The survey showed that if a vote were taken now – on funding a $65 million renovation or new construction project with a property tax increase of 0.69 mills – 45% of survey respondents would vote yes, and another 15% would lean toward a yes vote. That compares with a total 37% who said they would either vote no or lean toward no. [.pdf of survey results]

The survey also asked about support if the project were scaled back, requiring an 0.51 mill increase or an 0.25 mill increase. In those cases, the project received favorable support (yes or leaning to yes) of 61% and 72%, respectively. Results from the survey also indicated an 82% positive rating of the current downtown facility (41% excellent and 42% pretty good). Those who indicated a negative perception of the downtown building, whichis located at 343 S. Fifth Ave., cited construction (20%), parking (20%) and “needs upgrades” (15%) as the main reasons for that perception.

The survey was conducted by the Lansing firm EPIC-MRA from March 3-5, 2012 and reflects a sample of 400 responses, with a margin of error of ±4.9%.

In commenting on the survey at the board meeting, AADL director Josie Parker stressed that no decision has been made about the downtown building. But she pointed to the library’s five-year strategic plan, adopted by the board in 2010, which includes this goal: ”Renovate or replace the downtown library with attention to the condition of the existing building; tax base; revenue stream; development of surrounding properties and demographics.”

Also at the April 16 meeting, the board formally appointed a special facilities committee to work on the project. The committee includes AADL board members Prue Rosenthal (chair), Ed Surovell and Nancy Kaplan. At the board’s March 19 meeting, Rosenthal reported that the group had already met informally with library staff.

By way of background, in November 2011, the board voted to provide $45,000 in funding for consultants to help resume the process of possibly redeveloping that downtown building. The building is located south of the city’s new underground parking structure, which is being built by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and is tentatively named the Library Lane parking structure.

In late 2008 the AADL board had voted to suspend redevelopment of the downtown building, citing the shaky economy. [See Chronicle coverage: "Citing Economy, Board Halts Library Project." The issue has been addressed at subsequent AADL board meetings as well: "New Downtown Library? If, When and Where," and "Board Renews Library Building Discussion"]

This brief was filed from the conference room of the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown building, located at 343 S. Fifth Ave. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The $35,200 includes a $32,000 base bid and a $3,200 (10%) contingency fund to cover possible change orders. Funds would come from proceeds of the park maintenance and capital improvements millage.

According to a city staff memo, the restrooms don’t meet the state’s Barrier Free Code. The center’s two existing restrooms – each with two stalls – would be converted to three single restrooms that would each meet the Barrier Free Code standards. The memo notes that because L.C. Construction only has three employees, it is exempt from the city’s living wage and human rights ordinances.

This brief was filed from the PAC meeting in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The retreat was scheduled by board chair Conan Smith. It had not been announced at previous board meetings, nor was it formally announced during any of the opportunities for communications from commissioners at the board’s Jan. 18 meeting. However, commissioner Ronnie Peterson mentioned the retreat during the Jan. 18 meeting, noting that he would be unable to attend. He said he was concerned that there wouldn’t be adequate citizen input or participation, and he wanted to encourage the board to include that perspective.

In response to Peterson’s remarks, Yousef Rabhi – chair of the board’s working sessions – told commissioners that Smith will use part of the Jan. 19 working session to prep for the retreat. The two main agenda items for the Jan. 19 working session were both listed as topics of discussion to be led by Smith: (1) a “millage discussion,” and (2) a discussion of a statewide regional transit authority. Smith indicated that the second topic on regional transit would be removed from the agenda, because anticipated legislative action at the state level has not yet occurred.

The millage discussion is a reference to an idea that Smith has previously floated, and that he outlined in a presentation at the board’s Dec. 7, 2011 meeting. At that meeting, he discussed a plan for board priority-setting in 2012 and beyond that focused county efforts on shoring up the county’s east side. He laid out a variety of options that the county could pursue to fund those efforts, including a possible Headlee override or a new millage to pay for services.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) continued to hash through their differences after the Jan. 9, 2012 meeting was adjourned. (Photos by the writer.)

In the end, the council opted to delay voting on a four-way accord between the city of Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA), the city of Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County. The agreement among the four parties would set up a framework for, and contingencies on, the transition of the AATA to a countywide transit authority, incorporated under Michigan’s Act 196 of 1986. AATA currently operates under Act 55 of 1963.

The transition to a countywide funding base is intended to (1) ensure stability of funding for transit connections outside of the city of Ann Arbor, which has until now depended on purchase-of-service agreements; (2) provide a higher level of transit service inside the city of Ann Arbor; and (3) expand the area where transit service is provided.

The council’s vote was to delay the decision just for one meeting – until Jan. 23. The council also voted to set a public hearing for that date.

In other substantive action on the four-party agreement, the council amended it to stipulate that Ann Arbor’s transit tax would only be transferred to the new Act 196 authority if approval of a millage were to gain a majority of votes within the city of Ann Arbor.

In other business, the council gave initial approval to a revision of the Arlington Square planned unit development (PUD), located on the southeast corner of Washtenaw Avenue and Huron Parkway. The changes will allow for additional types of uses at the site – restaurants and an urgent care facility. Questions were raised about the number of existing parking spaces on the site.

The council also approved the set of fees associated with its property assessed clean energy (PACE) program, which was established last year.

In additional business, the council approved petitions to the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner for several stormwater projects, and approved a wetland mitigation plan for the Wheeler Service Center on Stone School Road. The council also authorized a pay increase for election workers who staff the polls on election day.

At the start of the meeting, councilmembers received an update on the skatepark planned for the northeast corner of Veterans Memorial Park. With most of the funding now in place, construction looks like it will start late in 2012 or the spring of 2013.

Four-Party Countywide Transportation Agreement

At the Jan. 9 meeting, the council considered a four-way accord between the city of Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA), the city of Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County. The agreement among the four parties would set up a framework for, and contingencies on, the transition of the AATA to a countywide transit authority, incorporated under Michigan’s Act 196 of 1986. AATA currently operates under Act 55 of 1963.

The council had held a working session on the subject on Dec. 12, and at that time councilmembers were told to expect the agreement to be on the agenda at their last meeting of the year, or else in January.

One expected move did not materialize at the council’s Jan. 9 meeting but was mentioned during deliberations as a possibility: To change the proposed balance of representation on the board of a new countywide transit authority. The idea would be to add another seat representing Ann Arbor on the board.

The proposed balance of 7 Ann Arbor seats on a 15-member board has been publicly discussed as early as April 2011. When presented to the Washtenaw County board of commissioners on April 7, 2011, the 7/15 Ann Arbor representation was met with objection from some commissioners as too-heavily weighted with Ann Arbor appointees.

If approved, the four-way agreement would assign specific conditions and responsibilities to each of the parties as part of the transition to a countywide transit authority. The role of approving, signing and filing the articles of incorporation for the new transit authority would fall to Washtenaw County. [.pdf of draft articles of incorporation]

The transition to a countywide funding base is intended to (1) ensure stability of funding for transit connections outside of the city of Ann Arbor, which has until now depended on purchase-of-service agreements; (2) provide a higher level of transit service inside the city of Ann Arbor; and (3) expand the area where transit service is provided. The service plan is laid out in two volumes of the transit master plan. [.pdf of "Volume 1: A Transit Vision for Washtenaw County"] [.pdf of "Volume 2: Transit Master Plan Implementation Strategy"]

A two-volume document on funding options forms the third part of the transit master plan. [.pdf of Part 1 of Vol. 3 Transit Master Plan Funding Options] [.pdf of Part 2 of Vol. 3 Transit Master Plan Funding Options]. A financial advisory group, led by McKinley Inc. CEO Albert Berriz and retired Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel, has met since late 2011 to analyze those funding options.

The role of the two cities – Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – would be to pledge their current transit millages to the new authority, contingent on identifying a countywide funding source. The two cities currently levy millages that are designated for public transit and are passed through to the AATA. For Ann Arbor, that’s currently just over 2 mills. For Ypsilanti, which uses the proceeds of the tax (approved in November 2010) to fund its purchase-of-service agreement with the AATA, the levy is just under 1 mill. [One mill is $1 for each $1,000 of a property's taxable value.]

As part of the four-party agreement, Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor would agree that AATA’s existing assets would be assumed by the new Act 196 transit authority. The cities would also agree to assign their existing millages to the new Act 196 authority. But the asset transfer and the millage assignment would be contingent on identifying a countywide funding source for the new Act 196 authority.

A draft four-party agreement was circulated around the time of the Dec. 12 Ann Arbor city council working session on that topic. One difference between the Dec. 12 version and the Jan. 9 version is the explicit contemplation in the more recent document of a countywide funding source that would not necessarily take the form of a millage. But the result was a document that appears to contain an internal tension. In one paragraph of the Jan. 9 version, the alternative to a millage is described as funds “which do not require voter approval.” But in a different paragraph, the funding source (not necessarily a millage) is described as having “countywide voter approval.”

The modification to the agreement since Dec. 12 is driven in part by discussions at the state level that have explored the idea of creating enabling legislation for a regional transit authority that could be funded in part by vehicle registration fees. Depending on how that legislation is crafted, local units might be able to impose vehicle registration fees to fund transit without a voter referendum. The modification is also driven in part by the possibility that philanthropic or private-public partnerships could fund countywide transit – an idea that the financial advisory group has discussed. That group’s final meeting is scheduled for Jan. 27.

The Ann Arbor city council is now expected to vote on the four-party agreement at its Jan. 23 meeting after a public hearing on the issue.

[For general background on a variety of transportation issues, see recent Chronicle coverage: "Washtenaw Transit Talk in Flux" and "AATA Preps Stage for Future Transit Choice"]

Four-Party Transit: Public Comment

Several people who wanted to comment on the four-party transit agreement had signed up in advance of the meeting for one of the 10 slots available for public commentary.

Tim Hull introduced himself as a Ward 2 resident. He contended that for the four-party agreement to have any effect, it would need the support of eight councilmembers, citing the city charter requirement on abolishment of offices:

Meetings of the Council Section 4.4
(g) The affirmative vote of at least six members of the Council, or of such greater number as may be required by this charter, or other provisions of law, shall be required for the adoption or passage of any resolution or ordinance, or the taking of any official Council action. No office may be created or abolished, nor any street, alley, or public ground vacated, nor private property taken for public use, unless by a concurring vote of at least eight members of the Council.

By way of background, the four-party agreement expresses that when certain conditions are met, Ann Arbor will “take such necessary actions by its governing body [i.e., the city council] to terminate its operational agreement with AATA effective at closing;” and that Ann Arbor will designate the new authority as AATA’s successor. It’s Hull’s contention that this process amounts to an “abolishment” of the existing office of AATA board member.

Hull also expressed concern that Ann Arbor would appoint just 7 of 15 board seats, when Ann Arbor residents might provide 2/3 of the funding – that’s unfair to Ann Arbor residents, Hull said.

As AATA CEO Michael Ford explained later in the meeting, the determination of the balance on the board began by looking at population – about 1/3 of the population of Washtenaw County lives in Ann Arbor. Compared to a population-based apportionment, the assignment of 7 seats to Ann Arbor reflects two additional seats – that is, based on population alone, Ann Arbor would get 5 out of 15 seats. Those two additional seats were justified by the additional millage (the city’s existing transit millage) that Ann Arbor would be contributing to the countywide authority. It’s the view of some residents, including Hull, that those 7 seats are not adequate to ensure Ann Arbor’s equitable representation on the Act 196 board, in light of the contribution of Ann Arbor’s existing millage.

Hull continued his remarks by expressed fear that the new authority could use Ann Arbor’s existing millage for services outside the city. He called some aspects of the proposed service plan “unfunded pipe dreams” that could only be funded by diverting Ann Arbor’s millage proceeds. Implementation by the AATA of the A2Express and park-and-ride lots brought cuts to other routes, Hull contended. He wondered about possible diversion of Ann Arbor millage money to support routes to the proposed Fuller Road Station. To expand service, more funding would be needed, Hull said, and new taxes would be required. He felt it is hard to see county residents outside the city of Ann Arbor voting for that. The idea of adopting a deficit this year to jump start the expansion of service, said Hull, is a dangerous gamble.

By way of background to remarks made by Henry Herskovitz during public commentary, the AATA currently faces a lawsuit over its rejection of a proposed advertisement that included the text, “Boycott ‘Israel’ Boycott Apartheid.” [For a detailed account, see Chronicle coverage: "Bus Ad Rejection Affirmed"]

Herskovitz told councilmembers that he’d addressed the AATA board at its Dec. 15, 2011 meeting to identify what he contends are conflicts of interests on the part of board members Jesse Bernstein, David Nacht and AATA legal counsel Jerry Lax in connection with that lawsuit. At the council’s Jan. 9 meeting, Herskovitz added the judge who’s hearing the case as someone who he contends has a conflict of interest – Mark Goldsmith. Herskovitz said that Goldsmith had served in a leadership capacity in the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation League and owns Israeli bonds.

[By way of an update on the lawsuit, the result of a Jan. 4, 2012 telephone conference was to set a new deadline for the AATA to respond to the complaint and motions for preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order. That date is Jan. 31, 2012. Replies to those responses are due on Feb. 14. Another telephone conference call among the parties and the judge is scheduled for Feb. 28.]

Vivienne Armentrout introduced herself as a Ward 5 resident. Armentrout told councilmembers that the question before them is not whether to begin a process toward creating a countywide transit system. Rather, she continued, the question is about how much control Ann Arbor will have over a system that is already in transition, using Ann Arbor’s tax base.

Armentrout pointed out that the ATAA is operating this year [on an approved budget for fiscal year 2012, from October 2011 through September 2012] with a $1 million deficit in a $30 million budget. That will leave the AATA with only three months of operating reserves, she said. The AATA is already operating as a regional authority – by incurring a deficit, she said. The AATA was effectively asking the council to continue to support a continued deficit until a funding source is identified – a process the four-party agreement allows three full years to complete. Armentrout contended that by the time the deal closes, the first five years of the service plan would essentially be complete.

