The DDA’s audit firm is the same one used by the city of Ann Arbor – Rehmann. [.pdf of DDA FY 2013 audit]

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

Oct. 24, 2013 Ann Arbor city council audit committee meeting. From left: auditor Mark Kettner (Rehmann Robson), Margie Teall (Ward 4), city chief financial officer Tom Crawford, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Arriving after this photo was taken was Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Highlights from that draft FY 2013 report, which has now been issued in final form to the city, include an increase to the general fund balance from about $15.4 million to about $16.2 million. The $800,000 increase contrasts to the planned use of roughly $1.6 million from the general fund balance in the FY 2013 budget. About $200,000 of the increase was in the “unassigned” fund balance. The rest of it fell into restricted categories, CFO Tom Crawford explained at the meeting.

The result of the audit, in the new GASB terminology, was an “unmodified” opinion – which corresponds to the older “unqualified” opinion. In sum, that means it was a “clean” audit. The concerns identified last year had been addressed to the auditor’s satisfaction.

Members of the audit committee were enthusiastic about the $2.4 million better-than-budget performance for the city’s general fund, which had expenditures budgeted for $74,548,522 in FY 2013.

However, Crawford cautioned that he is “not crazy about the versus-budget comparison” because actual expenses will generally be less than budget anyway. He also pointed out during the meeting that just $1.3 million of the $2.4 million better performance are recurring items – things that he would expect to continue going forward.

While the year-end audit provided some good news, Crawford said he recommended that the city try to have about $1 million to $1.5 million of “good news” each year, because the city needs fund balance to pay for non-recurring items.

Crawford and Rehmann auditor Mark Kettner walked the committee through some of the highlights that still, on balance, had led to the good news. Revenue for services was almost $400,000 less than budgeted, due in part to lower-than-budgeted fire inspection fee revenue. Fines and forfeitures – including parking tickets – were $300,000 less than budgeted. And investment income was off by $400,000. But state shared revenue came in at $500,000 better than budgeted. [These figures come from page 36 of the final audit report.]

“The general fund had pretty much a year like you’d hope it would,” Crawford said. The year ended with an unassigned fund balance of roughly $14 million, or about 18% of expenditures – and 18-20% of expenditures is where the fund balance should be, he said. “So we’re really in a good spot.”

Challenges facing the city this coming year include the implementation of the new GASB 68 accounting standard starting in FY 2015, which begins July 1, 2014. That standard requires that most changes to the net pension liability will be included immediately on the balance sheet – instead of being amortized over a long time period. The GASB 68 standard must be implemented for an organization’s financial statements for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2014.

Crawford prepped the committee to see a probable drop in the pension plans funded ratio – from about 82% to 80% – because of the five-year window used to book losses. The last of the losses in 2008-09 will be on the books this year, but after that the city would expect to see improvement every year, Crawford said. This most recent year, the pension fund had an 11% return, which is four points better than the 7% return the fund assumes for planning purposes.

Two of the city’s funds were highlighted by Crawford at the Oct. 24 meeting as having potential difficulties associated with the GASB 68 standard – solid waste and the public market (farmers market). For the public market fund, Crawford floated the idea to the audit committee that it could be folded back into the city’s general fund, on analogy with the golf fund. Starting this year (FY 2014) the golf fund has been returned to general fund accounting.

The consensus on the audit committee was that the full city council should receive a brief presentation on the audit report – either at an upcoming working session or a regular meeting. [.pdf of final audit report released on Nov. 15, 2013]

Prior to new committee assignments to be made by the post-election composition of the city council, the audit committee consists of: Margie Teall (Ward 4), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

This report includes additional description of the Oct. 24, 2013 city council audit committee meeting.

Two Sets of Statements

The only item on the audit committee’s agenda was to review the draft audit report. Chief financial officer for the city, Tom Crawford, first reviewed how the city did from an operating perspective last year. He stressed that the document being reviewed by the committee was a draft report.

Crawford reminded committee members that the audit report presents the city’s financial condition in two different sets of statements. One set is the government-wide statements, which use full accrual accounting for everything. Those statements are used for comparability across communities and give you a sense of how the city is doing over time, Crawford explained. The second set of statements is the fund statements, which are used for budgeting.

Government-wide Statements

On a government-wide basis, the equity – or what is now called “net assets” of the city – is about $1.058 billion, Crawford said. That’s an increase of about $28 million from the prior year, according to the final audit report. Most of that equity is tied up in fixed assets, he said, like streets and other assets – $890 million of it, according to the final audit report.

And of the $1.058 billion in net assets, the final audit report shows $81.7 million is “unrestricted.” Even though it’s “unrestricted,” Crawford explained at the committee meeting, that amount is still subject to the requirements of the funds containing the money. The water fund, for example, accounts for some of those unrestricted funds – and the water fund is restricted to water-fund type uses. Of the total amount of “unrestricted” funds, the general fund’s unassigned portion is $14.3 million – which is basically what it was last year. But it reflects a slight increase, from $14 million to $14.3 million, Crawford said.

The government-wide statements show that over time, the city is in a strong financial position and there’s a moderately positive momentum. There’s an increase of 3% in unrestricted net position, he said. “Government-wide statements indicate that Ann Arbor is financially healthy,” Crawford concluded, “and will continue to be so.”

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked about the city’s long-term liabilities, which the draft report indicated had increased by $11 million. Crawford explained that the debt for which the city’s general fund is accountable had increased by about $7 million – primarily due to the First & Washington parking structure project. That project had required $9 million of bonding, but the city had also had some “pay downs,” Crawford explained, reducing that $9 million to $7 million. The city had done some debt issuances – but off the top of his head, he thought they were all re-financing of existing debt in water and sewer bonds.

Street Millage Fund: Minimum Fund Balance Requirements

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) asked if the street millage fund was required to have one year’s worth of millage revenue as fund balance – possibly under the city charter or under an ordinance? Crawford responded to Kailasapathy’s question by noting the street fund showed $18 million in fund balance. He pointed out that $9 million had been spent out of the street fund last year, when it showed a fund balance of $25 million. The minimum requirement for fund balance in the street millage fund is $9 million, Crawford said – as a part of the city’s fund balance policy [that is, it's not a city charter or an ordinance requirement].

From left: CFO Tom Crawford, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

The logic behind that $9 million figure is that it’s equivalent to about one year’s worth of millage revenue, Crawford said. Because that millage is renewed every five years, maintaining one year’s worth of millage revenues in the fund balance gives the city some flexibility in case the millage isn’t approved by voters when it’s up for renewal. Kailasapathy observed that the $18 million currently in the street millage fund balance equated to two years’ worth of millage revenue, so the city had twice the required amount. Crawford responded by saying, “You do, and you don’t.”

The fiscal year ends in the middle of the construction season, Crawford explained, so there’s fund balance that is shown, but there are ongoing projects that are not yet closed out. It doesn’t get booked until a project gets closed, he continued. So a portion of the street millage fund balance, above the $9 million, is really just a matter of timing, he said.

Kailasapathy wanted a rough estimate of how much in additional, as yet unclosed projects would “hit” this year.

Crawford indicated that he’d need to ask other staff. He based a rough guess on the kind of fund balances the street millage fund typically showed before money was conserved in anticipation of possibly needing to pay for a substantial portion of the East Stadium bridges repair out of that fund. He ventured it could be $3-5 million of projects that would be paid yet. He felt that going forward, the kind of fund balances the council could expect to see in the street millage fund would be in the neighborhood of $10 million to $13 million.

General Fund

Crawford noted that while the city’s general fund balance had increased by around $800,000, that compares with a FY 2013 budget that had planned to use $1.6 million from the fund balance. So that was about “$2.4 million in good news versus budget,” Crawford concluded. He’d reviewed that amount to look at some of the variances, he told the committee. About half of the good news was recurring items, he said. So about $1.3 million of that better performance are things that he would expect to continue going forward.

For example, state shared revenue came in higher than budgeted – by about $500,000. But about $1.1 million of the “good news” was for non-recurring items, he cautioned. “I would say it was a very good year for us; we didn’t use the fund balance we’d planned.” He recommended that the city try to have about $1 million to $1.5 million of good news each year, because the city needs fund balance to pay for non-recurring items, he said.

Responding to positive comments around the table from committee members about the $2.4 million better-than-budget performance, Crawford cautioned that “I’m not crazy about the versus-budget comparison.” That’s because the budget is always going to be higher than actuals, he said.

But Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) pointed out that in the two-year budget planning, the projection for FY 2015 had been for a shortfall. So Kunselman ventured this year’s outcome would help balance that out. Crawford’s response: “Yep.”

Mark Kettner, the auditor, also pointed out that the value is in having a conversation about it. He ventured that you’d typically estimate low, particularly on items like state shared revenues, but you’d usually be realistic on the property taxes.

Crawford countered Kettner’s remarks by saying that in his view, the city was not budgeting that conservatively any longer. He said he was actually trying to hit the budgeted numbers. There are some council policies that will create good news, he said. The parks fairness resolution, for example, meant that the parks department got extra money this year. The parks department didn’t have plans to spend that, but the parks department might need those resources in the future. In a dry year when less mowing was required, maybe they wouldn’t need it, but that extra amount might be used in a future year, he said.

Kettner pointed out that on revenue items, charges for services were almost $400,000 less than budgeted. Fines and forfeitures were $300,000 less than budgeted. Investments were off by $400,000. So on the revenue side, that was offset by the increase in the state shared revenue increase. All of it had been made up on the expenditure side, he explained. Some of that is likely simply delayed spending.

Crawford offered some detail on the lower-than-budgeted fees for services. Not as much revenue was received as had been budgeted for fire inspection fees, he explained. Parking ticket revenues were down $200,000, he continued. About $700,000 had been budgeted for bond user fees, but those fees wouldn’t be collected because the city was using some state financing tools.

Committee members were interested in knowing why parking ticket revenue was under budget. Crawford indicated that parking ticket revenue had been trending down for the last couple of years but had stabilized. He attributed the lower numbers to some vacancies, saying he thought community standards was down one or two people over the last year, so they’re not writing as many tickets.

On the expenditure side, Crawford continued, the city never knows how many people are going to retire. And when they retire the city has to pay out their leave balances. Fewer people retired than the city forecasted last year, and that amounted to $500,000 just for that item. For some items you use your best guess, and it doesn’t work out, he said.

More General Fund

The golf fund, which had been budgeted for about a $500,000 subsidy, turned out to require $200,000 less subsidy than that, Crawford said.  That won’t be an issue in the future, he noted, because the golf fund has now been folded into the general fund for FY 2014.

The dangerous buildings fund – a $250,000 allocation that the city’s building official Ralph Welton can tap to demolish blighted properties – had not been spent down, Crawford said. That shows up as “good news” versus the budget, he said. Kunselman interjected that the fund is meant to be self-replenishing, as costs are recovered from property owners, and that the council won’t be adding money to that fund.

Crawford allowed that was accurate, but for this year, a certain amount had been planned to be spent and it wasn’t spent – that’s why it showed up as “good news.” Kunselman responded by saying, “The fact that he didn’t spend it is a problem.” He said he knew of some significantly blighted properties that needed to be torn down. Kunselman asked if there were any houses torn down and any liens paid back. Crawford wasn’t sure, but did indicate that the city had finally gotten the Michigan Inn situation settled this year. [That property is located on Jackson Road, on the city's far west side.]

Second floor bathrooms in city hall are being renovated.

There was a delay in the asbestos remediation and handicapped accessibility work in the city hall bathrooms, Crawford reported, so that work had shifted into FY 2014 – about $300,000. There were a number of items like that, he said. A brief discussion ensued about which bathrooms on the second floor were now open and which were under construction.

Summarizing the general fund condition, Crawford said, “The general fund had pretty much a year like you’d hope it would.” The year ended with an unassigned fund balance of $14 million, or about 18% of expenditures – and 18-20% of expenditures is where the fund balance should be, he said. “So we’re really in a good spot.”

Enterprise Funds

Reviewing the enterprise funds, Crawford noted that the water and sewer funds have very large fund balances – $81 million and $111 million. But most of that is tied up in capital assets, he explained. The water fund has about $12 million in unrestricted funds and the sewer fund has about $18 million. For both of those funds, the minimum fund balance is about $4 million, Crawford said.

