From left: Paige Morrison, Colin Smith, Bob Galardi and Graydon Krapohl before the start of the Aug. 19, 2014 Ann Arbor park advisory commission meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Regarding feedback on Liberty Plaza and Library Lane, PAC unanimously passed a resolution to form a subcommittee to study issues related to those urban parks, and to allocate or obtain resources to oversee programming there for up to a year.

Based on that effort, the subcommittee would analyze the outcome and deliver recommendations to council next year – no later than October 2015. This resolution, drafted by PAC chair Ingrid Ault and vice chair Graydon Krapohl, had been emailed to commissioners earlier in the day but was not available to the public prior to the meeting. [.pdf of Aug. 19, 2014 Liberty Plaza resolution]

The Aug. 19 discussion also included comments from Matthew Altruda, who programs the Bank of Ann Arbor’s Sonic Lunch weekly summer concert series at Liberty Plaza. Ault had invited Altruda to the meeting to describe that effort, which is widely cited as a successful use of Liberty Plaza.

Regarding the fee waiver, PAC voted unanimously to extend the waiver through October 2015 – coordinating with the subcommittee work on Liberty Plaza and Library Lane.

Both Aug. 19 items – the feedback to city council (but with no accompanying resolution) and fee waiver – had originally appeared on PAC’s July 15, 2014 agenda, but were postponed because three commissioners were absent at that meeting.

In other action, PAC recommended approval of three three-year professional services agreements (PSAs) for engineering services in the parks and recreation unit – with SmithGroupJJR, Stantec Consulting Michigan Inc, and Tetra Tech Inc. The amount was not to exceed $150,000 annually per agreement.

The commission also elected David Santacroce as chair for the coming year, replacing Ingrid Ault in that position. Paige Morrison was elected as vice chair. Each vote was conducted by “secret ballot” as stipulated in PAC’s bylaws. The one-year terms begin Sept. 1.

One topic that did not appear on PAC’s Aug. 19 agenda was a review of the proposed four-year extension on a University of Michigan lease of three parking lots at Fuller Park. The city council – at its meeting the previous night, on Aug. 18 – had indicated an interest in having PAC take another look at the lease renewal, but parks and recreation manager Colin Smith told commissioners that he didn’t have additional details on the request.

During deliberations on Aug. 18, mayor John Hieftje had recommended postponing council action until early October, in order to give PAC two meetings during which they could reevaluate the lease agreement. PAC had already recommended approval of the lease, after discussing it at their July 15, 2014 meeting. The parliamentary option chosen by the council was to postpone, not to refer to PAC.

The two council representatives on PAC – Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) –  chose somewhat different points of emphasis in their characterizations of the council’s Aug. 18 action on the Fuller Park lease. When Anglin told commissioners that the council wanted PAC to review the lease again, Taylor stressed that the council action was “a straight postponement” – not a vote to refer the item back to PAC. He added that the council was interested in hearing if PAC has any further thoughts on the use of the site.

Liberty Plaza & Library Lane

Two items on the Aug. 19 agenda related to Liberty Plaza: (1) extension of a fee waiver for events held at Liberty Plaza; and (2) feedback in response to city council action, which addressed Liberty Plaza and the potential park atop the Library Lane underground parking structure.

PAC chair Ingrid Ault.

Both Aug. 19 items – the feedback to city council (but with no accompanying resolution) and fee waiver – had originally appeared on PAC’s July 15, 2014 agenda, but were postponed because three commissioners were absent at that meeting.

After July 15, however, PAC called a special meeting for Aug. 5 to begin their discussion on providing feedback to the city council on Liberty Plaza. PAC’s discussion on Aug. 19 was informed in part by a packet of material provided to commissioners at that Aug. 5 special meeting, which The Chronicle was not able to attend because it was the date of primary elections. [.pdf of Aug. 5 Liberty Plaza packet] The materials included a memo with background and a bulleted list of issues related to Liberty Plaza, a list of potential ideas to address these issues, and suggestions for next steps.

Also included were PAC’s downtown parks recommendations, and a summary of previous work related to downtown parks, such as results from surveys conducted by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street study and by PAC’s downtown parks subcommittee. The packet also included case studies from downtown parks in four other communities: Director Park in Portland, Oregon; Arcadia Creek Festival Place in Kalamazoo; Campus Marius Park in Detroit; and Katz Plaza in Pittsburgh.

Commissioners continued that discussion on Aug. 19, focused on a newly crafted resolution that had been drafted by PAC chair Ingrid Ault and vice chair Graydon Krapohl. [.pdf of Liberty Plaza resolution, as amended by PAC on Aug. 19]

Liberty Plaza & Library Lane: Background

The PAC resolution discussed on Aug. 19 responded to a city council resolution that had been considered at the council’s June 16, 2014 meeting. That council resolution had been brought forward by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) – who serves as an ex officio member of PAC – as well as mayor John Hieftje, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

Liberty Plaza is highlighted in green. The surface of the Library Lane parking structure is highlighted in yellow. The city council has designated 12,000 square feet of that lot, on the west side along the South Fifth Avenue, as a future park.

The original version of Taylor’s resolution would have directed the city administrator to “work collaboratively with the property owners adjacent to and near Liberty Plaza, the general public, PAC [park advisory commission], the Ann Arbor District Library, and the DDA to develop a conceptual design for an improved Liberty Plaza…”

But after nearly an hour of debate on June 16, the council voted to refer the resolution to PAC instead of approving it. The vote on referral to PAC came amid deliberation on some amendments to the resolution proposed by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) that would have broadened the scope of the effort to include the Library Lane lot. [.pdf of Lumm's amendments]

Funding for the collaborative work on the redesign, in the amount of $23,577, was specified in the proposed resolution as coming from the parks and recreation budget. In addition to a concept for a “re-imagined Liberty Plaza,” the resolution was supposed to result in options for funding construction, to be provided by city staff. Taylor’s resolution called for a report to be provided to the park advisory commission by December 2014 and to the city council a month later in January 2015.

Taylor’s resolution came in the context of a push by some Ann Arbor residents – including members of the Library Green Conservancy – to establish public park space on top of the underground Library Lane parking garage, which is southwest of Liberty Plaza separated from that park by a surface parking lot owned by First Martin Corp.

Related to that, the council voted at its April 7, 2014 meeting – as part of reconsidering a vote it had taken at its previous meeting on March 17 – to designate a 12,000-square-foot portion of the Library Lane surface to be reserved as an urban park. The result of the reconsidered resolution on April 7 undid the council’s earlier decision to establish a square foot range for the urban plaza – from 6,500-12,000 square feet. That April 7 council decision was made on a 7-4 vote, with dissent from Taylor, Hieftje, Teall and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Deliberations among councilmembers on June 16, 2014 included questions about why PAC hadn’t been consulted on the resolution on Liberty Plaza. Taylor indicated that it wasn’t necessary to consult PAC, as it’s the council’s prerogative to set policy. PAC’s regular monthly meeting had been scheduled for June 17 – the day after the council meeting – but it was canceled.

PAC had previously been directed by the council to develop a set of recommendations regarding downtown parks, which were completed last year and included recommendations for Liberty Plaza and the Library Lane site. The council accepted PAC’s recommendations at its Nov. 7, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of 21-page PAC downtown parks report]

Liberty Plaza & Library Lane: Public Commentary

Two people spoke about this topic during the first opportunity for public commentary at PAC’s Aug. 19 meeting.

Ethel Potts told commissioners that she watches their meetings on Community Television Network. “You haven’t seen me, but I see you,” she said – a comment that drew laughs. The city council has given PAC an assignment to do something with Liberty Plaza, she noted. But the council has tied PAC’s hands by limiting the planning to Liberty Plaza. She described the plaza as “orphaned public space, unconnected to anything else in that whole block.” It used to connect to the lower level of the adjacent building, owned by First Martin Corp. on East Liberty, Potts said. Now, that building seems to be mainly offices, she added, with “very little coming and going of people.”

Ray Detter at the Aug. 19, 2014 meeting of the park advisory commission.

Potts thought the plaza’s design is charming, with two features that every park should have – shade and seating. However, to be a success it needs to connect to the downtown library, to the future park on Fifth Avenue [on top of the Library Lane underground parking structure], and to the bus station. She noted that someday, there will be a building over part of the Library Lane structure.

Liberty Plaza needs to have a connection, “so that it isn’t just left out there on a corner on its own,” Potts said. “I would ask you to please disregard the limits put on your planning by council.”

The idea of connecting Liberty Plaza with the rest of that block is supported by the Ann Arbor Preservation Alliance, which is very concerned about the historic buildings on Liberty and Division in that same block, she said. Liberty Plaza itself is becoming historic, she concluded.

Ray Detter said he was speaking on behalf of the downtown citizens advisory council. Most of the July DCAC meeting was devoted to a discussion of the future of the “library block,” he said – particularly Liberty Plaza and the future park on top of the Library Lane parking structure. With the former Y lot now sold and a broker hired to explore the sale of development rights on the Library Lane site, “we should all be ready to plan a great urban space on that entire block,” Detter said.

Members of the DCAC support development of a significantly-sized public plaza on the South Fifth Avenue side of the Library Lane site, Detter said, as well as use of Library Lane all the way up to the parking structure entry for scheduled community activities. DCAC also supports pedestrian walkways. All future development should take into consideration the needs of the downtown library, possible connection to the Blake Transit Center, the University of Michigan credit union site, the former Y lot, and nearby historic properties, businesses and residents, he said.

DCAC also supports a new tax-producing private or public development on the major part of the Library Lane site – a development that would provide “eyes” on a future adjoining public plaza, Detter said. In April, he noted, the city council resolved that the city would work with the developer of the remaining portion of the Library Lane site to ensure that the design serves both spaces. A lot of work and outreach has been done to develop integrated planning, he said, “and I think it’s time we really use it.”

Detter noted that the DCAC was involved in the 1991 Luckenbach/Ziegelman study, as well as with the 2005 Calthorpe study and more recently the DDA’s Connecting William Street study. All of these studies support a vision for the entire block and area, he said. “Connecting Liberty Plaza and the proposed Library Lot plaza have always been a major part of that plan,” he said. No money should be spent on redesigning Liberty Plaza unless it’s a part of that broader vision. He hoped that any money spent would be used for programming on Liberty Plaza. Events such as Sonic Lunch and Magic Carpet Mornings have proven that with the right programming, Liberty Plaza can be a downtown asset, he said.

Saying that PAC might have forgotten it, Detter recalled that about 10 years ago a group had formed called Friends of Liberty Plaza, which raised $250,000. The DDA agreed to give $250,000 if the city parks department gave $50,000, Detter said. Ron Olson, the city’s park director at that time, agreed to that. So there were major improvements made then, he said. However, he added, “we did not eliminate the problems that the park still faces today. We think we can do that with a comprehensive plan for the entire park.”

Liberty Plaza & Library Lane: Commission Discussion

PAC chair Ingrid Ault began the discussion by noting that both of the city councilmembers who serve on PAC – Mike Anglin and Christopher Taylor – were running late. She hoped that Taylor especially would arrive in time to participate, because he had sponsored the council resolution that PAC would be discussing. [He arrived about 30 minutes into the discussion.]

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, pointed out that the council did not vote on Taylor’s original resolution or on amendments proposed by Jane Lumm. Rather, they referred the resolution and amendments to PAC for consideration and feedback about costs and a timeline.

Ault apologized to commissioners, noting that they had not been sent her draft two-page resolution until earlier that day. It had turned out to be more complicated than she’d anticipated. She said the last page was the most important, and she then read it aloud:

Whereas, placemaking principles specifically identify the importance of dedicated and sustained programming resources as vital components of successful urban public spaces,

Whereas, dedicated and sustained programming resources have not historically been allocated in direct support of Ann Arbor urban parks, especially Liberty Plaza,

Whereas, PAC recommends the formation of a subcommittee to study and specifically address the issues associated with urban parks, especially Liberty Plaza and the Library Lot,

Whereas, PAC recommends that prior to any resource being allocated for redevelopment efforts directed at planning and redesign of either Liberty Plaza or the Library Lot, that resources, human and material, be allocated or obtained to specifically oversee the programming of Liberty Plaza and the Library Lot for a period not to exceed one year in order to answer the following questions:

1. Determine costs for on-going dedicated resources (human and material) for programming of the spaces for one year, recognizing that key element for success of any urban park is sustained and meaningful programming of the space.

2. Determine the success of programming efforts and how the currently designed spaces function in support of that programming. What worked and didn’t work?

3. Determine at the end of the study if issues long associated with Liberty Plaza are a function of design or the absence of sustained and meaningful programming, or a combination of both.

4. If shortcomings are design related, does it warrant a partial or complete redesign based on the outcomes of the study?

5. Determine what role adjacent and near by properties (public and private) have along with other downtown neighbors with regard to Liberty Plaza in determining key stakeholders for ongoing discussions.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, to reaffirm the purpose of PAC is to provide for public involvement in community park and recreation services and to provide advisory recommendations to the Manager of the Department of Parks and Recreation, City Administrator and Council regarding parks administration,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that PAC recommends that Council accept the above recommendations and direct staff and PAC to answer these questions and report their findings no later than October 2015.

Ault said that she and Krapohl had forgotten to include what funds would be designated for this purpose, so the resolution would need to be amended for that.

This would be a big undertaking, Ault said, so the timeframe was very important. It’s not something that could be done in the timeframe indicated by the council resolution – January 2015. She noted that PAC’s downtown park subcommittee had worked for nine months to complete its recommendations.

Pushing back the timeframe would allow PAC and staff to use the fall and winter to come up with ideas for programming, which could be implemented in the spring and summer, she said. The results of that programming then could be reported to the council in the fall of 2015. “You can’t make improvements unless you know how [the space] functions currently,” Ault said.

Liberty Plaza & Library Lane: Q&A with Matthew Altruda

Ault reported that she had asked Matthew Altruda to attend the Aug. 19 meeting and share his observations about what works or doesn’t work at Liberty Plaza, based on his experiences programming the Bank of Ann Arbor’s Sonic Lunch weekly summer concert series.

Matthew Altruda programs the Sonic Lunch summer concert series on behalf of the Bank of Ann Arbor.

Altruda briefly described the history of Sonic Lunch, saying that the bank’s president, Tim Marshall, had wanted to sponsor an event that used music to build community. “We believe music is one of the great chariots of building community. When you’re out seeing music and dancing with someone, that’s where you meet your great friends and future husbands and wives – it really brings the community together.” He pointed out that in the movie “Braveheart,” the only time the characters are enjoying themselves is when they’re dancing around the fire.

Sonic Lunch is a huge event and it takes a lot of time, Altruda said. This summer is the seventh season for this series, and any event that someone tries in a city park needs to be given a few years to get off the ground. “We are in the fruits of our labor now, with great turnouts and the city really embracing us,” he said. It’s extremely difficult to make a new Ann Arbor tradition.

A lot of people understand the “non-programming” that goes on in Liberty Plaza, Altruda said – some people talk about how it’s a place where homeless people hang out or where drug activities occur. In his experience, when the Bank of Ann Arbor staff shows up, the people who are hanging out at Liberty Plaza usually leave. First and foremost, these are people in the Ann Arbor community, Altruda said. “We treat them with respect, and when it’s time for us to do our programming in the park, they return that respect and leave.” If they don’t leave, they “act like great citizens and enjoy the music like everyone else,” he added.

Ault said that one thing PAC learned when they studied downtown parks is to focus on behavior, not on particular groups of people. She thanked Altruda for reminding them of that. “Everybody has the right to use a public space, until behavior encroaches,” she said.

Paige Morrison asked Altruda to elaborate on obstacles that Sonic Lunch has faced. Altruda replied that some of it relates to reassuring families about the safety of Liberty Plaza. Early on, there was an issue with people panhandling, he said. So some confidence had to be built to assure visitors that the park was safe.

“A lot of people fear the unknown, and when they walk by the park, they’re thinking that there’s terrible people there doing terrible things,” Altruda said. “I think that’s an unfair thought to have for these people.” There are definitely some “bad apples” who hang out at Liberty Plaza, he added. But others have started to police themselves, he said, if someone is out of line.

PAC member Paige Morrison.

Bob Galardi asked how much time is devoted to programming these concerts. Altruda said it doesn’t seem like a lot of time because he’s passionate about it, but in fact it’s his job and he does spend a lot of time on it. He works on Sonic Lunch year-round, communicating with record labels and booking agents to ensure that the series gets great performers. It’s part of the bank’s marketing effort, he said, so they spend money and time on the event.

To do other kinds of programming at Liberty Plaza, “it would take a lot of passionate people that want to do great events, and empowering them to do so. I think that passion is just gonna run wild with this community, if given the opportunity,” he said.

Graydon Krapohl asked about costs. Altruda replied that it’s a marketing opportunity for the bank, “so we’re definitely putting a lot of money and effort into it.” He indicated that although the bank is willing to spend a lot of money to bring major artists like Michelle Chamuel and ZZ Ward, that level of support isn’t necessary to have a successful event. “We just go big because it’s part of our vision, with the size of the event,” he said. If it were scaled down, Altruda thought they could still put on a great event. He added that he didn’t really know how to address the budget issue for other events.

Alan Jackson asked whether it mattered if the infrastructure of Liberty Plaza were different in some way – like eliminating the sunken aspect of the plaza. Altruda said it’s definitely been an issue, but it improved when the city trimmed and removed some bushes to create better sight lines for the bands. The bank also bought a stage that it sets up each week, which has helped. Altruda said he’s been told that people hide in the sunken parts of Liberty Plaza to do various things, but he hasn’t seen any of that.

Altruda said that if you leave Liberty Plaza alone, people will come and do whatever they want. But if you put on great events, then the people who want to participate in those events will come. There needs to be programming at Liberty Plaza, so that people will want to come there and bring their families, he said, “changing the perception to make people feel safe there.”

Altruda added that he feels safe at Liberty Plaza now, because 99% of the people who hang out there are harmless. But others might not have as much faith in people as he does, he said.

Liberty Plaza & Library Lane: Commission Discussion

Graydon Krapohl began the discussion by stressing the importance of programming any urban space. For Liberty Plaza, he noted, there hasn’t been a commitment to sustain programming over a period of time, to offset some of the behaviors that take place there. That’s a critical thing to explore before making recommendations about infrastructure, he said. “I’m not sure we know what needs to be redesigned or how it needs to be redesigned until we actually do programming” to see what does or doesn’t work, and how programming can be coordinated between Liberty Plaza and Library Lane.

PAC vice chair Graydon Krapohl.

Ingrid Ault highlighted some data associated with Campus Martius Park in Detroit. She was there about a month ago for lunch, and there was live music, a small farmers market, a sand beach and fountain. It’s commonly lauded as a great public space, she said, but it entails a lot of investment. It costs between $1.2 million and $1.4 million each year to operate, Ault said. “That’s pretty serious dollars – which comes back to the funding.”

So the city needs to identify sustainable funding before moving forward, she said. “That’s the one area that I’m gravely concerned about, with only $23,000 being identified at this point.”

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, clarified that the $23,577 mentioned in the council resolution was the result of a “parks fairness” budget resolution. Every year when the city council approves the city’s annual budget, adjustments are made to ensure that the parks budget is increased to match any increase in general fund expenditures in other areas, or to make sure there aren’t disproportionate cuts to the parks budget. This year, the parks budget was increased by $23,577 as a result of the budget amendments that were approved for the general fund.

Smith noted that the $23,577 isn’t currently allocated for any specific purpose. He added that if there is a desire to heavily program Liberty Plaza for a year, then “that is by no means enough.” He said he didn’t have any suggestion for where additional funding might come from within the parks and recreation budget. PAC could always suggest that the council consider using general fund reserves, he added.

Traditionally, Smith explained, the parks staff has done programming within the city’s recreation facilities – the pools, rinks, canoe liveries and golf courses. The “non-facility” parks, which comprise the majority of city parks, are unstaffed from a programming standpoint, he said.

Mike Anglin, a city councilmember and ex officio member of PAC.

But urban parks, to be successful, really do require some level of staffing, Smith said, noting that Director Park in Portland, Oregon, makes a good case study. It’s about the same size as the entire Library Lane site, and it also has underground parking. That park has fountains, public art, a cafe – and 26 businesses around the park’s perimeter. The annual operating costs are $475,000, which comes out of the city of Portland’s general fund. That funding is primarily for maintenance and staffing, Smith said, including a full-time “urban park specialist” who oversees the park.

Smith said he talked to Director Park’s specialist, who described it as “a community center without walls that requires attention every hour of the day.” Smith added that her words rang true to him. “It works really well when you work really hard at it.” For Liberty Plaza, $23,577 isn’t enough to make a difference – nor would it be a one-time investment, he said. Even if Liberty Plaza is redesigned successfully, funding would be needed on an ongoing basis.

Mike Anglin said that one way to evaluate a park is by looking at its use. That’s something to keep in mind if the city moves forward with programming. He recalled that one year there was a parade around Christmas time, and he was amazed at how many people came downtown. “We have a lot of talented people who have pent-up energy,” Anglin said. That’s something the city should tap into in a very positive way, he added. Anglin also spoke about the New York City park system, and some of its programming.

Alan Jackson wanted commissioners to keep in mind that if funding is spent on Liberty Plaza or a Library Lane park, “there may be associated economic benefits.” He suggested that when they evaluate the outcome of programming, they also evaluate benefits to adjacent businesses.

Karen Levin wondered if there were ways to partner with other entities, like the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

PAC member Karen Levin.

David Santacroce pointed out that there might be people who are willing to program the space at no cost to the city. He cited the Sunday Artisan Market at the Ann Arbor farmers market. He supported the approach reflected in Ault’s resolution. No matter how Liberty Plaza might be redesigned – other than fencing it off – without people in the park, there will continue to be “behavior that we may not want in a park.” Santacroce noted that Liberty Plaza has already been redesigned, “and it still didn’t accomplish what we wanted it to accomplish.”

Based on previous PAC discussions, Santacroce thought there was consensus that commissioners aren’t endorsing a city-funded public park versus a public space funded by a developer of the Library Lane site. “We’re not weighing in on that,” he said. That’s important to note, he added, because the process is still underway regarding development of that site.

Bob Galardi agreed. He wondered whether PAC had the purview to insert a whereas clause related to funding sources. Smith replied that since it was a recommendation to the council, adding that kind of clause would be appropriate, if that’s what PAC wanted to do. Galardi thought there might be other sources of funding, beyond just the city.