She invited the council to look at the articles of incorporation and to examine that document as closely as they did the four-party agreement. The articles describe the Act 196 authority’s powers, she said. She asked for clarification about how the transition to a new authority would work. The articles state that the new Act 196 authority would have the power to borrow from various sources, including private capital.

The board of the new authority would be seated within about 60 days of approval by the county. Does this mean that the new authority can take on obligation, even if the Ann Arbor transportation millage has not yet been transfered? Armentrout asked. Can the authority continue the “soft transition” to a countywide service plan while obligating the system to debt payments?

The plan calls for tax increases and fare increases in future years, Armentrout said. For example, she said, the plan calls for two high-capacity connector systems, which are capital intensive and will be costly to operate. The north-south high-capacity connector would use advanced technology and require major reconstruction of some of the city’s busiest streets, including State Street near the University of Michigan campus, she said. The first five years of the AATA’s transportation master plan (TMP) includes $4 million to initiate the high-capacity connector. Once in place, it’s expected to cost $4.5 million to operate it. By accepting the four-party agreement, the council would essentially be approving that project, because it’s a part of the TMP budget.

Armentrout told councilmembers that residents depend on them to make sure that Ann Arbor’s transit system is there for them. During Armentrout’s remarks several members of the audience stood to express their support.

George Gaston introduced himself as a Ward 1 resident. He described the four-party agreement as “too nebulous” to do anything with it. But he wanted to circle back to the proposed Fuller Road Station, which is proposed to be built on part of Fuller Park.

“We’re still here, we’re still paying attention,” he said. No votes have been taken, and Gaston said he and others are waiting for something to happen. It still looks like a parking deck for the University of Michigan, he said. That location is only ideal for the university, he contended. Gaston continued by contending that the idea of moving the Amtrak station to the Fuller Road location had come after UM had identified that location for a parking structure.

Gaston said that he’d looked at the parking capacity of the lots next to the current Amtrak station and said that the capacity exists for 170 cars – cars were parked everywhere they could be parked. If regional rail is added, demand will increase, he said. He wondered if it was planned to provide that parking to rail customers at Fuller Road Station and if it would be free of charge to customers as it is now.

Gaston noted that the Ann Arbor Ypsilanti Regional Chamber of Commerce is endorsing the Fuller Road Station. He said it was fun to develop things when you’re using other people’s money. He wondered if it’s really possible to sign a 75-year agreement legally – that seems like an awfully long time to commit future councils, and it will destroy the park, he contended. It just seems like a bad deal for the city, he said, because the university is paying for just part of the building they’re going to use, not for the land. He suggested renegotiating the deal. He observed that the DTE property would be a nice addition to the city’s park system. During his remarks several members of the audience stood to express their support.

Carolyn Grawi told the council she was speaking on her own behalf as a Ward 4 resident as well as on behalf of the Center for Independent Living and the disability community. She said she wanted to make sure that the countywide process goes forward in a way that allows all people to participate. Adding the item to the agenda on a Friday afternoon for a Monday meeting takes away from the ability of the community’s citizens to participate in the process. One reason that more transportation is needed is that currently transportation in the evening is difficult, she said.

Grawi said she was there to support the transit process. Ways to expand transit need to be found, she said – from lifeline to luxury services. We need to make sure that Ann Arbor’s funding is not diverted and that services are available here in Ann Arbor. She noted that she’d been assured in many different conversations that services would remain in Ann Arbor. She said she would like to see that in writing.

Grawi wanted Ann Arbor to say: We will participate, and our millage funds that we currently levy for Ann Arbor transit will be appropriated to Ann Arbor transit. As a disability community, the service is needed, she said. It’s needed to go to the grocery store and for health care, as well as for day-to-day activities such at attending school events. The services are needed as described in the TMP to increase economic development, she said.

Alan Haber.

Alan Haber, who was listed on the printed agenda as “Robert Alan Haber,” quipped that the city clerk must have done some research to find that “Robert.” “I just go by Alan,” he smiled. Haber complained that the approach the city council is taking on the transportation issue is the same one it takes on many major questions.

Haber told the council he was for countywide transportation, but asked why there was no public hearing. The city had done the same thing with the construction of the underground parking garage [on South Fifth Avenue]. He contended that the city council didn’t really listen to the people on that occasion. During his remarks several members of the audience stood to express their support.

Robert Thomas introduced himself as a resident of Ward 1. He asked the council to support the four-party agreement. He compared cities to animals (mammals, not in the sense of an uncivilized creature). In the heart of Ann Arbor, he said, traffic circulates on major arteries like Washtenaw Avenue, and the parkland and trees are like the lungs of Ann Arbor. He said he’d push the analogy further to compare AATA buses to the white blood cells of the community. They “snap up the single-occupant car commutes,” he said, that damage air quality and occupy parking spaces.

The AATA buses also defend Ann Arbor from an inability to access employment and essential services, Thomas said. Transit also brings employers and employees, he said. The analogy breaks down, he allowed, because the white blood cells also brought a foreign element – him. He told the council he grew up in Wichita, Kansas, which is a car city by any definition. When he graduated, he said, he looked at employment in Ann Arbor, Boston and San Francisco. He said he was committed to living in a city where he would not need a car, and “Ann Arbor fits the bill – it’s fantastic.” It’s a higher quality of life and ensures that people young and old, differently abled and abled can enjoy the city.

In the last month, he said, he’d asked his coworkers to commit to getting downtown without using a car and without parking it in one of the parking structures. He expected maybe 10 people to sign up. But 35 of his coworkers committed to getting to downtown without parking downtown in the month of January. He said he hoped to double that number when the summer comes. Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County are the places he can reach on foot, by bicycle and on the bus. Countywide transit would allow the AATA to expand its service to more areas and to make its service more frequent. That would expand the tax base and provide more connections to other communities.

It’s like the town he loves has grown to be four times its size, Thomas said. He compared expanded transit to a scene in Harry Potter: When you tap a brick in the wall, Diagon Alley opens up. After reading the transit plan that AATA had put together, he said he was convinced that a countywide transit agency can be the solution to expanded transit services in Ann Arbor. It can preserve the quality of life for its citizens, and ensure that Ann Arbor is a destination for people and employees. Thompson’s remarks were received with a smattering of applause.

Conan Smith introduced himself as a Ward 5 resident. He also noted that he serves on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. But he said he wanted to address councilmembers as a transit rider. In 2008, he said, he got rid of his car. In Michigan, it’s possible to do that in Lansing, Grand Rapids and Ann Arbor. But to get to the Ypsilanti location of his office, it takes 45 minutes, he said. And it’s virtually impossible to get to metro Detroit in Ferndale where the other office of the Michigan Suburbs Alliance is located.

Smith invited councilmembers to think about the opportunity for those who live in Ann Arbor and lead a metropolitan lifestyle. He called Washtenaw County a special place, across its whole geography. He then waxed lyrical as he described the village of Manchester, breathing in its peace. He described the natural beauty of Rolling Hills Park and Independence Lake, which are part of the county parks system. Access to those places is difficult without transit that stretches across the whole county, he said.

The county board would be considering the issue in a couple of weeks, Smith noted. [Smith serves as chair of the board.] The county wants to be partners, he said. He hoped the council would give the agreement fair consideration and would let everyone take a walk down a path together. Smith’s remarks were received with a smattering of applause.

At the conclusion of the meeting, during the time allotted for public commentary, LuAnne Bullington told the council she’d moved to Ann Arbor 20 years ago. She’d attended many meetings over the course of those years and said she knows a lot about transit. Alluding to Ford’s frequent description of the AATA’s process as transparent, she asked the council: How transparent is nothing? She told the council they’d be throwing away any leverage they had by signing the four-party agreement.

Bullington said that what the council was not being told is that the Ypsilanti city council is holding back their vote to see what the Ann Arbor city council would do. She claimed that the intergovernmental agreements made among municipalities to form the districts corresponding to board seat representation on the new transit authority (made under Act 7) are starting to fall apart.

Bullington alluded to a meeting of the leaders of different transit authorities that the AATA had sought advice from, and she contended that they’d advised not to dissolve the AATA. She claimed that the desire to form an Act 196 authority stemmed from the fact that the AATA can’t ever run trains. [For Chronicle coverage of the meeting to which Bullington alluded, including discussion of the differences between transit authority governance structures and the role of "fixed guideways," see "AATA Gets Advice on Countywide Transit"]

Thomas Partridge told the council he was a fairly well-known resident and said he was a leader in a number of progressive causes. He criticized attitudes that catered to “selfish pockets of high-end neighborhoods” like he thought Jane Lumm’s neighborhood is. Partridge said a countywide transportation system is needed as soon as possible to protect the county’s most vulnerable residents.

Four-Party Agreement: Council Deliberations – Amendment on Ann Arbor Majority

In his remarks made during communications at the start of the Jan. 9 meeting, mayor John Hieftje said he would support having a public hearing in connection with anything the council might do. At that time he also expressed an interest in seeing the issue postponed for two weeks.

Discussion on the item began with the proposal of an amendment from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who sent it around to his colleagues by email.

The amendment reflected the same sentiment that Taylor had expressed at the Dec. 12, 2011 city council working session on the topic of the four-party transit accord. Already at that time he’d said he wanted the four-party agreement to stipulate that Ann Arbor’s transit tax would only be transferred to the new Act 196 authority if a new countywide millage were to gain a majority of votes within the city of Ann Arbor. That stipulation would guard against the possibility that a countywide millage failed among Ann Arbor voters, but was approved by a wide enough plurality in other jurisdictions that the millage passed.

The text of Taylor’s amendment reads as follows:

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 [transit authority] Act 196 funding source, regardless of whether it is approved or not by the other voting jurisdictions, then the City shall have the right 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).

Taylor described the amendment as imposing a requirement that Ann Arbor voters themselves approve any funding system. He said he was delighted by the drive towards a countywide transit system, saying it holds a great deal of promise. He described the amendment as making the transfer of the current Ann Arbor millage to a new authority contingent on a “plebiscite to that effect.”

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) took notes. Visible in the background seated in the audience is Washtenaw County commissioner Conan Smith, who addressed the council during public commentary.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) ventured that the city of Ypsilanti will want similar language inserted. In any case, he said he’d encourage Ypsilanti to do so. Kunselman said he’d support Taylor’s amendment. He said he’d spoken with an Ypsilanti councilmember who’d expressed some distress over where this is going. He noted that the city of Ypsilanti is having financial problems – there’s talk of an emergency financial manager. Kunselman noted that Ypsilanti’s budget operates under a “yoke called Water Street.” Kunselman indicated that he felt Ypsilanti would have to appeal to its voters just to keep the city afloat.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) indicated that from a practical standpoint, a millage would not pass countywide if it didn’t have a majority inside the city of Ann Arbor. But he asked Taylor to consider withdrawing the amendment in light of the likely postponement and public hearing. At that point, the council would have a chance to consider the issue more fully.

Responding to an invitation from Hieftje to respond to the amendment, Ann Arbor Transportation Authority CEO Michael Ford indicated he didn’t have a problem with Taylor’s amendment. Responding to Hohnke’s suggestion to delay making amendments until the public hearing, Hieftje said he’d like to get the amendment in place – because Ford was amenable to it – before it was presented at the public hearing. Hohnke allowed that he saw the point of having the agreement in its entirety ready for comment.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) stated that she wanted to make sure she understood the amendment. She ventured that Taylor’s amendment meant that voters will be given an opportunity to approve any new transit authority funding source. Ford offered that the four-party agreement is just the framework for the decision.

Taylor clarified that the amendment says that the Ann Arbor subset of the county voters would have to approve the funding source, in order for Ann Arbor to assign its existing millage to the new transit authority. The intent, Taylor said, is to “inoculate us” against the unlikely scenario that a countywide vote is successful, but Ann Arbor votes against it. Lumm said she saw that as the least likely scenario. Taylor agreed with Lumm, but noted it’s not an “irrational” scenario. Lumm complained that the city doesn’t know what the funding source will be.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) then expressed some confusion about the placement of Taylor’s amendment within the document. He’d identified the new section as Article 9. [Part of the confusion appeared to stem from the fact that a separate document, the articles of incorporation, was included in the council's information packet. That's the document that the county board of commissioners will eventually be asked to approve.] It was clarified that the new section would be inserted after the originally-numbered paragraph 8, and the following paragraphs would be re-numbered 10, 11 and 12.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) noted that in the articles of incorporation it’s assumed that Ann Arbor’s millage would be transfered to the new authority. He wanted to know if Taylor’s amendment meant that Ann Arbor voters would be asked before the transfer of the millage. Taylor responded to Anglin saying that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that whatever the new funding source is, a majority of Ann Arbor voters as a subset of the county must vote for it. If the funding source includes an additional millage, then voters would be educated on that prior to a vote. Anglin ventured that a vote would come in November 2012. Taylor replied that the amendment would apply whenever the popular vote is held.

Hohnke asked if Taylor was comfortable with the word “approve,” without a clarification that a majority of voters would need to vote for it. Assistant city attorney Mary Fales indicated it would be like any popular vote, where “approval” means supported by a majority.

Kunselman expressed concern that the funding may not come from a voter-approved millage. In that event, Taylor’s amendment would not give the desired protection. He asked for suggestions from Ford.

Ann Arbor Transportation Authority CEO Michael Ford and AATA community outreach coordinator Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz before the start of the Jan. 9 meeting.

Ford told Kunselman: “I don’t know that I have an answer.” Hiefte indicated that Kunselman was talking about a program that doesn’t exist. Ford said that if it’s a local millage, it would have to be voted on. Kunselman indicated his understanding was that a vehicle registration fee would require a vote.

Lumm characterized alternate funding sources as “speculative.” We have “no clue” what the funding mechanism would look like, she contended. There are lots of unknowns. She noted that the financial advisory group is scheduled to meet on Jan. 27 and it is supposed to issue a white paper. So that added information won’t come forward for some time, she said. Lumm told Taylor it’s difficult to see how his amendment would play out – because it’s unclear what the funding will be. Lots of citizens have suggestions for how the agreement can be “perfumed,” she said. Lumm said she was delighted that there will be a public hearing.

