CUB agreements are a type of project labor agreements, negotiated between local trade unions and contractors. CUB agreements require that contractors who sign the agreement abide by terms of collective bargaining agreements for the duration of the construction project. In return, the trade unions agree that they will not strike, engage in work slow-downs, set up separate work entrances at the job site or take any other adverse action against the contractor.

The county board first suspended its CUB in September 2011, pending the outcome of litigation that’s challenging the validity of the state’s Public Act 98 of 2011. That law, which took effect on July 19, 2011, prohibited municipalities from including as a requirement in a construction contract anything that would either require or prohibit contractors from entering into agreements with collective bargaining organizations. The act also prohibited discrimination against contractors based on willingness or non-willingness to enter into such agreements.

The law was challenged in federal court by the Michigan Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO and the Genesee, Lapeer, Shiawassee Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO. They sought to rule the law invalid, contending that it was pre-empted by the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution and the National Labor Relations Act.

The county board’s September 2011 resolution suspending its CUB also also stated that if the state law was overturned by a state or federal Court, the county would automatically reinstate its CUB agreement policy. That happened in March of 2012, when the judge for the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that the state law was unenforceable. At that time, the county’s CUB immediately was reinstated, without additional action by the county board.

Instead of appealing that decision, the state legislature made revisions to the law, which took effect on June 29, 2012 as Public Act 238 of 2012. The new law revised several aspects of the previous version, but generally prohibits the use of CUB agreements.

According to a staff memo, the unions that filed the initial lawsuit seeking to invalidate the original version of the law are expected to file suit again to have the revised version invalidated. Meanwhile, the new law led the county board again to suspend its CUB agreement. The resolution on the Aug. 1 agenda was nearly identical to the one passed by the board in September of 2011. It suspends the county’s CUB requirement pending the outcome of any litigation challenging the validity of the new state law.

The city of Ann Arbor has taken similar action related to CUB agreements, most recently at the city council’s July 16, 2012 meeting.

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

The council’s previous action was taken just a month earlier on June 4, 2012, and had restored the use of such CUB agreements. The July 16 suspension allows for the resolution using the CUB agreements to be restored administratively, pending possible court rulings.

An alternating series of positions by the city of Ann Arbor began with the adoption by the city council of the use of CUB agreements at its Nov. 16, 2009 meeting. The resolution required that contractors and subcontractors execute such agreement with the Washtenaw County Skilled Building Trades Council as a condition of award for all city construction contracts.

But last year, the Michigan legislature passed Act 98 of 2011, which prohibited municipalities from signing construction contracts in which contractors were required make an agreement with a collective bargaining organization.

So on Aug. 15, 2011, in response to the state law, the city council rescinded that requirement. However, the U.S. District Court subsequently found Act 98 to be unenforceable, based on the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution and the National Labor Relations Act. So at its June 4, 2012 meeting, the city council restored the use of CUB agreements. The lone voice of dissent at that meeting was Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who opposed the resolution on philosophical and practical grounds. She pointed to similar pending legislation (Act 238) that might be enacted.

And the pending legislation was, in fact, passed and signed into law, which led to the city council’s action on July 16 again to suspend the use of CUB agreements.

The staff memo accompanying the resolution states that the suspension of CUB agreements does not affect the city’s living wage ordinance. Not discussed in the memo is how a Michigan Supreme Court order from April 7, 2010 might affect the city’s living wage ordinance. The order affirmed an unpublished court of appeals opinion that found a Detroit living wage law to be unenforceable.

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

From left: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), and city of Ann Arbor transportation program manager Eli Cooper. (Photos by the writer.)

First, the council accepted the award of a roughly $2.8 million federal grant to help fund a site-alternatives analysis for possible construction of a new train station. That analysis is meant to result in the confirmation of a locally-preferred alternative to be reviewed by the Federal Rail Administration.

The grant requires a local match of roughly $700,000, which the city expects to make with funds it has already expended – in connection with the Fuller Road Station project, before the University of Michigan withdrew its participation earlier this year. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) voted against accepting the grant.

One of many concerns expressed by Lumm was that the study would not be conducted starting with a “clean sheet,” which city transportation program manager Eli Cooper acknowledged was the case. But Cooper observed that starting with a clean sheet would mean wiping away previous work that had already been done.

Some of that work has been completed by SmithGroup JJR. At its June 4 meeting, the council also approved a $196,192 amendment to an existing contract with the firm – for further site analysis, funded by the new federal grant. Partly on the basis of a perceived conflict of interest by SmithGroup JJR in conducting the current work – given that it had done the previous work on site analysis – Lumm and Anglin also voted against that contract amendment as a two-person minority.

Lumm and Anglin were joined by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) in voting against a revised agreement among four parties that establishes a framework for possibly creating a larger transportation authority. The four parties to the agreement are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. In conjunction with reconsidering the four-party agreement, the council also approved articles of incorporation for the new Act 196 transit authority that would eventually need to be filed by Washtenaw County – on request from the AATA – in order to establish a new governance structure.

The council had previously approved the four-party agreement on March 5, 2012. The need for the Ann Arbor city council to reconsider the documents arose after the Ypsilanti city council amended those documents before approving them on May 15. On a unanimous vote, the Ann Arbor city council accepted only those amendments made by the Ypsilanti city council that affected the city of Ypsilanti. The Ann Arbor council majority gained one vote from its 7-4 approval of the agreement in March – Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) switched her earlier position and voted for it. The following day, on June 5, the Ypsilanti city council reconsidered and adopted the version of the four-party agreement that had been approved by the Ann Arbor council.

The result of the action by the two councils is an agreement that the cities will treat their transit taxes differently with respect to a municipal service charge. The city of Ann Arbor will impose the charge and keep roughly $90,000 that would otherwise go to the new transit authority, while Ypsilanti will forward an estimated $3,000 to the new transit authority, rather than applying that charge.

The four-party agreement will next be formally considered by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners – first at a June 14, 2012 working session. It now appears almost certain that the final ratification of all parties to the agreement will not occur with sufficient lead time for a countywide transit millage to be placed on the November 2012 ballot.

In other transportation-related action – affecting pedestrians – the council gave final approval to a revision to the city’s sidewalk repair ordinance. The ordinance revision relieves property owners of responsibility for sidewalk maintenance, during the five-year period of the millage that voters approved for that purpose in November 2011. The revision also provides a mechanism for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to pay for sidewalk repairs within its geographic district.

In other business, the council gave final approval to new water, sewer and stormwater rates. It also revived a previous requirement that it had rescinded last year – that a construction utility board (CUB) agreement be signed with the Washtenaw County Skilled Building Trades Council as a condition of award for city construction contracts. The council had rescinded the requirement in deference to a law enacted by the Michigan legislature, but a federal court has since enjoined against enforcement of that law.

In some of its other action items, the council formally made a change in the composition of the Elizabeth Dean tree fund, and authorized two street closings for the Sonic Lunch summer music series in Liberty Plaza. The council also heard public commentary on a range of topics, including a proposed warming center for the homeless.

Federal Rail Administration Grant

The council considered action on two items that relate to a possible new train station for the city of Ann Arbor. The first was acceptance of a grant made through the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT). The grant would fund initial planning and environmental documentation related to possible construction of what’s now called the Ann Arbor Rail Passenger Station. The contract for the work is being funded with a federal grant worth $2,806,400 with a required 20% local match of $701,600. The grant was awarded by the Federal Rail Administration in connection with the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program.

City administrator Steve Powers (left) chats with University of Michigan community relations director Jim Kosteva before the city council’s June 4 meeting. Kosteva was not attending the meeting in connection with the rail project, but to receive an award on behalf of the university from the city’s historic district commission for Burton Tower.

A conceptual pre-cursor to the project was called the Fuller Road Station, which had included the University of Michigan’s participation. UM was interested in a 1,000-space parking structure to be built in conjunction with a new rail station on an identified site nestled between Fuller Road and East Medical Center Drive, adjacent to the UM medical campus. However, UM withdrew from that project earlier this year, on Feb. 10. The university decided instead to revisit its earlier plans to build additional parking on Wall Street.

