If the city’s plan unfolds as it expects, then none of the $750,000 in general fund money would be needed.

The improvements to 721 N. Main have resulted from work done by a North Main corridor improvement task force that has been working at the direction of the city council since the summer of 2012 to make recommendations for the corridor.

Of the $1.2 million estimated cost for the planned trail and stormwater improvements to the site, the city plans to use $150,000 from the city’s stormwater fund. To cover part of the remaining $1.05 million, the city hopes to use $600,000 from a grant it it’s applied for from the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) and the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) – through SEMCOG’s transportation alternatives program (TAP).

The council approved the application for the SEMCOG grant at its April 15, 2013 meeting. To cover the remaining $450,000, the city hopes to use $150,000 from a Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation Connecting Communities grant and $300,000 from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) grant. The council approved the application for those last two grants at its Dec. 17, 2012 meeting.

The council’s resolution passed on June 17 comes in response to an MNRTF grant requirement that the council commit the city to funding the other grants itself – from general fund money – if the grants fail to materialize. The $750,000 figure comes from adding the $600,000 SEMCOG grant to the $150,000 Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation grant.

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

A view of the 721 N. Main site in Ann Arbor, looking south from Summit Street. The Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission awarded the city a $150,000 grant to develop trails in the property, but only if the city gets matching funds from the state. (Photos by the writer.)

Four communities received grants from WCPARC under that trail-building program: the village of Dexter ($225,000); Ypsilanti Township ($75,000); Pittsfield Township ($150,000); and the city of Ann Arbor ($150,000). Funding for Ann Arbor – only half of the $300,000 that the city had applied for – is to fund a trail at 721 N. Main, a city-owned site that’s being redeveloped. The award is contingent on the city receiving a matching grant from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund (MDNRTF).

WCPARC is also applying for an MDNRTF grant, hoping to get $300,000 to help develop a master plan for the Staebler Farm County Park. The 98-acre property, which straddles Plymouth Road in Superior Township, had been a family farm for nearly a century. The commission held a public hearing on this issue, and heard from four nearby property owners who raised concerns about trespassing. The proposal calls for WCPARC to contribute $450,000 in county funds to the project.

Moving forward on another major project, commissioners approved three actions related to the proposed recreation center on Ypsilanti’s Water Street redevelopment site, located along Michigan Avenue. WCPARC agreed to share equally with the Ann Arbor YMCA in a $28,000 market study to help determine whether there’s enough community interest to support the proposed center. Commissioners also authorized staff to move forward with the acquisition, for $31,500, of an easement from the Huron Fischer Honda Leasing Co. for a section of the Border-to-Border (B2B) trail that would connect Riverside Park to the Water Street site. The third action was a resolution acknowledging a partnership between WCPARC and the city of Ypsilanti to design, build and operate the rec center.

And WCPARC also authorized staff to apply for $1.4 million from the federal Transportation Alternative Program (TAP) to extend the B2B River Terrace Trail from Dexter-Huron Metropark east 1.1 miles to Zeeb Road. TAP is administered through SEMCOG (Southeast Michigan Council of Governments). The application would be in partnership with Scio Township and the Washtenaw County Road Commission.

Connecting Communities Grants

Deputy director Coy Vaughn presented a report about WCPARC’s Connecting Communities project, beginning with a review of information he had provided to WCPARC in February. The program is a commitment by WCPARC to provide $600,000 a year for five years – a total of $3 million – to help governmental entities in Washtenaw County build trails for non-motorized transportation. This is the program’s the fourth year, Vaughn said – 2014 will be the last.

This year, he said, six communities applied for funding for eight projects. WCPARC staff met with its greenways advisory committee to score each project. The projects with the highest ranking – labeled “rating” on a score sheet provided in the WCPARC meeting packet – received funding. [.pdf of Connecting Communities staff recommendations] Not recommended were a $230,000 application from Northfield Township and a $300,000 application from Superior Township.

The village of Dexter had the highest score for its proposal to continue the River Terrace trail from the bridge going west into the village – a 1,300-foot connection. Although the request was for $300,000, Vaughn said staff felt it could be built for $275,000, so that was the recommended award.

Second-highest rated proposal was from Ypsilanti Township to build three segments of trail along Whittaker, Tuttle Hill, and Textile Road. The township had applied for $295,000. However, staff recommended awarding $75,000 to build only a 1,000 foot section along Textile Road, since the township has not yet completed the project awarded by Connecting Communities in 2012. Staff suggested that the township defer the two other segments until the 2014 round of applications.

Pittsfield Township scored third highest for the second phase of the Lohr-Textile Greenway (LTG). This phase would be 1.76 miles extending east along the north side of Textile Road, past State Street, to the Marshview Meadow Park and Pittsfield Preserve. This is an expensive project because it contains extensive wetlands, according to the staff report. The township is applying for grants from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund (MDNRTF) and the Federal Transportation Alternatives Program to help fund the $1.8 million project. The township had applied for $400,000 from Connecting Communities. Staff recommended awarding $150,000, contingent on success obtaining the other grants. Failing that, the award would not be granted and the money would become available for other projects.

A map showing recommendations for the city-owned property at 721 N. Main St.

Ann Arbor’s proposal for a $300,000 grant – for an as-yet-incomplete plan to build a trail at 721 North Main on city-owned property formerly used for vehicle storage and servicing – only scored fifth highest. Even so, WCPARC staff recommended awarding the city $150,000, contingent on the city obtaining a $300,000 grant from MDNRTF. As with the Pittsfield Township grant, if no state funding is received, the Connecting Community grant would not be awarded.

Vaughn provided additional background on Ann Arbor’s applications. In 2011 and 2012, the city submitted applications to Connecting Communities to construct the initial segment of the Allen Creek Greenway, on the city owned property at 415 W. Washington. The site’s limited connectivity to other trails or public spaces caused these proposals to score low.

Vaughn said WCPARC had suggested that Ann Arbor start closer to the county’s Border-to-Border trail, and he indicated that the city has done so with this current request. However, Vaughn said, the city hasn’t yet figured out exactly how those B2B connections will be made, and are still researching options.

By way of background, a task force established by the Ann Arbor city council on May 7, 2012 has been working to develop recommendations for a much broader area than 721 N. Main, including the North Main corridor and extending to the Huron River. The task force is supposed to provide recommendations for the area by July 31, 2013. Meanwhile, on Feb. 19, 2013 the council approved a $30,000 study of the main building on the site. The council also has voted to use a FEMA grant to demolish two buildings on the site that are in the floodway.

Connecting Communities: WCPARC Discussion

WCPARC vice president Patricia Scribner recused herself from the discussion and vote, citing her position as treasurer of Pittsfield Township.

Commissioner Jan Anschuetz asked about Northfield Township’s application. “They came in fourth,” she said. “What do we say to them?”

Commissioner Dan Smith responded, saying that the township still needs to finish the project’s first phase, which he described as involving “complicated engineering” over a railway crossing, a creek, and a freeway interchange. Smith – who represents District 2 on the county board of commissioners, which includes Northfield Township – then continued by thanking staff for their “great work in sorting through all of this.”

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the staff recommendations for Connecting Communities grants totaling $600,000.

Staebler Farm County Park

WCPARC president Robert Marans invited Coy Vaughn to present background information about a proposal to apply for $300,000 from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund. The grant would fund a master plan for the 98-acre Staebler Farm, which WCPARC has owned since 2001. [.pdf of staff memo and WCPARC resolution]

Plymouth Road bisects the site, which is immediately south of M-14. Vaughn explained that because crossing Plymouth is treacherous, the plan is to put parking, trails, and other public activity on the north side of the road. To the south, where Don Staebler still resides under his agreement with WCPARC, a farmer raises hay on several acres. South of the hay fields the land drops off and becomes marshy, and Vaughn said those areas would be left natural. There are several water features on the site: Fleming Creek runs through it, he said, and it has frontage on Frains and Murray lakes. Vaughn said the intent of Phase I in developing the park is to continue farming on the south side of Plymouth. Vaughn referred briefly to a presentation made to WCPARC in June 2012. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Parks: Options for Staebler Farm"]

Vaughn continued to describe the activities that would be possible at Staebler Farm. In general, it would be a “farm learning center,” he said, perhaps including a program to help Michigan State University train farm managers, which would also provide a caretaker for the park. Other features could include a community garden; a trail and bridge across the creek, leading to fishing in the two ponds from borrow pits created when M-14 was constructed; pavilions; and rest rooms.

Vaughn expressed optimism about the grant application: “We think it will score high with the trust fund because of the pedestrian trail, fishing pier, and improvements we will make to Fleming Creek, which is highly eroded by the presence of about 20 cattle walking in it.” He said the creek was damaged by the cattle “doing what cattle do in creeks.” The applications are due April 1, and use of the grant money would be possible in 2015. The maximum grant this round will be $300,000. Because the master plan will cost about $750,000, applying for the grant commits WCPARC to providing the remaining$450,000.

Staebler Farm County Park: WCPARC Discussion

In response to a question about trails, Vaughn said they would be limited, and would keep visitors on the north side of Plymouth Road. Commissioner Evan Pratt, who serves on WCPARC by virtue of his elected position as county water resources commissioner, asked whether WCPARC would use a consultant they already know. WCPARC director Bob Tetens responded that they would put the project out to bid to about a half dozen of the “same cast of characters” who typically bid on such projects.

Commissioner Dan Smith commented that WCPARC staff had done some planning themselves. Tetens said that yes, they did the WCPARC master plan in house, and used MSU staff to help with the outline of the farm plan.

A slide showing Phase 1 of a plan to develop the Staebler Farm.

Commission member Janis Bobrin clarified her understanding of the cost as $750,000, and asked for more information about when grant money would be available. Vaughn explained that preliminary scoring will be done in August and final scoring in December; money would not be in the WCPARC budget to spend until 2015.

Dan Smith had another question: “Have you found anything at all like this around the state?” Vaughn said yes, they had, at Wolcott Mill, but they had not yet visited it. [Wolcott Mill is one of the Huron Clinton Metroparks in Macomb County. It is east of Romeo Plank Road, and extends from 26 Mile Road to 29 Mile Road.] Commissioner Nelson Meade commented that his parents used to use Wolcott Mill.

In response to a follow-up question from Dan Smith, Vaughn noted that the only other similar site is at Kensington Metropark, but it is not an operating farm.

Commission member Rolland Sizemore Jr., who also represents District 5 on the county board of commissioners, moved to go into the public hearing on this project, and WCPARC voted unanimously to do so.

Staebler Farm County Park: Public Hearing

The public hearing was somewhat informal, with commissioners and staff responding to speakers throughout the hearing.

Three members of the Fishbeck family – William, Betty Jo, and Anne – spoke first. [As background, according to Superior Township records, the Fishbecks own 14 properties in the vicinity of Plymouth-Ann Arbor Road and the Staebler Farm. Salem Township records show two properties owned by Betty Jo Fishbeck. A report from the Ecology Center in June 2006 noted that purchase of development rights from the Fishbecks was a “cornerstone” in creating the northeast section of the Ann Arbor greenbelt.]

Anne Fishbeck asked: “What are your plans to protect the neighbors from the public wandering in? I live right next door.” She wondered how WCPARC planned to “keep people from getting confused” between her private land to the east of Staebler Farm, and the public land that WCPARC owned.

Vaughn replied that WCPARC would probably fence in the entire property. Anne Fishbeck said she would like that. She then asked about Murray Lake. Vaughn indicated that the plan is to keep it natural, with no public access. “It’s very wet around the lake,” he said. “At the most we might build a trail in the future, but no swimming, boating, or fishing.”

Kevin Conway said he lived off Prospect Road near Murray Lake, and that he was interested in the farm’s development after Phase 1. He asked if he was correct that there is no plan right now beyond that first phase? Several commissioners indicated that he was correct. Conway then remarked that the public would like to go on Frains and Murray lakes, but those lakes are private. What, he wondered, will ensure security when the park is closed? Does the county see an issue with people crossing the Staebler Farm parkland and going onto the lakes?

Vaughn replied that there would be a caretaker on the farm, and that there will be no convenient place for people to park on the south side of Plymouth. Tetens told Conway that “we try to manage access. We don’t provide access to every bit of what we own, and we don’t intend to build public access on the south side.”

