The Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant is available through the National Infrastructure Investments Program of the U.S. Department of Transportation. SPARK asked that the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED) act as the lead applicant and fiscal agent. OCED already submitted the grant application – on April 25, 2014. According to a staff memo, “due to the grant application deadline, it was not possible to bring the matter before the [board of commissioners] for approval prior to application submission.”

At its May 21, 2014 meeting, the county board of commissioners took an initial vote to authorize the county’s involvement, with final action expected on June 4. The project is a partnership with SPARK, the University of Michigan, the redevelopment firm Walbridge Aldinger and Ypsilanti Township, among others. According to a staff memo, the facility could lead to the creation of up to 7,800 new jobs in the skilled trades and research sectors. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

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

According to a staff memo, each project was reviewed and recommended by Washtenaw County’s homeland security task force. Major allocations include $117,983 for the Washtenaw County Technical Rescue Team; $107,704 for Washtenaw County Sheriff Emergency Services; and $90,000 to continue funding an existing crime analyst position in the sheriff’s office. The position is dedicated to the Detroit/Southeast Michigan Fusion Center, which coordinates crime analysis efforts and regional information sharing. [.pdf of staff memo]

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

The pruning program would target those trees in the public right-of-way that are most in need of pruning (Priority 1). The initiative is also focused on the larger of the city’s street trees – those bigger than 20 inches in diameter. Those are the trees that have the greatest impact on the mitigation of stormwater.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the city of Ann Arbor has over 46,600 street trees, counting street trees and those in parks. According to the staff memo: “Those trees intercept over 65 million gallons of stormwater annually and remove pollutants, such as fertilizer, oils, and pesticides, before they can enter local water bodies (USDA Forest Service i-Tree Streets Analysis of Ann Arbor, 2009).

Here’s where the trees targeted by the program are located:

Street trees in Ann Arbor greater than 20 inches in diameter. (Map by the city of Ann Arbor.)

From the city’s online tree inventory, The Chronicle searched for trees greater than 20 inches in diameter and designated as Priority 1 for pruning. A total of 684 trees fit those criteria. Here’s how they broke down by height, diameter and species.

Priority 1 trees by diameter. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from city of Ann Arbor.)

Priority 1 trees by height. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

Priority 1 trees by species. Maples are the dominant species among those that will be targeted by this pruning program. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

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

The funding roughly equals the amount of federal weatherization dollars that the county received in 2012, which was a decrease of about 65% compared to 2011 federal funding levels. The current funding is allocated through the 2013 Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). The county last received LIHEAP funding in 2010, but has received weatherization grants from other federal funding sources in the intervening years.

For the period from April 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014, the program is expected to weatherize 27 homes. According to a staff memo, the work includes an energy audit inspection and follow-up inspection of the completed weatherization work, which might include attic and wall insulation, caulking, window repairs, furnace tune-ups, furnace replacements, and refrigerator installations. To qualify for the program, residents must have an income at or below 150% of federal poverty, which is about $35,325 for a family of four.

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

The budget amendment, which passed with exactly the eight votes it needed on the 11-member council, allocated $550,000 in new matching funds for a federal grant. The grant had been awarded through the Federal Railroad Administration’s High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program. Dissenting on the vote were Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) was absent.

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

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

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

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

Those already-expended funds had been used in connection with work associated with the Fuller Road Station – for conceptual planning, environmental documentation efforts and some preliminary engineering. The city paid for that work from its major street fund, alternative transportation fund, and previously existing economic development funds over the past three years.

As a result of the FRA determination, none of that previously expended money can be counted as the local match on the federal grant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The city now needs to provide around $550,000 in new matching funds in order to receive the federal money to complete the work. The federal grant funds are still available – and according to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the intent is to work with the city of Ann Arbor to see the project through to completion.

The Ann Arbor city council had voted 9-2 to accept the federal money – through the FRA’s High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program – at its June 4, 2012 meeting. That acceptance was based on the understanding that around $701,600 in already-expended city funds could count toward a required 20% match.

But now the FRA has informed the city that none of its previously incurred expenses are eligible to count toward the match on the grant, which would fund completion of a preliminary engineering and environmental assessment for a new rail station in Ann Arbor.

Responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle, Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje indicated that a resolution will appear on the city council’s Oct. 15 meeting agenda that addresses the determination made by the FRA. The resolution reflects both a financial and a political strategy. The financial strategy is to allocate money from the city’s general fund budget. The political strategy includes a commitment in the resolution to submit the construction of a new rail station to a popular vote. The political component of the strategy is related to the fact that the proposed  Fuller Road location  for the new rail station is city parkland.

Financial Strategy

The city’s financial strategy now, as reflected in the resolution to be placed on the council’s Oct. 15 agenda, is to revise its general fund FY 2013 budget. The $550,000 amount to be allocated from the general fund reserve by the council’s resolution is based on a lower total cost estimate for the study. Initially, the study was projected to cost $3.5 million, which would have required a 20% match of about $700,000. Now it’s expected that the project can be completed for about $2.75 million.

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

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

Those already-expended funds had been used in connection with work associated with the Fuller Road Station – for conceptual planning, environmental documentation efforts and some preliminary engineering. The city paid for that work from its major street fund, alternative transportation fund, and previously existing economic development funds over the past three years.

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

When the council accepted the HSIPR grant at its June 4, 2012 meeting, the council also approved a $196,192 amendment to an existing contract with SmithGroup JJR for continued study and planning work that had been started in connection with the Fuller Road Station project. The work under the contract is supposed to be funded from the 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.

Political Strategy

The political strategy for addressing the FRA determination is to commit to setting a date on which the question of proceeding with construction of a new rail station would be submitted to a voter referendum.