For purposes of the federal local match requirement, Ann Arbor now intends to use funds already expended toward the former Fuller Road Station project – for conceptual planning, environmental documentation efforts and some preliminary engineering. Over the past three years, the city has paid for that work from its major street fund, alternative transportation fund, and the previously existing economic development fund.

The city also hopes that UM will contribute toward the costs of the work already done. However, the city’s FY 2013 budget, approved by the council at its May 21 meeting, allocates up to $307,781 from the city’s general fund to cover the local match, if an agreement with UM can’t be reached. Responding to recent Chronicle queries, city administrator Steve Powers and UM community relations director Jim Kosteva have characterized the conversations between the city and the university on this topic as “ongoing dialogue.”

The grant was the subject of public commentary from several people.

FRA Grant – Public Commentary

Sumi Kailasapathy told the council she regretted that some of the city’s cherished parkland appears to be taking one more step toward conversion to a railway station and parking garage [a reference to the Fuller Road site]. She described how in many Asian countries, temple lands are considered sacred. In Ann Arbor, for many residents, parks hold a similar sacred status, she said. [Kailasapathy is a Democratic candidate for the Ward 1 city council seat – to which incumbent Sandi Smith has announced she's not seeking re-election.]

Kailasapathy noted that while parkland is one of the permissible uses for land zoned PL (public land), it’s the only use that has a limitation on incompatible uses, she said.

By way of background, at its July 6, 2010 meeting, the city council approved a change to the use regulations for PL (public land) to replace airports as an allowable use with the more general “transportation facilities.” The change explicitly included “municipal airports, rail stations, bus stations, bicycle centers, auto and bicycle parking facilities” as examples of such facilities.

Kailasapathy reminded the council that the city’s zoning ordinance states: “No structure shall be erected or maintained upon dedicated parkland which is not customarily incidental to the principal use of the land.”

The Fuller Road site is designated as parkland in the parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, she said, adding that a train station would not be customarily incidental to the principal use of that land. She asked the council to respect the zoning ordinance and preserve the site as it was intended – for enjoyment as parkland. Adopting other uses for parkland without a vote of the people, she continued, is in direct opposition to the charter amendment passed by a large margin of voters in 2008, which prohibits the sale of parkland without a popular referendum.

From an economic and financial point of view, Kailasapathy said, there needs to be a detailed business plan for a train station, which lays out the funding mechanism for the station and the trains. Until there are answers in writing to those questions, she said that spending on the train station should stop.

Jack Eaton told the council he was there to speak in opposition to the Fuller Road train station. [Eaton is contesting the Ward 4 Democratic primary, challenging incumbent Margie Teall.] He noted that Ann Arbor residents have repeatedly and consistently supported parkland. They approved dedicated millages for park acquisition and maintenance. They approved a charter amendment that restricts the sale of parkland. The city’s zoning ordinance restricts the use of parkland. He reiterated the point about allowable uses of parkland that Kailasapathy had made, regarding structures on parkland that are not customarily associated with a parcel’s principal use. The city also has a long history of supporting public transportation, he said. But a train station is not consistent with parkland use, and he asked the council to consider the precedent that would be set by re-purposing the parkland at the Fuller site for use as a train station.

Nancy Shiffler addressed the council as chair of the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club. She noted that she’d sent a letter with concerns about the two resolutions related to what’s now being called the Ann Arbor Rail Passenger Station. By appearing before the council, she wanted to reinforce those concerns about the process outlined for the environmental assessment, which is a component of the Federal Rail Administration grant, and is required under National Environmental Policy Act guidelines. Although NEPA regulations require that contractors be chosen to avoid any conflict of interest, the selection of SmithGroup JJR introduces just such a conflict, she contended. SmithGroup JJR has been contracted for the train station project from the outset – with the assumption that it will be located at the Fuller Road site.

The preliminary engineering component, for which SmithGroup JJR is contracted for, she said, can’t start until the environmental assessment has been approved by the FRA. The scope of work in the contract for SmithGroup JJR’s work makes clear that the intent is to end up with a recommendation for the Fuller Road site, she said. One of the deliverables, she continued, includes a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the Fuller Road site. Under those circumstances, she said, it’s hard for her to believe that SmithGroup JJR could produce an objective report. A part of the environmental assessment is consideration of alternative sites for the project – that’s reflected by including, in the scope of services document, the current Amtrak site as a possible location.

But elsewhere it’s indicated that they’re planning to take the structures with the footprint for the Fuller Road site and “plop it onto the current Amtrak site,” she said, rather than designing a plan to fit that particular site. That’s not the way to support an objective analysis, she said, unless the council’s intent is to support a forgone conclusion. The council should require that competitive bidding be used for the contract, she said. Her group has shared these concerns with MDOT and FRA in the past and would continue to do so.

Rita Mitchell spoke on behalf of the group Protect A2 Parks. She described herself as an advocate for the integrity of Ann Arbor’s public parks and honest processes that follow the will of the people on significant decisions for the city, like those before the council that night. She felt the council did not have adequate information to make a decision. She noted that the name of the project has changed from Ann Arbor Multimodal Center, to Fuller Intermodal Transit Station, to Fuller Road Station, to its current name: Ann Arbor Rail Passenger Station. In the course of different council actions taken over the last few years, those described as stakeholders, city councilmembers and city staff have focused on the same piece of city parkland – for a project that has not been completely defined or approved by the council. She pointed to the city project that relocated sewer lines to accommodate a planned station there – for whatever rail project it is.

Mitchell allowed that the sewer relocation had been included in the city’s capital improvements plan, but it had not been a high priority at the time it was approved. The invitation to bid was entitled “Contract Documents for Fuller Road Station Phase One, Northside Interceptor Sanitary Sewer Relocation and Site Utility Construction Project.” SmithGroup JJR has been involved with the design since the start and is biased, Mitchell continued. The public participation so far, she said, consisted of a planning commission work session, a park advisory commission meeting and a public open house – all held between Sept. 10 and Sept. 17 of 2009. She questioned whether those meetings were adequately noticed. She contended that there’s been only one true “public hearing” – held by the planning commission in 2010. Other presentations were held as presentations, with city staff maintaining tight control on questions from citizens, she said. There was no sense of asking citizens what they wanted.

James D’Amour told the council that he is very much in support of public transit, including trains that run to Chicago. He contended that city transportation program manager Eli Cooper has stressed that acceptance of the grant means the city is obligated to carry out a full planning process. So a yes vote, D’Amour argued, strongly commits the city to build a new train station. But the city has no finalized plans for construction or financing, he said. The FRA grant funding doesn’t add to the city’s budget. D’Amour contended that voting yes commits the city to matching 20% of this grant and whatever grants are received from the federal government in the future. Because the city has no guarantees of future funding, the city would be left “holding the bag,” he contended. Voting no costs the city nothing financially, he said. He called it reckless for the council to make this decision without further thought about the consequences. He asked the council to postpone a vote.

FRA Grant: Council Deliberations

During the time allotted for council communications toward the start of the meeting, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) responded to the commentary on the rail station by saying he was impressed with speakers who had taken the time to learn about the issues. They had good suggestions about how to proceed as a council. The speakers love the city as councilmembers do, he said. While some of the things they said might not be technically correct, they are the people that the council represents, he said. The council needs to be conscious of that and be respectful of their position and their interest in improving Ann Arbor, Anglin concluded.

FRA Grant: Council Deliberations – Commitment?

When the council arrived at the FRA grant agenda item, it was Jane Lumm (Ward 2) who led off the deliberations. She started by focusing on the issue that had been raised during public commentary – about the kind of commitment that the city’s acceptance of the grant reflected.

