (Image links to Bentley Library collection.)

The Bentley Historical Library at UM offers an online exhibit on the Civil War. It includes photographs of life in camp.

The Bentley’s collection also includes letters, among them one written by the camp surgeon to the parents of a soldier who died while under his care.

The William L. Clements Library also houses an extensive Civil War collection. Last year, an exhibit called “Opening Guns: The First Year of Civil War” ran from Feb. 28–June 3, 2011.

The exhibit consisted of written narratives by soldiers and civilians who experienced the war.

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

A sign at Ypsilanti's Water Street property indicating that this will be a future segment of Washtenaw County's Border to Border Trail. A portion of the site adjacent to the Huron River is being considered for a possible new county recreation center. (Photos by Mary Morgan.)

The commission heard from faculty of the University of Michigan Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, who will lead a team of six students in developing a conceptual plan for the rec center by the end of December. They also heard from deputy parks and rec director Coy Vaughn about the steering committee and working groups that will oversee and coordinate the design team’s work, and ensure adequate participation by community members and other stakeholders, including the Ann Arbor YMCA. Some commissioners indicated that community input was especially important for this project.

Among the meeting’s action items, the commission approved the acquisition of additional land through the county’s natural areas preservation program, in partnership with other governmental entities, including the Ann Arbor greenbelt program. The properties include 23 acres in Ann Arbor Township and 33 acres in Northfield Township – both owned by J.A. Bloch & Co. – and the 35-acre Sloan property in Scio Township.

Additional items included a report from parks and rec director Bob Tetens about the department’s help in cleaning up after the March 15 tornado touchdown in Dexter; an update on improvement projects and activities at park facilities and preserves; and the latest milestones in a project to connect the Border-to-Border Trail in the village of Dexter, including a new bridge.

Other major action in the meeting included a review of the parks and rec budget to date, through the first quarter of the fiscal year. Tetens reported that the unusually warm weather this year had two effects: much less participation and revenue from Rolling Hills winter park compared to the last two years; and much more activity and revenue at the Pierce Lake Golf Course, which was also in part related to the March 15 tornado’s damage to other golf courses in the area.

Eastern County Recreation Center

By way of background, the site for a proposed new county recreation center is in downtown Ypsilanti, on the south side of Michigan Avenue with the Huron River flowing along the west side of the site. The center would be located on city-owned property in the Water Street redevelopment project. The project was first officially pitched to the Ypsilanti city council last fall. [See Chronicle coverage: "Ypsi Council To Be Briefed on Rec Center."] The county currently operates the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center, which opened in 1991 at the corner of Washtenaw Avenue and Platt Road on Ann Arbor’s east side.

At the WCPARC’s April 10 meeting, Craig Borum – a professor of architecture and director of the University of Michigan master of architecture program – provided commissioners with an overview of the project. He began by introducing two assistant professors of architecture and urban planning who would be involved with the project: Maria Arquero and Jen Maigret.

The faculty will work with a team of six students: four in the master of architecture program, one in the master of urban planning program, and one in a joint program of urban planning and natural resources and the environment. WCPARC president Bob Marans, a UM professor emeritus of architecture, spoke of the value of the multi-disciplinary approach this team would take.

Borum underlined the complexity of the student project, which is compounded by its tight timeframe: they must finish by the end of December. The UM Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning is helping to fund the project by paying all the students to work through the summer, he said, and for one of them to continue through December. Other faculty would also participate, he added, including experts in business, real estate, and landscape architecture.

Borum used slides from a design project for a school in Trenton, N.J., to illustrate the principles of their process. He described those principles as a “transparent relationship between data analysis and our qualitative design process”; an emphasis on “visualization and communication through two- and three-dimensional representation techniques”; and an “emphasis on multiple expertise and an interdisciplinary team.” He showed slides of the models for the Trenton school project, including one model that was seven feet long, which included images of people using the spaces. The presentation, he said, was designed to show those who would use the school what it would be like for students to move through the spaces during a typical day.

The whole point, Borum said, is to “communicate the ideas and intentions behind the design, to build complex relationships that are meaningful.” They hope to do similar visualizations and models for the project in Ypsilanti. He also showed examples of their work in Detroit’s Brightmoor neighborhood, which they began by a careful analysis of land use, including vacant land.

Borum provided a schedule and timeline for the rec center project:

• May: Site analysis, including geographic information systems (GIS) assessment of soil groups, location of the water table, the planned location for the county’s Border-to-Border Trail, and an examination of historic aerial photos.
• June: The team will work on programming aspects: indoor and outdoor recreation, community and educational uses, parking, user capacity and more as they discover it.
• July: Community involvement, with scheduled public meetings and presentations, including ones with current stakeholders such as the Ann Arbor YMCA and potential stakeholders such as Eastern Michigan University and Washtenaw Community College.
• Aug.-Sept.: Outreach will continue with publications and exhibits.
• Sept.-Dec.: Conceptual plans will be reviewed, revised and finalized, aiming for completion by the end of December.

The total cost for Borum’s team will be $40,000. WCPARC will cover $10,000 and the Taubman College will pitch in $15,000. The final $15,000 may come from a pending grant application to the University of Michigan’s vice president for research.

Bob Tetens, WCPARC director, told commissioners that deputy director Coy Vaughn would later describe the working groups he was putting together. Vaughn said that Cathi Duchon, president and CEO of the Ann Arbor YMCA, had recently worked on a similarly complex plan and site, and that WCPARC would apply the lessons learned from that project – the working groups would serve as a sounding board. There will be monthly reports to the WCPARC, Vaughn said, and perhaps quarterly reports to the Ypsilanti city council.

Eastern County Recreation Center: Commission Discussion

Barbara Levin Bergman, who also serves on the county board of commissioners, asked how new students would be able to build on previous work. Bob Marans replied that they had chosen the students carefully – they already know each other and have worked together before. Craig Borum added that this is not “just a class” for the students; this is “what they will do as professionals” and they will be paid. “They will be interns as they would be in an architect’s office.”

The University of Michigan Taubman College of Architecture & Urban Planning rents space in the Liberty Lofts building, at the corner of Liberty and First in Ann Arbor. Students developing the concept design for the county recreation center in Ypsilanti will work out of an office here part of the time.

Coy Vaughn added that the students will work out of an office that the Taubman College has in the building connected to Liberty Lofts in Ann Arbor [at the southwest corner of Liberty and South First Street].

Janice Anschuetz then asked whether the team would have a place to work in Ypsilanti, because that’s where the project is and that’s where the community members are. Bob Tetens responded that “both the city and Rich Fischer [of Fischer Honda on Michigan Avenue] are willing to give them space in Ypsilanti.” He noted that city planner Teresa Gillotti will be on half of the working groups. Anschuetz suggested that “You need to be careful in Ypsilanti. We have the [Eastern Michigan University] COB [College of Business] sitting there like a space bubble, and people in Ypsilanti want a building that is part of their town.”

To that, Tetens responded: “I am confident this will be an award-winning building.” And Marans added: “We may consider getting some citizen groups involved.” Jimmie Maggard suggested that they consider finding a place to display what’s being planned, after the concept is developed. Dan Smith, another representative from the county board of commissioners, said he was “thrilled with this approach, leveraging the brainpower in the county” and that he was “glad to see collaboration and $30,000 in labor going to people in the county.”

Bergman suggested hanging some of this information in Ypsilanti’s city hall now, showing what the process is. And Anschuetz suggested creating a Facebook page. Tetens clarified that this project is structured as a three-party agreement – with the city of Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County, and the Ann Arbor YMCA – and that they are committed to “collecting citizen input this summer.”

Maggard expressed thanks “to the two Bobs who have really pushed this and done a great job” – a reference to Tetens and Marans.

Eastern County Recreation Center: Working Groups

Later in the meeting, deputy director Coy Vaughn described the working groups, composed of WCPARC staff, city of Ypsilanti staff and perhaps others, who would coordinate the work of the team of planners from the UM Taubman College. There will be four such groups: (1) architecture and site planning, led by Tetens; (2) greenway and Border-to-Border Trail, led by Vaughn; (3) infrastructure and environment, led by superintendent of park planning Meghan Bonfiglio; and (4) partnerships and funding, also led by Tetens. This last group will work on grants, private gifts, and identify partners in addition to the YMCA, perhaps including Eastern Michigan University and Washtenaw Community College, which might want to use classrooms in the new building.

The discussion among commissioners identified the need to select people from the Ypsilanti community. Patricia Scribner asked how people would be chosen. Tetens replied that Vaughn had made a presentation to the Ypsilanti city council and that councilmember Peter Murdoch had offered to serve. Vaughn added that there would be room for representation from the Ypsilanti Downtown Development Authority. “There will be a cast of thousands,” Tetens joked. Marans suggested using a slide show to demonstrate the plans as they evolved.

Vaughn said each of the working groups would have five to eight members, and would meet at least monthly. The leads of each group will form a steering committee, which will meet more often. Marans asked Vaughn to supply a list of the groups and their members, and said that WCPARC commissioners could participate as they wanted.

Financial Reports

Several reports were presented during the April 10 meeting that related to WCPARC finances.

Financial Reports: Claims

The claims report includes a list of expenses by park/facility/function, including administration, the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center, park maintenance, capital improvements, and each of the seven major WCPARC locations: Pierce Lake Golf Course, Independence Lake Park, Rolling Hills Park, Parker Mill, Sharon Mills, Staebler Farm, and the Swift Run Dog Park. [.pdf of April 2012 claims report]

There is a separate budget for each of the two components of the natural areas preservation program: (1) natural areas and preserves, overseen by the natural areas technical advisory committee (NATAC); and (2) farmland preservation, overseen by the agricultural land preservation advisory Committee (ALPAC). In each category, there is a line item for acquisition and another for preserve management.

Outcome: The commission unanimously approved the expenses in the claims report.

Financial Report: Year-to-Date vs. Budget

The second part of the financial report compared expenditures for the year-to-date with the budgeted amounts. The fiscal year, which mirrors the calendar year, began with a fund balance of $20,421,471. The budget projects ending the year with a fund balance of $6,052,350, with projected revenue of $9,469,000 and projected expenses of $15,513,721, plus contributions to operating reserves of $6,700,000 and to partnership commitments of $1,624,400. [.pdf of fund balance statement]

There was no substantive discussion on this item.

Financial Report: Recreation – March 2012

WCPARC director Bob Tetens provided a recreation report that covered the financial performance of the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center and Rolling Hills winter park.

Attendance at Rolling Hills was down, and therefore 2012 revenues are down about 50% from 2010 and 2011 because “we had no winter,” Tetens said. The chart below shows year-to-date (Jan.-March) revenue and the number of users at both locations, from 2010-2012.

This chart shows year-to-date revenues and user counts for Washtenaw County's Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center (MLMRC) and Rolling Hills Park. (Links to larger image.)

-

Projects Update

During the April 10 meeting, WCPARC director Bob Tetens reported on several improvement projects the department has undertaken, including activity related to the Border-to-Border Trail and the county’s natural areas preservation program.

Projects Update: Parks & Recreation

At Rolling Hills Park, the ring road project is nearing completion. A grand opening dedication is set for Sunday, May 20 from 1-4 p.m. Sidock Architects are working on construction documents for the Rolling Hills water park expansion, and a contractor was engaged to complete upgrades to the sewage pump system.

Entrance to County Farm Park and the Washtenaw County parks and recreation administrative offices.

At Pierce Lake Golf Course, CMA Design Services is continuing work on the pavilion expansion.

A request for proposals (RFP) to repair the pedestrian bridge at Sharon Mills Park was reissued, and Food Art signed a contract to provide catering services there until Dec. 31, 2016.

At Independence Lake Park, SG Construction Services has started site-work operations for a “spray and play zone” project. Fourteen trees were transplanted from that area to elsewhere in the park. The new gravel parking lot for the disc golf course has been opened. Final grading and seeding work will be done this month. The lot will also provide overflow parking for the “spray and play zone” participants.

Work on the County Farm portion of the Mallets Creek drain project continues and should be done by mid-June.

A trail was staked in the field at Osborne Mill Preserve to connect a new parking lot to the existing trail accessing the Huron River.

Projects Update: Border-to-Border Trail

Tetens reported that construction of the Border-to-Border (B2B) Trail continues on the segment southeast of Dexter. The westside connector project in Dexter is complete and there was a ribbon-cutting ceremony on March 24 – a day when over 700 people used the trail as part of the Dexter Wellness Walk.

Scio and Ypsilanti townships received awards from the WCPARC’s Connecting Communities program for trail construction. [WCPARC will make available up to $600,000 each year during the period from 2010 to 2014 – $3 million in total – toward the cost of eligible projects.]

Tetens also reported that WCPARC staff assisted the city of Ypsilanti in preparing a Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund grant application to extend the B2B from Michigan Avenue to Grove Road. The application was submitted to the state on April 2. [More information about MNRTF grants is available online.]

Projects Update: Natural Areas

There was also activity in the county’s natural areas preservation program (NAPP), Tetens reported. Closing for the acquisition of the Pellerito property, adjacent to the Meyer Preserve in Superior Township, was scheduled for April 10. [On Friday, April 13, the closing was announced as a deal involving the county, the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy, and the city of Ann Arbor greenbelt program. See Chronicle coverage: "Superior Greenway Deal Adds 100 Acres"]

The closing on a 22-acre property on Joy Road – the J.A. Bloch & Co. property, to be purchased in collaboration with Ann Arbor Township – is tentatively scheduled for April 20. [Later in this meeting, the commission approved the deal – see below.]

Additional items in this part of Tetens report included:

• Completion of a survey for the Arbor Vistas property, to be purchased with assistance from an MNRTF grant. [Late last year, WCPARC was recommended to receive an MNRTF grant of $2,275,000 to purchase this 54 acres in Ann Arbor Township. The parcel would connect three existing protected areas: Ann Arbor's Marshall Park; the University of Michigan's Horner Woods; and WCPARC's Goodrich Preserve.]
• Continuing an appraisal of a 70-acre property – the Baker property – in Lima Township, where identification of a recognized environmental condition on the site necessitated a “phase two” investigation.
• Engagement of a contractor to remove surficial debris from the Schrock addition to the Draper-Houston Meadows Preserve. Also, submission of a permit application to the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to construct a boardwalk west of the bridge over the Saline River in that preserve.
• Completion of landscape plan drawings for a parking lot for the Squiers Preserve, and preparation of construction drawings. [There is not yet public access to this preserve.]
• The start of staff work on trail layouts for Osborne Mill, the Clark & Avis Spike Preserve, Draper-Houston Meadows, and Trinkle Marsh Preserves. [The latter is located just east of Chelsea at Trinkle and Dancer Roads. It is not yet open to the public, pending construction of a parking lot and trail system.]

Tetens also listed other accomplishments in the last month: four programming days, a presentation for the Washtenaw County Historical Consortium, and attendance at the Ohio Environmental Council’s Vernal Pool workshop. The WCPARC’s website was updated, a planning intern is working on informational kiosks for parks, and two new park and facility coordinators – Lyla Ellens and Allison Richards – began work at the MLM Recreation Center.

Land Acquisition

During the meeting several parcels of land were considered for acquisition, using proceeds of a natural areas preservation program millage that voters renewed in 2010. [For a recent update on one aspect of this program, see Chronicle coverage: "County Working on Farmland Preservation."]

Land Acquisition: J.A. Bloch Property – Ann Arbor Township

The commission discussed the acquisition of the J.A. Bloch parcel, 23 acres in Ann Arbor Township. [J.A. Bloch & Co. is a land development firm based in Southfield.] Tom Freeman – who recently retired as WCPARC deputy director and now is working on special projects – described the parcel using photographs to supplement his written report and maps. The parcel’s north edge is Joy Road; it lies west of Gleaner Hall Road and its east edge is adjacent to Conrail property.

WCPARC staff and the natural areas technical advisory committee – which advises the commission on land acquisitions – made a number of site visits, Freeman reported, and feel it is a high priority property for acquisition for several reasons. Half of the parcel is a high quality woodlot with a diverse mix of tree types. It has a number of vernal ponds. In addition, the parcel is close to other property that’s already protected through conservation easements, so that “protection of this property would effectively enlarge the already existing preserve and enhance its value to the community,” Freeman said.

Further, Freeman reported that Ann Arbor Township and the Ann Arbor greenbelt program have expressed an interest in collaborating on protection of the property. The proposal, he said, is that Ann Arbor Township would purchase a conservation easement and then WCPARC would purchase the fee simple title to the property.

Williams & Associates had appraised the property at $173,000, or $7,450 an acre. The value of a conservation easement on the property is $99,000, leaving an after-easement value of $74,000.

Commission discussion, after a motion to authorize the purchase, focused on the nature of an earthen berm containing coal, which had warranted further investigation by Mannik & Smith Group, an environmental assessment firm. The firm determined that the coal had come from a tipped-over railroad car rather than a “facility” on the site, and therefore it does not represent a hazard nor require any remediation.

Outcome: A roll call vote led to unanimous approval of the proposal to acquire the property at a price of $74,000, contingent upon purchase of a conservation easement on the property by Ann Arbor Township.

Land Acquisition: J.A. Bloch Property – Northfield Township

Tom Freeman also presented information about another parcel owned by J.A. Bloch – a 33-acre site in Northfield Township, with its south edge on Joy Road. The parcel is immediately adjacent to the Northfield Woods Preserve.

“The most significant natural feature is the stream corridor which crosses the property from west to east and then continues south along the eastern border. Five wetland areas were identified,” he reported. Freeman said that acquisition of this Bloch property offers the chance to create a significant trail experience, connecting over 100 acres of protected property. The natural areas technical advisory committee identified this property as a high priority property for acquisition, and the Ann Arbor greenbelt program has expressed a strong interest in collaborating on protection of the property, he added, explaining that the greenbelt program was interested in yet another property immediately west of this, which is also owned by J.A. Bloch.

Due diligence investigations have been conducted: an appraisal by Bosserd Appraisal Services identified a value of $245,250, or about $7,500 an acre. Mannik & Smith Group did a Phase I environmental site assessment and did not indicate any recognized environmental condition on the property. Finally, a boundary survey, legal description, and certified survey drawing were prepared, all at the expense of the property owner.

A motion was made to authorize preparation of a contingent purchase offer for this property, at a price of $245,500. The purchase would be contingent upon development of a participation agreement with the city of Ann Arbor greenbelt program detailing its contribution to the purchase. It would also be subject to final authorization by the WCPARC at a future meeting.

Outcome: The resolution to authorize a $245,500 purchase of the Northfield Township property, with contingencies, passed unanimously.

Following the vote, Bob Tetens commented that he was not sure when the matter would return to the WCPARC. “Ann Arbor’s process is slower than ours,” he explained, “but I hope it will come back in May or June.”

Land Acquisition: Sloan Property – Scio Township

Tom Freeman reported that this 35-acre parcel in Scio Township is located on the west side of Baker Road, south of the village of Dexter. “The most significant natural feature is Mill Creek, which serves as the property’s western boundary,” he said, adding that preserving this property is a high priority for the Scio Township land preservation program, and that Scio Township has applied for and received grant funds through the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund to acquire the property.

However, the due diligence environmental review revealed the presence of a recognized environmental condition, and Scio Township officials decided to proceed with consideration of only the portion of that property – about 35 acres – that does not have any environmental concerns. An appraisal identified a value of $8,000 an acre. The grant funds would cover 75% of the cost of acquisition and require a local match for the remaining 25%. The local match could be split between Scio Township and WCPARC.

WCPARC’s natural areas technical advisory committee recommends purchase of the property.

A motion was made and seconded to authorize commitment of $35,000 toward the purchase of the Sloan property in Scio Township, which will be used along with an equal amount from Scio Township as the local match requirement for the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund grant.

Discussion among commissioners focused on the DTE power lines on the site and the need for DTE to maintain access by keeping a cleared area. Dan Smith asked: Would that be detrimental, and was there any way to minimize the clearing? Freeman responded that although there was little that could be done because DTE has to maintain the area, it would be possible to meet with DTE and by being cooperative, minimize the amount cleared each time.

Outcome: The motion to authorize the expenditure passed unanimously.

Other Business: Minutes, Communications

During the meeting there are opportunities for communications from staff and the public, as well as housekeeping items such as approval of the agenda and of minutes from previous meetings. At the April 10 meeting, no one spoke during the time for public commentary.

Other Business: Approval, Format of Minutes

Commissioners were asked to approve the minutes of the March 6 meeting. The minutes for WCPARC meetings provide a fair amount of narrative description and detail.

Jimmie Maggard asked “Can these minutes be condensed?” Dan Smith agreed, saying “it is better to have as little as possible for official minutes, and to use a second document you could call notes” to hold details. Janis Bobrin, who also serves as the county’s water resources commissioner, also agreed, indicating that’s the approach she takes with public meetings held by her office. [The minutes of public meetings are the official record and are subject to disclosure under the state's Freedom of Information Act. Unofficial notes of the meeting would not necessarily be subject to FOIA.]

Outcome: Without further discussion, the minutes were unanimously approved.

Other Business: Communications

During his communications to the commission, director Bob Tetens prefaced his remarks by saying “Don’t be alarmed by this.” He was referring to the fact that the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) had not approved a plan for a section of the county’s Border-to-Border Trail to be built under the Michigan Avenue bridge spanning the Huron River, adjacent to the site for the proposed recreation center in downtown Ypsilanti.

Tetens then described a possible pedestrian crossing of Michigan Avenue with appropriate devices – not yet determined – to alert cars to the presence of pedestrians. MDOT would have to approve the crossing and any flashers. Tetens said that funds that would have been used for the under-the-bridge project could be used for the Michigan Avenue street level crossing. The Ypsilanti city council has already approved a fund transfer for this project, Tetens reported.

Present: WCPARC members Janice Anschuetz, Barbara Levin Bergman, Janis Bobrin, Jimmie Maggard, Robert W. Marans, Nelson K. Meade, Patricia Scribner, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Dan Smith, and Fred Veigel. WCPARC staff members Bob Tetens, Meghan Bonfiglio, Tom Freeman, and Coy Vaughn.

Next meeting: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 at 7 p.m. at the parks and recreation commission administrative offices, 2230 Platt Road in Ann Arbor.

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

The property becomes part of 1,237 acres of contiguous protected land, including 710 acres that are open to the public. It includes a section of Fowler Creek (a tributary of the Rouge River) and a woodlot that’s part of a larger wooded area extending into both the county’s Meyer Preserve and SMLC’s Conservancy Farm.

According to a press release issued on Friday, April 13, SMLC bought the property from Frank Pellerito through his business, Lakeside Oakland Development LLC. In addition, Washtenaw County has acquired a conservation easement on the land. The strategy ensures that if SMLC is dissolved, the property would be transferred to Washtenaw County and the conservation easement would be transferred to the city of Ann Arbor or another conservation entity. The deal also accounts for the possibility that if the county at some point is no longer authorized to hold conservation easements, the easement would be vested in another land conservation entity.

Financial details were not included in the press release. At its December 2011 meeting, the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission approved the purchase of a $355,464 conservation easement on the property, contingent on SMLC’s fee simple purchase of the land, which was appraised at $691,180 – or $7,000 per acre. At its Jan. 9, 2012 meeting, Ann Arbor city council had authorized up to $172,858 for the deal.

Jack Smiley, founder and former executive director of the SMLC, attended the November 2011 meeting of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission to talk about the deal, though at the time the location of the property was not disclosed. In an email sent to The Chronicle on Friday, Smiley said he first contacted Pellerito in 2005, and since then it has been SMLC’s top acquisition priority.

At the greenbelt advisory commission’s most recent meeting on April 5, Ginny Trocchio told commissioners that she expected several deals to close over the next month on property within the Ann Arbor greenbelt, totaling about 300 acres. This is one of those deals.

From left: Dan Ezekiel, chair of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission, points out other GAC members to Richard Andres, who gave a presentation on the Washtenaw Food Hub. (Photos by the writer.)

Located on 16 acres in Ann Arbor Township, the food hub is envisioned to provide support for farmers to distribute and sell their produce, and for residents to buy food, attend workshops and create meaningful relationships with those who are part of the local food network. The project is still in its formative stages, but has potential to develop a food economy based on a human scale, Andres said, not a Wall Street scale.

GAC chair Dan Ezekiel noted that the hub is an example of the next phase of this region’s local food movement, which he said has “grown like an heirloom tomato” since the greenbelt program launched nearly a decade ago.

Commissioners also got a mid-year financial update on the greenbelt program at this month’s meeting, and heard about potential deep cuts to a federal farmland preservation program that has supported the greenbelt with more than $6 million in grants. The city has recently applied for $1,037,198 in additional grants that would help preserve 519 acres. Ginny Trocchio, support staff for the greenbelt program, also reported that over the next month there will likely be several closings on property within the greenbelt totaling another 300 acres.

Also at the April 5 meeting, Peter Allen – a local developer and GAC commissioner – proposed forming a strategic planning subcommittee to evaluate the greenbelt program so far and to look at what they’d like to accomplish in the future. It’s likely that the commission will formally consider his proposal at their May 3 meeting.

As it typically does, the meeting included a closed session to discuss land acquisitions. When commissioners emerged, they voted on three items – recommending that the city council approve the purchase of development rights on two properties, and to partner with Washtenaw County on a third acquisition. Ezekiel noted that the third item extends an existing county preserve on land that would provide public access and recreational opportunities.

At the end of the meeting, Ezekiel reported that a position on the commission will be opening up this summer. He urged anyone who’s interested to apply and “join the fun.”

Washtenaw Food Hub

Richard Andres, who operates Tantré Farm with Deb Lentz, was on hand to give a presentation about the Washtenaw Food Hub. He began by thanking commissioners for their work on the greenbelt, saying it was important to preserve land for agriculture. The greenbelt will be key in ensuring that local food is provided to the city, in bringing compost out to the farms, in building meaningful participation for Ann Arbor residents, and in providing a stronger local economy for small farmers.

Andres described himself as a farmer who’s lived in Chelsea for the last 18 years. Before that, he farmed for a couple of years with Robert MacKercher at Garden Works, an organic farm that was then located at the corner of Dhu Varren and Pontiac Trail on Ann Arbor’s north side. He said that site used a lot of leaves that were brought out from the city to fertilize the 3-acre parcel. After putting the leaves down, it was amazing the kind of lettuce they could grow, he said. They generated about 3,000 pounds of organic lettuce each week. They also grew strawberries and other produce.

The land was eventually sold for development – he noted that there was some discussion that the property should be part of a greenbelt, but it was sold in the late 1990s, several years before the city’s greenbelt program was created.

Today, a different kind of development is needed, Andres said – a planning or replanning of how we live, work, eat, socialize and create culture, education and connection in our nation. Looking at the big picture, he said it would be great if every city had a greenbelt, surrounded by small farms that provide food for the immediate vicinity. That kind of approach would not only recycle resources and provide good food, but it would also allow for meaningful relationships between people living in town and people in the country, he said.