The amounts are greater due to the rate smoothing that the city uses, where a 3-4% increase is applied each year – so the fund balance will build up and then go back down. In addition, about $20 million in capital projects are planned for each of those funds, Crawford said. Those two funds are pretty much on track, he said. They show an income of $6-7 million.

Turning to the golf course and the airport funds, Crawford noted that both funds showed a slight “deficit” – which was the unassigned deficit. If the assets of the funds were included, then there’s not a deficit, he explained. During the last year, the city was required to create a deficit elimination plan for the airport fund. Now, however, Crawford reported that the state recognized that the state’s definition of “deficit” needed to change to reflect the actual viability of a fund. So the state had issued a new standard back in December 2012, he said.

At this point, it wasn’t clear if a deficit elimination plan would be required for the airport. He described the fund as “holding its own,” saying that it made some money last year. It’s currently showing a deficit because of the way the city books a loan that was made to the fund, he said. “I’m not concerned about it, from that perspective,” Crawford concluded.

However, Crawford cautioned that GASB (Governmental Accounting Standards Board) 68 is coming and that’s going to be something that might challenge the city. GASB 68 will be part of the council’s budget discussion, Crawford said. It’s a new accounting standard for pensions, he said.

Kailasapathy inquired about the municipal service charge that’s applied to the different enterprise funds – water compared to golf, for example. For the water fund, personnel services were about $6.6 million and the fund had about $400,000 in municipal service charges – the “overhead” that’s allocated. She allowed there wasn’t a 1-1 correlation between personnel charges and the municipal service charge, but the amount charged for the golf courses looked disproportionate.

Crawford said that issue had been discussed in connection with the golf task force. The MSC calculation is done by an outside consultant, he said, and it’s based on the best metrics the city can get. The golf fund employs a lot of temps, he said, so there’d be significant allocation for recruiting and human resources – more so than the water fund, which has low turnover. For golf, the MSC will disappear anyway, he said, because the golf fund is being folded into the general fund.

Kailasapathy asked why the solid waste fund showed such a large fund balance – $11 million. Kettner noted that property taxes for an enterprise fund like the solid waste fund are not recorded as operating revenue. Rather, it shows up as non-operating revenue. By its operations alone – its fees as revenues against its expenses – the fund does show a loss. But that’s covered by the property taxes. So it’s “substantially break-even,” Kettner concluded. He described it as an example of the difference between accrual and modified accrual accounting. Crawford noted that the solid waste fund is the only enterprise fund that receives property tax dollars.

Enterprise Funds: Public Market Fund

Crawford also drew the committee’s attention to the public market fund, which has an unrestricted reserve of $485,000. It has lost money, however, he said. That fund is one that needs some attention this next budget year, Crawford said. “It’s borderline, so we need to look at that one in our next budget discussion.”

Kunselman asked if the market fund – which is associated with park activities – could be compared to the golf enterprise fund as far as being general fund activities that are accounted for in an enterprise fund.

Crawford allowed that there were many analogies between the market fund and the golf fund. The market fund is a parks-type activity that is the only enterprise fund that the parks system has, he said. “It’s not quite there in the long term, particularly when GASB 68 comes.” Kunselman observed that the farmers market is in the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district, quipping: “Imagine that!”

The stormwater fund shows about $16 million in fund balance, Crawford. Solid waste has $27 million in its fund balance, he noted. The fund balance policy for the solid waste fund calls for $2 million, but he noted there are a number of issues associated with that fund that had been discussed in connection with last year’s budget. That fund has a significant GASB 68 issue, he added, and there are some liability issues with the city’s closed landfill.

Crawford said he wasn’t concerned about any of the funds, but noted that the market fund was one that deserved some attention.

Later, toward the end of the committee meeting, the conversation came back around to the market fund. That needs to be on our radar, Crawford said. Kunselman asked why it was put into an enterprise fund in the first place. Crawford said he had no idea, because it happened so long ago. 

Crawford said he wanted to discuss that with the public market advisory commission, because he doesn’t want to get out in front of that group. Teall indicated that the park advisory commission also should be kept apprised.

Part of the issue, said Crawford, is parking revenue. The new contract between the city and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority – which transfers to the city 17% of the gross parking revenues of the public parking system – changes the allocation of parking revenue to the public market fund. But the real issue for the market fund, Crawford stressed, is GASB 68.

Petersen worried that putting the market fund into the general fund might mask the need for operational improvements. Crawford noted that the public market advisory commission and park advisory commission would apply scrutiny regardless of the fund.

[The public market advisory commission includes: Aimee Germain, David Santacroce, Jillian Lada, Karlene Goetz, and Lindsay-Jean Hard.]

Pension System, VEBA

The pension system investments had an 11% return last year. The system operates on an assumption of just a 7% return, so that was a “pretty good year for the pension system,” Crawford said. The system is funded at about 82%, he said. Because of the timing for the audit report and when the actuaries are finished with their work, he’d chosen to include the 2012 pension system numbers in the audit report, Crawford said. He was just now receiving the actuarial numbers as of June 2013, and that’s where the 11% will come through.

In general, the investment losses from 2008-09 roll through during a five-year window, and the last year of that will be FY 2015. So Crawford is expecting the percentage funded ratio to drop from 82% to around 80%. He said he thought that would be the low point, and after that the council would see improvement, reflecting the gains that had been realized since the 2008-09 down period. During that period, about 25% of market value had been lost, he explained, and that loss was recognized over a period of five years. The last year of that will be FY 2015.

On average, the city is about ready to hit the positive years that the pension system has enjoyed after that. The VEBA (Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association) was not as severely impacted back in 2008-09, Crawford explained, because it didn’t have that much money in the market – as it was only funded at about the 35% level. So when the market went down, there wasn’t as much money to lose. The pension system, however, had been previously funded at 100%.

The VEBA funding policy and the actuals are in a really good position, Crawford said. “All you need is time,” he said, and the contribution policy will work so that “you will be funded one day.”

Crawford also mentioned the Ann Arbor housing commission, but noted that the housing commission situation was something that the council had been fairly well briefed on. [For background, see Chronicle coverage: "Work Progresses on Public Housing Overhaul."]

The Future

The audit report reflects an economic firming up of the city, Crawford said. Kettner noted that there’d been a recent management conversation, and he’d suggested that Crawford present the city’s own financial statements. Another thing they’d discussed was whether they’d like a presentation to the full council – from him and the CFO.

Crawford said that the council in the past would have committees dive into things and it would be passed along to the full council. About a possible presentation to the council, Crawford said: “If we did it, I’d liven it up a little bit,” but he quipped that it’d be “no more exciting than today.”

Petersen wanted a presentation from both Kettner and Crawford to the full council. There’d be balance if both presented the information, she felt. She told Crawford: “You’re a city guy and you’re always going to want to tell us good news …” Crawford countered by saying this was the first year he’d been able to deliver good news, quipping that the feeling was unfamiliar to him.

The committee then weighed having a presentation at a work session or a regular meeting. Kunselman said that he didn’t want a lengthy PowerPoint presentation. Crawford indicated that he could do a “one-pager” and be done in 10 minutes. Kunselman felt that would be appropriate. Committee members discussed how the audit report would be provided to all councilmembers.

Crawford noted that he’s focused on GASB 68.

Auditor’s Remarks

GASB 63 and 65 standards modified the terminology used in the audit report, Kettner told the committee. Instead of “net assets” for full accrual statements, “deferred inflows of resources” and “deferred outflows” are now used. And the term “net position” is used for the equity in the full accrual basis statement. In the modified accrual statement, which is the governmental accounting, the term “fund balance” is still used.

From left: Auditor Mark Kettner and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Also, there are some new headings and some changes to the order. The opinion is no longer called an “unqualified” opinion. Instead  it’s an “unmodified” opinion. So the city’s audit this year will again be an “unmodified” or a “clean” opinion, Kettner said. That should be the expectation of management each year, he added.

The audit report includes an introduction, plus the basic financial statements and then the notes. Kettner walked the committee through the components of the report, including the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). He noted the statistical section is really interesting. He also pointed committee members to the section with notes: Why did the debt go up $9 million? It’s in the notes, he said.

The good news is that it’s only the end of October, he said. That’s about a month to a month and a half ahead of schedule for the audit. The first year of his firm’s service as auditor (last year) was more time consuming. He figured that in subsequent years, the timing would be similar or even earlier.

The management letter, like last year’s letter, includes three pages about the conduct of the audit. After the “auditor-ese” there’s “nothing there” of concern, Kettner said. The GASB 68 issue is “really really complex,” he said. It’s going to be a challenge for the city as well as for his auditing firm, Kettner said. The good news is that Crawford and accounting services manager Karen Lancaster are up to speed on the issue, he added. That’s a matter of “cake in the oven.”

There’s no attachment B, Kettner said, because there were no findings. No adjustments were made by the auditor that weren’t already identified by the city, he explained.

Management issues from last year had been addressed to the auditor’s satisfaction, Kettner concluded.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. We sit on the hard bench so that you don’t have to. 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!

Left to right: DDA board member Keith Orr, mayor John Hieftje.

The DDA had actually already adopted its FY 2014 budget – back on Feb. 6, 2013. And although it’s been customary in the past years for the DDA to adopt its budget in advance of the city council’s approval, the state enabling statute for downtown development authorities provides a different sequence: “Before the budget may be adopted by the board, it shall be approved by the governing body of the municipality.”

Considerable debate on the DDA’s budget had unfolded among city councilmembers at their May 20, 2013 meeting. And the council had ultimately decided on a 10-1 vote to approve a FY 2014 budget for the DDA that differed from the one the DDA had adopted in February. In addition to recognizing an additional $568,000 in tax increment finance revenue (TIF), the council’s action transferred an additional $300,000 from the DDA’s TIF fund to the DDA’s housing fund.

At their June 5 meeting, some DDA board members balked at the council’s action, citing the replacement of rusting-out light poles on Main Street as a more pressing need than reserving funds for undetermined future housing projects. But ultimately the board adopted the council’s approved budget on an 8-2 vote – with dissent from Sandi Smith and John Mouat. Absent from the meeting were Russ Collins and Nader Nassif.

At the June 5 meeting, the board concluded that a portion of the more than $516,000 cost for the Main Street light poles would need to come from the city’s general fund. Mayor John Hieftje indicated at the meeting that in the next month he expected the city council would be presented with a budget resolution authorizing the difference between the $516,000 total cost and the $268,000 that the DDA considers available in its council-approved budget.

Also approved by the DDA board were annual routine adjustments to its current year’s budget, which are undertaken to ensure that actual expenses and revenues are reflected accurately. The adjustments are made so that expenses do not exceed revenues in any of the funds. During those deliberations, back-and-forth between board treasurer Roger Hewitt and Newcombe Clark indicated a realization that the kind of budget amendment they were undertaking for FY 2013, at the end of the fiscal year, might be used to work around the budget levels authorized by the city council. It’s not completely clear if that strategy is possible.

But in response to Hewitt’s assurance that budget amendments could be enacted for any reason – as long as expenditures didn’t exceed revenues – Clark made his comment about people staying up too late on Monday nights. [The city council meets on Monday nights, and the council's deliberations on the DDA budget have gone long into the evening. If the DDA board can change its budget after adopting the council-approved version, then the council's deliberations would seem to be moot.]

The June meeting was Clark’s penultimate one, as his term expires at the end of July and he’s moving to Chicago to take a job there. The board’s July 3 meeting will also be board chair Leah Gunn’s last meeting, which will mark the end of over two decades of service on the DDA board, beginning in 1991.

The parking revenue and patrons report from the public parking system was one of the regular highlights of the meeting. The DDA manages Ann Arbor’s public parking system under a contract with the city. The parking report was complemented by a board resolution that awarded five additional monthly parking permits to The Varsity residential project, bringing its total to seven. The DDA can assign monthly permits to residential projects under the city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) program – which provides a mechanism for building housing without providing parking spaces onsite.

Local developer Peter Allen addressed the board during public commentary, reporting that his company had been one of three to submit bids in response to the city’s RFP (request for proposals) for brokerage services to sell the former Y lot at Fifth and William streets. He told the board he thinks the parcel is worth $5-7 million or more.

Budget Issues

The board handled two major budget issues and entertained discussion on others. The main issues were: (1) the adoption of the city-council approved FY 2014 budget, on which the council had voted at its May 20, 2013 meeting; and (2) adjustments to the FY 2013 budget, which is the current fiscal year now drawing to a close on June 30.