Councilmember Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Lumm asked transportation program manager Eli Cooper: By accepting the grant, is the city committing to proceed with the project? A second question she had: Was the city “in any way, shape or form” committing to spending any additional local money? Cooper explained that by accepting the grant, the city would be committing to the work identified in the list of deliverables under the grant. Those include a detailed work program, an environmental document, conceptual plan and preliminary engineering after the FRA’s authorization to enter into that phase of the work. So, Cooper said, there’s a break in the contract where the FRA has the right to direct the city to proceed to undertake the work under the grant agreement.

The final deliverables are a set of preliminary plans – which could complete the city’s work, if the city decided to stop at that point. There are no additional federal funds awarded to the project at this time, he said, and the city would have to apply under a separate agreement for any subsequent work. It’s not the case, Cooper said, that if you commit to spending the first dollar that you’re fully committed to build whatever project comes out of the process. He felt it would be the community’s desire and it would be in the community’s best interest to pursue subsequent grants. But by accepting the planning grant, there’s no requirement that the city is committing to deliver a final project.

Lumm picked up on Cooper’s use of the phrase “at this time” and wanted to know if that meant there’d be an eventual commitment. Cooper responded with, “The simple answer is no.” If there were no federal funds available after the planning grant-funded activity is completing, the federal agency would itself require the city to go back and revisit the environmental clearance document. The city could not be forced to proceed during the short term or at any time, he said, under the terms of accepting the $2.8 million grant.

Lumm confirmed with Cooper that currently there were no federal funds identified for the project at this point, beyond the planning grant. Cooper said the lack of identified federal funding is a risk that had been outlined in the city’s application. Lumm asked again if by accepting the grant, the city was committing to spending any additional local funds. Cooper told Lumm that there’s no additional investment required to “complete the work that’s before us.” That’s because the city has identified local in-kind funds for the match as funds that have already been expended. Lumm said she meant beyond the planning grant activity – would there be any future local funds required?

Cooper told Lumm he wouldn’t say that no future local funds would be required to deliver a train station. If the economy were in such condition that there was another federal stimulus project that provided 100% funding – like recent awards to Battle Creek and Dearborn – then Ann Arbor “might be so blessed,” he said. But Cooper indicated that if a federal grant award for the actual construction of a rail station is made under terms of the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant – like the current planning grant – then a 20% local match would be required. That local (non-federal) match could be made by a combination of state, city, university or the local transit authority, Cooper said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wanted to clarify Cooper’s answer further: By accepting this grant, she ventured, the city was not committing to going beyond the scope of the contract. Cooper’s reply: “Correct.” Briere described it as a grant, and if the city were to decide at the conclusion of the grant phase that it’s done, then the city would be done. She said it’s her understanding that unless the city receives additional federal assistance beyond this grant, the city did not expect to build anything. Cooper told Briere that there’d been no city staff recommendation to date that the city invest 100% of funds for any rail improvement.

Briere asked if it’s the city’s intent to provide any money for the maintenance and operation of a rail system. After clarifying the question, Cooper said, “The answer is no.”

FRA Grant: Council Deliberations – Spending to Date

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked if Cooper could provide a detailed breakdown of spending to date on the Fuller Road project, noting that the last information he had was from a year ago, which had been produced by the city under a Freedom of Information Act request.

The source of the funds outlined in a staff memo provided to the council before the meeting provided the following breakdown.

$  54,621 FY2010 Major Streets Fund (0021)
$  54,621 FY2010 Alternative Transportation Fund (0061)
$ 104,742 FY2010 Economic Development Fund (0045)
$ 327,733 University of Michigan Contribution
$  46,664 FY2010 Sewage Disposal System Fund (0043)
$  64,564 FY2010 Street Repair Millage Fund (0062)

-

Anglin appeared more interested in getting an itemized breakdown of actual expenditures to date. Cooper indicated that the spreadsheet he had in front of him showed expenditures related to NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and EA (environmental assessment) for the project amounting to $737,784.90.

Anglin said he was confused by the project, because for a time the city had talked about an intermodal facility, then talked about commuter rail and was now talking about passenger rail. The city has a train station and has had one for many years. If the city were to accept this grant, Anglin wanted to know if the requirement was to study the feasibility of potential sites. Cooper told Anglin that such a study was absolutely one of the prerequisites of any investment of federal funding – to look at the “no-build” alternative, as well as the alternative that would simply improve the existing facility.

Anglin indicated that some material the council had received described how by 2015 all Amtrak facilities will need to be ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant. He wondered why the city was in the railroad business, and he ventured that the city was not qualified to build a train station or a railroad or anything like that. He did not like the idea of any of the city’s money going in that direction.

Anglin said he’d spoken against the train station from the point of view of the use of parkland, and the lack of a financial plan. It comes at a time when the city is having a difficult time taking care of the essentials, he said. That bothered him. A train station would be a nice thing to have, if the city were in flush times. But it seemed to him that accepting the grant still commits the city to a 20% match – which the city has already spent. He said he could not ever remember a vote by the council saying that it wanted the Fuller Road site to become an intermodal station or a train station. It’s all very confusing, he said.

FRA Grant: Council Deliberations – National Rail Policy

Anglin asked Cooper to clarify what’s going on. Cooper began by saying that for transportation infrastructure funding, there are funding crises at all levels – federal, state and local. In conversation with MDOT, which has recently created an office of rail passenger service, they’ve indicated that stations are local issues, Cooper said. From the standpoint of rail operations, he continued, the emphasis and focus of the state and the feds is to keep the trains moving. Access to amenities locally (like stations) are seen as a local contribution. What Ann Arbor began in 2006 and continued through 2009, he said, was a local process that included the adoption of the city’s transportation plan update. That’s a part of the city’s master plan, he pointed out. So the city’s master plan indicates the provision of a better train station in Ann Arbor as something that merits consideration.

Because that’s a matter of adopted city policy, staff have pursued grant resources that have been made available, Cooper continued. And Ann Arbor was fortunate enough to be selected by the FRA for the grant that was before the council for consideration, he said. It’s a difficult decision, Cooper added, to deal with the day-to-day issues of today, compared to making an investment in an asset that will serve the community for “decades if not centuries.” The challenge for city staff was to respond to the council’s direction, so the grant was pursued and an application was made. Cooper noted that he’d stood before the council on many occasions in connection with the project and looked forward to the council’s future direction – through environmental analysis, preliminary engineering to the design, and construction at any location that the planning process determines.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) asked Cooper why he felt that Ann Arbor’s application to the FRA was successful when so many other communities had applied but were not successful. Cooper felt that Amtrak itself recognizes that the Ann Arbor station is the busiest in the state of Michigan. It’s also on a Detroit-Chicago line that is not adequate to meet current demands.

Amtrak ridership at the Ann Arbor station. Over the last 10 years, ridership through the Ann Arbor station has shown a consistent increasing trend. For 2012 (heavy black line) the ridership levels continued at their peak levels to date through March. In April there was a significant decrease compared to last year’s record numbers. (Chart by The Chronicle using MDOT data. Links to larger image.)

Cooper felt it was important to remind councilmembers that the federal government has awarded $0.5 billion to the Michigan Dept. of Transportation to acquire and upgrade the rail line between Detroit and Chicago. This past April, FRA and MDOT purchase bilevel passengers cars to increase the capacity of each train. The number of people who will be traveling along the line will increase, he said. Cooper said that Amtrak expects that ridership will double over the next 25 years. We’re currently stressed, he said. It’s well recognized now that for certain times of the year, the Amtrak station capacity and all the parking around it are 100% consumed.

Cooper described how tracks are being upgraded to allow for faster trains. The number of trains could be increased – from six per day to 10 per day, and the capacity of each train is increased with higher-capacity cars and adding cars. The platforms that are outlined in Amtrak designs for appropriate stations are 1,000 feet long, Cooper said. The current Amtrak station platform is not nearly that long, he noted. The intent, he said, is to have 1,000 foot trains with passenger cars that people can get on and off for that roughly quarter-mile stretch. That’s the enormity of the type of infrastructure that a high-speed passenger rail system needs, he said. That’s the opportunity that Ann Arbor has in front of it – to position itself to continue to be a leading community that provides “first-rate, world-class transportation in and out of our city,” Cooper said.