As a kid, Andres said he lived in a small town where he could walk outside of town to pick pumpkins. But in the 1970s, he watched as the edges of town became suburban sprawl. The town was interested in increasing its tax base, while builders were interested in making money from the growth. Now, he hopes to see development based on agriculture, saying there’s good historic precedent for that. He said he thinks of sprawl as a “short delusionary psychosis we went through as a nation.”

The country is soaking up non-renewable resources, but Andres said he aspires to create an example of a different approach.

Tantré Farm is located about 20 miles west of Ann Arbor – it was the cheapest land he could find to farm in the early 1990s, Andres said. They’ve build up a CSA community and business where they bring in 350 shares to town each week, as well as produce to sell at the Ann Arbor farmers market. [CSA refers to community-supported agriculture, in which residents buy shares in a farm, in exchange for a weekly portion of the farm's seasonal produce.]

Some of the out buildings at the Washtenaw Food Hub. (Links to .pdf of photographs of the site provided by Richard Andres.)

Andres described his goal for the Washtenaw Food Hub, located on about 16 acres in Ann Arbor Township, north of Ann Arbor. He’d like to create an enhanced distribution point for his own CSA as well as for other farmers. The site historically served as a place to support farmers, he said, providing bins for grain and fertilizer, areas for mixing products, and loading docks.

The goal is to repurpose the site as a destination for local food, he said. There will be large coolers and freezers for storage, an area to wash and pack vegetables, and a building that’s warm for people to gather when they come to pick up their shares in the winter. There’s adequate parking. The idea is to create a retail space that’s open more than just one day a week during the winter, which will help with the year-round continuity of distributing leafy greens, root crops, eggs and meat. The hub would be a support network for farmers and a place to build community for residents.

Andres said he and other organizers have laid out some of their dreams, and are now talking with township officials and others who can help make it happen. They’ve had a few gatherings and potlucks so far, which have gone well, he said. They’re not eschewing consumer culture, he said, but they’re trying to supplant it with something that’s much more enhanced by creating community and meaning in people’s lives. People who pick up their shares can get to know others in the CSA. There will be workshops on food preparation, he said, hopefully inspiring people to relearn the traditional ways of healthy cooking and baking.

Andres said he hoped the hub would support the local food movement, especially on the north side of Ann Arbor where several other food-related entities are located, including the nonprofit Food Gatherers and the Tilian Farm Development Center.

Washtenaw Food Hub: Commission Discussion

Tom Bloomer asked for more details about where the food hub is located. It’s about two miles north of the Huron River, Andres replied, near the corner of Warren and Whitmore Lake roads. He said it’s within easy biking distance, though it’s mostly uphill on the way out of town. Currently, about 80 people drive out to Tantré Farm to pick up their CSA shares. The hope is that if they can go to the hub instead, which is significantly closer to Ann Arbor, then they’ll have more time to spend with other CSA members or to attend workshops, Andres explained. He also noted that about 3-4 acres on the site might be developed for U-picking.

Peter Allen, a local developer and member of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission.

Peter Allen said it seemed like the food hub’s recent work party was successful. Will there be others? Yes, Andres said, it will be an ongoing effort to clean up the site and bring it back to a “human scale” rather than a Wall Street scale.

Allen also elicited that other small businesses might be involved. Andres said that Miyoko Honma of Café Japon has expressed interest in baking bread on site and holding workshops, as has David Klingenberger of The Brinery, who would like to make sauerkraut from Tantré cabbages and hold lacto fermentation workshops. Other farmers and food artisans have expressed interest too.

Dan Ezekiel clarified with Andres that the property formerly was the site for Braun Agriservice, and is completely surrounded by property that’s protected by land preservation programs. He asked whether there’s a commercial kitchen on the site. Not yet, Andres said, but there’s interest in building one. It would be good to support existing businesses – for example, a commercial kitchen could be used by Klingenberger to make sauerkraut. That’s a nice harmony, Andres said, and a vertical integration with other food businesses. He’s in the process of working on township zoning for that, he said.

Ezekiel wrapped up the discussion by saying he had started to describe the local food movement as having grown like a weed since the greenbelt started, but “grown like an heirloom tomato” might be more apt, he joked. He thanked Andres for coming, and wished him well with the venture.

Andres thanked the commission and said that the greenbelt was a big factor as to why he was interested in acquiring this property for the food hub. There’s precedence in Europe for similar efforts, preserving farmland and keeping farmers close to town. He said he’d like to see this idea move forward quickly everywhere, not just in the Ann Arbor area.

Mid-Year Financial Report

Reprising a similar presentation made at the March 20 meeting of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission, Ginny Trocchio presented the greenbelt program’s mid-year financial report for the period of July 1, 2011 through Jan. 31, 2012 – the first seven months of the current fiscal year. Trocchio is a staff member of The Conservation Fund who manages Ann Arbor’s greenbelt and parkland acquisition programs under contract with the city. [.pdf file of financial report]

By way of background, Ann Arbor voters passed a 30-year 0.5 mill tax in 2003 for land acquisition – the open space and parkland preservation millage. It appears on the summer tax bill as the line item CITY PARK ACQ. The city’s policy has been to allocate one-third of the millage for parks land acquisition and two-thirds for the city’s greenbelt program. The greenbelt advisory commission handles the portion for land preservation outside of the city limits, while the city’s park advisory commission oversees the funds for parkland acquisition.

To get money upfront for land acquisition, the city took out a $20 million bond in fiscal year 2006. That bond is being being paid back with revenue from the millage. Debt service on that bond so far in FY 2012 year has amounted to $837,088. [Two debt service payments are made during the fiscal year, totaling about $1.2 million.]

Net revenues from the millage were $2.244 million as of Jan. 31, Trocchio reported, with expenses of $1.768 million. In addition to debt service, expenses include $813,000 in greenbelt projects and about $82,000 for parkland acquisition. The main greenbelt acquisitions were for:

• the purchase of development rights on the Thomas/Lobato property ($103,472 plus $23,867 for an endowment) for 30 acres owned by Duane Thomas and his wife Judith Lobato in Scio Township. The property is located near the northwest corner Scio Church and Wagner roads.
• the purchase of development rights on the Lindemann/Weidmayer property ($657,112 plus $23,867 for an endowment) for 111 acres in Lodi Township, owned by Bill Lindemann and his sister Karen Weidmayer. The property is located along Pleasant Lake Road, about a half-mile from the former Girbach farm, which is also protected through the greenbelt program.

About $10.5 million remains in the fund balance, but some of that will be spent on deals that have already been approved but haven’t yet closed, Trocchio said. Of that fund balance, $4.5 million is designated for parks, while about $6 million is set aside for the greenbelt program.

In addition, there’s $445,000 in an endowment set up to cover legal costs related to monitoring and enforcing the conservation easements held by the city.

Trocchio also reported that administrative costs of $35,594 so far in fiscal 2012 equate to 2% of total revenues. Administrative costs over the life of the millage are limited by ordinance to be no greater than 6% of revenues.

Mid-Year Financial Report: Commission Discussion

Carsten Hohnke asked whether the administrative costs would track at the same rate for the remainder of the year – that is, would there be about $70,000 in total annual administrative costs this year? It will likely be more than $70,000, Trocchio said, because The Conservation Fund bills quarterly, and there may be additional payments that haven’t yet shown up for the first half of the year. However, the total will likely be less than last year, she said. [Total FY 2011 administrative costs were $160,442 – 1.5% of revenues.]

From left: Greenbelt advisory commissioners Catherine Riseng, Liz Rother, Laura Rubin.

Laura Rubin noted that so far this year, no transaction expenses have been recorded. Those costs haven’t hit the books yet, Trocchio said. [In FY 2011, transaction expenses – which are part of total administrative costs – were $48,891.]

Dan Ezekiel noted that administrative costs have been on a downward trajectory since FY 2008 – when those costs totaled $197,621, or 3.4% or revenues – and he would expect that decrease to continue. In FY 2011, administrative costs were 1.5% of revenues. The staff and commission continue to exercise great frugality with regard to overhead, he said.

Ezekiel also commented on the endowment, explaining that each time the city buys development rights through the greenbelt program, money is set aside in an endowment to be used in monitoring or enforcing that landowners comply with terms of the deal. That’s key, he said. Without those funds, the conservation easements don’t have teeth, he said, and he’s glad the city had the foresight to set aside funds for this purpose. He asked whether the city invests these endowment funds along with its other investments. Trocchio didn’t know, but said she’d find out and report back.

Investment income so far in FY 2012 is $74,967 compared to $27,973 for the entire year of FY 2011. That’s a sharp drop from the $492,576 in FY 2010 investment income and from $815,261 in FY2009. The issue of investment income has arisen at previous GAC meetings, and prompted city treasurer Matt Horning to attend the commission’s November 2010 meeting and provide a detailed explanation of how the funds are invested and accounted for.

At GAC’s April 5 meeting, Peter Allen observed that grants from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) have been significant over the years. Trocchio reported that the city has received about $6.5 million in FRPP funds since the greenbelt program began.

In response to a query from Ezekiel, Trocchio said that funding from partners – including FRPP and local government units – accounts for an average of 50% of all land preservation deals.

Greenbelt Staff Update

Ginny Trocchio said she’d start her staff update with the good news. The city has applied for grants through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) for four properties located in the greenbelt’s boundaries. The properties total 519 acres for a total grant request of $1,037,198. She said she hoped to receive word about those grants in the next couple of months. There was $2.3 million available for FRPP grants in Michigan, and Trocchio said she knew of several other groups – including some local entities – that have also submitted FRPP applications. So there’s a lot more competition, she said, but with lower land values, the FRPP program can fund more projects than in previous years.

Responding to a query from Dan Ezekiel, Trocchio said that three of those four properties seeking FRPP grants are located within the recently expanded greenbelt boundary.

Over the next month there will likely be several closings on property within the greenbelt totaling about 300 acres, Trocchio said. One deal is in Superior Township, partnering with Washtenaw County and the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy. [Trocchio did not identify the specific properties, but at their Jan. 9, 2012 meeting, Ann Arbor city council authorized $172,858 for about 99 acres owned by Frank Pellerito in Superior Township. Other recent council-authorized greenbelt purchases include $85,726 for the Newton farm in Ann Arbor Township, $126,867 for the Van Natter farm in Webster Township, and $502,307 for the Boike farm in Northfield Township.]

Trocchio highlighted several events coming up later in the year: the annual HomeGrown Festival on Sept. 8; a bus tour of greenbelt-protected property on Saturday, Sept. 22; and a panel discussion with landowners participating in the greenbelt program on Nov. 7 at the Ann Arbor District Library. Trocchio also mentioned that she had participated in the recent Local Food Summit, and was a panelist at a city forum on sustainability.

Later in the meeting Ezekiel mentioned two other events: the Ann Arbor Green Fair on June 8 on Main Street, and an April 24 talk by local food advocate Joel Salatin at the Michigan Theater.

Trocchio concluded her report with some bad news – Congress is considering a farm bill that includes up to 30% in cuts to the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP). Other conservation programs are being considered for smaller cuts of 12%, she noted, so FRPP could be hit harder. As the bill now stands, the FRPP would also be consolidated with other grant programs, like the grassland reserve and other easement programs, she said, so there’s potential for even greater impact. She said she’d keep the commissioners updated on this issue.

Strategic Planning

During the meeting Peter Allen proposed forming a strategic planning subcommittee, to look at the greenbelt program’s progress so far, and what they hope to do in the future. Potential federal funding cuts could be a part of that discussion, he said. In response to a query from GAC chair Dan Ezekiel, Allen said he’d be happy to lead such a group.

Ezekiel asked if any other commissioners were “salivating like a wild dog” to participate. Shannon Brines ventured that he wasn’t exactly salivating, but he’d be interested in joining the subcommittee.

Ezekiel indicated that it could be an agenda item for GAC’s next meeting.

Closed Session: Land Acquisition

Commissioners spent about 30 minutes of their meeting in closed session to discuss possible land acquisitions. When they emerged from closed session, they took votes on three separate resolutions that recommended action by city council.

Before appearing on the city council’s agenda, details of proposed greenbelt acquisitions are not made public – parcels are identified only by their application number. The first two votes at GAC’s April 5 meeting related to parcels 2011-15 and 2011-14. Commissioners recommended that the city council purchase development rights to these properties if at least 50% of matching funds are secured. The purchase price was not mentioned in these resolutions.

The third resolution recommended that the city council approve partnering with Washtenaw County on application 2012-02, in the amount of $61,312.

GAC chair Dan Ezekiel commented on this final resolution before the vote. He noted that it related to a joint project on land that would provide public access and recreational opportunities, extending an existing county preserve. The commission sometimes has drawn heat for preserving land that the public can’t access, he said, but this is an example of a property that does provide access. The greenbelt program will also be closing on another property later this month that will have a recreational and public access component too, he said. That property, located in Superior Township, is another example of extending an existing preserve that’s open to the public, Ezekiel said.

Outcome: On separate unanimous votes, commissioners recommended approval of the three greenbelt deals.

Misc. Communications: Seeking New Members

At the end of the meeting, Dan Ezekiel pointed out there will be an opening on the commission this summer. He encouraged anyone who might be interested to apply “and join the fun.”

For most city commissions, members are nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the council. However, the nine greenbelt commissioners are both nominated and confirmed by the city council. The breakdown of GAC membership, as stipulated in Chapter 42 of the city code, is as follows: city council representative (1), agricultural landowner or someone who operates an agricultural business (1), real estate developer (1), representative of environmental/conservation groups (2), plant or animal biologist (1), and at-large community members (3).

According to a listing of GAC members and their term end-dates, posted on the city’s Legistar system, the terms for three members end on June 30, 2012: Peter Allen, Mike Garfield and Catherine Riseng. Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Ezekiel said that Mike Garfield will be term-limited. Allen and Riseng are expected to be reappointed to another three-year term. Garfield has been on the commission since its inception, serving as one of two positions to be filled by environment/conservation groups. He is director of the Ecology Center, a nonprofit based in Ann Arbor.f

Public Commentary

One person – Thomas Partridge – spoke during public commentary. He urged commissioners to integrate GAC’s work with efforts to develop affordable housing and affordable, accessible public transportation countywide. He said he understood the importance of land preservation, but there needs to be balance with other priorities. Partridge mentioned that he’d grown up in Genesee County and had raised a grand champion steer that helped pay for his college education, so he understands the needs of rural, suburban and urban areas. He asked commissioners to lead the way in passing resolutions to achieve these goals.

Present: Peter Allen, Tom Bloomer, Shannon Brines, Dan Ezekiel, Carsten Hohnke, Catherine Riseng, Liz Rother, Laura Rubin. Also: Ginny Trocchio.

Absent: Mike Garfield.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, May 3, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s greenbelt program. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

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]

Left to right: Councilmembers Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). (Photos by the writer.)

The issue driving the lengthy meeting was an agreement between four different entities, including the city of Ann Arbor, that would set up a framework for a transition of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to a new funding and governance structure. The intent of transitioning to a new authority would be to provide increased transportation service both within the city of Ann Arbor as well as throughout Washtenaw County.

The Ann Arbor city council approved the agreement on Monday night on a 7-4 vote, after postponing it three times previously. That sets the stage for the city of Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the AATA to approve it as well. Even after approval by those three entities, several steps would remain before a new transit authority, incorporated under Michigan’s Act 196, could take over transportation services from the AATA.

The council considered several amendments to the agreement, but approved only two relatively minor, clarificational items. [.pdf of agreement as amended]

Toward the end of the meeting, the nomination of University of Michigan planner Sue Gott to the AATA board was given spirited discussion by two councilmembers, but was ultimately confirmed on a unanimous vote.

Falling victim to the lengthy deliberations on the transit agreement was a resolution that would direct the city attorney to delay enforcement of medical marijuana laws for local dispensaries, except for zoning violations. A vote on that resolution was postponed without deliberation, due to the late hour. That resolution comes in the context of a recommendation from the city council’s medical marijuana licensing board, currently pending with the council, to award the first 10 medical marijuana licenses under local legislation enacted last year.

Related to a different kind of licensing, the council approved a resolution that recommends non-renewal of liquor licenses for two establishments in Ann Arbor – Dream Nite Club and Rush Street. A hearing on the two licenses will be held on March 19, with the city council’s final recommendation to the Michigan Liquor Control Commission to be made that same day.

The council also passed several resolutions related to land and its use. The council approved the acquisition of another 58.85 acres under its greenbelt program, as well as the purchase of property on West Kingsley so that a long-vacant house there can finally be demolished. A rain garden is to be constructed on that parcel, because it’s situated in the Allen Creek floodway. In a related item, a new Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood map was also given final approval by the council on Monday night.

The council gave initial approval to a revision of parking regulations in open space at the front of land parcels, but postponed any action on a proposed revision that would eliminate a requirement on landscape buffers in areas zoned R4C (multi-family residential).

Receiving approval from the council were a total of nearly $1.7 million in renovations to several of the city parks. The funding includes improvements to ballfields at Veterans Memorial Park, Southeast Area Park and West Park, as well as upgrades to roads and paths at Buhr Park and Cobblestone Farm.

The council also approved the issuance of $120 million in revenue bonds for the reconstruction of the city’s sewage treatment facilities, long planned and in the works.

Four-Party Transit Agreement

For the fourth time, after three postponements dating to the first meeting of 2012, the council considered a four-party transit agreement – with the city of Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. The agreement would provide a framework and chronological sequence for the transition of the AATA to a new governance and funding structure. The Ann Arbor approval leaves several steps that would still need to be completed, before such a transition would be possible. [.pdf of four-party agreement as amended on March 5, 2012]

By way of more detailed background, the council had previously postponed voting on the four-party agreement at its Jan. 9 and Jan. 23 meetings. Thirty-nine people spoke at a public hearing held on Jan. 23.

The council postponed the agreement again at its Feb. 6 meeting. But for that meeting, the AATA itself had requested a postponement until March 5.

The council agreed at its Feb. 6 meeting to postpone the vote until March 5 – but with the proviso that postponement to that date certain would be “contingent upon materials being submitted to City Council by Feb. 29, 2012.”

During the Feb. 6 deliberations on postponement, councilmembers were content to give the mayor and city administrator the discretion to hold the item off the agenda, if the desired information was not submitted to the council by Feb. 29. That proviso nearly led to the omission of the item from the March 5 agenda, but in the end, it was presented to the council for its consideration.

Transit Agreement: Public Comment

The four-party transit agreement prompted several people to speak during public commentary.

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a city resident and former candidate for state senator in the 18th district. He has been and will continue to be a candidate for public office, he said. His platforms call for countywide and region-wide affordable accessible transportation, education and housing. He highlighted the coincidental goal of economic development that would be supported through improved transportation.

Elizabeth Donoghue Colvin introduced herself as a Ward 1 resident of Maiden Lane. She stressed that what she wanted to say were her views, but she knew that many people shared them. Regarding the Fuller Road Station, she understood that the University of Michigan was no longer planning to participate in the project by building a parking structure there. But she said she still favored building a transit center there. It’s near the place where a large number of employees work, and it’s not in a neighborhood, she said. The Fuller Road location has space to accommodate traffic flow. She said she hoped the parkland issue can be resolved in a positive way, perhaps with a trade-off. She felt the highest value is to put a transit center there, in the context of broadening a county transportation system.

That related to a second issue Colvin wanted to address, namely the four-party transit agreement, and she supported broadening transit in that fashion. She sees that as part of a larger plan to broaden transit regionally with neighboring counties. She said she appreciated the funding challenges, but encouraged the council to move the agreement forward. If there were an additional transit millage put on the ballot, she concluded, she would vote for it. “I would like to pay for broadened transportation in this county,” she said.

Carolyn Grawi introduced herself as the director of advocacy and education at the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living (CIL). Looking at the four-party transit agreement, in light of a recent survey the AATA has done, and in light of recommendations from a financial advisory group, Grawi said she wanted to highlight one point: Of those who were surveyed, 86% talked about the importance of providing those with disabilities and seniors with door-to-door service. Right now that kind of service is provided up to a certain geographic point, but then it stops. If 86% of people want that service, Ann Arbor needs to look at how it fits as the puzzle piece in the center of the county.

Looking at transportation services, Grawi said, she was hopeful that the community would continue to fund local services. The disability community relies on the city council for leadership to ensure that local service continues to be provided.

Christine Green spoke on behalf of the Michigan League of Conservation Voters. She told the council she was there to comment favorably on the four-party agreement. MLCV has worked for many years to support similar initiatives in Michigan. In 2011, MLCV helped pass the Grand Rapids transit millage and that has in turn helped bring state, federal and private revenue to that community. Green then ticked through some reasons why MLCV has used its resources to support public transportation.

Public transportation improves public health, Green said, through reducing particulate pollution, encouraging more active forms of transportation, and reducing runoff from surface pollutants. She also said that public transportation helps create jobs and helps local business. Green pointed to better land use as a result of public transportation, saying that it helps prevent urban and suburban sprawl and protects open spaces. Public transportation, she said, also helps revitalize cities.

Lawrence Baird introduced himself as a Ward 1 resident – a financial advisor for 22 years in Ann Arbor. In his professional capacity he spent a lot of time dealing with budget numbers. He said Ann Arbor has been blessed with a level of financial stability beyond what most Michigan cities have enjoyed.

To illustrate his point, he said, he’d brought along his tax bills from last year. The city’s core values are reflected in the tax bills, he said. What appears on the tax bills is the fact that Ann Arbor is funding education, library, recycling, parks, street maintenance and also transit. So the current debate is not about core values – very few residents are against mass transit, he ventured. Most residents have no problem paying hundreds of dollars a year to fund transit.

Baird had accepted the fact that he pays more to fund transit than many other services – like the library, parks maintenance, and street repair. He said that renters in the city should also receive a copy of the categories on the tax bills so they’d understand how property taxes are used.

The city council is being asked to approve the four-party agreement, which Baird described as the continuation of a process to dissolve a decades-old transportation system. [Baird then alluded to a political tactic that Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) has used, in which he calls the four-party agreement the "mayor's plan." Mayor John Hieftje has responded consistently with the assertion that he can't take credit for the plan.] Noting that Hieftje has maintained he can’t take credit for the plan, Baird observed that Hieftje had nominated the AATA board members, whom the council then confirmed. Back in 2008 those board members accepted the lead role in the development of the WALLY north-south commuter rail project. [The vote came at a special meeting called by the AATA board.]

Baird then read from a document on the AATA’s website, dating from July 24, 2009:

AATA is funded through a combination of federal, state and local revenues, as well as passenger fares. State funding has remained at the same level since 1997. As a result, AATA has implemented extensive measures to reduce costs. Looking ahead, expected decreases in local property tax revenues threaten our ability to meet current and future ridership demands. AATA is projecting significant reductions in revenue in future years due to a decrease in local property values and continued pressures on state operating assistance.

Baird concluded that while property taxes and state assistance are in flux, the AATA had taken on a commuter rail project from scratch. The AATA had also adopted a vision statement [at its Nov. 18, 2009 meeting] that says:

AATA Vision Statement: The Ann Arbor Transportation Authority shall be the public transportation provider for Washtenaw County. Our customers shall see AATA’s expanded services as the preferred option for traveling to destinations within the county, as well as to and from the county. AATA will offer appropriate modes of transportation with the most efficient use of resources. These services shall enhance the quality of life for Washtenaw County stakeholders while promoting the economy, safeguarding the environment, and strengthening communities.

So during the depths of one of the worst financial crises the country has known, Baird concluded, the AATA had decided to get into the railroad business and to expand its original mandate.

Paul Schreiber introduced himself as the mayor of Ypsilanti. He said councilmembers had likely seen the AATA’s financial task force report. The group had reduced a roughly $60 million funding gap to around $30 million by eliminating rail transportation and concentrating on those services that could be supported with local funding. He said the financial advisory group had done some great work and he encouraged the council to approve the four-party agreement.

Schreiber noted that the agreement includes the authorized 2.5 mill tax currently levied by Ann Arbor and almost a 1 mill tax from Ypsilanti. But he noted that Ypsilanti’s service is contingent on a purchase-of-service agreement (POSA). A countywide transit authority would be a more stable source of funding, he said. He noted that Ypsilanti voters had approved their transit millage in August 2010, and passed it on a 2:1 margin. Due to a technicality, it had to be put on the ballot again in November, when it passed on a 3:1 margin. So Ypsilanti voters support transit, he said.

Transit Agreement: AATA Comment

Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, was asked by mayor John Hieftje to make some remarks, along with some members of the financial advisory group, about the recommendations of that group. It’s been referred to for some time now as a “task force.”

Members of the AATA financial advisory group, from left: Bob Guenzel, Norman Herbert, and Mark Perry.

Ford told the council he was there to ask for the council’s approval of the four-party agreement. He told them that since the last council meeting, councilmembers had been provided with the recommendations from the financial task force, information on survey results and legislative information.

[For an overview of the survey results, see Chronicle coverage: "AATA OKs AirRide; Survey Results Positive." For an overview of pending state legislation, see Chronicle coverage: "Michigan Regional Transit Bills Unveiled."]

Bob Guenzel, former Washtenaw County administrator, co-chaired the financial task force with Albert Berriz, CEO of McKinley Inc. Guenzel attended the council’s meeting, along with two other members of the group – Norman Herbert, retired treasurer of the University of Michigan; and Mark Perry, director of real estate services for Masco Corp. Ford stressed that of all the issues, he wanted to focus on the four-party agreement.

Guenzel told the council that he’d try to be brief, but felt that the financial task force should report to the council. He said he was honored to be part of the task force. It was Berriz who represented the private sector on the task force and had helped bring the business community to the table. The task force was made up of business leaders as well as government leaders, Guenzel said, and others who had an interest in transportation. He noted that the task force had agreed to have only four meetings, and they’d had three – but a subcommittee was formed that had additional meetings.

The task was to review the funding options for the transit master plan and see if they could develop some recommendations. Perry and Herbert were on the subcommittee that had done a service review and had dug into the finances, Guenzel said. The group looked at whether the services should be funded with local money or other sources. A funding gap – between existing revenues and what it would take to pay for expanded service was planned in the first five years of the new transit entity – had been reduced from $62 million, roughly in half to $33 million, he said.

That reduction had been achieved in several ways: (1) cost reductions; (2) enhanced revenues, through increased fares or increased state and federal revenue; and (3) change services. As an example of the third strategy, Guenzel cited an Ann Arbor downtown circulator – while it’s a worthwhile service, the task force was recommending that it be funded privately or through other agencies. Development of regional rail transportation had also been removed from the first five-year plan, Guenzel said.