Anglin said that with respect to financing the countywide system, there’s even private financing that could be requested, as well as bonds. He stated that the council has no information on that. The finances of that are quite complicated, he said, whereas right now AATA funding is simple.

Smith summarized Taylor’s amendment as coming into play, if additional funds are requested of Ann Arbor taxpayers. Right now it’s drawn up to say that the existing millage would be used for Ann Arbor’s share of transit service, she said. The approval process of the amendment speaks to additional taxes requested of taxpayers. She concluded that the worst case scenario is that Ann Arbor gets more services for the same amount of tax money.

Ford responded to Smith’s summary by saying the four-party agreement is a framework with checks and balances.

Taylor followed up by saying that Ann Arbor, as the hub of the proposed countywide system, stands to gain a great deal from it. But if the city of Ann Arbor’s voters fail to approve the funding source, then the existing millage is not obligated. He said the amendment strikes him as a pretty simple proposition.

Lumm indicated she felt the council should postpone action on the amendment – there’s a lot of confusion, she contended. Lumm noted that Smith had indicated an understanding that the transfer of the existing AATA millage to the new transit authority would preserve transit services for Ann Arbor. But Lumm said she’d seen nothing in writing to that effect. Lumm stated that the council was feeding and stoking the confusion – it was no surprise because the council hasn’t seen the financing. Given the confusion that is evident among councilmembers, Lumm said, it might be in the best interest to postpone consideration of the amendment.

Hieftje said he didn’t feel any confusion – he supported the amendment, saying it protects Ann Arbor taxpayers. Kunselman said that he, too, would support the amendment. He added that he was not too keen on having on 7 of 15 board members appointed by Ann Arbor. Running buses past cornfields is very expensive, he said.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved Taylor’s amendment stipulating that Ann Arbor’s existing millage would not be obligated to the new transit authority in the event that a countywide popular vote on a funding source failed within the city of Ann Arbor.

Four-Party Agreement: Council Deliberations – Specific Language of Documents

Lumm identified four major steps in the process: (1) formation of the authority and ceding control to the new authority; (2) transferring Ann Arbor’s existing millage to the new authority; (3) transferring AATA’s assets and liabilities to the new authority; and (4) agreeing to ongoing funding of the new authority.

Lumm said she was confused by the language in paragraphs 2, 3, and 8 of the four-party agreement and wanted to be walked through the conditions required for each step.

Assistant city attorney Mary Fales summarized paragraph 2 as saying that the governing bodies of the city of Ann Arbor and the AATA [the city council and the AATA board, respectively] would agree on terminating the operating agreement in favor of the new transit authority. The AATA would take a written request to Washtenaw County, asking the county to create the new Act 196 authority. Lumm asked if that step could be completed without a popular vote. Yes, answered Fales.

Fales summarized paragraph 3 as stipulating that Ann Arbor’s existing millage would not be transfered to the new authority until the closing has occurred. Again Lumm asked if that step could occur without voter approval. Fales observed that the new transit authority would not receive AATA’s assets without the closing, and the closing doesn’t occur without countywide approval of new funding. Fales concluded that some kind of voter activity occurs before closing, and the transfer of assets doesn’t occur until after closing.

With respect to the agreement on ongoing funding of the new authority, Fales noted that Taylor’s amendment assured that if a popular countywide vote failed within the city of Ann Arbor, the city has the right not to agree to dissolve the AATA.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Lumm said that when she looked at paragraph 8(f), it describes the requirement of countywide voter approval. But other language indicates just that the council will be “apprised.” That’s what feeds her confusion, she said. Lumm stressed the need to cross-check the language in the document, telling Fales, “You’re the attorney, I’m not.” Lumm said she did not mean to be difficult, she was just confused.

Lumm continued, looking at paragraph 7 of the four-party agreement, which indicates that neither Washtenaw County, the city of Ann Arbor, or the city of Ypsilanti, would be required to pledge their full faith and credit to projects undertaken by the new transit authority.

But Lumm perceived an inconsistency with paragraph 7 and the language of the other document, the articles or incorporation, which describes the new transit authority’s ability to borrow and the city’s ability to pledge its full faith and credit in order to meet contractual obligations to the new authority. Fales responded to Lumm by saying the articles of incorporation served the purpose of establishing a new legal entity, while the four-party agreement is a safeguard. Fales explained that the two documents don’t agree in language because they serve two different purposes.

Four Party Agreement: Council Deliberations – Equity, Control in Governance

Lumm then moved to the topic of the makeup of the board of the new transit authority – 15 board members with 7 from Ann Arbor. She contended that under any scenario, Ann Arbor would pay more than half the bill, but would have less than half of the representation. What’s the rationale for that? she asked.

Ford responded to Lumm by explaining if any of the districts that correspond to the board seats opted out, there’d be no representation and there’d need to be a reconfiguration of the board. The balance of the board representation was based on population [Ann Arbor has 1/3 of the population of the county] but also factored in the fact that the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti have an existing transit millage. Ford described the political work to establish that balance as preceding his arrival on the job as CEO of the AATA.

Lumm said she’d seen an email from the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) that indicated an additional Ann Arbor representative might be added to the board. [The move to initiate that proposal was reportedly to come from Hieftje, but did not materialize at the meeting.] Lumm asked Ford if the change in the board composition had been discussed with him. Ford said the configuration with 15 members is one that had been talked about since the process started. Lumm told Ford she was more interested in the proportion of Ann Arbor’s representation. Ford indicated that he was not familiar with a discussion to change the board composition.

Kunselman wanted to know if Ann Arbor would see an increase in services. Where was The LINK in the service plan? Ford indicated that The LINK [a downtown circulator, which the AATA previously serviced with purple buses] is part of the service plan. Kunselman wanted to know if there was a plan for a Packard Road express route. Ford told Kunselman the AATA has been taking in a lot of input and that the input continues through district advisory committee meetings.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and LuAnne Bullington before the start of the Jan. 9 meeting. Bullington addressed the council at the conclusion of the meeting during time allotted for public commentary.

Kunselman wanted to know if commuter rail would be a part of the new transit authority. Ford told Kunselman that remains to be seen, but commuter rail is in the 30-year plan.

Kunselman then asked: Why doesn’t Washtenaw County ask voters countywide to approve a millage, and set up a purchase-of-service contract between the county and AATA, instead of setting up a new countywide transit authority? Ford said he couldn’t speak to that. The AATA had gone out and solicited a lot of input from the community, Ford said.

Kunselman wanted to know why the AATA wanted to transition to a different type of authority – is there something different about these two kinds of authorities? Ford told Kunselman that Act 196 gives an authority the ability to provide service across the county. Kunselman contended the AATA was already doing that. Ford countered that for outside the city of Ann Arbor, transit is provided through purchase-of-service agreements.

Kunselman came back to his earlier question: Why couldn’t the county contract for service with the AATA and pay for it, based on a countywide millage? Michael Benham, a strategic planner for the AATA, explained that a simple transit millage levied countywide, in the absence of an Act 196 authority, wouldn’t provide an opportunity to individual municipalities to opt out. Under Act 196, they can opt out. Kunselman asked if the opt-out ability was the only reason to move to a countywide authority. Benham responded by saying that Act 196 is specifically designed to create a transit authority, and by having the county file the articles of incorporation, you bring everyone in at once – with the ability for them to opt out.

Kunselman allowed that the ability of municipalities to opt out is good. At the same time, he said, it takes away Ann Arbor’s dominance. Ann Arbor would be giving something up in this plan, he said, and that’s why there’s some hesitancy. He returned again to his previous question: Why not put a transit millage in front of county voters and have the county contract with AATA with purchase-of-service agreements? To Kunselman, that seemed easy and simple.

Kunselman asked if Ypsilanti Township would be opting out. Ford indicated that Ypsilanti Township would have the opportunity to opt out just like any other municipality. Kunselman ventured that if it only takes a majority of the township board to opt out, Ypsilanti Township would opt out. Ford told Kunselman he would not say that. Ford indicated there are four municipalities across the county that have said they won’t participate – Ypsilanti Township is not one of the four. Ford said he cannot say that people will opt out or not.

Responding to an earlier comment from Kunselman to the effect that it’s expensive to run buses past cornfields, Ford said that countywide transit doesn’t mean running a 40-foot bus past a cornfield. Service in that area might be a van pool.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1).

Kunselman then expressed pessimism about the possible success of a countywide authority, based on population trends and the likelihood of municipalities opting out. He also said he thinks a 15-member board is way too big.

Kunselman said he appreciated a chance to postpone the vote, but to be honest, he doesn’t believe a countywide millage is going to pass. Given the economic and financial realities, he said, it’s difficult to think it’s going to pass. So why are we proceeding down that route? he wondered. Why are we thinking so grand? Ford told Kunselman that other opportunities besides millage funding were being studied, and said it’s important to get people to the table.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) elicited from Ford his personal experience in the regionalization of a transportation system in Portland, Oregon. Ford described how there was a vision to expand and to incorporate rail and more service. He’d watched the construction of some of the routes while he was in college, he said, and 20 years later he was in charge of all rail and bus service for the system. It was a vision for the future that had made that happen, he said. Ford allowed that there were mixed feelings when that had started, but it was all about being able to address people’s needs. He said 70-80% use the transit system.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) followed up by stressing the importance of starting with a vision and a dream.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wanted to know what Ann Arbor might be giving up in terms of federal and state money. He worried about situations where it takes a hour to get somewhere by bus, but only 10 minutes by car. He asked Ford if there was one route that AATA was particularly proud of in terms of its ridership and performance. Ford offered Route 4, between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor, as an example.

Anglin then asked Ford to comment on the population of Portland as compared to the area a countywide system is intended to serve. [Multnomah County, where Portland, Oregon is located, has a population of around 735,000; Washtenaw County has a population of around 345,000.] Ford responded to Anglin by saying that Portland has a lot of rural areas – and those people all need transportation. Hieftje ventured that Anglin was looking for communities the size of Washtenaw County that have countywide transportation.

In the foreground is Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) as his wardmate Mike Anglin speaks.

Derezinski offered an anecdote from a planning commission field trip along the Wasntenaw Avenue corridor. He’d asked a passenger: Why do you ride the bus? The answer: “So that I’m left alone.”

Lumm noted that in the presentation that Ford had given to the council, one of the bullet points indicates an opportunity for public comment on the initial five-year service plan. She told Ford that there’s a strong sentiment that the public wants to comment before the incorporation of the new authority. She stated that she felt like a ready-fire-aim approach was being taken – it’s cart-before-the-horse, she said. She contended that Ford had said all the municipalities in the county were participating, but had said in a meeting with her on Friday that some had opted out. [Ford stated at the council meeting that some municipalities had indicated they'd not be participating, but that he could not say that any others would be opting out.] Lumm maintained that “It’s a moving target.”

Lumm wanted more specifics about the timeline for the five-year service plan. Ford told Lumm that the AATA has tried to be very transparent and methodical in its process. The details of the five-year service plan is not yet completed. Ford told Lumm that the AATA was asking council to support a framework to work within – a framework with checks and balances. Lumm told Ford she knew he meant well, but the council was being asked to consider a major reconfiguration of public transportation. It’s a major league decision to change it, she said.

Lumm wanted to postpone consideration until all the specific details are provided. Ford told Lumm the reason the AATA was there was to be transparent, and not to come with everything already done. He offered that if there’s anything he or his staff could do – meet one-on-one, for example – he was open to that. He said it wouldn’t make sense to say: Everything is done; here’s what we’re going to do.

Four-Party Agreement: Council Deliberations – Getting Thrown Under the Bus

Hieftje told Ford that Lumm is new to the council and may not be aware of some of the outreach the AATA had done in its effort to gather input on the transit master plan. Hieftje said that the feedback he’d heard from the community has been extremely enthusiastic.

Lumm shot back, saying that the mayor’s comments had been “a little bit patronizing.” She stated she’d been doing her homework. She had sent questions and was waiting for responses, she said.

Hieftje circled back around a few minutes later in the meeting and told Lumm he wasn’t trying to be patronizing, but rather was “trying to give [her] an excuse for maybe not having attended the meetings that [other councilmembers] had been to, and allow [her] some extra time to do that.”

Taylor then joined the verbal scuffle by saying he’d heard what constitutes an accusation in Lumm’s description of the AATA’s approach as ready-fire-aim. He stated that it’s worth making clear that the AATA has worked very hard over a long period of time to put together a diligent, transparent, open, methodical process. The process has not created a final product for the council to vote on that night.

It’s an important agreement, Taylor said, but the council is not voting on transferring the millage, is not voting on creating a countywide system, is not voting on authorization of the authority. The council is considering approval of an agreement that creates the framework to have the conversation to create the answers, he said.

A screen shot of a Jan. 22, 2010 Ann Arbor Chronicle article from the AATA board meeting when the AATA was in the early stages of planning for countywide transit. Board chair Jesse Bernstein was adamant that the approach would be ready-aim-fire. At the city council's Jan 9 meeting, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) described the four-party agreement as ready-fire-aim. After the city council meeting, The Chronicle confirmed with Lumm that she'd been unaware of that specific phrasal choice on Bernstein's part – she'd not been attempting to pique the AATA in an oblique way. (Image links to article.)

As far as an opportunity to review the service plan, the agreement states plainly in paragraph 2 that the AATA will publish details of the service and funding plan in newspapers of general circulation before requesting the articles to be filed by the county, Taylor said. There are a lot of steps to undertake, Taylor said, for the council and the voters of Ann Arbor to check out whether the plan that the AATA has produced meets our satisfaction.

Taylor called it a disservice to the people who’d done the work to date to suggest that they’re doing it in haste. It’s useful to postpone the agreement to get public comment on the framework, he said, stressing that it’s indeed merely a framework. After that, Taylor said, if the framework is approved, then he looked forward to hearing details of a service plan and the funding plan. Those details are the result of the process; they don’t precede the process, Taylor said. The fact that the council doesn’t have the final document isn’t a deficit, but a benefit, Taylor concluded.