Smith said that since the programming would be for a year, it would likely be handled by hiring someone on contract to do the work. There’d need to be funding for materials and supplies as well, and possibly for security. Parks staff could come up with an estimate for the cost, he said. It’s also important to be very focused about what a contractor’s roles and responsibilities will be during that year, Smith added. He noted that it would take time to develop partnerships and other funding sources. Would that be the person’s focus? Or would the worker focus primarily on programming? He urged commissioners to keep in mind that they can’t accomplish everything immediately.

Anglin cautioned against hiring someone to “run” the programming. He wanted to make sure the community had the opportunity for input and consensus. “This is a discussion that needs buy-in first before we proceed,” Anglin said. If you have events and people show up, that means you’re on the right track, he said. But if no one comes, “you’re not moving – you don’t have the support.” Anglin thought it would take some time to do, saying that “deliverables in the public sector are very difficult, as we all know.”

PAC member Alan Jackson.

Jackson thought a one-year process would be setting it up for failure. It would probably take at least two years, he said.

Santacroce noted that there was a lot of public input when the PAC subcommittee on downtown parks did its work just last year. “I would be hesitant to re-engage the public in the identical conversation that we just did a year ago, because I think it’s a waste of time and public resources,” he said. One strategy might be to refine the request for input, he added, which would shorten the process a bit.

Krapohl agreed that one year probably isn’t enough time, but it would be the minimum amount needed. He thought the primary responsibility of a person dedicated to Liberty Plaza should be programming, and working out the metrics for how the city should measure success.

Smith drew an analogy to the city’s Give 365 volunteer program, which started a few years ago. One metric for that was to measure the number of volunteer hours per year, and gauge that in terms of hours worked by a full-time employee. The first year, the city had a goal of getting volunteer hours to equal three FTEs. So the parks and recreation staff is familiar with the need to measure a new initiative, he said. For Liberty Plaza, one measure could be the number of visitors to events.

Liberty Plaza & Library Lane: Commission Discussion – Amendments

The remainder of the discussion focused on relatively minor amendments, all of which were considered friendly – no votes were taken. Amendments included:

• Substitute “public open space” for “park” in the first whereas clause: “Whereas, the Park Advisory Commission (PAC) was asked to make recommendations for development of five city owned parcels in the downtown regarding use as a park public open space in late 2012,..”
• Eliminate “urban parks, especially” from this whereas clause: “PAC recommends the formation of a subcommittee to study and specifically address the issues associated with urban parks, especially Liberty Plaza and the Library Lot, …”
• Add “and financial” and “or obtained” in this whereas clause: “PAC recommends that prior to any resource being allocated for redevelopment efforts directed at planning and redesign of either Liberty Plaza or the Library Lot, that resources, human, material, and financial be allocated or obtained to specifically oversee the programming of Liberty Plaza and the Library Lot …”
• Add “and financial” in one of the questions to be answered: “Determine costs for on-going dedicated resources (human, material, and financial) for programming of the spaces for one year, recognizing that key element for success of any urban park is sustained and meaningful programming of the space.”
• Change “superintendent” to “manager” in this resolved clause: “… to provide advisory recommendations to the Superintendent Manager of the Department of Parks and Recreation, City Administrator and Council regarding parks administration, …”

Ault and Krapohl clarified that they intended the new subcommittee to study the space at Library Lane and Liberty Plaza as it exists now, and to determine how it might function in the future based on activities during the year of the study. That might include looking at how to coordinate activities at both locations, Krapohl said.

Jackson advocated for extending the timeframe to two years rather than just one. Ault said she’d feel more comfortable leaving it at one year, with the understanding that one of the recommendations delivered in October 2015 might be to extend the period of study another year. Santacroce agreed with Ault, saying by that time there might be more clarity about what’s happening at the Library Lane site, in terms of development.

Ault then read aloud the two-page resolution, as amended. [.pdf of Liberty Plaza resolution, as amended by PAC on Aug. 19]

Outcome: The resolution passed unanimously on a voice vote. It will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Liberty Plaza Fee Waiver

Also on Aug. 19, commissioners considered an extension of the Liberty Plaza fee waiver.

Liberty Plaza, an urban park located at the southwest corner of Liberty and Division.

By way of background, a year ago the city council voted to waive fees for use of Liberty Plaza, located at Liberty and Divisions streets. The waiver was for a one-year trial period, through July 1, 2014. The waiver had been recommended by PAC at its June 18, 2013 meeting. It came in response to a situation that arose earlier that spring when city staff applied fees to the hosting of Pizza in the Park in Liberty Plaza – a homelessness outreach ministry of a local church.

The goal of the waiver was to attract additional musicians, performers, and other events at Liberty Plaza. A key “whereas” clause of the 2013 council resolution stated: “… it is the goal of PAC to further activate Liberty Plaza by increasing social, cultural, and recreational activities that take place there; …”

Later in the year, on Nov. 18, 2013, the council approved ordinance revisions to allow for a waiver of fees when an organization uses any park to distribute goods for basic human needs. The ordinance was revised to include the following text: “There shall be no park rental fee charged in association with a permit, where the permitted event’s primary proposed activity is the charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs.”

Liberty Plaza Fee Waiver: Commission Discussion

On Aug. 19, parks and recreation manager Colin Smith told commissioners that the PAC resolution passed a year ago included a resolved clause stating that PAC should review the waiver after a year and make a recommendation to council about whether it should become permanent.

Alan Jackson asked how well the fee waiver has worked. Smith replied that there’s been some use – he mentioned the Turkey Trot – but not a lot. There hasn’t been a staff person available who could promote it. Smith thought it would dovetail nicely with PAC’s study of Liberty Plaza and the Library Lane site, which had been discussed earlier in the meeting.

Responding to the possibility of a similar fee waiver at the Library Lane site, Smith said that would be a question for the Ann Arbor DDA, which oversees the city’s public parking structures – including Library Lane.

David Santacroce suggested extending the Liberty Plaza fee waiver to synch with the proposed study of Liberty Plaza and Library Lane – through October 2015.

Christopher Taylor suggested the following wording for a resolution:

WHEREAS in the past year, fees have been waived at Liberty Plaza;

WHEREAS the park advisory commission has insufficient information about whether this is wise on a permanent basis;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that PAC recommends that city council continue the fee waiver in its current form for another year.

There was no additional discussion.

Outcome: On a voice vote, PAC unanimously recommended to extend the Liberty Plaza fee waiver. The recommendation will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Election of Officers

PAC held its annual election of officers on Aug. 19. David Santacroce was nominated as chair for the coming year, to replace Ingrid Ault in that position.

Ault told commissioners that she’d be stepping down soon from PAC, as she’s moving out of town. Earlier this year she took a job as an educator with the Michigan State University Extension in Calhoun County, Michigan, based in Marshall. She has been commuting there from Ann Arbor.

David Santacroce (left) was elected chair of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission for a one-year term starting Sept. 1. Next to him is Alan Jackson.

Santacroce is a professor of law at the University of Michigan. Before his appointment to PAC in November 2013, he chaired the city’s North Main Huron River corridor task force, which last year delivered its report to the council on recommendations for that corridor.

There were no competing nominations.

The vote was taken by “secret ballot,” as stipulated in PAC’s bylaws. Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith passed out slips of paper for commissioners to write their vote. City councilmembers Mike Anglin and Christopher Taylor, who serve as ex officio members of PAC, are not allowed to vote.

Outcome: On a 6-0 vote with one abstention, David Santacroce was elected chair, for a one-year term starting Sept. 1. He received a round of applause.

Paige Morrison was nominated as vice chair.

Typically, the current vice chair is nominated and elected as chair. However, PAC’s vice chair, Graydon Krapohl, is running unopposed for a city council seat in Ward 4. He won the Aug. 5 Democratic primary, also unopposed, and will appear on the ballot for the Nov. 4 general election. Krapohl told The Chronicle that he plans to step down from PAC after the November election, but is interested in being appointed as one of the two city council ex officio members. Those positions are currently held by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Taylor won the Aug. 5 Democratic mayoral primary, and faces independent Bryan Kelly in November.

There were no competing nominations for vice chair.

Outcome: On a 6-0 vote with one abstention, Paige Morrison was elected vice chair for a one-year term starting Sept. 1.

After the vote, Smith commented that he didn’t remember any abstentions in previous years, “so that was an exciting departure from the norm.”

Agreement for Engineering Services

At the start of the Aug. 19 meeting, the agenda was amended to add a new resolution related to engineering services. The resolution, brought forward by staff, was to recommend approval of three three-year professional services agreements (PSAs) for engineering services in the parks and recreation unit. The amount was not to exceed $150,000 annually per agreement. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

Colin Smith, the city of Ann Arbor’s parks and recreation manager.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, explained that for the last six years, the city has maintained professional agreements for engineering services for capital projects that the parks and recreation staff oversees. The existing three-year agreements are expiring.

The staff conducted interviews earlier in August with companies that responded to a request for proposals (RFP). They made a decision on Aug. 18 – that’s why the resolution was a late addition for PAC’s Aug. 19 meeting, he said.

The engineering firms are pre-qualified so that as projects come up, it speeds up the process, Smith explained. Each project still requires that the city administrator approve a “work statement” before a contract is signed with the firm, he noted.

Ten firms submitted RFPs. The three firms that qualified were selected based on the city’s needs: SmithGroupJJR; Stantec Consulting Michigan Inc; and Tetra Tech Inc.

City park planner Amy Kuras told commissioners that this process really helps her streamline projects. Responding to a query from Mike Anglin, Kuras clarified that the $150,000 ceiling applies to each firm annually. Sometimes it’s a lot less, she said, but there are also some projects that exceed that amount.

Smith said there’s no guarantee that any of these firms would get any work – it depends on whether projects emerge that are best suited for any of the firms.

Christopher Taylor asked whether any money is paid before specific projects are proposed. No, Kuras replied – the firms aren’t on retainer, they’re just pre-qualified. Kuras also noted that before contracts are awarded for projects, the firm must provide a detailed description of the work and cost estimates, which are sometimes negotiated down, she said.

Outcome: On a voice vote, PAC recommended approval of the professional services agreements.

Communications & Commentary

During the Aug. 19 meeting there were several opportunities for communications from staff and commissioners, as well as two slots for public commentary. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Manager’s Report – Senior Center, Fuller Park Lease

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, noted that the city’s outdoor pools would be closing for the summer after Labor Day, and he urged commissioners to get out and enjoy them in the remaining days.

Christopher Taylor, a city councilmember and ex officio member of PAC.

Smith also gave an update on repairs to the Ann Arbor senior center, located at 1320 Baldwin Ave. near Burns Park. He described a recent story in the newspaper “that perhaps raised more questions than provided answers.” There are repairs being done to the ceiling, and it’s easier and safer for users of the center to relocate to other sites. While that work is being done, there will also be improvements made, such as adding skylights. The staff expects it to reopen at the beginning of September.

Regarding a city council resolution on renewing a lease with the University of Michigan for the Fuller Park parking lot, Smith reported that the council postponed action on it until October. That action came at council’s Aug. 18 meeting. He said he didn’t have more details on that. [PAC had discussed the lease and recommended approval of the renewal at its July 15, 2014 meeting.]

Mike Anglin – one of the two city council ex officio members of PAC – recommended that commissioners watch the Community Television Network video from the Aug. 18 council meeting, regarding the discussion of the Fuller Park parking lease. “Because I believe the council sent it back to PAC to take a second look at it – that’s how I interpreted it,” he said. [The discussion begins at roughly the 2:53:43 minute mark.]

Christopher Taylor, the other city councilmember on PAC, characterized the council action as “a straight postponement” – not a vote to refer the item back to PAC. [The parliamentary procedure used by the council contrasted with the one used by the council to deal with Taylor's June 16 Liberty Plaza resolution – which was a vote "to refer."] Taylor added that council was interested in hearing if PAC has any further thoughts on the use of the site for parking.

Anglin said he thought the council was clearly sending it back to PAC.

Smith said he’d forward the council minutes to PAC after they are approved, “because I am not clear, after today, myself.” He didn’t think there was a vote on it, but he’d rely on the minutes.

The council’s Aug. 18 deliberations lasted about five minutes. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) suggested that if the council postponed action, he’d ask that PAC review the lease’s implications on city planning documents, such as the Parks & Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan.

Mayor John Hieftje then asked what would be an appropriate amount of time for PAC to do that, and he asked when PAC met next. Taylor replied that PAC met the next day – on Aug. 19. Hieftje then said: “Ok, maybe we should give them until the first meeting in October – because then they would meet twice before our next meeting.” Taylor replied: “Fair enough.” Taylor also noted that PAC had reviewed the lease renewal already, “but certainly if there’s a particular question that council is interested in, then we can certainly address that.”

Eaton said it was his understanding that PAC’s previous discussion of the lease had been brief. Mike Anglin described PAC as having a “quite lengthy discussion” about one aspect of the lease – a section of the lease titled “Early Termination/Transportation Use.” Anglin noted that some PAC members wanted to be clear that they were not endorsing a train station in that location. He said he’d like to send it back to PAC so that they could eliminate any mention of a future use. The mention of a possible future use seemed inappropriate to him, since the council hasn’t made any decision about that.

The council then unanimously voted to postpone action on the lease renewal.

Communications & Commentary: Committee Reports

Karen Levin reported that the dog park subcommittee would be bringing its work to PAC in September. It’s a guide for establishing new dog parks and improving existing ones, she said.

David Santacroce gave an update on the subcommittee that’s developing recommendations related to smoking regulations in the park. They’ve met with an expert from the University of Michigan, he said, and their intent is to bring forward recommendations to PAC in September. The recommendations will include a list of parks in which smoking should be banned.

Communications & Commentary: World Peace Day

Alan Haber spoke about World Peace Day on Sunday, Sept. 21. It was started by the United Nations in 1982 on the third Tuesday in September, coincident with the annual opening of the UN General Assembly session. In 2001, the UN changed the day to be Sept. 21 each year. “This is celebrated all over the world and as a peace person, I would certainly want to see it celebrated here,” Haber said.

Alan Haber.

He hoped there would be a place to come together in this town to talk about what people can do to address the conflicts in our world. The day could also be used to inaugurate a park on the Library Lane lot, he said, “as a peaceful place.”

It’s within that framework, Haber said, that it seemed to him appropriate for the park advisory commission to give the idea an endorsement or imprimatur of some sort, “as indeed the DDA has.” [It's not clear what action Haber was referring to regarding the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, which oversees the Library Lane underground parking structure.] He hoped the parks and recreation staff could help in some way – such as using the city’s liability insurance policy to cover the event. Whatever PAC did collectively, he hoped commissioners would come “and bring that peaceful part of yourself, and let’s elevate consciousness and activism.”

Haber also spoke on the same topic at the final opportunity for public commentary. Noting that PAC had discussed the importance of programming earlier in the meeting, Haber said this would be an example of community-initiated programming. He’d like to see World Peace Day become an ongoing part of the city’s calendar. He hoped the city would co-sponsor it, along with the DDA, and would allow the event to use the city’s omnibus liability insurance policy.

He thought a skating rink would also be a good programming idea for the Library Lane site.

Present: Ingrid Ault, Bob Galardi, Alan Jackson, Graydon Krapohl, Karen Levin, Paige Morrison, David Santacroce, and councilmembers Mike Anglin and Christopher Taylor (ex-officio members). Also Colin Smith, city parks and recreation manager.

Absent: Missy Stults.

Next PAC meeting: Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2014 at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

Santacroce is a professor of law at the University of Michigan. Before his appointment to PAC in November 2013, he chaired the city’s North Main Huron River corridor task force, which last year delivered its report to the council on recommendations for that corridor.

Paige Morrison was elected vice chair. Each vote was conducted by “secret ballot” as stipulated in PAC’s bylaws. The one-year terms begin Sept. 1.

Typically, the current vice chair is nominated and elected as chair. However, PAC’s vice chair – Graydon Krapohl – is running unopposed for a city council seat in Ward 4. He won the Aug. 5 Democratic primary, also unopposed, and will appear on the ballot for the Nov. 4 general election. Krapohl told The Chronicle that he plans to step down from PAC after the November election, but is interested in being appointed as one of the two city council ex officio members. Those positions are currently held by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Taylor won the Aug. 5 Democratic mayoral primary, and faces independent Bryan Kelly in November.

Ault is planning to resign her position on PAC later this year, as she is moving out of town. Earlier this year she took a job as an educator with the Michigan State University Extension in Calhoun County, Michigan, based in Marshall. She says she is currently commuting there from Ann Arbor, but plans to move.

This brief was filed from the second floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow.

Only five members of the nine-member Ann Arbor planning commission were present on July 15, so Wendy Woods was alone on her side of the table. She was later elected chair of the commission, and moved to a different seat to preside over the meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Developer Tom Fitzsimmons and his partners Peter Allen and Mark Berg were assured that the city council would be informed of the circumstances under which the vote was taken.

The plans call for 22 condos in two new structures and an existing building. The request is for approval of a site plan, development agreement and rezoning – from a planned unit development (PUD) to D2 (downtown interface district). The PUD, which has expired, was for a larger development on that same site that was never built – Peter Allen’s Kingsley Lane.

The tallest building at 121 Kingsley West would be 58.4 feet high – just under the 60-foot height limit for D2 zoning.

In other action on July 15, commissioners elected new officers for the coming fiscal year, which began on July 1. Wendy Woods was unanimously elected to serve as the commission’s chair, replacing Kirk Westphal. She has served as vice chair for the past two years. Ken Clein, who has served as secretary, was elected vice chair, replacing Woods in that position. Westphal reported that Jeremy Peters had expressed interest in serving as secretary, though he did not attend the July 15 meeting. Peters was unanimously elected to that position. None of the officer elections were contested.

Planning commissioners also unanimously adopted a master plan resolution and list of resource documents used to support the master plan. This is part of an annual evaluation of the master plan that’s required by the commission’s bylaws. There are no significant changes. Separately, they voted to approve the FY 2015 work program, which planning manager Wendy Rampson characterized as ambitious.

121 Kingsley West

The July 15 agenda included a request to recommend rezoning of 121 W. Kingsley, as well as a site plan and development agreement for a 22-unit condo development called 121 Kingsley West.

Rendering of 121 Kingsley West project, looking south from Kingsley. The existing building is in the left foreground.

The development would include renovating the existing two-story, 2,539-square-foot building, plus constructing two additional buildings above a common parking deck: (1) a 3.5-story addition to the existing building on the south; and (2) a 4.5-story structure at the west side of the site, at West Kingsley and North Ashley. In total, the development would include 22 units and 40,689 square feet.

The tallest building would have a height of 58.4 feet, which is slightly below the 60-foot maximum allowed in that zoning designation.

The project calls for rezoning the site from a planned unit development (PUD) to D2 (downtown interface). The site is surrounded by other D2-zoned parcels on the east, west and south sides. Across the street to the north, the land is zoned R4C, where mostly one- and two-story homes are located. To the west are also one- and two-story homes, though the land is now zoned D2. To the east, most of the homes along Main Street have been converted to offices. And to the south along Catherine and Ashley is a newer office building.

Developer Peter Allen.

Currently, the site includes a two-story brick building on the northeast corner, with a parking lot on the south half of the lot. The far northwest corner of the site, at Kingsley and Ashley, has never been built on, according to Jill Thacher, who gave the planning staff report.

One curbcut is proposed off of Kingsley, which would lead into the parking area between the buildings. There would be 29 “formal” parking spaces below the buildings – though only two spaces are required, based on residential premiums that the project is seeking. The premiums give the project additional floor area, compared to allowable by-right square footage. If premiums were not sought, no parking would be required for D2 zoning.

An elevator for each new building will be accessible from the parking level. The parking level of the east building will include a bike room with 14 spaces, plus three other bike spaces elsewhere in the garage.

Ten street trees will be planted along the Kingsley and Ashley front lot lines, and interior landscaping will be provided.

The developers are requesting that the city change the designation for the street frontage from “front yard,” which has a 15-foot minimum setback, to “secondary street,” which has a zero to 15-foot setback. The proposed new setbacks would be for a 7.35-foot setback on West Kingsley and an 8-foot setback on South Ashley.

Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff.

Thacher reported that the project was evaluated by the city’s design review board on March 19 and determined that it generally met the intent of the downtown design guidelines. The main objection from board members was their perception of a weak connection between the proposed design of the new building and the existing two-story building.

According to a staff report, the project’s development agreement will address “easements for encroachments onto the City right of way by the existing building, onsite stormwater management, verification of LEED points, six required footing drain disconnects, future façade alterations, and the contribution to Parks and Recreation Services.” [.pdf of staff report]

The estimated cost is $6.5 million.

Developers are Tom Fitzsimmons, Peter Allen and Mark Berg, who all attended the July 15 meeting. Fitzsimmons and architect Marc Rueter answered questions from commissioners.

The project is on the same site as a previously proposed project by Peter Allen called Kingsley Lane. That had been envisioned as a larger development with 46 units in a complex with two “towers” – at four and nine stories. According to a 2006 Ann Arbor News article, pre-sales of the units were slower than expected because of the struggling housing market, and ultimately financing fell through. Last year, at a July 9, 2013 planning commission work session, planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that the developers had lost the property to the bank, but subsequently secured the land and were expected to submit a new site plan. The PUD for Kingsley Lane had expired.

121 Kingsley West: Public Hearing

Two representatives of the developers were the only speakers during the public hearing. Tom Fitzsimmons said that he and his partners – Mark Berg and Peter Allen – were excited to bring new housing to the downtown area. Allen and Berg have been working on a plan since 2003, he noted. The Kingsley Lane project was a previously approved PUD, with mostly housing. It was 105 feet tall with nine stories, he said.

From left: Architect Marc Rueter and developer Tom Fitzsimmons.

Fitzsimmons pointed out that he’s done a lot of work in the near downtown area, in both R4 and D2 zoning districts. He thought this project was a good one, in terms of meeting the D2 zoning guidelines, and providing a design that transitions from the near-downtown neighborhoods to the downtown. He hoped the project would receive a recommendation of approval.