Commissioner Jan Anschuetz added: “You will have time to provide input when we get to the next phases. We have a major problem with Plymouth Road – we don’t want families getting mowed down there.” She indicated that WCPARC is very interested in using this park to teach children about farms all year long. There might be beekeeping classes, barn or country dances, or 4-H meetings. “I hope we can use our parks 100% of the time,” Anschuetz said. “We’ve done a careful job restoring the barns with taxpayers’ money, and we want to continue to use that money carefully. People are getting interested in raising their own vegetables and chickens.”

Bob Marans, president of WCPARC, then asked Vaughn what his best guess on timing was – when would the actual work be done? Vaughn indicated that the work would happen in 2015.

Marans asked what would happen beyond that? Vaughn said: “I would guess the trails and other improvements are five to eight years out. We will slowly implement the type of farming we want over time and build that up, but that is not a new use.”

Marans pointed out that this project is a work in progress that will evolve over time, with additional opportunities for public input. Tetens built on the idea, saying that WCPARC staff had met with representatives from MSU as well as from the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, who are interested in the possibility of having veterans work on the farm.

Sizemore added that WCPARC tries to go out of its way not to create problems for the public, and WCPARC staff are available to address any problems. With respect to the southern portion of the site, Dan Smith indicated that Plymouth Road will act as a block to pedestrian access. “We do not want people to cross it, and that will prevent us from putting anything for the public on the southern half,” he said, adding that WCPARC will probably put in fencing all along Plymouth Road.

Conway asked whether most of the recreation will be on the north side? Yes, commissioners replied, at least for the foreseeable future. Tetens amplified the idea: “The south side might have naturalist classes and interpretive signs, and guided tours for school kids.”

From left: WCPARC director Bob Tetens, and commissioners Pat Scribner, Rolland Sizemore Jr., and Dan Smith.

Conan Smith turned to the Fishbecks and asked: “How do you feel in general?”

Both Anne and Betty Jo Fishbeck repeated the issue regarding trespassers, which was their major concern. “It is super naïve to think people will not cross Plymouth or try to go to Frains Lake, which is all private,” Anne Fishbeck said. “Right now, people drive into our drive. We see them, and there are not enough sheriffs to take care of it.”

Anschuetz, looking surprised, said, “We have not heard about this before.” Betty Jo Fishbeck replied: “People think they can come on the property and go cross country skiing. The sheriff was chasing a guy who went right through Don [Staebler]’s property and ours, trying to trespass back to the lake. That field and Plymouth Road will not be any deterrent.”

When Anschuetz asked whether a fence would help, Anne Fishbeck replied that “it would have to be a big fence.”

Anschuetz observed that no matter who owns it, “there is a problem with an attractive piece of property.” She asked what WCPARC could do. Anne Fishbeck suggested having someone live on the property, and having daily sheriff deputy patrols come by.

Sizemore recommended that “we wait and see what really happens. I can tell you that this board will do all it can to keep people from trespassing.”

Conan Smith suggested that residents could meet with Coy Vaughn to discuss options for protecting their property. “We have preserves all over – some have public access, but some don’t, and we have to grapple with these issues,” Smith said. “Coy can talk to you about management plans. These are private lakes. We can establish guidelines and agree on what we want to have the rules be, and work to make sure they are effectively enforced.”

Dan Smith expressed his appreciation “that you came here to tell us your concerns. With Plymouth Road and Prospect Road, there is more public knowledge and access. Thank you for coming out at this early phase.”

Marans also thanked the four residents who had spoken, and declared the public hearing at an end. There was no further discussion.

Outcome: Commissioners gave unanimous approval for staff to proceed with a grant application to the state Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund for $300,000 to develop a master plan for Staebler Farm.

Eastside Recreation Center

Several items on WCPARC’s March 12 agenda related to a new recreation center proposed for just east of downtown Ypsilanti, at the northwest corner of the 38-acre Water Street development site. [For additional background on this project, see Chronicle coverage: "Public Gives Input on East County Rec Center"]

Eastside Recreation Center: Market Study

On the agenda was a resolution approving a market study about the new recreation center, in partnership with the Ann Arbor YMCA. The cost would be split, with each entity paying $14,000.

This item of new business, WCPARC director Bob Tetens explained, is the next step as the county looks to partner with Ypsilanti and the Ann Arbor Y to develop the recreation center. “The more partners, the better,” he said. “The Y is very interested but they have to do due diligence.” Part of that is a market study, he continued. The proposal before WCPARC was to authorize staff to proceed with the market study and to pay $14,000, or half the total cost of the survey, with the Ann Arbor YMCA paying the other half.

Commissioner Janis Bobrin said she would play devil’s advocate: “We are doing this to see if the market can indeed support a rec center? What if we find we don’t have the market we thought we did?”

Tetens had several responses. First, he said it would not be a surprise if the study found there wasn’t a current market for the center. The Y has scholarship programs for people who could otherwise not afford membership, he continued, and “we can program to attract people.”

Janis Bobrin, a member of the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission.

Tetens also spoke of “informal surveys” that WCPARC has done, but noted that WCPARC has a “vested interest” in the project. [As background, Tetens has frequently stated that WCPARC surveys over the years have shown strong interest in having WCPARC facilities in the east part of the county.] Also, he noted that CBRE – the real estate broker charged with selling sites in the Water Street redevelopment area – has studied the site, and even without a recreation center, the WCPARC’s Border-to-Border trail will run through the property.

Bobrin had another question: “Can we take it on faith this will be cost effective and well done, and trust the Y?” Yes, Tetens replied.

The WCPARC meeting packet included the proposal for a market study by FourSquare Research Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia. [.pdf of market study proposal] The proposal states that the company has conducted nearly 700 studies for YMCAs and nonprofits nationwide, and has worked with many YMCAs in Michigan.

The scope of work described in the proposal includes:

• community needs and demands, which covers how many households will join and how much revenue will be generated;
• programming and member services to determine which features are most desired;
• marketplace and pricing;
• partnerships;
• social impact, i.e. how a new facility could make the community better and improve the quality of life of residents.

The proposal describes a nine-step process, using qualitative and quantitative research, including focus groups, developing a survey instrument and conducting a telephone survey, tabulating results, and delivering results to answer questions about the forecasted number of households that would join. Other information to be provided in the final report includes anticipated annual revenue, specific recommendations for facility development, and specific suggestions for marketing, programming, and pricing strategies.

The proposal states such studies take between two and three months, and that this one will cost $28,000. According to the proposal, if the project starts in mid-March, it will be completed in late May.

Bobrin took note that the proposal identified the YMCA as having “full ownership of the study findings and final report.” She asked that it be modified by adding WCPARC as an equal owner. Tetens agreed that could be changed. There was no further discussion.

Outcome: Commissioners gave unanimous approval of the proposal to proceed with the market study in partnership with the Ann Arbor YMCA, and to split the cost with each entity paying $14,000.

Eastside Recreation Center: Easement for B2B Trail

This item has often been before the commission: The question of how to get the countywide Border-to-Border (B2B) trail from Ypsilanti’s Riverside Park to the site of the proposed rec center. To do this requires crossing the Huron River, navigating the grade up from the river to street level, and crossing Michigan Avenue.

The city of Ypsilanti and WCPARC have worked on this problem for the last year, first hoping to build a new pedestrian bridge underneath the Michigan Avenue bridge over the Huron River to the Water Street site and further south, eventually, to Waterworks Park. Ypsilanti obtained a Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund (MDNRTF) grant in partnership with WCPARC to do that, but later the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) determined that the bridge was not feasible, because it would cause “a serious scour problem,” according to a written report from Tetens.

Therefore, an alternative location for a pedestrian bridge was identified: perpendicular and to the north of the Michigan Avenue bridge. According to Tetens, this would bring people using the B2B trail across the river and allow them to cross Michigan Avenue, via a crosswalk, to get to the Water Street site. The plan requires purchasing an easement from the Huron Fischer Honda Leasing Company. It also requires obtaining an MDOT permit to install a high intensity activated crosswalk (HAWK) traffic signal to facilitate safe crossing of busy Michigan Avenue.

The city of Ypsilanti is unable to afford the easement cost, so the proposal before WCPARC was to authorize the county parks & rec staff to move forward with purchasing the easement for $31,500.

Bob Marans asked for clarification of the location of the easement, which has a triangular shape, and Coy Vaughn provided a slide to show that. Tetens explained that while the first MDNRTF grant will pay for this bridge over the Huron River, another MDNRTF grant would be required to extend the B2B trail along the east side of the Huron River south of Michigan Avenue all the way to Grove Road. He noted that “documentation of site control is a requirement of state funding – the project cannot move forward unless the easement is purchased by WCPARC.”

Tetens said he eventually wants to connect all the way to Ford Lake.

Commissioner Jan Anschuetz spoke of the original wonder of Waterworks Park decades ago. It was, she said, “incredible, with a dam like a waterfall with a fish ladder, and a real zoo during the Depression. People would come and camp out there.” Commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. recalled that there used to be a glass factory in the vicinity, and “we used to play down there – there were hundreds of bottles.”

Sizemore also expressed a concern: “Are we going to be able to build a walkway across Michigan Avenue? We don’t want to pay for an easement we can’t use.” Tetens responded that the agreement is written so that WCPARC has until August, “and if we can’t cross Michigan Avenue, or if the bridge is too expensive, then we aren’t committed to buy the easement.”

There are already indications, he said, that a crossing is warranted there. “I am optimistic that we can get a pedestrian activated crossing there.” Anschuetz asked if she understood correctly – that WCPARC must have an agreement on the easement in order for MDNR to disperse the grant money. Tetens indicated that was correct.

There was no further discussion.

The document provided in the WCPARC meeting packet indicates that Burgoyne Appraisal put the value of the easement at $28,000, and the appraisal cost was $3,500.

Outcome: Unanimous approval of the proposal to authorize staff to move forward with the purchase of an easement, for $31,500, required to proceed with this project to extend the B2B trail across the Huron River and across Michigan Avenue.

Eastside Recreation Center: Partnership with Ypsilanti

The third item related to the eastside rec center was a resolution acknowledging a partnership between the city of Ypsilanti and WCPARC to design, build, and operate a community recreation center in Ypsilanti’s central business district – the Water Street redevelopment area. [.pdf of partnership resolution]

The proposal in the WCPARC meeting packet made reference to the Jan. 10, 2012 letter of intent between WCPARC and Ypsilanti, as well as the WCPARC contract for design services from the University of Michigan’s Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning. Noting the limited resources available to Ypsilanti, the resolution called for Ypsilanti to “provide sufficient land” at the Water Street redevelopment site to allow WCPARC to proceed to the design phase. That phase would include defining the site plan and determining the exact footprint of the project and the amount of land necessary.

The resolution’s three resolved clauses state:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that by way of this resolution the undersigned parties publicly demonstrate their support for this project and their commitment to provide the necessary resources and/or skills, to work together cooperatively and in good faith, in the best interests of the community, towards the completion of this ambitious effort, and;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Ypsilanti agrees to provide sufficient land at the preferred site as previously agreed to in the Letter of Intent approved on January 10, 2012 to allow the Commission to confidently proceed to the design phase; that the Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission agrees to proceed with the design phase for the building and further define the site plan, including determining the exact footprint of the project and the amount of land necessary, and;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the parties agree that this intergovernmental, public/private partnership demonstrates a commendable and challenging level of collaboration that should serve as a model for future efforts to improve the quality of life for residents in communities throughout Washtenaw County.

The meeting packet also included a copy of the same resolution passed unanimously by the Ypsilanti city council on Feb. 19, 2013.

At WCPARC’s March 12 meeting, Tetens explained that the amount of land would be between 8-12 acres, and that the Ann Arbor YMCA was not part of this agreement because “the Y was more comfortable with it being a two-part agreement.”

There was no further discussion.

Outcome: The partnership agreement was approved eight to one. Dan Smith voted against it, but did not state his reason for voting no.

Transportation Alternative Program Application

Coy Vaughn presented a proposal that authorized WCPARC staff to proceed with an application for $1.4 million from the federal Transportation Alternative Program. The application would be made in partnership with Scio Township and the Washtenaw County Road Commission, with WCPARC providing a $300,000 local match. [.pdf of staff report]

He explained that the program – known as TAP – is a federal transportation funding program to support non-motorized transportation. It’s administered by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG).

Vaughn explained the root of this proposal. In 2012, Scio Township received a $250,000 Connecting Communities grant from WCPARC to build the first phase of a trail from the township offices – located on Zeeb Road just north of I-94 – heading north on Zeeb Road to Dexter-Ann Arbor Road. The project is stuck due to problems acquiring the easements needed to build the trail.