Hieftje then noted that he’d not been enforcing the rule on the number of speaking times councilmembers have on any question, and he suggested a suspension of the rules to allow for more discussion.

Outcome: The vote on suspending the council rules on speaking turns (with Marcia Higgins and Sabra Briere absent) passed on a 6-3 vote, with Christopher Taylor, Margie Teall and Tony Derezinski voting against it.

Four-Party Agreement: Council Deliberations – “I want local control”

Responding to Taylor’s characterization of the four-party agreement as merely a framework, Kunselman said he didn’t see it as easy as calling it a framework. Rather, it’s a contractual agreement to follow the steps, and that’s disconcerting, he said. Kunselman said he thinks there’s a way to provide countywide transit, that he’s for countywide transit, and it’s already being provided. Why doesn’t the county ask for a millage, he asked, without creating a new transit authority and transferring assets.

Kunselman then laid out his belief about how transit should work: “I want AATA to stay in Ann Arbor. I don’t want a countywide authority. I want local control. I’m a member and a taxpayer of the citizens of Ann Arbor. I represent a number of citizens of Ann Arbor. A countywide authority takes away a lot of that local control … We talk about regionalism and things of that nature, but that doesn’t necessarily always work on everything.”

There are a lot of unknowns and it’s a moving target, Kunselman said. Alluding to the public commentary from Vivienne Armentrout, who noted that the AATA was incurring a deficit for this year’s budget, Kunselman asked Ford if the AATA was in fact incurring a $1 million deficit and asked if the AATA was projecting another $1 million deficit next year. He also followed up on a question that Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) had asked at the Dec. 12 working session: What monies are being used to pursue the planning for this countywide authority? Kunselman noted that Ford had described some of the funding for the planning as coming from grants. But Kunselman wanted to know if some of it was also Ann Arbor millage money.

Speaking first to the deficit to be incurred this year, Ford described it as an investment – the AATA board had given him the okay to make that happen for the budget year. Asked by Kunselman about a future deficit in subsequent years, Ford told him, “I don’t think we’re in a vulnerable position.” Ford said the AATA had positioned itself well with its reserves. He allowed there could be some “glitch” but said the AATA is in a good position.

Speaking to Kunselman’s question about how the planning had been paid for, Ford allowed that some staff time had been paid for with Ann Arbor millage money, but he said the majority of the outreach and engagement for pursuit of countywide authority had been funded with grant money.

Hieftje mentioned the financial advisory committee that was working on an analysis of funding options, and invited Ford to tick through the names of some of the people on the committee. The committee is co-chaired by McKinley Inc. CEO Albert Berriz and retired Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) ventured that a number of countywide entities exist in Washtenaw County: the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD), the Washtenaw Community College (WCC), and the Washtenaw County Road Commission. He observed that it would be interesting to see whether a countywide approach is right for transit. Following up on Taylor’s comment about what the agreement is and is not approving, Hohnke said it’s helpful to think about how to communicate the nature of the agreement to constituents.

Hohnke characterized thinking about the four-party agreement this way: If there’s a service plan that meets our approval and if there’s a financing plan that meets our approval, then are we amendable to this kind of structure? Hohnke said he did not think the city is obligating itself to transfer assets without opting in and without approving a financing plan. He said there was no rush that night to approve the agreement. He felt the order in which things are happening makes sense – a governance structure is needed in order to execute on a financing plan.

Hohnke asked Ford if that is an appropriate way to talk to constituents about the four-party agreement. Ford responded by saying if there’s something that’s missing in the document the AATA is eager to fix it – the document is clear in his mind, he said, but he wanted to help make it clear to others.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) told Ford that when she had sat down with him and gone over the four-party agreement, she’d seen a very easy-to-understand timeline. She didn’t see it in the materials the council had received for that night’s meeting. She wanted copies of that timeline graphic. [.pdf of timeline graphic, which was included in the Dec. 12 city council work session packet]

Lumm reiterated many of her concerns, saying she felt the timeline is “backwards.” She said she doesn’t understand how the council could go forward without having critical documents. Lumm said the issue is not about whether regional transit is good. It’s about seeing information about the specific benefits. She described the process as a “rush” and as putting the cart before the horse.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she felt that if a final plan had been crafted and put together, the council would be tearing it apart. At that point Teall indicated she wanted to move for a postponement of the vote on the four-party agreement.

Before that, however, Hieftje gave Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) an opportunity to re-open the agenda to add a resolution that would establish a public hearing on the issue.

Four-Party Agreement: Council Deliberations – Pause to Schedule Public Hearing

There are discreet steps necessary to add an item to the agenda at the meeting. First a vote is taken on re-opening the agenda. Then a vote is taken on adding the item to the agenda.

Lumm said she was supportive of the public hearing, but lamented the re-opening of the agenda, saying it was not a great practice and that she would like to see the council act in a more disciplined fashion. She did not think it was good to add items simultaneous to the meeting. In this case, she said, having a public hearing was a good thing, so she figured she’d “go along with the program.”

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to re-open the agenda.

Taylor then read forth the resolution that set a public hearing about the four-party agreement for the council’s next regular meeting – Jan. 23, 2012.

Anglin said that in light of the scheduled Jan. 27 meeting of the financial advisory committee, he’d prefer a later date. Lumm agreed with Anglin and said that given the AATA’s timeline, the funding recommendations are proposed for the end of February. She wanted to amend Taylor’s resolution to change the date to later.

Hieftje noted that before discussing the item’s content, it first need to be added to the agenda.

Kunselman asked why the item was not added to the agenda the previous week, when several councilmembers had indicated interest in having a public hearing before the vote. Hieftje told Kunselman he had been free to add it to the agenda himself. Kunselman said he was not as involved in the process as some others, but an email from Hieftje indicated that it could have already been added to the agenda. Kunselman told Hieftje that if it’s required for councilmembers to be more aggressive in pursuing issues, Kunselman guessed they would be.

Lumm picked up again on the issue of adding items to the agenda, saying councilmembers need to look in the mirror. She said the council could do better.

Taylor, who sits at the table between Lumm and Kunselman, responded to them by saying that if someone wants to vote against adding the item to the agenda because of its procedural deficiencies, then people are free to do so. He said he did not have any problem looking himself in the mirror and proposing a public hearing.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to add to the agenda the resolution establishing a public hearing.

The council then resumed its discussion of the four-party agreement.

Four-Party Agreement: Council Deliberations – Rolling Toward Postponement

The motion to postpone specified a delay to the council’s next meeting – on Jan. 23. Lumm wanted to delay voting until funding recommendations and the initial five-year service plan are completed. That translated into an amendment of the motion to postpone to April 2.

Asked by Smith about that timeframe, Ford said that delaying until then would be a problem. He did not think delaying would be helpful right now. He told councilmembers he encouraged them to help the AATA move the process forward. What they did or didn’t do, he cautioned, will have an effect on what others do.

Smith said she could not support a delay until April 2. Hieftje agreed with Smith, saying that it was being discussed by the city of Ypsilanti and the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. The council needs to “keep on it,” he said. The working session had generated a lot of questions, but putting it on the council agenda got a more serious conversation going, Hieftje said.

Teall said Ann Arbor needs to take the lead on this and demonstrate to other communities it’s willing to work on the process. Kunselman wanted to know if a millage vote was planned for November 2012. Ford told Kunselman that’d be the decision of the Act 196 board. Asked Kunselman, “So what’s the rush?” Ford answered that there’s momentum in terms of Ann Arbor leading the process. Continuing to delay the framework with these safeguards is a problem – that’s his opinion, Ford said. Ford said he was willing to do whatever he could do to provide information.

Anglin said he was in favor of public transportation, but not in favor of taking on obligations that the communities can’t handle. Due diligence and being deliberate is important, and if it takes until April, then so be it, Anglin said.

Ford stressed that the AATA was trying to be methodical and it’s not trying to force anything. He stressed that the AATA would continue to include the public as its get more information.

Hohnke said that as he’d noted earlier, there are two separate things to consider: (1) Are we interested in countywide transportation; and (2) If so, what are the financial and governance mechanisms? He felt conformable voting at the council’s next meeting.

Outcome: The council voted 6-3 against changing the postponing motion to stipulate April 2 as the date certain to which the issue would be postponed. Voting for April 2 were Lumm, Kunselman and Anglin.

With no further deliberations, the council then voted on the postponement to Jan. 23, the council’s next meeting.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone action on the four-party agreement until Jan. 23.

In light of the postponement of the four-party agreement to Jan. 23, Lumm abandoned her previously indicated attempt to change the scheduling of the public hearing to later.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to set a public hearing on the four-party agreement for Jan. 23.

Arlington Square

At its Jan. 9 meeting, the council was asked to consider giving initial approval to changes to the supplemental regulations of a planned unit development (PUD) for Arlington Square. The changes to the PUD supplemental regulations would allow for urgent care and restaurant uses at the site, with no additional parking. No exterior changes are proposed.

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

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

The site includes 200 parking spaces. To accommodate potential increased parking demand, the building’s owner – Nadim Ajlouny of Orchard Lake, Mich. – is offering to provide bus passes to all employees on the site and to provide an additional 14 enclosed bicycle parking spaces. Questions arose during council deliberations about the number of spaces that are actually on the site. Those questions are supposed to be addressed by the time the council considers the changes for final approval.

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

During council deliberations, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) told community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl that he counted only 79 parking spaces on the site plan drawing. Where are the extra spaces? Bahl told Kunselman he’d have to get that answer. Kunselman noted if the plan is to use parking on the service drive, that doesn’t seem legal or desirable.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who represents the city council on the city planning commission, told Kunselman that the owners of the property had asked for a revision to the PUD because the buildings are about half empty. Given the restrictions on use, the owners could not fill them with tenants, he said. The risk was that the buildings might deteriorate – he raised the specter of Georgetown Mall, which has been vacant for several years. Arlington Square is close to where he lives, Derezinski said, and he did not think parking is a problem. The planning commission had been assured by the planning staff that parking would be adequate for uses there now, and also for the additional uses.

Kunselman noted that Derezinski’s remarks did not answer his question about only 79 spaces appearing on the drawing. Kunselman indicated he wanted some clarity before final approval of the changes at the council’s second reading of the PUD ordinance change.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) mentioned that the building owner was offering free bus passes to workers to reduce the need for parking.

Outcome: The council gave initial approval to the PUD changes for Arlington Square on a unanimous vote.

Road Grant Application

On the Jan. 9 agenda was a resolution authorizing support for an application to the state of Michigan’s transportation economic development fund (TEDF) to pay for the resurfacing of a section of Ann Arbor-Saline Road near I-94. The grant application is being led by the Washtenaw County road commission.

Highlighted in light blue is the section of road to be resurfaced. (Image links to Google Map)

At the council’s meeting, Homayoon Pirooz, head of project management for the city, was invited to the podium.

Pirooz described how the 2,000-foot section of road is not feasible for the separate governmental units – city of Ann Arbor, the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, and Pittsfield Township – to do the work. It needs to be a collaborative effort, he said. Planning has taken almost a year, he said.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved support for the application to the state of Michigan’s transportation economic development fund (TEDF).  

Stormwater Projects

The council was asked to consider four resolutions petitioning the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner to undertake stormwater-related projects with a total cost of around $4.4 million.

The projects each have a portion that qualifies for low-interest (2.5%) state revolving fund loans that eventually might be partially forgiven. That portion would be paid out of the city’s stormwater fund. The total of the individual annual loan repayments for the projects would be $133,425 a year for 20 years.

A $2.5 million project in the Allen Creek Drainage District would design and construct stormwater management control measures on Madison Avenue between South Seventh and South Main. The existing corridor would be reconstructed using a traditional road surface, with management of stormwater flow being done through the use of infiltration basins within the right-of-way. The city stormwater portion of the project would be $500,000, with the loan to be paid back over 20 years in annual installments of $31,800.

A $630,000 project on Willard Street, between East University Avenue and South Forest Avenue, would construct a porous road surface, with management of offsite storm flow coming from a pollutant separation unit. Of that project, a little over $300,000 is strictly stormwater-related. The rest would be funded through the city’s street repair millage. It will be financed through revolving loans to be paid in annual installments of $19,110.

A $1,050,000 project in Leslie Park would mitigate against streambank erosion. Financing through revolving fund loans would amount to annual payments of $62,415. [See previous Chronicle coverage of that project: "Creek Project Ramps Up at Leslie Park Golf"]

A $316,000 project throughout the city of Ann Arbor would plant street trees during 2013. The revolving fund loan financing would result in annual payment of $20,100 over 20 years.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) offered assurance that the water resources commissioner’s office was responsive to information requests about its projects, and kept in good touch with residents – based on her experience with a current project underway on Malletts Creek.

Asked by mayor John Hieftje, interim public services area administrator Craig Hupy said he could not give the exact number of trees for the tree-planting project – it hasn’t been bid out yet. The idea was to access the revolving fund loans with the potential for forgiveness, which would give the city the ability to plant trees at $0.50 on the dollar, Hupy said.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the petition to the county water resources commissioner for the four stormwater projects.

Increase for Election Workers

A resolution on the Jan. 9 agenda authorized an increase in the pay for election inspectors – those who work at the polls on election day to verify the registration of voters and to handle all the other duties associated with ensuring compliance with election laws at each precinct.

The approved increases are as follows: election inspector from $8 to $9/hour; floater from $8.50 to $9.50/hour; chairperson from $11.25 to $12/hour; and absent voter count board supervisor from $14 to $14.50/hour. According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, prepared by the city clerk’s office, the increase in pay is expected to cost $2,000 in a local election and $8,000 in a presidential election. For the upcoming 2012 presidential election, the increase would total $5,000 – a cost that will be reimbursed by the state.

The justification for the increase in pay for Ann Arbor’s election inspectors was based on comparative pay with other nearby jurisdictions. For example, the raise for election inspectors from $8 to $9 now matches what the city of Ypsilanti pays.