Architect Marc Rueter described the design concept. The first objective was to introduce the site to traffic coming off of Kingsley, with the parking almost completely hidden from view. One of the comments from the design review board was that there should be “a little more interest” from Kingsley, he said. At that time, there were fewer windows and no balconies on that side. Since then, the design has been revised to add more balconies and windows on the north side facing Kingsley. Also, some of the materials have been changed from brick to a very dark porcelain tile on the main building.

Rueter also pointed out that the trash dumpsters are completely enclosed in a garage that will be opened on trash day. The mechanical equipment is also completely concealed, he said.

One of the project’s objectives was to try to get as much pedestrian connection to the site as possible, Rueter explained. So there’s a small stairway and ramp coming off Kingsley, leading to a community area on the site. Pedestrians can also enter off Ashley, or off of the alley, which Rueter said would be a good place for pizza delivery, mail, and other service deliveries. All the pedestrian entrances come together in the center of the site, where there’s a fairly large community deck.

121 Kingsley West: Commission Discussion

Before beginning the discussion, Wendy Woods noted that because only five commissioners were present, it would not be possible to achieve the six votes necessary for a recommendation of approval. She characterized that outcome as a “technical denial,” and noted that the council would be aware of the circumstances.

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

Diane Giannola asked if the existing brick building is historic. Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff replied that it was built in 1947, and isn’t located in an historic district. So it’s not considered historic.

Giannola then asked whether the units would be apartments or condominiums. Tom Fitzsimmons from the development team said they planned to market the units as condos. The old building will be converted into one condominium unit, although they’ll be flexible if there’s not the demand for that. He said the project has received a lot of interest from people who want to live downtown.

Kirk Westphal asked about floor-area ratio (FAR). FAR – a measure of density – is the ratio of the square footage of a building divided by the size of the lot. A one-story structure built lot-line-to-lot-line with no setbacks corresponds to a FAR of 100%. A similar structure built two-stories tall would result in a FAR of 200%.

The 121 Kingsley West project has a proposed 247% FAR. The maximum allowed by right is 200%, and the maximum with premiums is 400%. Thacher pointed out that the project doesn’t use all the available premiums – only the premiums given for residential development. Planning manager Wendy Rampson explained that it’s not possible to achieve 400% FAR using only the residential premiums.

Planning commissioner Wendy Woods.

Westphal noted that it would be possible to achieve a higher FAR, and also pointed out that the project has parking spaces far in excess of the requirements. He asked if the developer would like to comment.

Fitzsimmons replied that they’re designing a building to fit well within the scale of the area. Some of the constraints are the basic zoning guidelines of height, setbacks and other design aspects. They’re keeping the existing building on site, so the design is based around that. “We looked at the whole thing as a package,” he said. They are not trying to max out every possible square foot.

In developing condominiums, there are tradeoffs, Fitzsimmons said. They have to make sure there’s enough available parking, which isn’t as critical if you’re marketing apartments. It would be nice if everyone who lived downtown didn’t have cars, he added, “but that’s just not reality where we’re at.”

Building codes are another issue, he noted. That includes how the project deals with elevator access to the upper floors, and how the mezzanine level is handled. The top floor is really a mezzanine, he explained – covering one-third of the floor below it. That was done so that the top floor wouldn’t visually overwhelm the area, Fitzsimmons said. It’s similar to the Liberty Lofts building on the Old West Side, which also has many two-story homes on two sides.

So they’re not trying to maximize square footage, Fitzsimmons said, but rather they’re trying to do something appropriate within the existing constraints.

Westphal said he appreciated the effort to tuck away the parking.

Eleanore Adenekan clarified with Fitzsimmons that a condo association would be responsible for snow removal.

Developer Tom Fitzsimmons.

Responding to another query from Adenekan, Fitzsimmons explained that units will range between 1,100 and 2,400 square feet. Each condo will have either one or two spaces of dedicated parking, based on the size of the condo. Additional parking spaces will be available on the site. Fitzsimmons noted that Ashley has on-street parking, unlike his other development on North Main Street.

Ken Clein asked about the height. He noted that the zoning allows for streetwall height of two stories minimum and three stories maximum. The zoning comparison chart provided in the staff report lists the project’s streetwall height at three stories. But to him, the streetwall for the building along Ashley looked more like five stories.

Thacher explained that the zoning code has a provision that allows the streetwall height to be averaged. Rueter described it as “an extremely complex site, and zoning is usually written for flat sites.”

Zoning code allows a project to establish an average grade throughout the site by taking into account all the different grades on the site. Everything in the development that’s more than 50% lower than the average grade is considered a basement, he said. It doesn’t count as a story, in terms of calculating height. The building’s plinth establishes the grade line for the first story, he said.

Rueter further explained that the zoning requires a specific setback, but it also allows a project to average that setback. So that’s what this project is doing, he said. That allows them to slightly decrease the mass on the north and south sides.

Clein replied that it still seems like it’s four stories from the plinth – in the renderings, there are four sets of windows going up, he noted. Rampson further clarified that because it’s on a corner lot, they’re allowed to apply the streetwall setback – the setback that starts at the top of the building’s streetwall – to both the Ashley and Kingsley frontages. The developers chose to have no streetwall setback for a portion of the streetwall on Ashley. They’re applying that displaced setback on the Kingsley side, and elevating a portion of the building on the south side. The city’s code didn’t anticipate how to treat a corner lot, she said. Rampson acknowledged that it was hard to describe.

From left: Planning manager Wendy Rampson, and planning commissioners Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods.

Fitzsimmons noted that the code allows for some flexibility in how to do the setback. Rueter added that a uniform 5-foot setback is not necessarily the best way to utilize decks or public space, or to achieve a strong building facade.

Clein stressed that he liked the design, “but I’m imagining that neighbors or other people will look at that and say ‘That doesn’t look like a three-story wall to me.’”

Clein also clarified with staff that the LEED premiums would be “LEED equivalent” – that is, there’s no requirement that they must be officially LEED certified. Thacher noted that the development agreement will include plans for how to reach that equivalent status, and how they’ll prove it before building permits are issued. Rampson added that a registered LEED professional will have to sign off on it, and it’s intended to be an objective evaluation. The premiums are awarded for “energy and atmosphere” points, she explained, not just general LEED points.

As is his habit, Clein asked about the building materials that are proposed. Rueter replied that originally, the design called for brick on the lower level, to tie in with the existing building. But the design review board had suggested using a different material that would allow them to keep the existing building painted a dark green. So instead of stripping the paint off that building, they decided not to use brick on the other buildings, and instead chose a porcelain tile. Other materials include cementitious panel system, which would be painted a dark color, as well as a lighter-colored HardiPlank and corrugated steel.

Clein also clarified with staff that the stormwater management system will be detaining water underground until it infiltrates.

Wendy Woods said she liked the dark green color of the existing building, saying it reminded her of California. Rueter said the color scheme is taken from Aubrey’s and Sidetrack in Ypsilanti’s Depot Town.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning, site plan and development agreement. However, only five commissioners were present, so it failed to achieve the six votes needed for a recommendation of approval. It will be forwarded to the city council with a recommendation of denial, with an explanation of the attendance.

Officer Elections, Bylaws

The July 15 agenda included organizational items for the new fiscal year, which began July 1. The commission holds officer elections at this time each year. This was the first major item on the agenda.

The elections were held according to the commission’s bylaws:

Section 6. The election of officers shall be held at the first regular meeting in July, provided that if that meeting should occur on July 1, the election of officers shall be held at the next regular meeting.

Section 7. Nominations of officers shall be made from the floor, and the election shall be held immediately thereafter. Voting shall be by secret ballot when more than one candidate has been nominated for the office. If only one candidate has been nominated for the office, the election may proceed on a voice vote at the discretion of the Chair.

Section 8. A candidate receiving a majority vote of the entire membership of the Commission shall be declared elected and shall serve a term of one (1) year or until the candidate’s successor shall take office.

Kirk Westphal, who has chaired the commission for the past two years, presided over the meeting until the new chair was elected.

Kirk Westphal cast a vote during the July 15 meeting. He presided over the early part of the meeting as chair until Wendy Woods was elected to that position. Westphal is running for Ann Arbor city council in the Ward 2 Democratic primary against Nancy Kaplan.

Wendy Woods was nominated as chair. She has served as vice chair for the past two years. There were no other nominations.

Outcome: On a voice vote, Woods was unanimously elected chair, with no competing nominations.

Westphal and Woods switched seats, and Woods presided over the remainder of the meeting.

Ken Clein, who has served as secretary, was nominated as vice chair, to replace Woods in that position.

Westphal reported that Jeremy Peters had expressed interest in serving as secretary, though he did not attend the July 15 meeting. None of the officer elections were contested.

These three positions make up the commission’s executive committee.

Outcome: In separate voice votes, Clein and Peters were elected as vice chair and secretary, respectively.

This is also the time of year when the commission’s bylaws are reviewed. Planning manager Wendy Rampson introduced staff recommendations for changes to the bylaws, which had also been discussed at a July 8 working session. She noted that when revisions to bylaws are being considered, the commission must provide notice at a meeting before that potential action.

Planning commissioners had originally adopted revisions to their bylaws at a Feb. 20, 2014 meeting. Those changes related to two issues: how city councilmembers interact with the commission; and public hearings.

Revisions to bylaws require city council approval. However, the city attorney’s office did not forward the Feb. 20 changes to the council for consideration. There was no action until earlier this month, when assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald provided suggested revisions to the bylaws related to public hearings. Those were the changes that were presented to commissioners at their July 8 working session, and again at their July 15 regular meeting. [.pdf of revised bylaws regarding public hearings] [.pdf of bylaws staff memo]

The main changes are in Article VIII Section 5 [deletions in strike-thru, additions in bold]:

Section 5. At the discretion of the Chair, or by vote of a majority of the members present, public hearings may be continued to another date. meeting, but will not be deemed to be a new hearing but a continuation of the original. If a public hearing is continued, individuals who have not previously addressed the Commission during the public hearing may address the Commission following the requirements of Section 3. Individuals who have addressed the Commission previously during the public hearing may only address the Commission for additional time (as limited by Section 3) during the continued public hearing if the Chair, with the consultation of Planning and Development Services staff, determines that: 1) additional public feedback is necessary, or 2) a specific petition has materially changed since the date of the original public hearing date. Agendas for continued public hearings shall specify whether members of the public shall be granted additional time to speak.

There were no changes suggested for the revisions that were passed by planning commissioners on Feb. 20 related to interactions with city councilmembers. That revised section states:

Section 9. A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission during the Councilmember’s term in office.

Kirk Westphal asked for clarification of the process. Rampson explained that after commissioners discuss these revisions at their next meeting, if they adopt the changes then it will be forwarded to the council for consideration. The bylaws must be approved by the council before taking effect.

Outcome: This was not a voting item. The bylaws revisions will likely appear on the Aug. 6 planning commission agenda.

Master Plan Review

The July 15 agenda included a review of the city’s master plan and list of resource documents used to support the master plan. This is part of an annual evaluation of the master plan that’s required by the commission’s bylaws. No significant changes were proposed. [.pdf of master plan resolution]

From left: Planning commissioners Eleanore Adenekan, Ken Clein and Diane Giannola.

Seven documents constitute the city’s master plan: (1) sustainability framework, adopted in 2013; (2) parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, as adopted in 2011; (3) land use element, as adopted in 2013 to add the South State corridor plan; (4) downtown plan, as adopted in 2009; (5) transportation plan update, as adopted in 2009; (6) non-motorized transportation plan, adopted in 2007; and (7) natural features master plan, adopted in 2004.

On July 15, the commissions were also asked to adopt a revised list of resource documents, with two new additions: (1) the climate action plan; and (2) the North Main/Huron River corridor vision report, which replaces the 1988 North Main Street corridor land use plan. Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that commissioners had discussed making these additions at earlier meetings.

Commissioners had held a public hearing on a master plan update at their May 6, 2014 meeting, as part of this annual review process. Only one person – Changming Fan – spoke during the hearing, asking the commission to include his company’s technology in the master plan. The hearing continued on July 15, but no one spoke.

According to a staff report, in FY 2015 – which began on July 1, 2014 – the planning staff and commission will work to update the master plan in the following ways: (1) incorporating a right-of-way plan for Washtenaw Avenue; (2) developing a greenway plan for Allen Creek; and (3) revising the future land use recommendations for the North Main/Huron River corridor. They also will assist the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority in creating a streetscape framework plan and help city staff identify a locally preferred alternative for the connector high-capacity transit route.

Discussion was brief. Kirk Westphal asked about the sustainability framework action plan, and whether that would eventually become a resource document. Rampson replied that city staff had discussed using it internally as a way to organize the work of various commissions and staff, and to gauge how that work relates to achieving the sustainability goals. “I think it’s more of a communication tool,” she said. However, if the planning commission at some point feels that it’s important to include in the master plan’s resource documents, that would be an option.

Westphal characterized it as a work plan for all the commissions, in a way.

Ken Clein asked where the Reimagine Washtenaw initiative would fit. Rampson replied that a recently competed study of that corridor had recommended a right-of-way plan in order to implement the Complete Streets approach along Washtenaw Avenue. [.pdf of right-of-way study] One possibility would be to adopt a future right-of-way line, she explained, that could eventually allow for a bike lane or a high-capacity transit lane. It would set a mark from which building setbacks would be measured. So it’s listed as a future possibility for the master plan, she noted, as an amendment to the land use element or transportation plan.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously passed the master plan resolution and update to the resource document list.

Annual Work Program

Commissioners were asked to approve the FY 2015 work plan. [.pdf of FY 2015 work plan]

Planning manager Wendy Rampson.

“This is your To Do list for the next year,” planning manager Wendy Rampson said. “It’s very ambitious.”

In addition to items that are related to the master plan, Rampson highlighted the affordable housing needs study, and the work of the affordable housing subcommittee. That group includes planning commissioners Jeremy Peters and Eleanore Adenekan, as well as members of the city’s housing & human services advisory board and staff of the Washtenaw County office of community & economic development (OCED). The needs study includes a survey that OCED is currently undertaking.

The work plan also consists of the capital improvements plan (CIP) review, which will begin this fall, as well as several ordinance revisions:

• A2D2 downtown zoning amendments: Completion target – December 2014.
• Citizen participation ordinance evaluation and amendments: Completion target – January 2015.
• Zoning ordinance re-organization (ZORO) amendments: Completion target – January 2015.
• Redevelopment Ready certification: Completion target – November 2014.
• R4C-R2A zoning amendments: Completion target – March 2015.
• Floodplain ordinance/flood insurance impacts: Completion target – March 2015.
• Accessory apartments/affordable housing amendments: Completion target – TBD.

Rampson reported that in terms of staff work load, most of the numbers had increased – for work like development reviews and site compliance activity, among other things. [.pdf of FY 2014 work plan update]

Ken Clein noted that while this work plan is a blueprint, it also depends on work flow coming into the city for developments and other projects, which would take top priority for planning staff. “So petitioners out there shouldn’t be afraid that we’re going to ignore [their projects] because we’ve got all these other great things to work on, and the community shouldn’t be afraid that if there aren’t petitions, there won’t be enough work for staff to do,” he said.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously adopted the work program.

Betke Annexation & Zoning

The July 17 agenda included a request to annex an 0.09-acre strip of land from Ann Arbor Township and to zone it as R1A (single-family residential).

Aerial view of 2562 Newport. The dark strip is the parcel to be annexed.

The property is attached to 2562 Newport, which was annexed into the city in August of 2011. The vacant strip – 12 feet wide and 330 feet long – was inadvertently omitted in that original annexation. It’s necessary to annex now in order to clear the title so that the property can be sold.

According to a staff report, there are no plans to build anything on this strip. Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff characterized the action as “cleaning up and adding this strange little panhandle onto the main parcel.”

Thacher noted that the parcel doesn’t reach Warrington Drive, and would never be used as a driveway. At one point there was a well on this strip, but now the site uses city services and the well has been removed.

The current owners are Erik and Alicia Majcher. The petitioner is Michael Betke. No one spoke during a public hearing on the item, and there was no discussion among commissioners.

Outcome: The rezoning and annexation were unanimously recommended for approval. The item will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Communications & Commentary

Every meeting includes several opportunities for communications from planning staff and commissioners. No one spoke during either of the opportunities for general public commentary. Here are other highlights from July 15.

At a July 8, 2014 Ann Arbor planning commission work session, architect Robb Burroughs showed concept designs for a Toll Brothers residential development along Nixon Road.

Communications & Commentary: Planning Manager Update

Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that there had been a citizen participation meeting about a proposed development along Nixon Road – a residential complex by the Toll Brothers. It was very well attended, with over 200 people, she said – making it the largest citizen participation meeting since the ordinance was adopted. She wasn’t sure when the project would be submitted to the city. [Representatives of the Toll Brothers had attended the commission's July 8 working session to present a "concept plan" for the project.]

Rampson also noted that the Ann Arbor housing commission has decided to expand its development on Platt Road, south of Packard – so they’ll be holding another citizen participation meeting about that on Monday, July 28 at 7 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library’s Malletts Creek branch, 3090 E. Eisenhower. The city council’s July 21 meeting includes an item authorizing the purchase of property at 3401 Platt Road on behalf of the housing commission. That property is adjacent to the existing AAHC site, and would be used for the expanded project.

Rampson clarified that this is not the same site as a county-owned property on Platt Road, which is be considered for affordable housing.

Communications & Commentary: DDA Streetscape Framework

Ken Clein, who represents the planning commission on the partnerships committee of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, reported that the DDA held another advisory committee meeting for the streetscape framework project on July 8. Committee members met with consultants hired by the DDA to figure out how to proceed. There will be a public forum on the project sometime in September. [The DDA board authorized a $200,000 contract for development of a streetscape framework plan at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting.]

Clein said the goal is to complete the project by the end of this calendar year, and to report out in early 2015.

Communications & Commentary: Ordinance Revisions Committee

Kirk Westphal reported that the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC) had met prior to the commission’s regular meeting on July 15. They discussed parcels along Huron Street, and are looking at changing height maximums as well as ways of addressing the shape of buildings. This is the next step in a process, based on a city council directive, to review and recommend zoning changes in specific parts of the downtown. The overall intent was in large part to buffer near-downtown residential neighborhoods. The commission had unanimously approved a set of recommendations at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting.

Implementation of ordinance changes related to those recommendations began with a vote at the commission’s May 6, 2014 meeting to rezone a large parcel at the southeast corner of Main and William – at 425 S. Main – from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface), a lower-density zoning. The commission also recommended adding new requirements to the Main Street character district, where 425 S. Main is located. At that May 6 meeting, they voted 6-3 to recommend changes that include setting a maximum height of 100 feet for properties in that district that are zoned D2, and requiring upper story stepbacks from any residential property lines. That maximum was 40 feet taller than the 60-foot height limit specified for D2 zoning elsewhere in the downtown.

However, when the changes were forwarded to city council for consideration, the council amended the height down to 60 feet. Councilmembers gave initial approval of that amended version on June 16, 2014. The item is on the council’s July 21 agenda for final approval.

Communications & Commentary: Resolution of Appreciation

Because only five commissioners on the nine-member entity were present, planning manager Wendy Rampson suggested deferring action on a resolution of appreciation for outgoing member Paras Parekh, who is resigning to move to Chicago.

His replacement will be nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the city council. Application forms are available on the city’s website.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Ken Clein, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods. Also: City planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Absent: Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Jeremy Peters.

Next meeting: Wednesday, Aug. 6, 2014 at 7 p.m. in council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Wendy Woods was unanimously elected to serve as the commission’s chair, replacing Kirk Westphal. She has served as vice chair for the past two years. Ken Clein, who has served as secretary, was elected vice chair, replacing Woods in that position. Westphal reported that Jeremy Peters had expressed interest in serving as secretary, though he did not attend the July 15 meeting. Peters was unanimously elected to that position. None of the officer elections were contested. These three positions make up the commission’s executive committee.

This is also the time of year when the commission’s bylaws are reviewed. Planning manager Wendy Rampson introduced staff recommendations for changes to the bylaws, which had also been discussed at a July 8 working session.

Planning commissioners had originally adopted revisions to their bylaws at a Feb. 20, 2014 meeting. Those changes related to two issues: how city councilmembers interact with the commission; and public hearings.

Revisions to bylaws require city council approval. However, the city attorney’s office did not forward the Feb. 20 changes to the council for consideration. There was no action until earlier this month, when assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald provided suggested revisions to the bylaws related to public hearings. Those were the changes that were presented to commissioners at their July 8 working session, and again at their July 15 regular meeting. [.pdf of revised bylaws regarding public hearings] [.pdf of bylaws staff memo]

The revisions will be voted on at the commission’s next meeting, then forwarded to the council for consideration.

This brief was filed from the council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron, where the planning commission holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow.

On Jan. 29, Kristin “KT” Tomey attended her first regular meeting of the Ann Arbor public art commission since being appointed by the city council on Jan. 6. (Photos by the writer.)

Some commissioners expressed frustration that they had insufficient information on which to base their evaluation. And after about two hours of discussion – using a scoring rubric with seven criteria – commissioners had evaluated only a few projects: artist-designed street access (manhole) covers, art for the Springwater subdivision, and art for the corridors of Main Street and Plymouth Road. Because there were still several other items on the agenda, they voted to postpone further evaluation of possible capital projects until their next meeting.

In other action, commissioners discussed and approved a draft annual public art plan that’s officially due to the city council on Feb. 1, for projects to be undertaken in the fiscal year that begins July 1. It includes projects that are underway – like artwork for East Stadium bridges and Argo Cascades – as well as a proposal to add some enhanced capital projects, like street access covers on resurfaced roads.

The draft annual plan had been prepared by Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator. Commissioners asked for some revisions and designated commissioner John Kotarski to work with Seagraves on a final version that will likely be presented to the council on Feb. 18. Kotarski praised the draft, saying “It has as much meat as anyone wants. It shows a lot of work. It shows an art commission that gets the message from an impatient city council.”

Commissioners also discussed a proposal from the Clean Energy Coalition to select and fund an artist who would help incorporate art into a new bike share program. They tabled action on this item, wanting additional information about the CEC’s expectations for funding.

This was AAPAC’s first regular meeting since Oct. 23, 2013, although they held a retreat in December and a planning session earlier in January. Throughout the evening, concerns were raised about the future of the public art program, in light of recent city council discussions. The council had postponed a requested six-month extension of Seagraves’ contract, and will be taking up that item on Feb. 3.