Rather than risk losing the Connecting Communities grant – which will happen if Scio Township cannot obtain the easements and enter a construction contract by March 2014 – staff discussed shifting funds to help construct a portion of the Border-to-Border trail. The project would extend the recently completed River Terrace Trail from Dexter-Huron Metropark east 1.1 miles to Zeeb Road, at a cost of $1.4 million. It would be completely on Huron Clinton Metropark Authority property and in the Huron River Drive right-of-way.

According to Vaughn’s report, the project is reflected in the current capital improvement plan at $1.5 million, for construction in 2014. Vaughn added that SEMCOG would allocate $5 million in TAP funds to communities in 2013, the same amount as in 2012.

Transportation Alternative Program Application: WCPARC Discussion

Bob Marans asked about WCPARC’s relationship with SEMCOG, saying “their money is hard to get.” Bob Tetens allowed that there wasn’t a close relationship. However, he added, “we have a lot to show them if they come to visit the project site – all that we have built around Dexter.” Also, he stressed the partnership aspect of this proposal, with the county road commission and the township.

Commission member Evan Pratt underlined that this part of the B2B gets heavy use, and Tetens agreed.

There was no further discussion.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the proposal to submit a grant application to SEMCOG for TAP money in the amount of $1.4 million. The resolution also reallocated $250,000 previously granted by WCPARC to Scio Township, and added another $50,000 of WCPARC funds to make a local match of $300,000.

Rolling Hills Landscaping

Meghan Bonfiglio, superintendent of park planning, presented recommendations for the Rolling Hills ring road and water park landscaping plan. Her report explained that the ring road project was completed in the summer of 2012 but that final landscaping was not part of that project. The water park improvement project is underway and will also require landscaping.

With two landscaping projects, staff decided to achieve economies of scale by removing the landscaping portion ($85,000) from the contract with Sorensen Gross Construction Services, and handling the landscape planning in house. Staff created the plans, and put them out for bid.

Bob Tetens commented that staff who did this work were “younger, computer literate people.” Three bids were received, the lowest from Washtenaw County’s Margolis Companies, with whom planning staff have had positive experience. Bonfiglio showed slides of the plans, and photos of the plants. The plants are 95% native and chosen to provide four-season interest: Echinacea, goldenrod, and grasses, for example. Bonfiglio recommended awarding the contract to Margolis for an amount not to exceed $200,000, with a contingency of $10,000.

After the meeting, Bonfiglio provided additional information about the other bids:

• Margolis Companies: $199,935
• Underwood Nursery: $255,488
• Erie Construction: $364,400

Rolling Hills Landscaping: WCPARC Discussion

Dan Smith said it’s “fantastic” that WCPARC staff have the expertise to handle this project.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked about a “pretty nasty” residence that was located to the right of gate into Rolling Hills. He asked whether anything could be done about it.

Bonfiglio pointed to screening that would hide the house and its junk cars, so that vehicles using the entry road wouldn’t see it. Tetens added that Ypsilanti Township should do enforcement.

Outcome: Unanimous approval of the recommendation to award the landscaping contract to Margolis Companies.

New Signs for Rolling Hills and Independence Lake

Bonfiglio also presented a recommendation to award a contract to Harmon Sign, for fabrication and installation of new signs at Rolling Hills and Independence Lake parks. The amount would not exceed $24,500.

The signs are specifically for the improved Blue Heron Bay Spray Zone at Independence Lake Park and the water park at Rolling Hills. The signs cover facility rules, wayfinding, and other information that is either useful in the opinion of staff, or required by state law or the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. The goal, she said, is to replace all the signs to achieve “a more uniform branding” as well as assure compliance with current requirements.

As with the landscaping, staff did the design and released a request for proposals (RFP). The recommended vendor, Harmon Sign, has offices in Novi and production facilities in Toledo. They have done work for large projects, including the University of Michigan stadium and the Detroit Riverwalk.

After the meeting, Bonfiglio provided additional information about the bids:

• Harmon Sign: $24,319
• Valley City Sign: $26,958
• Signs by Crannie: $30,238

New Signs for Rolling Hills and Independence Lake: WCPARC Discussion

Discussion was brief. In response to a question, Bonfiglio explained that the content and location of signs are determined after consultation with staff who work in those parks, and with attention to local, state and national laws and regulations.

Commission members expressed approval – using words like “awesome” and “amazing.”

Outcome: With no substantive discussion, the recommendation was unanimously approved.

Financial Reports

WCPARC’s reports separate “recreation” (parks, facilities, and functions) from the natural areas preservation program (NAPP), because the two components of WCPARC’s responsibilities are funded by separate millages.

Financial Reports: Claims

The February 2013 claims report for recreation – including parks, facilities and functions, but excluding natural areas preservation – showed total claims of $559,020. The bulk of that – $345,584 – was for capital improvements.

Bob Tetens provided a separate sheet showing major non-recurring expenses for recreation that included five items over five figures:

• $251,217 to Sorenson Gross for construction at Independence Lake;
• $76,300 to Vortex for building the splash pad at Independence Lake;
• $75,360 to John Deere Financial, the annual cost for leasing equipment;
• $60,000 to the city of Saline for a Connecting Communities grant;
• $17,920 to Turfgrass Inc. for turf chemicals.

For the natural areas preservation program, claims totaled $87,112. Major non-recurring expenses on Tetens’ list were payments of $25,232 and $43,832 (totaling $69,064) to Brock and Associates for boardwalk construction at Draper Houston Meadows Preserve.

In addition $3,183 was paid to Mannik and Smith for work at Draper Houston and Baker, respectively; and $6,500 to Williams and Associates for appraisals of the Preimeau parcel ($3,000) and West Pier ($3,500).

The total claims presented to WCPARC for both recreation and NAPP was $646,132.

Outcome: with no discussion, claims were unanimously approved.

Financial Reports: Fund Balance – Recreation

Tetens introduced this report by noting that activity is at a minimum at this time of year, and that WCPARC is only in the second month of the year. The beginning fund balance on Jan. 1, 2013 was $12,950,815. The report for Feb. 28 showed year-to-date revenue of $4,747,138 (most of it property tax revenue) and expenses of $987,644 (most for personnel and land development). In addition, WCPARC keeps an operating reserve of $6.7 million and sets aside $925,000 for partnerships, such as the Connecting Communities program. At the end of February, the projected fund balance for Dec. 31, 2013 is $13,186,587.

Financial Reports: Fund Balance – NAPP

NAPP’s beginning fund balance on Jan. 1, 2013 was $10,263,644. Revenue to date at the end of February was $2,277,053, mostly from property taxes. Expenses were $223,539, mostly for land acquisition. The projected fund balance at the end of 2013 is $12,889,014. Tetens remarked that there are “no purchases on the front burner right now.”

Outcome: With no discussion, the financial reports were unanimously accepted and received for filing.

Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center

Bob Tetens pointed out that the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center is the only WCPARC recreation operation open now. Both membership and participation are up, he said, and revenue is stable. In addition, “we are 72 days away from Super Friday” – meaning the opening day. We are, he promised “about two meetings away from a much thicker report.” Commissioner Dan Smith added, “meaning a larger file to download.”

According to a WCPARC written staff report, total year-to-date memberships at the center reached 1,187 in 2013, up from 1,165 in 2012. Total year-to-date revenue of $264,991 in 2013 is also up compared to $249,565 in 2012. However, the report showed that total participation has fallen in the last year: 63,615 in 2013 compared to 67,824 during the same period in 2012.

Commissioner Pat Scribner asked whether there had been any response to the rate increases that WCPARC adopted in February. Tetens said no, but he pointed out that those increases were not yet implemented. Commissioner Nelson Meade reported that most of the seniors he knows think the rates are too low.

Conan Smith asked, “Why can’t you rent a locker overnight?” Tetens replied that it’s a problem. “People leave the locks on and their stuff in the locker and don’t come back.” Smith said he would appreciate being able to leave his clothes in a locker. There was a brief discussion of the negative consequences to having many articles of athletic clothing stored for long periods of time. Tetens ended the discussion by pointing out that there are thousands of different users and not nearly enough lockers to allow overnight use.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Activities, Accomplishments, and Awards

Using written and verbal reports and slides, Bob Tetens and Coy Vaughn together presented a wide array of information about project, activities and awards. The projects to improve the water-based recreation activities at the Rolling Hills water park and the Independence Lake spray-and-play zone received the most attention, as both are major capital improvements. Vaughn showed slides of the construction, which is on schedule at both locations, and Tetens averred that both are on schedule to open Memorial Day weekend.

Slides of activities over the last month included the Daddy-Daughter dance at the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center around Valentine’s Day; ongoing work to maintain parks, such as building picnic tables and doing repairs in the off season; and the Fat Tire bike race at Rolling Hills.

The city of Ann Arbor received the 2012 Michigan Recreation and Park Association’s Park Design Award for the Argo Cascades along the Huron River. WCPARC paid the city $112,500 to help improve Argo Cascades – it’s one of the funding partnerships to which WCPARC is committed. And WCPARC received honorable mention from the Michigan Association of County Drain Commissioners Innovation and Excellence Program, for the Malletts Creek and County Farm Park drain restoration.

Executive Session

At the end of the meeting, WCPARC went into executive session to discuss the performance review for director Bob Tetens. No additional action was taken.

Present: Jan Anschuetz, Janis Bobrin, Robert Marans, Nelson Meade, Evan Pratt, Patricia Scribner, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith.

Absent: Fred Veigel.

Staff present: Robert Tetens, Coy Vaughn, Meghan Bonfiglio.

Next meeting: Tuesday, April 9, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the county parks and recreation department’s office at 2230 Platt Road in Ann Arbor, in the County Farm property.

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

A task force established by the city council on May 7, 2012 has been working to develop recommendations for a much broader area than 721 N. Main, including the North Main corridor and extending to the Huron River. The task force is supposed to provide recommendations for the area by July 31, 2013.

But the task force has been asked to provide recommendations on the 721 N. Main property even earlier than that – because of application deadlines for grants that the city is interested in seeking. The two grants would be from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund, which has an early April deadline, and the Connecting Communities grant from the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission. The city’s $300,000 proposal to Connecting Communities – for trails to be constructed through the 721 N. property – was mentioned at the Feb. 12, 2013 meeting of the county’s parks & recreation commission. The Connecting Communities application had a deadline in December 2012, which the city met.

The task force submitted its initial recommendation on the 721 N. Main property to the city council in December, and based on that, the council approved making the two grant applications at its Dec. 17, 2012 meeting.

And at the council’s Jan. 7, 2013 meeting, two members of the North Main and Huron River Corridor task force – David Santacroce and Darren McKinnon – gave a presentation to the council summarizing the group’s work to date. The task force recommendations were divided into the floodway portion and the non-floodway portion of the site. For the floodway portion, there was not a lot to decide – because a city council resolution from Aug. 15, 2005 calls for the floodway area of the 721 N. Main site to be included within a planned Allen Creek greenway.

For the roughly 2.5 acre non-floodway portion, the task force is recommending that it be developed to include non-motorized paths to connect from Felch Street to North Main and West Summit streets. [.jpg of map showing the task force's recommendations]

They told the council during their January presentation that the task force thought the main building had potential for reuse, but that it would need about $30,000 of physical testing to make that determination. It was that $30,000 of testing that the council authorized at its Feb. 19, 2013 meeting. The physical testing is supposed to be completed by May 31. , which coincides with the application deadline for the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund grant.

At the council’s Jan. 7 meeting, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) had expressed a lack of enthusiasm for salvaging the building.

The city is undertaking similar physical testing on buildings that stand on another potential city-owned greenway property, at 415 W. Washington. At the council’s Dec. 17, 2012 meeting, an additional $32,583 for the study of 415 W. Washington property was allocated. The council had previously authorized $50,000 for physical testing of the property. That vote had come at the council’s July 16, 2012 meeting.

The 415 W. Washington property, with its three buildings, was previously used by the city as a vehicle maintenance facility, before the construction of the Wheeler Service Center south of town on Stone School Road.

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

Margie Teall (Ward 4) peruses a map showing forecasted congestion on Ann Arbor roads under a “do nothing” scenario. Transportation program manager Eli Cooper had distributed the map to councilmembers at their Oct. 15 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

A study that’s required as part of Ann Arbor’s approach to building a new train station will move forward with a $550,000 funding resolution approved by the council. The same resolution also includes a clause stating that construction of a new train station would be put to a popular referendum before proceeding.