Hohnke ventured that the investment being made by the federal government in Michigan’s high-speed rail would lead to the ability of Ann Arborites to make connections from Chicago, for example, to the rest of the Midwest.

He also asked Cooper to give some background on why the funds are available on the federal level. Cooper said he felt the issue is that there’s pressure on the national aviation system – to meet the demand for people to travel 300-600 miles throughout the country. As business and commerce increases throughout the Midwest, Cooper said, the capacity of the airspace and the road networks is limited. While it might appear that there’s adequate capacity near Kalamazoo, for example, as you approach the metropolitan corridors, there are congestion issues, he said. The rail system is seen as an underutilized asset in North America, he said, and that’s why it’s federal policy to make those investments. Cities like Cleveland, St. Louis, Chicago, and Minneapolis are all about 300-500 miles from each other, and high-speed rail is an efficient and effective way for travelers to cover that distance.

Hohnke confirmed that expenditures to date locally will cover the local match requirement. Cooper said it’s his understanding that based on the timing of the notice of funding eligibility, the resources that have been expended to date will satisfy the 20% local match requirement. Hohnke ventured that if that turns out to be accurate, then the city is looking at the opportunity to have almost $3 million to continue planning work for a passenger rail station. Cooper clarified that the roughly $700,000 local match will leverage $2.8 million in federal funds for a total investment of $3.5 million.

FRA Grant: Council Deliberations – Support, Opposition, Delay?

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she was excited about the project. As someone who goes past the train station, she encounters people who are coming and going. Right now, she said, a whole bunch of people pile out with 30-pound suitcases and they have to go up a long flight of stairs, across the Broadway bridge, and down another flight of stairs to find their car. It’s clear that the current train station is not adequate. The study will indicate what would need to be done to improve the existing station if it were to remain in the current location, Smith said. Cooper confirmed that’s within the scope of services that SmithGroup JJR will provide – whether the existing station can be modified to meet existing demand.

Smith asked about the traffic issue – would a traffic analysis be part of this? Yes, said Cooper. Smith felt that the pushback from the community on this was either unwarranted or at least premature – because we don’t know yet what the answer is going to be. Regardless, some kind of “blueprint” for the issue would emerge for a better train station, Smith said.

Cooper sought to make clear that while no final decision has been made after seven years of effort, there is a leading preferred local alternative. The council and the federal government will have to make a final decision about whether there is an acceptable locally-preferred alternative [the Fuller Road site]. There’s clearly been a substantial amount of effort, and now more work will be put into documenting that and clarifying that, meeting with residents and providing all that information to the FRA, Cooper said. And ultimately the FRA will evaluate whether the existing site or the locally-preferred alternative is better.

Smith reiterated that she is excited about the project going forward and that the city is on the verge of something great. She said she couldn’t imagine that there’s a Democrat sitting around the table who would not be excited to see this project coming out of Washington right now.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) followed up on the federal high-speed rail program. She said she understood the federal investment to be one-time federal stimulus money. Cooper indicated that the total investment had come over the course of more than one year from a combination of different funding mechanisms. Lumm asked if any of the money could be used for the construction of the train station. Cooper said that if there were money left from the planning grant, the money could be used to build something. But understanding the complexity of the final design and construction drawings, Cooper felt it was highly unlikely that the city could build anything with that amount of money.

Lumm asked Cooper about future federal transportation funding. Cooper said that was an ongoing debate – it had been going on for several years. He indicated he didn’t want to offer an opinion about how that might turn out.

Lumm wanted to know if the city had surveyed people who ride the trains. She also asked about having more robust public engagement on the issue. Cooper noted that the term “locally-preferred alternative” is one associated with the federal regulatory process. That process also includes various formal terms for the environmental documents – an environmental assessment is different from an environmental review or from an environmental impact statement. The draft preliminary locally-preferred alternative is something that needs to be given to the lead agency – in this case, the FRA – for their review and comment. There’s a draft environmental assessment that clearly states there’s a locally-preferred alternative, he said. That’s purely a city staff and consultant product, and was never reviewed by the FRA.

However, there was an effort put into that assessment to come up with that locally-preferred alternative, Cooper explained. It was subjected to about 18 meetings. He allowed that there are a variety of opinions about how effective the public engagement had been. However, he said there’s been a website set up with frequently asked questions that derived from the process. There were changes made between the initial plans and the locally-preferred alternative that came in response to input from the public, he said. The council had held working sessions on the topic and staff had done additional work based on direction from the council, he said.

Cooper said that the staff have been thorough and deliberative, and while they haven’t reached a final conclusion, they have “a leading track” of a locally-preferred alternative. The city is required to do so in order to advance the project for the review of a federal agency and that agency’s ultimate approval, he said. The first steps of this grant agreement, if the council approved it that night, would be to begin refining the existing documents so that the city can respond to concerns the FRA has outlined, and that include additional public meetings if they’re required. So it’s not on a “fast track” but rather on a “deliberative track,” Cooper said. Ultimately, the city will get a determination from the FRA about whether the intrusion into parkland for the train station is justified.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) literally don’t see eye to eye on the Ann Arbor train station issue.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said that, like Smith, he was excited about the project. Transportation is one of the essentials. He stressed that the preliminary step the council will be taking won’t bear fruit for several years. He’d asked the mayor of Dearborn how long they’d been working on the planning for the new rail station that recently broke ground, and Derezinski had been told around 12 years. Derezinski called the acceptance of the grant for Ann Arbor an essential step for the future of the city. You have to take some of these steps, he said, and you have to have some faith in the future. People of good intentions are on both sides of the issue, he said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked Cooper if there was a deadline for accepting the grant. Cooper said there was not a deadline per se. But the preliminary environmental analysis, Cooper said, “grows older each day.” Kunselman wanted to know how long the city would have before that analysis would be considered “stale.” Cooper told him that would ultimately be up to the FRA, but that after a couple of years, he expected that would be too long. Kunselman ventured that meant the city had considerable time. Cooper countered that the preliminary analysis had been done a year and a half ago. Part of the proposal is to freshen up some of the analysis. Kunselman asked about a roundabout design for Maiden Lane and Fuller Road – would that be part of the traffic analysis? Cooper said he didn’t think so. Kunselman felt like another work session would be very helpful.

Kunselman expressed concern about the amount of money that was being paid to SmithGroup JJR. He asked if the following sentence was correct: “The not-to-exceed cost for the work associated with this amendment is estimated to be $196,192.00, and will be funded by a federal High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program Grant awarded to the State of Michigan and being made available through a contract between the City and the Michigan Department of Transportation.” He wanted to know if that money would be city dollars or federal grant dollars. Cooper explained that it would be federal grant dollars, under city control.

Kunselman’s line of questioning was abandoned as relevant to the subsequent agenda item – the resolution on the SmithGroup JJR contract. Kunselman asked if it would be possible to have another work session on the topic. Cooper said that if the city were to continue working on the project, then acceptance of the grant would allow that work to happen, with the aid of the federal grant.

Anglin said that for the original intermodal project, the council had been told there were 11 sites that had been considered and that the site selected would be the Fuller Road site. So if the city has already done that selection process, he wondered why the city was going back and looking at that question. He then discussed the train schedules and the difficulty that they present to travelers. The problem with the train is not with the train station, he said, but rather with the way the trains are scheduled. Building a new station won’t improve train service at all, he contended. He said he was afraid the city was about to embark on something that will be “a big boondoggle for our little town.” He said he was against the acceptance of the grant. He contended that the $1.3 million for the relocation of sewer pipes should be counted as an expense connected to the train station. Anglin contended that the city was committing to a $60 million project down the road, and he didn’t think the city had the money for that.