Also on the council’s Feb. 3 agenda is an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance. The amendment would allow the council to return about $800,000 accumulated under the city’s former Percent for Art program to the funds from which that money was drawn, such as the street millage or sanitary sewer fund. It’s the latest in an ongoing transition for the city’s public art program – a transition that’s been unsettling for public art commissioners.

The Jan. 29 meeting marked another transition for AAPAC, which has seen considerable turnover during the past year. It was the first regular monthly meeting for the newest commissioner, Kristin “KT” Tomey, who was appointed by the city council on Jan. 6. And it was the last meeting for Malverne Winborne, whose term ended on Dec. 31. He did not seek reappointment, and was serving until the position was filled. His replacement, Jim Simpson, is expected to be confirmed in a vote at the city council’s Feb. 3 meeting.

Winborne has served as vice chair of AAPAC – but the group held new officer elections on Jan. 29. Bob Miller was re-elected to another one-year term as chair, and John Kotarski was elected vice chair. There were no competing nominations, and both votes were unanimous.

Noting that the Jan. 29 meeting had been especially challenging, Miller thanked commissioners for their work. “This is probably the most belabored meeting I think we’ve ever gone through, aside from maybe one of the retreats,” he said. “I’m tapped out.” He jokingly cajoled commissioners: “Please do come back.”

Miller also encouraged students to return, as about two dozen students from Skyline High School – and some parents – attended the Jan. 29 meeting. “It’s the most amount of people we’ve ever had at any of our meetings,” Miller noted. One student pointed out that they were all from the same government class, facing a Jan. 31 deadline to attend a public meeting.

Future of Public Art Program

At the beginning of the Jan. 29 meeting, commissioners voted to amend the agenda – over the dissent of John Kotarski – to add an item for discussion about the interaction between AAPAC and the city council.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s part-time public art administrator.

Bob Miller, AAPAC’s chair, reviewed the current discussion that’s underway at city council. At their Jan. 21, 2014 meeting, councilmembers were asked to approve a six-month extension to the contract for the public art administrator – a part-time position held by Aaron Seagraves. Some councilmembers were concerned about the transition from the previous Percent for Art funding mechanism to the new approach, where public art will be “baked in” to the city’s capital projects or done with money that’s raised through other sources in the community. Also raised at that Jan. 21 city council meeting was the issue of as-yet-unallocated funding that remains from the Percent for Art program – about $800,000.

Ultimately, councilmembers postponed action on Seagraves’ contract extension – and that item is now on the Feb. 3 council agenda. The Feb. 3 agenda also includes initial consideration of an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance, sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2). The amendment would allow the council to return money accumulated under the city’s former Percent for Art program to the funds from which that money was drawn – such as the street millage or sanitary sewer fund. The ordinance change would need a second and final council vote at a subsequent meeting to be enacted. Any transfer of public art money would require separate council action after the potential ordinance change.

Miller noted that when the council made revisions to the public art ordinance to eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism at its June 3, 2013 meeting, the remaining funds had been intended to provide a transition for the program. [At that time, Lumm had also tried unsuccessfully to return the remaining Percent for Art money to its funds of origins, but she didn't get sufficient support on the council to make that change.]

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator who attended AAPAC’s Jan. 29 meeting, added that it’s within the council’s “political prerogative to revisit that decision, which is what they are doing now.” He noted that when the council made changes to the program, they made no provisions to pay for arts administration. That’s why the contract extensions for Seagraves – who reports to Hupy – have been made.

If the council decides to return the roughly $800,000 to its funds of origin, Hupy said, it means there won’t be funds available during this interim period for public art. The intent going forward to include public art funding as part of certain capital improvement projects, but those are longer-term efforts. The other funding approach is to partner with outside organizations and do fundraising from the community, but that hasn’t yet gotten off the ground in a significant way. [It's also an option for the council to allocate money from the general fund to cover the salary of a public art administrator salary, but that option has not yet been publicly floated by city councilmembers.]

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Nick Zagar.

Hupy said that if the council doesn’t approve the current contract extension, then staff will be asking for a budget appropriation during the fiscal 2015 budget process for public art administration. That fiscal year runs from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. The staff is currently developing that budget, which will be brought forward to the council in the spring. “I’m not giving you a whole lot of clarity,” Hupy added, “because this is a process that’s in council’s hands.”

Hupy noted that the city council task force that brought forward a proposal last summer to restructure the public art program had envisioned a three-year transition process. “So to think you’re going to whip this in one or two meetings – you’re not going to do it that quickly,” he told commissioners.

Miller added that it’s still “muddy” as to how AAPAC will be structured to do fundraising and partnerships with outside organizations. He noted that some projects – a Coleman Jewett memorial, and the Canoe Imagine Art project, for example – are already using this approach. “So we’ve been moving toward this new model,” Miller said, “but the council still hasn’t figured out how to house the commission in a structure that will allow for us to be fundraising.” He noted that commissioners shouldn’t be the the people who go out and raising money – they should be advising the city on how to select art projects.

Nick Zagar expressed concern about the current status of AAPAC. “We’re volunteers trying to do things we’re passionate about, but there’s never any certainty about things.” And if the city eliminates the public art administrator’s position, “everything I’m sure will grind to a dramatic halt,” Zagar said. It’s hard to want to invest a lot of energy into the program, he added, given that commissioners don’t really have a clear direction about the program’s future.

Miller agreed, and said those questions will have to be answered by the council on Feb. 3. “Public art has been a hot topic since it started,” he said. “It would be nice if [the public art program] had some consistency behind it, for sure.”

Selection of Capital Projects for Public Art

On Jan. 22, AAPAC met in a planning session focused on fine-tuning a criteria and scoring rubric for prioritizing capital projects that could possibly have a public art component. [.pdf of draft scoring rubric]

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator.

The rubric is modeled after a similar system that’s used by city staff to score and prioritize projects in the capital improvements plan (CIP). Commissioners had been briefed on the CIP process at their Oct. 23, 2013 meeting by Deb Gosselin, who oversees the CIP process.

The draft rubric includes seven categories, with scoring on a scale of 1-10: (1) distribution of art throughout the city; (2) locations of high use and high visibility; (3) placemaking; (4) integrated artwork (whether artwork can be integrated into a project or location); (5) partnerships; (6) funding; and (7) programming – whether a school or other organization could develop programs related to the artwork.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, had selected 10 projects that are in the city’s current capital improvements plan (CIP) – three starting in fiscal 2015, and seven starting in fiscal 2016.

Those capital projects and possible public art enhancements proposed by Seagraves are:

• Annual street resurfacing (FY 2015): artist-designed street access covers (manhole covers) for the city’s water, sanitary sewer and stormwater systems.
• Sidewalk gaps (FY 2015): Sidewalk stamping.
• Mid-block street crossing improvements, pavement marking and sign replacement (FY 2015): Art to-be-determined for the streets.
• Six specific road projects (FY 2016): East Stadium Boulevard from Huchins to Kipke; Springwater subdivision (south of Packard, west of Platt); Main Street (non-motorized corridor); Plymouth Road (non-motorized corridor); Stone School Road improvements; Packard/Eisenhower, from Stone School to Platt. Artwork would be integrated into the projects.
• Ann Arbor Station (FY 2016): Art would be integrated into the project.

Seagraves noted that he focused on projects that could be included in the annual plan that AAPAC is required to submit to the city council in February. The intent is that the capital projects, when sent to the council for budgetary approval, would include funding for public art to be integrated into the work. He hoped that commissioners could reach a consensus score to prioritize these projects.

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Ashlee Arder.

Commissioners spent about two hours discussing only a few projects on this list: street access covers, art for the Springwater subdivision, and art for the corridors along Main Street and Plymouth Road.

Some commissioners expressed frustration at having to score these items without having a specific project proposal to evaluate. When Seagraves asked who would define the project at this point, John Kotarski suggested that Seagraves would do that, and it would then be evaluated by commissioners. Malverne Winborne agreed: “We need something to grasp on to, and we don’t have it.”

Seagraves noted that it would be difficult to predetermine the art projects – that would be the work of a task force, after AAPAC identifies a CIP project for enhancement. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, explained that AAPAC at this point needs to rate the location or type of project and its suitability for art, rather than the specific artwork that might be part of a capital project.

Kotarski felt there was inadequate information to do the scoring. Bob Miller, AAPAC’s chair, directed Seagraves in the future to include photos of the locations, and some suggestions for possible art projects that might be appropriate. But Winborne expressed concern that this would be taking away from the artist’s creativity. “We’ve had long conversations about that,” he noted. “It seems like we’re sort of discounting that now, saying ‘We’ll do it.’” Winborne noted that there’s been turnover on AAPAC, so many of the current commissioners weren’t part of those previous discussions.

Ashlee Arder urged commissioners to focus on the information that they had, rather than on the information that wasn’t available yet. “We realize there are a lot of holes,” she said. Hupy reiterated the purpose of this process – to rate a site or capital project with regard to its potential for public art. Kotarski argued that without a concrete art project in mind, “it’s going to be very difficult for us to do that, in a meaningful way.”

There also was discussion at various points about definitions in the scoring criteria, and a consensus that the rubric needs to be tweaked. It emerged that some commissioners had different understandings of what the criteria meant.

At one point, to expedite the process, Kristin Tomey suggested eliminating some of the categories – like funding, for example, since all projects incorporated into a capital project would presumably receive funding from the city. She also suggested using walkability scores as part of the scoring, using the website Walk Score. It can help identify locations that are high use, she said. Three categories – distribution of art within the city, visibility, and placemaking – seemed like those that AAPAC should focus on, she added.

Miller suggested presenting the rubric to the city council, with notes indicating that there are certain aspects of the rubric that will be modified. Hupy supported that approach, saying it was understandable that there would be changes to the process, because this was the first time that AAPAC had done it.

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Devon Akmon.

Hupy told the commissioners that they are suffering from what happens to other groups that go through this process: It’s very difficult at first, but gets easier as they score more projects. “It’s a process of learning,” he said. Hupy noted that the council has asked for staff to report back about AAPAC’s selection process – the rubric that the commission has been developing to help prioritize capital projects that could possibly be enhanced with public art. “So the work you’ve been doing is following the transition as laid out in the ordinance.”

Hupy also offered to bring back more supporting materials for commissioners to help them evaluate capital projects, and pointed out that nothing is set in stone at this point – they can revisit their decisions.

Nick Zagar also requested maps showing the location of existing public art – including art on the University of Michigan campus – to make it easier to tell what neighborhoods or areas don’t have public art. Devon Akmon suggested putting that information online, as a resource for commissioners but also as a marketing tool for the public.

Tomey recommended standardizing the presentation of material to commissioners, so they could be sure they had the information they needed.

After nearly two hours, Akmon pointed out that the group hadn’t finished scoring the 10 CIP projects that Seagraves had brought forward – and they still had most of their agenda to move through, in addition to that. He suggested postponing discussion of the other CIP projects, and tackling only two or three per meeting. “It’s a little fatiguing,” he said, describing the effort as almost like urban planning, with public art as the next step.

Miller agreed, saying “we’ve been stifled by this process.”

Hupy noted that in refining this scoring rubric, it might make sense to focus on locations as a first step, then looking at a public art concept as a second step. There seemed to be some consensus about taking this approach.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone further evaluation of the possible CIP projects that might be enhanced with public art. They’ll take up the task again at a future meeting.

Public Art Annual Plan

In the past, the public art annual plan was required to be submitted to the city council by April 1. But at AAPAC’s April 24, 2013 meeting, commissioners voted to recommend shifting that date to Feb. 1 – a move intended to allow the council to make budget decisions based on recommendations from AAPAC. Shifting the date of the annual plan was linked to a major restructuring of the city’s public art program, which is still underway. The city council subsequently made revisions to the public art ordinance – Chapter 24 of the city code – that included the Feb. 1 deadline for submitting the annual plan. From the city code:

(2) The oversight body shall:
…
(B) By February 1 of each year, submit to City Council a plan detailing potential projects and desirable goals to be pursued in the next fiscal year, including enhanced projects and any proposed expenditure of donated, grant, or other funds. The plan shall also include a recommendation as to which projects from the current Capital Improvements Plan are appropriate for designation as enhanced projects; …

On Jan. 29, Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, presented a draft annual plan for fiscal 2015. He hoped AAPAC would approve that night, so that it could be forwarded to the city council. [.pdf of draft FY 2015 annual plan]

Ann Arbor public art commissioner John Kotarski.

John Kotarski characterized the draft as one of the best plans that AAPAC has ever created. It’s thorough, covering everything that the commission has done, and has a plan for moving forward, he said.

“It has as much meat as anyone wants,” Kotarski added. “It shows a lot of work. It shows an art commission that gets the message from an impatient city council.”

Bob Miller then asked about the wastewater treatment plant project that was included in the draft plan. “I don’t want to include it,” Kotarski replied, saying that the Ann Arbor Hands On Museum had withdrawn a proposal to partner on artwork at the new plant.

Six other ongoing public art projects were listed in the draft plan:

• Completion of the public art project at East Stadium bridges. Artist Catherine Widgery was recommended by a selection panel, and is completing modifications to the original design. The final design will be brought forward for additional public input, and will need approval by AAPAC and then by the city council. Installation is expected in FY 2015. The project’s total budget is $400,000.
• Completion of public art at Argo Cascades. The selection panel has tabled proposals by the previous two finalists, and is reviewing other options for that site. No recommendation has yet been made to AAPAC. The total budget is set at $150,000.
• Public art at Arbor Oaks Park. This project is in partnership with Bryant Neighborhood Association and the nonprofit Community Action Network, which is under contract with the city to run the Bryant Community Center. It will involve participation of the neighborhood in the design and creation of the artwork. A grant application to help fund this project was submitted to the Southeast Michigan Community Foundation in November 2013. No city public art funds have been allocated, and additional funding is expected to be raised through community donations.
• Canoe Imagine Art. AAPAC has approved $10,000 in funding for this community art project – a temporary art display in downtown Ann Arbor using old canoes from the city that would be repurposed as public art. The installation is expected to take place in fiscal 2015 or 2016, depending on funding. The project also has received a $21,000 grant from the Michigan Council for Arts and Cultural Affairs, and organizers plan to raise additional funds from private donors.
• Coleman Jewett Memorial. A bronze replica of an Adirondack chair made by Coleman Jewett will be located at the Ann Arbor farmers market. Jewett was a long-time local educator who died in January of 2013. After he retired, he made furniture that he sold at the Ann Arbor farmers market. AAPAC has committed $5,000 to the project, which has a total project of $36,000. Other funds will be raised from private donations, including a contribution from the Old West Side Association.
• Graphics for Control Boxes. Called “PowerArt,” this project involves wrapping about 40 traffic signal boxes in the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district with vinyl printed replicas of artwork. The initial pilot phase would focus on 14 boxes at a total cost of $41,000, to be split between the city and the DDA. AAPAC approved $20,500 for the first year as a pilot project. The project is being administered by the Arts Alliance in response to a DDA request.

In addition, Seagraves hoped to include some projects from the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP), which commissioners had discussed and started to evaluate earlier in the meeting. Kotarski suggested stating in the annual plan that AAPAC is working on a rubric and practicing the application of that rubric on potential projects – that it’s a work in progress.

Seagraves proposed including three projects from the FY 2015 CIP. Commissioners agreed, noting that there had been consensus on these projects during their earlier discussion:

• Annual street resurfacing (FY 2015): artist-designed street access covers (manhole covers) for the city’s water, sanitary sewer and stormwater systems.
• Sidewalk gaps (FY 2015): Sidewalk stamping.
• Mid-block street crossing improvements, pavement marking and sign replacement (FY 2015): Art to-be-determined for the streets.

Seagraves also recommended including dollar amounts to fund these projects – $60,000 for access covers and $60,000 for sidewalk stamping. Kotarski expressed concern that there wasn’t sufficient justification at this point for any particular amount. Seagraves said he’d research the cost so that he could include it in the plan.

Miller proposed that AAPAC approve the annual plan at that night’s meeting, contingent on revisions that Seagraves would make. Kristin Tomey asked whether commissioners could vote on the plan via email, after Seagraves made revisions. [The answer is no. Even if the public art commission were analyzed as a purely advisory body under the Michigan Open Meetings Act that would not allow the commission to ignore the OMA. That's because of a policy approved by the city council in 1991, which states that such groups are still expected to conform to the spirit of the OMA – to the best ability of that entity’s members. For more background on this issue, see "Column: A Reminder on Open Government."]

Malverne Winborne suggested that the commissioners approve the draft plan, then empower one commissioner to work with Seagraves on the final revisions. Miller asked Kotarski to take on that task.

Outcome: Commissioners approved the draft annual plan, and authorized John Kotarski to work with Aaron Seagraves in making final revisions.

The expectation at the Jan. 29 meeting was that the annual plan would be submitted to the council on Feb. 3. Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle on Jan. 30, Seagraves said that the plan will instead be on a future agenda, possibly on Feb. 18.

Bike Share Program

AAPAC was asked to consider a proposal from the Clean Energy Coalition to select an artist who would work to incorporate art into a new bike share program. [.pdf of CEC proposal]

The bike share program, with a planned launch in the summer of 2014, will include 14 stations and 125 bikes at locations in downtown Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan campus.

In part, the proposal states:

CEC seeks a local artist to join the bike share team and contribute to several areas of the Ann Arbor bike share project. Specifically, CEC proposes to work directly with the Art Commission to select a local artist to work on the program. The artist would fill an integral role within the planning and launch processes currently in motion. In addition to standard graphic design work for promotional purposes, the artist will have the opportunity to design a collection of maps to feature bike share stations and local elements. The artist would also participate in marketing meetings and other planning activities to ensure that art is a deliberate and consistent attribute of the bike share program.

The position will run from late winter through the summer launch of bike share. CEC hopes to embrace the city’s vibrant culture of artists and creativity to design a unique identity for the bike share program, and commissioning a local artist is the ideal way to build this brand. This position would likely require 10-15 hours per week to attend partner meetings and produce the desired materials. CEC requests that the Public Art Commission cover the cost of the artist’s time and materials needed to produce artwork for the program. CEC will offer office space, make connections to program partners, and serve in a project management role to provide as much guidance as needed.

Nick Zagar questioned whether AAPAC could select a local artist. Bob Miller replied that the call for artists is open to anyone, and it’s up to the task force to select an artist – local or not. Miller began to elaborate, saying, “Speaking candidly about that…” He was cut off by John Kotarski, who cautioned: “I wouldn’t speak candidly, because your candid comments might very well be published.”

Bob Miller, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission.

Miller replied, saying “This is not something that’s secret. Dollar amounts sometimes dictate who gets involved.” [His point was that if a budget is low, it won't likely attract applicants from outside the area.] Kotarski noted that Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, had indicated it would be possible to select an artist as a “sole source provider” for a particular project. An open call for proposals, however, can’t be restricted geographically, he said. If AAPAC picked a single artist as a sole source provider, they’d have to explain why that particular artist has been selected. Kotarski said that Hupy had reviewed this process with the city attorney’s office too. [Hupy had left the meeting by this point.]

Zagar said it seemed like CEC was really looking for a graphic artist.

Commissioners also discussed where the funding might come from, if they pursued this project. In response to a suggestion from Miller, Kotarski expressed skepticism that the city council would allocate money from the city’s general fund. “Let’s bring it up at the next [council] meeting, when they’re sending the money back,” Kotarski quipped – a reference to the Feb. 3 council resolution that, if approved, would return remaining Percent for Art money to its original funding source.

Kotarski recommended that AAPAC endorse the project and help in any way they can, but without committing dollars to it.

Ashlee Arder noted that there were a lot of unanswered questions regarding the proposal, such as what kind of funding the CEC is requesting. She compared it to the much more detailed proposal that Deb Polich had provided for the PowerArt project. [.pdf of PowerArt proposal, made by Polich at AAPAC's Sept. 25, 2013 meeting.]

Miller said the commission would be hard-pressed to make a decision on this, without additional information. Kotarski added that AAPAC would be hard-pressed to spend any additional money at all, other than the projects that are in progress.

Kristin Tomey wondered about the process by which proposals like this are brought forward to AAPAC. Miller replied that in the past, most proposals haven’t provided the level of detail that AAPAC would like to see.

By way of background, the commission has previously developed a project intake form as a template for new projects. The project intake form is posted on AAPAC’s website. However, some commissioners have criticized the current process. The issue was debated at AAPAC’s Sept. 25, 2013 meeting. From The Chronicle’s report:

As he did during the Canoe Imagine Art discussion, John Kotarski said he’d like a more elaborate proposal for this and all projects that come to AAPAC for approval. He thought that the fundraising materials that [Marsha] Chamberlin had developed might serve that purpose.

Chamberlin pointed out that this project was approved about six months ago and has been discussed at virtually every meeting since then. “I just assumed people were up to speed on it,” she said.

Kotarski said his intent isn’t to get AAPAC up to speed. Rather, this kind of documentation will show the public that AAPAC was thorough in its work, before making decisions. He said he was critical of all the intake forms, and he’d emailed Aaron Seagraves with his comments. “I think our approach now is shoot, ready aim,” Kotarski said. “We are making decisions before we really, fully have a fleshed out concept and idea.” He’d like to change their approach, and said the Arts Alliance proposal [for PowerArt] provides a good model.

Chamberlin replied that the commission had developed the process of using project intake forms, so it should be a commission decision if they want to change that approach. These projects have been documented and presented to the commission at previous meetings, she noted.

Connie Brown felt that Kotarski was raising a broader issue, and she agreed that going forward, each project should have a more detailed packet of material. Bob Miller asked [Aaron] Seagraves to provide that type of packet in the future.

Chamberlin noted that this would dramatically change the process that AAPAC has developed. That process entails initial approval by AAPAC to move ahead on a project, followed by the formation of a task force to flesh out a more detailed proposal, on which AAPAC then votes.

After further discussion, commissioners reached consensus for Seagraves to compile more detailed proposals for AAPAC projects.

At the Jan. 29 meeting, Kotarski said he’d like to endorse the CEC bike share project, but that at this time AAPAC couldn’t commit any funding to it. Malverne Winborne reminded Kotarski about previous discussions that AAPAC has had about not endorsing projects. [The issue of endorsements arose when AAPAC was approached about endorsing a large Whirlydoodle installation. At AAPAC's July 25, 2012 meeting, Kotarski was unsuccessful in convincing other commissioners to support an endorsement policy for non-city-funded art projects. After a lengthy debate, AAPAC passed a resolution at that meeting stating that the commission would not make endorsements – and Kotarski cast the lone dissenting vote. There has been considerable turnover on the commission since that time.]