RESOLVED, That at or before the completion of a final design for the Ann Arbor Station project, City Council will set a date by which the City will submit the question of moving forward with construction to a vote of the citizens of Ann Arbor; and …

The council had considered in late summer placing a more general issue on the November ballot – a city charter amendment that would require certain types of long-term leases of city parkland to require a popular vote. The city charter already requires that the sale of parkland be voted on in a popular referendum. However, the council decided at its Aug. 9, 2012 meeting not to place that charter amendment on the ballot this November.

The Fuller Road site is city parkland. So for that specific site, the council’s Oct. 15, 2012 resolution – if approved – would have essentially the same effect as the charter amendment.

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!

That item was approved by the council with dissent from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

A second airport-related item on the council’s agenda involved the use of those funds in the grant item for study of the need to relocate federally owned navigational aids (ODAL lighting system) for the EA.

On April 16, 2012 the council had considered several resolutions in connection with Ann Arbor’s municipal airport, including the fourth grant contract.

The city council had initially authorized funding for the first of the grant contracts related to the environmental assessment project at its Feb. 2, 2009 meeting. The assessment began on May 4, 2009. The process appeared to culminate in a public hearing in April 2010. [See Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Airport Study Gets Public Hearing."] In the interim, city councilmembers have removed the runway extension from the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP) each year they’ve been asked to give the CIP its annual approval.

However, when the Federal Aviation Administration responded to the draft report, that prompted communication between the city of Ann Arbor and the FAA in late 2011. And that back-and-forth has resulted in FAA requests for more work, which is meant to wrap up the environmental assessment.

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]

Taking advantage of the grant award, as well as other funds that the AATA had allocated at its June 21, 2012 for such work, the AATA board voted at its Aug. 16, 2012 meeting to award a $105,200 contract to SmithGroup JJR for “station location and design services” in connection with the WALLY project. The board’s authorization includes an option to increase the contract scope at a later date.

Based on the staff memo included in the AATA’s performance monitoring and external relations committee minutes, the initial phase of the project will focus on station location studies for five communities: Ann Arbor, Whitmore Lake, Hamburg Township, Genoa Township and Howell. In Ann Arbor, attention will be focused on the Barton Road location and how a station can be designed that overcomes the constraints imposed by a large drainage culvert. Future phases would also include detailed designs of each site selected in the initial phase, with additional station sites in Ann Arbor – a downtown location (probably between Liberty and Washington streets, according to the memo) and one near the University of Michigan football stadium.

The track from the Barton Road location southward is owned by the Ann Arbor Railroad, which has historically been uninterested in passenger rail use on it tracks. But in the fall of 2011, AARR indicated at least a willingness to entertain a “business proposition” on such use. Some kind of arrangement would be necessary in order to contemplate stations south of Barton Road – like downtown or the football stadium.

This brief was filed from the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library at 343 S. Fifth, where the AATA board holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The money is available through the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), also known as the federal stimulus program. It’s a redistribution of funding that had previously been awarded to other communities but was not used. In total since 2009, Washtenaw County has received $5,053,338 in ARRA funding for its weatherization program, and has served 721 housing units. The program is administered through the office of community and economic development, a joint county/city of Ann Arbor department.

According to a staff memo, weatherization services include “outreach and intake, pre-inspection of homes, air leakage testing, health and safety evaluations, furnace assessments, refrigerator efficiency testing, post-inspection of the completed work and consumer education on how to keep one’s home weatherized and energy efficient. Licensed and approved contractors provide procurement and installation of weatherization materials including attic and wall insulation, air sealing, window repairs, furnace tune-ups and high efficiency furnace installations.”

To be eligible for the program, residents must have an income at or below 200% of the federal poverty level, or 60% of the state median income (whichever is lower). That translates to annual incomes less than $22,911 for a single person or $44,700 for a family of four. Residents who receive federal Supplemental Security Income, state disability assistance or who are part of the Family Independence Program are automatically eligible for the weatherization program.

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]

Separately, the board unanimously passed a resolution supporting the selection of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District as the next local Head Start administrator. The selection will be made by federal Head Start officials.

The local Head Start program provides pre-school services to 561 children, ages 3-5, and their families – both directly, and through delegating to other providers, including local school systems. The majority of the program is funded with a $4.028 million federal grant. The interim plan calls for eliminating 7.8 full-time jobs, and leaving another three jobs vacant. Because of vacancies and retirements, only three employees will be affected, according to a staff memo. The changes will result in one teacher and one teaching assistant per room – previously, there were two teaching assistants and one teacher per room.

These changes had been forecast at the board’s May 2, 2012 meeting. County administrator Verna McDaniel had told commissioners that the county had agreed to a one-year extension to continue administering the program, through July 31, 2013. As part of the budget process last year, the county board had voted to relinquish its 46-year administration of the program on July 31, 2012. But the process to find another entity to administer Head Start has taken longer than expected, so the county reached an agreement with federal officials to operate the program another year.

In May, McDaniel reported that the agreement waives a 20% local match of about $750,000 that the county had previously been required to provide. She had noted that there would be staff changes proposed as a result of the new interim agreement. At the time, several commissioners praised the decision for easing the eventual transition to a new Head Start administrator, but Ronnie Peterson had expressed concern that the program’s high standards would be compromised.

At the July 11 meeting, Peterson again voiced his concerns at length, and asked – as he has in the past – that independent experts be brought in to discuss how the changes will impact the children. He also vowed to try to keep Head Start under the county’s administration, rather than relinquishing control. The issue will be addressed at an Aug. 2 working session.

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]