To try to get a handle on how much funding is needed, if the property tax method of funding were used, it would translate to about 0.5 a mill. That’s not a recommendation, but rather an attempt to give some context to what it might mean for this community, Guenzel said. It still needs some refinement, for example, in terms of fare issues, and state and federal funds. The recommendations of the subcommittee were supported by the whole group as a guide for further development. The group recommends that a final funding recommendation be reserved until the concerns raised by the subcommittee have been addressed. The recommendation is that the task force be put on hold. There may be the need to convene more meetings going forward. As the service plan is developed, Guenzel said, that obviously has some effect on the financing.

Guenzel then read a portion of a letter from Albert Berriz, whom Guenzel described as representing the business community. Guenzel noted that his own career had been in the public sector. From the portion read by Guenzel:

My service on this committee and my work with the senior leadership team at the AATA over the past year has been very rewarding, and I have learned very much. I have scrutinized the people, the process and the numbers like I would in my own business; and I am very comfortable with Michael Ford and his team at the AATA.

No matter how much criticism and commentary this process may receive, I can speak as a CEO of a multi-billion dollar business and say that their results and the work product are solid and real. We should be very comfortable as a community that we have the right people in the right seats running the AATA. The practical reality of regional transportation is that it is a highly subsidized business. In the words of a for-profit guy, you can’t make the numbers work. So what remains is how you decide to raise those public dollars, and is it politically expedient to do so in the current environment that you find yourself in.

Guenzel noted that one way to raise the funds is through a millage, and the other is to look at what is currently being proposed in Lansing. [Some of the state legislation deals with establishing a regional transit authority for the counties of Washtenaw, Wayne, Macomb and Oakland. But another separate bill provides for the possibility of local transit funding through a voter-approved vehicle registration fee.] Guenzel said he agreed with Berriz that it’s premature right now to pursue a millage option until the legislative picture is clearer. But he is pleased that the task force is willing to be on call. He said the task force is ready to continue the study ultimately to make a recommendation. The task force feels, he said, that the rest of the process should proceed.

Norman Herbert then addressed the council. He noted that along with Mark Perry, he’d worked on the subcommittee charged with reviewing transportation services proposed under the AATA’s countywide master transportation plan. He told the council they’d already heard about the benefits of public transportation – access to health care, job opportunities, reduction in traffic congestion and better land use.

The primary conclusion of the task force, Herbert told the council, is that more information is needed before drawing any conclusions about the finances. The subcommittee recommended that certain services only be developed if federal, state or private funding could be identified for those specific services. The result is a focus on local and county service improvements, he said, that also reduced the funding gap from $62 million down to around $33 million. What’s needed now, he said is agreement on what the plan should be. The finance plan should not drive the service plan, he said. What’s needed is a definition of the project. The interested parties of the county need to join Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti to determine the specific elements of that plan.

Ann Arbor, Herbert said, needs to take a leadership role by entering into non-binding discussions. The 0.5 mill property tax is just a proxy to identify the magnitude of what it would cost a county taxpayer – if transportation improvements were made that focus on local and county needs, and if the cost were shared by all the various communities. It’s time to move forward with the planning, and the city council should agree to initiate those discussions with the AATA and the other interested parties, he said. Transit is a key amenity, and it helps everybody, but it helps Ann Arbor the most, Herbert concluded.

Mark Perry, a member of the AATA financial advisory group, with Ann Arbor city councilmember Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Mark Perry told the council a bit about how the 0.5 mill was calculated. They’d built an economic forecasting model that included traditional revenue forms. On the revenue side, they’d created a line item for state revenue sources that aren’t identified yet. There’s typically four or five revenue sources in the state of Michigan, he explained: sales and use tax; personal income tax; business income tax; property taxes; and fees. Only the last two can be levied at the local level, Perry noted. The 0.5 mill was based only on what is currently known. He said that the forecasting model the group had used included line items for the other revenue sources, but filled them with zeros.

Perry told the council that the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber of Commerce was represented on the task force, but could not attend the council’s meeting, so he’d agreed to read something aloud on their behalf. [.pdf of Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber letter] An excerpt from the letter:

Our County needs a transit system that is affordable, accessible and practical. Such a system may include fixed-route and other bus and van options, and in the longer term, rail and other modes of transit. Ultimately, this system should connect not just those within Washtenaw County, but it should also enable us to connect throughout the greater southeast Michigan region. The benefits to be derived from such a system are many, including environmental, economic and humanitarian. The process provided through four party agreements allows us to pursue this objective. Should it not be approved, then the process will flounder.

The agreement is not a commitment to a plan or a millage, and it does not set fares. It is merely a process to explore these and other issues further. We have nothing to lose or risk by taking this step, but we have much to lose if this step is not taken. We therefore urge Council to approve the agreement and, as a Chamber, look forward to being actively involved in the planning towards fulfilling these objectives.

[.pdf of budget summary][.pdf of capital budget] [.pdf of operating budget] [.pdf of financial performance data] [.pdf of financial group's final report] [.pdf of financial group's subcommittee report]

Transit Agreement: Council Questions – Finance, Legislation

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked Mark Perry if the taxable value used for the property tax calculation was for the entire county. Yes, said Perry, because it’s not clear yet which political subdivisions would be participating – that’ll be determined at a later date. There’s also debate by the state legislature on exemption of tangible personal property. He indicated that if personal property tax were to disappear, as a whole countywide it would not be a large enough number to change the projected transit millage amount.

Smith asked if scenarios had been modeled with less than complete participation throughout the county. Perry indicated that they had not, but the spreadsheet they’d set up is such that different townships can be zeroed out. Norman Herbert added a point that Terri Blackmore, executive director of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), had made during deliberations of the financial task force: To the extent there’s an opt-out by a political subdivision, there’s a corresponding reduction in expenses, due to service reduction in that area.

Smith then asked state representative Jeff Irwin, whose District 53 covers most of Ann Arbor, to comment on pending state legislation.

Irwin thanked the council for taking up the issue. He told councilmembers there are as many as 15 different bills, any of which could have an impact on transportation. He urged them not to let that uncertainty prevent them from moving forward. Nothing in the pending legislation would surpass or supplant what the council is trying to accomplish locally, he said.

Jeff Irwin, state representative for District 53, which covers most of Ann Arbor.

The bill creating a regional transit authority (RTA) would create a four-county RTA, he said, including Washtenaw, Wayne, Macomb and Oakland. The best way to think about that authority is as an “overlay authority,” governing services that cross jurisdictions, he said.

The RTA would also be responsible for creating connections between regional service and local service, Irwin said. For example, he said, if the RTA establishes service along I-94, then local service needs to meet those vehicles as they come into town. The new RTA would have the same relationship with AATA as to SMART (the Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation) and DDOT (the Detroit Dept. of Transportation).

Irwin then described a bill that’s separate from the RTA bill, which would establish the ability of local jurisdictions to impose voter-approved vehicle registration fees. That would open up another funding option, he said. Irwin noted that all of these ideas have been around for a long, long time. He was not sure it is wise to hang our hopes on any of these bills that are currently pending. Local governments have been asking for decades for the ability “to be more artful” in the way they generate revenues, Irwin said, and he didn’t see any of that changing in Lansing. So we need to “seize our own destiny locally,” he said.

Irwin went on to say that if details in the bill are changed that would make Washtenaw County an afterthought, then that should be viewed with caution. However, he felt that as the RTA bill is currently written, it protects Washtenaw County’s interests, because federal dollars will still go to Washtenaw. Right now it looks like it’s moving in a productive way. He ventured that the community needs to be mindful, but not paralyzed with fear.

Transit Agreement: Deliberations – Initial Commentary

As early as during the council’s communications time toward the start of the meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) raised the topic of the four-party agreement. He reprised his commentary from the previous council meeting on Feb. 21, 2012, when he complained that the AATA was not living up to terms of a 1974 agreement with the city to provide certain regular reports. [.pdf of Sept. 30, 1974 agreement]

By way of background, the 1974 agreement was signed in the context of litigation that was pending at the time between the city and the AATA. It was a lawsuit over the handling of $221,000 in funds dating from 1970. The AATA contended it was entitled to the money, while the city of Ann Arbor administration had claimed the money had been loaned to the AATA and needed to be repaid. So the city had subtracted that sum from the millage money collected by Ann Arbor for the AATA before the money was passed through to the AATA.

Kunselman had previously quoted from the agreement:

11. REPORTING To ensure that council is kept apprised of the AATA’s activities, the AATA will submit to Council at least quarterly a written report indicating its activities to include such key elements as levels of ridership, budget variances and other service level information.

Kunselman noted that the council had not received the specified quarterly reports. According to the agreement, Kunselman said, the council is also supposed to receive the AATA’s proposed budget for review by April each year.

At the council’s March 5 meeting, Kunselman returned to his point that the council is supposed to receive the AATA’s budget by April 1. Given that it’s now March, he said, he figured the council would have it by now.

He again complained that the AATA is sending commuter express buses to Chelsea and Canton, primarily empty in order to pick up commuters. Does that make sense? he asked, then answered his own question by saying it doesn’t make sense to him. Yet the AATA proposes to expand that kind of service, he said.

Transit Agreement: Unsuccessful Amendments – Summarized

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) proposed a series of amendments to the four-party agreement, one of which she asked Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) to introduce – the one that would increase Ann Arbor’s representation on the board of the new transit authority. Kunselman had indicated at a previous meeting that he’d wanted to see the agreement amended in that way.

The four amendments are presented here first as a complete group, for readers’ convenience. None of them were approved by a majority of the council [additions in italics and deletions indicated with line-through]. TA refers to transit authority.

8. Contingencies to Closing. The closing of the transfer of assets and assumption of liabilities by the NEW TA is contingent upon all of the following occurring on terms acceptable to all parties:
…
(d) In exchange for the mayor’s nomination with council confirmation, of seven eight directors of New TA’s board, …
…
Ann Arbor agrees … (iii) designate the New TA, as successor to AATA, as the contracting agency for use of the 2.5 mills tax levy under Section 8.18 of the Ann Arbor City Charter and allocated the tax levy in its entirely to AATA at the 2012 millage rate or as adjusted by State of Michigan statute less a municipal service charge of one percent (1%) of the annual millage at the time of the collection of taxes upon transfer from an Act 55 to an Act 196 authority. Said designation shall not become effective until AATA has submitted satisfactory evidence, which the City has independently confirmed, that the cost of the minimum level of service to the City under the NEW TA is equal to or greater than to the amount of millage funds levied and assigned to the NEW TA under this Article. After succession to the AATA, the NEW TA shall be required to maintain this level of services to millage funds relationship as a condition of continued assignment of the City tax levy.
…
g. A minimum participation level in the NEW TA of fifty percent (50%) of the jurisdictions within Washtenaw county.
…
12. Termination of Agreement.
…
d. Regional Transit Authority, Continuation of Agreement. The general purpose of the 4-Party Agreement is to address future governance, management, operations, and financial obligation before, during and at date of transition (“Transition Period”) from the existing services provided by AATA to a Act 196 NEW TA providing Authority-wide public transportation services. The parties acknowledge that Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) legislation may be adopted during this Transition Period which may suggest that changes to certain provisions of this Agreement are necessary or desirable to effectuate the purposes of the Agreement or that termination of the Agreement is appropriate. The parties agree that should RTA legislation be adopted prior to the completion of the transition to a NEW TA (e.g. Closing) they will, before the effective date of any RTA legislation, jointly review the provisions of this Agreement and mutually determine whether modifications are necessary or appropriate or it should be terminated.

Deliberations on each of these proposed amendments are described below.

Transit Agreement: Unsuccessful Amendment – Minimum Service Level

At the council’s Jan. 23, 2012 meeting, the council had already amended the agreement to include the requirement that the new transit authority provide “at a minimum, the continued level of services provided by its predecessor-in-interest, AATA.”

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) characterized her added language – that satisfactory evidence, independently confirmed, be provided on service levels – as a policy statement that would provide comfort. She said she appreciated the time that Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager and AATA board member, had spent with her. She indicated that Cooper felt that in terms of process and substance, the amendment could work.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) stated that, like it or not, Ann Arbor is the bellwether, and other communities are watching what Ann Arbor does. He then adduced an analogy to which he often appeals when the council is presented with a complex proposal. It’s pretty tightly wound, he said, and when you pull at one part, other things begin to unravel.

By way of background, at the council’s Nov. 16, 2009 meeting, Derezinski made similar remarks about the A2D2 zoning initiative that some councilmembers wanted to amend. From The Chronicle’s meeting report [which also reveals The Chronicle's affinity for the verb "adduced"]:

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) then adduced an analogy to which he’d return later in the deliberations: The zoning ordinance as proposed was tightly wound, and if they began picking it apart, it would unravel.

And commenting on the desire to amend the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP), at the council’s Feb. 1, 2010 meeting Derezinski offered similar sentiments. From The Chronicle’s meeting report:

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) also objected to the idea of pulling out a single line item in the CIP. He used a similar analogy to the one he had adduced in describing his colleagues’ attempts to amend a recent major rezoning initiative: It’s like pulling strings off of a tightly wound ball, with the risk that it would all unravel.

At the council’s March 5 meeting on the four-party transit agreement, Derezinski wondered what signal would be sent. The amendment has an easy appeal to those who live in Ann Arbor, he said. He stated that there is much to be lost if the step of the four-party agreement is not taken – the time is now, he said. Derezinski then followed another of his habits, by offering a literary quotation, saying, “There is a tide in the affairs of men. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;” [It's from Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar," and the speaker is Brutus, who's conveying to Cassius that it's important to act while the ratio of military forces is most advantageous.]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked whether Michael Ford and Mark Perry had had a chance to review the proposed amendment – Perry had not. Ford said he’d only had time to review the amendments briefly. The amendments were circulated for the first time to many of the interested parties during a recess in the council meeting that was called just before deliberations on the four-party agreement began. Ford indicated he did have some concerns about what’s being proposed. Briere said she was hoping for some insight into the economic forecasting model. Briere wanted to know if it were possible to pull out of the model what the current costs are.

Perry told Briere that the way the model was constructed was not that granular.

Responding to Ford’s comment, Lumm stated that in ensuring that the amount of service is greater than or equal to current levels, what she was asking for is not different from AATA’s resolution on the RTA, which it approved at its most recent board meeting.

Lumm then cited a document prepared by AATA service development manager Chris White. [.pdf of White's notes] White described legitimate concerns in a multi-county context for the RTA, which Lumm compared to the same concerns she had about the multi-jurisdictional situation internal to the county. She wanted to safeguard and protect the AATA. She said she’d shared a memo with the mayor a week ago and that her amendment is just addressing the concerns raised in the memo.

Ford indicated that the AATA has been working with Dennis Schornack, a special advisor to Gov. Rick Snyder on transportation, to ensure the AATA is protected. Ford said the AATA had also worked with the chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, Conan Smith. Ford stated that Lumm’s amendment sounded somewhat restrictive in terms of its flexibility in delivering the service.

From left: City councilmembers Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) had a question for Lumm: Given that this agreement is the product of significant input among a great array of stakeholders, have you shared this language with those stakeholders and what has their reaction been? Lumm appeared annoyed by the question, saying that what she’s proposing are amendments. “I’ve done a lot of homework,” she said. On the last occasion when the four-party agreement was amended, she said, amendments were floated at 10 p.m. at night. She said she’d sent the amendments to some people on Feb. 24. In response to that, she’d had various exchanges with staff, and she’d met with Eli Cooper, the city attorney, and the city administrator. That sort of review didn’t occur with other amendments, she said.

Hohnke then observed that Lumm seemed to have taken offense at his question, but contended that he didn’t intend to offend. So Hohnke turned to Cooper, who also serves on the board of the AATA. Hohnke noted that Lumm’s amendment would make the AATA responsible for ensuring that a precise level of service was achieved according to some metric. Hohnke ventured that it would be a complex undertaking, to ensure that three, four or five years from now, the service Ann Arbor is receiving relative to the funds generated is the correct relationship.

Cooper did not give the reply that Hohnke had seemed to invite, and explained instead that it would be relatively straightforward to measure service levels in any number of ways – including revenue miles or route miles. Cooper said the amendment speaks to providing satisfactory evidence. He felt it was relatively straightforward. Said Cooper, “The term ‘benchmark’ comes to mind.” Whatever the parameter is, it’s a relatively straightforward relationship. Hohnke insisted that while something might seem straightforward in theory, it might not prove to be straightforward in practice.

Hohnke said he felt that the protection offered in Lumm’s amendment is provided through Ann Arbor’s representation on the new transit authority’s board. Ann Arbor has a heavy weight on the board, Hohnke said. So he would not support Lumm’s amendment.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the language of the agreement [added by amendment at a previous meeting] already guarantees a minimum level of service. What was the expectation for guaranteeing it? She wanted to know if Lumm’s amendment was an added burden or an added clarification? Ford indicated that the AATA has said throughout the process that it would maintain the level of service in Ann Arbor. Briere wanted to know if the language changed anything in practice or only clarified what was already intended. [It was a distinction that eventually allowed Briere to persuade her council colleagues to approve two other amendments she brought forward later.]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he appreciated the intent of Lumm’s proposed amendment and said it provides value. But he declined to support the amendment – because future councils can ask their own questions and demand their own answers. He felt the amendment functionally seeks to bind councils in the future and seeks to do the work of the future new transit authority board. There are many opportunities to “bug out” of the process, Taylor said, and he did not want to bind future councils.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated she was disappointed with what she was hearing. It’s up to the council to define expectations, she said. She noted that Cooper had said it would be straightforward. Ann Arbor has a right to know that it will have the right to the same level of transportation service in the future. She did not understand the amendment as binding future councils, other than to require the council to look at that data. She said she’d support the amendment, because it’s a clarification.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) echoed the sentiments Derezinski had expressed in terms of the message it sent to other communities.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said he saw the amendment as a clarification. Citizens have gotten accustomed to the level of service and the current millage, he said. Citizens have never decided not to levy the millage, he said. [The transit tax in Ann Arbor is perpetual, so voters do not renew it on a regular basis.] Anglin said that a wise person would ask if Ann Arbor will get a better system or not.

Anglin was dismissive of the way that AATA had sought to increase ridership, saying that the way to increase ridership would, for example, be to go to Washtenaw Community College and ask how many people would take the bus if you ran it at a certain time. Anglin said the AATA needs to get Ann Arbor on board so that residents don’t feel hoodwinked. And the more the agreement can be clarified, he said, the more people will get on board.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) stated that the four-party agreement is not a binding agreement. She noted that if a service plan comes out that shows there’s going to be less service in Ann Arbor, and voters are asked to approve a millage with more money and less service, they won’t approve it. She saw no reason to layer things onto the agreement that will make potential partners wonder. It’s time for Ann Arbor to take a leadership position, and to let the conversation go forward, she said. She felt the amendment was micromanaging at a level that she’s not fond of.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) stated that the discussion is all over the place. He said that Ypsilanti’s 1 mill doesn’t pay for what they’re getting today. He compared the $9 million that Ann Arbor contributes to transportation to the roughly $280,000 that Ypsilanti’s millage generates. It’s a question about Ann Arbor tax dollars, he said. The vote could be put to the people, he said, but it’s not yet known which jurisdictions are going to opt in.

Kunselman returned to the political tactic he’s adopted of calling the four-party agreement “the mayor’s proposal.” The AATA board consists of the mayor’s nominees and the policy direction comes out of the mayor’s office, he said. Why is AATA pursuing incorporation under Act 196? he asked. As Kunselman appeared ready to continue, mayor John Hieftje, who chairs the council meetings, asked Kunselman to speak to the amendment the council was considering. Kunselman contended that other councilmembers were also not necessarily restricting their comments to the amendment, but indicated he was content to yield if he’d have another chance to speak later.

Outcome on minimum service level amendment: The amendment failed on a 5-6 vote, with support only from Anglin, Briere, Lumm, Kunselman and Higgins.

Transit Agreement: Unsuccessful Amendment – Review on RTA Passage

Next up was Lumm’s amendment that would require the four parties to reconsider the agreement if the state legislature passed the bill establishing a regional transit authority (RTA) for Washtenaw, Wayne, Macomb and Oakland counties.

Briere noted that a new transit authority for Washtenaw County [not the same as an RTA] could change both the governance and financial aspects of the current local system. She was concerned about what happens if broader RTA is enacted, or additional local funding options are available, after a countywide millage has been approved. Would it be the expectation that the new transit authority levy the entire amount? Briere noted the history of the Ann Arbor District Library, which has historically not always levied the entire amount that voters have approved.

Ford indicated that his understanding is that the AATA would not have to levy the full amount every year. Back and forth between Briere and Ford covered the possibility that the new RTA might decide to offer service to Detroit Metro airport, which the AATA itself has recently decided to establish. If the four-county RTA were to add that service, that could mean that AATA would not be in the business of offering service to the airport – but that would also mean a corresponding drop in expenses.

State Rep. Jeff Irwin came to the podium to say that Ford was characterizing the role of the RTA correctly. If the RTA were to step in and say it was going to pay for something along the I-94 corridor, it might have an impact on how AATA provides service on Washtenaw Avenue. But ultimately it will be the board of the new transit authority that makes that decision. If there is additional, non-millage funding available, or existing millage funds are not needed for a specific service, the board could roll back the millage, or perhaps decide to meet some other, unmet transportation need.

Lumm reviewed what the amendment does and said it’s important to speak with one voice about the RTA – a lot of people are speaking about the RTA, she said. She was alluding to the fact that Conan Smith, chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, had indicated in testimony made on Feb. 14 before the Michigan senate’s transportation committee that he’d be willing to see Washtenaw County give up one of its two board seats on the RTA, if that’s what it took to get the legislation passed.

Derezinski pointed out there there’s a lot of contingencies in the four-party agreement already. He wondered how hamstrung people should be. He weighed in against relying on another legislative body to act. Having served in Lansing, he said, a lot of things can come and go. He characterized it as too far-fetched to agree with.

Briere compared the effort to drafting a prenuptial agreement when you don’t trust the other person. But the four-party agreement is not marriage, so it doesn’t need a divorce, she said. She allowed that part of the reason she supports the agreement is she has “faith” that if the world changes (with the passage of RTA legislation), that the four parties would be back around the table anyway. She felt this particular amendment has gone down the road to mistrust instead of trust.

Outcome on required reconsideration upon passage of RTA legislation: The amendment failed on a 3-8 vote, with support only from Anglin, Lumm and Kunselman.

Transit Agreement: Unsuccessful Amendment – Minimum Participation Level

Next up was an amendment that required 50% of jurisdictions to participate in the new Act 196 authority as a condition to closing the deal. In introducing it, Lumm indicated that Eli Cooper said the requirement made sense, because it established a baseline for participation.

Briere ventured that in spirit, the proposed amendment was similar to an amendment that had been made at a previous meeting. That previous amendment provided for automatic termination of the agreement, if the city of Ann Arbor were the only participant in the new Act 196 authority. Briere ventured that the added language belongs in the section on automatic termination.

Smith stated that she found the 50% number entirely random. Even if half the townships participated, that could be the least amount of participation in terms of population, she said. If the minimum participation level talked about population centers or something similar, she might be inclined to support it.

Hieftje elicited from Ford the fact that after initial formation, and after the authority operated for a while, other jurisdictions could join, even after they’d initially opted out. Lumm expressed concern that a geographic district might get a seat on the board, even if only one jurisdiction in the district participates in the Act 196 authority.

Kunselman returned to a point he’s made before: Under Act 55 of 1963 (the statute under which AATA is currently incorporated), any jurisdiction can request to join. When Grand Rapids converted to Act 196, only the communities already receiving service opted in, he said. Lansing’s transit authority (Capitol Area Transportation Authority) is an Act 55 entity, and is serving all those that this community wants to have served, Kunselman contended. Under the proposal for Washtenaw County, Chelsea could opt in, without communities between Ann Arbor and Chelsea participating. That would mean running buses past communities along the way without stopping.

Briere drew out the fact that a minimum of 50% of municipalities in Washtenaw County would translate to 14.

Taylor said he’d decline to support the amendment. The four-party agreement is a framework for ongoing conversation about service and funding. If it’s of value for Ann Arbor, then the necessary steps would be taken to effect the closing. The amendment muddies the waters, Taylor said.

Invited to the podium to comment was Jeff Ammons, a Grand Rapids area attorney who’s been consulting for the AATA on legal issues surrounding transit authority governance. Ammons assured Kunselman that under the four-party agreement, “you’re not locked in.” Only if things happen in a certain way, does the closing happen. The initial formation of the Act 196 authority was simply an “empty shell.” After incorporation, they’d wait 30 days to see which jurisdictions opted out. At that point there’d be something on the map. At that point, the question would be: How does it look? Also with respect to the proposed service plan, if the council’s response is “That doesn’t look so good,” Ammons said, then that’s the end of the story, and the AATA would be back to the drawing board. The four-party agreement would just get the ball rolling, Ammons said.

Kunselman attempted to explore the history of the Grand Rapids Act 196 conversion with Ammons, which the two did briefly. Hieftje eventually encouraged the focus to return to the amendment.

Anglin noted that Lumm had indicated Cooper had been consulted on the question. Anglin said he liked the idea of setting a minimum threshold. To launch something, Anglin said, you need something with an enthusiastic start. Asked at the meeting to comment on the 50% minimum participation, Cooper appeared to put some distance between himself and the amendment. He stated that it had not been put to him as an open-ended question. He allowed that 50% seems like a reasonable critical mass.

Outcome on amendment requiring 50% minimum participation: The amendment failed on a 4-7 vote, with support only from Anglin, Lumm, Kunselman and Higgins.

Transit Agreement: Unsuccessful Amendment – Ann Arbor Majority

Kunselman put forward the amendment giving Ann Arbor eight of the 15 proposed board seats for the new transit authority. Ann Arbor, he said, would have the majority of the population and money in the new authority. He allowed that the amendment would not be in the interest of township politicians who want to make sure Ann Arbor doesn’t control the new authority.

Smith ventured that even with seven of 15 seats, if Ann Arbor wanted to accomplish some significant change in service, they’d need to talk to only one other party on the board. Ann Arbor could talk to Ypsilanti and gang up on the rest of the board. Ann Arbor would need only one other “conspirator,” she said. She felt that Ann Arbor is well-represented, but not to the point of scaring off the other participants. Politically it’s important to maintain a balance, she said.

Hohnke said he shared Smith’s view. He asked Kunselman to think about the view of other participants in the new authority. Kunselman had taken a conservative perspective on protecting Ann Arbor’s interests, Hohnke said, adding that he understands that conservative inclination. But the goal, Hohnke said, is to make some progress and find ways to collaborate countywide. Seven seats provides for very strong representation for Ann Arbor, he concluded.

Lumm said she’d support an Ann Arbor majority on the board. Under any funding plan, Ann Arbor will provide more than half the funding. She pointed out that the council had just voted down all the amendments that would conserve Ann Arbor’s interest. Adding an Ann Arbor seat to the board would be a good thing, she said, to ensure that there’s taxation with representation.