Winborne explained to new commissioners that there had been concern about “scope creep” at a time when AAPAC was trying to focus on moving forward with projects funded by the city’s Percent for Art program. Kotarski told Winborne that he’d take back his recommendation to endorse the bike share program.

Kotarski then moved to table the item until AAPAC received more information about the proposal.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to table the CEC bike share proposal.

Officer Elections

AAPAC’s bylaws call for the commission to hold officer elections for chair and vice chair in January, by secret ballot. From the bylaws:

Article VI Officers
Section 1. The officers of AAPAC shall be a Chair and Vice-Chair. The officers shall be elected by secret ballot each year from among the voting members of AAPAC. The officers shall be elected for a one-year term by a majority of the voting members currently serving on AAPAC. No member shall serve more than three (3) consecutive one-year terms in one office. The term of the officers shall run from the date of AAPAC’s regular meeting in January to the date of AAPAC’s regular meeting in January of the following year. [.pdf of AAPAC bylaws]

Bob Miller has served as chair for the past year, and offered to serve again. There were no other competing nominations.

Malverne Winborne attended his last meeting as an Ann Arbor public art commissioner on Jan. 29.

The current vice chair, Malverne Winborne, is stepping down from AAPAC. He did not seek reappointment after serving one three-year term, and the Jan. 29 meeting was his final one. John Kotarski was nominated as vice chair, and there were no competing nominations.

Votes were taken on slips of yellow paper and tallied by Winborne.

Outcome: Bob Miller and John Kotarski were unanimously elected as chair and vice chair of AAPAC.

At the city council’s Jan. 21 meeting, Jim Simpson was nominated to fill the vacancy of Winborne on the public art commission. Winborne’s term ended on Dec. 31, 2013. A confirmation vote on Simpson’s appointment is expected at the council’s Feb. 3 meeting.

Simpson works with the software firm Duo Security in Ann Arbor, and is affiliated with Baron Glassworks in Ypsilanti.

Commissioners present: Devon Akmon, Ashlee Arder, John Kotarski, Bob Miller, Kristin Tomey, Malverne Winborne, Nick Zagar. Also: Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Feb. 26, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. in the basement conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our artful coverage of public entities like the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Prue Rosenthal was re-elected to a second one-year term as board president. Also re-elected to a second one-year term was Rebecca Head, as board secretary. Barbara Murphy was elected as vice president, and Jan Barney Newman was elected as treasurer. Newman had served as vice president in 2013.

The board also voted to establish two special committees for 2014: a communications committee, and a facilities committee. The communications committee’s charge is “to consider the implementation of recommendations in the communications audit, and related issues.” The reference is to a 2013 communications audit by Allerton-Hill Consulting. [.pdf of Allerton-Hill report] Members of the communications committee, who were appointed during the Jan. 20 meeting, are Rebecca Head (chair), Margaret Leary and Prue Rosenthal.

The charge for the facilities committee is “to recommend to the Board steps needed to develop and maintain clean, safe, physical facilities that creatively meet the needs of the community and staff with an emphasis on sustainability, accessibility and flexibility.” Its members, also appointed on Jan. 20, are Margaret Leary (chair), Jan Barney Newman, and Ed Surovell.

Special committees for communications and facilities also had been established a year ago, at the board’s Jan. 21, 2013 meeting. The duration of those committees was through 2013. They’d been formed in response to a defeated bond proposal on the November 2012 ballot, which the AADL board had hoped would fund a new downtown library.

On Jan. 20, appointments were also made to two board standing committees. Members of the finance committee are Jan Barney Newman (chair), Barbara Murphy, and Nancy Kaplan. The policy committee members are Murphy (chair), Kaplan and Rosenthal.

Also on Jan. 20, the board approved its meeting dates and locations for 2014. Typically, the board meets on the third Monday of each month at the main downtown library. Three meetings this year will be held at AADL branch locations: June 16 at Traverwood, July 21 at Pittsfield, and Aug. 18 at Malletts Creek. [.pdf of full meeting schedule]

In addition, the board followed a recommendation by library administration and scheduled a retreat for Feb. 3. The board will meet from 4-7 p.m. in the fourth-floor boardroom of the downtown library, where board meetings are typically held. The retreat in part will begin discussions for updating the library’s strategic plan. The current strategic plan runs from 2010 to 2015.

This brief was filed from the fourth-floor boardroom of the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Yousef Rabhi was re-elected as chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners at the board’s Jan. 8, 2014 meeting. The following day, he publicly announced his intent not to run for mayor of Ann Arbor this year. (Photos by the writer.)

It’s the next step of several that are required before such a program can be created. The goal of PACE is to help owners of commercial (not residential) properties pay for energy improvements by securing financing from commercial lenders and repaying the loan through voluntary special assessments.

The county’s proposal entails joining the Lean & Green Michigan coalition and contracting with Levin Energy Partners to manage the PACE program.

A public hearing on this issue is set for the board’s meeting on Jan. 22. The board would also need to take another vote to actually create the PACE district. A date for that action has not been set.

Officer elections were also held on Jan. 8. As expected, the board officers who were first elected in January 2013 were re-elected. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) will continue to serve as board chair. Also re-elected were Alicia Ping (R-District 3) as vice chair, Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) as chair of the board’s ways & means committee, and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) as chair of the working sessions. There were no competing nominations and all votes were unanimous, although Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was out of the room when the votes for Brabec and LaBarre were taken.

Regarding revisions to the board’s rules and regulations, corporation counsel Curtis Hedger made four recommended changes, including three that related to voting requirements. The fourth change inserted language to clarify that binding action may not be taken at a board working session.

The Jan. 8 meeting also included a public hearing on a proposed ordinance that would allow the county to issue municipal civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog. The board had held a previous hearing at its meeting on Oct. 16, 2013, but it occurred after midnight and no one spoke. Some commissioners felt that a second hearing should be scheduled because the initial one was held so late in the evening. One person spoke on Jan. 8, urging the board to create a progressive scale of fees and to provide waivers for low-income families and individuals.

In other feedback from the public, Jim Casha spoke during public commentary to raise concerns over the southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority (RTA). “It just seems to me that it’s just going to be another waste of time and taxpayers’ money, and just another level of bureaucracy,” he told commissioners. Board chair Yousef Rabhi will be appointing a new Washtenaw County representative to the RTA soon to replace Richard Murphy, who did not seek reappointment. The county’s other board member on the RTA is University of Michigan professor Liz Gerber, whose term runs through 2015.

The extended deadline for applying was Jan. 12, and Casha was one of only two applicants for the RTA opening. As a Canadian resident, he is ineligible to be appointed for the seat to represent Washtenaw County. The other applicant is Alma Wheeler Smith, a former state legislator and the mother of county commissioner Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Officer Elections

The first meeting of each year for the county board is initially chaired by the county clerk, until the board elects its officers for the year. As he has for the past several years, on Jan. 8 the meeting was brought to order by county clerk Larry Kestenbaum. After leading the initial portion of the meeting, Kestenbaum called for nominations for board chair.

Larry Kestenbaum, Washtenaw County clerk/register of deeds.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) nominated Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) for re-election as chair. He began by joking that 2013 was “a miserable year. I mean, it had the number 13 in it, and we knew it was going to be bad from the very beginning. And the only way that we were going to get through a year with 13 in it was to have an outstanding, creative chair who brought his own luck with him.”

There were no other nominations.

Outcome: Yousef Rabhi was unanimously re-elected chair on a roll call vote.

After the vote, Smith jokingly complained that the minutes didn’t reflect his rhetoric: “The minutes for this are miserable. ‘C. Smith nominated commissioner Rabhi.’ That’s all it says!”

Kestenbaum then handed over the meeting to Rabhi. As his first act, Rabhi nominated Alicia Ping (R-District 3) for re-election as vice chair.

C. Smith moved a unanimous ballot – a parliamentary procedure to elect the nominee without a roll call vote when there are no competing nominations and no one is expected to vote against the nomination.

Outcome on unanimous ballot: The vote failed 8-1, over dissent from Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

Outcome on roll call vote: Ping was unanimously re-elected vice chair.

Later in the meeting, elections were held for the officers of the board’s standing committees: the ways & means committee, and working sessions.

Ping nominated Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) for re-election as chair of the ways & means committee, on which all commissioners serve. The meetings of this committee are held immediately prior to the regular board meetings, and initial votes are taken at the ways & means meetings.

There were no other nominations. C. Smith again moved a unanimous ballot.

Outcome on unanimous ballot to re-elect Brabec: It was approved on a voice vote. Rolland Sizemore Jr. was not in the room at the time.

Brabec nominated Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) for re-election as chair of the board’s working sessions. There were no other nominations. C. Smith moved a unanimous ballot.

Outcome on unanimous ballot to re-elect LaBarre: It was approved on a voice vote. Rolland Sizemore Jr. was not in the room at the time.

Officer Elections: Compensation

Based on compensation that was approved by the board’s Dec. 2, 2012 meeting, the three chairs – Rabhi, Brabec and LaBarre – will each make a base salary of $18,750. That’s $3,000 more than other commissioners. None of the positions are considered to be full-time jobs.

Curt Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, talks with commissioner Alicia Ping (R-District 3) prior to the start of the Jan. 8, 2014 board meeting. Ping was re-elected vice chair of the board.

Commissioners also receive stipend payments based on the number of meetings that a commissioner is likely to attend for a particular appointment to the other various boards, committees and commissions. One or two meetings per year would pay $50, three or four meetings would pay $100, and the amounts increase based on the number of meetings. Each commissioner typically has several appointments. Commissioners who are appointed as alternates receive the same stipend as the regular appointments. Some appointments were not designated to be paid because no meetings were expected to be scheduled.

Commissioners can waive their stipends by giving written notice to the county clerk. Otherwise, the stipend payments are made automatically.

In 2013, only Dan Smith (R-District 2) waived all of his stipends, according to the county clerk’s office, which administers the stipends. Brabec waived her stipend for the accommodations ordinance commission. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) was not appointed to any boards, committees or commissions and therefore did not receive any stipends.

For 2013, the following stipends were paid [.pdf of chart indicating appointments and eligible stipends]:

• Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8): $2,700 (11 paid appointments, including several stipulated by virtue of Rabhi’s position as board chair, plus 3 unpaid appointments)
• Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5): $2,350 (11 paid, 2 paid alternates, 1 unpaid)
• Conan Smith (D-District 9): $1,800 (6 paid, 2 paid alternates, 1 unpaid)
• Felicia Brabec (D-District 4): $1,450 (8 paid, 1 alternate with stipend waived)
• Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1): $800 (4 paid)
• Andy LaBarre (D-District 7): $550 (3 paid, 1 unpaid)
• Alicia Ping (R-District 3): $400 (2 paid, 2 unpaid)

In total, seven commissioners were paid $10,050 in stipends for 2013. There is no mechanism in place for validating attendance, other than checking the meeting minutes of these various groups. No one is designated to do that, however.

The board appointments and stipends for 2014 haven’t yet been set. That will likely happen at an appointments caucus that is expected to be scheduled for later this month or early February.

Rules & Regulations

Revisions to the board’s rules and regulations, which are approved and updated annually, were recommended by corporation counsel Curtis Hedger. Three changes related to voting requirements. The fourth change inserted language to clarify that binding action may not be taken at a board working session. [.pdf of draft rules & regulations, with changes indicated in bold and strike-through] [.pdf of Hedger's staff memo]

At the Jan. 8 meeting, Hedger told commissioners that the most significant change related to taking a final vote on the same day that a resolution is initially introduced. [bold indicates added text, strike-through indicates deletion]:

III. CONDUCT
…
T. FINAL ACTION ON DAY OF INTRODUCTION:

No resolution or proceeding of the Board of Commissioners imposing taxes or assessments, or requiring the payment, expenditure or disposition of money or property, or creating a debt or liability therefore, shall be allowed on the same day as introduced, unless approved by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) a majority of the members elected and serving.

In the past, Hedger noted, the rules called for two-thirds of the board’s members to move a resolution for a final vote at a board meeting, if it was initially introduced at the ways & means committee meeting that same night. Even though the board’s two-thirds rule “had been there forever,” Hedger said, “it was brought to my attention that under Michigan law, we can’t do that.” Specifically, MCL 46.3 states:

(2) The county board of commissioners of a county shall act by the votes of a majority of the members present. However, the final passage or adoption of a measure or resolution or the allowance of a claim against the county shall be determined by a majority of the members elected and serving. …

Hedger reported that he had canvassed staff at other counties and they told him that the county boards follow that rule. So by passing this revision to the Washtenaw County board rules, it would bring them into compliance with Michigan law, he said.

The other suggested revisions are technical changes, Hedger said. One change is to clarify actions that require a “higher majority” vote in order to pass [added text in bold]:

O. VOTING:

Every member who shall be present, including the Chair, when a motion is last stated by the Chair, and no other, shall vote for or against the motion unless the member has a conflict of interest, in which case the member shall not vote.

…2. Votes Required:

Procedural and other questions arising at a meeting of the Commissioners, except for those decisions required by statute or by these rules (Specifically, Rule II F—Closing Debate in Committees and Rule III R—Suspension/ Amendment or Rescission of Board Rules) to have a higher majority, shall be decided by a majority of the members present. A majority of the members elected and serving, however, shall be required for the final passage or adoption of a motion, resolution or allowance of a claim.

Another proposed change was to standardize the phrase “elected and serving,” to be consistent with other references in the board rules [added text in bold]:

R. SUSPENSION:

No rule of the Board shall be suspended without the concurrence of two-thirds (2/3) of the members elected and serving. To amend or rescind a rule will require two-thirds (2/3) of members elected and serving unless specific notice was given at previous meeting, whereupon a majority of members elected and serving may amend or rescind.

The final proposed revision involved working sessions. Hedger said he changed the rules to make it more precise about what a working session is. It clarifies what the board already does, he said. [bold indicates added text, strike-through indicates deletion]:

XI. WORKING SESSION PROCEDURES

The purpose of the Working Session shall be to permit in-depth, informal discussion of Commissioner concerns, Board goals, significant programmatic and financial issues, and conceptual and informational presentations by the County Administrator. All matters involving major change in service delivery, staffing or funding, or any modification in Board of Commissioner policy shall originate at the Working Session. Status reports from advisory committees and departmental informational reports shall be presented at Working Session. The Working Sessions of the Board of Commissioners are not to be considered an official public meeting of the Board of Commissioners. The Working Sessions are noticed as a public meeting to comply with the Open Meetings Act because a quorum of the Board of Commissioners may be present at the meeting. It is intended that Formal votes indicating Commissioner support or opposition to agenda items shall not be taken at Working Session meetings. The Chair may take an informal poll of the board members present to assist in determining whether the Commissioners desire more information or discussion regarding an item or whether the Commissioners are prepared to take action on an item at a meeting of the Ways and Means Committee or at the regular session. Agendas shall be set in advance; however, Commissioners shall have the opportunity to introduce issues during the meeting for future Working Session consideration.

Rules & Regulations: Board Discussion

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked whether MCL 46.3 actually requires a two-thirds majority vote for non-agenda items. Smith was referring to this section [emphasis added]:

(2) … The county board of commissioners may require in its bylaws that the votes of 2/3 of the members present or a majority of the members elected and serving, whichever is greater, are required on final passage or adoption of a nonagenda item. The voting requirements of this subsection do not apply if section 11 or any other provision of law imposes a higher voting requirement.

The short answer is no, Hedger replied. Smith said his concern is that there are often items that aren’t on the published agenda, but that are brought forward at the ways & means committee meeting. He clarified with Hedger that if items are moved as part of the agenda during the meeting, then those items are considered agenda items.

Hedger also pointed out that the law states the board “may require,” not “shall require.” So it’s at the board’s discretion.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said he wasn’t particularly thrilled with the removal of the two-thirds majority rule, but added that he couldn’t argue with Hedger’s reasoning. He said he had reviewed all the changes in great detail, and had “kicked several of these things back and forth” with Hedger. Smith concluded that he was satisfied with the proposed changes.

Outcome: The revised rules and regulations were approved unanimously.

PACE Program

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to a notice of intent to form a Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

An initial vote had been taken on Dec. 4, 2013, following about an hour of debate. There was no discussion on Jan. 8.

The goal of PACE is to help owners of commercial (not residential) properties pay for energy improvements by securing financing from commercial lenders and repaying the loan through voluntary special assessments.

The county’s proposal entails joining the Lean & Green Michigan coalition and contracting with Levin Energy Partners to manage the PACE program. Andy Levin, who’s spearheading the PACE program statewide through Lean & Green, attended the Dec. 4 meeting to answer questions. State Sen. Rebekah Warren also spoke briefly during public commentary on Dec. 4 to support the initiative. She was instrumental in passing the state enabling legislation to allow such programs in Michigan.

The law firm of Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone would act as legal counsel. Several other counties are part of Lean & Green, according to the group’s website. Other partners listed on the site include the Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office, which was co-founded by county commissioner Conan Smith. Smith is married to Warren.

The county’s PACE program would differ from the one set up by the city of Ann Arbor, which created a loan loss pool to reduce interest rates for participating property owners by covering a portion of delinquent or defaulted payments. Washtenaw County does not plan to set up its own loan loss reserve, and no county funds would be used for the program, according to Levin.

However, a reserve fund is mentioned in documentation that describes the program:

8. Reserve Fund

In the event Washtenaw County decides to issue bonds to provide financing for a PACE Program, Washtenaw County can determine at that time to fund a bond reserve account from any legally available funds, including funds from the proceeds of bonds.

By participating in LAGM [Lean & Green Michigan], Washtenaw County assists its constituent property owners in taking advantage of any and all appropriate loan loss reserve and gap financing programs of the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (“MEDC”). Such financing mechanism can similarly be used to finance a reserve fund.

[.pdf of PACE program documentation] [.pdf of PACE cover memo] [.pdf PACE resolution]

On Dec. 4, the board set a public hearing on this issue for the meeting on Jan. 22, 2014. The board would also need to take another vote to actually create the PACE district. A date for that action has not been set.

Outcome: A final vote to issue a notice of intent to create a PACE program was passed unanimously. Rolland Sizemore Jr. was out of the room when the vote was taken.

Dog Licensing Public Hearing

The board held a public hearing on a proposed ordinance that would allow the county to issue municipal civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog.

County treasurer Catherine McClary.

The proposal would also establish that the county treasurer’s office would be the bureau for administering these infractions, and would set new licensing fees. [.pdf of proposed dog license ordinance]

One person, Thomas Partridge, spoke during the public hearing. He didn’t think the ordinance went far enough to protect all animals, especially during severe weather. He said that low-income families who want to have pets for their children will be challenged to pay license fees and the inoculations that would be required in order to get a license. He called for the board to create a progressive scale for fees and to provide waivers for low-income families and individuals.

The board had held a previous hearing at its meeting on Oct. 16, 2013, but it occurred after midnight and no one spoke. Some commissioners felt that there should be another opportunity for formal public input, so that’s why another public hearing was scheduled for Jan. 8.

More than a year ago, at the county board’s Nov. 7, 2012 meeting, commissioners approved a civil infractions ordinance that gave the county more flexibility to designate violations of other county ordinances as a civil infraction, rather than a criminal misdemeanor. For example, enforcement of the county’s dog licensing ordinance is low because the current penalty – a criminal misdemeanor of 90 days in jail or a $500 fine – is relatively harsh. The idea is that enforcement would improve if a lesser civil infraction could be used. The civil infraction fines are $50 for a first offense, $100 for a second offense, and $500 for a third or any subsequent offense.

An increase in the enforcement is expected to result in an increase in the number of dog licenses, which would provide additional revenue to be used for animal control services.

However, the county board hasn’t yet taken the additional step of authorizing the issuance of a civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog. There was no agenda item put forward for a vote on this issue at the Jan. 8 meeting, nor was there any resolution on the agenda regarding a new fee structure for dog licenses.

A draft resolution and staff memo had been prepared in November 2013 but never brought forward to the board for a vote. [.pdf of November 2013 staff memo and resolution] The county treasurer’s office is proposing to lower the current dog licensing fee from $12 to $6 per year for spayed or neutered dogs and from $24 to $12 per year for dogs that aren’t spayed or neutered. There would continue to be a discount for a three-year license. More information about current dog licenses is available on the county website.

In addition, the draft memo provided a list of fees for violating the dog license ordinance: $50 (first offense); $100 (second offense); and $500 (third and subsequent offenses).

County treasurer Catherine McClary attended the Jan. 8 meeting but did not formally address the board.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Communications & Commentary

During the meeting there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Regional Transit Authority

Jim Casha introduced himself as a resident of Ontario, Canada, who was born and raised in Detroit. He was there to ask for the board’s help with the southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority (RTA).

Jim Casha spoke during public commentary about the southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA).

Casha told commissioners that he’d been a student at the University of Detroit and had worked at the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMOG). After that, he got out of planning and into the construction of transit systems, including subways.

He was concerned that the decisions of the RTA board aren’t in the best interest of building a regional transit system. “It just seems to me that it’s just going to be another waste of time and taxpayers’ money, and just another level of bureaucracy,” he said.

Casha said he’s made two suggestions to the board. The first was to acquire the 157-acre Michigan state fairgrounds property, as a way of generating revenue. It’s a logical place for a regional transportation hub, he said. The rail link from Chicago through Ann Arbor to Detroit already runs past the east side of the property, and it’s near 8 Mile and Woodward. It’s a very valuable piece of land, and the RTA could use it to generate millions of dollars through long-term leasing.

He noted that the state is planning to give away the land to private developers, but he argued that this is not the right time to do that. A group of citizens has been working on an alternative approach to create a truly public-private partnership that generates money for the public, he said, not just for private individuals. He said he’d made these comments to the RTA board, “but I really just don’t think they’re listening.”

Casha also objected to the selection of John Hertel over Larry Salci as the RTA’s CEO. Salci was the former director of the southeast Michigan transportation authority in the 1970s, he said, and had prepared a regional transportation plan with federal funding lined up at that time. Only one member of the current RTA board supported Salci, Casha noted, although the two RTA board representatives from Washtenaw County – Liz Gerber and Richard Murphy – had supported Salci initially.