During deliberations at the May 20 meeting, the council had ultimately decided on a 10-1 vote to approve a FY 2014 budget for the DDA that differed from the one the DDA had adopted in February. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) cast the sole vote of dissent. In addition to recognizing an additional $568,000 in tax increment finance (TIF) revenue, the council’s action transferred an additional $300,000 from the TIF fund to the DDA’s housing fund.

Budget Issues: FY 2014

By way of background, according the state’s enabling statute for downtown development authorities, a DDA is supposed to adopt its budget after the governing municipality approves it [emphasis added]:

125.1678 Budget; cost of handling and auditing funds. Sec. 28. (1) The director of the authority shall prepare and submit for the approval of the board a budget for the operation of the authority for the ensuing fiscal year. The budget shall be prepared in the manner and contain the information required of municipal departments. Before the budget may be adopted by the board, it shall be approved by the governing body of the municipality. Funds of the municipality shall not be included in the budget of the authority except those funds authorized in this act or by the governing body of the municipality. (2) The governing body of the municipality may assess a reasonable pro rata share of the funds for the cost of handling and auditing the funds against the funds of the authority, other than those committed, which cost shall be paid annually by the board pursuant to an appropriate item in its budget

However, the Ann Arbor DDA board has typically adopted its budget before the city council approves the city’s fiscal year budget, of which the DDA’s budget is a component.

At the board’s June 5 meeting, Roger Hewitt led off the discussion on adopting the FY 2014 budget by noting that according to the state enabling legislation for DDAs, the city council approves the DDA’s budget, and then the DDA board formally adopts that budget. There were a couple of changes that the city council made compared to the budget that the DDA board had previously adopted in February, Hewitt said. So the board was being asked to consider a revised budget that reflected changes approved by city council. [.pdf of FY 2014 DDA budget adopted in February] [.pdf of revised FY 2014 DDA budget]

Income to the TIF fund was being revised in the budget based on new information from the assessor’s office – to a total of just over $4.5 million, Hewitt told the board. The council had also increased the amount of inter-fund transfers from the TIF fund to the housing fund from $100,000 to $400,000 – a $300,000 increase. The budget the board was being asked to consider, Hewitt said, showed capital costs would be increased from $300,000 to $568,000 – to replace the light poles on Main Street.

Ann Arbor Main Street rusted light pole. (Photo from April 2012 by city of Ann Arbor staff.)

Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, indicated that only $268,000 of those capital costs were intended by the DDA currently to be used for light poles on Main Street. She told the board that she was in conversation with city staff about how to come up with the difference between $268,000 and the estimated cost of doing the replacement for the poles – which is $516,000, including warranties and labor. She thought that a resolution would be presented to the city council within the next month asking for a city council approval to appropriate the remaining money from the city’s general fund. Approval for the project would be coming back to the DDA board in July, Pollay said.

Looking at the housing fund in more detail, Hewitt noted that the total $400,000 transfer into the housing fund showed up as income to that fund. Another change to the budget was to move a different $400,000 to support affordable housing in Village Green’s City Apartments project, which had originally been part of the previous year’s budget. That leaves the housing fund balance for fiscal year 2014 at about $382,000, Hewitt concluded.

By way of background, the politics of the housing fund transfer involve pending revisions to the city ordinance that regulates how the DDA’s TIF capture is calculated. The existing ordinance language, enacted in 1982, indicates a cap to TIF revenue, calibrated to the anticipated increase in tax valuation in the TIF plan, which is a foundational document for any DDA. Revenue above the cap is supposed to be returned to the taxing jurisdictions in the district, whose taxes the DDA captures. The DDA contends that it only became aware of the cap in 2011, when it was pointed out by the city treasurer.

The DDA eventually adopted the position that it could give the ordinance language an interpretation that did not require the return of any TIF dollars to the taxing jurisdictions. The DDA’s response to proposed changes to the language to prevent its non-cap interpretation of the ordinance was to raise the specter of a diminished ability of the DDA to support affordable housing. Councilmembers who were pushing to clarify the ordinance responded to the DDA’s political argument, based on affordable housing, with a political move of their own – the forced transfer of money from the DDA’s TIF fund to the housing fund.

Sandi Smith led off deliberations by saying she had a problem transferring $300,000 to the housing fund when the DDA had been working pretty hard to contribute to affordable housing, without a clear path for doing that. It’s been a struggle for the last eight years sitting on the partnerships committee trying to find solid projects and a method to invest in affordable housing downtown, she said. The transfer seems “arbitrary,” Smith said, when there are other very clear needs, giving the light poles as an example. Smith felt the DDA had been very good about putting money aside for housing, but she allowed that the DDA had cut back a couple of years in order to build the new Library Lane underground parking structure. But the board had now begun again to invest in housing and to put some money aside.

It’s challenging now, Smith said, to accept what the council had done by moving an arbitrary amount of money over into the housing fund – without a project that is specifically ready to go. She described it as unfortunate that the city had not approached the DDA partnerships committee beforehand to have a discussion with the chair of that committee or the chair of the DDA board, to ask: “Is this a useful thing for you to do?” She said it had been done in an arbitrary and off-the-cuff way at the 11th hour.

Smith asked what kind of flexibility the board had at this point. She did not see the transfer from TIF to the housing fund as a benefit to anything the DDA is doing as far as affordable housing goes. She did not feel it benefits the downtown in any way to move the money over to the housing fund in a “holding pattern,” waiting for the DDA to find a project to invest in. Hewitt told Smith that he did not necessarily disagree with her, but the state law is clear that the DDA’s budget must be approved by the city council. The DDA adopts its budget after the city council approves it. “The law is the law,” Hewitt concluded.

Newcombe Clark talks with DDA executive director Susan Pollay before the June 5 meeting.

Newcombe Clark drew out the fact that in the council’s resolution passed on May 20, the housing fund transfer is explicitly required, but the council’s direction to spend money on the Main Street light poles is put in terms of a request. He concluded that one of the moves had been forced while the other had been merely requested.

Mayor John Hieftje, who voted with the 10-member majority in supporting the council’s resolution, told the board that these issues had been discussed at the council’s meeting. He had been unsuccessful in convincing other councilmembers that the amount of the housing fund transfer should not be as great, he said. His point at the council meeting had been to stress the importance of replacing the light poles on Main Street, he added. But he noted that the original resolution that had been put forward called for an even greater amount of $500,000 to be transferred to the housing fund, which would have made it unavailable to spend on light poles. What the council had approved had been a compromise. He described the number of light poles that had blown down as three or four. [City staff in the public services area responded to an e-mail query from The Chronicle about the exact number of light poles that had failed, by explaining that two had fallen while two more had been replaced when they were deemed on inspection to be in immediate need of replacement.]

Board chair Leah Gunn ventured that the city’s general fund will have to cover the balance of the expense for the light poles [$516,000 - $268,000 = $248,000]. Hieftje indicated that he was hopeful it would be possible, but he was not sure if that would have majority support on the city council: “I can’t predict that.” But he would be voting to support replacing light poles with general fund money, he said. Smith indicated that to her it was a priority to replace light poles. She characterized the housing fund transfer as “feel-good money,” because there’s pressure for affordable housing – without a commitment by the council to find a way to fund it. She indicated she would not support the budget change even though she knew it would pass. About the council’s fund transfer, she concluded: “It’s nonsensical to me.”

Clark floated the idea that light poles in front of Ashley Mews could be replaced with housing fund dollars. Pollay told Clark that the light poles in need of replacement are located on Main Street between Huron to the north and William on the south – so, no. [Ashley Mews is south of William.] Hieftje added that Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, had characterized the need to replace the light poles on Main Street as “urgent.” [The need is based on rusting of the poles, which apparently makes them susceptible to catastrophic failure.]

John Mouat indicated agreement with Smith – though he was not so much concerned about comparing replacement of light poles to investment in housing. He was more concerned about the process. He agreed with Smith’s characterization of the amounts as arbitrary. The DDA support of affordable housing needs to take place in the context of a process, he said. So he was not inclined to support the budget. John Lowenstein pointed out that this was for the fiscal year 2014 budget, and that meant that if there were no appropriate housing projects to spend the money on in that fiscal year, then the budget for next year would be amended based on experience rather than “random decisions.”

DDA board member John Mouat.

Gunn noted that the DDA’s partnerships committee would be meeting with representatives of the housing community later in June to find out what affordable housing projects are in the pipeline. But the DDA’s commitment to affordable housing is clear, and the light poles are an emergency, Gunn concluded. During her report out from the partnerships committee, Sandi Smith had noted that the June meeting would include representatives of the affordable housing community so that the DDA board can be as informed as possible about the joint city and county goals, and how the DDA can align its work plan to best help the process. That meeting will take place two hours later than it usually does – which puts the time at 11 a.m. on June 12.

Given that the meeting with representatives of the housing community was pending, and that the city council was going to be considering possible action on funding light poles, Hieftje ventured that the DDA board had the option of postponing the vote on the budget until its next meeting, in July. Bob Guenzel responded to Hieftje by pointing out it was not actually an option because the board needed to adopt the budget before the fiscal year started. Guenzel then stated, “But I assume we can amend the budget along the way if we decide to do that in July, and that can be done.” This comment set the stage for discussion later in the meeting – about the DDA’s ability to change its budget later in the year without city council approval.

Keith Orr agreed with Mouat’s point about the process. It struck him as odd that some councilmembers said they were looking for a more autonomous DDA [an allusion to comments by Jane Lumm (Ward 2)], but at the same time the council is also giving very specific direction about how to spend the money.

Outcome: The DDA board approved the fiscal year 2014 working budget on an 8-2 vote. Dissenting were Sandi Smith and John Mouat.

Budget Issues: FY 2013

The board was also asked to consider amendments to its current year’s budget to reflect the actual revenues and expenses through the year – mainly to avoid the possible circumstance that has arisen in the past in which expenses might exceed revenues in a particular fund, which is a violation of state law. Hewitt noted that the board had already undertaken a midyear budget adjustment – to reflect some of the costs of the Library Lane parking garage construction. Changes considered at the June 5 meeting included items related to the Zingerman’s brownfield grant, pushing a $400,000 payment for Village Green’s affordable housing units to the next fiscal year, adding in grants to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission for Baker Commons improvements.

Hewitt noted that the maintenance fund for the parking system was getting down to its lowest level. The DDA has been using maintenance funds, Hewitt said, to pay for the new Library Lane parking structure. But for the next year’s budget there is a transfer of $4.4 million back into the parking maintenance fund, he reported.

Then came Clark’s inquiry about the possibilities for amending the budget generally, given that the board was amending that year’s budget to adjust it for variances near the end of the fiscal year. Clark questioned what the requirement was for amending the budget: Was the DDA required to amend its budget twice a year? Hewitt indicated that it was only necessary once, but the DDA had amended the budget previously this year – because a huge amount of construction costs had come in that were not reflected in the budget for this year. So a midyear revision was done to give a clearer idea of where the DDA would be at the end of the year.

Clark asked if the requirement was only that expenses be updated that were above budget, or if adjustments to revenue were also required to be made. Hewitt indicated that both kinds of revisions were supposed to be made – for revenues and expenses. The important thing is that the expenses can’t be above what were budgeted. Clark then made clear why he was asking question: Does it need to go back to the city council for approval? he asked. The answer Hewitt gave Clark was no. The council approves the DDA’s budget for the upcoming fiscal year, Hewitt said. But the council does not need to approve the DDA’s final budget, which reflects the DDA’s actual expenses and revenues, Hewitt contended.

Clark inquired whether there was some threshold for a reason the DDA might change its budget. Does the state of Michigan care why the DDA might change its budget? Clark asked. Not that he was aware of, Hewitt said: “It’s up to us.” The important thing is that the DDA can’t have negative fund balances, Hewitt said, stressing that the DDA can’t spend more money than it has budgeted for. Clark’s summary of what he’d drawn out: “Too many people’ve been staying up too late on Mondays, then.” The allusion was to the fact that city council had debated issues of DDA budget control at its Monday meetings, long into the night.  If the DDA retains the ability to amend its budget later, that would allow the board to work around the council-approved budget parameters.

Outcome: The DDA approved the adjustments to its FY 2013 budget.