Briere told her colleagues that over the past “interminable” weeks some of the consistent messages she’d heard were: I don’t feel I’m represented by the AATA board; I don’t feel the AATA board listens to me; I want a better transit system; I want a board consisting of Ann Arbor appointees.

Standing is councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1). Margie Teall (Ward 4) is in the foreground, with Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) farthest from the camera.

In her conversations with constituents, Briere reported, they’d talked about the fact that the area currently served by AATA includes townships, and there are people who don’t live in Ann Arbor on the board [e.g., David Nacht] who represent a view on the board about a need for service in those areas. In the future, Briere said, she imagined the mayor might focus on making appointments to the new Act 196 board only to represent Ann Arbor’s interests, because townships will have their own representatives. She noted that the seven Ann Arbor appointees will need to cooperate internally – and getting seven people in Ann Arbor to agree on anything can be difficult, she said.

Derezinski said he would not support the amendment because of the signals it sends. One way to defeat something is to kick it down the road, he noted, and another way is to put in things that you know other communities won’t support. He cited the comment made by Norman Herbert at the start of the deliberations: Transit helps everyone, but it helps Ann Arbor the most.

Taylor also said he wouldn’t support adding an Ann Arbor seat to the board. It’s in Ann Arbor’s interest to be collaborative, he said. Ann Arbor should lead the Act 196 board not through dominance but rather through persuasion. Demanding a majority of seats is at odds with collaboration, he said.

Higgins noted that if Ann Arbor already has seven members, it can already dominate. If it’s all about collaboration, why isn’t the formula one member per jurisdiction? Either we weight it or we don’t, she said. Kunselman said he was having a hard time with this proposal because it’s creating an inequity. He said the AATA’s transit policy is to subsidize Canton and Chelsea, for example, but it’s giving Ypsilanti just a 9-month contract.

Briere said that in Grand Rapids, some of the different jurisdictions in the Act 196 authority have different millage rates. She also noted that Lansing has people sitting on boards in disproportionate amounts. Lansing and East Lansing don’t dominate the board of the Capitol Area Transit Authority, she said. If we’re asking people to support mass transit, Briere said, we need to give them a reasonable voice. She liked Higgins’ idea of disentangling the money from the representation. She said she had a problem with the idea that the wealthy can speak louder.

Higgins asked Ford how the 15-member board was determined, with Ann Arbor receiving 7 seats. Ford deferred to state representative Jeff Irwin. Irwin said he’d taken it upon himself with Terri Blackmore – executive director of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) – to survey community leaders. They’d met with folks from the townships and other transportation service providers in the county. In the end, he said, they’d realized that there’s a million different ways to cut up this pie. They’d put out some suggestions about what some “rough justice” looks like.

One representative per jurisdiction doesn’t seem to work, Irwin said. Basing it just on population didn’t respect the additional financial contribution of Ann Arbor. Ann Arbor has roughly 1/3 the population of the county but would be contributing more resources. They’d wanted to respect that with some additional representation. They’d concluded that Ann Arbor should get about half. Given a half-and-half deal, it’d make the most sense to go with 7 out of 15, so that as the plan was pitched to other communities, they wouldn’t feel Ann Arbor is dominating.

Outcome on amendment giving a majority of board seats to Ann Arbor: The amendment failed on a 3-8 vote, with support only from Anglin, Lumm and Kunselman.

Transit Agreement: Successful Amendments

Two amendments put forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) were ultimately successful. An attempt by Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) to strike the phrase “Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary,” failed. Briere’s two amendments were as follows [additions in italics, deletions with line-through]:

7. Full Faith and Credit. The parties agree that Washtenaw County does not by virtue of its action in creating the New TA, provide its full faith and credit for any project undertaken by the New TA. The parties further agree that the Cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti shall not be required to, and do not by virtue of execution of this Agreement, pledge their respective full faith and credit for any project assumed by the NEW TA at Closing or undertaken by the New TA thereafter when operational.
…
9. Ann Arbor Approval. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, if voters in the City of Ann Arbor fail to approve the NEW TA Act 196 funding source at any interim vote prior to December 31, 2014, regardless of whether it is approved or not by the other voting jurisdictions, then the City shall have the right to, but is not required to (i) withdraw from this Agreement without penalty; (ii) veto any attempted termination by AATA of the AATA-City operation agreement; and (iii) refuse to designate and/or assign its millage under Section 3(a). If Ann Arbor voters fail to approve the NEW TA Act 196 funding source before December 31, 2014, regardless of whether it is approved or not by the other voting jurisdictions, then the City shall withdraw from this agreement without penalty, shall veto any attempted termination by AATA of the AATA-City operation agreement, and shall refuse to designate and/or assign its millage under Section 3(a).

In broad strokes, the amendments won support based on the fact that other councilmembers were persuaded that the amendments did not change the substance of the agreement, but merely clarified the existing intent of the language.

Outcome on Briere’s amendments: The council approved both of Briere’s amendments. The amendment on full faith and credit won unanimous approval. The amendment on voter approval and withdrawal from the agreement passed on a 9-2 vote, with dissent from Derezinski and Teall.

Transit Agreement: Council’s Concluding Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wanted to know what the future is for a high-capacity north-south connector within the city of Ann Arbor.

City councilmember Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

She said she’d advocated for such a system for 13 years and wanted to know why there was a zero on the funding line for that project. Michael Benham, AATA strategic planner, told Higgins it reflects that the project is being deferred to focus on those services that can be provided just with local funding. He told Higgins that local millage dollars would not be allocated, but state and federal dollars could be put toward it. An application has been made for preliminary engineering, he said. Higgins was content that the connector not being tabled and that it’s still a recognized need.

By way of background to illustrate how long the concept of the connector described by Higgins has been around, a series of articles from the Ann Arbor District Library’s Old News archive documents that the idea of a high-capacity, elevated guideway connector between the University of Michigan north campus, central campus, and the Amtrak station was conceived in the early 1970s. [Oct. 30, 1973][Nov. 2, 1973] [Dec. 6, 1973]

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) expressed concern that approval of the four-party agreement would mean approval of Fuller Road Station, which the council had not done. [See Chronicle coverage: "UM, Ann Arbor Halt Fuller Road Project"] He felt that the transit plan incorporates Fuller Road Station without a vote.

Benham explained that the Fuller Road Station project is in the five-year plan as a program, but there’s nothing that the financial advisory group has recommended that endorses the project. Anglin stated that the AATA is putting forward uses at the site at Fuller Road for a transit station but the city council has never taken a vote on that. Benham told Anglin that nothing precludes the council from voting on that issue. The reason the Fuller Road Station is included is that it’s a project that’s desired by many people, he said.

Benham indicated that the AATA would be publishing the detailed five-year service program in late April or May.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) expressed her thanks to those who’d worked on the issue and said that so far, AATA has had a grueling marathon journey – but it’s just the first 5 miles. She said she’s heard consistently from emails and at the podium that Ann Arbor and greater Washtenaw County want a higher level of transportation service – it’s good now, but not good enough.

She said it’s time to vote on the four-party agreement and to vote on it in the affirmative. She hoped that her colleagues could put aside their concerns about the way the agreement had arrived at its current form. “This is what’s in front of us,” she said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he appreciated the optimism expressed by Smith, but maintained it’s his responsibility to do due diligence. He compared improving the transportation system to homebuilding – he wouldn’t tear down a house, when he can build an addition, he said. He described the approach that the AATA is taking as not the best way, but rather the most complex way. He ticked through a variety of other options for creating an Act 196 authority or retaining an Act 55 authority. He read aloud extensively from a document that he said he’d found on the AATA’s website, which outlines the comparative advantages and disadvantages of Act 196 and Act 55.

As Kunselman continued to read, mayor John Hieftje pointed out that Kunselman had been speaking for seven minutes. Kunselman challenged the idea that there was a time limit – but Hieftje noted that the council rules provide for one. [It's five minutes for the first speaking turn on a topic and three minutes for the second speaking turn.]

Kunselman said that if the proposal were for the city of Ann Arbor to incorporate an Act 196 authority, he’d be on board. But he objected to what he characterized as turning everything over to the county. He contended that Washtenaw County would “control” the articles of incorporation for the new transit authority.

Assistant city attorney Mary Fales was asked to comment and she noted that Section 3.04 of the articles of incorporation identifies the role of the county:

The Washtenaw County Clerk/Register shall endorse these Articles of Incorporation after their adoption by the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners and the “New” Authority shall publish them once in a newspaper of general circulation throughout the County on a date at least 10 days, but not more than 30 days, after their adoption.

As far as amending the articles after their adoption and filing, Fales noted that it would require a 2/3 vote of the new transit authority’s board.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he’d support the four-party agreement – because he wanted the option of talking about it some more. He responded to Kunselman’s frequent refrain that it’s the mayor’s proposal by saying that it was brought forward by Michael Ford and those who worked on it for the AATA.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) echoed what Hohnke said, noting it’s just the initial step and that he’s glad the council is taking that first step.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she regretted there’s not more of an appetite to tighten up the language. But she said a majority of the council felt it’s not in Ann Arbor’s interest that Ann Arbor have a majority on the board or that 50% is a reasonable critical mass for minimum participation.

Kunselman then directed a question to Hieftje asking him why, because Hieftje brought it forward, was Hieftje suggesting that Ann Arbor turn this authority over to the county? Hieftje indicated that he’d respond later as to why he would be supporting the four-party agreement.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he was delighted to support the four-party agreement. Responding to Lumm’s interpretation of the financial task force’s message that things should be put on hold, he said he’d heard the financial task force say only that the funding be put on hold. The message he’d heard from the task force was that the council should forge ahead. About the agreement, Taylor said, it doesn’t bind the council to move forward, but only to do so in a particular manner if they decide to move forward. It provides full authority for Ann Arbor to “bug out” if AATA doesn’t provide full value.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) highlighted among the various reasons to support the agreement her desire to ensure that residents get the chance to vote.

When it came time for Hieftje to weigh in, he said he thought the council had been presented with a financial plan. The task force had put a number on the amount required, but had not said what the methodology is going to be. It would still require a vote of the residents. The plan had been developed over a long period of time, with over 70 public meetings. It wasn’t something Ford dreamed up, he said.

Hieftje pointed to the support that had been expressed by the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber of Commerce and the Michigan League of Conservation Voters. Hieftje drew an analogy of the four-party agreement to another decision the council had made – on the agreement of all but one councilmember [Anglin] to build the underground parking garage. Hieftje said Ann Arbor wants to be a community that continues to grows jobs.

Kunselman then challenged the mayor to answer Kunselman’s previous question. Hieftje said he’d just done that.

Outcome on four-party transit agreement: The agreement was approved on a 7-4 vote, with dissent from Anglin, Lumm, Kunselman, and Higgins.

Gott Nomination to AATA Board

One of the mayoral nominations that the council was asked to confirm at its March 5 meeting was for the appointment of University of Michigan planner Sue Gott to the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.

Councilmembers generally vote on confirmation of mayoral nominations to board and commissions “all in one go” in the same way that consent agenda items are voted. And in the same way that individual consent agenda items are sometimes pulled out for separate consideration (which can be done at the request of any councilmember), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wanted to separate out Gott’s nomination from some others and to request a roll-call vote on that.

Higgins said she had some concerns with a University of Michigan employee being appointed to the board, because UM contracts for services with the AATA, and because of the weight that UM has in the community. She felt the appointment could be better used for other citizens in the community.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) added that Gott would be the second UM employee serving on the AATA board, to which mayor John Hieftje replied, “I’m not aware of that.” Kunselman countered with the name of the other UM employee who serves on the board, Anya Dale. By way of background, Dale was employed by Washtenaw County at the time of her appointment to the AATA on May 17, 2010 – which earned her a dissenting vote from Sabra Briere (Ward 1). But at least as early as mid-June 2011 it was publicly known that Dale would be leaving her post with Washtenaw County to take a position in the UM sustainability office. Dale’s position within UM is not particularly high level.

Also useful by way of background is the fact that the AATA board member whom Gott is replacing was a relatively high-level administrator, Rich Robben, executive director for plant operations.

Kunselman then went on to point out to Hieftje that when the vacancy came up, Kunselman had suggested appointing someone to the AATA board from one of the jurisdictions with which the AATA has a purchase-of-service (POS) arrangement. By way of background, that suggestion had come at the city council’s Jan. 23, 2012 meeting. That type of appointment, ventured Kunselman, would perhaps start the collaborative effort for countywide transit. Kunselman noted that Hieftje had responded to his suggestion on that occasion by questioning whether it would be legal to have an elected official from a township serve on the AATA board. But Kunselman noted that David Nacht (who currently serves on the AATA board) was originally a Scio Township trustee around the time he was first appointed to the AATA board.

Kunselman stressed that Gott is a wonderful person, but said he shared Higgins’ concern that the AATA board needs a little more breadth, and the communities contracting with AATA for service have been wanting a seat on the board, he said.

Hieftje responded to Kunselman by saying that Ypsilanti is participating in the framework of the as-yet unincorporated Act 196 (U196) board, and is pretty happy they’re being represented. With Gott’s base of planning knowledge, Hieftje said, it’s appropriate that she have a seat on the ATA board at a time when plans are being made for the future. Gott has lived in the community for a very long time, Hieftje said.

Briere then asked Hieftje to help explain which skills Gott would bring to the AATA board. Hieftje said that Gott had a breadth of knowledge that covers such a wide range – she’s familiar with UM plans. He ventured that if you read her resume you’d see a lot of experience in transportation planning.

Councilmember Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) echoed what Hieftje had said, noting that he’d worked with Gott on some issues with University of Michigan in his capacity as a city planning commissioner. Hieftje then said that people on city council also work for UM and he doesn’t see a conflict of interest – an allusion to Kunselman’s employment with UM as an energy liaison.

Kunselman countered that there’s a big difference between being an elected versus an appointed official. Kunselman then said he knew Gott from “way way back” and would support her nomination. But he lamented the fact that the opportunity had not been taken to appoint someone who represented an entity that has a purchase-of-service agreement.

Outcome: Sue Gott’s appointment to the AATA board was unanimously confirmed.

Direction on Medical Marijuana

On the council’s agenda was a resolution that would direct the city attorney, Stephen Postema, to “delay all enforcement activities against medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation facilities except for claims that they violate Section 5:50.1(3) of the City Code [zoning regulations], until the Council amends or rejects amendments to the zoning and licensing ordinances for medical marijuana.”

The resolution reflects an ongoing tension between the city’s medical marijuana licensing board and the city attorney’s office.

That tension between the board and the city attorney’s office is reflected in a statement sent by members of the board to city councilmembers on March 2, which reads in part: “[The city attorney's office] has been aggressively trying to shut [dispensaries] down while we actively try to license them.” The statement goes on to point out that a representative from the city attorney’s office had been present at all of the board’s meetings and that the board’s recommendations had been reported to the city council. But after that, the city attorney’s office had sent out new letters to all dispensaries requesting them to provide information about how their business operates. [.pdf of entire statement from Ann Arbor's medical marijuana licensing board to the Ann Arbor city council]

The part of the city code called out for continued enforcement in the resolution, Section 5:50.1(3), specifies the zones in the city where medical marijuana businesses may be located. From the code: “Medical marijuana dispensaries shall only be located in a district classified pursuant to this chapter as D, C, or M, or in PUD districts where retail is permitted in the supplemental regulations. Medical marijuana cultivation facilities shall only be located in a district classified pursuant to this chapter as C, M, RE, or ORL.” [.pdf of Section 5:50.1(3)]

The resolution on the March 5 agenda stemmed from a meeting of the city’s medical marijuana licensing board on Feb. 28 that was convened in response to concerns by several dispensary owners, who had received letters dated Feb. 24 from the city attorney’s office. The letters make specific inquiries into several aspects of the business model of dispensaries – in order to assess whether they are in compliance with Michigan’s Medical Marijuana Act. Compliance with the MMMA is a requirement for issuance of a medical marijuana license, and recipients of the letters have license applications pending with the city. Although the legal position of the city attorney appears to be that it’s possible for a dispensary to operate in compliance with the MMMA, no explication of what that model would entail has been set forth.

Among the questions being posed to all dispensaries in the letters are the following: “Does any person or entity deliver marijuana to [Dispensary Name]? If so, does [Dispensary Name] ever pay, donate, or in any way give money to the person or entity who delivers the marijuana or to anyone else? If so, to whom is the money paid, donated, or given and how much?” [.pdf of set of letters]

The city council resolution was sponsored on the agenda by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who is the city council’s representative to the medical marijuana licensing board. After its Jan. 31, 2012 meeting, the board submitted a required report to the council with recommendations on the issuance of the first dispensary licenses and revisions to the city’s medical marijuana ordinance. The report recommends to the council that 10 dispensaries be issued licenses.

The city council enacted zoning and licensing regulations for medical marijuana businesses at its June 20, 2011 meeting.

The resolution requests that the council decide on recommendations for amendments to the city’s medical marijuana ordinance before June 18, 2012.

The council did not reach the item on its agenda until around 12:30 a.m. Briere ventured that the item was complex and deserved the council’s attention and its “ability to stay awake,” so she moved for a postponement, a move that was met with consensus without any deliberation.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone consideration of the item to its March 19 meeting.

Liquor License Non-Renewals

The council considered a resolution with a recommendation that liquor licenses for two businesses – Dream Nite Club and Rush Street – not be renewed this year. The vote was based on the recommendation of the council’s liquor license review committee. For Dream Nite Club, the non-renewal recommendation is based on maintenance of a nuisance and patron conduct. For Rush Street, the issue relates to non-payment of $8,040.42 in taxes.

Blue dots are locations of liquor licensees. Note that the map includes licensees of all categories, not just those that have licenses permitting on-premise consumption. (Image links to dynamic map, that allows zooming and clicking and the like.)

The council’s resolution and subsequent notification of the two businesses meets the requirement of Chapter 109, Section 9:79 of the city code – that a business be notified of the council’s intent to object to the renewal of its liquor license by the Michigan Liquor Control Commission, and that a hearing be convened to afford a business an opportunity to plead its case. [.pdf of Chapter 109 Section 9:79]

Hearings for the two businesses were set for March 19, which is the soonest they could be held – 10 days after notification. The hearing officer will be Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who chairs the city council’s liquor license review committee. Later that same day, on March 19, the city council will need to make a final recommendation to the MLCC. The MLCC’s deadline is March 31.

The council’s resolution was based on the recommendation of its liquor license review committee, which met on Feb. 23, 2012 to conclude its annual review of licenses in the city.

During the brief city council deliberations, Derezinski characterized the resolution as simply reflecting the recommendation of the liquor license review committee. He stressed that there was a time element, due to the time of notice that had to be provided to the licensees.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5), who also serves on the review committee with Derezinski and Jane Lumm (Ward 2), asked him to explain the reason that the two establishments were recommended for non-renewal. Derezinski clarified for the council that one related to police reports and patron conduct (Dream Nite Club) while the other related to non-payment of taxes (Rush Street).

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to recommend non-renewal of two liquor licenses and to set the hearings for March 19.

Greenbelt Land

The council considered a resolution authorizing the use of $82,576 from its open space and parkland preservation millage to acquire development rights to the Newton Farm property – 58.85 acres in Ann Arbor Township. The city’s contribution will be paired with an equal amount from Ann Arbor Township and matched with a federal farm and ranchland protection program grant of $158,676 for a deal worth a total of $323,828.

Deliberations on the item were limited to a comment by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who characterized it as a strong proposal. It’s strong, she said, because it meets the goals of the greenbelt program, the city’s share is less than one-third of the cost, the township is matching the city’s share, local dollars are leveraging federal funds, and it’s adjacent to other properties protected by the greenbelt program. She said she hoped that future greenbelt acquisitions would be similarly structured.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the acquisition of development rights on the Newton Farm property.

W. Kingsley House

The council considered a resolution approving the purchase of two parcels on the northern edge of downtown Ann Arbor, at 215 and 219 W. Kingsley. The purchase price is $185,000. That will clear the way to the demolition of a long-vacant house, considered by many to be an eyesore. The money for the purchase was awarded as a pre-disaster mitigation grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which the city council accepted through a resolution passed at its Nov. 15, 2010 meeting.

The parcels at 215-19 W. Kingsley are outlined in red. Blue area is the floodway. Green area is the floodplain. Image is a screen shot from the joint Washtenaw County/City of Ann Arbor flood mapping website. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

The delay in the purchase of the property was due in part to the owner’s initial reluctance to sell the property to the city at the appraised price.

After the city acquires the land, the house on one of the parcels will be demolished and a rain garden will be installed, using stormwater utility funds as part of the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP). The parcels are located in the FEMA floodway as determined by the new map given final approval by the city council the same night the purchase was approved. [.jpg image of parcels and floodway]

The city’s public art commission, at its Nov. 30, 2011 meeting, approved the new rain garden as a project in which to include public art, establishing a project budget between $20,000 and $27,000.

W. Kingsley House: Deliberations

Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who sponsored the item on the agenda, led off deliberations by saying that she was pretty happy to be able to bring the item forward. The house had been vacant for 12-14 years, the basement has been crumbling in for some time, the garage has been set on fire, but was finally removed, she said. The house has been boarded up for around eight years.

Smith described it as a delicate balance between private property rights and dealing with nuisances. She mentioned that with the fund established at the council’s Feb. 21, 2012 meeting, now the city has ways to deal with such cases. Smith noted that the money being used for the acquisition comes from FEMA money – which is possible because the property is in the floodway.

Given that Jerry Hancock, the city’s stormwater and floodplain manager, had remained at the meeting well after midnight to field any questions, Smith invited him to the podium to describe for the council what was special about the acquisition and demolition of the property. Hancock described the history of the city’s efforts with the property as starting with an enforcement action through the city attorney’s office because of the nuisance it posed. Then the city learned it was eligible for FEMA money because of the city’s flood mitigation plan that was approved in 2007. The city felt that pursuing FEMA funding might be a more palatable enforcement path, so an application was made in 2008.

Like everything associated with the project, Hancock said, the application has taken longer than expected. FEMA issues held things up and it took a while to get clear title. The grant from FEMA covers 75% of the cost, he said, and the rest will come from the stormwater fund. The property also needed to be deed-restricted, he said – because that’s a FEMA requirement.

Instead of filling in the basement, Hancock continued, it was felt that some flood storage capacity could be established there. So a project on was put on the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP) to create a rain garden. The city hired Patrick Judd of the Ann Arbor-based Conservation Design Forum, who had also worked on the landscaping at the new city hall plaza. Part of Judd’s proposal was to coordinate with Ann Arbor’s public art commission. So, Hancock said, there will not only be a rain garden but also a public art installation at the site. Smith ventured that there would be a neighborhood block party there when it’s done.

Questions from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) drew out the fact that the council’s resolution that night was just for the acquisition. The money had already been accepted and the rain garden did not require city council approval. Responding to a question from Kunselman, Hancock explained that a few more steps remain before a contractor can be hired to perform the demolition – a grading plan and a survey needs to be in place before it can be bid out. He estimated 4-6 weeks before a contractor would be lined up.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) ventured that it’s going to be good to drive by a nicer-looking site. He asked about other sites that might be eligible for FEMA money for demolition. Hancock responded by saying there’s only one other site on which the city has moved forward with FEMA applications: 721 N. Main St., a city-owned property.

The city had received approval of a grant to remove two storage structures in the floodway on the 721 N. Main site, but that grant has been delayed because the city’s All-Hazard Plan has expired. The city’s emergency manager, along with the city attorney’s office, is updating that, Hancock explained. Once that All-Hazard Plan is complete, the city will be able to move ahead with that grant. However, no other sites besides the two storage structures at 721 N. Main have been identified for FEMA applications, Hancock said.

Outcome: The council unanimously authorized the acquisition of the West Kingsley properties for demolition.

New Flood Map

The council considered a resolution giving final approval to an ordinance change that will adopt a new Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the city. Initial approval had been given by the council at its Feb. 21, 2012 meeting.

By way of background on those maps, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) makes flood insurance available for properties in participating communities – Ann Arbor is a participant. If a building has a federally-backed mortgage and it’s located within the “1% annual change floodplain” (previously called the “100-year floodplain) then flood insurance is required.

Ann Arbor’s most recent FIRM dates from Jan. 2, 1992. In 2004, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) began a map revision process for Washtenaw County. Various drains in the city were re-analyzed, using updated data, and on July 27, 2007, FEMA issued preliminary maps. After required public review, appeal and revisions, on Oct. 3, 2011, FEMA issued a letter with a final determination, indicating that the new maps would become effective on April 3, 2012. [.pdf of Oct. 3, 2011 letter] [.pdf of Dec. 20, 2011 reminder letter]

Compared to the previous 1992 maps, 321 parcels are no longer analyzed as lying within a floodplain. However, 116 parcels that were previously not analyzed as in a floodplain are now in a floodplain, according to the new maps. Building-wise, 452 structures are no longer analyzed as lying within a floodplain, while 88 buildings are now in a floodplain, according to the new maps. [See also Chronicle coverage: "Column: Digital Information Flood."]

During the public hearing on the new map only one person spoke. Thomas Partridge called on the council to go beyond this ordinance to enact construction guidelines and restrictions in Ann Arbor to give adequate protection to residents from private companies involved in construction activities that flagrantly violate noise ordinances, worker protections, and threaten health and safety of pedestrians and drivers.

The council did not deliberate on the new flood map, having entertained some discussion when the ordinance was given initial approval at the council’s previous meeting.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to adopt the new flood map.

Park Renovations

The council considered two major contracts for renovations of city parks.

The first, for $893,030 with RMD Holdings, covers the renovation of softball and baseball diamonds at Veterans Memorial Park, Southeast Area Park, and West Park. The second, with Fonson Inc. for $786,536, will cover renovation of roads and parking lots, build paths and improve stormwater management at Buhr Park and Cobblestone Farm. Both contracts also include an additional 10% contingency.

The projects were discussed by the city’s park advisory commission and recommended for approval – the Buhr/Cobblestone project on Feb. 28, 2012, and the ballfield renovations on Jan. 24, 2012.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who is one of two city council representatives to the park advisory commission, noted that PAC was particularly excited about this project. The ballfields have been an area of particular concern. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) remarked that anybody who’s been around the fields knows how much use they get when the weather is nice. It’s a nice step forward for those who use those amenities, he said.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5), the other council appointee to PAC, said the public should know that the city will receive more revenue down the road, because more teams will return to using the fields, given that the ballfield renovations are in the city’s Park and Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan. Sandi Smith (ward 1) confirmed with Taylor that commencement of the work will wait until after the summer season ends.

On the Buhr Park renovations, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said Buhr Park is just down the street from him, so he was pleased to see potholes in the entry road taken care of.

Outcome: On separate votes, the two park renovation items were unanimously approved.