Kunselman said he was torn because he loved trains. He was looking forward to riding the train to Providence, Rhode Island to visit his daughters – who are graduating from high school this year and will attend Brown University. However, he did not like spending general fund dollars. Cooper clarified that the contract amendment with SmithGroup JJR would be federal grant dollars. Kunselman pointed out that the some of the matching funds that had already been expended originated as general fund dollars.

From left: Ward 3 councilmembers Christopher Taylor and Stephen Kunselman.

Kunselman asked if the MichCon site on Broadway would be included in the further study? Cooper indicated that the analysis would include the prevailing conditions at the time of the study. Right now, Cooper said, MichCon has not made the land immediately adjacent to the Amtrak station available. He said that as part of a design workshop, MichCon might be looked at to see if it could remedy any of the issues at that location. But that parcel was not one of the 15 sites that the city had looked at starting four years ago, he said. Subsequently, the staff reviewed privately-owned properties, and two rose to consideration – one was a private manufacturing plant, and the other was the MichCon property.

Kunselman noted that MichCon had indicated openness to selling the property to the city. Mayor John Hieftje said that his own discussions with MichCon related to the river side of the parcel, not the part close to the railroad tracks.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said two things were important to her. First, no new dollars would go to the project. By accepting this grant, the city would be able to spend federal dollars from the grant. Without accepting the grant, Briere said, the city can’t get to the point of looking at what the project might look like, or how it might be different from the project design as it looked 18 months ago, or what the impact on traffic will be, or whether the site at Fuller is the best possible site. The city is not making a commitment to build anything, she said, but everyone knows that once you’ve gone a certain distance, that you want to build whatever it is you struggled to get approved. But without spending the federal grant, she added, the city won’t get to the point of a decision about what to do if there are no funds to build the train station in a couple of years.

Briere addressed the idea that it’s unprecedented for a city to construct a train station. She assured people that it’s not unprecedented. The current station was constructed with state and local dollars, and the selection of the site grew out of a citizen and staff decision by committee. The location was selected to be next to the old historic train station, even though it had already outgrown the parking capacity, she said, because people sitting around a table like the current council romantically believed that the train station should be where it had always been. She allowed that she, too, is romantic and loved the Gandy Dancer [a restaurant in the former train station]. She’d be delighted if the city had a train station right there. But the FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] flood maps show that the entire piece of land is in the flood plain. What implications does that flood map have for potential improvements to the site? she asked. Briere figured she would not get an answer to that question unless the city accepted the grant. She said she was eager to accept the grant, but wanted to separate the grant from the location. That’s a conversation she wants as well.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) ventured that this had been the longest time the council had ever spent accepting a grant. Given that there would be no additional local dollars spent as part of accepting the grant, and that it did not reflect a commitment to build a train station, and that it preserved options going forward, it was not clear to him why the council would not accept the federal funds. Hohnke pointed to the lesson of Troy, Mich., where the local Tea Party had pressured the Troy city council to reject the offer of similar federal funds. That news was covered nationally, and Hohnke characterized the consensus view as an exercise in cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. Acceptance of the grant was an opportunity to align Ann Arbor with the federal and state investment in high-speed rail.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) just before raising a point of order about the length of Jane Lumm’s (Ward 2) speaking turns.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said her issue is what commitment the city is making by accepting the grant. She indicated that she was not satisfied with the answers she’d heard concerning the required commitment. She felt that what was needed was a “clean sheet,” starting from scratch. She would not sign a blank check, and there are too many unknowns, she said. She would not support acceptance of the grant. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) raised a point of order about the number and length of Lumm’s speaking turns. Mayor John Hieftje asked Lumm to wrap up, which she did.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he was certainly going to support acceptance of the grant. The council has a chance to do something good for Ann Arbor by moving forward with an exciting project. Meeting transportation needs is core to maintaining Ann Arbor as a vibrant, thriving place to live. So it’s “mission-critical,” he said. Acceptance of the grant doesn’t reflect a final decision – that decision would be made later, he said. The grant is bound “by the four corners of the document,” he said. People who speak to the council in general opposition to the project never fail, Taylor said, to express their affection for rail. They say: “I’m not against rail, I’m against this project.” He said he took them at their word.

However, the corollary to that, Taylor said, is that being in favor of the project doesn’t make you “anti-park.” The Fuller Road site, he said, is not “some bucolic wonderland.” It’s not a soccer field or a tennis court or a brook, but rather a parking lot, he said, and it’s been that way since 1993. No child has played there since the Clinton administration, he said. If another location is better, then let’s look at that, said Taylor, but he’d be delighted to vote yes. [.gif animation of aerial photography of the site beginning in 1940, with the last slide from 1998]

Margie Teall (Ward 4) also indicated she is excited about this project and it needs a bigger discussion. That bigger discussion can’t happen until the city gets the information from the studies that are being done, she said.

Hieftje asked city administrator Steve Powers if acceptance of the grant would affect the city’s ability to pay for core services. No, Powers answered.

Hieftje asked about ridership on Amtrak. Cooper said it continues to move in an upward direction as the speeds along the Detroit-Chicago corridor are increasing to 110 mph. Hieftje characterized the service that Ann Arbor would eventually have as the kind of train service that other parts of the country have. Ann Arbor’s Amtrak station is the busiest in the state, he said. Referring to the city’s sustainability framework that will be coming to the council for approval, Hieftje said he didn’t know how the city would achieve those sustainability goals, without investments in rail. [.pdf of proposed sustainability goals]

Hieftje disputed the idea that the council had never voted on the project. He pointed out that the memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan on the precursor to the current project had gotten a unanimous vote from the council. [That vote had been taken at the city council's Nov. 5, 2009 meeting.]

Outcome: The council voted to accept the Federal Rail Administration grant ($2.8 million, based on a $700,000 local match to be provided by Ann Arbor with already-expended funds) – with dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

SmithGroup JJR: Rail Station Planning Work

A separate item on the council’s agenda related to money that’s provided through the Federal Rail Administration grant. The council considered a $196,192 amendment to an existing contract with SmithGroup JJR for continuation of study and planning work that was already done in connection with the Fuller Road Station project. The work under the contract will be funded from the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) grant, and will involve continued “… re-examination of the current program definition to affirm it is consistent with the stakeholder goals for the Ann Arbor Rail Passenger Station Project, and revisions as required to the conceptual plan,” as well as completion of required National Environmental Policy Act documentation.

SmithGroup JJR: Rail Station Planning Work – Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) expressed skepticism that the work would be approached objectively. She asked the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, how he could ensure that there’ll be an objective “clean sheet.” Cooper indicated that it was not the intent to have such a “clean sheet” and he could not assure her there would be one. He said in order to assure a “clean sheet,” the city would have to wipe away the previous work.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) engaged in a conversation about the potential depth of flood waters at the current Amtrak site. Given the length of the platforms involved [1,000 feet], Kunselman ventured that some location between the Fuller Road site and the current Amtrak location might be appropriate.

Lumm wanted to make sure that the current Amtrak location got “a fair shot.”

Asked if SmithGroup JJR had a conflict of interest, assistant city attorney Mary Fales indicated that she did not believe so.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he was pleased that sites other than the Fuller Road site would be engaged as part of the study, and that consideration of the Fuller Road site was “not stacking the deck” but rather taking into account an already established factual basis.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the contract amendment with SmithGroup JJR, with dissent from Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Four-Party Agreement

The council reconsidered an agreement among four parties on a framework for possible transition of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to a broader geographic service area, governance, and funding base.

The four parties to the agreement are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the AATA. In conjunction with reconsidering the four-party agreement, the council also considered articles of incorporation for the new Act 196 transit authority. Those articles would eventually need to be filed by Washtenaw County – on request from the AATA – in order to establish a new governance structure. According to the four-party agreement, even if a new governance structure is established under Act 196 of 1986, the transition of assets from AATA to the new authority, tentatively named The Washtenaw Ride, would not take place until a voter-approved funding mechanism is established.