Budget Issues: Police Funding

At its June 3, 2013 meeting, the city council had voted 8-2 to encourage the DDA to consider allocating $270,000 to fund three police officers for the downtown area. During her communications time, board chair Leah Gunn reported the council vote, which had been approved two days earlier. Gunn told the board that she was referring the request to the board’s operations committee. She indicated that the board needed to talk to the chief of police and other community members in order to weigh the council’s request.

Budget Issues: DDA Ordinance Revisions

During communications time, Roger Hewitt noted there had been quite a lot of discussion about modifying the ordinance regulating how the tax increment finance (TIF) capture for the DDA is defined. The issue had been postponed until September, he noted. [That vote by the city council postponing final consideration until Sept. 3 came on May 6, 2013.] The previous day, he and Bob Guenzel along with Susan Pollay had some informal discussions of the ordinance along with some councilmembers, Hewitt reported. [The proposed ordinance revision would clarify the existing language in Chapter 7 of the city code, originally enacted in 1982, so that the DDA's preferred interpretation – which does not cap the DDA's TIF revenue – would not be possible.]

Budget Issues: Third Quarter Update

The third-quarter financial report was also delivered by Roger Hewitt. He noted that the $1.28 million increase in parking revenue was due to the loan that the DDA had received for parking equipment from Republic Parking. Accounting rules required the DDA to show that money as revenue, with interest to be deducted as expenses. He noted that utility costs have been higher than anticipated, as were bank charges. The increased bank charges, he said, were attributed to the increased use of credit cards by parking customers. Fees charged for those credit card transactions continue to go up, he said. Hewitt also highlighted that the $400,000 payment to Village Green to support affordable housing in the City Apartments project would not take place this fiscal year. That would be pushed to the following year.

Parking for The Varsity

The DDA board was asked to consider assigning monthly parking permits to The Varsity, a residential high-rise building at 425 E. Washington St. in downtown Ann Arbor. The request was for five additional monthly parking permits in the public parking system, bringing The Varsity’s total to seven.

The right to purchase monthly parking permits – under the city’s “contribution in lieu” program – is administered by the DDA.

The DDA had previously approved two permits for The Varsity, which is a 13-story, 173-unit, 178,380-square-foot apartment building for approximately 418 people. Construction is nearing completion.

The project needs to provide a total of 76 parking spaces. That parking is required in order to qualify under the city’s zoning code for the additional floor area that the project contains, beyond a basic 400% floor area ratio (FAR). If the parking is not provided onsite, a developer can meet a parking requirement by making an upfront payment of $55,000 per space or by purchasing monthly permits in the public parking system for an extra 20% of the current rate for such permits – with a commitment of 15 years.

The Varsity’s developer had originally planned to meet part of the 76-space requirement with two spaces that were assigned to a car-sharing service. That arrangement fell through. And the developer lost a space due to physical constraints related to ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliance. Car-sharing spaces can count as four spaces apiece for satisfying parking requirements.

That led to the request for an additional five spaces, for a total of seven for The Varsity.

The Varsity is the second project to use the parking CIL. On Oct. 3, 2012, the DDA board voted to approve the purchase of up to 42 monthly permits by the 624 Church St. project, another residential development.

Parking for The Varsity: Public Commentary

Brad Moore introduced himself during public commentary time as the associate architect on The Varsity. He noted that the project had previously requested some spaces but had not requested enough of them – so they were now back to ask for a few more. He told the board that he was available to answer questions when the item was reached on the agenda.

Parking for The Varsity: Board Deliberations

When the item was reached on the agenda, Roger Hewitt asked Moore to come to the podium to answer questions. After reciting the history of the requests, Hewitt asked Moore what happened to the two physical spaces that were intended to be used for the car-sharing service. Moore explained that the deal with Zipcar had fallen through because Zipcar had wanted the spaces to be available to the general public – whereas The Varsity wanted the cars to be available just to residents of The Varsity.

What Hewitt wanted to know is what happened to the two physical spaces that prevented The Varsity from including them in its current count of parking spaces. Moore explained that the spaces are located on an adjacent property that is under the same ownership. However, because those two spaces are not a part of the project’s site plan, Moore indicated there was a problem in counting those spaces to satisfy the parking requirement. Newcombe Clark expressed some puzzlement that the spaces themselves could not count as one space apiece for the parking requirement, yet those same spots had been intended to count as four spaces apiece under the Zipcar arrangement.

Hewitt ventured that it might be possible to create some kind of an easement in perpetuity that would allow for the inclusion of those two spaces has part of the parking requirement tally for the project. John Splitt questioned whether the developer for The Varsity was even interested in pursuing such an easement. John Mouat expressed some skepticism about the idea of pursuing an easement, saying it seemed like an encumbrance on the adjoining property. Joan Lowenstein added that pursuing an easement could take several months.

Hewitt allowed that there was somewhat of a timing issue, and indicated that he would have preferred for The Varsity to have approached the DDA sooner. Still, Hewitt indicated that he would support allocating the permits. Sandi Smith added that the permits under the CIL program are purchased at a premium cost of an extra 20%. She characterized the permits as no different from any other permits. Clark questioned Smith’s characterization – venturing that the permits being granted to The Varsity would allow jumping to the front of the monthly permit line, or else would require reducing the amount of hourly parking available in the structure where the permits were being granted.

Hewitt responded to Clark by indicating his understanding was that The Varsity would need to have the permits in hand in order to receive its certificate of occupancy. Hewitt indicated that either The Varsity monthly permit requests would jump to the front of the monthly permit waitlist, if there were a list, or that the amount of hourly parking would decrease. He indicated that the waitlist turned over relatively quickly these days – but he noted that it depends on the structure. Given the small number of spaces and the hold-up it would mean for the development of a large building, Clark indicated that he would support the allocation of the spaces. However, he wanted to see the operations committee address the policy issue sooner rather than later.

Hewitt said that the operations committee is very focused on the issue of trying to rationalize needs within the system. He characterized the CIL program as stemming from an ordinance passed by the city council – saying it was not a DDA policy. However, the DDA has veto power if there are no spaces available in the system, and the DDA has the right to decide in which structure the spaces are allocated, Hewitt said. In this respect, the DDA is responding to a city ordinance, he said.

Clark asked if the developer would care if the parking permits were assigned to a structure further away from the building under construction. Moore replied that he figured the developer would prefer that the permits not be assigned to the most remote location. Clark ventured that if he were on the waitlist and he kept getting bumped for something like this, “I’d be frustrated.” Approaching the issue in a piecemeal fashion was not advisable, given the amount of construction that’s taking place downtown, Clark felt. Hewitt told Clark he agreed with him completely. He contended that demand in the public parking system is increasing at a significant rate and the DDA is trying to catch up with a very dynamic and changing system. But he agreed that the DDA needs a rational system for making the decision on permits.

Keith Orr indicated his agreement on the need for a policy so that decisions are not seemingly random. He indicated that he would be the “gadfly vote” and would vote against the allocation of permits to The Varsity just as a reminder that there needs to be a policy in place.

Outcome: The DDA board voted to allocate a total of seven monthly parking permits to The Varsity, over dissent from Keith Orr.

Routine Parking Reports

Delivering the parking report as usual was Roger Hewitt. The monthly parking report for March 2013 was up first. For that month, and he described overall revenues as up 7% compared to March 2012, although the number of hourly patrons was down by about 2%. He called 7% roughly the equivalent of the rate increase over the previous year. That translated to a flat performance on the revenue side. However, he offered some mitigating factors – one less business day, worse weather than last year, and the timing of the university’s spring break. And that accounted for the flat performance in revenue, he contended.

March was the last month of the third quarter. So Hewitt gave an update for the third quarter. For that three-month period, the number of hourly patrons was roughly flat, but revenue was up about 11%, which was above the level of the rate increases, he said. For the quarter, Hewitt characterized the parking system as having continued strong demand and good revenue growth. That was a trend that has persisted for about two years, he said.

Hewitt then reviewed the nine-month period year-to-date. Overall revenues are up 12%, though the number of hourly patrons is down a little bit, he noted. From that he concluded that people who are visiting downtown are staying longer. Revenue growth is above the level of the parking rate increases. The new Library Lane underground parking garage is showing stronger performance than had been anticipated – so it is almost to the point of starting a waitlist for monthly parking permits, Hewitt said. That’s good news and bad news, he said. It shows strong demand, but it is filling up faster in the DDA ever anticipated. And that forces the DDA to face problems down the road sooner than the DDA thought it would. John Mouat ventured that instead of “problems” they might be “opportunities.” Hewitt also indicated that downtown looks strong based on his own personal business. [Hewitt owns the Red Hawk restaurant on South State Street, and the revive + replenish grocery and cafe at Zaragon Place on East University.]

Also during his discussion of revisions to the current year’s budget, Hewitt had noted that parking revenues were higher than budgeted – attributable mostly to better-than-expected revenues from the Library Lane structure. Typically a new structure won’t generate a lot of revenue in the first couple of years, he said, because people take a while to find the structure and to change their habits. But people are changing their habits at a much more rapid pace than the DDA had anticipated, Hewitt said.

Mayor John Hieftje picked up on an earlier comment that Hewitt had made – that it might be necessary to create a waitlist for monthly parking permits for the Library Lane structure. Hewitt responded to Hieftje, saying that the challenge in coming up with a policy on that issue is that the DDA does not ask people on their way into a parking structure who they are and why they are here. Trying to balance monthly demands and hourly demands between workers and guests is not a simple thing. Clark ventured that nothing the DDA does is simple.

The following charts were generated by The Chronicle with data provided in regular monthly parking reports.

Ann Arbor public parking system total revenue.

Ann Arbor public parking system hourly patrons.

Ann Arbor public parking system surface lots.

Ann Arbor public parking system structures.

Ann Arbor public parking system total revenue by facility.

Ann Arbor public parking system. Number of hourly patrons by facility for selected facilities.

Communications, Committee Reports

The June 5 meeting included the usual range of reports from the board’s standing committees and the downtown citizens advisory council, as well as public commentary.

Comm/Comm: Economic Development Task Force

During her communications time, board chair Leah Gunn notified the rest of the board that the city council had passed a resolution establishing an economic development task force. [That action had come at the council's May 20, 2013 meeting. The task force, which includes membership from the city and Ann Arbor SPARK, as well as the Ann Arbor DDA, will consist of up to nine members. Three of the members will come from the Ann Arbor DDA board.] Gunn indicated that she was appointing board members John Mouat and Bob Guenzel, as well as executive director of the DDA Susan Pollay, to represent the DDA on the task force. [The city will be represented by city administrator Steve Powers, and city councilmembers Sally Peterson and Marcia Higgins.]

Reporting out from the partnerships committee, Joan Lowenstein said that Paul Krutko, CEO of Ann Arbor SPARK, had spoken to the committee. One thing he had stressed is the fact that “place making” matters. He’d said it’s important to “create place.” The idea is that nowadays people figure out a place they want to live and then find a job there, instead of the other way around, she said. There are a lot of businesses that SPARK talks to who want to locate downtown, but the right kind of space is not available for them, Krutko had also told the group, according to Lowenstein. And corporate leaders often raise the issue of the availability of hotel and meeting space in downtown Ann Arbor. He’d said it is a real obstacle, because other communities have the ability to host large conferences, and can then attract people who become aware of the community through their attendance at the conference.

Lowenstein cited Greenville, South Carolina, as an example of a city that has a lot of hotel and conference space downtown. A big automotive conference is hosted there, which was attended recently by six people from the University of Michigan, who spoke at the conference. It was in South Carolina, not here – where the auto industry is, Lowenstein said. Ann Arbor SPARK sees a lot of opportunity to partner with the DDA, Lowenstein said – on the topic of benchmarking against comparative communities and working to understand how places like Greenville are doing a better job than what Ann Arbor is doing, and to see what Ann Arbor can do better.

Ann Arbor SPARK has also made themselves available for RFP (request for proposals) processes like the one for the former Y property, so that SPARK can help look for appropriate businesses to locate there. Lowenstein characterized the partnerships committee session with Ann Arbor SPARK as beneficial. Sandi Smith pointed out that four councilmembers had been present at the partnerships committee meeting [Sabra Briere, Sally Petersen, Marcia Higgins, and Jane Lumm]. She described the councilmembers as engaged in the whole discussion, saying it was a very powerful meeting.