The budget amendment, which passed with exactly the eight votes it needed on the 11-member council, allocated the $550,000 to provide new matching funds for a federal grant. The grant had been awarded through the Federal Railroad Administration’s High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program. Dissenting on the vote were Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) was absent. Recent feedback from the FRA indicated that the city of Ann Arbor could not use previously expended funds to count as the local match – which had been the city’s original understanding.

The council also approved $30,000 for the continued study of a transportation connector between the northeast and south sides of Ann Arbor. The corridor runs from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street and farther south to I-94.

The council actually voted twice on that issue at the same meeting. On the first vote, the resolution failed. But a few minutes later, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) – who had initially voted against it – asked for reconsideration of the vote, and changed her vote to support it, as did Mike Anglin (Ward 5). The council had previously considered and rejected funding for the study at its Sept. 4, 2012 meeting. But councilmembers reconsidered that vote two weeks later on Sept. 17, 2012, which resulted in a postponement until Oct. 15. The second reconsideration by the council during the Oct. 15 meeting required a suspension of the council’s rules, which don’t permit a question to be reconsidered more than once.

Wrapping up the transportation themes of the evening was a public call for volunteers to serve on the new 15-member transit authority board, recently incorporated under Act 196 of 1986. While it had been previously assumed that the seven Ann Arbor appointments to the new authority’s board would serve simultaneously on Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s board, legal questions about simultaneous service on the two boards led to mayor John Hieftje’s announcement to recruit other volunteers.

The first two of the seven Ann Arbor nominations needed for the new transit authority board were made at the Oct. 15 meeting: Susan Baskett, who currently serves as a trustee on the Ann Arbor Public Schools board; and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), 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.

Nov. 8 would also mark the last council meeting for Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who did not seek re-election. However, Smith announced on Oct. 15 that she would not be able to attend the Nov. 8 meeting, which meant that the Oct. 15 meeting was her last. She bid her colleagues farewell, and kind words were offered around the table.

It was a resolution from Smith that prompted the main non-transportation topic of the evening – an attempt to establish a formal policy to use the net proceeds of city-owned land sales to support affordable housing. The council approved a version of the policy, but it was far more restricted than Smith’s original proposal, which the council had considered but postponed on Sept. 17.

Smith’s initial proposal would have directed 85% of the net proceeds from the sale of any city-owned land in the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district to be deposited in the city’s affordable housing trust fund. During the month-long postponement, the council’s budget committee discussed the proposal and made a recommendation that for only one city property – the Fifth & William lot, where the former YMCA building previously stood – the net proceeds from any future sale would be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund. The budget committee also recommended that any other properties be considered on a case-by-case basis, considering all needs of the city. And that’s essentially the recommendation that the council adopted.

In other business, councilmembers authorized an extension to a third year for the city’s coordinated approach to funding for human services. And the council took the first step toward dissolving the sign board of appeals and transferring its responsibility to the zoning board of appeals. The council also accepted a total of $1 million in grants for city parks, and added about 125 acres to the city’s greenbelt program. And a $200,000 study was authorized to prevent flooding in the southwest part of the city.

A symbolic vote – calling for the U.S. Congress to send a constitutional amendment to the states to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission decision – resulted in passage, over dissent from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). 

Ann Arbor Rail Station

The council considered a $550,000 funding resolution for the study of a transportation connector. The same resolution also includes a clause stating that the construction of a new train station would be put to a popular referendum before proceeding.

The $550,000 provides new local matching funds for a federal grant. The grant had been awarded through the Federal Railroad Administration’s High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program.

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

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

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

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

Those already-expended funds had been used in connection with work associated with the Fuller Road Station – for conceptual planning, environmental documentation efforts and some preliminary engineering. At the time, the Fuller Road Station project envisioned a 1,000-space parking structure for the university. The university withdrew from the partnership early this year. The city paid for that work from its major street fund, alternative transportation fund, and previously existing economic development funds over the past three years.

As a result of the recent FRA determination, none of that previously expended money can be counted as the local match on the federal grant. City of Ann Arbor transportation program manager Eli Cooper described the work as “stale,” because too much time has elapsed since it was done.

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

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

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

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

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

Ann Arbor Rail Station: Public Commentary

Several people spoke on the matching funds at public commentary, some for and some against.

Rita Mitchell began by saying she likes trains, and that she likes parks. She said she supports improved train service for Ann Arbor, and noted that train travel is an alternative that reduces the use of cars and its attendant pollution. She described the current station’s site, owned by Amtrak, as a “great location for a train station,” having served the community well for over 170 years. The Depot Street location is within a short walk of local businesses and other properties that could support development, she said. In contrast, she said, the Fuller Park location is surrounded by city parks and land held by the university. She felt that a serious look should be given to some creative use of the Depot Street location.

From left: Nancy Shiffler, Rita Mitchell and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Mitchell opposed using parkland for a train station, contending that it puts all parkland at risk for repurposing. She described the referendum in the council’s resolution as “vague,” saying it wasn’t clear whether the vote would be about a train station or the use of a park. She asked the council not to be so shortsighted as to turn a park into a train station, describing the Fuller Road site as part of a green necklace of parks that run through Ann Arbor. She noted that the environmental assessment would need to support the Section 4(f) requirement in federal legislation – that a transportation project constructed on parkland will be approved for federal funding only if there is no prudent and feasible alternative.

Mitchell characterized the late addition of the item to the meeting agenda as a political ploy to approve the use of general fund dollars before the swearing in of newly elected councilmembers. She contended there’s no need to rush to approve the funds and maintained that a ballot referendum is not needed at this point, if the site has not been selected.

Kim Easter described herself as a lifelong Ann Arbor resident. For the last 15 years, she’s lived half a block away from the train station, she said. She’s seen firsthand the number of cars backed up along Depot Street every morning and evening – and knows that they’re on the way to good jobs at the UM hospital. “The jobs are good and the people are good, but their cars are not,” she said. It would be great if we could get those folks into town without having to deal with the fuel they’re burning and without needing to provide parking for them. She applauded the council for considering multiple options. If Ann Arbor could become a meaningful and viable transit hub, she applauded the council for considering that. She felt like the station needs to be located where people are headed, and she would welcome a train station in whatever place makes the most sense for the city. If Ann Arbor could be made the transit hub that it could be, it would be a huge gift to the people of Ann Arbor and would leave a real legacy for the community. It would be a benefit to the city and to the region, she said.

Nancy Shiffler spoke on behalf of the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club. She reminded the council that the grant requires an analysis of alternative sites for the environmental assessment and the preliminary engineering study. A decision to use parkland must demonstrate that there’s no prudent or feasible alternative to using parkland. She applauded the intent to include a thorough public participation process for the project. She felt that a start to that process should include a solicitation of comments on the work plan for the grant. She called the resolution’s description of a proposed public vote “unclear.” If the Fuller Road site is selected, then the vote should include a determination on whether to repurpose existing parkland, she said. If the Amtrak site is selected for an upgraded, renovated station, then the need for the vote is less clear, she said. She contended that the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club is not opposed to trains or train stations. But they did question the appropriateness of putting those facilities in a city park.

Gwen Nystuen observed that the resolution asks for a half million dollars of general fund money. She complained that the current expenses to date have not been provided to the public. She said the project had morphed from a combined parking garage and rail station to just a rail station with unknown specifications. She contended that there’s yet to be a single public hearing before the city council on the subject. She said she’s asked questions for three years about the project. In 2009 and 2010, the community had been assured that no general funds would be required. The newest version of the station had been presented when the FRA application was made. And without public discussion, she contended, the Fuller Road site was designated as the preferred alternative.

Nystuen noted that selection of the Fuller Road site would require that no reasonable alternative exists other than the use of that city parkland. She contended that the city had not included in its previous study what she called “the most obvious alternative,” the current Amtrak station. On Aug. 22, she had asked once again what the status was of the environmental assessment and the funding of the rail station. Councilmember Christopher Taylor had answered her query immediately on Aug. 23, she reported: “Thanks for writing. I hope all is well with you. I’m afraid I don’t have any of that information. I’m sure staff can track down to-date spending, but as for the future, proposals for design, spending and funding are all still inchoate.” So far she’s heard nothing else. If parkland is considered, it should come “way early” to a vote of the people, she concluded.

Larry Deck spoke on behalf of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition. The WBWC supports multimodal connections that integrate biking and walking seamlessly into the transportation system.

From left: Larry Deck of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition and Eli Cooper, the city of Ann Arbor’s transportation program manager.

Transportation is a core function of government, just like public safety is, he said. As an individual, he offered his perspective on the two sites: the Fuller Park site and the current Amtrak site. The current site has a couple of advantages, he said. First, it already exists, and second, it’s closer to downtown. But a disadvantage to the current site is that it’s difficult to provide access to it with public transit. An effort to make improvements to the site to accommodate future needs might have an impact on the possible future of the MichCon/DTE site across the tracks. That site has the potential for becoming a high-value park, he said.

The Fuller Road site has a number of advantages, he observed, including that there’s room for a proper station. It’s close to the hospital, which is a major employer for the city and the region. It’s located on a major transit corridor, so it’s easier to provide good public transit access to the station. It would also be easy to provide good bicycling and walking access, by improving the trail system in the area, he said. The loss of parkland could be looked at as a trade for the parkland the city might obtain, once the environmental cleanup is done. The main disadvantage is the cost, he said, but it takes investment if we want to improve things. He said that rail travel – both high-speed and commuter rail – is crucial to the future economy of the region. If we want to create a better future, we have to invest in a better future, he concluded.

Christine Green introduced herself as a resident of Washtenaw County, as well as a staff member of the Michigan League of Conservation Voters who also works with the Michigan Environmental Council. From her role with those two organizations, she said, she’d learned that improved rail transportation will create jobs and improve commuting and travel options for Michigan residents, as well as attracting tourists. Increased rail will make for cleaner cities, she said, and reduce carbon emissions. The Ann Arbor Amtrak station is already one of the busiest train stations in the state. The Detroit-to-Chicago route is of primary importance at the state and the national level, she said. The problem is that already 65,000 people are driving to work in Ann Arbor every day.

Green indicated that about $400 million is being spent to repair tracks, purchase new railroad cars and to expand service. Amtrak, she’s been told, is planning to add two more trains per day, and MDOT is planning to run a commuter service between Ann Arbor and Detroit. The Amtrak ridership could possibly double, she said, and the current station is not large enough to handle the increased capacity. The location and layout of the current station won’t accommodate commuter traffic, she contended, because it’s hard to get public transit into the location and it’s already congested. With 20,000 people – counting workers and patients – coming to the University of Michigan hospital every day, it makes sense, Green said, to locate a new station where they could walk to the hospital or take a bus to some other location in the city. Building a new rail station is good for economic development, she said. The increased service could take as many as 2,000-3,000 cars out of the commuter traffic volume every day, she said.

Vivienne Armentrout began by saying that the item before the council was not about whether they loved rail. The agenda item asked the council to make a specific financial decision, for a specific decision – to provide matching funds for a federal grant. She recalled that for months if not years, mayor John Hieftje had given assurances that no more general fund money would be spent on the Fuller Road Station.

By way of background, that kind of assurance was given at the council’s March 1, 2010 meeting:

Mayor John Hieftje used his time for communications to respond to criticism of the Fuller Road Station that the council had heard during public commentary.

He prompted city administrator Roger Fraser to speak to the issue of how the city’s portion of the project would be funded, by asking Fraser if it was the plan to use money from the general fund. Fraser’s answer: “No, sir.” Hieftje allowed, however, that the financing plan had not yet been formulated.

Armentrout continued with her remarks by adding up costs. The council had allocated over $300,000 from the general fund [as part of the FY 2013 budget adopted in May 2012] for expenses that turned out not to count as matching funds for the FRA grant, she noted. Now the council is being asked to spend $550,000 more. That brings the total to about $850,000. She noted that providing only $550,000 in matching funds [instead of $700,000] would leave $600,000 in federal money “on the table.” [The FRA grant is for up to $2.8 million, with a 20% match requirement – that is, a match of 4 federal dollars for every local dollar. The arithmetic for $600,000 is (700,000 – 550,000)* 4]

Implying that she felt the city would eventually spend the additional $150,000, she asked rhetorically: “Do you believe in your heart of hearts that money will be left lying on the table?” Adding that $150,000 to the $850,000 from her previous arithmetic, she ventured that the council will be spending a total of $1 million just this year. An investment, she said, comes with a reasonable expectation of return. If there’s not a reasonable expectation of return, then it becomes a gamble, not an investment. Because there’s currently no federal program that will grant funds for construction of the station, she concluding that spending the money on the study is a gamble.