The council had previously approved the four-party agreement on March 5, 2012, with implied approval of the attached appendix that included the articles of incorporation. The need for the Ann Arbor city council to reconsider the documents arose after the Ypsilanti city council amended those documents before approving them on May 15.

The Ypsilanti amendment to the four-party agreement related to a 1% municipal service charge that the agreement originally allowed the two cities to impose on their transportation millages, before forwarding the millage money to the new transit authority. The Ypsilanti council struck the municipal service charge from the agreement for both cities. It amounted to around $3,000 that the city of Ypsilanti would forgo, but $90,000 for Ann Arbor.

For the most recent general Chronicle coverage of transit issues, see: “AATA Board OKs Key Countywide Documents.”

Four-Party Agreement: Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge complimented the work of those who’d been presented with awards from the Ann Arbor historic district commission – at the start of the meeting – quipping that he hoped he did not appear to be an antique himself. He told the council that he had an appreciation of history. He called on the public to support countywide transportation, saying it’s essential for moving forward economically, and it’s a civil rights issue as well. He called for support of the four-party agreement.

Four-Party Agreement: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) proposed an amendment to the four-party agreement that essentially reversed the amendments that had been undertaken by the Ypsilanti city council to the extent that they applied to the city of Ann Arbor. The impact of the amendment preserved the ability of the city of Ann Arbor to apply a 1% municipal service charge to its millage before passing along the millage proceeds to the new transit authority. The Ypsilanti council’s amendment had eliminated that for both cities. The financial impact on the two cities is disparate – because of the difference in millage rate (roughly 2 mills for Ann Arbor and 1 mill for Ypsilanti) and the relative value and amount of property in Ann Arbor compared to Ypsilanti. For Ypsilanti, the 1% translates to roughly $3,000, compared to $90,000 for Ann Arbor.

In arguing for the amendment, Lumm noted that the Ann Arbor council had essentially already voted on the issue, on Feb. 6, 2012, during its initial consideration of the four-party agreement, when it considered an amendment related to the municipal service charge.

Lumm cited an email from the city’s chief financial officer attesting to the fact that the city’ financial staff spent a considerable amount of time on transportation issues. The municipal service charge is fair, Lumm said, and that’s why it’s there. She also felt that in the future, city staff would be spending even more time – as transportation evolves regionally.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Michael Ford – CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority – to describe what services the AATA receives from the city that are covered by the service charge. She also asked what effect would it have on the AATA if the city did not assess the charge. Ford told Briere that the money could go into transportation service for Ann Arbor. One type of charge started in 1975, Ford said, and it was for tax assessment, billing, collections, receiving and banking. Since that time, an administrative fee has been added – for coordination and review of transportation plans and over city planning, and city clerk services related to AATA matters. Such a fee might have been appropriate when the AATA was in its infancy stages, Ford said, but his own staff now deals with transportation issues involving coordination with other jurisdictions. Those services are something that the AATA is actually doing on its own, Ford said.

Briere asked how the AATA would use the $90,000 from the municipal service charge if it were available to the AATA to spend. Ford reiterated that it could be reallocated into increased services – adding frequency to routes #4, #5, or #3, for example.

Mayor John Hieftje said he was inclined to support the amendment.

Outcome on the municipal service charge amendment: The council unanimously approved the amendment to restore the municipal service charge.

Briere clarified that by approving the four-party agreement, the council is also approving the articles of incorporation, so she encouraged her colleagues to think about whether they had any remaining questions on that document.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) clarified with assistant city attorney Mary Fales that after the council approved the amended document, it would need to go back to the Ypsilanti city council and the AATA board as well for reconsideration and reapproval. [Ypsilanti did that the following evening, on June 5, 2012.]

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked about the agreement with Ypsilanti, noting that Ypsilanti is a vital part of the community. He noted however, that Ypsilanti is strapped financially. Outside the framework of a possible new transit authority, Anglin said he’d be willing to work with Ypsilanti to provide services. His fear was that the agreement would be putting an undue burden on Ypsilanti, which would lead to some hard decisions in the future. He wanted to keep Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti in “strong unison.” Ford responded by saying that he would not speak for Ypsilanti, but that he felt Ypsilanti was looking to provide transit service at a higher level. Route #4 [between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti] is up 20% since increasing the frequency of service. He felt that Ypsilanti thinks “this is the way to go” in partnership with Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked Ford about the purchase of service agreement (POSA) between Ypsilanti and the AATA. Kunselman noted that it expires in June 2012. Ford confirmed that is the case and said that the AATA is working with Ypsilanti on that issue. Kunselman asked Ford to elaborate on what happens when the POSA expires. If it’s extended, where will the funding come from? Ford said that Ypsilanti and the AATA are talking about that right now and would be meeting on that issue to work out some strategies.

Kunselman pressed the issue of where the money would come from – not from the city of Ypsilanti, because they don’t have the money, he said. The only source of additional funding for Ypsilanti would have to come from the Ann Arbor millage or from state funding or federal funding, Kunselman ventured. He felt like the Ann Arbor millage was the most likely revenue source and asked Ford to explain if that were an option. Ford said there are different options on the table right now and he would like to meet with Ypsilanti to discuss them.

Kunselman asked about expanded services that are to be offered – based on a possible additional 0.5 mill countywide millage. Ford indicated that as part of the new transit authority, expanded service is planned for both Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor – he pointed to higher frequency service, later evening service, and more weekend service. He passed around a brochure outlining some of the features of the improved services.

From left: Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) peruse an AATA brochure as Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) speaks.

Kunselman noted that Ypsilanti can’t pay for the level of service it enjoys now. With an additional 0.5 mill worth of revenue, that might get Ypsilanti to the point where it can cover its existing service. But if services are to be expanded in Ypsilanti, Kunselman asked, where will the money come from to cover that? Ford said that Ypsilanti’s millage and additional funding for the countywide authority would together fund Ypsilanti’s transportation, and that Ypsilanti has to make that clear to its citizens.

Kunselman came back to his question about the city of Ann Arbor millage: Is it an option that the city of Ann Arbor millage will be used to help support Ypsilanti during tough times? Ford said he’d rather talk to Ypsilanti first and find out what the options are.

Kunselman asked about ridership and revenues. Ford noted that according to a recently published USA Today report, AATA was fourth in the nation, measured by ridership increase. Kunselman also asked about discount fares that are expected to end. Ford confirmed that the new service to the Detroit Metro Airport (AirRide) has a promotional fare of $10, which will go up to $12 at the end of July. That service, Ford reported, had started off with 400 passengers a week and is now carrying over 1,000 passengers a week. Kunselman asked who is paying for long-term parking in the downtown Ann Arbor parking structures. Ford explained that through partnership with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority (which manages the city’s downtown public parking), AirRide passengers can park for two-weeks for $2 in a downtown parking structure. Kunselman elicited the fact that the AATA is not paying the DDA the difference in the regular cost. Ford characterized that arrangement as the DDA providing the AATA with the opportunity to grow the AirRide service.

Kunselman stated that he would not support the four-party agreement. He said he’d been out to Chelsea recently and he had a problem with running empty buses past that farmland. Kunselman said he was more interested in working with Ann Arbor’s immediate neighbors where there is the most density and where it makes sense to run fixed-route buses – like Ypsilanti.

The council’s subsequent deliberations unfolded along similar lines to previous discussions. Highlights included Briere’s observation that some Ann Arbor city councilmembers’ concerns about only having 7 of 15 seats on a new countywide transportation authority board were countered by worries in other communities that Ann Arbor would dominate with 7 of 15 seats. She noted that the five-year service improvement plan includes increased frequency and more weekend and evening service.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that the four-party agreement and the articles of incorporation lay the groundwork for intergovernmental cooperation: “You can’t have intergovernmental cooperation without intergovernmental cooperation.”