Comm/Comm: Sale of Former Y Lot

By way of background, on March 4, 2013 the city council had authorized the city administrator to issue an RFP (request for proposals) for brokerage services to sell the former Y property located at Fifth and William. It’s currently owned by the city, which it had purchased for $3.5 million. On Oct 15, 2012 the council had voted to allocate the net proceeds of the sale of the Y site to the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

During public commentary at the end of the DDA’s June 5 meeting, local developer Peter Allen reported that the bids for the RFP for brokerage services had been opened last Friday. There had been three bidders, he said: Jim Chaconas of Colliers International; Tim Guest with CB Richard Ellis Inc.; and Allen himself with his company, Peter Allen & Associates. The timetable is to interview in late June or early July, Allen said. A recommendation was supposed to go to the city council around Aug. 1, he continued.

Allen reported that he heard interest from boutique hotels and from grocery stores. Certainly ground-level retail is in demand, he said. He thought that a mix of uses would be very consistent with the connecting William Street (CWS) project – a recent planning effort that had been led by the DDA. From a market standpoint, he felt that the CWS recommendations are very solid, thorough and achievable. One of the implications for the DDA board to think about, he said, was the fact that the proceeds from the sale go to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. He felt that the market value of the parcel could be in the neighborhood of $5-$7 million, or more depending on how it is configured. The idea of adding air rights on top of the new Blake Transit Center is very feasible, Allen said. The topic of possibly updating the CWS study in the context of possible proceeds would be a suitable topic for a future meeting of the DDA, he said.

Comm/Comm: A2D2 Zoning Review

Ray Detter reported out from the previous evening’s meeting of the downtown area citizens advisory council. He noted that the DCAC had supported the passage of the A2D2 zoning and the downtown design guidelines two years ago. He recited a description of how the design guidelines provide a mandatory process, but only voluntary compliance with recommendations of the design review board.

Detter characterized the city council’s May 13, 2013 vote on the 413 E. Huron project as a 6-5 approval. But he said that the council’s opposition to the design, mass and scale of the building had been unanimous. The six members who voted for the project, Detter said, feared a possible lawsuit over a denial. From that episode, Detter concluded that there was something lacking in the city’s D1 zoning definition. [D1 is the city's zoning district that allows for the highest density development.] Detter highlighted other areas zoned D1 in the city that he felt warranted further review – including sites to the east of Sloan Plaza, and the former YMCA site at William between Fourth and Fifth avenues.

He characterized the problem as conflicts between the D1 zoning category and the nearby residential neighborhoods. He allowed that there had been a lot of public input throughout the earlier A2D2 process, but he said that the city needs to do a better job now at correcting areas where D1 zoning needs improvement. Detter then alluded to the city council’s resolution, approved on April 1, 2013, that directed the planning commission to conduct a review of D1 zoning.

The recommendations resulting from that review should not be left up to the planning commission’s ordinance revision’s committee, he said. He contended that a lot of people did not believe that floor area ratio (FAR) premiums should be provided for “things we don’t want as a community – student housing, for one thing.” [Currently, the D1 zoning category allows for 400% FAR by right, with additional by-right FAR provided for residential use.] Some people say that a moratorium is needed while the community makes up its mind about these things, Detter said. “We don’t want 413 [East Huron] to happen again,” Detter concluded.

He allowed that the council’s resolution directing the review set Oct. 1 as a deadline. But Detter contended that no real schedule had been set for getting it done.

Comm/Comm: July 3 Meeting Date

During communications time, board chair Leah Gunn raised the question of the board’s regular monthly meeting date in July – which this year falls on July 3. She offered the choice of changing the date or keeping it as it is: “What is your pleasure?” John Mouat indicated that he would not be able to attend. With no further comment from the board, by apparent mutual assent the established meeting date of July 3 remained unaltered.

During communications time Gunn also pointed out that no regular meeting was scheduled for the month of August, which is the board’s custom.

Comm/Comm: A2 Downtown Blooms Day

Nancy Stone, who handles communications for the public services area of the city of Ann Arbor, addressed the board during public commentary time to thank the DDA for its annual support of A2 Downtown Blooms Day. She highlighted the contrast between now and 25 years ago, when the annual volunteer date was called Downtown Cleanup Day. Whereas 25 years ago people were using brooms to sweep up litter, today it’s a festival of planting flowers and beautifying the city, she said. In addition to the DDA she thanked the merchant associations and Pizza House, which provided pizzas for the volunteers. She showed the board a video that had been created by 2|42 Kids Care Club assisting with the event last month.

Comm/Comm: Stipends for Street Performers?

During communications time toward the start of the meeting, mayor John Hieftje, who also sits on the DDA board, told other board members that he wanted to share an idea he had also discussed briefly at the downtown marketing task force the previous day. He described being at the farmers market a few weeks ago, when it was a beautiful sunny day, and he had gone over to Sculpture Plaza where a group of University of Michigan students were playing an interesting array of instruments – an accordion, an upright bass, and a saxophone. It was very nice music, he continued, and they were drawing a crowd. He characterized it as very pleasant.

Hieftje recalled a few summers ago being in Montreal and seeing some street performers. In talking to them afterwards, he said, they revealed that they had received a stipend for performing. So he wanted to see the DDA board explore the idea, which might amount to a few hundred dollars per occasion, to sponsor some “spontaneous” street performances – though he allowed they would not be exactly “spontaneous.” He ventured that such a program might cost $2,000 a year. That kind of thing might make it more interesting to be downtown, he said.

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

Absent: Nader Nassif, Russ Collins.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, July 3, 2013, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]

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

The result of those changes leaves a budget with $22,237,924 in revenues against $26,339,555 in expenses for the year – which translates to a planned use of the DDA’s fund balance reserve of $4,101,632. That’s about half of the existing fund balance. The FY 2013 budget projects a fund balance at the end of FY 2013, on June 30, 2013, of $4,380,341. [.pdf of revised FY 2013 DDA budget]

The budget originally approved by the DDA board on March 7, 2012 showed revenues of $22,097,956 against $24,101,692 in expenditures – for an excess of expenditures over revenues of $2,003,736.

Much of the roughly $2 million in additional expenses in the adjusted budget is attributable to construction costs of the Library Lane underground parking structure, which was completed in July 2012. That money had been budgeted, but not spent in FY 2012. To account for Library Lane parking structure construction, the adjustments to this year’s budget show an additional $850,000 to be expended from the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) fund and $1,792,388 from the DDA’s parking fund. The DDA’s audited finances show that for FY 2012, the DDA spent about $2.5 million less than anticipated for that year – because the construction invoices were not all submitted to the DDA by the time books closed for the year.

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

Optimism was based on ridership data for the fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30 – which includes a record-setting 6,325,785 rides on the regular bus service, up 6.6% over the previous year, and 3.4% more than the previous record year of 2009.

AATA board member David Nacht expressed concern about the idea of adding back in project elements to the new Blake Transit Center, grounding his concern in part in the fact that he was wearing his “treasurer’s hat.” (Photos by the writer.)

Damping enthusiasm were the year-end budget numbers, which showed the AATA posting a deficit around $260,000 greater than the one it had budgeted for, leaving an excess of expenditures over revenues of $1,255,312. [.pdf of unaudited FY 2012 financials] That comes in the context of an approved budget for the just-begun current fiscal year, which includes an anticipated deficit of about $300,000. The board’s Oct. 18 deliberations revealed the fact that only by recalculating the amount in the AATA’s cash reserves did the organization currently have the required three-month operating reserve on hand.

In that financial context, board members were not inclined to add back in some elements that had recently been cut out of the new Blake Transit Center project, which would have brought the project budget to nearly $8.5 million. The construction contracts approved by the board at its meeting totaled a bit over $8 million, which was still dramatically larger than the smaller $3.5 million project the AATA had started with over three years ago. Instead of taking the less ambitious strategy, the AATA opted to locate the new, larger center on the opposite side of the same parcel where it currently stands. Construction on the two-story Fifth Avenue-facing center is now expected to start in late November or early December.

The board’s deliberations on the new transit center focused on whether to add back into the project some items that had been removed to bring the cost down from $8.5 to $8 million. Of the three items on the table – automatic ticketing kiosks, real-time bus arrival information displays, and LEED certification of the building – only the LEED certification was added back in, at a cost of $80,000.

At the Oct. 18 meeting, the board also got an update on the situation surrounding the incorporation of the new Act 196 board for The Washtenaw Ride. Michael Ford, AATA’s CEO, indicated that the AATA would be reimbursing Washtenaw County for the cost of renotifying jurisdictions in the county regarding their option not to participate in the new authority. He confirmed that AATA board members would not serve simultaneously on the current board and the board of the new authority, as previously expected. Ford indicated that AATA legal counsel believes that what the AATA has done to date already complies with the law, but the AATA is exercising extreme caution.

Several members of the future Act 196 board attended the meeting and had a voice at the table, but not a vote.

The board’s meeting concluded with a closed session lasting nearly two hours on pending litigation.

Budget

The fiscal year that just ended on Sept. 30, 2012 was one item discussed, as was follow-up from approval at the board’s previous meeting of the budget for fiscal year 2013, which began on Oct. 1. The state of the budget was general background for the discussion of the Blake Transit Center item, which was the one voting item on the board’s meeting agenda.

Budget: FY 2012

The Ann Arbor Transportation Authority had budgeted for a nearly $1 million deficit this year, but wound up with an excess of expenditures over revenues that was actually $260,000 more than that. The unaudited figures reported to the AATA board at its Oct. 18 meeting showed a deficit for the year of $1,255,312. [.pdf of unaudited FY 2012 financials]

Several reasons were given for the additional shortfall, which resulted in only $27,617,099 in actual revenues compared with the $29,418,995 that was budgeted. Those reasons included: $120,842 less in passenger revenue; $269,095 less in local transit tax revenue; $529,214 less in purchase-of-service revenue; and $927,149 less in federal funding. That was balanced somewhat by reduced expenses in some categories, including: about $500,000 less in compensation; $600,000 less in purchased services (including consulting); and $550,000 in savings due to the delayed launch of the service between downtown Ann Arbor and Detroit Metro Airport.

Based on board discussion at the meeting, the AATA currently has just about exactly the three-month operating reserves on hand that it’s required to maintain by board policy.

Budget: Reserve Status

Reporting from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Roger Kerson noted there’d been shortfalls in the FY 2012 year-end numbers for various reasons. For the time being, those numbers put the AATA under the three-month’s worth of cash reserve level. According to Kerson, controller Phil Webb had identified additional money. And there’s an interpretation of what the three-month reserve actually means, Kerson said. Some one-time expenses – for example, for the connector study – are one-time expenses, and it’s not necessary to maintain a reserve against those types of expenses, he said.

Budget: FY 2013

As a follow-up from the previous regular meeting, AATA CEO Michael Ford noted that a worksheet had been provided in the board information packet detailing the budget changes that had been made to the current year’s budget, which began on Oct. 1. [.pdf of detail on budget changes] Those changes had been made shortly before the board voted on the final budget, which was different from one reviewed in committee. The changes were necessary due to a reduction in state operating assistance of around $800,000. It had still resulted a $300,000 planned deficit for FY 2013 instead of the essentially break-even budget that had initially been reviewed in committee. Ford noted that the worksheet included those items that had been considered for elimination but were kept in the budget – at the request of board member Sue Gott.

New Blake Transit Center

The board considered a resolution to approve construction contracts totaling $8,049,988 for a new downtown Ann Arbor transit center. The initiative began over three years ago with a much smaller budget of around $3.5 million.

Blake Transit Center: Background

The original concept was to build the new center on the same footprint as the existing Blake Transit Center.

This AATA-owned parcel, where Blake Transit Center is located, sits in the middle of the block bounded by Fourth and Fifth avenues on the west and east, and by Liberty and William streets on the north and south. (Image links to higher resolution view. Parcel map and aerial photo from Washtenaw County’s website: gisweb.ewashtenaw.org/website/mapwashtenaw/)

But the concept changed to one that will construct a larger building at a different location – still on the same parcel where it currently stands, between Fourth and Fifth avenues, but on the opposite side of the block from its current site.