Land Use Buffer Changes

The council considered a change in landscaping and land use buffer requirements in the city code.

The first change would restrict some requirements that have been added recently just to those plans that require city planning commission or city council approval: (1) providing landscaped islands for every 15 parking spaces; and (2) providing bioretention areas in 50% of the interior landscaping areas. Administrative amendments to existing plans would not trigger the requirements.

The second change involves requirements to provide buffers between parcels with conflicting land uses. Recent amendments added requirements that properties in R3 (townhouse dwelling) and R4 (multiple-family dwelling) districts include a buffer along the side and rear property lines if the parcel is immediately adjacent to a property that is principally used or zoned as residential.

The amendment considered on March 5 would remove the R4C zoning district from the recently-added land use buffer requirement. The rationale for exempting the R4C sites from the requirement is characterized in the staff memo as due to the fact that the R4C sites “are typically located on small lots in older neighborhoods near downtown. Most R4C lots are too small to accommodate a 15 foot wide conflicting land use buffer along the entire side and rear property lines.”

Land Use Buffer Changes: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said that when she saw the item on the agenda, she noticed how dependent the changes were on the R4C area. She noted that the R4C zoning district study committee has not yet reported its work, so she had some concerns about protections being removed for residents who live in such areas. Why does the ordinance need to be done tonight, instead of waiting? asked Briere.

Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city, explained that the R4C item was not urgent, and might be delayed. But for the other items, she suggested it would be useful to move ahead. Administrative amendments to site plans were causing a bioswale requirement to be triggered, she said. She allowed that a petitioner can still go to the planning commission to get an exemption, but that seemed like an extra, unnecessary step.

As an example, Rampson gave a Glacier Hills nursing home construction project. The ordinance would have required the nursing home, in light of a small modification to the site plan, to take 50% of the landscape islands and convert them to bioswales. She ventured that if the council wanted to remove the R4C buffer requirement from the amendment package and move the other two amendments forward, the staff would prefer that.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who serves as the city council’s representative to the planning commission, supported Rampson’s remarks. The review of the R4C/R2A zoning area has taken a long time due to the amount of the public input that has been included, he said. Rather than cut off that public input, the planning commission had decided to delay that report. Derezinski said that hopefully within the next couple of weeks, that report would be done. About the R4C/R2A review committee’s work, he said that issues like the landscape buffer are the “grist of what we were dealing with.” He said that in terms of the final recommendations, nobody got everything, but everybody got something.

Alluding to the delay in the R4A/R4C report, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that he had paid attention to the R4A/R4C study report because the council hasn’t yet received it. But he asked if a maximum lot size within R4C was within the proposed recommendations.

By way of background, Kunselman has raised the point of placing a maximum lot size on R4C parcels in the past. From The Chronicle’s report on the council’s Oct. 24, 2011 meeting, in the context of deliberations on establishing a historic district in an area that includes R4C parcels:

Kunselman noted the issue certainly has a long history. He said he’d recently visited Chicago, where he’d seen a neighborhood that had some zoning in place that prevented the accumulation of parcels. He asked if it were possible to pass a zoning ordinance that specified a maximum lot size. The answer from assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald was: Yes, it’s possible.

Kunselman said he had no problem having a historic district study committee, but he was also looking to the existing R4C/R2A zoning district study committee. If that committee doesn’t take action, then he’d initiate a change in the zoning code to establish a maximum lot size. He said he’d hate to have something like City Place on Hamilton Place [the next street to the east from Fifth Avenue, where City Place is likely to be built]. In the Chicago neighborhood, he said, it was possible to have modern single-family homes right next to the old ones. The city has to allow for rebuilding, he said. He was open to learning and listening like [Christopher] Taylor, but concluded by saying that the council needed to move in some way.

In response to Kunselman’s question on March 5, Rampson said that the R4C committee had talked about reducing the possibilities for combining parcels. Kunselman asked for details on how that reduction of possibilities would work. Rampson said she did not know – no zoning language proposal is included in the report. What’s described in the report are concepts. The only numbers specified are in places where there was sufficient consensus. She indicated that the next step for the report would be submission to the planning commission.

So Kunselman ventured that what he was asking for won’t be in the report, which Rampson confirmed. The committee spent a lot of time getting to what the concepts are that people agree on, she said. She suggested that the council would want to spend some time going through the report, because it’s quite complex.

Kunselman ascertained that there’s sentiment on the committee to put constraints on combining lots. If that’s going to be months and months and months away from implementation, he wondered what would prevent another project like City Place from happening. [The controversial City Place project on South Fifth Avenue had combined seven parcels to create a single project.] Rampson allowed that nothing would prevent the kind of combination of lots like City Place. She characterized the R4C committee work as very deliberative. She expected that the committee’s report would be in the city council’s meeting information packet sometime in April at same time the planning commission looks at it during a working session.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) suggested postponing the ordinance revision for two weeks. Asked by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) why she wanted to postpone it, Higgins said she would just like to review it further.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone, until March 19, all the landscape ordinance revisions, including one that would eliminate the need for a landscape buffer for R4C areas.

Off-Street Parking Regs

The council also considered changes to its off-street parking code.

The first change reduces the exceptions allowed for front open space parking for sites that have more than one front lot line. Currently, a site with three frontages can have a parking area for two of the frontages – between the building face and the public right of way. The code revision would limit parking areas to a single frontage.

The second change would require that any new driveways serving drive-up windows in the front open space of a site be no wider than 12 feet and provide a raised sidewalk with bollards where the sidewalk crosses a drive-up lane. The change is meant to improve pedestrian safety.

The third change relates to minimum off-street parking requirements in the downtown districts, zoned D1 and D2. Developers currently have the option of making a payment in lieu of providing the required parking. The revision to the ordinance would add the option of signing a contract for parking permits in the city’s public parking system.

The council did not deliberate on the item before voting to give it initial approval.

As a change to the city’s ordinances, the revisions will need to be given a second and final approval by the city council at a subsequent meeting after a public hearing.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give initial approval to the new off-street parking regulations.

Dexter Avenue Improvements

The council was asked to consider authorizing an agreement with Michigan Department of Transportation for the Dexter Avenue improvements project in the amount of $2,353,425. That amount corresponds to the amount provided by the Federal Surface Transportation Fund (STPU). The project, which involves reconstruction of the street, as well as necessary utility improvements, has a total cost of about $6 million, which will be divided as follows: STPU, $2,353,425; city street millage fund, $1,407,850; city storm water fund, $1,360,635; water fund, $881,000; special assessments, $18,590. The special assessments on property owners were given final city council approval at its Dec. 6, 2011 meeting.

During deliberations, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) praised the work of the city staff in seeking the participation of the community.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) questioned how bike lanes could be added if the curb-to-curb width did not change. The explanation from project manager Elizabeth Rolla was that the current lanes are extra wide.

Rolla also indicated that after opening the bids, the cost was about $900,000 lower than anticipated. Lumm also wanted to know how the locations of the three new pedestrian crosswalks had been decided – was it similar to the way Plymouth Road crosswalk locations had been determined? Rolla explained that Dexter Avenue is different from Plymouth Road – Dexter Avenue is just two lanes. The exact locations were based on input from public meetings, and factored in school traffic and bus traffic. Also factored in were hills and sight distances.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the Dexter Avenue MDOT contract.

Consent Agenda: Water Meters, Aerial Photography

Two items were separated out from the council’s consent agenda for separate consideration. For one of them, some confusion ensued, when Jane Lumm (Ward 2) requested a different item be separated out than the one she actually wanted to question. It resulted in the council’s reconsideration and re-voting of the steps for approving the consent agenda.

The item Lumm had wanted to discuss was a $53,340 contract with Photo Science Geospatial Solutions to do a flyover and to generate aerial photography of the city, so that stormwater rates can be computed for each parcel. The city uses a formula that depends on the amount of impervious surface on a parcel as determined by infrared aerial photography.

Lumm questioned the selection of the contractor with the highest bid. [The other bids were for $44,213 and $49,409.] The city’s head of IT, Dan Rainey, said that non-price factors outweighed the lower cost offered by other vendors, citing specifically the ability of the selected vendor to provide the service on demand, on whatever day the city wanted the flyover done. The quality of the flyover was the most important consideration, he said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) pulled out the other item from the consent agenda for individual scrutiny. It authorized the purchase of water meters from Midwest Municipal Instrumentation Inc. for $50,000. Briere confirmed with interim public services area administrator Craig Hupy that the devices were “smart meters” in the sense that they did not require a human agent to collect their data.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve all the consent agenda items, including the two separated out for special consideration.

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: Parks Millage

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who serves as one of two city council representatives to the park advisory commission (PAC), alerted his council colleagues to a topic at the council’s next working session on March 12: the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage. The city staff and a PAC working group have been discussing the issue, he said. Taylor called it a preview of the public conversation, which will cover the options of millage renewal, expansion, or retraction. [The city of Ann Arbor levies a 1.1 mill tax for park maintenance and capital improvements, last approved in 2006 for a period of six years.]

Comm/Comm: Board and Commission Open Positions

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) alerted the public to a slew of open positions on various boards and commissions. She invited the public to think about applying. [Information about applying is on the city clerk's webpage.]

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who serves as the council’s representative to the taxicab board, noted that among the vacancies are two openings on that board. He said the board had some serious business to address.

Comm/Comm: Chief Jones Retires

City administrator Steve Powers announced that chief of police Barnett Jones would be retiring. He thanked Jones for five years of service to the city of Ann Arbor and 30 years of service statewide. Powers indicated that the appointment of an interim would be announced at a later time. Later in the week, it was announced that deputy chief John Seto would serve as interim.

Comm/Comm: Council Rules

At the conclusion of the meeting, during public commentary, Michael Benson noted that the council had outlasted CTN. [Although the live broadcast ends at midnight, the entire meeting is recorded for broadcast later.] Benson suggested revising the council rule on public commentary reserved time at the start of council meetings so that speaking turns would be limited to two minutes instead of the current three minutes. But that would be balanced against an increase in the total time allotted from 30 minutes to 40 minutes. Such a change would double the number of people who could sign up to speak – from 10 to 20.

Benson also suggested making the first preference for those people who wish to speak on agenda items more restrictive – to require that it be an action item on the agenda. Another suggestion put forward by Benson was to model a rule for public speaking used by the University of Michigan regents, which would give first preference to those people who had not addressed the council recently.

Comm/Comm: Warming Center

During public commentary, Orian Zakai followed up on the way that mayor John Hieftje had responded to her comments at the council’s previous meeting.

At the previous meeting she’d addressed the issue of 100 units of affordable housing that were lost when the old YMCA at Fifth and William streets was demolished. She quoted Hieftje’s response: “A lot of people don’t understand that the council has been working steadily for years to replace those units.” One of the people who doesn’t understand, Zakai ventured, is the head of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance. When Zakai had asked her for an interpretation of the mayor’s response, she had had no clear idea where the 70 new units had been built, which Hieftje had described. Zakai said she and her group don’t want to get between the city and the county, but two people in such a state of misunderstanding on such a crucial issue raises doubts about how seriously the goal of ending homelessness is taken, she said.

Regarding Hieftje’s allusion to efforts to create a warming center, Zakai maintained that this had been denied by WHA. The only group working on a warming center, she concluded, is a group she’s working with, Imagine Warming Centers. The group has encountered trouble communicating with the city. The group has visited the city-owned property at 721 N. Main. She described it as needing some repairs, but because it was a workplace until as recently as three years ago, those repairs can be effected. It’s also full of furniture that her group had been told is surplus. Her group could use the furniture or sell it, she said.

Alan Haber told the council he didn’t want to repeat anything too much, but Imagine Warming Centers has been seeking a space for people who need warmth. The group had looked at private properties as well as the city-owned 721 N. Main site. They’d looked through it with the city administrator and they’d identified problems with the building. But now, Haber said, progress is getting bogged down.

Haber said the group would like to rent the 721 N. Main from the city for a year for a nominal low rent. The group would provide liability insurance and pay utilities. Members who have skills would do repairs. Longer-term improvements would be negotiated with city staff, he said. He felt the building could be safely worked in. The building is also full of stuff with real value, he said, which could be put on the market. The space would be too low-tech for Ann Arbor SPARK, he said, but could be a great productive space. The group now needed the city to say, Okay, we’ll lease it to you. He told the council to open their hearts, open their minds, open the door.

Thomas Partridge led off his turn at public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting by alluding to the late hour, saying it was almost time to plan for breakfast. He stressed the urgency of planning for government services not in the future but now. He told the council he’d come to some public meetings after standing out in snowstorms with inadequate clothing and no boots, with only a few dollars in his pocket. He told them he’d personally suffered – he’s a victim of multiple sclerosis. He said when people advocated for a warming center, they’re really calling for affordable 24-7 housing support.

Later in the meeting, Hieftje responded to the commentary by indicating that he could get a report on the units of housing that had been constructed in the city. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) prodded Hieftje to mention the ongoing meetings he’s having about creating a warming center – he said he had one on his calendar on Friday. As far as the discussion on 721 N. Main, Hieftje said there are many issues, including the location of the property in the floodway. [The parcel also arose during discussion of another item on the agenda – the acquisition and demolition of a house in the floodway on West Kingsley. The city's stormwater and floodplain manger, Jerry Hancock, said that two storage buildings at the 721 N. Main site were planned to be demolished, using funds applied for from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).]

Comm/Comm: Israel, Palestine

Henry Herskovitz told the council that his friend Herman had called him to say he’d heard on talk radio that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu had welcomed Obama’s statements on Israel’s right to self-defense. Herskovitz called that political code language for giving Israel the green light to attack Iran preemptively.

Herskovitz’s friend told him he’d heard on the radio that Israel is a small country, and being threatened by a neighbor, and that gives it the right to self-defense. Herskovitz said he’d asked his friend, a black man living in Detroit, how he’d feel if whites living in Grosse Pointe had evicted him in an attempt to transform Detroit to a white city. His friend had replied that he’d fight to the end to defend his right to live in his home. Herskovitz then drew an analogy from that to the history of the Middle East.

Herskovitz said that attacking Iran is nothing new for Israel. Eight years ago the drums were also being beaten for Iran.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, March 19, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

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

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]

Joe Grengs, a University of Michigan associate professor of urban and regional planning, and Ginny Trocchio, who manages the city's greenbelt program, were among the speakers at a Feb. 9 sustainability forum.

Issues of land use and accessibility were the topic of a sustainability forum on Feb. 9, the second in a series that’s part of a broader city sustainability initiative. During the forum, city staff also unveiled a set of draft goals for Ann Arbor related to four general sustainability themes: Resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community.

Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, told the audience that the 15 draft goals were extracted from more than 200 that had been identified in existing city planning documents. The hope is to reach consensus on these sustainability goals, then present them to the city council as possible amendments to the city’s master plan.

Speakers at the Feb. 9 forum included Joe Grengs, a University of Michigan associate professor of urban and regional planning; Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority; Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager and member of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board; Jeff Kahan of the city’s planning staff; Ginny Trocchio, who manages the city’s greenbelt program; and Evan Pratt of the city’s planning commission.

A Q&A followed presentations by the speakers and covered a wide range of topics, including thoughts on the proposed Fuller Road Station. The following day, Feb. 10, the city and University of Michigan announced plans to halt the initial phase of that controversial project – a large parking structure near the UM medical campus.

The topics of the series of forums reflect four general sustainability themes: Resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community. The first forum, held in January, focused on resource management, including water, solid waste, the urban forest and natural areas.

All forums are held at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library and are being videotaped by AADL staff. The videos will be posted on the library’s website. Additional background on the Ann Arbor sustainability initiative is on the city’s website. See also Chronicle coverage: “Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor,” and an update on the project given at the November 2011 park advisory commission meeting.

Draft Sustainability Goals

The Feb. 9 forum was moderated by Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager. She said it’s hoped that the city’s sustainability effort, and these forums in particular, will serve as a springboard for a community discussion and help set overarching sustainability goals.

Wendy Rampson, city of Ann Arbor planning manager, moderated the Feb. 9 forum.

The overall sustainability initiative started informally nearly two years ago, with a joint meeting of the city’s planning, environmental and energy commissions. The idea is to help shape decisions by looking at a triple bottom line: environmental quality, economic vitality, and social equity.

In early 2011, the city received a $95,000 grant from the Home Depot Foundation to fund a formal sustainability project. The project set out to review the city’s existing plans and organize them into a framework of goals, objectives and indicators that can guide future planning and policy. The overall project also aimed to improve access to the city’s plans and to the sustainability components of each plan, and to incorporate the concept of sustainability into city planning and future city plans.

In addition to city staff, this work was initially guided by volunteers who serve on four city advisory commissions: park, planning, energy and environmental. Members from those groups met at a joint working session in late September of 2011. Since then, the city’s housing commission and housing & human services commission have been added to the conversation, Rampson said. Many of those members attended the Feb. 9 forum, which was held at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library and drew around 100 people.

Over the past year, city staff and a committee made of up members from several city advisory commissions have evaluated the city’s 27 existing planning documents and pulled out 226 goals from those plans that relate to sustainability. From there, they prioritized the goals and developed a small subset to present for discussion.

The draft goals are:

Climate & Energy

• Sustainable Energy: Improve access to and support use of renewable energy by all members of our community.
• Energy Conservation: Reduce energy consumption and eliminate net greenhouse gas emissions in our community.
• High Performance Buildings: Increase efficiency in new and existing buildings within our community.

Community

• Engaged Community: Ensure our community is strongly connected through outreach, opportunities for engagement, and stewardship of community resources.
• Diverse Housing: Provide high quality, safe, efficient, and affordable housing choices to meet the current and future needs of our community, particularly for low-income households.
• Safe Community: Minimize risk to public health and property from manmade and natural hazards.
• Active Living: Improve quality of life by providing diverse cultural, recreational, and educational opportunities for all members of our community.
• Economic Vitality: Create a resilient economy that provides access to employment opportunities, supports a diverse range of economic activities, and attracts investment to our community.

Land Use

• Transportation Options: Establish a physical and cultural environment that supports and encourages safe, comfortable and efficient ways for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users to travel throughout the city and region.
• Sustainable Systems: Plan for and manage constructed and natural infrastructure systems to meet the current and future needs of our community.
• Efficient Land Use: Encourage a compact pattern of diverse development that maintains our sense of place, preserves our natural systems, and strengthens our neighborhoods, corridors, and downtown.

Resource Management

• Clean Air and Water: Eliminate pollutants in our air and water systems.
• Healthy Ecosystems: Conserve, protect, enhance, and restore our aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
• Responsible Resource Use: Produce zero waste and optimize the use and reuse of resources in our community.
• Local Food: Conserve, protect, enhance, and restore our local agriculture and aquaculture resource.

Rampson described the proposed goals as “very, very drafty.” A public meeting to discuss the goals will be held on March 29. Feedback can also be sent to the city via email at sustainability@a2gov.org.

Sustainability & Land Use: Framing the Issue

Joe Grengs – a UM associate professor of urban and regional planning – led off remarks from the panel at the Feb. 9 forum. He began by saying it was great to discuss these issues, and that there are very committed people in the city who are willing to take risks and do things in innovative ways. His task at the forum was to frame the discussion of land use and sustainability, and he planned to do it through the lens of one idea – interaction.

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

The real estate adage of “location, location, location” is really just a way of saying that place matters, Grengs said. Where you’re situated has an impact on your ability to interact with people and places – at schools, stores, work, and places of worship. Each location ties you to a network of opportunities and constraints. For example, it determines your social network, to some extent. It determines your educational opportunities – a family living just across the border in one school district might be able to send their kids to a great school, while the family on the other side of the district border might be going to a school with a weaker reputation.

Location is very much rooted in factors like income and race, he noted, and it’s central to determining the degree to which people interact. Transportation and land use also have a lot to do with interaction. To illustrate, Grengs presented a scenario. It’s Saturday afternoon, and you have four errands to run. Your teenager needs to get to high school for theater rehearsal, while your youngest child must get to the park for soccer practice. You have to drop by the drugstore to pick up a prescription, and as you’re leaving, your partner asks you to stop at the party store to get some candy.

To do these errands, would you rather travel slow or fast? Grengs asked. Most people would answer fast, he said, but his answer is: It depends. He said he’d ask how much total time it takes to do the errands – that’s more important than your speed of travel. So if you’re traveling slower but the places you need to be are close to you, it will take less time to do the errands. Proximity is crucial, Grengs said.

Yet transportation policies and our government’s codes and standards emphasize mobility and speed, Grengs observed. If that’s your end goal, then the means of achieving that goal include things like capacity expansion – more roads, more lanes of traffic – and ease of parking. But there’s a better way, he contended.

What if the goal is accessibility, Grengs asked, measured by the amount of interactions you can accomplish within a given period? And this really is our goal, he noted. With some exceptions, you’re not getting in the car and traveling to a location just because you like to drive. You’re interested in reaching the destination.

So what tools can you use to achieve the goal of accessibility? Mobility is one way, Grengs said. Connectivity – including the use of technology, like the Internet – is another. A third way of achieving accessibility is proximity – and that’s what land use policies can address.

In looking at these methods of achieving accessibility, Grengs noted that there’s a tension between mobility and proximity. Mobility is important when destinations are spread out, like in a rural or suburban setting. People travel on freeways or other major roads at high speeds to get from place to place. In contrast, in a place like Manhattan everything is close together. You won’t be traveling fast, or far. But in terms of accessibility, proximity helps residents accomplish more even though they’re moving more slowly, Grengs said.

Grengs concluded his remarks by making two final points. When a community takes steps to increase mobility, it’s important to stop and ask: Is this hurting us in terms of proximity? An example is sprawl – when infrastructure like roads is built farther out, developers respond by building in those far-ranging locations, and it undermines the goal of accessibility.

The other question to ask is: How can a community achieve its goal of accessibility? It’s a two-part recipe, Grengs said: (1) by making accessible places, through transportation and land use policies; and (2) by encouraging people to live and work in accessible places. Usually, he said, a community needs high density to achieve those goals.

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority

Wendy Rampson introduced Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, by noting that the DDA was originally formed to support parking and infrastructure projects. But its work has shifted over the years from mobility issues to an increasing focus on accessibility, Rampson said.

City of Ann Arbor transportation manager Eli Cooper and Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority executive director Susan Pollay.

Pollay began by noting that the downtown doesn’t exist in isolation. She briefly reviewed the history of DDAs, noting that 1972 state-enabling legislation allowed the creation of these authorities in order to support economic development. There are now about 300 DDAs in Michigan, she said. The Ann Arbor DDA was formed in 1982 and over the years has been known for its management of the city’s parking system. In 2003 the DDA’s development plan was amended and renewed by the city for 30 years, and sustainability was one of its eight key goals. The aim, Pollay said, is for the downtown to be ”the sustainable heart of a sustainable city.”

The DDA supports that goal with different approaches, Pollay said. Regarding land use, the organization acts as an advocate. The DDA supported land conservation millages that were put on the ballot – and ultimately approved by voters – for the county and the city, she said. The authority also supports zoning that encourages residential development in the downtown area, Pollay said.

She noted between 1990 and 2000, there was no population growth in the DDA district. But the 2010 census showed that the DDA district had gained 1,263 new residents  – a 30% increase since 2000 – for a total of 4,607 residents. That’s at a time when the city and state lost population, she said.

Transportation is another approach that the DDA uses to achieve sustainability, Pollay said. More than 60,000 people commute into Ann Arbor each day. The idea is to get people out of those vehicles and using other forms of transportation. The DDA has provided grants for increasing service along the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s #4 Route between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. Grants are also supporting (1) the AATA express routes between Ann Arbor, Chelsea and Canton; (2) parking for AATA service to the airport, which is expected to launch in March; (3) an exploratory study for commuter rail between Ann Arbor and Howell; and (4) a feasibility study for a transit connector between Ann Arbor’s north and south sides.

Pollay also pointed to the DDA’s financial support of the getDowntown program, noting that there’s been a dramatic shift in the number of people who use alternative transportation, including public transit and bicycling. Since 2002, the DDA has funded 95% of the program’s go!pass, which provides free bus passes to more than 7,300 employees of downtown businesses. In 2011, more than 630,000 rides were taking using the go!pass, Pollay said – a 15% increase compared to 2010. [For a roundup of ridership data, including go!pass usage, see "Transit: Ridership Data Roundup"]

Other transportation-oriented initiatives that the DDA helps fund include bike parking and lockers, free parking for motorcycles and mopeds, a Night Ride service, the Zipcar car-sharing service, and grants to groups like the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition. Pollay said that 33% of downtown employees who own cars choose not to drive them to work.

The DDA also supports efforts to make the downtown more walkable, Pollay said. In addition to major streetscape improvement projects, other efforts include creating topiaries and edible landscaping, window display contests, and trip hazard/sidewalk maintenance.

Pollay pointed to sustainability as a component of construction projects supported by the DDA. For example, the authority provided a grant to the city of Ann Arbor to cover LEED certification costs on the city’s new municipal building. And the new underground parking garage that the DDA is building along South Fifth Avenue will include elements like electric-car stations, energy-saving fixtures, reuse of excavation site materials, and 100% stormwater detention.

Energy-saving programs are another way that the DDA supports sustainability, Pollay said. The DDA provided a grant to install LED lights downtown, for example, and has funded about 120 energy audits for downtown businesses. The authority tries to highlight these efforts whenever possible, Pollay said, to let the public know how the city is working toward sustainability. She cited signs at the Fifth and William surface parking lot as an example, explaining how pervious pavement is used there to handle stormwater runoff.

Pollay concluded by noting that many of these projects are accomplished by partnering with other entities.

Sustainability and Transportation

Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, spoke about the city’s efforts to encourage different modes of transportation. Nationwide, in 1960 about 60% of people used a private vehicle as their primary mode of transportation to work. That number increased to nearly 90% by 2000, he noted. But in Ann Arbor, only about 70% use a private vehicle to get to work – and that percentage has been relatively flat since the 1970s.

So Ann Arbor has found a way to bend the trends, Cooper said. What makes the city special, and what can be done to strengthen the aspects of transportation that are sustainable?

The number of people who walk to work in Ann Arbor is about four times the national average, Cooper said. Policies that relate to sidewalk maintenance and pedestrian crossings help make that a safer option, he said, noting that the city recently adjusted its ordinance on pedestrian crossings. The city realizes that walking is a very sustainable mode of transportation, he said.

Going up the transportation hierarchy is bicycling, Cooper said. The city and University of Michigan have had a bicycle coordinating committee dating back to the 1970s. This year, the number of bike lanes in the city will exceed 40 miles, he said, and 3.5% of residents use bikes to commute from work – up from 2.3% in 2000. Bicyclists are burning calories, not carbon, Cooper quipped, and that’s part of the sustainability equation.