The three-minute time limit for public commentary elapsed before Casha finished his remarks. He also provided written handouts to the board. [.pdf of Casha's commentary to RTA board in March 2013] [.pdf of Casha's commentary to RTA board in April 2013]

Commissioner Response to Public Commentary – RTA

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked Casha for his commentary, saying that the point about finding a use for the state fairgrounds that helps the public over private interests really resonated with him. The land should be kept for public purposes, and he appreciated Casha’s advocacy on that.

By way of background, the RTA was established by the state legislature in late 2012 during its lame duck session. It includes a four-county region – Macomb, Oakland, Washtenaw and Wayne – with each county making two appointments to the board, and the city of Detroit making one.

The county board chair appoints both of Washtenaw County’s members to the RTA board. Those appointments were first made at the end of 2012 by Conan Smith (D-District 9), who was chair through the end of that year. Liz Gerber, a University of Michigan professor of public policy, was appointed to a three-year term. Richard Murphy, who works for Smith at the Michigan Suburbs Alliance, was appointed to a one-year term, and is not seeking reappointment.

The deadline to apply had been extended to Jan. 12, but only two applications were received – from Casha and former state legislator Alma Wheeler Smith, who is Conan Smith’s mother. The RTA state enabling legislation (Act 387 of 2012) mandates that board members must be residents of the county or city that they represent. So as a Canadian resident, Casha is ineligible for the appointment. [.pdf of application materials]

Communications & Commentary: Appointments

Later in the meeting, Yousef Rabhi noted that in addition to an opening for the southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority (RTA), there are also openings for the Washtenaw County food policy council and the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission.

The deadline to apply had been extended to Jan. 12. Rabhi noted that nominations will be made at the board’s next meeting on Jan. 22. Commissioners will receive applications for review before that.

Communications & Commentary: Shelter for the Homeless

During the time for public commentary, Tom Partridge called on the board to redouble efforts to help people in need, especially during the very dire weather conditions experienced recently. He asked them to shift funding and provide emergency relief to homeless residents, including food and transportation.

Washtenaw County administrator Verna McDaniel.

There’s also need on a continuing basis to eliminate homelessness, build affordable housing, and provide affordable public transportation and health care, Partridge said.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) gave an update on the county’s response to providing shelter for the homeless during the recent winter storm and sub-zero temperatures. He said he knew that the Ann Arbor city council had some dialogue about it and heard from residents during the Jan. 6 council meeting. People are not being turned away from the Delonis Center, a homeless shelter, he said. The shelter has even relaxed some of its intoxication rules to allow people to stay there who might otherwise not be permitted, Rabhi noted.

There are some people who aren’t allowed to stay at the shelter because of previous incidents, Rabhi reported. The county’s PORT (the county’s project outreach team) has been reaching out to them, he said, to make sure they have accommodations or supplies like sleeping bags. There’s always more that could be done, Rabhi said, but there is collaboration among many entities, including the local governments, the Red Cross, and others.

Communications & Commentary: Food Policy Council

Yousef Rabhi described some of the initiatives that the Washtenaw County food policy council is working on, including a proposal for a county procurement policy that would be more environmentally responsible. In addition, the food policy council working in collaboration with the county’s office of community and economic development to emphasize using local sources in government procurement. Formal proposals will likely come to the board – possibly this spring, he said.

Communications & Commentary: Teens For Tomorrow Art Contest

During her report to the board, county administrator Verna McDaniel highlighted the recent Teens for Tomorrow art contest. She thanked Yousef Rabhi for attending, and thanked Rolland Sizemore Jr. for his advocacy of programs for county youth.

Present: Felicia Brabec, Andy LaBarre, Kent Martinez-Kratz, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Jan. 22, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

As expected, the board officers who were first elected in January 2013 were re-elected. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) will continue to serve as board chair. Also re-elected were Alicia Ping (R-District 3) as vice chair, Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) as chair of the board’s ways & means committee, and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) as chair of the working sessions. There were no competing nominations and all votes were unanimous, although Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was out of the room when the votes for Brabec and LaBarre were taken.

Based on compensation that was approved by the board’s Dec. 2, 2012 meeting, the three chairs – Rabhi, Brabec and LaBarre – will each make a base salary of $18,750. That’s $3,000 more than other commissioners. None of the positions are considered to be full-time jobs.

Commissioners also receive stipend payments based on the number of meetings that a commissioner is likely to attend for a particular appointment to the other various boards, committees and commissions. One or two meetings per year would pay $50, three or four meetings would pay $100, and the amounts increase based on the number of meetings. Each commissioner typically has several appointments. Commissioners who are appointed as alternates receive the same stipend as the regular appointments. Some appointments were not designated to be paid because no meetings were expected to be scheduled.

Commissioners can waive their stipends by giving written notice to the county clerk. Otherwise, the stipend payments are made automatically.

In 2013, only Dan Smith (R-District 2) waived all of his stipends, according to the county clerk’s office, which administers the stipends. Brabec waived her stipend for the accommodations ordinance commission. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) was not appointed to any boards, committees or commissions and therefore did not receive any stipends.

For 2013, the following stipends were paid [.pdf of chart indicating appointments and eligible stipends]:

• Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8): $2,700 (11 paid appointments, including several stipulated by virtue of Rabhi’s position as board chair, plus 3 unpaid appointments)
• Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5): $2,350 (11 paid, 2 paid alternates, 1 unpaid)
• Conan Smith (D-District 9): $1,800 (6 paid, 2 paid alternates, 1 unpaid)
• Felicia Brabec (D-District 4): $1,450 (8 paid, 1 alternate with stipend waived)
• Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1): $800 (4 paid)
• Andy LaBarre (D-District 7): $550 (3 paid, 1 unpaid)
• Alicia Ping (R-District 3): $400 (2 paid, 2 unpaid)

In total, seven commissioners were paid $10,050 in stipends for 2013. There is no mechanism in place for validating attendance, other than checking the meeting minutes of these various groups. No one is designated to do that, however.

The board appointments and stipends for 2014 haven’t yet been set. That will likely happen at an appointments caucus that is expected to be scheduled for later this month or early February.

Regarding revisions to the board’s rules and regulations, corporation counsel Curtis Hedger made four recommended changes, including three that related to voting requirements. The fourth change inserted language to clarify that binding action may not be taken at a board working session. [.pdf of draft rules & regulations, with changes indicated in bold and strike-through] [.pdf of Hedger's staff memo]

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

Ypsilanti Township is now a member of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, pending consideration by the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti city councils. (Green indicates the geographic area included by the AAATA.)

If the Ann Arbor city council does not object, this would be the second expansion of the AAATA board this year. The item is expected to be on the Ann Arbor city council’s Oct. 21 agenda.

The earlier expansion was given final approval by the AAATA board at its June 20, 2013 meeting. That’s when the city of Ypsilanti was admitted as a member of the AAATA and its board was increased from seven to nine members, one of whom is appointed by the city of Ypsilanti.

Regarding the budget, on Sept. 26 the board approved a $33.97 million expenditure budget for fiscal year 2014. The budget includes revenues that almost exactly balance those expenditures, leaving an excess of $20,500. About half of the revenue to the AAATA comes from local sources (taxes, purchase of service agreements and fares) with most of the rest funded from state and federal support. The budget will fund roughly 7 million total passenger trips for the next year, according to the AAATA.

Also at its meeting, the board approved the selection of the law firm Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels P.C. to handle AAATA’s legal work. The firm already handles legal work for the transit authority, so the board’s approval means that Pear Sperling will continue in that capacity for the next five years.

As a result of another board action at the Sept. 26 meeting, Charles Griffith will be leading the board for another year as chair. He was first chosen as chair last year by his colleagues. The pattern of chairs serving for two years is typical for the AAATA.

It was the first board meeting Jack Bernard attended as a board member since being confirmed by the Ann Arbor city council on Aug. 19, 2013. However, three other board members did not attend the AAATA meeting: Roger Kerson, Anya Dale and Gillian Ream Gainsley.

Those who did attend received several updates on various projects, including construction on the new Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor, AAATA’s new website, and activity related to the southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA). The next board meeting of the nascent four-county authority – which includes the city of Detroit and the counties of Washtenaw, Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb – will be held at 2 p.m. on Oct. 2 at the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library.

Ypsilanti Township in AAATA: Qualified OK

The board considered a resolution adding Ypsilanti Township a member of the AAATA – contingent on approval by the Ann Arbor city council, as well as other involved parties.

Newly appointed board member Jack Bernard, just before taking his seat at the AAATA board table.

The AAATA board resolution included approval of new articles of incorporation for the transportation authority.

Adding Ypsilanti Township in the way outlined in the articles of incorporation would expand the AAATA board from nine to 10 members. The additional seat would be appointed by the supervisor of Ypsilanti Township – an elected position held currently by Brenda Stumbo – with the approval of the township board.

The item is expected to be on the Ann Arbor city council’s Oct. 21 agenda. An earlier expansion was given final approval by the AAATA board at its June 20, 2013 meeting. That’s when the city of Ypsilanti was admitted as a member of the AAATA and its board was increased from seven to nine members, one of whom is appointed by the city of Ypsilanti.

Ann Arbor’s additional board seat on the AAATA was filled when the Ann Arbor city council appointed Jack Bernard. Bernard is a lecturer in the University of Michigan law school and an attorney with UM’s office of the vice president and general counsel. He is also currently chair of the university’s council for disability concerns. The city of Ypsilanti’s seat was filled with Gillian Ream Gainsley. Ream Gainsley is communications and development director at the Ypsilanti District Library.

The “resolved” clause of the AAATA board’s Sept. 26 resolution makes the approval of the revised articles of incorporation for the AAATA contingent on approval from the city of Ann Arbor and other parties [emphasis added]:

… approves Amendment 3 of the Articles of Incorporation of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, except that, in the event that Ypsilanti Township, or the City of Ypsilanti, or the City of Ann Arbor declines to approve said Articles as described above, the AAATA Board directs staff to reconvene those parties to reconcile any differences relative to the Articles and to bring a new draft to the AAATA Board and all other parties. [.pdf of AAATA complete resolution on admission of Ypsilanti Township as a member]

The sequence of events leading to the possible admission of Ypsilanti Township as a member of the transit authority would be slightly different from that leading to the admission of the city of Ypsilanti. The initial resolution adopted by the AATA board on the admission of the city of Ypsilanti was simply an acknowledgment of the request. The first formal action on approval of the amended articles of incorporation – which included the city of Ypsilanti – was taken by the Ann Arbor city council.

A timeline overview:

• April 19, 2013: Ypsilanti city councilmember Pete Murdock addresses the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board during its regular meeting to alert the AATA to the probable request by the city of Ypsilanti to join the AATA as a member.
• April 23, 2013: Ypsilanti city council passes resolution requesting admission as a member of the AATA.
• May 16, 2013: AATA board approves resolution acknowledging city of Ypsilanti’s request to join AATA.
• June 3, 2013: Ann Arbor city council approves change to articles of incorporation, admitting city of Ypsilanti as a member of AATA and increasing board membership from seven to nine members, with one of the additional board seats to be appointed by the city of Ypsilanti.
• June 18, 2013: Ypsilanti city council approves amended articles of incorporation for AATA.
• June 20, 2013: AATA board approves resolution formally admitting city of Ypsilanti as a member of the board, ratifying articles of incorporation, including a name change to the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.
• Sept. 9, 2013: Ypsilanti Township board passes resolution requesting membership in AAATA.
• Sept. 23, 2013: Ypsilanti Township board passes resolution approving amended articles of incorporation with membership for Ypsilanti Township.
• Sept. 26, 2013: AAATA board approves amended articles of incorporation with membership for Ypsilanti Township, contingent on concurrence from other parties.
• Oct. 15, 2013: Planned Ypsilanti city council agenda item on amended articles with membership for Ypsilanti Township.
• Oct. 21, 2013: Planned Ann Arbor city council agenda item on amended articles with membership for Ypsilanti Township.

Historically, other jurisdictions – the city of Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Pittsfield Township, and Superior Township – have obtained some transit services from the AAATA through purchase of service agreements (POSAs). They have used general fund money authorized by the governing boards to pay the AAATA for that service. In November 2010, however, voters in the city of Ypsilanti approved a dedicated transit millage by a roughly 3:1 margin.

So the city of Ypsilanti has used the proceeds of that 0.987 mill tax to pay toward its POSA agreement. Now that the city of Ypsilanti is a member of the AAATA, the revenue from that 0.987 mill tax isn’t recorded under the POSA line item in the AAATA’s budget, but rather under the line item for local, millage-generated revenues.

The expansion of AAATA one jurisdiction at a time comes in the context of a demised attempt in 2012 to expand the AATA to all of Washtenaw County in one step. Since then, work has continued among a smaller cluster of communities geographically closer to Ann Arbor – to expand and increase the frequency of service and to establish reliable funding for that improved service.

The AAATA could, with voter approval, levy a uniform property tax on the entire geographic area of its membership – but the transit authority has historically not done that. Rather, the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti have dedicated transit millages, which are levied by the cities and transmitted to the AAATA.

Chart by AAATA. Contributions of AAATA members, with impact of successful 0.7 millage, if Ypsilanti Township is admitted as a member. The hollow blue box indicates the amount paid by Ypsilanti Township for its purchase of service agreement (POSA), which would be supplanted (and exceeded) by the 0.7 millage if it were to be approved.

One possibility for funding improved transportation services in the Ann Arbor area is through an additional tax levied by the AAATA. The amount of the millage that would be required to pay for the increased services is estimated at around 0.7 mills. In the event that the AAATA were to win voter approval of a 0.7 mill transit tax – a request that might be put on the ballot in May 2014 – the city of Ypsilanti’s existing millage would remain in place, as would that of the city of Ann Arbor. The 0.7 mill tax would need approval among a majority of voters in the geographic area of member jurisdictions – which would include the two cities (Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti) as well as Ypsilanti Township, if it is admitted as a member.

Ann Arbor’s city transportation tax is levied at the rate of 2.053 mills, and currently generates $9,565,000 annually, according to AAATA. The 0.7 mill additional tax would generate $3,230,007 in additional revenue in the city of Ann Arbor for a total Ann Arbor local contribution of more than $12.7 million. According to AAATA, Ypsilanti’s dedicated millage generates $274,000, which is less than its POSA agreement called for last year. The 0.7 mill tax would generate around $189,785 in additional revenue in the city of Ypsilanti, for a total contribution in the city of Ypsilanti of around $464,000.

Ypsilanti Township pays $329,294 annually for its POSA agreement. If a 0.7 mill tax were approved, that would generate around $707,969 in the township. Based on the amount of expanded services that the township would receive, the township contribution would be defined as just that $707,969.

The proposed expansion of service does not depend on the nascent southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA) – a four-county authority for southeastern Michigan, which includes the city of Detroit and the counties of Washtenaw, Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb. The RTA was established in late 2012 in a lame duck session of the Michigan legislature. According to the AAATA’s Sept. 26 informational packet, the RTA has so far spent just $98 of the $500,000 in the budget that was initially allocated to it. The RTA could ask for voter approval of a property tax or a vehicle registration fee to generate transit funding.

Ypsilanti Township in AAATA: Public Commentary

During public commentary at the start of the Sept. 26 meeting, Vivienne Armentrout told the board she had been impressed by the board’s retreat held earlier in the year as the board and staff sorted through priorities and limitations. That has led to development of a work plan, which was the basis of the balanced budget – which she thought the board would be approving that night. She told the board how she felt a board should work: Board members are not managers, she told them, they are policymakers. But she noted that they have a fiduciary duty, saying that the buck literally stops with them – because the budget is the instrument they use to lead the authority in accordance with the policies that they set.

Because of that fiduciary duty, Armentrout continued, she felt that the board should not be entering into what she called a “speculative venture” by adding Ypsilanti Township as a member to the authority. She called it speculative because the financial arrangements had not been firmly defined. She contended that the township had expectations of considerably expanded service, which are based in turn on the passage of a new millage. Based on the minutes of the township board’s meeting, Armentrout was not convinced that the Ypsilanti Township board of trustees understands that.

Armentrout said that there were no documents that laid out the specific responsibilities on both sides or that defined the financial arrangement. She allowed that there was some mention of a memorandum of understanding, but there was no draft document that can be examined. She continued by saying that many details were missing, including the exact amounts and formulas for the amount to be paid by Ypsilanti Township and how those amounts would be adjusted in the future and for how long the township is making a commitment. The township’s commitment is supposed to end with the passage of the millage, she said. She urged the AAATA board to postpone a decision until those financial issues could be resolved and a clear picture is presented – of the possible impact of this decision on the AAATA’s financial integrity.

Kathy Griswold also addressed the board during public commentary time at the start of the meeting. She said there had been talk of a millage in the near future – an additional 0.7 mills for Ann Arbor residents. She stated that she supports transportation. She knew many students and hourly workers who rely on bus transportation. She told the board that they need to be very aware that they have made some missteps, and there is some dissatisfaction with the existing service because it doesn’t meet all of the needs of the Ann Arbor taxpayers. By proposing a millage, she said, expectations would be raised.

A number of students had approached her, Griswold said, and told her that the bus between Huron High School and Glencoe Hills is beyond capacity. She realized it was the beginning of a new school year, but cautioned that it was important not to have that kind of misstep if the AAATA wanted to ask voters for a new millage. Weekends are a real problem, she said. She knew a student who relies on the bus Monday through Friday and has to get up to catch a bus at 6:18 a.m. to get to school at 8 a.m. And on the weekend – because he worked Saturday and Sunday – he frequently has to pay for a taxi because he starts work before the bus service starts. She found it really disturbing when she sees young people who are trying to get ahead and make something of themselves having to struggle and having hurdles to overcome. She really wanted to see better services for Ann Arbor residents. If those services already exist, then better communication about them needs to happen – before any plans to expand are made, she concluded.

During her report from the planning and development committee, Sue Gott thanked members of the public for their attendance and commentary at that committee’s meetings. She said it was very helpful to receive that citizen input. Gott personally appreciated the fact that three members of the public had attended the most recent meeting of the planning and development committee, and all of them had given the committee good and thoughtful suggestions.

Ypsilanti Township in AAATA: Board Deliberations

During his report to the board, CEO Michael Ford commented on the addition of Ypsilanti Township to the AAATA. Ford reviewed some of the recent history. On Sept. 9, the Ypsilanti Township board of trustees had voted unanimously to request membership in AAATA. Since that time, attorneys for the authority, the township, the cities of Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor had met to draft mutually agreeable amendments to the articles of incorporation. The amended articles admit Ypsilanti Township as a member of the authority and give the township a seat on the board, bringing the total number of board members to 10.

On Sept. 23, Ford continued, the Ypsilanti Township board had voted unanimously to approve the amended articles of incorporation. AAATA’s performance monitoring and external relations (PMER) committee was recommending that the AAATA board also approve the articles of incorporation as amended, Ford said. He indicated that his understanding was the Ann Arbor city council would have the item on its Oct. 21 meeting agenda. The city of Ypsilanti would also be asked to approve the amended articles, Ford said, and is expected to have the item on its agenda on Oct. 15. If all parties approve the change, Ford said, it would bring more than 50% of Washtenaw County’s population into full participation in the AAATA.

As different communities transition from a purchase of service agreement-type relationship, to a member relationship, Ford said, it’s important to document the change with a formal contract. That had begun with the city of Ypsilanti, he noted. It ensures that the new member communities and the AAATA agree on what the obligations of a membership are.

AAATA board member Susan Baskett.

Reporting out from the PMER committee, Susan Baskett also noted that in the resolution approving Ypsilanti Township’s request for admission as a member, a “whereas” clause had been changed to make clear that the Ann Arbor city council has not yet acted on the matter but is expected to act.

Baskett also noted that the resolution admitting Ypsilanti Township into the AAATA included a “whereas” clause clarifying that the township’s financial commitment would be appropriate to the level of service received. Baskett indicated that she hoped those clarifications would help address some of the concerns that had been raised during the public commentary that evening. The committee was fully supportive of bringing a resolution to the board, Baskett concluded.

In comments later in the meeting, Eli Cooper acknowledged that over the last three or four meetings, the board had received a lot of public comment about the addition of Ypsilanti Township to the AAATA. As the AAATA moves forward, he said, the budget that’s under consideration for adoption and the services that have been provided historically are not related to the township as far as adding any additional financial liability to the authority. As the AAATA moves forward collectively as an urban core region, he said, there’s a mechanism in place that will allow the township to sustain the services that are contemplated. Cooper invited Ford to comment on that description.

Ford simplified Cooper’s sentiments by saying: “They’ll pay for what they get.” If the township wanted more service, they would pay for that, Ford said.

Baskett inquired whether the articles of incorporation and the other materials would be made public somewhere. Ford indicated that it would eventually all be placed on the AAATA’s website. Ford also indicated that some commonly asked questions with corresponding answers had been prepared. [.pdf of the AAATA's issue analysis]

Jack Bernard wanted to bring the topic to a level of clarity so that the public really does understand what the expansion would mean. He felt there is a genuine concern that the expansion would risk a decrease in service to the core of what has been the AAATA, or create additional costs. He felt that people are apprehensive because they see things growing and they compare it to other experiences that they’ve had when something has expanded – when there are greater expenses at greater risk. He felt it would be helpful to really get onto the table why the AAATA believes that those apprehensions can be alleviated.

Responding to Bernard, Ford pointed to the issue analysis and fact sheet as providing that assurance. Ford returned to a point he made earlier in the meeting – that Ypsilanti Township will be paying for the services that it receives.

Baskett pointed to the first page of the issue analysis that had been done by AAATA staff and read aloud the third bullet point:

AAATA’s funding base will be made more stable by Ypsilanti Township’s membership since Ypsilanti Township has pledged funding, equal to the cost of acquiring services through the Purchase of Service Agreement, to the Authority for transit purposes. This pledge is contained in the Township’s resolution requesting service and will be further documented in a memorandum of understanding. Note that the nature of Ypsilanti Township’s commitment will change in the event of any Authority millage, that is, the commitment of Ypsilanti Township’s general revenues can be reduced by the amount of revenue produced by the township’s share of an Authority millage. In other words, a 0.7 mil Authority levy, if enacted, would produce enough revenue in Ypsilanti Township to fully cover the cost of both existing and proposed new services in the township, making a contribution from their general fund unnecessary. This is illustrated in the accompanying chart, below.