Bus traffic to the new Fifth Avenue-facing center will enter from Fourth Avenue and exit onto Fifth, which is opposite from the current traffic flow. In order to square off the parcel for the new construction, a six-foot wide strip of land on the southwestern edge of the parcel was purchased by the AATA from the city of Ann Arbor for $90,000.

Construction bids came in totaling $8.5 million. But as of the board’s Jan. 19, 2012 meeting, the AATA had only identified about $7 million in funding for the project. At that meeting, the board authorized a $7 million project budget –  in the context of approving its capital and categorical grant program for 2012–2016. That amount was an increase from a $5.5 million project budget that been approved at the board’s Aug. 24, 2011 meeting, when it had revised the capital grant program. The initial project budget had been $3.5 million.

The increase in cost is described in a staff memo accompanying the board’s Oct. 18 resolution as due to a variety of factors, including changes in design based on community input and environmental analysis. The original $3.5 million design was for a one-story building on the current building’s footprint. The approved design is for a three-level structure (two above ground) with foundations that could support another two stories – at an additional cost of $100,000. Subjecting the project to the city’s regular site plan approval process – which is not a legal requirement – cost several hundred thousand dollars, according to the staff memo. The city’s planning commission reviewed the project on July 17, 2012 and the city council received the review as part of its Aug. 20 meeting written communications.

Aerial view of the Blake Transit Center site plan. The building will come in at around 12,000 square feet.

According to a memo to the board from AATA CEO Michael Ford, money identified by the AATA beyond the $7 million budget included $700,000 from a 2002 federal grant that apparently had been earmarked for a new Blake Transit Center. The gap between the $7.7 million and the $8.5 million total construction bid could have been covered through an additional $750,000 in federal formula funds (Section 5307) that are available this year.

The board’s performance monitoring and external relations committee was divided at its Oct. 16 meeting on the question of increasing the budget to the $8.5 million mark. The committee recommended revisions to the project to cover the gap only to the point of $8,049,988. [.pdf of constructions contracts for BTC] The committee was interested in consulting the board as a whole to contemplate the issue of possibly increasing the budget further.

A memo from Ford to the full board asked for consideration of nearly the full construction bid amount, so that key elements could be restored to the project: LEED Gold certification ($80,000); real-time bus arrival kiosk signage ($180,000); and ticket vending machines ($125,000). Those three items would have brought the total project cost to $8,424,988.

Blake Transit Center: Board Discussion – Preliminaries

Roger Kerson reported from the performance monitoring and external relations committee meeting and described a “spirited discussion” about the Blake Transit Center project. He noted that the proposed budget has increased quite a bit since the start. He characterized the increased scope of the project and the budget as coming from a deliberate process of gathering community input and addressing needs of riders and planning for the future.

AATA board members Sue Gott and Roger Kerson.

The result is that the original $3.5 million project is now an $8.5 million project. But there was only a bit more than $7 million budgeted for the project, he said. He and David Nacht had been concerned about that, he said. It might be possible to shift money out of federal capital funds. What the committee had asked staff to do was to reduce the project budget – reasoning that the best course was to leave it to the board’s “collective wisdom” as to which option to choose. The option of the reduced project was being presented for the board’s consideration, he said. But the items that were removed are specified, so the resolution can be discussed in that context.

He felt that committee members are aware of the hard work that has gone into the planning process, as well as the timelines that the AATA is up against to start construction. But the board also needs to be the best possible stewards of public funds. They’re state and federal funds, but it’s still taxpayer money, he said.

Some questions and commentary from Bill Lavery, Anya Dale and Michael Ford centered around the impact of using federal formula funds (Section 5307) to cover the gap in funding between the budgeted amount and the $8.5 million cost that had resulted from construction bids.

The programming of the Section 5307 federal funds through 2015 shows a balance of $419,281. A memo included in the board’s information packet and written by Chris White, AATA’s manager of service development, notes that allocating an additional $600,000 of Section 5307 federal funds – as required to bring the new Blake Transit Center budget to $8.5 million – would have an impact on other planned uses of the funds. [.pdf of White's memo and allocation of federal funds by year]

Ford indicated that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) had also contacted the AATA indicating that there was additional money specifically for the Blake Transit Center. “It was some money they had sitting somewhere, and I hate to say it that way, but it was available to us for that purpose,” Ford said. Kerson noted that even the additional FTA money – which meant that the dedicated funds for the project rose from around $7 million to $7.7 million – did not get the budget to $8.5 million.

Blake Transit Center: Board Discussion – Justifying Cost

When the board reached the Blake Transit Center project on the agenda, Jesse Bernstein led off the deliberations. He characterized the PMER committee discussion about the costs as “lively.” He said that he, too, was concerned about the costs. The committee looks at the details behind the rationale, he said. He reviewed the extended time that had been taken to involve other partners in the area and customers. He pointed to the $90,000 purchase of land from the city of Ann Arbor, which increased the cost. Another reason the cost had increased, he said, was due to a contingency of $300,000 that had been added. That contingency had not been included in the original projection, he said. The committee felt that is was prudent to add that, which is typical with most construction projects. Another element that had increased the costs was city fees, he said – fees for building permits and water connections were assumed to be at a particular cost and they turned out to be much higher, he said.

So the committee had pressed staff to see what could be cut out, Bernstein said. Some back-and-forth between Bernstein and other board members and staff established that the three items left out of the final budget were: LEED Gold Certification ($80,000); real-time bus arrival kiosk signage; and ticket vending machines ($125,000).

AATA maintenance manager Terry Black, who is managing the Blake Transit Center project.

A $243,000 cost for heated sidewalks and driveways – to eliminate the need for snow and ice removal in the winter – was included in the lower budget figure. Terry Black, maintenance manager, confirmed that the AATA has spent up to $75,000 in a year for winter maintenance of the existing facility. Bernstein characterized the cost of the heated sidewalks and driveways as realizing a return on their investment in about three years.

David Nacht noted that he’d sat on the planning and development committee (PDC) during the last couple of years as the project was being considered. That committee had been comfortable with the doubling in cost from $3.5 million to $7 million – taking into account significant environmental concerns and community concerns about aesthetics.

Accommodating that input was appropriate to the AATA’s role in the Ann Arbor community as good partners with the city, the neighborhood associations, and the business community, he said. He also said that another significant increased cost in the building is that it has the future potential to be built higher than the currently planned two stories above ground – for example, by a private-sector developer, Nacht said. That developer could pay AATA or The Washtenaw Ride in some kind of public-private partnership and establish a future revenue stream. That would mean investing in this part of downtown, and possibly recouping some of that investment in the form of future revenue, he said.

Blake Transit Center: Board Discussion – Treasurer’s Concern

But Nacht was concerned about increasing the cost from $8 million to $8.5 million. The last time PDC looked at the project, the budget was $7 million, he noted. There’d been no contingency in the budget at that time, he said, and he was fine with adding $300,000 as a contingency, noting that he hoped it didn’t get spent.

And he was fine with increasing the budget from $7.3 million to $8 million – because that’s federal money earmarked for this project, and could be described as “use it or lose it.” The budget is mostly federal money that is specifically earmarked for the Blake Transit Center project, he said, that cannot be used for other purposes. The building was in need of renovations costing at least $1 million in any case, he said. But through the help of Congressman John Dingell and Senator Carl Levin, most of the funding had been obtained.

Nacht noted that the discussion at the last board meeting had included a fiscal challenge – because the state is cutting back its funding of the AATA. Nacht viewed the situation from the perspective of the board treasurer. He noted that the board had just heard during the discussion of the year-end budget figures that AATA is just at the three-month cash reserve level. The AATA is also in an expansionary phase, Nacht said. So far it’s been successful – and the expanded service is resulting in additional riders. That means the AATA is offering services that people are using. If you dig into the detail of the past year’s service, he said, NightRide and ARide services are being well-used and that had contributed to the current fiscal situation, because they are expensive to operate.

AATA board member David Nacht checked the nameplate as he arrived to make sure he was sitting in the right spot.

The AATA can’t just keep saying yes to expanded services without some sort of change in the fiscal direction. That wouldn’t be sustainable, Nacht said. So he didn’t care what cuts were needed to go from $8.5 million to $8 million, but “I don’t want to spend that half a million bucks,” he concluded. It’s a building – where people get on the bus and get off the bus, he noted. At the end of the day, buses cost $600,000, and fiscal challenges happen, and “at some point, we have to stop buying things,” Nacht said, in order to be fiscally prudent. He had nothing bad to say about any of the specific project elements, and figured there were many more that could be added, but he didn’t want to spend “a nickel more than 8 million bucks on it.”

Blake Transit Center: Board Discussion – Big Enough?

Eli Cooper said he was reminded of a conversation of an even larger opportunity at that location, where the AATA was looking to expand to include the Fifth and William parcel – the site of the former YMCA building. [It's now owned by the city and used as a surface parking lot.] That project failed for a variety of reasons, Cooper said. The current proposal looks like it has a number of challenges, he said. The reinforcement of the foundations to allow for just two additional levels was a concern for Cooper. The matter-of-right development allowed by the D1 zoning for the area was not just the 400% floor-area-ratio (FAR) that the two additional stories would yield, but rather the higher-density 700%, Cooper observed.

A response from Nacht described the possibility of eventually combining the new BTC building with a future development on what is now a surface parking lot at Fifth and Division. [But Cooper's point – that the AATA was not thinking of the largest possible option allowed under city zoning – seemed to elude Nacht and other board members.] Cooper reiterated that he wanted to make sure that the AATA was maximizing the potential of the site.

Cooper also wanted to know how space in the new building was allocated: staff use compared to rider use.

Jesse Bernstein responded to Cooper by recalling how the public meetings had included questioning of the need for so many staff restrooms. The explanation is that drivers have little time to go to the bathroom between ending and starting their routes. Access to bathrooms can have an impact on on-time performance, he said. The second floor also includes a backup emergency dispatch center, and space for getDowntown program staff offices, Bernstein said.

Later in the meeting, when AATA manager of maintenance Terry Black was asked to the podium to explain the scope of the current building’s programming, he described how the getDowntown staff, who are employees of the AATA, were currently leasing space in downtown Ann Arbor. [That cost is borne by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.] The 12,000-square-foot new building would provide office space for getDowntown, Black said. The AATA headquarters facility at 2700 S. Industrial is maxed out in terms of office space, Black said. [On the most recent visit to that location by The Chronicle, a cubicle had been set up in a hallway area.]

Black also described the new building’s canopy, stormwater collection system from that canopy for use of graywater (toilet flushing) within the building, and the phased demolition of the existing building.

Blake Transit Center: Board Discussion – Needed Elements

Cooper ventured it’s not an issue of the operators’ needs. But in doubling the size of building, in the context of a tight budget time, he wondered about the inclusion of a secondary dispatch center contrasted with “significant elements for the benefit of our customers.” Real-time information is simply an expectation at a modern transit center, Cooper said. Now the board is being given a choice to leave it out. He wondered if the AATA was carpeting and outfitting a second level of the building at the expense of some elements that would make the AATA’s service more useful for its riders. He’d not been involved in the planning, he allowed, but when funds are low and there’s a need to make some tradeoffs, he was raising the question because he wanted to be comfortable as a board member that the board is making the right tradeoffs.

Nacht asked for Black’s assessment of the choices to be made. He agreed with Cooper about the inclusion of real-time information. But the decision of how to save the $0.5 million had been left up to the staff, he said.

Black essentially reviewed all the building elements. The building is entirely barrier-free and will meet ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act] code, he said. At the conclusion of the meeting during public commentary,  Carolyn Grawi – Center for Independent Living director of advocacy and education – indicated she was happy that Black and Bernstein had mentioned the barrier-free design.

Black noted that the Federal Transit Administration requires the AATA to spend 1% on art. And some of the cost associated with the building stems from the choice of materials, he said. The choice was for limestone, instead of cast stone. Limestone would give a more durable long-lasting building, he said, but cost more. Drywall could have been specified for the bathrooms, instead of tile, but tile is more durable. The heated sidewalks and driveway cost more now, but they’re an effort to reduce maintenance costs, while ensuring safety for riders.

Blake Transit Center: Board Discussion – Contingency

Sue Gott asked about the contingency amount. Why wasn’t there a contingency originally and why is it set at the proposed percentage? Terry Black indicated that a contingency wasn’t something that had been talked about initially. The $300,000 contingency is “very tight,” he allowed. But he felt comfortable that everything had been scoped out and the numbers were good. There are unknowns in any construction project, he said, but he allowed that the contingency is a concern.