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) couched his support in terms of the importance of regional approaches to issues.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked if it’s accurate that other jurisdictions can opt out of the countywide authority. Ford confirmed that’s the case, but said the idea is to get everybody involved with an opportunity to participate. The more communities that participate, the better it is for everybody, Ford said.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he was hopeful that the council’s unanimous support for the amendment that night might lead to unanimous support for the whole agreement. There’s a great benefit to the city if the council speaks with a loud, clear voice. He allowed that it was a bit of a stretch to expect that those who opposed the agreement the first time around would vote for it on that basis.

Kunselman confirmed for Hohnke that it was a stretch to expect that – by ticking through some of his by-now-familiar objections.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the amended four-party agreement and articles of incorporation, with dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who had previously voted against it, supported it this time around.

Sidewalk Repair Ordinance

The council considered final approval to a revision to the city’s sidewalk repair ordinance – in light of the voter-approved sidewalk repair millage, which passed in November of 2011.

The basic idea is that for the period of the authorized millage – through fiscal year 2016 (which ends June 30, 2017) property owners will not be responsible for repairs to sidewalks abutting the property on which they pay taxes. There are various wrinkles and contingencies in the revised ordinance for properties located within the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority tax increment finance (TIF) district.

Ann Arbor voters authorized an additional 0.125 mill to be levied as part of the street repair millage, which was also renewed at that November 2011 election for 2.0 mills, for a total of 2.125 mills.

As part of the resolution passed by the city council to place the sidewalk millage question on the November 2011 ballot, the council directed the city attorney and other staff to provide the ordinance revision for the council’s consideration on or before Dec. 1, 2011. Like the council’s deliberations on May 21, when initial approval was given for the ordinance change, they did not include any comment at the council table about why the revision came to the council nearly half a year after the date specified. Nor did discussion by the council focus on the basic purpose of the ordinance change – to ensure that property owners were not held responsible for sidewalk repairs adjacent to their property.

Instead, the focus of council deliberations was on the wrinkle of the ordinance revision that pertains to the area of the city inside the DDA district.

Sidewalk Repair Ordinance: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge stressed that safe pedestrian transportation is very important for seniors and handicapped people.

Sidewalk Repair Ordinance: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) introduced the background of the ordinance revision by describing the purpose of the ordinance change as setting up a way to give the city responsibility for maintaining and repairing sidewalks inside the DDA district, and for the DDA to provide funding for that task. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) pointed out that funding to be provided by the DDA comes from the DDA’s TIF [tax increment finance] capture of the newly enacted city sidewalk millage.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) chats with assistant city attorney Mary Fales before the June 4 meeting.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know if the DDA would make payments to the city after the sidewalk repairs, or if the city treasurer would withhold the money prior to disbursing the TIF capture to the DDA? Craig Hupy, interim public services area administrator, told Kunselman that he anticipated the DDA would return the tax capture of the 0.125 mill tax to the city. Kunselman asked if there’s a separate agreement between the city and the DDA to that effect – if so, he wanted to see a copy of that agreement. Hupy noted that the ordinance revision lays out the two options – either the DDA does the work, or the DDA returns the money to the city for the DDA area.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the revision to the sidewalk repair ordinance.

Water, Sewer, Stormwater Rates

The council was asked to give final approval to increased rates for drinking water, sanitary sewer and stormwater utilities. According to a staff memo, the impact of the increases on an average single-family customer comes to 3.21% across three different rate increases – assuming the same level of consumption as last year. That 3.21% increase works out to $19.40 per year.

By way of illustration of the rates, the drinking water rate for the vast majority of residential customers is tiered, based on usage. For the first 7 “units” of water, the charge is proposed to increase from $1.27 to $1.31. For the next 21 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $2.64 to $2.74 per unit. And for the 17 units after that, the increase is proposed to be from $4.50 to $4.69. For additional amounts more than 45 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $6.50 to $6.78 per unit.

One hundred cubic feet is 748 gallons. So a rate of $1.31 per unit translates to significantly less than a penny a gallon – $0.00175.

Ann Arbor’s tiered rate system was implemented in 2004. Before that, the rate for all usage levels was the same. In 2003, that was $1.97 per unit. In 2004, the lowest tier was dropped to $0.97. This year’s rate for the lowest tier is still less than what the general rate was in 2003. However, basic service charges for water and sewer service were implemented as part of the tiered system – which for the smallest size 5/8-inch meter are currently $10.57 and $11.25 per quarter, for water and sewer, respectively. The stormwater service charge is $6.77 per quarter. Those service charges did not increase this year.

[Link to Google chart illustrating the history of Ann Arbor water rates] [.jpg of chart showing history of Ann Arbor water rates] [.pdf of water, sewer rates]

Water Rates: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge told the council that they need to come up with a formula that is progressively oriented and that does not impose undue burdens on tenants.

Water Rates: Council Deliberations

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) pressed for some explanation of how the financial incentives are set up for the stormwater discounts. By way of background, residents can get discounts to the stormwater charge – based on a formula that includes the amount of impervious surface area on their property. Residents can get discounts for various measures. By way of example, by installing one or more rain barrels, residents can get a discount of $1.96 per quarter.

Craig Hupy, interim public services area administrator, explained to Smith that the amount of the discount is based on the estimated actual reduction in the cost of services. The city has actually pushed hard to get discounts up to the current level. Smith allowed that it was a fair rationale, but she wished that the incentive would be high enough that people would actually implement those measures.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked what the administrative charge covered for the stormwater fee. Hupy explained that it’s for the overflight, with infrared photography to measure impervious surface – on which the stormwater rates are based.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the new water, sewer and stormwater rates.

Dean Tree Fund Committee Changed

The council considered an item to officially eliminate the city council appointee to the Elizabeth Dean Tree Fund committee. The committee was established in 1975 to oversee the use of investment earnings from a nearly $2 million bequest made to the city by Elizabeth Dean. According to a Nov. 10, 1974 Ann Arbor News article, the bequest was made in the early 1960s to “repair, maintain and replace trees on city property.” The principal amount remains intact.

The formal elimination of the city council committee member leaves the committee with seven voting members and one non-voting member – the city’s urban forestry & natural resources planning coordinator. The city’s description of the committee indicates “No Council Rep. Based on City Council action taken on 1/6/03.” Based on city council action on that date, it appears that no councilmember was appointed when all of the council committee assignments were made. It appears that in subsequent years, the council has not had a representative on the Dean Tree Fund.

A staff memo accompanying the resolution indicates that the reason for the formal change is a desire to have an odd number of voting members and to reduce the quorum requirement for meetings from five members to four.

For fiscal year 2012, the investment income to the fund is budgeted at $85,000.

Currently, only six people are listed as members of the Dean Tree Fund committee, in the city’s Legistar system: Albert E. Gallup, Bonita D. Ross Ion, Jane Immonen, John R. Bassett, John Remsberg, and Warren Attarian.

During the brief council deliberations, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) observed that the council’s action was making official an unofficial practice. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) indicated support for having the city’s urban forestry & natural resources planning coordinator on the committee. He said there were major changes taking place with the urban forest and he hoped there would be information about that in the near future.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the change in the composition to the Elizabeth Dean Tree Fund committee.

CUB Agreements

Last year, the Michigan state legislature passed Act 98 of 2011, which prohibited municipalities from signing construction contracts in which contractors were required make an agreement with a collective bargaining organization.

At the time, the city of Ann Arbor had such a requirement: Contractors signing construction contracts with the city had to execute a Construction Utility Board (CUB) agreement with the Washtenaw County Skilled Building Trades Council, as a condition of the contract. So on Aug. 15, 2011, in response to the state law, the city council rescinded that requirement.

However, the U.S. District Court has since found Act 98 to be unenforceable, based on the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution and the National Labor Relation Act. The court’s decision has been appealed, but currently Act 98 cannot be enforced.

So at its June 4 meeting, the council considered reinstating the CUB agreement requirement. Brief deliberations were highlighted by Jane Lumm’s (Ward 2) objections to the requirement, on philosophical and practical grounds. She pointed to similar pending legislation that might be enacted that would address the court ruling, as well as the possibility that the U.S. District Court’s ruling could be overturned.