Ann Arbor Rail Station: Council Prelims

The council’s deliberations on the issue began in effect long before the agenda item was reached.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) used the council communications time toward the beginning of the meeting in effect to begin deliberations on the local match for the rail station study. He thanked all those who’d addressed the council that night and previously. He characterized the process as like a river that has been continually changing its course. The Fuller Road Station was prompted by the University of Michigan’s need for additional parking, but that deal is now dead, he said. He characterized the process as a “labyrinth,” and said he was glad that the Sierra Club has remained strong and protective of the community. He called the Sierra Club as ultimately “good stewards” of transportation for the city. In an apparent allusion to Christine Green’s public commentary, Anglin said, “To those from outside who are urging us to build, thank you! Please come up with the money.” Lots of people are saying that the council should proceed, but Ann Arbor taxpayers are those who are paying the bill, he contended.

Responding to the public commentary from Nystuen and Armentrout, mayor John Hieftje said during communications time that he thought previously a train station would be built without general fund money. But the Fuller Road Station deal fell apart, he said. At the time he believed that to be true, and the city was counting on the University of Michigan to provide the local match.

Also during communications time, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) took the opportunity to commend a position paper written by a parks advocacy group. She described it as a helpful educational piece. [.pdf of "Fuller Park Is Not the Right Place for a Train Station"]

Hieftje responded to Lumm by saying he felt there was a lot of misinformation in the document.

Ann Arbor Rail Station: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) began the formal deliberations by stating his belief that there was widespread agreement that expanded rail service in the city of Ann Arbor would be a “public good.” The next step to achieve that service would be improvements to the rail station – either at the existing location or at the Fuller Park location, which he made a point to describe as “a parking lot for the university since early in the first Clinton administration.” [Taylor had used a similar description at the council's June 4, 2012 meeting when the council voted to accept the FRA grant.] We can’t make progress without investment, Taylor said. And that would require a local match of the FRA grant. He stated that the city has the means to make the match and urged support of the resolution.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) was concerned about the nature of the proposed referendum specified in the resolution. She described it as vital to the community’s sense of involvement in the process. The resolution doesn’t make it clear if the popular referendum is binding or advisory, she said. She allowed that it’s not possible to put language into the resolution about the exact nature of project on which the public would vote, how much it would cost, or the date of the vote. But she felt it would be possible to add one more resolved clause: “RESOLVED, That no such construction shall proceed unless approved by a majority vote;…”

When there was no objection to that addition from the city attorney, Stephen Postema, Taylor indicated he also had no objection.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) appreciated Briere’s amendment, which made clear that the intent of the resolution would be to have a binding referendum. But she noted that the council could change its mind. Lumm asked if the vote was proposed to be on a specific project on a specific site. Taylor indicated he thought the vote would require a high level of clarity – including a specific design, a specific site and how it would be paid for.

Briere indicated that it’s not possible to say now what would be in the ballot language. She allowed that the result of the FRA study could conclude that the current Amtrak station is the preferred local alternative, and in that case she felt that a rail station project would still warrant a vote of the people. But Briere indicated she would prefer the ballot question include a location and a funding mechanism and that everyone be aware of the schematic design. That would be her personal goal, but she allowed that she might not be on the city council at that point, so she wouldn’t guess what the council would put in the ballot question.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) felt the resolution had addressed a number of concerns that had been heard over time. For example, she’d heard some residents say that if people want a vote, “Go ahead and put it on the ballot, and I’ll vote for it.” She said she would delightfully support the resolution.

Briere said she didn’t have a deep commitment about the location, but she did have a deep commitment that the project requires community support. If the FRA tells the city that Fuller Road is the best site, then the vote would have to deal with the repurposing of parkland.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) felt that the resolution was making an assumption that the outcome of the study would be Fuller Park as the preferred local alternative. He felt like a vote could be held now, on the basic issue of whether to proceed at all.

Briere responded to Anglin by saying she’d heard exactly the opposite message as an argument for why we should not be voting to build a new library. That argument had been made, she reported, the previous Saturday at a meeting of the Ann Arbor Democratic Party. The argument against the library bond proposal had been: There is no design or concept, and it’s “buying a pig in a poke.” If the council put a question on the ballot about a rail station, then any rational person would come back with questions like: How big and how much?

Lumm said first we need to be crystal clear about what the purpose of the resolution is – to provide a $550,000 match using general fund money. That’s in addition to $300,000, she said, which the council had allocated as a part of the FY 2013 budget. In June the council had been assured in no uncertain terms that no additional city money would be used, she said. Reading from a prepared statement, she noted that the already-expended funds the city was counting on using to provide the local match don’t qualify. She didn’t know what the hurry is, she said, noting that the resolution had been added to the agenda on Friday before the Monday meeting. At some point, the council needs to stop throwing good money after bad or at least “hit pause,” Lumm said. She felt the city was well past that point. She calculated $2.7 million that had been spent so far – including $1.4 million in water and sewer improvements at the Fuller Road site, and the rest in consultants and studies. She called it a huge amount of money on a project for which the basic need has not been established, she contended.

In subsequent deliberations, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) took issue with Lumm’s characterization of the water and sewer improvements as part of the cost of the rail station, saying that had been communicated clearly by city staff as part of the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP), independent of any rail station.

Lumm went on to describe the costs of the construction itself, as estimated to be more than $60 million, with no indication of how that would be paid for.

By way of more specific background, the cost estimate of more than $60 million includes a bit less than $10 million for the train station building itself, $5 million for a platform north of the track, $11 million for a new set of south rails and a south platform, and $13 million for parking facilities. [For a detailed breakdown of the balance of costs: .pdf of conceptual construction costs]

We have to make choices and establish priorities, Lumm said. Proponents of the resolution have said this will go to the voters. “That’s awfully convenient … It’s interesting that in June, when the council first approved accepting this grant, no one said ‘boo’ about going to the voters.” In August, she noted the council had objected to the idea of asking voters for a city charter amendment that would have protected parks. It’s time to “hit pause” and not “sign a blank check on three days’ notice,” she said.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) noted that one of the “whereas” clauses in the resolution indicated the city was told by the FRA that the previously expended funds could not count as a local match. He asked to get a copy of any letter that the FRA sent, and wanted to know if it would be possible to delay action on the matching funds until the city has a statement from the federal government about what happened. He didn’t want to continue down a path where it wasn’t clear where the city’s money is going. He ventured that everyone at the council table supports trains. But he said it seemed to him that the study had already “launched itself.”

Eli Cooper, the city of Ann Arbor transportation program manager, responded to Anglin’s question about the notification from the FRA, which had been referred to in the resolution’s whereas clause. Cooper said the notification came in a face-to-face meeting in a conference room with officials from the FRA and from MDOT. Cooper said it was not cold and callous. FRA officials described how supportive FRA continues to be of the project. That’s the basis for bringing forward the resolution, Cooper said.

Anglin pointed to the same U.S. Department of Transportation Act (DOT Act) of 1966 Section 4(f) requirement that some of the speakers during public commentary had cited. Among other things, the section includes a requirement that development of a transportation project on publicly-owned parks show that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to using the parkland.

Anglin told Cooper that the burden of showing there’s no feasible and prudent alternative is “an abundant task.” Cooper indicated that the project team is well aware of the Section 4(f) requirements. Assuming the council acted favorably on the resolution, Cooper said, the alternatives analysis would provide rationale for the choice of the preferred alternative over any other sites. Something like 14 other potential sites had been identified in work done years ago, and all that information will be pulled together, he said. Cooper noted that the NEPA process for the environmental assessment requires public engagement, and he indicated that in the case of Ann Arbor, that would mean consideration by the park advisory commission, as well as public workshops.

Cooper stressed that federal grant funds are still available, and said he looked forward to drawing down the grant funds as the project is advanced.

Ann Arbor Rail Station: Interlude on Section 4(f)

The Section 4(f) requirement mentioned at the city council meeting refers to part of the 1966 U.S. Department of Transportation Act. That federal act became ensconced in part as Section 138 of Title 23 of the United States Code. It includes the stipulation that publicly-owned park and recreational lands – as well as wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites – cannot be used for transportation project development unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative.

However, in August 2005, Section 6009(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) revised Section 138 of Title 23. It simplified the process and approval of projects that are deemed to have only de minimis impacts on Section 4(f) lands. Specifically, even if the U.S. Dept. of Transportation determines that a transportation use of Section 4(f) property results in a de minimis impact, an analysis of avoidance alternatives isn’t required.

The definition of “de minimis impact” in SAFETEA-LU is as follows [emphasis added in italics]:

With respect to parks, recreation areas, or wildlife or waterfowl refuges, the Secretary may make a finding of de minimis impact only if the Secretary has determined, after public notice and opportunity for public review and comment, that the transportation program or project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of the park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge eligible for protection under this section;

The Fuller Road Park site that’s been under discussion includes a 250-space surface parking lot. The previous Fuller Road Station collaboration with the University of Michigan was planned to be confined to the footprint of that currently paved surface, and not to extend farther towards the Huron River, where a soccer practice field is situated.

Given a configuration with a rail station building, platforms and an appurtenant parking facility – all of which is still confined to the footprint of the current parking lot – it’s conceivable that an argument could be made for meeting the SAFETEA-LU “de minimis” standard. The argument would depend on a claim that the two activities currently undertaken on the parkland site – parking and soccer practice – would not be adversely affected.

In subsequent back-and-forth between transportation program manager Eli Cooper and Mike Anglin, Cooper indicated that the intent is to locate the infrastructure of the rail station on the smallest footprint possible.

Ann Arbor Rail Station: Continued Deliberations

Briere ventured that her understanding of an environmental assessment is not just that it looks at grass and trees, but everything in the surroundings – including road infrastructure and the impact of proposed construction on neighboring properties. Cooper told Briere that it includes even more than that. But he said that the amount of rigor attached to an environmental assessment is less than that associated with an environmental impact statement. The Section 4(f) issue was characterized by Cooper as a separate discussion. That issue is prepared for review by the FRA, and the FRA makes the determination as to whether the Section 4(f) standard is met.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

Anglin wanted data that would apply to development around that particular site. Cooper told him the analysis would extend to a quarter mile around the proposed site. As an example, he gave Lowertown, saying that for either of the sites – Fuller Park or the current Amtrak station site – rail station improvements would have a positive effect on economic development of Lowertown.

Hohnke noted he’d received many emails from people supporting the resolution, and some communication from the Ecology Center and the Clean Air Coalition supporting it. To him, it appeared the only local organization that has significant concerns with this is the Sierra Club’s Huron Valley Group. Even the national Sierra Club urges communities to invest in transportation alternatives such as high-speed rail. He felt that the significant consensus in the community is that moving forward with investments in high-speed rail is the right thing to do.

Responding to Vivienne Armentrout’s characterization – made during public commentary – of the expenditure as a “gamble,” not an investment, Hohnke said he had a different view. If you look back to 1991, the Chicago-to-Detroit route was one of the first five national rail networks identified in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act as having one of the most significant opportunities in the country for yielding benefit to the community. Over $400 million has been made through ARRA [federal stimulus] funds to build out the Chicago-to-Detroit high-speed rail network, he said.

An additional $300 million has been invested in rail stock, Hohnke said. MDOT reports a 115% increase in automobile traffic on I-94 between Detroit and Chicago since 1991 and sees significant increases going forward, he said. So MDOT is supportive of the high-speed rail initiatives. And that’s why MDOT has recently purchased the east-west tracks from Norfolk-Southern. He described all this as “a national commitment” to improving rail transportation that goes back 30 years. He added that for every dollar Ann Arbor puts in, under the terms of the grant, the city gets four dollars back from the federal government. He was supporting the resolution because it increases environmental stewardship and economic development and access to mobility, he concluded.

Mayor John Hieftje drew out from Cooper that Amtrak was talking about the possibility of doubling train frequency through Ann Arbor. Hieftje argued for the resolution by saying that we shouldn’t build for our current needs, but for “way down the road.” He asked Cooper to talk about the longer-term projections for ridership. Cooper described how ridership forecasting would be done by a consultant engaged for that purpose. He reported that a number of communities are doing station planning. He said that MDOT and Amtrak indicate the six trains a day would probably increase to 10 – which would be for intercity passenger trips.