In connection with the contingency, Michael Ford ventured that the ticketing kiosk and real-time information components might be held back until the project is halfway constructed, and if it’s recognized at that point that the additional contingency is not needed, those elements could be re-included.

Charles Griffith was concerned that the proposal before the board was not to take the extra step to obtain LEED certification at the Gold level, given that the building had been designed to meet that standard. [LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, a rating system for energy-efficient building practices.] Black told Griffith that the LEED-designed building would be built. But without the additional $80,000 for the certification process, there would not be a certificate. The $80,000 could be used on some other area.

Griffith ventured that seemed like a significant lost opportunity to go to the effort to design for that LEED standard, and not be able to show that the building had actually reached that level. He would not personally support taking that component out. [Griffith is energy and climate programs director at the Ecology Center, an Ann Arbor nonprofit.]

Gott received confirmation that eliminating the LEED certification in the budget would not result in the elimination of any design elements – but that it would mean that costs associated with the submittals for certification wouldn’t be incurred.

Roger Kerson ventured that part of the problem is that “the cake is pretty well baked.” He’d hate to take out real-time bus information. If the process was in an earlier stage, it might be possible to try to live without the training room on the second floor, for example. But changes to the square footage at this point mean a change in design and that’s not free, he said. What Black and the staff were trying to identify were those “standalone” elements that could be removed.

Gott wanted clarification of the cost increase due just to the more substantial footings that are designed to bear the load of potentially a four-story building. Black told her it’s about $100,000.

From left: Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber and AATA board chair Charles Griffith chat before the Oct. 18 AATA board meeting started.

Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber – who serves on the future Washtenaw Ride’s board – ventured that he was certainly no expert in construction, but the Hamilton Crossing project under construction in Ypsilanti is an $18 million project and had a 10% contingency. The amount the AATA has included for the Blake Transit Center is low compared to that, he said. [$300,000 on a $7.7 million project for total of $8 million is about 3.5%.]

Blake Transit Center: Board Discussion – LEED Certification

Griffith came back to the LEED gold certification. He felt the board could agree that the design was meant to achieve the LEED certification standard. But the AATA wouldn’t be able to state that in a public way. You’d have to be very careful about how you discussed it, if you don’t have the LEED certification. It’s highly improper to say you’ve achieved LEED certification if you haven’t, he said. You’d have to say, “Well, we built to potentially meet LEED.”

He asked Sue Gott, who’s the chief planner for the University of Michigan, if UM would ever go to the trouble to design a LEED-certified building and then not actually certify it. Gott’s answer: “We did that with North Quad. We utilized the funds for elements of the building rather than the cost of the LEED certification.” [North Quad is a new student dorm at the corner of South State and Huron.] Later in the meeting, Gott expressed some uncertainly about the level of the North Quad LEED design. Responding to a follow-up emailed query from The Chronicle, she wrote that the North Quad building would have met the basic certified level, if UM had pursued that certification. The other levels in order are silver, gold, and platinum.

Bernstein said he agreed with the concerns that had been expressed. Having been involved with the planning, there’d been several unexpected turns, he said, including the fact that no one ever figured that an easement might be granted by the federal building folks to provide a walkway on the northern side of the parcel, which was a precursor to thinking about moving the site of the new building.

Blake Transit Center: Board Discussion – “Go for it”

Other than through the buses themselves, the most public statement the AATA makes is through the Blake Transit Center, Bernstein said.

From left: AATA CEO Michael Ford and board chair Charles Griffith.

Around 5,000 people a day people go through the BTC. He agreed with the concern about financing, however. Without wanting to seem “crass” about it, Bernstein said he thought the AATA ought to “go for it” and increase the budget to $8.5 million so that the three elements could be restored. To the public, the AATA could say that everything had been checked at every step of the way and it had been reviewed by committees and the public. Some people feel you shouldn’t spend anything on anything, Bernstein.

The AATA has to look at a commitment to improving the infrastructure for the future. It’s possible to stay in the current building and simply give all the money back to the feds, he said. He argued for not doing something partway, but rather getting as much out of the building as the AATA can. Constructing a building to last 10-15-20 years versus 20-30-40 makes a big difference, he said. He didn’t see a huge difference in $8.05 million and $8.5 million.

Anya Dale noted that her understanding was that a lot of the extra cost stemmed from incorporating public requests for what they wanted in a downtown transit center. Real-time information was an important request, she said. She agreed with Eli Cooper that providing real-time information was a key element for providing quality service.

Griffith returned to the LEED certification issue. He described it as a fairly intensive process of gathering data and doing analysis. It’s not just paperwork, he said.

Blake Transit Center: Board Discussion – Contingency Redux

David Nacht said he had no opinion about the particular point of the LEED certification. His concern was based on comments from Sue Gott and Paul Schreiber about the amount set aside in the project for contingency – that the amount might not be sufficient. He wanted to hear something about that. In a context where the organization is taking itself right up to the point of its required cash reserve level, the idea that the contingency for the project might not be sufficient would make him want to table the project.

Terry Black asked Matt Berg from Spence Brothers Construction to address the issue. Berg said he’d been working with Black for the last year. He was recommending a 5% contingency, based on the level of the design that’s been done. The drawings are done, and the project has been bid and scoped, he said. There’d been 80 bidders on 16 different construction packages. Contracts could be written now, he said. He felt that 5% should be sufficient.

Matt Berg, construction estimator with Spence Brothers Construction.

Schreiber’s higher number of 10% would be more typical if they were further behind in the design process and were still drawing. Nacht responded to Berg’s comments by saying, “Well, that was comforting!” Nacht continued by saying he had no particular opinion about the items identified for possible re-inclusion. However, he did have an opinion about dipping into funds beyond those that had been previously budgeted. As treasurer, he didn’t want to be in a position of having to come back and remind the board of this moment and saying, “Okay, we’re going to cut bus service now and fire staff now, because you wanted to build a building and make it a certain level building.”

Jesse Bernstein got confirmation from Black that the funding for the building won’t come out of operations funding. So the construction of the building wouldn’t result in reducing service or firing staff. Rather, it’s about buying buses or buying replacement parts possibly later than they otherwise would.

A somewhat inconclusive conversational thread ensued about the nature of the funds that were being tapped. Nacht noted that under federal transit law, preventive maintenance funds could be converted into operations funding to pay people and to buy fuel, he said. The AATA had recently received a budget shock and could receive additional shocks – for example, if the U.S. were to go to war with Iran next year, fuel prices could go through the roof, he said. Wearing his treasurer’s hat, it was his job to say these kinds of things.

Roger Kerson felt the Section 5307 funds were normally allocated for projects such as park-and-ride lots, not buses, which CEO Michael Ford seemed to confirm.

Eli Cooper was particularly sensitive to the process that has more than doubled in price – but that was the result of working with stakeholders. He’d been preparing to add an amendment to restore the three items to the budget, but had elected not to do that – out of respect for Nacht’s concern as the treasurer. It might be more appropriate to add those items back when the AATA had more confidence in its financial position, he said. There has to be a point in time where prudence takes over, he said. To hear that careful accounting has to be done in order to confirm that the cash reserve policy is being met, he said, means that it’s time to look at the project and ask the staff to perhaps find different additional sources of revenue to make sure that those features can be included that will ensure the new building is state-of-the-art.

Karen Lovejoy Roe expressed some support for the idea that Ford has suggested – that about halfway into the project the AATA would have a better idea of whether some of the additional items could be included under the contingency. She agreed with Schreiber that 5% seemed like a really low number. [Lovejoy Roe is Ypsilanti Township clerk and a member of the future Washtenaw Ride's board.]

Griffith indicated that he’d be open to an amendment along the lines of the items would be added in, if it appears there are sufficient resources as construction on the project progresses.

Bernstein didn’t feel such an amendment was necessary. If the staff comes back and says there’s extra money, the board can vote on that if it’s brought forward. If the motion is passed, the staff will still know that the board would like to see those items eventually included in the project. Black noted that the LEED certification has to begin with the start of the construction. The approach that Bernstein suggested might work for the real-time information display and the ticketing kiosk, however.

Blake Transit Center: Board Discussion – Adding LEED

Griffith said he wanted to prioritize that LEED item because it can’t be added after-the-fact. He just feels like it would be a real shame not to get the building certified for the high level it’s designed to achieve.

So that amendment was offered formally.

Cooper ventured that the $80,000 for LEED certification “buys us a certificate,” but wondered, “What else does it get us?”

Black indicated that the cost would include a year’s worth of testing and an outside contractor to verify all systems and to ensure that they’re working correctly. It includes monitoring during the construction process and after.

Nacht indicated that he just didn’t understand the significance of the certification, so he wanted Griffith to make a pitch, saying, “My off-the-cuff reaction is that 80 grand for piece of paper so that we can waive it around isn’t the best use of taxpayer dollars, when I’m not buying a ticket machine that a human being can use to get on a bus.”

Griffith indicated that obtaining LEED certification is part of the process of proving you’ve built the building to any standard at all. The AATA would be hard-pressed to say anything about the intent to met LEED standards. It’s meaningless to say anything about what your intention was without the certification, he said.

Nacht interjected with a question: If the whole point is to design an environmentally-sound building that’s good for the planet, and good for energy costs and good for the community, what is the added value of being able to say that we did it?

Griffith replied that the added value is that many people make environmental claims, but don’t back them up. And if you don’t go through the process, you can’t claim that it meets the standard. Drawing an analogy to other kinds of standards, AATA wouldn’t want to omit documentation for safety standards, he said.

Griffith quipped that it’s too bad the FTA does not have the same commitment to LEED certification as it does to public art.

Some conversation ensued about the graywater features and other environmental elements in the building that were a part of the LEED design.

Outcome on the amendment: The board approved the restoration of the LEED certification in the Blake Transit Center project budget, over dissent from Eli Cooper and David Nacht.

Outcome on the main motion: Without significant  further deliberation, the board unanimously approved the project budget for the new Blake Transit Center.

Incorporation of New Act 196 Authority

During his verbal report to the board, AATA CEO Michael Ford reviewed events of the last few weeks in connection with the AATA’s effort to expand the geographic area of its funding and governance. At a special meeting on Oct. 2, 2012, the board had authorized filing of the articles of incorporation for the new transit authority – under Act 196 of 1986. They were filed with the state through the Washtenaw County clerk on Oct. 3, Ford said. The AATA’s interpretation was that the 30-day opt-out period had started with the filing of the articles, and letters had been sent out to all jurisdictions in the county to that effect.

Several members of the future board of The Washtenaw Ride joined the AATA board at the table for the Oct. 18, 2012 AATA board meeting. They had a voice but not a vote. Starting at the near right and going clockwise around the table are: Charles Griffith (AATA), CEO Michael Ford, Jesse Bernstein (AATA), Eli Cooper (AATA), Karen Lovejoy Roe (TWR), Bill Mester (TWR), Paul Schreiber (TWR), David Philips (TWR), David Nacht (AATA), Sue Gott (AATA), Roger Kerson (AATA), Bill Lavery (TWR), and Anya Dale (AATA).

The city of Ann Arbor had recently “communicated a different interpretation of the 30-day opt-out period,” he said. The city suggested that the articles were not in effect until 30 days after the filing. So the opt-out period could not begin until around Nov. 3, Ford said. AATA legal counsel feels that AATA has complied with all laws related to the formation of a new transit authority, Ford continued, but out of an “abundance of caution,” additional time will be provided to make a decision to withdraw from the new transit authority. According to Ford, the city has given the go-ahead for a second notification to be sent out, this time by Washtenaw County, and the AATA will reimburse any costs associated with that. Ford said the AATA felt it was “on firm ground” with those issues. Clerks of all municipalities have been notified about the planned re-notification, and Ford said that the AATA “regret[s] any confusion the delay may have created.”

Besides the 30-day window for opting out, the AATA is also working with the city of Ann Arbor to establish representatives from Ann Arbor on the board of the new authority. “Contrary to our plans and understanding that the Act 55 board would automatically become a part of the Act 196 board, the city has chosen to proceed in this manner, citing possible violations of the incompatible offices statute,” Ford said.