While walking and bicycling satisfy shorter trips, Cooper said, public transit gets you anywhere you want to go. He said the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority provides a fantastic service in a sustainable way. [Cooper was recently appointed to the AATA board.] Some buses in the fleet use biodiesel fuel, he noted, and about 50% of the fleet are hybrid electric buses.

Cooper also discussed railroad service in Ann Arbor, noting that investments are being made at the state and federal level to improve the tracks between Chicago and Detroit – passing through Ann Arbor – to make service more reliable. Work on a commuter rail service between Ypsilanti and Detroit is also underway, he said, although no dates have yet been set for when that might start.

Despite all of this, automobiless are still the main mode of transportation, Cooper noted, even in Ann Arbor. Auto technology is becoming more sustainable, he said, so the challenge is how the city can encourage people to use those more sustainable types of vehicles. That might include putting in charging stations for electric vehicles, or expanding car-sharing programs, he said.

Land Preservation: Ann Arbor’s Greenbelt

Ginny Trocchio gave an overview of the city’s greenbelt program – she’s a staff member of The Conservation Fund, which is under contract with the city to manage the program. The greenbelt is funded through a 30-year, 0.5 mill tax that voters approved in 2003 for land preservation and acquisition. A portion of that millage is used for parks acquisition, Trocchio said, but her presentation would focus on the greenbelt, which protects land outside of the city from development.

Park advisory commissioners Sam Offen and Gwen Nystuen attended the sustainability forum as members of the audience.

Most of the land preservation occurs through the purchase of conservation easements, she said. The property remains in private ownership, but there are restrictions on what can be done on the land, ensuring that the land isn’t developed and that its natural features are preserved. City staff go out to the properties once a year to monitor compliance.

Why is there a need for a greenbelt? Trocchio noted that in 2003, the real estate market and overall economy were quite different than today. Farmland and open space was being bought and converted into residential subdivisions, and there were concerns about the amount of sprawl that this area was seeing.

Since the millage was passed, Ann Arbor has protected over 3,500 acres within the greenbelt’s boundary, Trocchio reported. The city has also been able to leverage its investment on a one-to-one dollar match, by partnering with other entities. More recently, land prices have also worked in the program’s favor. When the greenbelt program was launched, land prices were about $16,000 per acre, Trocchio said. Now, that price has fallen closer to $4,000.

The city has also been able to secure more matching funds in recent years, both from federal sources as well as local partners like Washtenaw County, which has its own millage to protect open space and farmland. Some townships in the county – including the townships of Ann Arbor and Webster – also have land preservation millages, and have partnered with the greenbelt program.

Trocchio briefly reviewed the program’s finances, noting that the city had taken out a $20 million bond in fiscal year 2006 and is making payments with proceeds from the millage. In addition to debt service, expenses include greenbelt purchases. [For a detailed financial update on the greenbelt program, see Chronicle coverage of a September 2011 meeting of the greenbelt advisory commission.]

While there’s not the same kind of development pressure now, Trocchio cited food security as an issue, and noted that the city is building a sustainable perimeter of farmland. The program is also protecting land in the Huron River watershed, she noted, and protecting the region’s water supply. Other attributes of the greenbelt include preservation of scenic views, and in some cases support of educational and recreational opportunities – the Fox Science Preserve, a partnership with Washtenaw County, is an example of that, she said.

Ann Arbor Planning Policy

Two panelists addressed sustainability from the city’s planning perspective: Jeff Kahan of the city’s planning staff, and Evan Pratt, a member of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

From left: Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and Jeff Kahan, Ann Arbor city planner.

Kahan told the audience that Ann Arbor has been pushing for sustainability before people even knew the word. He described five elements of the city’s sustainable land use: (1) natural systems preservation; (2) adaptive re-use; (3) land use efficiency; (4) mixed use development; and (5) pedestrian/transit-oriented development.

Protecting natural areas is one of the things the city does best, Kahan said. Ann Arbor was the first in Michigan to insert language into its city code to protect wetlands, landmark trees, woodlands and other natural areas, he said. And it was the second city in the nation to require on-site stormwater detention.

Adaptive re-use has been done in the city for decades, without thinking about it in terms of sustainability, Kahan said. Examples in town include the Gandy Dancer restaurant in a former train station, the Armory condo development at Fifth Avenue and Ann Street, Kerrytown Market and Shops, and Liberty Lofts.

Kahan then turned to land use efficiency, saying you couldn’t talk about it without mentioning the topic’s four-letter word, “which of course is ‘density.’” The city is preserving land in the greenbelt surrounding Ann Arbor, but the flip side of that is accommodating density in appropriate areas, he said, like the downtown and commercial corridors. Kahan also cited mixed-use developments – buildings that typically include a mix of retail shops and residential units – as being another land use approach that works downtown or in corridors like State Street or Washtenaw Avenue.

The city has also taken steps to encourage pedestrian- and transit-oriented development, Kahan said. He pointed to changes in the city code that have allowed buildings to be constructed closer to sidewalks, encouraging developers to put parking behind buildings rather than close to the street.

Evan Pratt discussed the role of the planning commission in land use and sustainability. He said a remark by Susan Pollay earlier in the forum had really resonated with him – that without partnerships, sustainability isn’t possible.

From left: Ann Arbor city planner Jeff Kahan and Ann Arbor city planning commissioner Evan Pratt.

Pratt said the process of reviewing goals in the city’s various planning documents has been interesting. There’s a lot of crossover, and some conflicting goals as well. He likes the idea of developing a matrix for scoring projects, so that a blended perspective could be used to evaluate projects.

It’s important to develop good policies that encourage the types of projects that the city wants to see, Pratt said – projects that encourage people to live downtown, for example, and that add to the city’s vibrancy. As an example, Pratt pointed to the 618 S. Main project that the planning commission recommended for approval at its Jan. 19, 2012 meeting. It was a “planned project,” he said, which meant that by offering up certain premiums, the developer could get permission to build a structure taller than what zoning would otherwise allow. In this case, those premiums included capturing 100% of the stormwater runoff on-site, putting solar panels on the roof to help heat water for the building, and getting LEED certification – something that’s written into a development agreement with the city.

Pratt concluded by saying there was one big “eureka” moment in looking through the 226 goals that had been culled from city plans. The words “region” or “county” appeared only three times. So Pratt said he wanted to leave the audience with one question: In what areas does Ann Arbor need to broaden its horizons?

Questions & Comments

During the last part of the forum, panelists fielded questions and commentary from the audience. This report summarizes the questions and presents them thematically.

Questions & Comments: Huron River

Question: Is anything being done to make the Huron River more of an attraction?

Evan Pratt of the city’s planning commission noted that he’s also involved with the Huron River Watershed Council, a nonprofit that’s charged with protecting the river and its tributaries. [HRWC's website lists Pratt as chair of its board of directors.] Of all the city’s land use plans, he observed, none of them focus on the land adjacent to the river. The city’s Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP) turned into an Argo Dam argument, he said, but there are some recommendations in the plan that apply to land use around the river. For example, a recommendation for commercial development in the Broadway bridges area states:

Encourage limited development of a restaurant and/or other public-use facilities where the public congregates and can enjoy the river in the Broadway Bridge/Argo area, especially if it generates revenue for river planning and implementation.

Pratt said the planning commission is interested in revisiting the HRIMP recommendations. He also pointed to the county’s Border-to-Border trail for pedestrians and bicyclists, and said a similar initiative is underway for the Huron River. Called RiverUp! and coordinated by the watershed council, the idea is to encourage communities to turn their face to the river, Pratt said. Among other things, there’s an economic benefit to doing that, he said. [For Chronicle coverage of the initiative, see: "RiverUp! Focuses on Revitalizing Huron River"]

Ginny Trocchio noted that one goal of the city’s greenbelt program is to protect land located in the Huron River watershed.

Wendy Rampson of the city’s planning staff recalled that two decades ago, the parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan had identified a goal of developing a ring of parkland around Argo Pond. Much of the property at that time was owned by industrial firms, she said. Over the years, the city was able to acquire key parcels – including land that’s now Bandemer Park – and today that portion of the river has a trail system and more public access. It shows the value of planning documents and a vision in working toward a goal, Rampson said.

Questions & Comments: Urban Open Space

Question: What about the need for open space in downtown Ann Arbor? There’s been a debate about the Library Lot on South Fifth Avenue, and whether the top of the underground parking structure being built there should be open space or a high-rise building. [The underground parking is being built by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.] Research has shown the need for greenways and open space in urban areas, and how that kind of space generates economic development around it.

Noting that she lives near Dolph nature area on the city’s far west side, Susan Pollay of the DDA observed that the need for open space downtown is very different than in other parts of the city. Downtown open space poses different challenges and serves different purposes. Sculpture Plaza, at the corner of Fourth and Catherine, has been successful, she noted, while Liberty Plaza at Liberty and Division doesn’t feel as good.

Eric Lipson, former Ann Arbor city planning commissioner, addressed the panel with a question about open space and its role in the downtown, in the context of the future use of the top of the Fifth Avenue underground parking garage, which is nearing completion. In the background is Clark Charnetski, who addressed the panel expressing support for the Fuller Road Station.

Ingredients to Sculpture Plaza’s success include the fact that it’s small and manageable, Pollay said. It’s adjacent to retail stores, which helps animate the plaza – there’s usually activity there. Employees at the shops take ownership of the area, helping to clean it up. All of that is missing at Liberty Plaza, Pollay said. As the city looks at developing a greenway or deciding what goes atop the Library Lot, she indicated it will be important to learn from these other urban park experiences.

Urban areas also can serve multiple functions, Pollay noted. Main Street can be shut down for events like FestiFools. The surface parking lot next to Palio restaurant – at the corner of Main and William – is used for events like the annual car show and Taste of Ann Arbor. There are different needs and uses for open space, depending on the season, she said. Sidewalks are also important elements of urban open space, as are landscaped areas around parking lots. She noted that dogs, for example, need areas where owners can take them to do their business. The city can be smarter in thinking about the needs for downtown open space, Pollay concluded.

Jeff Kahan said the city’s planning staff is very interested in this issue. But you can’t simply apply suburban concepts – the notion that more is better – to the downtown, he said. Smaller, intimate spaces are more appropriate, like the farmers market, sidewalks, the Diag, or the bandshell at West Park. It’s important to remember that downtown users of open space aren’t likely looking for a large playground, he said. For one thing, not that many families with kids live downtown.

Eric Lipson, who had posed the original question, followed up by asking Pollay if she would support having a surface parking lot atop the underground parking structure that would also be used for community events. Absolutely, Pollay replied. She noted that the entry/exit ramps into the garage were specifically designed so that Library Lane – the small street running between Fifth and Division, just north of the downtown library – could be closed so that events could be held there. The point was to make cars secondary to that space, she said.

Lipson said everyone agrees that micro areas like Sculpture Plaza are needed. But there’s also a need for larger spaces, he said, like the Ingalls Mall area on the University of Michigan campus, where the Street Art Fair and Summer Festival‘s Top of the Park events are held. The Library Lot could serve the same purpose for the downtown, he said.

Wendy Rampson observed that the parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan is a good place for this kind of suggestion to be included.

Questions & Comments: Fuller Road Station

Clark Charnetski – a member of the AATA’s local advisory council – referred to Evan Pratt’s description of a blended perspective, and said that Fuller Road Station is an example of that. Tradeoffs are involved, he said, and it’s important to look at two locations: The existing Amtrak station on Depot Street, and the proposed Fuller Road Station.

Although Fuller Road Station would use three acres for parking and a train station, Charnetski said, it would free up space where the current train station is located, which is near property owned by DTE that’s being cleaned up and could possibly become a park along the Huron River. So the tradeoff is in favor of relocating the train station to Fuller Road Station, Charnetski concluded – that’s something to keep in mind. [Charnetski's remarks were made the day before news broke that the city of Ann Arbor and University of Michigan were suspending plans for Fuller Road Station's initial phase – a large parking structure located near UM's medical complex. See Chronicle coverage: "UM, Ann Arbor Halt Fuller Road Project"]

Wendy Rampson of the city’s planning staff noted that projects like Fuller Road Station and the Library Lot illustrate the difficult decisions that communities make on issues like density and transportation, and the appropriate locations for development. Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, said locating a train station next to a major employment site is fundamental in order to encourage walkability.

Rampson asked Joe Grengs – a UM associate professor of urban and regional planning – to comment on techniques that communities might use to grapple with these tensions. Grengs said focus groups and other methods can be used to draw out ideas. But regarding the Fuller Road Station project in particular, Grengs said he had some concerns. He didn’t believe the university needed more parking, and said there are steps that could be taken to reallocate parking within UM’s current infrastructure.

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

Later during the Q&A, Rita Mitchell said she agreed with Grengs regarding Fuller Road Station, and she urged the city to consider adaptive re-use of the existing site of the Amtrak station instead.

Questions & Comments: Public Transit & Housing

Jeaninne Palms told panelists that she really appreciated these public discussions on sustainability issues. [Palms was one of the organizers of the Transition Ann Arbor initiative, which focused on some of these same issues.] The forums bring up perspectives that people don’t often think about, she noted. Palms cited Grengs’ comments about accessibility, and observed that that Ann Arbor Transportation Authority recently increased the frequency of buses along Route #4, between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor. She wondered what his thoughts were about making it more accessible for people who work in Ann Arbor to also live in Ann Arbor.

Jeaninne Palms addressed the panel with a question about transportation goals.

Grengs replied that Palms’ comment illustrates the point that addressing transportation goals can be done better by thinking about land use. Affordability is a barrier to living in Ann Arbor, he noted – it’s easier for low-income residents to live in Ypsilanti. So one way to solve the transportation problem is to create more affordable housing closer to jobs.

Evan Pratt pointed to the 618 S. Main project that planning commission recommended for approval in January. [See Chronicle coverage: "618 S. Main Project Gets Planning Support"] The apartment building will have a variety of unit sizes, he noted. [The proposal calls for 70 studio apartments, 70 one-bedroom units, 42 two-bedroom units, and 7 duplex units with 1 bedroom each.] The plan also includes 121 spaces for on-site parking, Pratt said, which is far fewer than the total number of bedrooms.

He also noted that the development “unbundles” parking – that is, tenants aren’t given a parking space as part of their lease. Parking spaces must be rented separately. The city wants to encourage that, Pratt said. It’s not possible to stop people from choosing to have a car, he said, but it’s possible to ensure that a choice must be made – that it’s not automatic for parking to be provided.

Wendy Rampson observed that the issue involves the question of density. If it’s important to have more workforce housing, that means more housing units will be needed. One way to accomplish that is through accessory apartments, she said. But when the city discussed that possibility a decade ago, the community decided that wasn’t something it wanted. In places like California, Rampson said, communities have turned to accessory dwellings as one way to increase density.

[At the same meeting in January 2012 when the planning commission recommended approval of the 618 S. Main project, they also authorized a special exception use at 3645 Waldenwood, to allow an accessory apartment to be added to the single-family house there. According to planning staff, it was only the second time a special exception use had been requested for an accessory unit since the accessory dwelling ordinance was crafted in the early 1980s. The effort that Rampson mentioned would have changed the city's zoning to make it possible for non-family members to live in accessory apartments.]

Commenting at the end of the Q&A session, Rita Mitchell noted that a four-party agreement is now being discussed that could lead to a countywide transportation system. [Action on four-party agreement – between the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, Washtenaw County, and the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – has been postponed three times by the Ann Arbor city council, most recently at its Feb. 6, 2012 meeting.] Mitchell suggested that AATA should improve its existing routes and make service truly excellent, saying it would be a draw for people and would provide environmental benefits as well.

Rampson noted that transit ridership has increased. The AATA recently started more frequent service on Route #4 between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, she said, which is already showing increased ridership. Eli Cooper added that increased service requires increased resources. Part of the proposed countywide plan calls for enhancing services in the core population areas, as well as better connecting communities within the county, he said.

Questions & Comments: Noise

Question: Ann Arbor is surrounded by freeways. I live by M-14 and there’s nothing but noise. There should be some thought given to creating a buffer – berms, or trees – because noise has a big impact on quality of life.

Susan Pollay said she didn’t have an answer, but a comment. A few years ago, when M-14 was shut down for construction, it was incredibly quiet. It was remarkable not to have that freeway sound – she hadn’t previously been aware that it was such a constant background noise.

Eli Cooper noted that building noise barriers or berms is prohibitively expensive, and yields a limited effect. He agreed that noise affects the quality of life for residents. That’s why it’s important to encourage quieter modes of transportation, like walking, bicycling, or using hybrid buses.

Questions & Comments: Local vs. State Policy

Question: To what extent are people thinking about the future, with regard to resisting certain tendencies? For example, the University of Michigan isn’t accountable to the residents of Ann Arbor. The state is also doing things that residents don’t want – like allowing companies to shoot movies in the city. There’s nothing sustainable about that. The city should have its own policies.

Eli Cooper replied that in order to be successful, the city needs to align its policies with entities around it. Being sustainable within the city’s boundaries is one thing, he said, but it’s also important to consider sustainability in a broader context. And it’s important for the city to coordinate and work well with higher forms of government, like the county and the state.

Future Forums

Two more forums in this sustainability series are planned. All forums will be held at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library building, 343 S. Fifth Ave. starting at 7 p.m.

• March 8, 2012: Climate and Energy – including an overview of Ann Arbor’s climate action plan, climate impacts, renewable and alternative energy, energy efficiency and conservation.
• April 12, 2012: Community – including housing, public safety, public art, recreation, outreach, civic engagement, and stewardship of community resources.

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

From left: Greenbelt advisory commission members Tom Bloomer and Mike Garfield. (Photos by the writer.)

The properties include 32 acres in Northfield Township along US-23, 30 acres in Scio Township near Wagner and Scio Church roads, and 111 acres in Lodi Township along Pleasant Lake Road. By year’s end, the new additions brought the total of property protected by the city’s greenbelt program to 3,430 acres since its inception in 2007.

Most of Wednesday’s meeting was spent in closed session to discuss possible future land acquisitions, but the main action item involved land that’s not part of the city’s greenbelt program. Commissioners unanimously passed a resolution urging Webster Township to strictly enforce all of its conservation easements – the resolution will be forwarded to township officials as they weigh a request from the Dexter Area Historical Society to amend an easement that would loosen restrictions on parking.

The society wants permission to allow spectator parking for Civil War re-enactments on a site where the historic Gordon Hall is located. Land preservation activists are concerned that parking would damage the land, and that amending the easement would set a bad precedent, calling into question the trustworthiness of regional land preservation efforts. The resolution was brought forward by Tom Bloomer, a GAC member who also serves on Webster Township’s land preservation board.

Staff Update: December Closings

During Wednesday’s meeting, Ginny Trocchio – who serves as support staff for the greenbelt program – reported on three closings for land preservation deals in the greenbelt that occurred in December.

The city provided due diligence and stewardship costs for a conservation easement now held by the Legacy Land Conservancy, for a 32-acre property in Northfield Township. The landowner, Charles Botero, had donated the easement, she said. At its Nov. 10, 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council had approved funding for up to $15,000 on the project. The land is located along the east side of US-23, north of East Northfield Church Road.

The city had also closed on a purchase of development rights (PDR) for 30 acres owned by Duane Thomas and his wife Judith Lobato in Scio Township. The city paid $140,367 for the deal, which city council approved at their Oct. 17, 2011 meeting. The owner contributed 50% of the cost for the PDR, Trocchio reported. The property is located near the northwest corner Scio Church and Wagner roads.

The final closing was for the purchase of development rights on 111 acres in Lodi Township, owned by Bill Lindemann and his sister Karen Weidmayer. The property is located along Pleasant Lake Road, about a half-mile from the former Girbach farm, which is also protected through the greenbelt program. At its July 18, 2011 meeting, the city council had authorized $699,992 for the deal, with $1,000 contributed by Lodi Township and 49% of the cost reimbursed by a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, or FRPP.

Trocchio also reported that just before the holidays, she’d received word that the deadline for applying to the next cycle of FRPP grants is on March 9. She’s been working with landowners who might be interested in applying.

Webster Township Land Preservation

On the agenda was a resolution brought forward by GAC member Tom Bloomer regarding conservation easements in Webster Township. He had initially raised the issue at GAC’s December 2011 meeting, when he reported on a situation involving the Dexter Area Historical Society.

About 10 years ago, the society had purchased land from the University of Michigan that included the historic Gordon Hall. The society later sold the development rights to Scio and Webster townships, through conservation easements to those townships. A conservation easement restricts certain types of activity from taking place on the land, and is often used to protect land from development.

Last summer, the society asked Webster Township officials for permission to hold a Civil War re-enactment on the site. The event didn’t conflict with terms of the conservation easement, but the society also wanted permission for spectator parking – and that did conflict with the easement. The township eventually agreed to a one-year exception to allow parking for several hundred vehicles, with the understanding that an exception wouldn’t be granted again.

Now, the historic society wants to amend the conservation easement so that parking for this kind of event would be allowed. The township’s farmland and open space preservation board has recommended denying that request, but the decision will ultimately be made by the Webster Township board of trustees. The preservation board has asked for support from other land preservation entities (like Ann Arbor’s GAC) before the township trustees vote.

Catherine Riseng, vice chair of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission, chaired the Jan. 5, 2012 meeting. GAC chair Dan Ezekiel was absent.

At Wednesday’s meeting, Bloomer told other commissioners that based on their discussion at the December meeting, he had crafted a resolution that he hoped expressed GAC’s concerns without encroaching on the township’s decision-making. He had aimed to make township officials aware of where the greenbelt commission stood regarding easements in general. [.pdf of resolution]

The resolution notes that Ann Arbor has contributed over $4.7 million in partnership with Webster Township to preserve over 810 acres of farmland and open space in the township. The city, through its greenbelt program, has also spent more than $4.5 million for additional land preservation in Webster Township on its own.

The resolution also referenced the national Land Trust Alliance, noting that the alliance has established generally accepted practices and rules of conduct for land preservation, and that it discourages amendments to conservation easements that compromise the agreed-upon conservation values. The resolution does not specifically reference the situation regarding the historical society’s easement.

The resolution’s only resolved clause states:

Now, Therefore Be It resolved that the Ann Arbor Greenbelt Advisory Commission urges the Township of Webster to strictly enforce all of its conservation easements, and all of the conservation values protected therein.

There was only brief discussion about the resolution. Shannon Brines said it seemed to be a reasonable statement, in that it supported Land Trust Alliance practices and discouraged amendments to conservation easements.

Bloomer noted that it would be good to let all townships within the greenbelt boundaries know about the stance expressed in this resolution. It was directed at Webster Township because there’s a controversy there, he said, but he had tried to make it generic so that it could apply to other areas as well.

Catherine Riseng responded to Bloomer by saying she thought the resolution served that purpose well, and could be adopted to other situations.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously passed the resolution regarding Webster Township’s land preservation program.

Closed Session

Commissioners spent almost an hour of their meeting in closed session to discuss possible land acquisitions. When they emerged from closed session, they voted unanimously to recommend that the city council apply for grants from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) for four properties located in the greenbelt’s boundaries.

Before appearing on the city council’s agenda, details of these greenbelt acquisitions are not made public – parcels are identified only by their application number. The parcels recommended for FRPP grants are 2005-01, 2011-12, 2011-13 and 2012-01.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved a recommendation to apply for FRPP grants for four parcels in the greenbelt.

Present: Tom Bloomer, Mike Garfield, Catherine Riseng, Liz Rother, Laura Rubin. Also: Ginny Trocchio.

Absent: Peter Allen, Dan Ezekiel, Carsten Hohnke.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Feb. 2 at 4:30 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s greenbelt program. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Marsha Chamberlin and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) before the start of the Ann Arbor city council's Dec. 5 meeting. Chamberlin is chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission. (Photos by the writer.)

At its Nov. 21 meeting, the council had given initial approval to ordinance revisions that included temporarily reducing the required 1% allocation to public art from all city capital improvement projects, dropping the amount to 0.5% for the period from 2012 to 2015. Neither that provision, nor one that would have required allocated funds to be spent on public art within a specific period of time, survived a final vote. What did survive was a prohibition against using general fund dollars for public art projects, as well as an exclusion of sidewalk repair from the definition of projects triggering the public art requirement.

Councilmembers who had previously argued for the temporary reduction, but changed their positions after intense lobbying by the arts community – both privately and at the lengthy public hearing – included Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and mayor John Hieftje. All face possible re-election campaigns in 2012. Questions about the legal foundation of Ann Arbor’s public art program, which taps utility fees and dedicated millage funds to pay for public art, were raised again at the meeting by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

In other significant business, the council gave final approval to an expansion of the area around Ann Arbor that is eligible for protection using funds from the voter-approved greenbelt millage.

The council also approved its side of a deal to contract out Ann Arbor police dispatching services to the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office – at an annual cost of $759,089. The city expects eventually to save $500,000 a year with the move, which will entail laying off all of the city’s current dispatchers, not all of whom would be able to obtain employment within the expanded sheriff’s office dispatch operation.

The council also formally tabled a proposed ordinance that would have provided residents with the ability to forbid the delivery of newspapers to their property – by posting a notice on their front doors. The city’s code already prohibits depositing newspapers onto sidewalks.

A sidewalk along Dexter Avenue, east of Maple Road, was the subject of a special tax authorized by the council to be applied to property owners there. The city will use the funds to construct a continuous sidewalk along that stretch, and make curb and gutter improvements.

The council took care of several housekeeping issues, including approving its set of rules for the coming year and making its committee appointments. Those included the appointment of Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) as the council representative to the board of the local development finance authority – replacing Stephen Rapundalo, who was defeated by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) in the Nov. 8 election. But Rapundalo was appointed as a citizen representative to the board and will thus continue to serve on that body. Council committee appointments were only slightly shuffled, because Lumm was assigned to a number of spots Rapundalo had previously filled.

At the end of the meeting, Hieftje announced a nomination to replace Sue McCormick on the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority – Eli Cooper. Cooper has previously served on the AATA board and is the city’s transportation program manager.

Highlights during public commentary included advocacy for a 24/7 warming shelter to be staffed by volunteers from the community, and support for 14-year Ann Arbor resident Lourdes Salazar Bautista, who faces deportation later this month.

Public Art Program

The council considered final approval of a revision to its public art ordinance that would temporarily reduce the amount allocated from all capital project budgets to public art from 1% to 0.5%. The city has a law – enacted in 2007 – that requires 1% of all capital project budgets to include 1% for public art, with a limit of $250,000 per project. At its Nov. 21 meeting, the council had given initial approval to the reduction, as well as other ordinance amendments.

The initially approved reduction applied for just the next three years, from fiscal year 2012 to 2015. That three-year timeframe was also a key part of a sunsetting amendment to the public art ordinance. The sunsetting amendment would have required that future funds reserved for public art under the ordinance be encumbered within three years. Money that was unspent or unencumbered after three years would have been required to return to its fund of origin. The language of the amendment would have made it possible for the council to extend the deadline for successive periods, each extension for no more than six months.