After the raise, however, the proposed compensation for election inspectors would still fall short of the amount set forth in Ann Arbor’s living wage policy, which the city itself is not obliged to follow. By ordinance, the wages paid by city contractors to their workers must meet minimum thresholds that are adjusted each year, based on federal poverty guidelines. In May of 2011, the new living wage minimums were set at $11.83/hour for those employers offering health insurance, and $13.19/hour for those employers not offering health insurance.

The living wage factored into the council’s decision to postpone the election inspectors’ pay raise from its Dec. 19, 2011 meeting. At that meeting, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) questioned why the raise did not match the city’s living wage and that prompted the postponement until the council’s Jan. 9 meeting. The cost of the higher increase was upwards of $60,000, and the council did not deliberate on that potential additional increase on Jan. 9.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the increase to election worker pay.

Wheeler Center Wetland Mitigation

Before the council for its consideration was approval of a $331,589 contract with TSP Environmental to do maintenance and restoration of a wetland mitigation area at the Ann Arbor Wheeler Service Center located on Stone School Road.

When the Wheeler Service Center was constructed in 2005, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) required the creation of 2.59 acres of new wetland – made up of 2.23 acres of forested and 0.16 acres of scrub/shrub wetland. Because the areas have proven to be wetter than anticipated, the required number of trees and shrubs did not survive the original planting.

Correction of the problem includes the installation of new drainage channels and culverts, the armoring of a stormwater swale and removal of sediment. TSP’s bid was the lowest of three received. The other two were from Verdeterre Contracting Inc. ($392,425) and CTI and Associates Inc. ($723,934).

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the wetland mitigation contract and plan.

PACE Fees

The council was asked to consider approval of the fees associated with the property assessed clean energy (PACE) program. The fees are set as follows: (1) the review fee for Phase I will be $300; (2) the title search fee will be the actual cost as billed by the title search company, estimated to be $230; (3) the fee for recording the assessment with the county clerk’s office will be $23 – $14 for the first page and $3 for each subsequent page of a four-page document; and (4) the administrative fee will be $13.45 for paper ($0.10), envelope ($0.25), postage ($0.42) assessment set-up ($11.72) and payment receipting ($0.96).

Through its PACE program, the city of Ann Arbor will help commercial property owners finance energy improvements through voluntary special assessments. By establishing a loan loss pool, the city can reduce interest rates for participating property owners by covering a portion of delinquent or defaulted payments. [Some previous Chronicle coverage of PACE: "Special District Might Fund Energy Program"]

At its March 7, 2011 meeting, the council had voted to set up a $432,800 loan loss reserve fund to support the city’s planned PACE program. The money for the fund comes from an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) awarded to the city by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) called the fees very reasonable, but wondered if they could be rolled into the program. The answer from Wendy Barrot of the Clean Energy Coalition was that no, the fees could not be rolled into the program. However, the audit – $2,000 to $5,000 – could be rolled into the program.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the PACE fees.

Notice of Intent: $120 million Bonds Sewage Treatment

Before the council for its consideration was a notice of intent to issue sewage disposal system revenue bonds for $120 million to finance construction and renovation of the city’s wastewater treatment facilities.

The bond payments would be made from revenues of the city’s sewage disposal system. The renovations have been a part of the city’s capital improvement plan. The notice of intent starts a 45-day timeframe during which a petition could be brought to force the issue to be brought to a popular vote. The council’s vote on authorizing the issuance of the bonds will come after that 45-day time period.

During the brief council deliberations, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she had no issue with it, but the magnitude is noteworthy. She said she was glad there’ll be a working session on the issue on Jan. 17.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to authorize the notice of intent to issue $120 million in revenue bonds for the wastewater treatment facility.

Fixed Charges for Water/Sewer

Pulled out of the consent agenda by Sandi Smith (Ward 1) for separate consideration was an item to set the fixed charges for water main and sanitary sewer improvements. For 2012, those charges will be $15,552 for water main improvements and $24,665 for sanitary sewer improvements. Those figures are applied to each residential unit served. That compares with $14,539 for water main and $22,530 for sanitary sewer last year.

Smith wanted clarification on how the charges are calculated. Craig Hupy, interim public services area administrator, provided the explanation.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) followed up with Hupy to establish that the University of Michigan is supposed to have a connection for each building, as opposed to connecting once and supplying service to other buildings via that one connection. Kunselman also clarified with Hupy that the kind of charge at issue is not the same as re-tapping into an existing main – as might be the case with a house that was demolished with the parcel sitting vacant for some time. Kunselman’s question was motivated by a desire to get assurance that these charges were not discouraging redevelopment in residential neighborhoods.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the fixed charges for water and sanitary sewer improvements.

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: Skatepark

Scott Rosencrans gave the council an update on the progress that the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark had made in achieving funding for the planned skatepark, which will be located in the northeast corner of Veterans Memorial Park. The group has met all the deadlines for the Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation $400,000 match and the city of Ann Arbor’s contribution of land in Veterans Memorial Park. Part of the funding was announced just recently: $300,000 from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF).

Jeff Dehring, Washtenaw County parks and recreation planner.

Rosencrans offer thanks to the groups who’d provided that funding, as well as to the many individuals who’d contributed. Among the other organizations that played a role was the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, which acted as the fiduciary for the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark. The group still has a $200,000 gap to achieve the $1 million they want to raise to pay for the park and the endowment to provide for the skatepark’s maintenance.

The next step, Rosencrans said, would be to go through an RFP (request for proposals) process. An RFP committee has been established, which includes members of the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark, and will include a member of the city’s park advisory commission and a member of the Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission staff – Jeff Dehring. The RFP process would be facilitated by city of Ann Arbor parks and recreation manager Colin Smith.

Asked by mayor John Hieftje when the city might expect to see people skateboarding at the park, Rosencrans said that he thought ground could be broken in September of this year. The city’s community services area administrator, Sumedh Bahl, was more cautious, saying that they needed to follow the MNRTF rules, which might mean no groundbreaking until the spring of 2013.

Comm/Comm: Warming Center

During public commentary, a possible warming center was mentioned by two speakers. Lily Au gave her usual criticism of the coordinated funding approach the city uses, calling out the United Way. She asked the council to listen to people who are out there in the cold.

As a part of his remarks, Alan Haber also mentioned the people who are without shelter, noting that it’s getting colder. He suggested listening to people and suggested the city-owned property at 721 N. Main as a possibility. There’s a volunteer group of people who are willing to do it, he said, and there’s a desire to make something beautiful. He was looking for a response of “Far out!” and assistance from the city.

During his communications time, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he could be counted in for supporting an effort to establish a warming shelter at 721 N. Main.

Comm/Comm: Audit

City administrator Steve Powers noted that the audit for FY 2011 [which ended June 30, 2011] had come back with an unqualified opinion and an unassigned balance well within the recommended minimum. The city had added to its fund balance, when it had expected to use some of it, he said. [Chronicle coverage: "2011: Ann Arbor $1.6M Better Than Planned"]

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) congratulated the city administrator and the city’s chief financial officer on the clean audit opinion, which identified no material weaknesses and finished with a small surplus. She asked what the outlook was for the general fund for next year. CFO Tom Crawford told her that he was in the middle of working on that. But he indicated that some things are looking better than originally projected.

Comm/Comm: Online Crime Reporting

City administrator Steve Powers announced the launch of a new online citizen reporting system by the Ann Arbor police department. It’s meant for low priority, non-urgent crimes. Those crimes can now be reported without citizens needing to make a report in person at city hall.

Comm/Comm: Consolidation

Mayor John Hieftje, during his communications time, called attention to the effort being made in Kent County (where Grand Rapids is located) exploring consolidation of city and county government. [The One Kent Coalition has actually backed off its proposal to merge Grand Rapids with Kent County and is now focused on a "bottom up" approach focusing on achieving specific efficiencies through collaboration.]

Comm/Comm: MLK

Thomas Partridge called on everyone to recognize the context of the meeting – the 44th year since the unfortunate assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Everything on the agenda should be considered within the progressive context of King’s advocacy, he said.

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

Absent: Sabra Briere, Marcia Higgins.

Next council meeting: Monday, Jan. 23, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the second floor 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!

The proposal had been discussed at length by the board in October, when commissioners ultimately decided to defer additional action until the Dec. 7 meeting. At a Nov. 29 agenda briefing, several commissioners had indicated that they didn’t support the proposal in part because of uncertainty related to pending state legislation that would, if passed, allow the county to take over operation of the road commission.

The board had initially discussed this issue at its Sept. 8 working session, and it was expected to be on the agenda for the Sept. 20 meeting. But it wasn’t until Sept. 23 that the road commission formally submitted its plan to the county clerk’s office outlining a set of possible road projects throughout the county, costing about $8.7 million. [.pdf of projects list and .pdf of map showing the location of the proposed projects]

The plan was then brought forward as an item of discussion at the board’s Oct. 5 meeting. However, no resolution related to the topic was proposed, and no member of the road commission attended that meeting. The following night, at an Oct. 6 working session, the issue was tackled yet again as the board met with Ken Schwartz, a former county commissioner who’s now one of three road commissioners, and Roy Townsend, the road commission’s director of engineering. Schwartz was instrumental in identifying a 1909 state law that would allow the county board to levy a millage for road repair without voter approval.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor, where the board of commissioners holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Ken Schwartz, a Washtenaw County road commissioner, talks with Curtis Hedger, the county's corporation counsel, before the start of the Oct. 6 county board of commissioners working session. (Photos by the writer.)

This time, however, the board heard directly from representatives of the road commission: Ken Schwartz, a former county commissioner who’s now one of three road commissioners; and Roy Townsend, the road commission’s director of engineering. Schwartz was instrumental in identifying a 1909 state law that would allow the county board to levy a millage for road repair without voter approval.

But in presenting the proposal for a set of possible road projects throughout the county costing about $8.7 million, Schwartz backed off from advocating for a millage. Instead, he said the road commission was simply bringing forward a list of needed projects and the amount that it would cost to pay for them. It’s up to the board of commissioners, he said, to decide what funding source to use, or whether to act on the proposal at all.

Commissioners expressed a variety of concerns during the hour-long discussion. Board chair Conan Smith worried about “tax weariness,” indicating that other countywide millages might be in the offing. Yousef Rabhi was cautious about taking action that could jeopardize a street repair millage that’s on the November ballot in Ann Arbor.

Smith also broached the issue of possibly expanding the road commission board – a controversial topic that was last discussed seriously in 2010. Currently there are three road commissioners, and Smith wondered how often the small size caused concerns over violating the state’s Open Meetings Act.

The road repair proposal and related issues will almost certainly be taken up again. The board has pushed back consideration of the plan to its Dec. 7 meeting.

Other topics of the Oct. 6 working session included an update on the county’s fiscal “score card,” and a presentation by bond attorney John Axe about factors contributing to the county’s bond ratings. This report focuses on the road repair issue.

Road Commission Plan: Presentation

Ken Schwartz began by saying there were some misconceptions about what the road commission was asking for. They aren’t asking for any particular millage or funding mechanism, he said. [The map submitted by the road commission to the county clerk, showing the location of proposed road projects, is labeled "Proposed 2012 County Millage Projects for Washtenaw County Road Commission" – .pdf of map and .pdf of projects list]

The road commission is following Public Act 283 of 1909, which requires the commission to submit a plan of recommended road repairs and the cost to do the projects, he said. [.pdf of relevant section from Act 283, including summary by Lew Kidder of Scio Township.] Schwartz said he was there merely to report the road commission’s findings to the board, not to advocate for any particular funding. “That’s going to be up to you guys,” he said.

Some people have said the law is too old and doesn’t apply, Schwartz noted. But the road commission’s legal counsel believes the law is still valid. In general, county funding laws tend to be older, he said – counties dip back into the state’s history when looking at how they operate and fund projects.

Schwartz cited an advantage in using local funding for road repair: The county would have more control over how the money is spent. With federal and state funding, there are restrictions on what can be done, he said. For example, repair of a road using federal dollars might require reconstruction of adjacent ditches or widening of the road’s shoulders. Perhaps that work isn’t necessary, and could be curtailed to result in a less expensive project.

When the road commission staff originally put together a list of projects, Schwartz said, it was considerably smaller – in the $3-4 million range. But after considering it more fully, road commissioners felt that a broader plan would better serve the county. The projects identified by the road commission proposal come to about $8.7 million.

Roy Townsend, the road commission’s director of engineering, described some of the projects in more detail. He said the last time the road commission had presented this kind of plan – as far as their records showed – was in 1969, for road work associated with construction of the Washtenaw Community College campus on East Huron River Drive.

The staff looked at several different factors when selecting possible projects, Townsend said. Factors included the condition of the pavement, traffic volume, access for public safety vehicles, and connectivity. How much are the roads used as corridors between communities? Are the roads of economic or regional importance? Do the roads serve as business corridors? The staff also tried to propose projects that are dispersed equally throughout the county, Townsend said, so that communities get their fair share.

Also factored in is whether the project would be eligible for other funding, by partnering with local communities or leveraging other available money, he said.

The five most expensive of the 38 projects are:

1. Miller Avenue: 0.87 miles from Maple to Newport ($957,000)
2. Dexter Road: 0.78 miles from Huron to North Maple ($858,000)
3. Ellsworth Road: 2.3 miles from State Road to I-94 ($851,000)
4. Ann-Arbor Saline Road: 0.6 miles from Eisenhower to west of Lohr ($781,000)
5. North Territorial Road: 4 miles from Sutton to Tower ($701,250)

In addition to roadwork, the project list includes $100,000 for culvert replacements countywide, and $130,000 for roadside cleanup. An additional nine projects are also listed that could be done if the original road repairs cost less than anticipated, freeing up money for other work.

Road Commission Plan: Board Discussion

Questions from county commissioners covered a range of topics during their hour-long discussion. This report organizes their comments and questions thematically.