Cooper continued by saying that MDOT is quietly developing a commuter rail program, in the guise of a demonstration, and has already refurbished passenger coaches. About a month ago, he said, MDOT had acquired a locomotive. So at this point, MDOT is “cobbling together” a set of rail cars that can run, once the track improvements are done. The intent for the demonstration is for 4-6 commuter trips a day. But from experience living in other parts of the country, he said, with trains running on 20-minute frequency from 6-9 a.m. and also in the afternoon, put together with the intercity service, that could result within 25 years in as many as 50 trains a day coming to Ann Arbor station. Later in deliberations, Lumm objected to using the other places Cooper has lived, like Philadelphia, as a benchmark.

Responding to a later question from Sandi Smith (Ward 1) Cooper indicated that the economic benefit to an area is part of the environmental assessment and the impact would be positive.

Briere recalled how she’s been listening to people talk about building a new train station since she’s been in Ann Arbor. When the current Amtrak station was built, she said, no one was excited because people wanted to stick with the Gandy Dancer, even though it had already become a restaurant. The current building is amazingly unimaginative and unattractive, she said, but it’s functional now. The question is whether it will be functional in the future. Since 2000, the community has been struggling with conflicting viewpoints, she said – one being that there will be increased rail service and the other being that it won’t ever happen.

Briere said she believes that increased rail transportation is extraordinarily desirable. But if we increase rail service, where then do people go, and how do we get them there? She characterized the current Amtrak station as in a residential neighborhood with “its feet in the water.” Parking is insufficient, she said. Parking on the opposite side of the tracks from the station and taking luggage across the Broadway bridges in January is hard, she said. There’s nothing convenient about the current station location, except that you could walk uphill and get to the center of town. But she maintained that the conversation should not currently be about where the station will be located. Rather, the question is: Is it our goal to build a new train station? Arguing about the right location is not her goal, Briere said.

If you don’t have a plan in hand, you’re not prepared when opportunity strikes, Briere said. Whether funds are currently available for construction of the project, she said, is “not in our hands.” But it’s in the city’s hands to say it has accepted a grant from the federal government. She’s committed to the idea that we need to plan, so she supported the resolution. It’s not her call to identify the location, but “it’s my call to fund the work to come up with the plan,” she concluded.

Hieftje followed Briere’s comments by reading a substantial portion of a letter of support that had been received from the Ecology Center. He contrasted the Ecology Center’s support with the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club’s position, which he contended seemed to be saying: If you don’t want to build the rail station where we say, then we don’t want it. Referring to the Fuller Road Station project, Hieftje said it didn’t work out and it was costly. Now we have a new path and a clean slate, he said.

Outcome: On an 8-2 vote, the council approved the $550,000 allocation of general fund dollars for the federal grant’s local match, over the dissent of Mike Anglin and Jane Lumm. Stephen Kunselman was absent. The resolution achieved the eight-vote majority that it needed to pass.

Transit Connector Study

On Oct. 15, the council considered a funding request for additional study of a transportation connector between the northeast and south sides of Ann Arbor. On the agenda was a request for $60,000, but that amount was reduced to $30,000 at the start of deliberations – in the context of a recent vote by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to contribute $30,000 from the public parking fund to the effort. The DDA vote came at the DDA board’s Oct. 3, 2012 meeting.

The corridor runs from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street and farther south to I-94. The funding would support an alternatives analysis phase of the study, which will result in identifying a preferred mode (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and the location of stations and stops. The timeline for completion of the study would be about 18 months.

A feasibility study for the corridor costing $640,000 has already been completed. That initial study concluded that some type of improved high-capacity transit system would be feasible – which could take the form of bus rapid transit, light rail transit, or elevated automated guideway transit.

The $30,000 discussed by the council on Oct. 15 was part of $300,000 in local funding sources for a $1.5 million study: $150,000 from the University of Michigan; $90,000 from the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority; $30,000 from the Ann Arbor DDA; and $30,000 from the city of Ann Arbor. The $300,000 satisfies a 20% matching requirement for a $1.2 million federal grant the AATA has received to complete the $1.5 million project.

The AATA has already given approval of a contract with URS Corp. to start the work, contingent on lining up the remaining $60,000 in local matching funds.

The city council had initially been asked to contribute $60,000. But the council voted on Sept. 4, 2012 to reject that request. Then the council reconsidered that vote two weeks later on Sept. 17, 2012. But on reconsideration of the vote, the council decided to postpone a decision until Oct. 15.

Transit Connector Study: Deliberations – Part 1

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) led off deliberations by asking for an adjustment down to $30,000 in light of the DDA’s resolution. Mayor John Hieftje confirmed with Smith that the council’s resolution could follow the DDA’s grant by allocating $15,000 in each of two years. The council revised the amount without substantive comment.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) recalled that when the council had considered the question the first time [and she'd voted against it], she had asked transportation program manager Eli Cooper how the connector could impact the lives of Ann Arbor residents. To Briere it was clear why it impacted the University of Michigan. She wondered if Cooper had ideas that evening that he hadn’t addressed on the previous occasion.

Cooper responded by providing a map depicting forecasts for congestion in Ann Arbor. In 2005, 28% of miles vehicle miles traveled were under congested conditions. That would increase to 50% by 2030, Cooper said.

Forecasted traffic congestion in Ann Arbor: 2005 compared to 2030.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she wouldn’t support the resolution. She objected to the fact that there were multiple city transportation initiatives. She wanted to establish priorities among the initiatives and then pursue them.

Responding to another question from Briere about what entity would operate the connector if it’s built – University of Michigan, AATA or AATA’s successor – Cooper indicated that can only be answered after the technology is identified and the location of routes had been settled. Then it would be possible to determine which entity is best positioned to operate the service, he said.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated that in his view, the $30,000 is a deeply prudent use of resources. Everyone believes that Ann Arbor will grow, he said, whether with residents or businesses. The goal of the connector study is to get additional data.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked for deletion of a “whereas” clause mentioning the city’s proceeds of the sale of a six-foot wide strip of land to the AATA – $90,000. She called that inappropriate. [During the council's first consideration of the question, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had objected to the same clause.]

Higgins drew out from Cooper that the precise starting point of the corridor could be considered to be east of US-23 and Plymouth Road, and that specific routing and alignment will be clarified in the course of the study.

The council’s subsequent discussion touched on Jackson Road and the North Main corridor before winding down to a vote.

Outcome: On its initial vote, the council rejected the $30,000 for the connector study, with the votes against it provided by Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) was absent. The 7-3 vote was one vote short of the eight votes it needed to pass.

Transit Connector Study: Deliberations – Part 2

Near the end of the meeting, just after Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted that she would not be able to attend the Nov. 8 meeting – her last as a councilmember – Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) told her colleagues that she wanted to reconsider the connector study vote. [Because she was on the prevailing side, it was her right to do so. However, a reconsideration of the council's vote that evening would mean that the question was being reconsidered for a second time – because that night's vote itself had been a reconsideration of the question. And the council rules prohibit a second reconsideration of a question. But the council rules do allow for the suspension of council rules.]

Higgins began by asking councilmembers to suspend the council rule on reconsidering a question twice. Her colleagues indulged her. She then moved for reconsideration of the question. She said that in light of the fact that the $30,000 could be allocated across two years, $15,000 per year, she felt that she’d voted incorrectly.

Responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle, Higgins elaborated:

After the first vote, I had some time to evaluate the reduced cost of $15,000 per year to the city to leverage $1.2 M in federal grant money that may not be available in the future. This is a reasonable cost to get to the heart of the matter regarding how we move people in this city.

Outcome: On reconsideration, the council approved the $30,000 for the connector study on a 9-1 vote, with the sole vote of dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Transit Board Membership

At the Oct. 15 meeting, mayor John Hieftje made a public call for volunteers to serve on the new 15-member transit authority board, recently incorporated under Act 196 of 1986. That call came during the council communications slot at the start of the meeting.

From left: Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and AATA legal counsel Jerry Lax. Other senior staff of the AATA attended the meeting in case there were questions from councilmembers, but there were none.

Also placed before the council for their consideration were two of the seven Ann Arbor nominations needed for the new Act 196 transit 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 representing Ward 2. 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. [Hieftje also announced that it would be his intent to nominate Derezinski to take the place, as a citizen appointee, of an anticipated resignee from the city planning commission. After Nov. 8, Derezinski will no longer be able to serve on that body as the council's representative, as he currently does. The planning commission resignation has not been announced, but it's likely to be Evan Pratt, a Democrat running for the job of Washtenaw County water resources commissioner.]

While it had been previously assumed that the seven Ann Arbor appointments to the new transit authority’s 15-member board would serve simultaneously on Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s board, legal questions about simultaneous service on the two boards led to Hieftje’s announcement.

An application for all city boards and commissions is available on the city clerk’s website.

Ann Arbor’s seven representatives to the new authority’s board first need to be nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the city council – under terms of a four-party agreement ratified between the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the AATA. Under terms of that agreement, the AATA’s assets would not be transferred to the new authority, to be called The Washtenaw Ride, until voters approve a funding source for the expanded service to be offered.

The composition of the Ann Arbor contingent on the new authority’s board, as well as Ann Arbor’s eventual participation in the new Act 196 authority, could potentially be impacted by the delay in decision-making past the November election. Three new members will be joining the Ann Arbor city council. For more details and analysis, see previous Chronicle reporting: “Positions Open: New Transit Authority Board.”

Proceeds of Land Sales

Two items on the council’s agenda related to the topic of how to use the proceeds from the sale of city-owned land.

The first item was a proposal by Sandi Smith (Ward 1) to establish a formal policy that would direct 85% of the net proceeds from the sale of any city-owned land in the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district to be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund. Smith’s resolution had been considered previously on Sept. 17, 2012, but postponed until the Oct. 15 meeting with a referral to the council’s budget committee. Councilmembers Christopher Taylor, Sabra Briere, Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin and Marcia Higgins serve on that committee.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1).

Listed a few items later on the Oct. 15 agenda was a different resolution on the same topic, which came as a recommendation from the budget committee. During the month-long postponement of Smith’s resolution, the council’s budget committee discussed the proposal and made a recommendation that for only one city property – the Fifth & William lot, where the former YMCA building previously stood – the net proceeds from any future sale would be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

The budget committee also recommended that any other properties be considered on a case-by-case basis, considering all the needs of the city.

The wording of the budget committee’s resolution stipulated that for the Fifth & William site, the net proceeds of any sale “first be utilized to repay the various funds that expended resources on the property, including but not limited to due diligence, closing of the site and relocation and support of its previous tenants, after which any remaining proceeds be allocated and distributed to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund … ”

The relocation costs for previous Y tenants are estimated at around $1.3 million. The property’s purchase price in 2003 was $3.5 million. The council voted in 2008 to extend its five-year loan with the Bank of Ann Arbor for another five years, through the end of 2013. The interest rate is 3.89%. The interest-only payments work out to roughly $140,000 a year, of which the city has paid half. The Ann Arbor DDA has paid the other half of the interest payments. And when the YMCA building was condemned, the DDA also paid for the cost of demolishing it and abating asbestos – around $1.5 million. The total amount of local governmental costs associated with the property since 2003 is $7.7 million.

The kind of city policy considered by the council on Oct. 15 has a long history, dating back to 1996. And a previous policy of directing proceeds of city-owned land sales to the affordable housing trust fund was rescinded by the council in 2007. More detailed background is provided in previous Chronicle coverage: “City Council to Focus on Land Sale Policy.”

Resolutions urging the city council to adopt Smith’s proposed policy were approved by the board of the Ann Arbor DDA at its Sept. 5, 2012 and by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners later that same day. Leah Gunn, who chairs the DDA board, also serves on the county board of commissioners.

During initial deliberations at the council’s Sept. 17 meeting, Smith’s resolution appeared to have only mixed support on the council. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated he would only support the resolution if the proceeds from land sales were put toward the Ann Arbor Housing Commission specifically. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she could not support a percentage as high as 85%. Other councilmembers expressed skepticism at the value of a non-binding council resolution that future councils would not need to honor.

Another concern heard at the council’s budget committee meeting was that groups with other interests besides affordable housing – like greenway advocates – were also interested in “getting a bite at the apple” of city-owned land sale proceeds.