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

The sunsetting clause had been proposed in response to criticism about the pace at which public art has been acquired. More than $500,000 has accumulated for public art over the last five years just from projects funded with the street repair tax – money that has yet to be spent on the acquisition of public art. Critics of the program also point to legal issues connected with the use of dedicated millage funds or fee-based utility funds for public art.

Two other amendments – that did receive final approval by the council on Monday – included a definition of capital improvement projects that excludes sidewalk repair from the ordinance requirement. Voters on Nov. 8 approved a new 0.125 mill tax that is supposed to allow the city to take over responsibility for the repair of sidewalks. Previously, sidewalk repair was paid for by adjacent property owners.

The amendments before the council for final consideration also excluded the public art ordinance from applying to any capital projects funded out of the general fund. Such projects are rare. [Additional Chronicle coverage: "Council Preview: Public Art Ordinance"]

Public Art Program: Public Hearing

As with all changes to city ordinances, a public hearing was held before the council took its second vote on the public art ordinance amendments. Most but not all spoke against the idea of reducing the 1% funding. The public hearing included many of the same personalities who have previously addressed the council on the topic. Here are some highlights.

Thomas Partridge, noted that his deceased mother was an artist, so it was only reluctantly that he was asking that the ordinance be amended to cut funding. The program had been so fully funded that it had enticed the mayor and council to a lapse in judgement that had led them to purchase a $750,000 object [the Dreiseitl fountain] that looks like it came out of a junkyard, he said.

Brenda Oelbaum told the council that her mother is on life support in Toronto and she’d traveled back to Ann Arbor because she felt that public art is on life support. She contended that the talk of Ann Arbor in a financial crisis is exaggerated, citing as evidence the fact that she’d gone to dinner on Thursday and waited for an hour in a place that wasn’t cheap. Where’s the recession? she asked. Ypsilanti and Detroit are suffering, but Ann Arbor, she claimed, is not suffering.

Cheryl Elliot, president and CEO of the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, spoke in support of the public art program, calling art the “gift that keeps on giving.”

Alan Haber encouraged the council to maintain the full amount of funding. He suggested bringing art from Ann Arbor’s sister cities around the world and displaying it in an art exchange.

Paul Hickman introduced himself as the owner of the home furnishing company Urban Ashes. He told the council he felt that something was being critically missed in the conversation. He asked how many people in the room had had a mentor – several people raised their hands. He said that his bridge from school to work was working with a professor doing public art in 1999-2000, which was funded through Arizona’s Percent for Art program. That bridge connected him to the trades and techniques of public art and took him into a career, he said. It’s allowed him to be able to do what he really loves to do, he said.

If councilmembers had not heard of Urban Ashes, Hickman told them, they would eventually hear about it. Six years ago he and his 5-year-old son had started working with disadvantaged kids in Brighton. The benefit of public art goes beyond the visual impact on the community, he said. Art is a profession, and it’s taught him an incredible way to give back to the community.

Shoshana Hurand, one of the organizers of FestiFools, expressed her support for the public art program, saying it makes economic sense.

Margaret Parker and Marsha Chamberlin, who both serve on the public art commission, spoke in support of maintaining the funding the same way it had been previously mandated. Parker said that cutting the percentage from 1% to 0.5% brings no new revenue to the city. She insisted that the amounts the council was discussing were “pennies.” Parker said the reason that so little art had been created up to now was that not enough money had been allocated for administering the program.

Chamberlin told the council that Ann Arbor is not a sleepy college town. She acknowledged that public art is well funded, judging by the amount that had been generated to date. The volunteer commission had started the ball rolling, she said. It sets a bad example to reduce the funding, she said. Having a three-year deadline for encumbering funds with the council extension is understandable, she said, but not a reduction from 1% to 0.5%.

Odile Hugenot Haber lamented the fact that funding for art is now pitted against social services.

Alexandra Hoffman introduced herself as a University of Michigan PhD student. She’s working with the group trying to establish a warming center. She told the council her group is not against public art folks, but invited the council to come help at the warming center.

Nancy Kaplan told the council she appreciated the effort they’d made to amend the ordinance. She said she also appreciated the hard work of the public art commission. She allowed that everyone appreciates public art, but said that the debate is not about art itself, but rather the method of funding. She called for a fresh start, with a public vote on public art. She told the council they should put a vote for art on the November 2012 ballot. That would provide a clarity for the funding source, she said, clarity on the amount so that it could be counted on, clarity on the duration of the program and clarity on the design – the design of a piece of art could be untied from the purpose of a particular funding source.

Kaplan said that currently the art fund is flush, and the temporary funding reduction would give the commission a chance to “catch up.” Kaplan told the council that it’s the funding mechanism that is tying the community in knots.

Public Art Program: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off deliberations by saying that after the council’s last meeting, she had a chance to look at the amendments to which the council had given their initial approval and to think over the implications of the changes for funding and policy. She said she was terrifically impressed with the passion expressed by the public in support of art. For her part, she said what they’re really talking about is the funding mechanism – not particular activities like FestiFools or the art fairs. The council is talking about funding mechanisms and priorities, she said. When the council established the ordinance, it had not clarified what it meant by “capital improvement” and didn’t look 3-4 years into the future to see what kind of funds would accumulate.

If the revision passed, it would allow the public art commission to take a breather and look at how it’s going to implement policies it has established – without amassing as much funding as the program has in the past three years. As proposed, the funding would automatically revert from 0.5% back to 1%, she said. The ordinance also doesn’t affect the fund balance that’s already there – it addresses only funding alloted for public art after July 1, 2012. She characterized it as a very narrow ordinance.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reflected on the lively discussion at the previous council meeting, saying that it had added to the discourse on the issue. She agreed with Briere’s emphasis on the funding source. In response to those who questioned where funding for new projects could come from if the funding were reduced, Lumm suggested partnerships with the private sector.

Councilmembers Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) before the start of the Dec. 5 meeting.

Lumm said she’d support the temporary reduction to 0.5%. Lumm responded to the rhetorical tactic from Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) at the last council meeting, when they’d said you can’t claim to support public art at the same time you reduce funding. She agreed with the remarks of Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) from the previous meeting, who’d noted that the council had also said it supported public safety at the same time the council reduced funding for it. Lumm said that’s a black-and-white view of things that is not appropriate. Taxpayers expect adjustments, she said. It comes down to tradeoffs and difficult choices, and she called on the council to get away from emotional demagoguery. A vote to temporarily reduce funding of public art doesn’t mean someone is anti-public art, she said. Lumm said she’d see things differently if the earmark for public art were based on a vote of residents.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said it’s important to provide an amount that’s sufficient for the program  to be successful.

Objecting to Lumm’s allusion to public safety, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) felt that conversations about public safety don’t have a place in this context. Bringing up public safety clouds the issue and misleads listeners, he contended. It’s capital money that is set aside – it can’t be used for public safety operations. He said he strived to find with this, as with other issues, some measure of balance. When the council had first considered the issue, he said, he was conflicted about reducing the funding temporarily to 0.5%.

The metaphor Taylor had introduced at the last meeting was one of pruning a plant. Taylor said it’s a useful metaphor, but he’d begun to doubt it’s applicability. What benefit would accrue to the program? he asked. He had yet to hear of a capital project that couldn’t be put forward, due to the public art program. He felt the program would benefit from an increased focus on staffing and administration, but had come to doubt that the temporary reduction would be useful.

Because Taylor did not feel the reduction would be useful, he said he would be proposing two amendments – to eliminate the temporary reduction in funding, and to eliminate the requirement that the money either be encumbered within three years, or else returned to its fund of origin.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) agreed with Taylor and said that Taylor’s remarks had encapsulated a lot of his own thinking. It would be a step backward, said Derezinski, who also serves on the public art commission. What kind of signal would it send? He said he was in favor of keeping the funding level at 1%. He suggested that an administrative solution needed to be found.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she’d twice supported the reduction of funding for the public art program. [At the council's Dec. 21, 2009 meeting and at the council's May 31, 2011 session, she'd voted for a reduction in funding.] Smith said she felt she’d been pretty consistent with the way she carries votes forward. The more she reflected on why she felt the way she did about the art program, the more she thought it might be because of a lack of more obvious progress.

The more Smith read about how to turn a place around and the reasons why people are drawn to a place, the more she wondered if reducing the funding was the right move. An epiphany came to her, she said, when crunching through the numbers and seeing the funding levels for the next three years for 1%, 0.5% and 0.25%. The difference between them, she said, is about “a buck and a quarter” per resident.

In talking about proposing an amendment, Smith said, Taylor had beaten her to the punch.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he supported the amendment, because maintaining funding at 1% is the right thing to do. He weighed in against executing a strategy to do everything at absolute minimum cost. He noted that Lumm had pointed out that having a conversation about the amount of funding shouldn’t be taken as support for art or not – up to a point. He said if someone were to suggest supporting 1/1000th of a percent, then that would not count as support for the art. Hohnke said he wanted Ann Arbor to be among the cohort of communities that leads.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she appreciated what had been said. As far as freeing up funds by reducing the percentage, she said, she didn’t know what the funds would be freed up for. It isn’t about art appreciation, she said. Ann Arbor has wonderful art fairs and people claim Ann Arbor is an artistic Mecca, but the city doesn’t really support art at all, she claimed. The Percent for Art ordinance is the mechanism to support public art, she said.

Councilmembers Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

People had described some great ideas about what the city could do with the arts funding, Teall said, but the city wouldn’t achieve any of the great ideas if the funding were cut.

With Smith and Taylor dropping their support, Briere appeared to understand that she’d likely lose the vote. She noted that her colleagues would remember that she didn’t propose the temporary drop in funding to 0.5%, but that she’d brought forward the resolution at the request of other councilmembers. [Her original proposal had been to leave the funding level at 1% but to exclude projects funded with the street repair millage.]

Briere indicated she appreciated the desire to return to 1%. The reason she could not support it, she said, is because the council had been engaged in “this dance” for three years. The council talked about it, but then backed away.

There’s absolutely no denying that art is important, Briere said. She reflected on the fact that it’s possible for the council to have a three-hour discussion that has little impact on individual budgets. Briere alluded to the council’s 45-minute debate in May 2009 on a $7,000 item for Project Grow funding. Using Smith’s analogy, that’s 6 cents per resident, she said. The council had recently approved a $25,000 appropriation for the Delonis Center warming center – that’s 22 cents a person, she said.

Over the next three years, the reduction from 1% to 0.5% takes funding from around $900,000 per year to almost $450,000, Briere said. She said she was hard-pressed to believe it would cripple a program that currently has around $1.5 million to spend. And if it were to cripple that program, we’d know it, she said, because the council would hear about it. She stressed that it’s a temporary three-year cutback. She did not think the temporary reduction would prevent someone from settling in Ann Arbor or expanding their business here. People come to places where there are jobs and housing, with well-maintained streets, she said – to places that take pride not just in art, but also in infrastructure.

This is the third time the issue has come back to the council, Briere said, and she felt that fact represents a real dissatisfaction with something about the program. She again stressed that she’d brought it forward at the request of other members on the council. If the council does not act, she said, councilmembers would face the same situation again in a year.

Lumm noted that the difference between the roughly $900,000 that 1% would generate and the $450,000 that 0.5% would generate was significant. The issue has to do with funding priorities, she said.

Taylor had voted for the reduction from 1% to 0.5% at the council’s first reading, in the same way he’d voted for the reduction at the first reading in 2009. He allowed that Briere raised a good point about the persistence of the council’s conversation. It’s one about which he was torn. The past two weeks had been illuminating for clarifying his thoughts.

Teall noted that permanent public art is costly, if it’s constructed as a life-long legacy to stand the test of time. The program doesn’t have an administrator, she said, and it’s a young program. [The city's current public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, started the job in May. It's a part-time position.] To “cut it off at its knees” is a mistake, Teall said. Reducing it would be a rollback at a time when the city is trying to institute things that don’t come to fruition in a short time.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) expressed some frustration, saying that as she listened to the debate, people always want to tie it to being for or against public art. The discussion is really about how to fund it. Higgins said that Marsha Chamberlin, chair of the public art commission, brought up a great point during public commentary when she’d said that the program has a lot of money right now, but nothing guarantees it in future years. If we want this place to be a Mecca for art, Higgins said, then let’s figure out how to fund it. The council was dancing around the question.

Higgins talked about the need for the art commission to know how much money it would have and for how long. She wondered if $400,000 for the next 30 years, funded by a millage, would be one way to go. She noted that people say they don’t want general fund dollars to go towards public art, but she wondered how administrative support is paid for.

Higgins said she’d like to see the resolution tabled for four to five months so that the council could have a serious conversation about it. On the issue of the general fund, she wondered if some money for art shouldn’t come from the general fund. If it’s a priority for the community, she asked, why not?

Hohnke allowed that the dollar amount generated is significant over the next three years, whether the percentage is 1% or 0.5%. The elegance of the program, based on a percentage, is that it’s a reflection of the investments made in the built environment. The program provides resources relative to the investment in the built environment, he said.

Mayor John Hieftje said people had made many good points. One of the points is that there are strings attached to the way public art money is spent, and he supported loosening the strings to the extent it’s legally possible. If there is any general fund money in the public art fund, he said, it’s not enough to make it an issue of public safety. The question is whether to fund art.

Hieftje noted that Ann Arbor’s water and sewer rates are some of the lowest in the state. He assured people that they’d see some aggressive spending of street millage funds next year – the city had been holding them back as a contingency to help pay for the Stadium bridges replacement project. Hieftje revealed that he was a sponsor of the resolution to reduce the funding from 1% to 0.5% at one point. But in looking at public art as economic development and reflecting on that, he found that 1%, up to the $250,000 limit per project, is okay. He found himself in favor of the amendment to keep funding at 1%.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) complained that the legality of the transfer from the street fund to art had never been explained in a written opinion from the city attorney. Alluding to Hieftje’s mention of “strings,” he said if the council is going to talk about strings, the strings should be written down.

Describing a millage pitched by Tuscola County to its voters, Kunselman said Tuscola County assured voters that there could be no transfer of special millage funds to another account. That’s what Tuscola County says, so what do we say, Kunselman wondered. He suggested the new city administrator ask for a written opinion from the city attorney. Then there could be certainty, he said.

Kunselman liked the idea of an art millage. Not acting meant punting it down the road to a future council in a way that could end up in a lawsuit, he said. Ann Arbor is the only city in Michigan that has a Percent for Art ordinance, Kunselman said, and the city doesn’t even have it written down why it’s legal.

Outcome on amendment restoring the 1% level of funding: The council voted to eliminate the original amendment, thus restoring the funding level to 1%. Dissenting were Lumm, Kunselman and Briere.

Taylor then went on to propose eliminating another amendment, already given initial approval, that money be returned to its fund of origin if not encumbered within three years. He said he’d initially thought it was a reasonable way to incentivize spending money with deliberate haste. He felt there were complications with the provision, despite the fail-safe that allowed the city council to extend the three-year deadline for funds in six-month increments.

Teall thanked Taylor for bringing forward the amendment. She feared the original proposal would have the effect of rushing the public art commission into spending money.

Briere noted that any time you talk about deadlines, there’s a valid concern it would result in hasty, ill-considered decisions. Responding to the issue of money in some funds accruing slowly, she noted that money is pooled and could be put together with other funds. Briere noted that the idea of placing a temporal deadline had come from public services area administrator Sue McCormick, who oversees the public art program. Briere said that placing a finite deadline on the accrual of funds would help focus attention. The idea is not to rush to judgment, she said. It’s to focus attention. It allows the city to keep better track of things.

Councilmember Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Margaret Parker, a member of the public art commission.

Higgins said she wouldn’t support Taylor’s amendment, pointing out that she’d heard Marsha Chamberlin say at the podium that the three-year period is reasonable. Higgins also noted that it’s not just one six-month period of extension – it’s an indefinite number of six-month extensions that are available. It’s an easy check and balance.

Smith noted that one of the things that affects her thinking about the public art ordinance is that there’s at this point very little public art to see. The original change that the council approved may help push projects along, so she was not in favor of reversing it. It’s important to have some sense of urgency, she said.

Derezinski said he’d proposed and voted for the amendment that allowed the council to grant an extension because it made the overall proposition less bad. He said it related to the issue of process and how the public art commission operates. If the commission had the right staff, he felt, it would be possible to address the issue through the procedures of the commission. Writing a requirement into the ordinance is using “too large a club,” he said.

Lumm said that the three-year provision did not amount to a hardship. She called it simply a very good discipline and said she wouldn’t support Taylor’s amendment.

Outcome on amendment removing requirement that funds be encumbered within three years: The amendment passed on a 6-5 vote, with approval from Derezinski, Taylor, Teall, Hohnke, Anglin and Hieftje.

Public services area administrator Sue McCormick was asked how the administration for public art would be charged. She described it as analogous to the way that engineering projects are charged to the project management group at the city.

In her concluding remarks, Briere noted that other communities with Percent for Art programs restrict the money in some way. When the Ann Arbor city council had originally passed its ordinance, it had not restricted the money. That made it problematic to manage. She hoped her colleagues would allow some restrictions going forward by passing the resolution as amended. [The surviving changes included the prohibition on using money from the general fund and the definition of capital improvement projects to exclude sidewalk repair.]

Lumm expressed frustration, commenting: “This thing is really watered down!” [Briere subsequently told The Chronicle that she'd gotten out of it what she'd wanted – an agreement to restrict the funds in some way.] Lumm said she’d started paying attention to it when Higgins had proposed a budget amendment in May of that year. Now, Lumm said, she wasn’t sure what to do.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the two changes to the public art ordinance.

City-County Consolidated Dispatch

On the agenda was a resolution for a $759,089 annual contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office to handle police dispatch operations for the city of Ann Arbor. The five-year agreement is anticipated to start in March of 2012.

According to the staff memo accompanying the council’s resolution, the city of Ann Arbor expects to realize at least $500,000 in savings annually compared to continuing to employ its own dispatchers. The cost savings arise from the fact that not all of the city’s current dispatchers would be hired on by the sheriff’s office – the total number of dispatchers in the consolidated operation would be reduced by six FTEs, compared to the two separate operations.

In the separate but co-located dispatch operation currently in place, at any given time, one Law Enforcement Information Network support officer is used for each operation – one for the Ann Arbor police department and one for the Washtenaw County sheriff's office.

In more detail, the city’s dispatch operation is currently authorized for 19 dispatching positions, and the county has 17 positions. The combined operation is proposed to employ 30 full-time dispatchers. It also calls for 10 part-time dispatchers.

A significant reduction in the FTE number (5.25 positions) is achieved in the consolidated operation by using just one LEIN (Law Enforcement Information Network) officer, instead of using one LEIN officer for each dispatch operation (for a total of two) at any given time.

The way these efficiencies were gained was laid out at the council’s Dec. 5 meeting, as they had been at a work session in September, by Kerry Laycock, a management consultant hired to help with the consolidation. [Laycock has been tapped for assistance on many of the city's reorganizational moves over the last several years, including most recently the Ann Arbor housing commission.]

Of the 19 budgeted city positions, one dispatcher retired this fall, leaving current staffing at 18. Two dispatchers are currently on approved leave. As a result of the consolidation, 4-5 Ann Arbor dispatchers who currently have full-time positions would not have a full-time job under the consolidated operation.

In addition to the cost savings that accrue from employing fewer people overall, it emerged during council deliberations that the difference in compensation between city and county dispatchers averages around $9,000 per year – Ann Arbor city dispatchers earn more. That can translate into around a 20% pay cut for Ann Arbor city dispatchers, who earned $44,000-$56,000 in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010.

The contract with the county for dispatch services is offset by a $12,520 facility use fee paid by the county to the city. The Washtenaw County sheriff’s office is already co-located with Ann Arbor police dispatch, in a facility above the city’s Fire Station #1 on South Fifth Avenue just across the street from the municipal center. The sheriff’s office also currently handles dispatching services for Northfield Township, Michigan State Police, Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority and the city of Ypsilanti. [Additional Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor, Washtenaw: Joint 911 Dispatch?"]

According to the staff memo accompanying the council’s resolution, the consolidation of dispatch operations would help qualify the city for the state of Michigan’s Economic Vitality Incentive Plan. The MEVIP has replaced statutory state-shared revenue as the means that the state legislature uses to distribute to local governmental units their portion of the state’s sales tax. The distribution of a portion of the state sales tax to local units is based on the fact that in Michigan, local units have limited ability to generate revenue through taxes.

Consolidated Dispatch: Public Commentary

Anne Daws-Lazar told the council she was a life-long Ann Arbor resident and that she’d worked 24 years as a dispatcher and would be retiring in February 2012. She characterized the proposed move not as a merger but as a “takeover.” She questioned the ability to take more calls with fewer people. She noted that currently the two operations are co-located. Before co-location, she said, Ann Arbor dispatchers answered more than 48,000 911 calls. After co-location, she said (adding the county sheriff’s operation) Ann Arbor dispatchers answered 85,000 calls. That’s because Ann Arbor dispatchers are answering Washtenaw County calls. [In the dispatching operation, there are two distinct functions performed by separate people – a call-taking function and a dispatching function.] So the Ann Arbor dispatching staff is already assisting with the Washtenaw County workload, Daws-Lazar concluded.

Ann Arbor dispatchers have more experience than county dispatchers, she said. Of the current 16 Ann Arbor dispatchers, nine have over 10 years of experience, and nobody has less than six years of experience. On the county side, she said, six out of 14 have less than four years experience. She accounted for the reduced experience on the county’s side by pointing to the conditions they work under and their treatment by their administration. She said she felt that very few people will be transitioned – Ann Arbor dispatchers will have to apply for a job. She felt very few Ann Arbor dispatchers will actually do that, because they’ve seen firsthand the conditions that the county dispatchers work under, which in turn will lead to a less-experienced dispatching staff.

Among the conditions the county dispatchers work under, Daws-Lazar pointed to a difference in their contracts – Ann Arbor dispatchers aren’t allowed to work 16 hours, unless it’s an extreme emergency. But county dispatchers work 16-hour days regularly, she contended. And they do that often two to three days in a row. That comes at a price, she said, including officer safety.

Danyelle Tucker introduced herself as a current employee at the dispatch center. In June of this year, she contended, all 18 dispatchers had been sent letters saying they would be laid off due to a lack of funding. She alluded to an alternative proposal, that would create revenue for the city instead of costing the city $759,000 per year, including the loss of PSAP (public safety answering point) funds totaling over $600,000 per year.

She contended that during a May 11, 2011 meeting of a the county-city collaboration task force, attended by assistant city attorney Nancy Niemela, city of Ann Arbor CFO Tom Crawford, and deputy police chief Greg Bazick, they discussed the best avenue for getting around a full city council vote. As members of the city council, she said, they should question why secrecy would be needed, if it were the best plan for the city. Why would Bazick raise the possibility of the consolidation process to be stopped by an injunction? she asked. She said there was a reason why the police department administration did not want the council to see the alternative proposal.

Tucker also expressed concern for citizens of Ann Arbor who are accustomed to a certain level of service from a dispatch center. Under the proposal, she said, citizens would be relying on Washtenaw County to maintain a full-staffed dispatch center. According to meeting notes obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request, full staffing would require 33 full-time employees, Tucker said. Currently the Washtenaw County dispatch operation has 14. To date, through 2011, the current level of staffing by the county has led to 5,000 hours of overtime, forcing current staff to work double shifts multiple days of the week, she said.

Consolidated Dispatch: Management Review

Ann Arbor chief of police Barnett Jones was invited to the podium by Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) to give an overview.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and chief of police Barnett Jones.

Jones reviewed his time as chief in Ann Arbor, which began six years ago. After four months on the job, he said, he’d been told he’d need to reduce staff. Since then, it’s been six years of reducing staff. In the course of those reductions, he said, he didn’t touch dispatch. It’s one of the core areas – patrol, investigation and dispatch. He reminded the council that he had presented the buyout option to the council to induce early retirements in 2009, which they’d approved. That had resulted in 26 people taking early retirement, two of whom were dispatchers. Those positions were then replaced, he said.

For this round of reductions, he said, he’d tried to come up with a way to keep his people employed. He first called the sheriff to explore the possibility that Ann Arbor could take over the sheriff’s dispatch, to perhaps generate revenue through the dispatch operation. Jones alluded to statutory mandates that prevent the sheriff from doing that. So they had looked at it the other way – with the sheriff taking over Ann Arbor’s dispatching operation. Later during council deliberations, sheriff Jerry Clayton said the proposal was cost-neutral from the county’s perspective.

Jones told councilmembers they’d seen some of the notes – alluding to the information that had been described during public commentary. When you brainstorm, he said, you throw every idea you can think of on the wall. The point is to try to save jobs, he said. Of the current Ann Arbor dispatchers, 13 or 14 of them would be employed under the consolidation, he said. His reality is that he faces a $1.2 million deficit. To meet that target without consolidation, he’d need to eliminate some dispatchers and officers, he said.

[Later during deliberations, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) invited a dispatcher to comment from the podium, who noted that on either scenario, with or without consolidation, she'll be losing her job.]

Jones presented the consolidation as good public policy because it helps keep patrol officers on the street.

Clayton also contended that the dispatch consolidation is good public policy. His office was there to assist the city, he said. He compared Ann Arbor’s situation with that faced by Ypsilanti previously. Ypsilanti was faced with the choice of laying off a police officer or firefighter. In that instance, Ypsilanti dispatchers applied for jobs to the county and they were brought in to the county dispatching organization, Clayton said. The approach in Ann Arbor would be similar, he said. He confirmed that if a decision is made to consolidate, those who are laid off from Ann Arbor dispatch would not be guaranteed a job.

He described how there would be a transition period of around six months while separate dispatching would continue as the dispatchers are cross-trained – county dispatchers for the city of Ann Arbor and Ann Arbor dispatchers for Washtenaw County.

Responding to comments made during public commentary about the quality of service, Clayton allowed that right now the sheriff’s office doesn’t have enough staff. Even under those conditions, he said, county dispatchers deliver excellent service.

Consolidated Dispatch: Budget Context

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted the $1.2 million projected shortfall for the police department for the FY 2013 budget year, and compared that to the projected $500,000 annual savings from the consolidated dispatch operation. That still leaves $600,000-$700,000 to make up. She wanted to know how Jones proposed to cover the remaining shortfall. Chief of police Barnett Jones indicated that he did not have a proposal, except to hope the council found another way.

The context of the budget to which Jones alluded during his remarks has changed as the result of a new contract signed by the police officers union (AAPOA) in September of this year. The city’s position is that the layoff of four officers would not have been necessary, if the police union had made concessions on their contributions to health and pensions benefits before June 30.

During deliberations, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that the $1.2 million projected shortfall in the public safety services area had been based on the analysis of a previous city administrator [Roger Fraser]. Kunselman said he was interested in getting a budget analysis from Steve Powers, the new city administrator.