So the city will appoint seven new board members, and Ford noted that process has begun with mayor John Hieftje’s nomination at the city council’s Oct. 15, 2012 meeting of two people to serve on the new board: Susan Baskett, who currently serves as a trustee on the Ann Arbor Public Schools board; and Tony Derezinski, who currently serves on the city council. [Derezinski will be leaving the council in mid-November, because he did not prevail in his August Democratic primary race. His last city council meeting will be Nov. 8. For more details and analysis, see previous Chronicle reporting: “Positions Open: New Transit Authority Board.”]

From left: Paul Schreiber, Michael Ford and David Philips.

Other nominations to the new board are expected to be forthcoming, Ford said. “While the new development has caused some delays, we are viewing this as an opportunity for a coordination process going forward so all parties can be comfortable in working together,” Ford concluded.

Later during the meeting, AATA board chair Charles Griffith said it was “a little bit of a surprise that our process for creating this  new authority got a little adjusted this past month. We started out with a bang with our action earlier this month to initiate the process for creating the new authority.” He said it was  not really a big concern if it takes a little longer, adding that he was not worried if some of the faces are new, when the new board is actually seated. He’s not worried that they won’t be friendly, he said. The AATA board would do everything it can to ensure a smooth transition.

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

At its Oct. 18 meeting, the AATA board entertained various communications, including its usual reports from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the planning and development committee, as well as from CEO Michael Ford. The board also heard commentary from the public. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Record Ridership

At the start of the meeting, saying he didn’t want it to be buried in a committee report, David Nacht stressed that the 2012 fiscal year had concluded with a record number of riders – well over 6 million, he said.

Ridership for FY 2012 (bars) compared against FY 2011 (trend line).

The AATA is continuing to attract new riders – and it was not the case that the increase could be attributed to uniformly high gas prices, he said. A lot of the increase is related to expansion of service on particular routes, he said. He summed up his comments by saying that the board had a lot to thank the staff for and a lot to be proud of.

During his oral report to the board, CEO Michael Ford also noted the 6.3 million rides on the fixed-route service, which was the largest number of rides since the inception of fixed-route service in 1979, he said. The number is almost 7% above last year. Routes that have increased more than 20% include Routes #4, #10, and #18. Doubling the frequency on Route #4 – between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – has been beneficial to the community, Ford said. Commuter express bus service has also increased about 29% for the Chelsea-Ann Arbor service and about 54% for the Canton-Ann Arbor service. Ford noted that a total of about 25,000 people had ridden the AirRide service – between downtown Ann Arbor and Detroit Metro Airport – since its inception in April 2012. [.pdf of year end performance data]

Comm/Comm: Committee Membership

Charles Griffith, who was elected chair of the board at the previous regular meeting on Sept 27, 2012, had said he wanted to hold off on setting committee membership until he’d had a chance to touch base with other board members.

Anya Dale.

At the Oct. 18 meeting, Griffith announced that Roger Kerson would take over Griffith’s chairmanship of the performance monitoring and external relations committee and outgoing board chair Jesse Bernstein would take a spot on that committee. The third member of that committee is David Nacht.

Anya Dale will continue to chair the planning and development committee. The other two members of that committee are Sue Gott and Eli Cooper.

Comm/Comm: City Council Action – Connector, Rail

Eli Cooper, who also serves as the city of Ann Arbor’s transportation program manager, reported that the city council had two transportation items on the agenda for its Oct. 15 meeting and both were approved. One was the environmental review and preliminary engineering study for an Ann Arbor rail station. The other was a study for a transportation connector between the northeast and southern part of the city. Cooper reported that the city is “all in” for those two projects as they’re currently understood.

Comm/Comm: Bus Shelter

Jim Mogensen addressed the issue of a bus shelter at Chidester Place in Ypsilanti, which he’d raised at the board’s previous board meeting. He said he’d received a useful response from AATA staff explaining why the change had been made from a 6×12 shelter to a 5×10 shelter.

By way of background, the response is described in the CEO’s written report to the board:

The old 6’x12’ shelter at Chidester had been in place for a long time. The building management installed a ramp several years ago to permit wheelchair users to get up onto the shelter pad. However, there was not enough room (only 3’) for a wheelchair user to get by the shelter to the bus stop. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires a 5’ clear path. The new shelter measures 5’x10’ and includes a location under the roof for a wheelchair user, which was not the case with the old shelter. While the daily boardings (21) are well below the threshold for placing a passenger shelter at the stop (50), we have maintained a shelter there because we recognize that Chidester Place is home to many seniors and people with disabilities.

In his Oct. 18 remarks, Mogensen noted there’d been an Option 1 considered, but no Option 2, for achieving the 5 -foot clear path. He suggested Option 2 could have been extending the concrete pad on the other side by two feet and keeping the larger shelter. Mogensen characterized it as a cultural point: by fixing the ADA issue, AATA fixed its [legal] problem, but that created a problem for the ridership.

During his oral report to the board, which came shortly after Mogensen’s comments at the meeting, Ford indicated that additional checking would be done based on Mogensen’s remarks.

Comm/Comm: New Website

Reporting from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Roger Kerson said that the new website being developed for the AATA is “really cool.” He described it as very sophisticated. The real-time information, which allows people to locate a bus and see how far away it is, adds a lot of value, he said. The vendor is in the final stages of the work, Kerson reported. Before final launch, some additional testing will be done with focus groups, with some final adjustments to be made as a result of that. When it goes public, he said, the website will have some “test miles on it.”

Comm/Comm: Purchase of Transportation

Jim Mogensen reiterated a comment he made at a previous meeting – that municipalities that have purchase-of-service agreements (POSAs) with the AATA are not actually purchasing transportation. The AATA gets revenue from the federal government and the state government, and from fares. The difference between the cost of providing that service and the revenue is the local match – so what communities with POSAs are paying for is the local match, he said.

Comm/Comm: Partridge

Thomas Partridge weighed in during public commentary calling for a commitment to affordable public transportation.

Present: Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Jesse Bernstein, Eli Cooper, Sue Gott, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale.

Also attending as representatives of the future Act 196 board of The Washtenaw Ride were: Karen Lovejoy Roe, Bill Mester, Paul Schreiber, David Philips, and Bill Lavery.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Nov. 15, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]

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

The bottom line in the draft AATA operating budget for FY 2013.

That’s an increase of around $3 million over the current year’s budget, which called for the AATA to spend $30,410,622 against only $29,418,998 in revenues. The nearly $1 million planned deficit for that fiscal year – which ends on Sept. 30, 2012 – was previously characterized by the board as a way to “catapult” the organization forward by offering some increased levels of service, in advance of AATA’s possible transition to a new, broader transit authority. Despite budgeting for that $1 million deficit, current projections included in the FY 2013 budget show that the AATA now expects to finish FY 2012 with a much smaller deficit of $296,378 – about one-third of what was projected.

For the new FY 2013 budget, an increase in revenues is accounted for in part by increased passenger revenues. Increased ridership is expected to generate about $750,000 more in fares in the coming year, compared to the fares collected in the fiscal year that’s nearing its end on Sept. 30. The AATA is also budgeting for about $300,000 more in state operating assistance for FY 2013. And the AATA anticipates about $3 million more in federal operating assistance, compared to what it actually received in the current fiscal year. A chunk of that is for a connector study from the northeastern part of the city to its southern edge.

Ann Arbor’s local transit tax, levied at a rate of just over 2 mills, is expected to show stable revenue levels compared to FY 2012, generating about $9.3 million. For the coming year, the AATA does not expect to use any of the local tax levy to help fund commuter express services from Canton and Chelsea, as it has since launching the service. Instead, the AATA will be using $105,217 of federal funds to cover that cost. Responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle, AATA controller Phil Webb explained that the AATA is taking advantage of newly expanded regulations that allows up to $1.47 million of AATA’s programmed federal funds to be used to pay for early investments in the AATA’s 5-year transit program. The AATA released the final draft of that plan on Sept. 5, 2012.

The city of Ann Arbor’s online Legistar system does not show any previous occasions when the draft AATA budget has been forwarded to the council as a communication or a report. Over the past year, however, Stephen Kunselman – who represents Ward 3 on the council – has been vocal about calling for the AATA to do that. He wanted an opportunity to comment on the AATA’s budget as required under a 1974 agreement between Ann Arbor and the AATA. [.pdf of 1974 agreement]. Kunselman’s most recent call for the AATA to submit its budget for council review came at the council’s Sept. 4, 2012 meeting.

That was the same meeting when the  council – with two absences on the 11- member body – turned down a $60,000 request for the city’s share of an alternatives analysis for a connector system. That connector would run along the Plymouth/State corridor, from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street, extending south to I-94. Although the council is expected to reconsider the request at its Sept. 17 meeting, with a full complement of the council present, it’s not clear the council will have the eight votes necessary to make the budget change.

The city’s $60,000 funding share for that study would be part of a $300,000 local match component, the rest of which is being paid by the AATA and the University of  Michigan. The study has a total project budget of $1.5 million, $1.2 million of which is being funded through a federal grant. The AATA FY 2013 budget factors in the city’s $60,000 share for that study.

The AATA board will have the FY 2013 budget on its Sept. 27 meeting agenda. [.pdf of draft AATA FY 2013 budget]

Charts

Included in the material attached to the city council agenda are four pie charts created by the AATA.

AATA FY 2013 draft operating budget. The bulk of expenses supports the AATA’s fixed route service (dark blue), which is the basic bus service that people typically associate with AATA. Also significant are the A-Ride paratransit service (red) and the AirRide airport service (teal). The connector study also makes up a significant portion of the overall operating expenses.

AATA FY 2013 revenue. The AATA gets roughly the same amount from property taxes (red) as it does from the state (green). Passenger fares (dark blue) and federal assistance (purple) make up comparable shares.

AATA FY 2013 local millage dollar usage. The majority of the local millage goes to support the basic fixed route (blue) and paratransit service (red).  Putting the connector study and WALLY (north-south commuter rail) together brings the amount the AATA will be spending on planning efforts in the coming year at $115,000.

AATA FY 2013 federal operating expenses. Efforts connected to the transit master plan (TMP) are those that involve the AATA’s effort to expand its area of service and governance in the form of a new transit authority to be incorporated as The Washtenaw Ride. TMP efforts include the salmon wedge and (counterclockwise) the light blue and orange wedges. The dark purple wedge represents Route #4 improvements for the service between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

Other Facts

The draft budget includes several facts of interest.

The AATA expects to deliver 6.8 million passenger trips next year during 284,200 hours of service. That works out to a cost per service hour of $117 per hour, about $5 more than last year.

To deliver those trips, the AATA expects to use 623,000 gallons of bio-diesel fuel.

The AATA will be have 125 full-time equivalent bus drivers next year, which is 2.5 more than last year. That includes 110 full-time positions and 20 part-time. The top of the wage scale for AATA drivers is $24 per hour. The total amount paid in union wages is about $8.6 million. Management wages total $3.9 million, of which $2.6 million goes to administration.

Update on Sept 21, 2012: The board’s information packet for its upcoming Sept. 27 meeting includes some negative news with respect to the budget, which the board  is expected to ratify at that meeting. The AATA will be receiving about $800,000 less  than expected in operating assistance from the state. The AATA’s response was to identify some expense reductions, but that left the AATA still $300,000 short, which will be covered with fund balance reserve.

From the draft of the board’s resolution, which it will be asked to approve:

WHEREAS, on September 14, 2012, notification was received from the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) that a new interpretation of the State’s Operating Assistance Formula would decrease AATA’s FY 2013 operating assistance by approximately $803,500, and

WHEREAS, Staff subsequently worked diligently to propose expense reductions in the budget that would neither negatively impact the public nor diminish its published transit services, however, there remains approximately $300,000 of uncovered expenses, and

WHEREAS, the Board has previously established an Unrestricted Net Assets Policy for instances when “it is necessary for the AATA to have on hand a prudent reserve to cover the expenses necessary to maintain service levels in the event of interruption or delay of the receipt of state or federal funding,” now therefore

IT IS RESOLVED, that AATA shall utilize approximately $300,000 of its Unrestricted Net Assets for the purpose of balancing the FY2013 Operating Budget of $32,700,181, that such budget is hereby approved to become effective October 1, 2012, and that the budget is assigned to the Performance Monitoring and External Relations Committee (PMER) for appropriate monitoring

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