Road Commission Plan: Board Discussion – Location, Equity

Wes Prater asked whether the road commission was trying to locate projects in all communities. Roy Townsend said that was the goal – if there weren’t projects directly in a community, there would be one nearby. For example, no road repairs are proposed for Dexter, but there’s a project adjacent to the village. The staff also tried to pick projects that were located on borders between jurisdictions, Townsend said, or that cross multiple jurisdictions.

Prater asked specifically about whether there were any projects in Milan. No, Townsend said – the closest one is on Willow Road, from Platt to Gooding.

County commissioner Yousef Rabhi, left, talks with Roy Townsend, director of engineering for the Washtenaw County road commission.

Ken Schwartz said that if you looked at the statute, the intent is to do this kind of plan every year. Over a period of years, the geographic equity would be more apparent, he said. In devising this one-year plan, the staff looked at the countywide road system, Schwartz explained, and tried to pick roads that are used by multiple communities. Grove Road in Ypsilanti, for example,  is a major corridor between Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township, and there’s no other current funding available for road improvements there.

Prater noted that the city of Ann Arbor accounts for about 34% of the county’s taxable value. A substantial amount of any countywide millage would come from Ann Arbor, and he hoped the road commission would make it equitable for the city’s taxpayers. Townsend said at first city staff thought they’d use any available funding for the East Stadium bridges project, but later decided to target other projects. The largest road repair on the list – $957,000 for Miller Avenue, between Maple and Newport – is in Ann Arbor. Another example of an Ann Arbor project is the $858,000 proposed repair of Dexter Road, between Huron and Maple.

In response to another question from Prater, Townsend said that some of Ann Arbor’s projects would be managed by the city, while others would be handled by the road commission, which would bid out the work to contractors.

Yousef Rabhi asked how the projects in Ann Arbor had been identified. Townsend said the road commission had met with representatives from each community, to get input about priority projects. Often, these were projects that are already included in a community’s capital improvements plan (CIP). [According to Ann Arbor city staff, the Miller Avenue project (between Maple and Newport) is currently planned for construction in 2013, assuming Ann Arbor voters renew the street repair millage in November. Chronicle coverage of that project from 2009: "Miller Avenue to Be Resurfaced and More"]

Dan Smith observed that the road commission has clearly put a lot of thought into this plan. He’s driven down North Territorial and agreed that it’s in need of repair. He asked Schwartz to elaborate on the issue of equity, pointing to the section of Act 283 that calls for apportioning the spending of millage revenues in accordance with each community’s equalized (taxable) value.

Schwartz said the concept of equitable apportionment is based on the statute, and that the road commission’s reading of the law is that the projects need to benefit the entire county.

Dan Smith said it seemed that sections 224-20B and 224-22 of Act 283 gave the county the option of asking voters to approve a millage or to bond for the purpose of road repair. He also asked whether Schwartz’s understanding of Act 119 of 2011 was that the county could use its general fund surplus on roads – assuming a surplus is available. Schwartz said his understanding is the county can use its general fund surplus in any reasonable way.

Road Commission Plan: Board Discussion – Funding

Conan Smith said he had some concerns about “tax weariness” in the county. He wanted to make sure they had a thorough conversation in the context of other needs, such as human services. He noted that some state legislators are concerned about pre-Headlee laws that allow counties to levy taxes without government approval. Washtenaw County does that with Act 88 to support economic development and agriculture, and the Veterans Relief Act to support services for indigent veterans. Smith said he didn’t want to poke the legislature in the eye with a road millage, but he wasn’t afraid of them, either.

Ken Schwartz again said he wasn’t advocating for a millage or any particular funding mechanism. The board could do a pre-Headlee levy, or the county could issue bonds for the work. Another option would be to ask voters to approve a millage.

Yousef Rabhi expressed concern about jeopardizing the millages that Ann Arbor voters will be asked to approve in November – 2 mills for street repair, and 0.125 mills for sidewalk repair. That’s over $9 million that Ann Arbor residents will be paying, he said. The city has decided to pay for its streets with a voter-approved millage, Rabhi said, and it seemed like that could be an effective strategy for other jurisdictions, too.

Dan Smith also asked why other communities wouldn’t work with the road commission to levy a millage within each community’s jurisdiction, based on their individual needs. He noted that it does happen in some jurisdictions. Schwartz said it’s up to each township or village. Bridgewater Township, for example, levies a millage for that purpose. Some communities also use special assessments to pay for specific road projects, he said.

Townsend noted that townships don’t have responsibility for major roads that run through their jurisdictions – that’s the county’s job. The plan put forward by the road commission takes a regional approach, he said, targeting major roads. He also observed that in Michigan, about 20 other counties have some kind of countywide millage for road repair.

Saying he wasn’t asking for a commitment, Dan Smith wondered if the road commission intended to bring forward a plan like this again next year. Schwartz indicated that would be likely. Even if the 1909 law the commission is citing weren’t on the books, he said, it would be good policy for the road commission to make a presentation on the condition of the county’s roads and bridges. That way, the county board can understand which projects need to be addressed. No matter how those projects are funded, it’s better for residents when the county board and road commission have a better relationship, he said.

Dan Smith said it’s hard to come to grips with using this law, since the world has changed so much since 1909 – one year after the Model T was invented, he noted. The law predated the state’s gas tax, state highways and the Headlee Amendment, among other things. Schwartz replied that it’s a policy decision the board needs to make, as to whether this approach works for the county. He noted that Ypsilanti levies a millage for road repair, and it’s still not enough to fix the city’s deteriorating streets.

Schwartz also noted that Act 51 revenues – the road commission’s main source of funding – have been decreasing since the early 2000s. [The road commission is funded primarily through Public Act 51 gas taxes and vehicle registration fees. Its 2011 budget is about $16.5 million, and employs about 130 workers. In Washtenaw County, the road commission is responsible for maintaining all the public roads outside of cities and villages, which pay for their own street repair and construction.]

Prater asked about the road commission’s five-year capital improvements and preventative maintenance plans. Townsend reported that the five-year capital improvements plans (adopted in 2010, for the years 2011-2015) identifies about $30 million in projects that are funded through federal grants or other sources. However, he said, there are another $90 million in unfunded projects throughout the county, including work needed on bridges and culverts. He estimated the total needs for the county at roughly $250 million.

Road Commission Plan: Board Discussion – Economic Impact

Conan Smith asked if the road commission had an estimate about how many local jobs this work would create. The rule of thumb for federal recovery act dollars is that $90,000 of investment creates one job, he said. If that’s the case with this project, they’d be creating more than 80 solid jobs for a year. He asked whether the road commission had a local hiring policy as part of its bid process. No, Schwartz said, noting that there are limited suppliers for some of the asphalt work. There’s only one asphalt paving plant in Washtenaw County, for example.

Some government contracts require that contractors hire a certain number of local workers, Conan Smith noted. He asked if the road commission would consider that. It’s a possibility, Schwartz said – those are the kind of details that would need to be worked out. Smith said his general sense is that the county has the opportunity to create jobs, but he wanted to see that benefit accrue to local residents who are hurting now.

Conan Smith said he doesn’t see it as a road project – he sees it as a jobs project. It’s important to keep that value in mind as they have a conversation about this proposal, he said.

Schwartz reported that the road commission is working with the sheriff’s office to develop a program using inmates for road cleanup. The road commission would pay for sheriff’s staff to handle oversight of the work, he said. Details are still being worked out.

The road commission hears the county board loud and clear about the importance of these projects to stimulate economic development, Schwartz said. Almost all the projects on the list are roads that handle buses, heavy trucks or high traffic volume, so every dollar spent will help reap additional dollars, he said.

Road Commission Plan: Board Discussion – Expansion of Commission

Conan Smith brought up the issue of the size of the road commission’s board. It currently has three members. Smith noted that in the past, the county board had talked about expanding the road commission board to five members. The county board appoints road commissioners, and has authority to increase or decrease membership. That issue had been controversial, he noted. [Most recently, those efforts had been championed in 2010 by former county commissioner Jeff Irwin, a Democrat who now serves as a state representative for District 53. See Chronicle coverage: "Effort to expand road commission doesn't gain support"]

Smith observed that Ken Schwartz had seen both sides – he was a former county commissioner, and had been appointed to the road commission after losing his seat in District 2 to Republican Dan Smith in November 2010. He asked for Schwartz’s insight into the question of expanding membership on the road commission board.

Schwartz said he hadn’t given it much thought, but he could see merits to either a three- or five-member board. It might be helpful to have more members, he said. There are times when only two commissioners can attend a meeting, and he indicated that more input would be useful.

Smith then asked how often the road commissioners ran into difficulties with the state’s Open Meetings Act. Schwartz contended that if members are only sharing information – and not deliberating – then there’s no OMA requirement that prevents them from meeting. Nor would they have to provide public notice for such a meeting, he said.

Road commissioners are scrupulous about not deliberating if the meeting isn’t public, Schwartz said, and they try very hard to avoid even the appearance of an OMA violation. A five-member board would make it easier to do that, Schwartz said.

Prater noted that in the past he had served as a road commissioner too, and said it’s extremely hard not to slide into deliberations when two road commissioners are talking. One of them might suggest doing something, he said, and the other one would weigh in, perhaps by saying it’s a good idea. He said he’d like to talk about expanding the road commission to five members.

Present: Barbara Levin Bergman, Ronnie Peterson, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Dan Smith, Conan Smith, and Rob Turner.

Absent: Kristin Judge, Leah Gunn, Alicia Ping, Rolland Sizemore Jr.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. 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!

Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers talks with Washtenaw County administrator Verna McDaniel before the Oct. 5 meeting of the county board of commissioners. Powers, who started his job in mid-September and was formerly a Marquette County administrator, told the board he looked forward to building more collaborative efforts between the city and county. (Photos by the writer.)

The proposal debated by the board came from the Washtenaw County road commission. Rob Turner (R-District 1) recommended indefinite postponement. He objected to the idea of levying a millage without voter approval – an action that road commissioners believe is possible under a 1909 law. It’s still on the books but that hasn’t been used in decades.

Ultimately, the board voted to postpone action until their Dec. 7 meeting. The next evening – on Thursday, Oct. 6 – they held a working session on the issue.

In other business, the board gave initial approval to a contract with Sylvan Township, related to its bond repayment schedule, which the township is struggling to meet. The county will be tapping its reserves to help the township cover the bond payments, but the deal is contingent on township voters passing a 4.75 mill, 20-year tax that’s on the November 2011 ballot.

The board also took an initial vote to create a new management position and hire Greg Dill into that job – as county infrastructure management director. The job is part of a broader reorganization of county administration, which hasn’t yet been approved by the board.

Accolades were threaded throughout the meeting, as the county handed out its annual Environmental Excellence Awards to several local organizations. Praise was also served up to Lansing lobbyist Kirk Profit for his work on the county’s behalf. That praise included initial approval of a two-year contract renewal for Governmental Consultant Services Inc. – Profit is a director of the Lansing-based firm.

The board also said an official farewell to Kristin Judge, a Democrat from District 7 who resigned her seat, and was attending her last board meeting.

Introduction: Ann Arbor City Administrator

At the start of Wednesday’s meeting, county administrator Verna McDaniel introduced her counterpart at the city of Ann Arbor, Steve Powers, who started the job as city administrator on Sept. 15. Powers told commissioners that it felt good to be back at a county meeting – he’d spent most of his career in county government, including the past 15 years as county administrator in Marquette County.

Powers said that McDaniel, as county administrator, was one of the first people he had wanted to get to know when he came to town. He came from a place where cooperation was a necessity, and it’s clearly a necessity in Washtenaw County too, he said. Powers cited several examples of how cooperation is already taking place between the city of Ann Arbor and the county, including police dispatch operations, the joint office of community & economic development, and natural areas preservation. He said he looked forward to building on those efforts, to better serve citizens and manage the tax dollars entrusted to local government.

Road Repair Millage?

The item on Wednesday’s agenda that received the most discussion related to a county road repair plan – and the potential for a millage to fund it. The idea of a millage was put forward by the Washtenaw County road commission.

The board had initially discussed this issue at its Sept. 8 working session, and it was expected to be on the agenda for the Sept. 20 meeting. But it wasn’t until Sept. 23 that the road commission formally submitted its plan to the county clerk’s office outlining road improvements. The plan was then brought forward as an item of discussion on Oct. 5. However, no resolution related to the topic was proposed, and no member of the road commission attended Wednesday’s meeting.

At issue is how the board should respond to the road commission’s plan. One option would be to levy an 0.6 mill tax, which is now estimated to raise $8.7 million for a raft of road improvement projects countywide. [.pdf of projects list] [.pdf of map showing project locations] Road commissioners believe the millage could be levied under Public Act 283 of 1909. Because that act pre-dates the state’s Headlee Amendment, it could be levied by the board and would not require voter approval.

Wes Prater began the discussion by proposing that the board table the item. It’s important to communicate what’s happening with the road commission, he said, and that discussion needs to take place at a public meeting before the board takes action.

It’s ultimately the county’s responsibility to provide funding for roads, Prater said. Yet it’s been nearly two years since the board met with the road commission to talk about it. The road commission is getting the same amount of state funding as it did in 2000, Prater said. It’s struggling like everyone else, and many county roads and bridges are in bad shape. This needs to be discussed, he concluded.

Alicia Ping observed that the information given to the board was different than what some communities have received. At least one community had been told that all the millage proceeds collected from their community would be spent on projects there, but it turned out that no projects on the final list were located there, she said. [Ping did not specify which municipality she was referring to.]

There’s no question that some county roads need to be fixed, Ping said, but residents should be the ones voting on a millage.

Barbara Bergman said if she’s going to tax citizens and must choose between funding services for the homeless and children, for example, or filling potholes, then the choice was clear to her. She couldn’t support a millage for roads.

Ronnie Peterson separated out two issues: Communication with the road commission, and funding for county roads. The road commission has presented a plan, and now it’s up to the board to decide how to proceed, he said. They should have a dialogue in the public eye, he said. Finding a funding mechanism should come after a report on the condition of the roads, Peterson said.