There are no imminent sales of city-owned land, but a current planning process could eventually result in one or more such sales. The DDA has undertaken a study at the previous direction of the city council, under the moniker of Connecting William Street. That process focuses on five city-owned parcels in the area bounded by Ashley, Liberty, Division and William streets. For Chronicle coverage of an earlier presentation on the project to the city’s planning commission, see “Planning Group Briefed on William Street Project.”

Proceeds of Land Sales: Public Commentary

During the first opportunity for public commentary, Thomas Partridge called on everyone of goodwill to join to build more affordable housing, give importance to accessibility and affordable housing, human rights and disability rights. He called on the council to direct all proceeds from the sale of city land to support of public housing.

Proceeds of Land Sales: Smith – Prelims

When the council came to Smith’s proposal on the agenda, which had been postponed from the council’s Sept. 17 meeting, Smith noted that the council’s budget committee had made a different recommendation. The committee’s recommendation had been added to the agenda as a separate item. She wanted the council to discuss her proposal and ultimately vote it up or down. She felt that she’d given a strong rationale at the previous meeting, and pointed to the documentation attached to the agenda item. It’s something we talk about a lot, she said – providing a lot of housing options and a diversity of housing. “We continue to talk about it and we continue to be unable to fund this change that we want to see.” The resolution is an attempt to find a mechanism to fund affordable housing in Ann Arbor, she concluded.

Mayor John Hieftje indicated he would save his deliberations for the budget committee’s agenda item.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) was supportive of Smith’s proposal in concept. [Teall serves as council liaison to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.] She wants to see the city make a commitment to the affordable housing trust fund. She thought it’s a great idea to use a portion of proceeds from land sales to do that. Smith’s resolution doesn’t give the entire amount to the affordable housing trust fund, she noted, because it subtracts expenses associated with the property. She wanted to see where this would go, if the percentage could be reduced to something like 60% instead of 85%.

In light of Teall’s suggestion, Smith indicated that she had some proposed language to revise the resolved clause.

Proceeds of Land Sales: Smith – Amendment

But the amendment wound up being proposed by Teall – changing the percentage from 85% to 60% of land sale proceeds to be deposited into the affordable housing trust fund. It also restricted the focus of the resolution to the geographic area of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) contended that the change made the resolved clause dramatically different, while Smith maintained that the two resolved clauses were only slightly different.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) thanked Smith for her work on the proposal, saying she has always been an energetic advocate for affordable housing. Hohnke was supportive of the objective, but had some concerns about the proposed means to achieve that objective. His preference was for a proposal that would not bind future city councils, and would encourage each council in the future to look at the needs of the city as a whole and where the funds need to be used. So he wouldn’t support the proposal.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) indicated that he agreed with Hohnke. He questioned whether it was good government for the council to bind itself to a percentage. Even if the council was free to change the percentage, it would create a momentum, he contended. He felt that such decisions should be made every year in the context of the overall budget.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated she appreciated Smith’s effort. Lumm’s objection was to the prescriptive aspect of the proposal. She ventured that she might support something in the 20% range. There’s no question that the needs for affordable housing are great, she said.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) characterized a recent presentation from the Ann Arbor Housing Commission as difficult to listen to. But he felt the solution to the problem of providing affordable housing “will come from outside of us,” from a federal mandate, he said.

Smith responded to Anglin’s mention of federal funding by noting that the city has been receiving less money from the federal government. So she was not as hopeful as Anglin that something on the federal level is actually going to happen. She wanted to have something in place that has to be undone, if it’s to be made different. She wanted a mechanism that forces the discussion to take place each and every time.

Outcome on the amendment changing the percentage to 60%: The amendment failed, with support only from Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Proceeds of Land Sales: Smith – Main Motion

After the council rejected the amendment lowering the percentage to 60%, Smith recognized that the resolution would fail as she quipped, “If you loved it at 60 you’re going to love it at 85!”

Lumm indicated again that she understood the motivation but would instead support the budget committee’s recommendation. [Lumm serves on the budget committee.]

Hieftje indicated that he had no confidence in future federal support for affordable housing. But he didn’t know if Smith’s approach is the right solution. The current council can’t tell a future city council what to do, he said.

Outcome: Smith’s resolution failed, with support only from Smith and Teall.

Proceeds of Land Sales: Budget Committee – Amendments

When the council arrived at the budget committee’s agenda item, Sandi Smith said she was glad to see there’s an acknowledgement in the resolution that the former YMCA property was acquired for a purpose – to preserve affordable housing units. After the costs associated with the site were deducted, however, she was not sure there’d be a significant enough investment left to make an impact.

So Smith offered an amendment to the effect that also for other properties, no less than 10% of any city-owned land sale should be distributed to the affordable housing trust fund.

Marcia Higgins ventured that land is so seldom sold by the city that such sales couldn’t be relied on. She stated that the council needs to have a conversation about how to deposit money into the affordable housing trust fund on a yearly basis.

Sabra Briere essentially supported Higgins’ perspective on the yearly, or routine, aspect of funding needs. The council really needs to identify recurring funds, Briere said. Previously, the city had made deposits into the affordable housing trust fund as the byproduct of the planned unit development (PUD) process. [Developers had the option of paying into the affordable housing trust fund instead of providing affordable housing units onsite].

Briere didn’t think that mechanism should be restored – because she’d always felt that making affordable housing dependent on bending the zoning rules put an uncomfortable incentive in place. She felt the same way about making the adequate funding of affordable housing dependent on the sale of public land. If the council did not want to sell the land, that shouldn’t mean there’s no money going into the affordable housing trust fund. Briere said she’d rather the council did something honest than doing something “to make us feel good.” She ventured that the council’s upcoming budget retreat would be a good occasion on which to discuss the topic.

Margie Teall felt that the rarity of property sales is a red herring. The idea is to take the opportunity when it’s there to shore up the affordable housing trust fund. A commitment is needed to indicate the community’s values, she said. Given that Smith was asking only for 10%, she couldn’t imagine that there’d be a higher need that would preclude allocating 10% to help people who are homeless.

Smith encouraged other councilmembers to support the amendment, saying that the city needs to find a way to get ahead of the game, instead of always being behind.

John Hieftje said, “I’m wrestling with this.” He appreciated what the budget committee had proposed – because the resolution stressed consideration of all the needs of the city. He didn’t want to mislead people into thinking the council would be bound by the 10% figure. He suggested that instead of naming a percentage, that the phrasing in the resolution about the needs of the city could be modified to say: “including affordable housing.”

Briere suggested that Hieftje’s amendment to Smith’s amendment could be strengthened to read: “especially the need for affordable housing.”

During deliberations on the amendment to the amendment, Teall said she was happy to support what Smith brought forward – because it’s more of a commitment.

Lumm indicated she could live with 10%.

Outcome on amendment to Smith’s amendment: The council voted to consider an amendment that would include the phrase “especially the need for affordable housing,” instead of Smith’s amendment, which explicitly stated allocating 10% for affordable housing. Voting for the elimination of the explicit percentage were Sabra Briere, Tony Derezinski, Margie Teall, Marcia Higgins, Carsten Hohnke and John Hieftje.

Some confusion ensued, because some councilmembers understood the vote on the amendment to Smith’s amendment to bring the discussion back to the main motion, which it did not. So Christopher Taylor pointed out the parliamentary gaffe and the council took a voice vote on the amendment. It passed unanimously, which brought the council back to the main motion.

Smith was content that the conversation has started again about this issue and that the council had spent time at two meetings to discuss the funding of affordable housing. It had fallen off the radar, she said, even though it’s a community value.

Teall added that she’d just then received an email from Nicole Adleman, executive director of the Interfaith Hospitality Network, urging support of funding for affordable housing.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the budget committee’s recommended land sale policy as amended to include the phrase, “especially the need for affordable housing.”

Human Services Coordinated Funding

The council considered a resolution that would continue a coordinated approach to human services for a third year.

The “coordination” referenced in the approach takes place among five local funders in the private and public sectors: Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, United Way of Washtenaw County, the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, and the Washtenaw Urban County.

During a presentation at the city council’s Sept. 17, 2012 meeting, Mary Jo Callan – head of the city/county office of community and economic development – described the purpose of coordinated funding as creating a public/private partnership to focus on key areas and to create increased coherence in investing in nonprofits.

The process has three parts: planning/coordination, program operations, and capacity-building. The city has historically funded program operations – shelters, after-school programs, counseling programs and the like.

The six priority areas targeted by the coordinated funding process, with the lead agencies, are: (1) housing and homelessness – Washtenaw Housing Alliance; (2) aging – Blueprint for Aging; (3) school-aged youth – Washtenaw Alliance for Children and Youth; (4) children birth to six – Success by Six; (5) health – Washtenaw Health Plan; and (6) hunger relief – Food Gatherers.

The total process puts $4.935 million into local human services nonprofits.

The extension of the coordinated funding approach for a third year means that nonprofits receiving funding currently would not need to reapply for support. The item on the council’s Oct. 15 agenda was not a resolution on funding allocation, but rather one that commits to using the same process for distributing funds, once funding decisions are made.

The extension by one year would allow for the evaluation process for the pilot period to finish – which Callan thinks will be done by January and would be available in January and February. It would also allow a better opportunity to provide the outcome data on the program so far.

At her Sept. 17 presentation, Callan counted a number of goals that had been achieved through the coordinated approach: identification of agency capacity concerns; single program description and program budget; reduced number of contracts; no required board resolution; single reporting procedure and timeline; auto-disbursement of payments regardless of funder; grantee feedback mechanism; volunteer reviewer feedback mechanism; and enhanced communication between funders and increased understanding of needs.

At that meeting, she also revealed that a private family foundation donor had expressed interest in making a significant contribution to the program, pending the outcome of a thorough evaluation of the coordinated funding approach. So the extension of the pilot program would allow for the delivery of a report on that evaluation.

Human Services Coordinated Funding: Council Discussion

At the council’s Oct. 15 meeting, Callan reviewed the coordinated funding approach.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) wanted to know what the funding commitments are. Callan explained that the council’s resolution that evening would not be a funding action. It would simply mean that the same process would be used to distribute funds for an additional year. It would essentially mean that no new RFP (request for proposals) will be issued, Callan said.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the extension of the coordinated funding approach to a third year.

Parks Grants

Acceptance of a total of $1 million in parks grant funding was considered by the council. Of that amount, $700,000 was for a skatepark, to be located in the northeast corner of Veterans Memorial Park. The other $300,000 was for renovations to the Gallup Park livery. The grant awards had been previously known.

Sources for the skatepark funding included $400,000 in matching funds from Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation and a $300,000 grant from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund. The city council authorized the application for the MNRTF grant at its March 21, 2011 meeting.

At that same March 2011 meeting, the council authorized applying for $300,000 of MNRTF grant funding for improvements to the city’s Gallup Park livery and entry area. The improvements include: barrier-free parking and docks for kayaks and fishing, trail renovations, livery building upgrades, patio renovations, landscaping, and wayfinding signage.

Outcome: Without significant deliberations, the council approved the receipt of the grants on three separate unanimous votes.

Ann Arbor Greenbelt Acquisitions

The council considered adding two properties totaling 125 acres to Ann Arbor’s greenbelt – land protected by acquisitions through the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage.

The council considered purchase of a vacant parcel adjacent to the Kuebler Langford Nature Area with about 0.91 acres. The fair market value of the land was determined to be $110,000, with the additional $13,000 accounted for through closing costs and due diligence. An environmental site assessment will be completed before closing. [.jpg image of parcel map]

From left: city administrator Steve Powers and Dan Ezekiel, chair of the city’s greenbelt advisory commission.

A second, much larger property totaling around 124 acres was also considered as a greenbelt acquisition through a purchase of development rights – the Donald Drake farm in Lodi Township. The requested expenditure from millage funds amounted to $483,450. Of that amount, $23,867 will go to cover costs related to closing, due diligence and a contribution to the greenbelt endowment. The total purchase price of the land is $549,478, with the city of Ann Arbor’s share supplemented by $109,895 from Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation and $1,000 from Lodi Township.

Part of the Drake property is currently being farmed. The city applied for USDA Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) grant funds in March 2012 to acquire development rights, but did not receive funds for this property. The strategy recommended by the city’s greenbelt advisory commission is to consider the farm as two parts – a northern and southern part. The GAC recommendation was to acquire development rights on the southern portion of the farm now, but to re-apply for FRPP funds in 2013 for the northern part of the farm.