Outcome: The council reinstated the CUB requirement, with dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Warming Shelter, Community Center

Alluding to the presentation of the historic district awards at the start of the meeting, Orian Zakai told the council she hoped that 40 minutes could also be devoted to the tents of Camp Take Notice and the people who live there and who are about to be evicted. She wanted to talk about the Imagine Community project – a nonprofit organization working to open a 24-hour warming center by next winter. It would also serve as a daytime community center that is open to all. No one should sleep outside in the Michigan winter, she said, and everyone should have a space to explore their creativity. The North Main community offers very limited services, she said. She doesn’t see her group as a charitable organization, but as a hub of creative people who inspire each other and care for each other.

She said that her group’s weekly daytime creative program at the Delonis Center, a shelter at 312 W. Huron, has taught them that it doesn’t take much to bring people together through creativity – all you need is some enthusiasm, some art supplies, some musical instruments, paper and pens, and safe space.

The Imagine Community needs a space of its own, she said, and has approached the city several times about the building owned by the city at 721 N. Main. They’d been given two tours of the building and found it suitable for their intended purposes. Despite many conversations with city officials, she said, the city had informed her group that the city would not consider giving her group the space.

Mary Conway told the council that Camp Take Notice will be soon be dispersed. There are 50 residents, she said, but that number varies on regular basis. Wherever they wind up, she said, they will have needs – bathroom, a tent, a place to eat, a place to get water, a place to wash and clean their clothes. The Delonis Center, she said, can’t help many of the people at Camp Take Notice, because of drug abuse and behavioral problems. But the needs of these people need to be addressed. She said that if the city won’t make the building at 721 N. Main available, the city should at least set up port-a-johns at Liberty Plaza [a city park at the southwest corner of Liberty and Division]. There needs to be an alternative plan, she said, otherwise homeless people are going to interfere with business and tourism. The homeless are residents of Washtenaw County, she said. She said she was joined that night by two residents of Camp Take Notice who are barred from the Delonis Center. Conway invited councilmembers to read some of the poetry that had been written by members of the homeless community at imaginewarmingcenters.org. “We can make them a part of our great city of Ann Arbor,” she concluded.

Alexandra Hoffman followed up on comments from Zakai on the possible use of 721 N. Main. She said she didn’t want to believe that a city would drag along a group of caring citizens in an attempt to frustrate and exhaust them. Her group was not exhausted and won’t give up, she said. She felt it was possible to turn the deserted, wasted space into an opportunity. To change homelessness, you have to change yourself, she told the councilmembers. It’s important to change the focus away from the failures of those who are homeless, she said, and rather turn attention to our communal failing – that someone doesn’t have a place to go for warmth and support.

Lilly Au disputed remarks made by mayor John Hieftje to the effect that no one was being turned away who wanted access to a warming shelter. She talked about the challenges that the homeless face in getting referred to the Dawn Farm treatment program. Right now, she said, it’s just the faith community that takes care of the homeless.

Comm/Comm: Vacancies on Boards/Commissions

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) alerted her colleagues to the fact that John German needs to be reappointed to the city’s environmental commission. There is another vacancy on that commission too, she added. [Briere serves as the city council appointee to that commission.]

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that there are still two vacancies on the taxicab board.

Comm/Comm: Crime

City administrator Steve Powers publicly congratulated the Ann Arbor police department on arrests made in connection with graffiti offenses and an armed robbery at the Broadway Party Store.

Comm/Comm: Argo Cascades

City administrator Steve Power reported that on Memorial Day, the city grossed over $72,000 between the Argo and Gallup liveries – as the city was sold out of kayaks.

Comm/Comm: South State Street Corridor

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who is the city council’s representative to the planning commission, reported on a retreat the commission had held recently, focused on the South State Street corridor. The city is currently engaged in a process to study the corridor, from Stimson down to Ellsworth. [For more detail on that retreat, see Chronicle coverage: "South State Corridor Gets a Closer Look"]

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

Next council meeting: Monday, June 18, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

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

CUB agreements are negotiated between local trade unions and contractors, and require that contractors who sign the agreement abide by terms of collective bargaining agreements for the duration of the construction project. In return, the trade unions agree that they will not strike, engage in work slow-downs, set up separate work entrances at the job site or take any other adverse action against the contractor.

However, Act 98 of 2011 – which became effective July 19, 2011 – prohibits municipalities from including as a requirement in a construction contract anything that would either require or prohibit contractors from entering into agreements with collective bargaining organizations. The act also prohibits discrimination against contractors based on willingness or non-willingness to enter into such agreements.

The law is being challenged in federal court by the Michigan Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO and the Genesee, Lapeer, Shiawassee Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO. They are seeking to rule the law invalid, alleging that it is pre-empted by the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution and the National Labor Relations Act.

At the board’s Sept. 7 meeting, when commissioners took initial action on this issue, Yousef Rabhi had proposed two amendments to the resolution: (1) to assert the effectiveness of CUB agreements in ensuring a fair and cooperative workplace; and (2) to affirm that the county would reinstate CUB agreements when it becomes possible to do so. Those amendments had been approved on an 8-2 vote, with dissent from Dan Smith and Alicia Ping.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Near North Housing Grant

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

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

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

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

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

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

Near North Grant: Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Near North Grant: Board Deliberations

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

DDA board member Newcombe Clark.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Near North Grant: Coda on Calling the Question

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

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

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

Parking Rates, Enforcement

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

Parking Rates, Enforcement: Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parking Rates, Enforcement: Possible Agenda Items

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

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

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

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

Parking Rates, Enforcement: Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naming Guenzel Chair, Thanking Boren

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

Naming Guenzel, Thanking Boren: Background

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

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

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

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

Naming Guenzel, Thanking Boren: Board Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

County Economic Development Tax

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RiverUp!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communications, Committee Reports

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

Comm/Comm: The Varsity, Alleys

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

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

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Downtown Parcels

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Regular Parking Report

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

Comm/Comm: Unaudited FY 2011 Budget Numbers

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

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: go!pass

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

Comm/Comm: Bicycle Parking

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

Comm/Comm: Construction Updates

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

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

Comm/Comm: State of the Downtown Report

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

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

Absent: Keith Orr, Bob Guenzel

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

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

CUB agreements are negotiated between local trade unions and contractors, and require that contractors who sign the agreement abide by terms of collective bargaining agreements for the duration of the construction project. In return, the trade unions agree that they will not strike, engage in work slow-downs, set up separate work entrances at the job site or take any other adverse action against the contractor.

However, Act 98 of 2011 – which became effective July 19, 2011 – prohibits municipalities from including as a requirement in a construction contract anything that would either require or prohibit contractors from entering into agreements with collective bargaining organizations. The act also prohibits discrimination against contractors based on willingness or non-willingness to enter into such agreements.

The law is being challenged in federal court by the Michigan Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO and the Genesee, Lapeer, Shiawassee Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO. They are seeking to rule the law invalid, alleging that it is pre-empted by the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution and the National Labor Relations Act.

At the Sept. 7 meeting, Yousef Rabhi proposed two amendments to the resolution: (1) to assert the effectiveness of CUB agreements in ensuring a fair and cooperative workplace; and (2) to affirm that the county would reinstate CUB agreements when it becomes possible to do so. The amendments were approved on an 8-2 vote, with dissent from Dan Smith and Alicia Ping.

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

The resolution was rescinded because Act 98 of 2011 – which became effective July 19, 2011 – prohibits municipalities from including as a requirement in a construction contract anything that would either require or prohibit contractors from entering into agreements with collective bargaining organizations. The act also prohibits discrimination against contractors based on willingness or non-willingness to enter into such agreements.

At the council’s Aug. 4 meeting, interim city administrator Tom Crawford had alerted councilmembers that they would likely be asked to consider the measure at the Aug. 15 meeting.

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