Board chair Conan Smith said there’d been some back and forth about setting up a meeting with road commissioners, and he apologized for not following up on it. Regardless of the millage issue, the board needs to start working more closely with the road commissioners, he said.

From left: Commissioners Yousef Rabhi (D-District 11) and Rob Turner (R-District 1).

Rob Turner, who serves as the board’s liaison to the road commission, thanked Smith for apologizing. There’s been some miscommunication and misunderstanding, he said. The board needs to make time to meet with the road commissioners, and road commissioners have expressed the desire to do that. The board needs to hear about the conditions of county roads and bridges, and future funding needs.

However, Turner said, since news about the possible millage has spread, he’s heard from people of all walks of life who are very concerned that a millage might be levied without voter approval. There are also split opinions among officials of local townships, he said.

Turner said he supports road repair, but doesn’t support this approach to funding it. He then moved to postpone the road commission’s proposal indefinitely, and to encourage the road commission to work toward funding the projects with a voter-approved millage or millages.

Prater responded by saying Turner was jumping the gun – the board hadn’t yet discussed the proposal with the road commission. Postponing action until a specific date was fine, Prater added, but he didn’t support getting rid of the proposal completely.

Dan Smith agreed that indefinite postponement was premature. He said he had planned to suggest postponing it until the board’s Nov. 2 meeting.

Conan Smith asked a procedural question: Didn’t the board have to vote the proposal up or down? Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, replied that this is the first time a county has considered this particular law in roughly 40 years, so in some ways they’re winging it. Hedger’s reading of the law is that after the road improvement plan is presented to the board, commissioners can do whatever they want – approve it, reject it, pick only certain projects out of the list and levy a lower amount to cover the costs of those projects, or find another funding source.

Hedger noted that if the board delays action much longer, the county wouldn’t be able to include the levy on the December tax bills – assuming they wanted to levy the millage this year.

Kristin Judge said she disagreed with Turner. It’s important to address this now, she said. The board is an oversight body for the road commission – the board doesn’t control the road commission’s budget, but it does appoint the road commissioners, she noted. In her last newsletter, Judge said, she conducted a poll about the millage. Even constituents who are generally anti-tax seemed supportive of it, she said. Good roads are key to economic development, but the state isn’t providing sufficient funding. “To me, it’s an infrastructure question,” she said.

She felt the county could push the envelope on this issue. Judge also expressed frustration that the road commissioners hadn’t been scheduled for a meeting with the county board so far. She said she knew the road commissioners had wanted to come, but they hadn’t been put on an agenda – that’s an issue, she said. She would not support indefinite postponement.

Bergman said roads might be the county’s responsibility, but it’s yet another unfunded mandate from the state.

Turner said he appreciated Judge’s comments and he also wants the roads maintained. But this “ancient law” isn’t the way to do it. He felt it would be wrong to bring road commissioners to a meeting if he had no intention of supporting a millage. If the road commission comes with a more viable alternative – that he might vote for – then that’s fine.

Judge countered that it’s important to have this debate in public – and her board colleagues shouldn’t assume that they know the outcome of a vote. They shouldn’t stand in the way of a public debate on an issue of such importance to residents.

Dan Smith asked about procedure – is postponing indefinitely just another way of voting no? Hedger replied that there wasn’t a main motion to vote on. The agenda item had been a discussion point, not a resolution. The county administration didn’t want to presume to know what the board would want to do, he said, “so it’s now in your lap.” The motion to postpone indefinitely would have the effect of killing it, Hedger said. If commissioners vote to do that, the issue could be reconsidered in the future if it’s brought forward by someone on the prevailing side of the vote, he said.

After some additional commentary by Peterson, who supported having a public discussion with the road commission, Prater moved to “call the question” – a procedural move that forces a vote.

Outcome on Turner’s motion to postpone indefinitely: The motion was rejected on a 3-7 vote, with support only from Turner, Barbara Bergman (D-District 8) and Conan Smith (D-District 10). Leah Gunn (D-District 9) was absent.

At that point, Rolland Sizemore Jr. suspended discussion to handle other items on the agenda, including the Environmental Excellence Awards – several people were on hand to accept those awards, and had been waiting while the board conducted other business.

Later in the meeting, when the discussion resumed, Dan Smith moved to postpone the item until the board’s Dec. 7 meeting, and that it be scheduled as the topic of a working session at some point before that date.

Yousef Rabhi, who chairs the board’s working session, said he had tentatively scheduled the road commission for the Oct. 6 working session, pending the outcome of the board’s discussion on Wednesday. His only question about the Dec. 7 date is whether it’s too late for putting a millage on the December tax bill, if that’s what the board decides to do.

Dan Smith said they needed to think through the issue, indicating that they shouldn’t rush to make a decision based on the timing of the tax bill.

Peterson said he wished Dan Smith had made that proposal an hour ago – it would have saved the board some time. And if there’s an intent to kill the proposal on Dec. 7, that should be stated, he said. It’s just a report, he said, and the board needs to deal with it.

Sizemore expressed some reluctance to hold the working session so soon. He said he wanted to get some documents under the Freedom of Information Act before meeting with the road commission.

At that, Prater called the question.

Outcome: The motion to postpone the road commission proposal until Dec. 7 passed on a 9-1 vote, with dissent from Alicia Ping (R-District 3). Leah Gunn (D-District 9) was absent.

Later in the meeting, Sizemore urged anyone who was watching the meeting to contact the road commission and give them input. He provided the web address and phone number: www.wcroads.org and 734-761-1500.

The topic was on the agenda for the Oct. 6 working session, which was attended by road commissioner Ken Schwartz and Roy Townsend, the road commission’s director of engineering.

Sylvan Township Bond Repayment Contract

At Wednesday’s meeting, commissioners were asked to give initial approval to a contract with Sylvan Township related to the township’s bond repayment schedule. The township has been struggling to make payments on $12.5 million in bonds issued in 2001 to build a water and wastewater treatment plant intended to serve future development. The township expected that connection fees would cover payments for the bond, which is backed by the county’s full faith and credit. But the development never materialized. [More extensive background on the situation is provided in a staff memo that was part of the board's packet of material for the Oct. 3 meeting.]

Sylvan Township – located west of Ann Arbor, near Chelsea – is now facing default on its bond payment in May 2012, which the county will need to cover. The township board voted to put a proposal for a 4.75 mill, 20-year tax on the November 2011 ballot for township residents, with proceeds to pay a portion of the bond payments.

The millage proceeds alone would not be sufficient to cover the entire cost of the bond payments, and the county would need to tap its own capital reserves to cover the remaining amount. After the entire bond is repaid, the millage proceeds would continue to be used to repay the county to cover the amount used from its capital reserves, as well as interest. The millage proceeds would also be used to repay the county treasurer’s office, which advanced about $1.2 million to the township in 2007 and 2008 related to this project.

The contract between the county and township is contingent on voters passing the 4.75 mill tax. If the millage fails and the township defaults, the county could file suit against the township for breach of contract in failing to meet its debt repayment obligation, according to a staff memo. The county would also need to make the bond payments, to avoid having its bond rating negatively affected.

Sylvan Township Bond Repayment Contract: Commissioner Discussion

This issue has been discussed several times over the past year, most recently in a report by commissioner Rob Turner at the board’s Sept. 7, 2011 meeting. Turner represents District 1 on the county’s west side, which includes Sylvan Township.

At Wednesday’s meeting, Yousef Rabhi asked how much the county would be paying on an annual basis. Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, pointed Rabhi to supplemental materials provided at the meeting, which laid out the repayment schedule. Sylvan Township’s portion of the bon payments – using millage proceeds – start at $853,860 in 2012, with the county contributing $118,498. The estimates for county payments vary, reaching a high $262,414 in 2023. The bond will be repaid in 2026. For five years after that, all millage proceeds will be paid directly to the county, to repay the county’s contribution from previous years.

Hedger said the estimates for millage proceeds were calculated for the worst-case scenario – that is, for zero percent growth in property value.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the contract with Sylvan Township, contingent on township residents passing a 20-year, 4.75 mill tax in November. A final vote on the resolution is expected at the board’s Oct. 19 meeting.

Contract Renewal for Lansing Lobbyist

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to renew a two-year contract with Governmental Consultant Services Inc., a Lansing-based lobbying firm. The contract would run from  Nov. 1, 2011 through Oct. 31, 2013 at $54,250 per year. That’s the same rate that the county currently pays, and is already built into the proposed 2012-2013 budget. [.pdf of draft contract]

GCSI lobbyist Kirk Profit attended Wednesday’s meeting. He and his colleagues most recently gave a formal update to the board at their March 2, 2011 meeting. GCSI provides lobbying services at the state level for several local units of government, including the city of Ann Arbor.

County administrator Verna McDaniel noted that commissioners had been given a list of issues that GCSI had worked on for the county, and said that GCSI staff have been very helpful and responsive. From the staff memo recommending GCSI’s contract renewal:

GCSI has, on numerous occasions, been able to cut through the red tape and arrange for County officials to meet with various hard to reach members of State government. In addition, GCSI has on many occasions advocated the County’s position on pending legislation with key State lawmakers. GCSI also keeps the Board of Commissioners and key County Administrative personnel periodically apprised of developing legislation that could positively or adversely affect County government. This early notification permits the County to develop a strategy to either promote or oppose the proposed legislation.

Contract Renewal for Lansing Lobbyist: Commissioner Discussion

Several commissioners praised GCSI and Profit specifically. Conan Smith said Profit has done yeoman’s work over the last year, on issues ranging from state revenue-sharing to 80/20 legislation [requiring public employees to pay 20% of their health care costs, effective Jan. 1, 2012, or to cap the amount that local governments would pay as premiums for employees] to threats against Act 88, which allows the county to levy an economic development millage without voter approval. Smith hoped Profit would be able to bring even more benefits to the county in future years.

Kirk Profit, a director with Governmental Consultant Services Inc., a Lansing lobbying firm, attended the Oct. 3 county board meeting. Commissioners gave initial approval to renew GCSI's contract with the county.

Barbara Bergman recalled that when this contract first came up for consideration years ago, she questioned whether the county would get any value out of it. “That was not the smartest question I ever asked,” she said.

Kristin Judge also thanked Profit, and said she hoped someday the county would consider hiring a lobbyist at the federal level, too. She was especially grateful for his work in helping secure funding for an improvement project at Lakeside Park on Ford Lake, which included building a new boathouse.

Wes Prater quipped that with all the praise Profit was getting, he must not actually be on the payroll. Profit replied that GCSI appreciated the compensation provided by the county. Prater added that Profit has always been a hard worker, now and when Profit had been a state legislator.

Conan Smith noted that Profit also has worked on behalf of the county parks & recreation department. He asked for an update on pending state grants for parks-related projects.

Profit began by praising parks & rec staff and its director Bob Tetens, crediting them for pushing for collaborative efforts that have been funded in the past. That included the $500,000 in state funding received for the Ford Lake project, in partnership with Eastern Michigan University.

This year, Profit said, even though there’s not a lot of money coming out of the state, Washtenaw County is again well-positioned to receive funding from the state Dept. of Natural Resources trust fund. He said that state Sen. Rebekah Warren (D-District 18) – who is married to Conan Smith – and state Rep. David Rutledge (D-District 54) have been helpful, as have DNR staff. Profit noted that Gary Owen, DNR’s legislative liaison, grew up in this area.

He mentioned that the $300,000 requested from the DNR trust fund for the proposed Ann Arbor skatepark scored well, and now they’re working with the trust fund board to ensure that the full amount gets awarded. [The county parks & recreation commission approved $400,000 in matching funds for the skatepark, which is proposed for city-owned land at Veterans Memorial Park in Ann Arbor. The $300,000 state grant would be counted toward meeting that match.]

Profit also cited collaboration between the city of Ypsilanti and the county parks & rec department on a $300,000 DNR grant for Rutherford Pool, calling it a recreational opportunity in an urban setting that’s unmatched in this region. He praised the collaborative efforts of the county, and thanked commissioners for their support.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the GCSI contract renewal. A final vote is expected at their Oct. 19 meeting.

Infrastructure Manager

On the agenda was a resolution to authorize hiring Greg Dill to the new position of county infrastructure management director, with a salary of $116,758. The resolution also approved the creation of that post, with responsibility for information systems and technology, as well as management of the county’s buildings and other facilities. Some of those duties were previously assigned to the county’s information & technology manager, a position that was eliminated following the departure of James McFarlane earlier this year.

Dill has been director of administrative operations for the sheriff’s office, but previously worked for five years in facilities management for the county. Dill attended Wednesday’s meeting but was not asked to address the board formally.

The creation of this new job and Dill’s appointment to it were originally on the agenda for the board’s Sept. 21, 2011 meeting. However, that item and a proposed reorganization of county administration were pulled from the agenda at that meeting. The reorganization would have replaced the deputy administrator position by giving additional responsibilities to four managers, including Dill, paying them annual stipends of $15,000 each in addition to their salaries. Some commissioners had concerns over the stipend, and the proposed reorganization has not yet been reintroduced.

Infrastructure Manager: Commissioner Discussion

Wes Prater asked whether the job description could be altered after board approval. County administrator Verna McDaniel said it’s quite easy to do that and it can be handled administratively, as long as they’re not changing the salary rate.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he had a problem with the way salaries are presented for new positions. There’s often just a range given, he said, but it would be better to have the exact amount. He asked that staff provide information over the past two years indicating the salary ranges that the board has approved for new hires, and the actual salary that’s been set for those jobs. It might be time to tighten up what the county pays, he said.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to create the position of infrastructure manager and hire Greg Dill for that job. A final vote is expected on Oct. 19.

Appointment to Natural Areas Advisory Group

On the agenda was a resolution appointing Catherine Riseng to the natural areas technical advisory committee (NATAC), which advises the county parks & recreation commission regarding its natural areas preservation program (NAPP). Her appointment was recommended by the county parks & recreation commission, to fill a seat previously held by Mike Wiley. She’ll serve the remainder of a two-year term, which expires on Dec. 31, 2012.