Sue Gott allowed that one possibility is that a millage would be approved. But she felt it was important to also engage in some Plan B thinking – if there is no millage. The other question Gott asked related to the total activity of the AAATA – venturing that staff has a full plate. She asked Ford to comment on the administrative capacity of AAATA to continue route planning and other expansion opportunities. Ford indicated that in connection with the urban core process, AAATA staff had gone out and talked to a lot of people and received a lot of input. A lot of the heavy lifting and difficult work had been done, he felt – as far as what the actual service look like.

Going forward, Ford saw an increased need for communication – within the cities of Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor as well as Ypsilanti Township. He felt AAATA is in a good position to deal with that. Ford said he did not see expansion as a burden but as a need to communicate to the public in general: “I think that we’re there. We’ve done a lot of good work. We’ve got some refinements to do.” Details of the schedules and bus stop locations will need to be communicated, he allowed. He did not feel that the expansion would compromise planning efforts, and he felt AAATA was in a position to handle the expansion.

About Plan B – if a millage is not approved – Ford said there would really be no change from the way service is currently delivered and paid for. If Ypsilanti Township is a member, they’d be paying their fair share. If and when a millage is approved, Ford continued, then that’s a whole new discussion. For right now it’ll be business as usual, Ford said – but he allowed that they want to tighten up the relationship with more formal agreements. He did not foresee any major change in staff time or involvement. He concluded that he did not foresee any burden on the AAATA.

Charles Griffith offered some historical perspective on why the board was at the point of discussing adding Ypsilanti Township as a member. When the AAATA had begun a long-term planning efforts a few years back and was considering how it might include other jurisdictions, a fairly wide net had been cast. AAATA staff and board members had talked with all the other jurisdictions the county, he said, and a lot of interest had been generated throughout the county. An effort had been initiated to look at some version of a countywide transportation authority structure, Griffith said. When that was put to the test – that is, when local officials from those jurisdictions had to say yes or no about whether they wanted to be a member of the countywide authority – more of them said no.

So that effort at expansion had then been refined, Griffith said. The Ann Arbor city council had requested that the AAATA approach the task of starting with an “urban core” area that included the city of Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Pittsfield Township and the city of Saline. A number of meetings of those urban core communities had taken place over the last several months – to take a look at how to create a more vibrant regional transportation system. For some jurisdictions – like the city of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township, which is requesting that same opportunity – it’s a way for long-term partners to have a chance to participate in governance, by being able to appoint a member to the board. In some cases, Griffith said, that relationship between the jurisdiction and the AAATA went back 30 years.

Secondly, those jurisdictions have the opportunity to participate in a millage request, as part of the request of the AAATA, Griffith said. Currently the funding comes from each jurisdiction individually. There’s a certain efficiency related to all the jurisdictions being able to request additional funding jointly, he said. The downside to it, and the reason it doesn’t work for every community, Griffith explained, is that each jurisdiction has different service needs. If a large part of the jurisdiction is rural and that area doesn’t need as much service as a more urban community, it might not work for that jurisdiction to request a millage at the same rate as another community. Because of service needs and tax base differences, it is not necessarily that easy to make a multi-jurisdictional millage request, Griffith allowed. But Ypsilanti Township has come to the conclusion that it would work for that township – at least with the plan that the AAATA has come up with so far.

Other communities, like Pittsfield Township, have said that a membership would not work for them. A millage request of that size would mean more transportation service than they’re willing to take on right now, Griffith said. So Pittsfield Township is happy to find that funding base on its own, and contract with the AAATA for service.

Griffith summarized his view on the guiding principle for admission to the authority by saying: “It shouldn’t matter to us which way a jurisdiction wants to participate in our authority, but from my perspective at least we want to provide the opportunity for them to participate at the highest level possible.” He felt the overall goal is to improve and increase the opportunities for members of the community. For Ypsilanti Township to be member of the AAATA makes sense, Griffith said. That’s because the township can continue to participate in the AAATA on a long-term basis under its existing arrangement. Or there will be a millage request, which would provide a different funding opportunity, he said.

Service needs would change over time, Griffith allowed – and that is why the AAATA has a 5-year plan as well as a 30-year plan, which anticipates further growth in transit over that time period.

Eric Mahler indicated he would support the resolution. If in the future other jurisdictions wanted to join the AAATA, he said, he thought the board would engage in the basic is-it-good-is-it-bad debate over and over again. It’s important for board members to lay out clearly to the public as well as to each other what the guiding principles are. He echoed Griffith’s sentiments – that it makes sense to allow jurisdictions to participate in the AAATA at the highest level that they would like to.

Mahler felt there is more risk in not letting jurisdictions into the authority. It sends a bad message to say, “We don’t want you in our authority.” Mahler continued: “It’s better to have a partner than a client.” Mahler believed that the status quo is not actually the status quo – saying that the status quo means you’re actually receding.

Mahler allowed that there might be discrepancies in service in the city of Ann Arbor in certain pockets here and there, and he felt those issues need to be addressed. At the same time, those pockets – where something might have been missed or could be improved – should not hold the AAATA back from expanding to those jurisdictions that want transportation services. Like any business, he said, you fix what’s wrong and you keep moving forward. He looked forward to Ypsilanti Township’s participation on the board.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the resolution adding Ypsilanti Township as a member of the AAATA.

Ypsilanti Township in AAATA: Public Commentary Coda

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Vivienne Armentrout told the board that the documents that the AAATA had cited clarifying Ypsilanti Township’s commitment were not convincing – because they were not contracts.

Vivienne Armentrout.

And the issues analysis doesn’t commit anyone to anything, she said. She called it a “concept paper.” She also said that “whereas” clauses and in resolutions have no binding power. It’s the information in the resolved clause that commits a municipality to spend money, she said. Ypsilanti Township is not committed to anything, she contended. The “whereas” clauses that the AAATA had taken such care to insert have no force, she said.

The AAATA is admitting a municipality as a member that is a Michigan township – which operates under the assumptions that townships do, Armentrout cautioned. She was familiar with these assumptions from her years of service on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners – in particular with Ypsilanti Township. Washtenaw County had spent $1 million defending a lawsuit that had been brought by Ypsilanti Township, alleging that the county was overcharging the township for its share of sheriff deputy services. After about three years of litigation, she continued, the township had finally lost. Both entities had spent a lot of money over very fine print material, she said. Townships are very interested in getting their money’s worth. Ypsilanti Township expects every tax dollar that goes from them in any form to come back to them in exactly those needed services or they will not be satisfied.

Ypsilanti Township will advocate and agitate for additional services, Armentrout said. “I promise you, you’re going to have a lot of issues to deal with in the future if this takes place,” she said. She told the board that they did not have any guarantee even that Ypsilanti Township would pay the purchase of service agreement amount. She allowed that she might be overstating the case and there might be some goodwill involved, but she told the board that what they had approved was a handshake.

AAATA FY 2014 Budget

The board was asked to approve a $33.97 million expenditure budget for fiscal year 2014. The budget for FY 2014, which starts on Oct. 1, includes revenues that almost exactly balance those expenditures, leaving an excess of $20,500.

The FY 2014 budget restores a three-month operating reserve. The board previously had authorized dipping below that level after the state of Michigan’s allocation for operating support last year was less than expected. During the past year, however, the state legislature made an additional appropriation increasing the percentage of operating expenses subsidized by the state from 27.11% to 30.65%.

According to CEO Michael Ford’s monthly written report to the board, the budget will fund 200,000 fixed-route service hours, 64,000 paratransit service hours, 19,000 NightRide service hours, 9,000 AirRide service hours and over 2,000 ExpressRide service hours.

That translates into 7 million total passenger trips for the next year. The FY 2014 budget reflects about a 4.9% increase compared to last year.

AAATA FY 2014 Budget: Board Deliberations

About the fiscal year 2014 operating budget, Ford noted during his report to the board that the work plan was complete and had been adopted by the board at its previous meeting in August.

AAATA FY 2014 Budget: Revenue. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from AAATA)

The planning and development committee had reviewed the budget several times, he noted, and he had met with individual board members to go over the budget in more detail. The nearly $34 million budget, Ford continued, supports the projects in the work plan and will allow the AAATA to provide about 200,000 fixed-route service hours, 64,000 paratransit service hours, 19,000 NightRide service hours, 9,000 AirRide hours, and over 2,000 Express Ride service hours. That’s a total of about 294,000 service hours, which would include about 7 million passenger trips.

To support that level of service, Ford continued, the budget assumed an increase in service, staff and resources – such as motor coach operators and service crew, and maintenance, to support the new Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor. Biodiesel fuel prices are expected to increase, he said. Ford appreciated the board working with staff on the budget.

Later in the meeting, Sue Gott asked if the FY 2013 budget would be amended to reflect the additional supplemental state operating support the AAATA had received. Controller Phil Webb noted that there were only three days left in the fiscal year. But the differences between actual and budgeted could simply be explained, he said.

When the board reached the budget agenda item, Ford thanked board members for their time and consideration. The budget had been reviewed in a fair amount of detail, he said. If another presentation was desired, staff was prepared to do that, but he felt the board had already seen the topic quite a bit. He felt the staff had pretty well exhausted the information.

AAATA FY 2014 Budget: Expenses. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from AAATA)

Gott responded to Ford by saying that for the benefit of the public, who had not necessarily attended all the meetings and followed the discussion of the development of the budget, it would be helpful to have a few highlights. Controller Phil Webb was asked to provide the highlights.

Webb began by saying that the budget represents all of the human resources and financial resources that are needed over the next 12 months. Development of the budget, he said, begins by looking at The Ride Guide. The Ride Guide is essentially a promise to the community to provide a certain number of hours of service on the street, he said. That’s the basis of figuring out how many drivers are needed, how many mechanics are needed, how many buses are needed, and how much fuel will be used.

From that follows a certain amount of paratransit service that’s required to be provided, he said. AAATA goes beyond the minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, he noted.

Webb pointed out that local tax dollars are not used to provide the AirRide service or the ExpressRide services.

Gott followed up with a comment indicating she was satisfied with the way Webb monitored cash flow through the year. She noted that they had heard the concern from the public that the AAATA maintain its financial strength and she indicated the board members all felt a responsibility to do that. She felt that the regular routine monitoring that was in place assured that responsibility is met.

Jack Bernard asked Webb to explain the benchmarking process that the AAATA is going through. Bernard felt it was important for the public to have a sense that the AAATA not looking at itself in a vacuum.

Webb indicated that a peer analysis is done routinely. The AAATA looks at its peers within the state of Michigan because the state of Michigan’s funding is unique, he said. So the AAATA compares itself to mid-sized systems in Lansing and Grand Rapids and Flint, as well as across the country – Madison, Wisc. and some other college towns that have a similar demographic. “We compare favorably in some avenues and dis-favorably in other areas, and we strive to improve ourselves as we go on,” Webb said. That comparative analysis would be coming back to the performance monitoring and external relations (PMER) committee in the next couple of months.

Eric Mahler asked if the AAATA had a separate capital budget. Webb explained that the AAATA does have a capital and categorical grant program – and the board’s first look at that would be at the October planning and development (PDC) committee meeting. And at the December meeting, board approval would be requested. The timeframe this year is a month earlier compared to the previous year – because the plan must also be submitted to the southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA), Webb explained.

Eli Cooper noted that the budget process had begun with the board’s retreat in the spring. A work program had been outlined. Cooper also described several rounds of committee meetings and discussion by the board. The information had been thoroughly vetted by the board, he said. That was the process.

As to the substance, Cooper reacted to some of the public commentary that had been given – about service to residents. Cooper felt it’s important to note in thinking about the budget and service to residents, given the resources that are available, that the AAATA is doing a fantastic job in providing a reliable world-class service within the community. The challenge is taking something that is good and making it better, he said.

Wringing out additional efficiencies and effectiveness sounds ideal, but that would be more difficult, he said. The question of moving forward and providing even more services that the community warrants – that’s a conversation that will need to be conducted with the community about the resources necessary to ramp up from a great level of service.

So as a board member, Cooper said he would be supporting the budget. He acknowledged that there are unmet needs and that there will be some conversations moving forward about how to best position the AAATA to meet the needs that the community expects, recognizing the AAATA’s financial resources.

Charles Griffith observed that there is a 4.9% increase in the budget compared to last year. So Griffith asked how the authority was able to handle that, and where the additional revenue had come from.

Webb noted that the AAATA is providing over 200,000 hours of fixed-route service, which is more than the AAATA has ever provided. That’s a 2.8% increase compared to the current year, Webb explained. A lot of the additional expenses go to support those services, he said. There are also some research and development projects the AAATA is working on, two of which are funded at an 80% level through federal planning grants, with the remaining 20% made up through a local share. Those projects are the connector analysis study and the WALLY station feasibility project.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the fiscal year 2014 budget, which starts Oct. 1, 2013.

Selection of Pear Sperling for Legal Work

The board considered a resolution selecting Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels P.C. to continue to represent the AAATA.

The contract runs five years starting on Oct. 1, 2013, and is based on an hourly rate. The value of the contract is expected to exceed a total of $100,000. That’s the amount triggering a requirement of board approval.

According to the staff memo on the resolution, 48 vendors downloaded the RFP (request for proposals) issued by the AAATA and 10 firms responded to it. Written proposals were evaluated and scored, and the top four proposers were offered interviews. After the interview process, “best and final” offers were requested from the top two proposers.

Out of that process, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels P.C. was chosen to provide legal counsel to the AAATA on general corporate, labor and employment matters.

At the Sept. 26 meeting during her report from the performance monitoring and external relations (PMER) committee, Susan Baskett said the committee was satisfied with the staff report on the request for proposals (RFP) and bidding process. The committee supported bringing back the incumbent law firm. Baskett indicated that she’d suggested to staff that they maintain an ongoing evaluation of all vendors so that if the AAATA were asked for a recommendation about any of its vendors, it would be documented.

Later in the meeting, Eric Mahler, who’s an attorney, asked how much the authority expected to spend in legal services. He wondered what the fee arrangement was – a flat fee or regular hourly-type work? AAATA staff indicated that the contract is based on an hourly rate but on an as-needed basis.

Mahler indicated that Pear Sperling was the lowest bidder, and said that generally when it comes to a law firm, you probably do get what you pay for. However, he said that Pear Sperling is an excellent law firm. Staff indicated that the fee rate is locked in for five years.

Baskett indicated that part of the PMER committee’s recommendation was based on Pear Sperling’s past performance, and it was not merely a decision to continue with that firm just because it was the lowest bidder.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to select Pear Sperling for legal work for the next five years.

Board Governance

Two items appeared on the agenda related to board governance: selection of a board chair for the coming fiscal year; and adoption of the meeting schedule for the upcoming year.

Board Governance: Officer Elections

On the board’s agenda was the annual election of board officers. Charles Griffith was elected last year to serve as board chair. The pattern for the last few chairs is for them to serve two years in that capacity – but a term as chair is just one year.

Griffith is climate & energy program director for the Ecology Center. He has already served for seven years on the AAATA board, and his current appointment lasts another three years. He was reappointed to the board on May 2, 2011 to another five-year term after first being appointed on Sept. 19, 2006.

AAATA board chair Charles Griffith.

The other two officers coming into the Sept. 26 meeting were Eli Cooper as treasurer and Anya Dale as secretary.

Griffith introduced the topic of officer elections by noting that it had been the board’s custom to rotate officer positions every couple of years. The current officers had been serving in that capacity one year or less, he noted. He’d asked Roger Kerson to head up a nomination committee. That committee had recommended that the current officers continue in that capacity. But Griffith indicated that he would entertain any nominations from the floor.

Sue Gott spoke on Kerson’s behalf, because he was absent. She’d served on the nominating committee with Kerson. Kerson had done quite a bit of due diligence talking with board members, Gott reported. Because some members of the board are new and might not be quite ready to step into an officer role, she and Kerson felt that it made sense to give the current officers, who are doing a good job, a continued opportunity. And because others had not volunteered an interest, it was appropriate that the existing officers be put forward as a slate for election, she said.

Gott thanked Anya Dale in her role as secretary, Griffith in his role as chair, and Eli Cooper in his role as treasurer. So that was the slate of officers that she and Kerson wanted formally to put before the board for its consideration. She invited any other questions about the committee deliberations.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to elect existing officers to another term.

Board Governance: Committees

The AAATA board has two standing committees – the planning and development committee (PDC), and the performance monitoring and external relations committee (PMER). Griffith noted that new board member Jack Bernard had been assigned to the PMER committee. That results in the following committee composition:

• planning and development committee: Sue Gott (chair), Eli Cooper, Gillian Ream Gainsley, Eric Mahler.
• performance monitoring and external relations committee: Roger Kerson (chair), Susan Baskett, Jack Bernard, Anya Dale.

The PMER committee was mentioned during public commentary. Commenting on the new website during public commentary time at the start of the meeting, Jim Mogensen said that he’d looked for the minutes from the PMER committee and he had been told that the meetings of that committee weren’t available because the meetings of that committee are no longer public meetings.

At the start of the meeting, board chair Charles Griffith welcomed newly-appointed board member Jack Bernard, thanking him for being willing to join the team. “We are really thrilled to have you,” Griffith said. Bernard replied,” I’m glad to be here.”

AAATA CEO Michael Ford also welcomed Bernard to the board table at the start of his report to the board. He noted that Bernard had already devoted a lot of time and energy to staff meetings and had gone through an orientation recently. “We appreciate your time and effort,” Ford said.

Board Governance: Meeting Schedule

Also at the Sept. 26 meeting, the board considered its regular meeting schedule for fiscal year 2014, which runs from Oct. 1, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2014. The basic pattern of meetings is every third Thursday of the month. [.pdf of 2013 meeting schedule] Meeting start time is 6:30 p.m.

Outcome: Without debate, the board voted unanimously to adopt its regular meeting schedule.

Local Advisory Council

Rebecca Burke reported from the AAATA’s local advisory council (LAC), a group that provides input and feedback to AAATA on disability and senior issues. She asked the board to approve the recommendation from the council on appointments to its executive board – Cheryl Weber and John Kuchinski.

Burke also asked that the board re-examine the charge to the local advisory council – asking that communication be improved between the board and the LAC. She suggested that someone from the board be assigned as a liaison to make the communication smoother.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to make the requested appointments to the LAC executive committee.

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

At its Sept. 26 meeting, the board entertained various communications, including its usual reports from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the planning and development committee, as well as from CEO Michael Ford. The board also heard commentary from the public. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Regional Transit Authority (RTA)

On the topic of the southeast Michigan regional transit Authority (RTA), Michael Ford indicated that board chair Charles Griffith and AAATA staff had met with the RTA’s CEO, John Hertel, to discuss the need for cooperation and education on any regional funding request that voters might receive. The RTA had selected members for its citizens advisory committee, Ford reported. Four members of the committee were selected from Washtenaw County: LuAnne Bullington, Prasanth Guruaja, Larry Krieg and John Waterman. AAATA staff continue to attend the meetings of the RTA, Ford said.

Ford mentioned during his report to the board that the Ann Arbor city council would be having a session on transportation issues, focused specifically on the RTA. [That's a work session scheduled for Oct. 14, 2013.]

And later during the AAATA board meeting, Griffith noted that the next meeting of the RTA board would be in Ann Arbor in the same room where the AAATA meets – the fourth floor conference room of the downtown library at 343 S. Fifth Ave. That meeting will be taking place on Wednesday, Oct. 2 at 2 p.m.

Comm/Comm: On-board Rider Survey

During her report from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Susan Baskett described an upcoming survey to be done by CJI Research Corp. in late October. The same company has conducted the last two onboard surveys – in 2009 and 2011. The firm also has a strong transit background, Baskett said. The sample size of 2,500 respondents would result in a 95% confidence level on the results, she said.

Survey questions would cover issues like rider origin and destination, satisfaction with the new website, and English proficiency of riders. English proficiency of riders is related to a new requirement of Title VI, she said. Surveys will be printed in Spanish and Chinese.

Baskett reported that Bernard had suggested including questions about riders with disabilities. The survey would take place in late October over the course of about a week. Surveys would be handed out on the busy routes. Baskett hoped that the results of the survey would be back for preliminary consideration by the committee in mid-December.

Comm/Comm: Blake Transit Center

Sue Gott reported that the planning and development committee had received an update from Dawn Gabay on the artwork that will be integrated into the new Blake Transit Center under construction in downtown Ann Arbor. The RFP for the artwork had been re-issued.

The project is about a month behind schedule but within budget, according to Michael Ford’s report to the board.

Eli Cooper congratulated the project team on continuing to make progress on the construction. He recalled at the beginning of the year the board had been told about frost laws, and the target completion date has slipped. That could have created a cascade leading to more and more delay, he said. But to the staff’s credit, the delay had been stemmed at that point. “Job well done, keep it up,” Cooper concluded.

Comm/Comm: Environmental Law Conference

Charles Griffith told his board colleagues that he had just arrived from the University of Michigan law school having attended an event where the newly appointed director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had delivered some remarks. [Gina McCarthy, the EPA's administrator, was appointed this summer.] She had been kicking off a conference, he reported, that the UM law school is hosting – on environmental law and public health. The following day a number of different sessions would be offered, he continued, noting that they were all free. He highlighted one of the sessions in particular – on sustainable communities. He noted that the sustainable communities session would feature at least one local speaker, Jonathan Levine, who was involved in transportation planning in the region.

Comm/Comm: Ecology Center Fundraiser

During communications, Charles Griffith announced what he called a “shameless plug” for the Ecology Center, which employs him. The center was hosting its annual fundraiser dinner on Oct. 3, and the keynote address for that event would be delivered by one of the most world-renowned climate scientists. He ventured that it would be a very interesting talk. Tickets were still available, he said.

During public commentary after Griffith’s remarks, Vivienne Armentrout filled in the name of the world-renowned climate scientist, which Griffith had not included – James Hansen.

Comm/Comm: Minutes, Ypsilanti Routes

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Jim Mogensen addressed the board about the way his comments during public commentary at the board’s previous meeting had been portrayed in the official minutes – which the board would be asked to approve at that night’s meeting. He allowed that when you’re trying to say things within the confines of a two-minute time period, you have to appeal to allusions and other devices and sometimes things could get lost in the translation.