The city’s 30-year 0.5 mill greenbelt tax was established by a voter referendum in 2003 for the purpose of “funding the acquisition of land for parks and the acquisition and management of land and land rights in undeveloped and developed land both within and outside the City of Ann Arbor for the purpose of preserving and protecting open space, natural habitats and the City’s Source-waters.”

Greenbelt: Public Comment

In the course of receiving a mayoral local food day proclamation, Dan Ezekiel – chair of the greenbelt advisory commission (GAC) – noted that the Drake farm is one of the few remaining operating dairies. The county had also come through, and will make a contribution on the purchase, he noted. GAC is doing its best to promote local agriculture, he said.

Greenbelt: Council Deliberations

Regarding the vacant parcel, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) observed that it’s an area adjacent to an interesting park, and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) characterized it as essentially an expansion of a park inside the city.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the acquisition of the parcel next to the Kuebler Langford Nature Area.

About the Drake farm, Lumm complained that while the guidelines for selecting land to protect are based on the leverage of taxpayer dollars, the county’s participation is only 20%. She characterized the county’s contribution as only “token.”

She didn’t think it was an effective leveraging of taxpayer dollars, contending that it’s nowhere near the target of 33%. She contended a higher standard should be applied, to ensure that taxpayer dollars are leveraged effectively.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who serves as the council’s representative to the greenbelt advisory commission, called the Drake farm a “particularly valuable purchase of development rights.” The parcel has unique woodlands, he said, and is one of the few remaining dairy farms. GAC pays attention to the guidelines mentioned by Lumm, he said, and he suggested that it’s useful to look at the program as a whole. Sometimes opportunities come up where there’s a greater amount of leverage, but sometimes it’s not possible.

After some back and forth between mayor John Hieftje, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl, it emerged that the property is split into two halves. The northern half will be targeted for acquisition of development rights next year. Hohnke felt that the leverage will be great on that one.

Lumm first declined Hieftje’s offer for a rollcall vote, but when Briere pointed out that the minutes would not reflect her dissent unless a rollcall were taken, she asked for the call of the roll on the vote.

Outcome: The council approved the acquisition of development rights on the Drake farm, over Lumm’s sole dissent.

Stormwater Study

The council considered a resolution that authorized an agreement with the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner’s office for infrastructure improvements to ameliorate flooding risk in the southwestern part of Ann Arbor. For the study, the resolution authorized the use of $200,000 in city funds already held by the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner’s office.

The area to be studied includes part of the Malletts Creek drainage district, bounded by Ann Arbor-Saline Road, I-94 and Scio Church Road. The area includes the Churchill Downs and Lansdowne sub-creekshed drainage areas. [.jpg of partial area map] Potential improvements include detention, pipe upsizing, and green infrastructure.

A staff memo accompanying the resolution mentions the heavy rains on March 15, 2012, which resulted in street flooding in that part of the city. The city council heard complaints from the public at its meetings after the flooding. A map of historical flooding in the city – obtained by The Chronicle through appeal of an initially denied request made under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act – shows that respondents to a survey conducted in the mid-1990s reported they’d experienced street flooding in the same areas that the flooding occurred earlier this year.

A resolution passed by the council at its Aug. 9, 2012 meeting had directed city staff to start negotiations with the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner to conduct the study.

Outcome: Without significant deliberations, the council unanimously approved the stormwater study.

Citizens United Resolution

The council took a symbolic vote on a call for the U.S. Congress to send a constitutional amendment to the states to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission decision. In broad terms, the court’s 2010 ruling prohibited the government from restricting political campaign spending by corporations and unions.

Citizens United Resolution: Public Comment

Stuart Dowty spoke on behalf of a group of concerned citizens who are worried about money in elections. He figured that most people were familiar with the Citizens United case. He was delighted to see that the item was on the agenda and he thanked the resolution’s sponsors. He anticipated some of the objections that some councilmembers eventually did express, namely that it’s not an issue on which a local city council needs to express a point of view. It’s a national issue and goes to the fundamental issue of democracy in our country, he said.

Is it appropriate for a local body to express a view on this? Dowty asked. Is it a local concern? The answer is a resounding yes, he contended. “It affects you,” Dowty told councilmembers. The ruling in Citizens United affects not just federal and state elections, but also local elections. This fact was made clear in a case that arose in Montana, he said. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned on a 5-4 vote a 100-year-old Montana statute that prohibited corporate contributions directly to candidates. The decision out of Montana made it clear that the Citizen United decision applies to local officers and local office holders, Dowty concluded.

Citizens United Resolution: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she didn’t agree with the Citizens United decision, but observed that it was a U.S. Supreme Court decision. Generally her policy is not to support messages to the U.S. Congress. She didn’t think the city council needs to articulate a position, she said. She felt that weighing in on the topic isn’t a part of her job and ventured that the resolution didn’t have any real impact. So she wouldn’t support it.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that although he would be happy to lend his name to a message of this kind, the resolution went beyond the local sphere.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she didn’t feel that such a resolution was a distraction from the council’s business. The council would stay at the table no matter how long it takes. She followed up with Dowty’s point during public commentary, saying that the Supreme Court decision affects local elections. She didn’t want corporate influence affecting who sits around the table. So she was in support of it.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) indicated he’d support it, though he said “it’s a close one.” As a “thinking community,” he said, he felt Ann Arbor could add a voice to an issue of national importance.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she’d asked herself if there was a local angle. She allowed she’d heard about influence of corporate money on national politics, saying that seemed quite distant from her life. Then she realized that it would be possible for someone with sufficient revenue to fund a PAC (political action committee) in Ann Arbor and attempt to influence the outcome of elections. To Briere, it’s a matter of local equity and national equity. She allowed that the council should talk about things that influence our local life – and she’s convinced the resolution does affect our local lives.

Mayor John Hieftje felt that the council should consider such issues only rarely. He recalled the vote the council took against the war in Iraq, which he felt had an influence on Michigan’s congressional delegation. It behooves the council to take action on this, he said, and it’s not something that can be left to our children.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) agreed that it’s an important issue, but felt that councilmembers have a stronger voice as individuals. She contended that hundreds of emails and phone calls would be more effective. As an individual she does support the resolution, she said.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) assured Higgins that she could still vote for the resolution and support it individually. Teall felt it’s part of her job to take the issue to a broader audience.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) felt that if cities unite, the people will understand what’s at stake.

Outcome: The council passed the Citizens United resolution on a 7-3 vote, over the dissent of Christopher Taylor, Marcia Higgins and Jane Lumm. Stephen Kunselman was absent.

Dissolution of Sign Board of Appeals

The council considered an initial approval for the transfer of responsibilities now performed by Ann Arbor’s sign board of appeals (SBA) to the zoning board of appeals (ZBA). Changes to ordinances, like the one considered in connection with the dissolution of the SBA, require an initial council approval followed by a second approval given at a subsequent meeting.

The move would eliminate the seven-member sign board of appeals, which currently has only three members, according to the city’s online Legistar system. According to a staff memo accompanying the agenda item, during the fiscal year 2012 the SBA heard six appeals and none the previous year. Appeals previously heard by the SBA would now be heard by the ZBA.

One of the advantages cited is that staff support time for the sign board would be eliminated. The dissolution of the SBA has been under discussion since 2008. The city’s planning commission discussed the issue on March 30, 2010, and more recently at its Sept. 6, 2012 meeting, when it recommended the change.

Dissolution of SBA: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked for an explanation of the change. Margie Teall (Ward 4) indicated that in her experience – involving a proposed billboard on Eisenhower – the SBA meets very rarely, so it was difficult to schedule a hearing. City administrator Steve Powers added that the change would streamline the appeal process, and would incorporate signage into the city’s uniform development code as a part of the ZORO (zoning ordinance reorganization) project. It would also make for more efficient use of time by the public and the staff.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) felt like signage issues would come up more frequently in the future. The signs that are allowed at the corner of Madison and South Main, and other areas are starting to look “a bit too ostentatious, to say the least,” he said. Anglin described it as living in “some sort of place where you’re going to maybe get on a ferris wheel.” Before shifting responsibility from the SBA to the ZBA, he felt the city needed to get a clearer idea of what kinds of signs should be allowed. Some communities have very severe restrictions on signage, he said. Advertising is getting more and more ubiquitous, he continued. The values the city holds will be reflected in the signs that are allowed, he said. In his neighborhood, Anglin said, the pizza parlor surprises him with the signs that they use. He didn’t want it to be the case that the city council was approving something just because the planning commission had looked at it and in general he seemed to question the idea that boards and commissions gave matters the kind of independent review they deserved.

Mayor John Hieftje encouraged Anglin to swing back his attention on the resolution. Anglin indicated he felt he was speaking to the fact that the proposal was about transferring decision-making authority from one body to another. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) spoke from her experience having served on the ZBA several years, saying that the ZBA takes cases very seriously. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) indicated that the planning commission’s discussion had been very thorough. The change simplifies government, he said. What Anglin was talking about was the underlying zoning ordinance, Derezinski ventured. He characterized the proposed shift from the SBA to the ZBA as more of an administrative change.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give the dissolution of the SBA its initial approval.

Airport Lease

The council considered a resolution to continue a lease with Solo Aviation Inc. – through at least June 30, 2015 – for office and terminal ramp space at the Ann Arbor municipal airport for aviation business operations. The lease provides for an additional three-year extension.

The terms of the lease stipulate $18.892 per square foot. According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, Solo Aviation is a fixed-based operator offering flight instruction, discovery flights, fueling, aircraft maintenance and service. Solo employs 30 people at the Ann Arbor municipal airport facility.

Outcome: Without discussion, the council unanimously approved the lease with Solo Aviation.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Sidewalk Gaps

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) recalled that there’d been no real consensus on a resolution the council had considered on Sept. 17, 2012 on the topic of filling sidewalk gaps. She’s subsequently heard a lot about people’s desire to come up with a mechanism – not necessarily the funds – to eliminate sidewalk gaps. She’s heard concerns about safety for kids walking to school, the nearest park or the store.

Comm/Comm: North Main Task Force

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) gave a brief report from the North Main corridor task force, which held a public meeting on Oct. 3. She characterized the meeting as well-attended with a nice variety of opinions aired. Another meeting public meeting will take place in November.

Mayor John Hieftje said at the meeting – in the context of Smith’s announcement that she would not be able to attend her final meeting as a councilmember on Nov. 8 – that he would be nominating her to be added to the task force as a citizen member. She currently serves as a representative of the city council.

Comm/Comm: Library Bond

Kathy Griswold, a former member of the Ann Arbor Public Schools board who serves as treasurer of a group called Protect Our Libraries, was there to talk about sustainability. The connection to the council’s agenda was a vote to distribute the city’s draft sustainability goals to surrounding municipalities. [State statute requires that when a city's master plan is revised – in this case to incorporate the sustainability goals – the changes must be distributed to adjoining jurisdictions before the master plan is changed.]

She showed the council a map of the district that the Ann Arbor District Library serves, which coincides nearly exactly with the Ann Arbor Public Schools district. She called the $65 million library bond proposal on Nov. 6 an attempt to bring lots of traffic downtown to park in the parking structure and eat on Main Street. [The 30-year bond would fund construction of a new downtown library at 343 S. Fifth, next to the city's new underground parking structure.] That’s not consistent with sustainability goals, she said. The downtown library building was built and renovated when it was part of the public school system, she said. AAPS had launched a major initiative to bring all its buildings into compliance with the Americans with Disability Act. The AADL could do the same thing without demolishing the downtown building. She questioned whether this is the right time to take on such an enormous financial debt. If AAPS still oversaw the AADL, we wouldn’t be asked to consider a bond to demolish a perfectly good building, Griswold said.

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

Absent: Stephen Kunselman.

Next council meeting: Thursday, Nov. 8, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. Council meetings are typically held on Mondays, but this meeting is pushed back due to the Nov. 6 general election. [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 city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Sources for the skatepark funding included $400,000 in matching funds from Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation and a $300,000 grant from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund. The city council authorized the application for the MNRTF grant at its March 21, 2011 meeting.

At that same March 2011 meeting, the council authorized applying for $300,000 of MNRTF grant funding for improvements to the city’s Gallup Park livery and entry area. The improvements include: barrier-free parking and docks for kayaks and fishing, trail renovations, livery building upgrades, patio renovations, landscaping, and wayfinding signage.

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