Riseng is an aquatic ecologist researcher at the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Environment. She also is vice chair of the city of Ann Arbor’s greenbelt advisory commission. [.pdf of Riseng's cover letter and resume] Other NATAC members include: Rane Curl, Bob Grese, David Lutton, Tony Reznicek, John Russell, and Sylvia Taylor.

NAPP is funded by a 10-year countywide millage that was first approved by voters in 2000 and renewed in 2010 at 0.2409 mills.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners unanimously approved the appointment of Catherine Riseng to NATAC.

Environmental Excellence Awards

At Wednesday’s meeting, commissioners passed a resolution honoring winners of the county’s 2011 Environmental Excellence awards, now in its 14th year. The awards were handed out to representatives of the winning organizations by Steve Manville of the county’s environmental health department, and Janis Bobrin, water resources commissioner.

The overall Environmental Excellence Award went to the Chrysler Group LLC for the Chrysler Proving Grounds in Chelsea, in recognition of its waste reduction and recycling program, its model stormwater and erosion control system involving native plants, and its efforts to keep toxic materials out of the waste stream.

The Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation Commission was given the Excellence in Water Quality Protection Award for its innovative stormwater management, use of native plants in landscaping, and pollution prevention. An honorable mention in this category was awarded to Horiba Instruments Inc.

The Leslie Science and Nature Center of Ann Arbor received the Excellence in Waste Reduction and Recycling Award for its extensive recycling program, purchasing of recycled products, and educating the public in waste reduction and conservation ethics. And ITC Holdings Inc. of Ann Arbor received the Excellence in Pollution Prevention Award for reducing the use of toxic substances and preventing pollution before it is produced.

After the presentation, several commissioners praised the winners. Yousef Rabhi said environmental quality is important, and it’s important to have local institutions like these at the forefront of environmental protection. He noted that during the presentation he’d received a text message from his girlfriend, Christine Muscat, an environmental compliance analyst with Con-way Freight in Ann Arbor. She was teasing Rabhi about the fact that her employer’s environmental efforts hadn’t been mentioned. Rabhi gave Conway and his girlfriend a shout-out for their work.

Conan Smith said that places that take care of the environment attract the best talent. It’s part of Washtenaw County’s culture, he said, telling the organizations that “you’re really the models of the future of our economy.”

Smith and other commissioners also thanked Bobrin and her staff for their efforts in environmental protection, praising the innovative approach they took to the work.

Ann Arbor Drain Projects

Drain projects in Ann Arbor – including two related to the East Stadium bridge reconstruction project – were given initial approval by commissioners at Wednesday’s meeting.

The county water resources commissioner’s office was asked by the city of Ann Arbor to design and build stormwater control measures for the bridges along Stadium Boulevard between Kipke and South Industrial, according to a staff memo. The Allen Creek East Stadium bridges drain project and the Malletts Creek East Stadium bridges drain project will require in total no more than $415,000 for bonds issued with the county’s full faith and credit. The bonds will be repaid through special assessments on property in the drain district for this project.

Separately, county commissioners gave initial approval to an Allen Creek drain project in Ann Arbor. The project involves installing an underground infiltration system on the west side of the Veterans Park Ice Arena and putting in a rain garden near the entrance of the ice arena on the east side of the building. Rain gardens will also be installed next to Fire Station #3 at 2130 Jackson Ave., and trees will be planted in the city right-of-way throughout neighborhoods on the city’s west side.

The Allen Creek project had been previously approved by the board at its July 2011 meeting, as one of several drain projects authorized at that time. The overall cost of the projects approved then is now expected to be $1.45 million less than originally estimated. However, the $330,000 approved for the Allen Creek project turned out to be an underestimate – that project is now expected to cost up to an additional $65,000. That $65,000 – covered by bonds issued with the county’s full faith and credit – was the amount commissioners were asked to approve at Wednesday’s meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the drain projects on an initial vote. A final vote is expected on Oct. 19.

Farewell to Kristin Judge

It’s the board’s custom to award a resolution of appreciation to commissioners when they leave the board. On Wednesday, Kristin Judge, a Democrat who represents District 7, received such a resolution. It was her last regular board meeting before her resignation, which took effect on Oct. 9. She announced her decision to step down on Sept. 30, citing potential conflicts with a job she recently accepted with the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC).

After receiving a framed copy of the resolution, Judge got a standing ovation from her board colleagues and staff, and several commissioners praised her work on the board. Conan Smith (D-District 10) described her as a “force of nature,” while Rob Turner (R-District 1) cited her energy, passion, and compassion. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) called Judge ”an outstanding public servant – and I have not said that about many people in my career.”

From left: Commissioners Ronnie Peterson, Conan Smith, Kristin Judge, Wes Prater.

Saying there were too many people to thank individually, Judge said she’s loved every minute of her time on the board. [She was first elected in 2008, then re-elected in 2010.] One of her goals, she said, has been to make people understand that government really works, and that most people in government are good. In her new job she’ll work with local and state governments nationwide, she said, helping address online security threats.

Much of Judge’s recent work has been related to cyber-security issues. She led the formation of the Washtenaw County Cyber Citizenship Coalition, and organized the Oct. 7 Michigan Cyber Summit, a day-long event that served as the kickoff for National Cyber Security Awareness Month. Keynote speakers included Janet Napolitano, secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder. In conjunction with that event, at Wednesday’s meeting the board also passed a resolution declaring October as cyber security awareness month in Washtenaw County.

The county has announced the process for filling the vacant District 7 seat, which will be an appointment made by the board of commissioners. The deadline to apply is Wednesday, Oct. 12 at 5 p.m., and the board is expected to make a decision at its Oct. 19 meeting.

The board must make an appointment within 30 days of a resignation, for a commissioner to serve until special elections are held. There will be a Feb. 28, 2012 primary for that seat, followed by a May 2012 special general election. The winner of that election would serve a truncated term for the current District 7, through 2012. Redistricting of the county board that takes effect in 2013 will reduce the number of districts in the county from 11 to 9 – candidates for the new districts will compete in an Aug. 7 primary and November general election.

Upcoming Working Sessions

The topic of working sessions emerged at several points during Wednesday’s meeting.

After the discussion about a potential road repair millage, Rolland Sizemore Jr. told his fellow commissioners that he wanted to schedule a working session to discuss all possible millages that might be coming in the future. He said he’s heard rumors that some commissioners want to see a countywide millage to fund human services. There’s also the likelihood that a countywide transportation millage might be floated. Why not put them all on the table to get a better overall sense of what’s happening? he said.

Ronnie Peterson said he hoped that the road repair millage would be the topic of a working session, before other possible millages get discussed. Sizemore noted that a working session on the road millage was set for the following evening.

Later in the meeting, Yousef Rabhi – who as chair of the working sessions sets those agendas – reported that the Oct. 6 working session would include the possible road millage, as well as an update on bond ratings and the county’s fiscal scorecard. A special budget-related working session will be held on Thursday, Oct. 13, he said. Topics will include an update on the community’s food and housing needs, and a discussion of the proposed 2012-2013 budget for nonprofit and other outside agency funding.

Peterson questioned why commissioners needed an update on food and housing needs. They should focus on budget items, he said. Rabhi indicated that the update, which had been requested by Barbara Bergman, would be brief.

Conan Smith observed that the community’s food and housing needs provide a context for making budget decisions, particularly for funding nonprofits that provide food and housing services.

Peterson again expressed concern, saying he hoped the working sessions weren’t going to be stacked with non-budget items. If so, he wouldn’t attend. The budget for funding outside agencies is over $1 million, he noted. They had a lot to discuss, and commissioners shouldn’t be burnt out on other topics before they get the chance to address the budget. The budget is their biggest responsibility, he said. [Earlier in the meeting, the board had voted to postpone the agenda item on a discussion of the budget until their Oct. 19 meeting.]

Bergman said she certainly wanted a complete discussion about outside agency funding, but she agreed with Conan Smith – the update on food and housing would provide context.

Rabhi then highlighted topics for other upcoming working sessions, noting that topics reflect items that commissioners had previously expressed interest in. On Thursday, Oct. 20, the board will hear from Pat Horne McGee, director of Washtenaw Head Start. [The county administration has proposed relinquishing support for the program, and previously reviewed that option at a July 21, 2011 working session.] Other topics for Oct. 20 include professional services contracts and the county’s Voluntary Employee Benefits Association (VEBA) trust. A Nov. 3 working session will focus on the 2012-2013 budget.

Public Commentary: Salem Twp. Historic District

The only speaker during the four opportunities for public commentary was Terry Cwik, president of the Salem Area Historical Society. He said the topic he wanted to address – creation of an historic district for Jarvis Stone School, the Dickerson Barn and associated property – wasn’t on the agenda that night. It would likely come up at the board’s Oct. 19 meeting, but he couldn’t attend then. The school is owned by the historical society, he said, and a study committee has been working on a proposal for the board to review.

Cwik said the one-room schoolhouse on North Territorial was built in 1857 and in continuous use until 1967. The historical society now uses the school as its headquarters, he said. The site is a worthy candidate for designation as an historic district, he said, and would be the second one in Salem Township. [The current historical district is Conant Farm on Napier Road.]

Kristin Judge said she’d been to the school, and called it a gem in the community. Conan Smith expressed confidence that the historic district designation would eventually be approved, and noted that it was located just a couple of miles from where he’d grown up. He also joked that it was special because commissioners Barbara Bergman and Wes Prater had been part of the school’s first graduating class. Prater pointed out that Smith was incorrect: “It was the second,” Prater quipped.

Present: Barbara Levin Bergman, Kristin Judge, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Dan Smith, Conan Smith, and Rob Turner.

Absent: Leah Gunn.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The Ways & Means Committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public comment sessions are held at the beginning and end of each meeting.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. 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!

At issue is whether the county board should levy an 0.6 mill tax, which is now estimated to raise $8.7 million for a raft of road improvement projects countywide. Road commissioners believe the millage could be levied under Public Act 283 of 1909. Because that act pre-dates the state’s Headlee Amendment, it could be levied by the board and would not require voter approval. The topic was previously discussed at a Sept. 8 working session of the board. On Sept. 23 the road commission formally submitted its plan to the county clerk’s office outlining road improvements it would make with millage proceeds.

At Wednesday’s board meeting, commissioner Rob Turner (R-District 1) acknowledged that road repairs are needed, but he objected to levying a tax without voter approval. He moved to indefinitely postpone action on the item. The motion was rejected on a 3-7 vote, with support only from Turner, Barbara Bergman (D-District 8) and Conan Smith (D-District 10). Leah Gunn (D-District 9) was absent.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) then moved to postpone action until the board’s Dec. 7 meeting, with the intent of holding a working session on the issue at some point before then. That motion passed on a 9-1 vote, with dissent from Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

The board has several options in considering the proposed road millage. County commissioners could approve the plan and levy the millage in its entirety, or reject it completely. They could also approve a portion of the projects, and levy a lower amount to cover the costs of those projects, or find another funding source. The board also has the option of putting a millage proposal on the ballot for voters to approve or reject.

This brief was filed soon shortly after adjournment of Wednesday’s board meeting. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Voters will be asked to approve two separate proposals: (1) a 5-year renewal of a 2.0 mill tax to support street repair projects; and (2) a 0.125 mill tax to pay for sidewalk repair.

The resolution of intent would specify that the street repair millage will pay for the following activities: resurfacing or reconstruction of existing paved city streets and bridges, including on-street bicycle lanes and street intersections; construction of pedestrian refuge islands; reconstruction and construction of accessible street crossings and corner ramps; and preventive pavement maintenance (PPM) measures, including pavement crack sealing. [.pdf of resolution of intent]

Councilmembers had questions about the need to have any resolution of intent, as well as the status of millage revenue use inside the geographic area of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

The resolution of intent would stipulate that sidewalk repairs inside the Ann Arbor DDA district will not be funded by the sidewalk repair millage, except when the sidewalks are adjacent to single- and two-family houses. A recent meeting of the DDA’s operations committee revealed a measure of discontent on the DDA’s part about the intended restriction inside the DDA district and the lack of communication from the city of Ann Arbor to the DDA about that issue.

The resolution states that both inside and outside the DDA district (otherwise put, throughout the city), the sidewalk repair millage would be used only to pay for sidewalk repair adjacent to property on which the city levies a property tax. One impact of that resolution of intent, if it’s adopted, is that the city’s sidewalk repair millage will not be used to pay for repairs to sidewalks adjacent to University of Michigan property.

This brief was filed shortly after the city council’s meeting concluded. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Representatives from the road commission had been expected to present the plan at the county board’s Sept. 21 meeting. However, an email sent on Sept. 20 to the board from the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, laid out his understanding of the process that the road commission would need to follow.

From Hedger’s email: ”…the Act does not specifically state that the Road Commission must send its preliminary survey and tax request to the County Clerk, but given the plain language in the statute that the County Clerk must present the survey and tax request from the Road Commission to the Board of Commissioners at their October meeting, I believe it is fairly and strongly implied that the Road Commission must send its preliminary survey and tax determination request to the County Clerk, who then has the authority to present it to the Board of Commissioners.” [.pdf of Hedger's email]

Hedger’s email stated that the board has statutory authority to take one of the following actions: (1) completely approve the road commission’s preliminary survey and tax determination request; (2) completely reject the preliminary survey and tax determination request; or (3) approve some of the request and deny some of the request.

This issue was discussed by county commissioners at their Sept. 8 working session, and again at a working session on Sept. 22. Road commissioners say the millage is needed because the county is faced with diminished funding from the state, increased costs for labor and materials, and a growing number of deteriorating roads.

The proposal is expected to include a request for the county board to levy a 0.6 mill tax, which would raise about $7 million for more than three dozen proposed road projects. Road commissioners believe the millage could be levied under Public Act 283 of 1909. Because that act pre-dates the state’s Headlee Amendment, it could be levied by the board and would not require voter approval. The county already levies two other taxes in this category, for support of veterans services and economic development. Both of those taxes were given final approval at the board’s Sept. 21 meeting.