Another change in the context for the $1.2 million projected shortfall is on the revenue side. From the city’s CFO Tom Crawford, Kunselman elicited Crawford’s expectation that property tax revenues next year could show an increase compared with this year.

At multiple points during the evening, including deliberations on the consolidated dispatch, mayor John Hieftje talked about a plan to preserve police officer staffing levels – it currently appears that nine officers will retire around the beginning of the year. The city is looking to rehire the officers just recently laid off. For the remaining five positions, there are around 400 applications for those jobs. The savings from the new AAPOA contract and the anticipated savings from the consolidated dispatch, Hieftje said, get the city where it needs to be to preserve current staffing levels.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) drew out the fact that there would be transitional costs associated with the consolidation of somewhere between $300,000-$500,000 in the first year.

Consolidated Dispatch: Adequacy of Service

At one point, Hieftje asked Jones to confirm that dispatching services would be adequate under the consolidation. Jones provided that confirmation. He said he’d gotten a lot of grey hair over this decision. Part of his comfort, he said, was based on the continuing liaison that would exist between the police department and the consolidated dispatch.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked for a review of some of the metrics that would be used to determine if performance was being maintained. Jones gave the basic industry standard that 90% of calls should be answered in less than 10 seconds. The consultant Kerry Laycock also indicated that one component of performance can be monitored by calling back citizens who make calls to 911 to get a measure of their satisfaction. A final component is to get feedback from officers who are dispatched. That part is still under development.

Smith wanted to know what happens if the metrics show the consolidation is failing. Jones indicated that the whole process of gradual consolidation would need to be undone in reverse. That’s why this has to work going forward, he said.

Higgins confirmed with sheriff Clayton that the city could get performance metrics as often as it liked – the city is the customer, Clayton said.

Consolidated Dispatch: Human Resources

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) got clarification that 13-14 Ann Arbor dispatchers would be able to apply for jobs under the consolidated dispatch operation. He got confirmation that their pay would be less than they currently make. From the audience someone called out the question: “How much less?” Although Hieftje admonished attendees not to interrupt the meeting that way, the figure was tracked down in response to the question: On average, county dispatchers make $9,000 less than city of Ann Arbor dispatchers.

Hieftje allowed that it’s not a slight but rather a significant difference. Higgins noted that dispatchers are not the city’s highest paid employees. [Dispatchers earned $44,000-$56,000 for FY 2010].

Higgins also wanted to know what the difference in benefits is between the county and the city. Laycock said that human resources staff had described them as comparable. Sheriff Clayton said that among county workers, the dispatchers had very good benefits. Higgins was assured she’d be provided with a benefits comparison.

Consolidated Dispatch: Council Deliberations – Bid to Postpone

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) made a bid to postpone the vote, based on uncertainties associated with the changing budget picture. Asked by Kunselman, city administrator Steve Powers said that with respect to timing, the contract did not need to be approved that night.

Kunselman invited one of the dispatchers in the audience to comment from the rank-and-file staff perspective, given that the council had just heard at length from the management side. [It's not common that the council invites an audience member to address the body outside of time set aside for public commentary, but the council's rules explicitly provide for that possibility.]

Mayor John Hieftje’s response to Kunselman’s gambit was first to note that the council had already heard from dispatchers during public commentary, but he quickly adopted the position that he had no objection to hearing more.

The dispatcher who approached the podium reviewed how the current operation is already co-located and that the call-taking function [which is a different task from dispatching] is already merged. She suggested that the two operations should truly be merged instead of the sheriff’s department taking over the Ann Arbor dispatching. The dispatchers themselves, she said, were out of the loop. She said they’d been told they’d all be laid off – that had shaken up people’s lives.

She told the council that dispatchers are extremely frustrated. Although there are dispatchers who have worked over 20 years, she hadn’t worked that long, so she noted that she’d lose her job regardless of the consolidation. She invited councilmembers to take the time to see the dispatch center. She told them they couldn’t make an educated vote without seeing it for themselves.

Kunselman’s motion to postpone nearly died for lack of a seconding motion, but that eventually came from Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) asked city administrator Steve Powers if during a delay on the vote, Powers could think of a reason that would change his mind. Powers said he doesn’t approve an agenda item for the council’s consideration unless he supports it. He said it’s unfortunate that there’s disruption for dispatchers and a difference in compensation. For reasons that had already been enumerated, Powers said he supported the consolidation. Responding to the invitation the council had heard to visit the city’s dispatch center, he encouraged them to visit other dispatch centers where consolidated dispatch was already being done – fire, police, and EMS. Consolidated dispatching is being done all over, and it makes sense for the city at this time, he concluded.

Hieftje, noting the length of time that the proposal had been in the works, said he wouldn’t support postponement.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she was confident that Powers and Jones will ensure that response times are maintained. She pointed out that the sheriff’s office has experience doing shared dispatch. She also pointed to the fact that the consolidation of dispatch operations would help qualify the city for the state of Michigan’s Economic Vitality Incentive Plan. The MEVIP has replaced statutory state-shared revenue as the means that the state legislature uses to distribute to local governmental units their portion of the state’s sales tax.

Lumm and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wondered if postponing the vote would affect the city’s opportunity to qualify for the MEVIP. City CFO Tom Crawford indicated that the city’s application needed to include items that the city had already accomplished and things that are planned. It would be described to the state as “planned” in any case, he said, even if the vote were taken that night.

Crawford also indicated it’s not clear what the state will do next year. He said it’s become clear that there was an impression that communities are not doing much in the way collaboration. Crawford said the state is learning that Ann Arbor as well as many other communities have a long history of collaborations. Crawford gave towing as another possible example of collaboration with the county.

Outcome on postponement: Only Kunselman voted for postponement, and the motion failed.

Consolidated Dispatch: Council Deliberations – Finale

There were no substantive deliberations after the vote on postponement.

Outcome: Kunselman joined his colleagues in the unanimous vote for dispatch consolidation. The consolidation will also require approval by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

Greenbelt Expanded Boundaries

Before the council for its consideration was final approval to a change in the boundaries for the city’s greenbelt program – an open space preservation effort funded by a 30-year 0.5 mill tax approved by voters in 2003.

The council approved the addition of the southwest and northeast corners to the greenbelt-eligible area. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

The area in and around Ann Arbor eligible for land preservation under the greenbelt program is defined in Chapter 42 of the Ann Arbor city code. The council has expanded the boundaries once before, in 2007. The current proposal is essentially to square-off the area by adding a mile to the southwest in Lodi Township, and one mile to the northeast in Salem Township. [.jpg of map by The Chronicle showing original boundaries, the 2007 expansion and the proposed expansion]

Another amendment to Chapter 42 was also considered by the council. It would allow a parcel of land adjacent to the greenbelt boundary to be eligible for protection, if it is also adjacent to a parcel under the same ownership within the greenbelt boundary. The greenbelt advisory commission had voted to recommend the ordinance changes at its Sept. 14, 2011 meeting. The council gave the changes initial approval at its Nov. 21, 2011 meeting.

Since the start of the greenbelt program, roughly $18 million has been invested by the city of Ann Arbor in protecting open space. That has been matched by roughly $19 million from other sources, including the federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program, surrounding townships, Washtenaw County and landowner donations. That funding has protected roughly 3,200 acres in 27 separate transactions.

Thomas Partridge spoke during the public hearing on these changes, calling for priority to be given to affordable housing.

Greenbelt Expanded Boundaries: Council Deliberations

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who serves as the city council representative to the greenbelt advisory commission, led off discussion with the introduction to some essentially administrative amendments to the wording. He stressed that the boundary change alters the total area of the greenbelt-eligible properties by 6%. He characterized the change as “normalizing” the boundary changes that were already approved in 2007. At that time, the area now to be included was not added, because of the limited willingness of townships in those areas to participate in the greenbelt program – Salem and Lodi townships. However, those townships are now interested in participating.

A breakdown of percentage contribution of different entities to the 26 greenbelt land transactions that have been completed to date. Of the 26, 12 did not include any township contributions. Two of the 12 transactions did not have any other governmental source, but had landowner donations. (Image links to higher resolution file. Chart by The Chronicle)

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) drew out the fact that there are two components to the amendment of the boundaries. Only one of them makes sense, she said – the one regarding properties that are adjacent to the boundary.

Lumm said she did not support the other component, which is the expansion of the area. She said that conceptually the arguments were similar to those the council had discussed during the debate about public art. It’s not about all or nothing, she said – it’s about making adjustments. She stressed the difference between the voter-approved millage and the Percent for Art program.

She asked: Is there any point at which the council believes the boundary goes too far? At what point, she asked, would asking voters about repurposing the millage revenues be considered? Annual revenues from the millage proceeds exceed by $1 million the bond payments. [The strategy was to take out a bond using future millage proceeds to pay for it, so that there would quickly be cash on hand to take advantage of land deals as the opportunities arose, instead of waiting to accumulate the cash through the millage.]

Lumm noted that this is the second proposed expansion of the greenbelt-eligible area. The original compact with voters, Lumm said, was to spend 1/3 of the millage proceeds inside the city and 2/3 outside. The goal had also been to achieve matching contributions for acquisitions that would make the city’s contribution 1/3 of the cost. But to date, she said, 27% of the investment has been on parkland inside Ann Arbor, and on average Ann Arbor has contributed 49% of the cost – higher than the 1/3 target.

In the meantime, Lumm said, Ann Arbor’s own city parks are starved for funds. She thanked Hohnke for bringing forward a smaller proposed expansion than what some people might have wanted. She said the council owes it to taxpayers to monitor the spending. At what point, she asked, are we spending money because it’s there? Until there’s clarity about that, she said, she wouldn’t support the boundary expansion.

From left: Dan Ezekiel, chair of the city's greenbelt advisory commission, and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).

Hohnke said that Lumm raised some good points. He said he appreciated her desire to maximize fiscal resources. He contended that the “slight” boundary expansion does that, by providing for additional opportunities that would serve the original purpose of the millage. It would also give the city the opportunity to leverage additional funds, to invest in open space of high quality, and it’s a way to help tax dollars go further.

Mayor John Hieftje also said good points had been raised. He suggested that this would be the final and last expansion of the boundaries. The corners of the area represent unique opportunities and a chance to find new partners. Hieftje cited the language on one of the main pieces of literature from 2003 millage campaign, which had referred to “other sources” of funding. That was one of the things that has changed, he said – the state of Michigan previously had a program and that’s the difference in the city’s ability to achieve the 1/3 goal.

Hieftje noted that the amount of funding from outside sources is actually more than equal to the city’s contribution. Hieftje stated that Ann Arbor had been very fortunate in that 90% of federal farmland protection money that’s awarded throughout the state of Michigan comes to the Ann Arbor area.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) agreed that the proposed changes are minor, but looking at the map, the boundaries completely avoid Ypsilanti Township. She wondered if there could ever come a time when people look at that irregular boundary and consider expanding.

Hohnke indicated that he did not think there was really high quality land there that would be worth considering and that’s not likely to change, he ventured, because it’s an already-built environment. From the audience, greenbelt advisory commission chair Dan Ezekiel and Ginny Trocchio, a Conservation Fund staff member who helps administer the program, nodded their agreement with Hohnke’s assessment of the missing southeast corner of the greenbelt-eligible area.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the expansion of the greenbelt-eligible area, as well as the adjacent property provision, over dissent from Lumm.

“No Newspaper” Law

On the agenda was a resolution revising the city’s littering and handbill ordinance that is meant to give residents the ability to regulate the kinds of newspapers that are deposited onto their property. The ordinance was aimed in part at publications that are delivered free in the community. The ordinance would make it a misdemeanor to deposit a newspaper on someone’s property, if a notice forbidding delivery of that specific newspaper is posted on the front door. The misdemeanor is punishable by a combination of a fine up to $500 and 90 days in jail. [.pdf of marked up version of ordinance]

The ordinance would also create liability not just for the person who might deposit commercial handbills or newspapers onto someone’s property, but also for the corporate entities who “cause” that activity to take place.

First Amendment issues raised by the city’s attempt to restrict unwanted delivery include the possibility that the proposed ordinance has created a content-based distinction between newspapers and commercial handbills. [.pdf of City of Fresno v. Press Communications, Inc. (1994)] However, the U.S. Supreme Court has established a right of residents to regulate the degree to which they must contend with printed matter delivered to their property. [.pdf of Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. (1970)] And in a more recent New York Supreme Court case, the court ruled that “neither a publisher nor a distributor has any constitutional right to continue to throw a newspaper onto the property of an unwilling recipient after having been notified not to do so.” [.pdf of Kenneth Tillman v. Distribution Systems of America]

The initial consideration of the ordinance had been postponed already at the council’s previous meeting, and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who sponsored the measure, indicated that another delay would be requested. His remarks suggested that some publishers had responded in such a way as to alleviate some of the concern that had prompted the perception that an ordinance was required.

Some back and forth ensued about tabling compared to postponing to a specific date. The council settled on tabling. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) cautioned that according to the council’s rules, if a resolution is not taken back up off the table for consideration in six months, the measure is considered demised.

Responding to Briere’s concern, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who co-sponsored the ordinance, indicated that the ordinance was expected to be taken up again sometime in January 2012.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to table the revision to the ordinance on handbills and littering.

New Investment Policy

Before the council for its consideration was the authorization of a new investment policy. The item had been on the council’s agenda at its Nov. 21 meeting, but was postponed at the request of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who wanted to have the council’s budget committee review the policy first.

Highlights of the policy changes include the extension on maturity timelines for several different instruments: U.S. Treasury Obligations (from seven to 15 years); Federal Agency Securities (from seven to 10 years); Federal Instrumentality Securities (from seven to 10 years), Certificates of Deposit (from three to five years), and Obligations of the State of Michigan (three to 10 years).

Balanced against those extensions were some changes to portfolio restrictions that prevent the city from having too many longer-term maturity instruments: no more than 25% of the portfolio may be invested in securities with maturities greater than seven years, and no more than 12.5% of the portfolio may be invested in securities with maturities more than 11 years.

During the scant deliberations, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked staff for providing answers to her questions about the policy changes. She supported the policy changes because they would allow the city to be less reactive.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the change in the investment policy.

Dexter Avenue Sidewalk Special Assessment

The council was asked to consider a special assessment on property owners along Dexter Avenue east of Maple Road for a total of $11,651, to pay for sidewalks. The one-time payments by the individual property owners are due June 1, 2012. Required payments range from $30.57 to more than $3,000. The project has a total cost of $92,955 – $74,364 of that amount will be paid with federal money. For the north side of Dexter Avenue, the project includes construction of a new sidewalk for a portion of the stretch, as well as a new curb and gutter for the street across from Veteran’s Memorial Park. For the south side of the street, the project includes a new curb along Veteran’s Memorial Park.

The council started the multi-step process for levying the special assessment at its Sept. 19, 2011 meeting.

Because of the special assessments, the Dexter Avenue sidewalk improvements do not require a portion of the project budget to be allocated for public art. From the city’s public art ordinance: “A capital improvement project funded by special assessments or improvement charges is not subject to the requirements of subsection (1) of this section.”

During the required public hearing, Thomas Partridge asked that the resolution be postponed so that it could be re-examined.

During the brief council deliberations, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that when special assessments are imposed, those whose property is subject to the assessment are typically resistant. [For example, for the special assessment that funded part of the non-motorized pathway along Washtenaw Avenue, which was held in September 2010, several property owners spoke at the public hearing, expressing their opposition.] He allowed that the relatively small amounts involved may have affected the lack of resistance. [Many property owners were assessed as little as $30.57.]

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the special assessment.

Council Housekeeping

The council handled several housekeeping items, as it does every year shortly after the new edition of the city council is elected. That includes appointment of council subcommittee membership as well as council representatives to other organizations. It also includes the adoption of council rules.

Council Housekeeping: Committees

Some assignments are for subcommittees of the council, while others are for city council appointments to other public bodies.

Compared to last year, the most significant change to the council’s committee structure was the separation of the joint administration & labor committee into a council administration committee and a council labor committee. On the labor side, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) was slotted in for Stephen Rapundalo, whom she defeated in the Nov. 8 election. Shuffling among other councilmembers, who all returned to this edition of the council, included the replacement of Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) on the labor committee by Sandi Smith (Ward 1).

The council administration committee retains the same membership as the former administration and labor committee, except for Rapundalo, who was replaced by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Taylor also took over Rapundalo’s council appointment to the local development finance authority (LDFA) board. [Google spreadsheet contrasting 2011 with 2012 city council appointments]

Changes to committee assignments were on the whole relatively minimal. That was due in part to the fact that Lumm was given four of Rapundalo’s previous committee appointments, including labor budget, liquor control, and the housing & human services advisory board. Lumm was also assigned to represent the city council on the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s (DDA) partnerships committee, relieving Margie Teall (Ward 4) of that duty.

Teall will also no longer represent the council on the Washtenaw Metro Alliance – Sabra Briere (Ward 1) will pick up that responsibility. Of the veteran councilmembers, Teall’s committee assignments reduced the most, as she’ll also no longer serve on the city environmental commission – a spot also picked up by Briere. At the meeting, Teall indicated that she’d taken herself off the environmental commission, saying she would miss it, but would keep in touch. She said she was delighted that Briere would fill that spot. Teall expressed appreciation for everything that environmental coordinator Matt Naud and commissioners have done through the years. She said she felt that her departure would also open up the communication so more people know what’s going on.

Teall – along with Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) – will also no longer need to serve on the committee established by the council to negotiate a new contract with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority under which the DDA operates the city’s public parking system. At the Dec. 5 meeting, the council formally dissolved the committee, the parking contract having been signed in May.

Council Housekeeping: Rules

Also before the council was the adoption of its rules, which included essentially one change. Included in council minutes currently are all emails received by councilmembers on their government accounts. The revision to the rules stipulates that only those emails related to the subject matter of the meeting will be included in the meeting minutes.

Council Housekeeping: LDFA

The council was asked to consider three appointments to the board of the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti SmartZone local development finance authority (LDFA): former councilmember Stephen Rapundalo, current councilmember Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), and Eric Jacobson.

Of the positions on the 9-member LDFA board, the city of Ann Arbor appoints six and the city of Ypsilanti appoints three. One of the six Ann Arbor spots is for a member of the Ann Arbor city council, which had been held by Rapundalo, until he was defeated in the Nov. 8 general election by Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Taylor is thus replacing Rapundalo as the city council representative. Rapundalo’s appointment is to fill an existing additional vacancy on the board.

Jacobson was also appointed to the LDFA to fill a vacancy on the board.

The local development finance authority is funded through a tax increment finance (TIF) mechanism for the same geographic district as the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti downtown development authorities. The LDFA currently receives no revenue from the Ypsilanti portion of its district. The taxes on which the increment is captured are local school taxes. The impact of the LDFA tax capture is spread across school districts statewide, due to the way that local school taxes are pooled by the state of Michigan and redistributed to local districts.

Based on data available through A2OpenBook, in fiscal year 2011, the LDFA generated $1.475 million in tax capture. The LDFA contracts with Ann Arbor SPARK to operate a business accelerator.

Council Housekeeping: AATA Board

Also at the Dec. 5 meeting, the council handled an appointment unrelated in its timing to the new edition of the council. Mayor John Hieftje nominated the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, to serve on the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. On confirmation by the city council, Cooper would fill the vacancy on the AATA board left by Sue McCormick.

McCormick is leaving her post at the city of Ann Arbor as public services area administrator to take a job as head of the Detroit water and sewerage department. McCormick’s last day on the job is Dec. 16. City administrator Steve Powers announced at the Dec. 5 meeting that the city’s head of systems planning, Craig Hupy, will fill in for McCormick on an interim basis. Powers reported that Hupy had no interest in the permanent position.

Cooper’s city position as transportation program manager falls under the city’s systems planning unit. The council previously appointed Cooper to serve on the AATA board on June 20, 2005. He served through June 2008, and was replaced on the board by current board chair Jesse Bernstein.

There is not a spot reserved for a city of Ann Arbor employee on the AATA board. When Cooper previously served on the AATA board, along with McCormick, their service prompted an op-ed in The Ann Arbor News criticizing the appointment of city employees to citizen boards. [.pdf of "Let's Stick With Autonomous Appointees for Citizen Boards"]

Outcome on all city council housekeeping items, including appointments: The council voted unanimously to approve its rules, calendar, and all committee appointments, many of which were made with separate resolutions.

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: Warming Center

Several people signed up for public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, to address the council on the topic of establishing a 24/7 warming center. People who sign up in advance for one of the reserved spots are given priority if they’re addressing an agenda item. Those who signed up to speak about the warming center cited the minutes of the Oct. 19 Ann Arbor housing commission meeting (attached to the agenda as a communication item from the city clerk) as the agenda item they wanted to speak about. The main business of that meeting was the hiring of the new executive director, but speakers did not address the subject matter of the housing commission meeting in any obvious way.

The tactic could be explained in part by the experience of University of Michigan student Orian Zakai at the previous council meeting, who had been unable to claim one of the 10 reserved public commentary slots, partly because several people who wanted to advocate for public art funding, which was an agenda item, had signed up for a reserved spot and had priority over her. Zakai had stayed until the end of that meeting, when unlimited unreserved public commentary is allowed, in order to deliver her remarks.

Again at the Dec. 5 meeting, Zakai addressed the council on the topic of establishing a warming center that would operate 24 hours a day. She ticked through the proposed policies of such a center and asked the council for assistance in finding a space to locate it.

Arthur Endsley introduced himself as a research scientist living and working in Ann Arbor. He told the council he’d toured the Delonis Center, as well as a homeless encampment, Camp Take Notice, and the breakfasts sponsored by St. Andrews.

It should be obvious, he said, that winter is upon us. He thanked the council for the $25,000 they’d appropriated to keep the warming center at the Delonis Center open this year. He wondered what will happen next year. He described those who needed a warming center here in Ann Arbor as global economic refugees living in our own community. He contended that the Delonis Center had a 80% recidivism rate. [According to Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, which operates the Delonis Center, the 80% figure refers to the percentage of people who move from the Delonis Center to sustainable housing and who are still housed after one year.] Permanent solutions are needed, Endsley said. Responding to proposed cuts of the public art program, he said, some had contended that if we cut art, we are cutting down our own image. Endsley wondered what it says about our image if some of our residents are freezing to death in the streets.

Lily Au asked the council to support the effort to establish a warming center.

Alan Haber addressed the council in support of the warming center, in the guise of addressing the revision to the handbill and litter ordinance that was on the agenda. He had a leaflet, that supported establishing a warming center, among other things. He read it and asked the council if the leaflet was legal under the handbill ordinance. A leaflet like that, he said, should be able to go anywhere.

Three people also stayed until the end of the meeting, well past midnight, in order to address the council.

Judy Bonnell-Wenzel spoke in favor of support for a warming center.

David Coleman told the council he’d been living in the city about five months as a musician and artist. He told them he spoke from the standpoint of someone who is homeless, who has nowhere to go. The homeless are not all addicts or alcoholics, he said. He read aloud a hand-written statement.

From David Coleman's statement he read aloud to the council towards the conclusion of the Dec. 5 meeting. The warming center is intended to be "a place to go that's inviting, safe and warm, a place that rescues, rehabilitates, enlightens, edifies and empowers ..."

University of Michigan student Alexandra Hoffman addressed the perception that perhaps a 24/7 warming center did not need to be opened or that it was too large a project to accomplish. She encouraged the council to think positively. The group had thus far been frustrated with real estate issues – they haven’t found a location for the center. But as for staffing, volunteers are ready. She suggested the vacant Georgetown Mall and former Borders store on East Liberty as possible locations. She told the council she’s from Toronto, and their youth shelter is right on the main street of town – it’s something to be proud of, not something to be swept under the rug, she said.

During his communications time, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) took up the suggestion of 415 W. Washington as a possible location for a warming center, noting that it’s a publicly owned facility. He ventured that perhaps the council needed to direct the creative use of the property.

During her communications, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted that the city spends significantly more than 1% of its money on housing and human services. She also noted the emergency allocation the council had made to the Delonis Center to keep its warming center open. She rejected the idea that there’s a choice to be made between funding art and funding human services.

Responding to Kunselman’s call for the exploration of 415 W. Washington as a possible location for a warming center, mayor John Hieftje made clear he didn’t think that was a realistic possibility. He reported that he, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) had been working with the Arts Alliance and the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy to turn 415 W. Washington into a community art center and greenway park. The real problem they can’t get around is the condition of the building, he said. It’s filled with asbestos and jagged pieces of metal. It would take more than $1 million to make the building usable, he said. The Arts Alliance would likely withdraw from the project.

Comm/Comm: Deportation

Lourdes Salazar Bautista appeared before the council to appeal for their support in her fight to stay in the U.S. She faces deportation on Dec. 27. Laura Sanders of the Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights (WICIR) also spoke in support of Bautista. Sanders noted that Bautista had been in the U.S. for 14 years, she works and pays taxes and has never committed a crime. Sanders attributed Bautista’s imminent deportation on Dec. 27 to Ann Arbor’s proximity to Canada, and the need for federal immigration official to meet deportation quotas. In the next few weeks, she said, the council would be asked to sign a letter of support.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) responded to the commentary during his communications by saying that it’s not possible to do very much with local legislation. But he noted that the council could give its input. He said that by executive order, Bautista could avoid deportation.

By way of background, Ann Arbor’s local policy on federal immigration policy is expressed in a 2003 city council resolution, which among other things calls on the AAPD to “limit local enforcement actions with respect to immigration matters to penal violations of federal immigration law (as opposed to administrative violations) except in cases where the Chief of Police determines there is a legitimate public safety concern.”

Comm/Comm: Budget Retreat

City administrator Steve Powers suggested that the council hold its budget retreat for 2014-15 in June 2012. Mayor John Hieftje said he did not think it’s necessary to have a retreat in December.

Comm/Comm: Crosswalks

Kathy Griswold told the council she had a masters degree in public policy and an MBA from the University of Michigan and had served 15 years on the transportation safety committee. Still, she said, she’s not qualified to make traffic laws – she’s not a professional engineer. She criticized the council’s revision to the crosswalk ordinance in 2010, which the council is now revising further, as giving pedestrians a false sense of security.

Griswold told the council that transportation engineering is not always intuitive. She described a pamphlet available in the city hall lobby as a creative marketing tool, but contended that in fact, “pedestrians don’t rule.” She’d spoken to a driver education instructor, who had told her the ordinance is a major problem. She pointed councilmembers to a 30-minute program she’d recorded for CTN as well as to the website she’d created: seekids.org.

Comm/Comm: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge called for expanded access to affordable housing, transportation and education and made complaints about illegal discrimination.

Comm/Comm: Sewage

Kermit Schlansker called for the use of sewage in the creation of energy.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, Dec. 19, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the second floor council chambers of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

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