He had commented on the financial arrangements between the University of Michigan and the AAATA with respect to service to the east Ann Arbor medical center. He read aloud from the proposed minutes: “Mr. Mogensen commented on the perception of a lost opportunity not having service to the east Ann Arbor medical center related to express ride.” What he thought he had conveyed, Mogensen said, was a lost opportunity to have more money from the University of Michigan relating to the east Ann Arbor medical center service, not that the service had not happened.

And at the end of the previous meeting, Mogensen continued, when he had talked about changes to the service schedule that were made in August, there had been proposed changes to the Route #6B and Route #11. The unclear communication by the AAATA had not been about how the process was handled, he said. The problem had arisen when the decision was made not to make the changes to the Route 11 service. What happened at Chidester Place, where he lives, is that residents did not realize that those changes had not actually been implemented. So there was confusion about that, he said. As a follow-up, he said, there had been a problem with the printed schedule.

Summing up the current situation, Mogensen said, “It’s all alright, we’ve got it figured out.” He’d worked with AAATA staff to distribute copies of the correct schedule for the residents’ newsletter at Chidester Place. So everybody knows that the bus will not come at eight minutes after the hour but rather at 15 minutes after the hour. That matters for people who are trying to make connections, he concluded.

Susan Baskett inquired how Mogensen’s comments about the minutes would be handled. Board chair Charles Griffith suggested that the minutes be altered to conform with Mogensen’s description of what he’d said his remarks were intended to convey. The board approved the amended minutes.

Comm/Comm: Briarwood Mall Bus Stop

During his report to the board, CEO Michael Ford said the new bus stop at Briarwood Mall is complete and is operational. He described operations there as going “quite well.” Responding to some of the concerns that had been raised about the width of the boarding area – concerns raised during public commentary at the August board meeting – Ford reported that it was 10 feet wide. The Americans with Disabilities Act minimum width requirement is 8 feet, he said. Briarwood Mall had originally proposed 5 feet, but by working with the mall, that had been expanded to 10 feet. He described the development of the new bus stop as a cooperative effort between Briarwood Mall and AAATA. The mall had done the construction of the bus stop, and the AAATA had provided the shelter.

Later during question time, Jack Bernard reported that he’d watched the previous meeting of the board, and that’s why he felt he could vote on approval of the minutes. The remarks made during that meeting by Carolyn Grawi, director of advocacy and education for the Center for Independent Living, had caught his attention. She had talked about the new bus stop out at Briarwood Mall. Bernard told Ford that he thought Ford had addressed Grawi’s concerns quite nicely – except for the part related to things like garbage cans and newspaper distribution boxes. Grawi expressed apprehension about such items cluttering the space. Bernard allowed that it was not a space that the AAATA would be able to control all the time. So he hoped that dialogue can be maintained between the AAATA and Briarwood Mall to make sure that the space is actually effective. Ford indicated that the AAATA has a good relationship with Briarwood Mall and could follow up.

Comm/Comm: Fair Fares

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Jim Mogensen addressed the board on the topic of the financial arrangement between the University of Michigan and the AAATA for the M-Ride program. It results in $1 of revenue to the AAATA per ride. That had reminded him, he said, of the health care debate. You hear during the debate on health care that the problem is people go to the emergency room and the rest of us have to pay for them, he said. But if you’ve ever been a low-income, uninsured person, he said, you know that’s not what happens.

If you go to the emergency room and you are a low-income person and you don’t qualify for Medicare Medicaid then you get a bill – you get a very big bill, he said. And you get a payment plan. But it’s not free. There have been some proposals to limit the amount that people who are uninsured would have to pay, but the operators of health care systems say: You can’t do that – we’ll never be able to make our budget work if you cap it at what Medicaid pays!

The question came up when bus fares were raised: Did the University Michigan have to pay the additional fare? And the comment that was made was that the AAATA couldn’t do that, Mogensen said, because it would make it difficult for the University of Michigan to budget. He quipped that low-income people have no difficulty budgeting. He related his experience getting on the bus one day when a University of Michigan student said to him: I don’t have to pay anything to ride – what do you have to pay? Mogensen said that he did not give the student a lecture. But he had to admit, he said, “It was a moment!”

Present: Charles Griffith, Eric Mahler, Susan Baskett, Eli Cooper, Sue Gott, Jack Bernard.

Absent: Roger Kerson, Anya Dale, Gillian Ream Gainsley.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Oct. 17, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]

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

Ingrid Ault, who was elected chair of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission on Sept. 17, shakes hands with Alonzo Young of Camp Take Notice. (Photos by the writer.)

The waiver, which would require approval by the city council before taking effect, follows action by the council this summer to waive all park rental fees for the use of Liberty Plaza during a one-year trial period, also based on a PAC recommendation. The goal of that waiver is to spur more activity in that urban park, at the southwest corner of Liberty and Divisions streets.

The issue of fee waivers arose earlier this year when city staff considered charging a rental fee to the church that hosted Pizza in the Park, a weekly homelessness outreach ministry. Members of Camp Take Notice, a group that advocates for the homeless, has been urging the city to apply a broad fee waiver throughout the entire park system for entities that provide humanitarian aid. The recommendation approved on Sept. 17 is a compromise worked out with city staff and Camp Take Notice representatives.

Discussion among commissioners focused on how the waiver would be handled. Parks & recreation manager Colin Smith stressed that all park rules would still apply, and that applicants would need to go through the standard permitting process in order to receive a waiver.

During their Sept. 17 meeting, commissioners also discussed the issue of releasing raw data to the public, in the context of two recent surveys – on dog parks and downtown parks. Tim Berla and others advocated for making the survey results available in a form that could be used by the public for analysis. [The data from both of those surveys had been available in a .pdf format, and can now be downloaded from the city's website as Excel files.] Other commissioners pushed for the city to develop a policy regarding the release of data – a standardized approach that would be approved by the city council.

The Sept. 17 meeting also included PAC’s annual election of officers. Commissioners unanimously selected Ingrid Ault as chair and Graydon Krapohl as vice chair. Bob Galardi was re-elected chair of PAC’s budget and finance committee. There were no other nominations. Current PAC chair Julie Grand is term limited and will be cycling off the commission in October.

Park Fee Waiver for Charities

On PAC’s Sept. 17 agenda was a recommendation to waive fees for any charity that distributes “goods for basic human needs” in Ann Arbor parks. It was brought forward by Christopher Taylor, a city councilmember and ex-officio member of PAC.

Christopher Taylor, a Ward 3 Ann Arbor city councilmember who serves as an ex-officio member of the park advisory commission.

The recommendation comes two months after the Ann Arbor city council waived all rental fees for the use of Liberty Plaza during a one-year trial period, based on a PAC recommendation. That city council action came at its July 15, 2013 meeting. That fee waiver was approved in response to a situation that arose earlier in the spring, when city staff considered applying fees to the hosting of Pizza in the Park in Liberty Plaza – a homelessness outreach ministry of a local church. Liberty Plaza is an urban park located at the southwest corner of Liberty and Divisions streets in downtown Ann Arbor.

The Liberty Plaza fee waiver applies to all activities – social, cultural, and recreational – with the goal of increasing the use of that urban park.

However, members of Camp Take Notice, a self-governed homelessness community, have lobbied for a written commitment that the city would allow humanitarian efforts to take place on public land generally, not just at Liberty Plaza. They’ve objected to the focus by the council and the park advisory commission on general activities – as opposed to the protection of humanitarian aid efforts.

The proposal considered by PAC on Sept. 17 would amend Chapter 39, Section 3:6 of the city code. [.pdf of revised ordinance language] It would be a permanent fee waiver for this specific purpose – the charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs – but it would still require that organizations get a permit to use the park, and follow permitting procedures, including clean up obligations.

Several supporters of Camp Take Notice attended the Sept. 17 meeting, but did not address the commission before the vote.

In introducing the resolution, Taylor recalled the history of the Liberty Plaza fee waiver, and of the Camp Take Notice advocacy for a broader waiver. He noted that the waiver doesn’t alter the authorized uses of the parks, or alter the permitting process. The wording “charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs” was arrived at in consultation with city parks staff, the city attorney’s office, and Camp Take Notice representatives, he said.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, noted that because it would amend an existing ordinance, the resolution would require initial approval at a first reading at city council, followed by a public hearing and final reading at a subsequent council meeting.

Taylor indicated that he would bring this resolution to the city council at its Oct. 21 meeting for a first reading, followed by a public hearing and final reading at a subsequent meeting.

Park Fee Waiver for Charities: Commission Discussion

Tim Berla noted that someone will have to decide whether a particular application for this waiver is acceptable or not. “It seems like a good definition,” he said, “but this is Ann Arbor, so it seems like also somebody will come up with something that is borderline.” There might be waivers requested for things that aren’t universally recognized as a community benefit, he said.

At the request of a resident, the city hired Matthew Butler to provide sign language interpretation during PAC’s Sept. 17 meeting.

Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith replied that he was comfortable with the proposed language. There’s room for interpretation on a lot of things handled by the parks staff, Smith noted. For example, activities are supposed to relate to the parks mission, which is open to interpretation. As with other things, the waiver will be looked at on a case-by-case basis, Smith said, adding that by going through the regular permitting process, there are opportunities for checks and balances.

Bob Galardi wondered if there is an appeals process, if the city rejects an application for a waiver. It varies, Smith replied. In this case, it would likely be appealed to the city administrator.

Alan Jackson described the phrase “basic human needs” as a “very fuzzy term.” Food and water comes to mind, he said, but does it extend to shelter or medical care? Is the park an appropriate place for that kind of thing? How broad does this waiver become, and what are the limitations? he asked.

Taylor replied that the word “goods” was specific, and therefore medical services wouldn’t apply. Jackson countered that pharmaceuticals are “goods.” Taylor felt that it would be outside the scope of the waiver.

Regarding shelter, Smith noted that all park rules outlined in Chapter 39 still apply, so no one would be allowed to stay in a park overnight. [.pdf of Chapter 39]

Julie Grand said she felt comfortable with the narrowing of the language, compared to the initial idea of allowing a waiver for humanitarian aid. She noted that the parks staff felt that this approach was “doable.”

Outcome: The fee waiver passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Park Fee Waiver for Charities: Public Commentary

At the end of the meeting during the agenda slot for public commentary, Alonzo Young told commissioners he was on the board of Camp Take Notice and he wanted to thank them for passing the resolution about the fee waiver.

PAC chair Julie Grand told him he’d given the most positive public commentary she’d ever heard, and she thanked him for his remarks.

Land Acquisition Annual Report

Ginny Trocchio is a staff member of The Conservation Fund who provides support to the greenbelt program under contract with the city. On Sept. 17 she briefed commissioners on the annual activity report for the city’s open space and parkland preservation program for the fiscal year 2013, which ended on June 30. [.pdf of draft fiscal 2013 activity report]

Ginny Trocchio, who provides staff support for PAC’s land acquisition activities as well as for the city’s greenbelt program, presented an annual report at the Sept. 17 meeting. In the background is sign language interpreter Matthew Butler.

The greenbelt program and park acquisitions are funded through a 30-year 0.5 mill tax that Ann Arbor voters passed in 2003. It’s called the open space and parkland preservation millage, and appears on the summer tax bill as the line item CITY PARK ACQ.

The city’s policy has been to allocate one-third of the millage for parks land acquisition and two-thirds for the greenbelt program. The greenbelt advisory commission (GAC) handles the portion for land preservation outside of the city limits, while the city’s park advisory commission (PAC) oversees the funds for parkland acquisition. PAC’s land acquisition committee, of which all PAC commissioners are members, makes recommendations for parkland purchases.

To get money upfront for land acquisition, the city took out a $20 million bond in fiscal year 2006. That bond is being paid back with revenue from the millage. Debt service on that bond in FY 2013 year totaled $1.227 million. [Two debt service payments are made during the fiscal year.]

Regarding parkland acquisitions, Trocchio reported that the city bought two properties in fiscal 2013, and accepted a donation from Ann Arbor Township – the Braun Nature Area, which is adjacent to the city’s Huron Parkway Nature Area. The purchases were:

• 0.91 acres along Hampstead Lane, adding to the Kuebler Langford Nature Area – at a total cost of $118,944.
• 0.35 acres along Orkney, to add to the Bluffs Nature Area – at a total cost of $120,774.

For the greenbelt program, five transactions were completed in the last fiscal year, covering 448 acres of farmland. [More details on those acquisitions, see Chronicle coverage: "Greenbelt Commission Gets Financial Update."]

Commissioners were also briefed on a financial report for fiscal 2013, related to the open space and parkland preservation millage. [.pdf of financial statements]

For the year ending June 30, 2013, Trocchio reported that net revenues from the millage were $2.626 million. Most of that – $2.141 million of it – came from millage proceeds. The other main revenue source was investment income of $111,137 in FY 2013. That  compared to $176,082 in investment income the previous year.

Karen Levin, an Ann Arbor park advisory commissioner.

Expenses for the year were $3.357 million. In addition to $1.227 for debt service, expenses included $1.757 million in greenbelt projects and $242,867 for parkland acquisition.

As of June 30, 2013, the fund balance stood at $8.856 million, with about equal amounts designated for the greenbelt ($4.413 million) and park acquisitions ($4.442 million). The greenbelt program also received $396,900 in reimbursements from the USDA Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP), and $5,330 in contributions – primarily a $5,000 gift from Cherry Republic.

Administrative costs of $129,966 in fiscal 2013 equate to 3.9% of total revenues. Administrative costs over the life of the millage are limited by ordinance to be no greater than 6% of revenues.

Trocchio also noted that she hopes to hold a joint session of the greenbelt and park advisory commissions sometime later this year.

There was minimal discussion among commissioners. Julie Grand noted that the city has accomplished a lot of its initial goals for land acquisition, but there are still funds available for that purpose. There’s nothing to prevent PAC from looking at its priorities and potentially approaching landowners who might be interested in selling, she said.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Survey Data

Tim Berla introduced a topic regarding the accessibility of raw data from surveys that the city conducts. Specifically, he noted that subcommittees for PAC had recently done two surveys – for dog parks, and downtown parks. In addition to producing .pdf files with the results, it would also be helpful to have the raw data available for anyone in the community who wants it, Berla said. For example, someone might want to compare the difference in attitudes toward dog parks by comparing responses of dog owners and non-dog owners.

He had advocated for releasing the data, and referenced some email exchanges with others who had raised objections that he said he didn’t completely understand. So his question was whether the city would release the survey data in raw data form.

From left: Park advisory commissioners Tim Berla and Alan Jackson.

Colin Smith, parks & recreation manager, replied that he had sent an email to all PAC members in response to Berla’s query. The city’s IT staff had indicated that it would be possible to release the data, likely in the form of an Excel spreadsheet. There’s no way to lock the file to prevent someone from modifying it, Smith noted, so that’s an issue that PAC should discuss.

There are several ways to handle the survey data, Smith said. Because the recent surveys used SurveyMonkey, it’s possible to run multiple reports and cross-tabulations, he said – for example, to look at responses for downtown residents between the ages of 25-44. Smith suggested that anyone who wanted a particular type of report could email a request to staff, who could then run the report and publish it on the PAC website.

Berla thought that for the sake of transparency, there should be a way to release the data. He didn’t dispute that people might use the data in a manipulative way. “There’s no way you can give somebody a spreadsheet and prevent them from doing something nefarious,” Berla said. “The good thing is that everybody would have the data,” he added, so anybody could verify the information.

The data is a public resource, Berla said. The point is to learn about how the community feels on these two issues. The advantage to releasing the data would be that it wouldn’t entail more work for staff, he noted. Berla said his main goal is for people to have access to the information.

Graydon Krapohl asked what the city’s policy is on releasing data. He noted that the data collected by PAC’s subcommittees belongs to the city. That’s the bigger issue, he said, and it would apply to all city surveys.

Smith said he didn’t have the answers to some of these questions. More tools have been available in recent years for getting feedback, including social media, and sometimes the policy doesn’t keep up, he noted. That’s something that city staff need to put more work into, he said. Smith pointed out that certain kinds of information – like emails and phone numbers from survey respondents – aren’t released.

Missy Stults observed that the .pdf file posted on PAC’s website includes all the information from the surveys – not just a summary. She also wondered whether the city parks staff had capacity to handle a lot of requests for survey reports.

Stults also suggested that PAC could encourage the city to come up with a policy on the issue of releasing survey data. A lot of people want the data and think that the city is holding it back, she noted, so it would be great if there were a standard policy to explain how the city operates in this regard.

Alan Jackson said he didn’t really understand the reluctance to release data. Without the raw data, it’s not possible to do relational searches. There might be things that could be learned – nuances about the data – that members of the public could discover, he said. Doing the surveys has been a learning experience for PAC, he added. One of the key lessons is to understand what will be released at the end. Jackson didn’t see any reason to hold back the data available from the surveys.

Mike Anglin, a Ward 5 city councilmember who serves as an ex-officio member of PAC, said that what the public pays for is public property. He suspected that the city would have a hard time telling people that they couldn’t have access to the data. Some local groups “are pretty sophisticated with data,” he said.

From left: Park advisory commissioners Graydon Krapohl and Bob Galardi.

Anglin noted that the city ran into a similar situation with a survey regarding a convention center, saying that the survey’s open-ended responses weren’t included in a final report. “If you’re going to ask the public, then you should report back to the public on what you found,” Anglin said.

Krapohl again urged the staff to develop a coherent city policy. It will only become more complicated as more people start using social media, he noted. If each commission decides how to handle it, then there will be a lot of inconsistencies, he said. The IT staff needs good guidance, and that has to come from a policy that should be reviewed by the city attorney and approved by the city council, he said.

Stults supported releasing data, but agreed with Krapohl that a clear, standard policy is needed. Another challenge is that some people want the surveys to be statistically significant, she noted. That’s something that the staff and PAC don’t have the resources to do, so they need to be very clear about that.

Julie Grand noted that because this is a very educated community, people should also understand the cost that would be involved in conducting a survey that’s statistically significant. The city tries to reach as many people as possible in its surveys, but it’s not possible to be representative of the entire city. The results are representative of the people who are willing to take the time to complete the survey, she said. It’s not realistic that the city would pay tens of thousands of dollars to do a survey that’s more sophisticated. The surveys that are done are one way to get feedback – but not the only way, Grand said.

Jackson agreed that a survey is only part of the process. “Ultimately, our role is to provide judgment to council, who will make decisions,” he said. Certainly it’s important to solicit public opinion, he added, and that’s why PAC did these surveys. “But we don’t have to be a slave to some bizarre criteria that people come up with,” he said.

Smith again stressed that all of the comments received from the dog park survey and the downtown park survey had been posted online [in .pdf form] – “hundreds and hundreds of pages of them.” He said he’d follow up with other city staff regarding the next steps to develop a policy on this issue.

The data for both surveys is now available in .pdf and .xls formats. [.pdf of 306-page dog park survey results] [.xls file of dog park survey results] [.pdf of 110-page downtown park survey results] [.xls file of downtown park survey results]

Officer Elections

The Sept. 17 agenda included PAC’s annual election of officers. The current chair, Julie Grand, is term limited. Her last meeting will be on Oct. 15. Ingrid Ault has served as vice chair for PAC since Oct. 16, 2012, and chairs the commission’s downtown park subcommittee.

Julie Grand, outgoing chair of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission, holds up a blank ballot prior to the Sept. 17 officer elections.

Ault was the only nominee for chair. PAC’s bylaws require that officer elections be conducted by secret ballot, even if there are no competing nominations. The ballots were passed to Colin Smith, the city’s manager of parks and recreation, for tabulation. Ault was unanimously elected, and will lead her first meeting as PAC chair on Oct. 15.

Graydon Krapohl, who joined PAC in January of 2013, was the only nominee for vice chair. He was also elected unanimously. In announcing the results, Smith joked that the spelling of Krapohl’s name showed some variations.

PAC’s chair is responsible for nominating the chair of the commission’s budget and finance committee. Grand nominated the current committee chair, Bob Galardi. This did not require a secret ballot, and his re-election took place with a unanimous voice vote.

Communications & Commentary

There were several opportunities for communications from staff or commissioners during the Aug. 20 meeting. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Manager’s Report

Colin Smith, the city’s manager of parks and recreation, gave several brief updates. He noted that the skatepark construction is well underway at the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park. The concrete will be poured soon, he reported. Wally Hollyday, the skatepark designer, is basically living in town for the next few weeks to oversee the project, Smith said.

Roof construction at the Mack pool and Vets ice arena is wrapping up – a project that’s perhaps less exciting than the skatepark, he noted, but very necessary.

The Vets ice arena recently opened, and indoor ice skating has started. In other construction projects, the playground at Esch Park is completed, and phase two of the Gallup renovations has begun. The hope is that the Gallup work will be finished in November.

Smith also highlighted the city’s season-ending dog swim at Buhr Park pool. In 2012, 163 dogs “took their humans to that event,” he joked. This year, there were 419 dogs. He attributed the increase to outreach that staff had done to elevate the event’s profile.

Communications & Commentary: Recreation Advisory Commission

Tim Berla gave a report from the recreation advisory commission (RAC), on which he serves. The group advises Ann Arbor Rec & Ed, a unit of the Ann Arbor Public Schools. He said they’re working on a coach recognition program, to develop a Rec & Ed coaching hall of fame.

He also reported that AAPS trustee Glenn Nelson attended the RAC meeting to talk about the sinking fund millage renewal that’s on the Nov. 5, 2013 ballot. Berla described it as not a tax increase, but a continuation of funding to put money into the local schools, to pay for infrastructure needs. He hoped everyone would support it.

By way of additional background, the sinking fund millage was first passed in 2008, expiring in 2014. The ballot on Nov. 5 will include this statement:

Shall the Public Schools of the City of Ann Arbor, County of Washtenaw, Michigan, be authorized to levy 1.00 mill ($1.00 per $1,000 of taxable valuation) to create a sinking fund for the purpose of the construction or repair of school buildings and the improvement and development of sites and, to the extent permitted by law, for other purposes, including, but not limited to, the acquisition and installation of furnishings and equipment, by increasing the limitation on the amount of taxes which may be imposed on taxable property in the School District for a period of five (5) years, being the years 2015 to 2019, inclusive? It is estimated that 1.00 mill ($1.00 per $1,000 of taxable valuation) would raise approximately $7,450,000 in the first year that it is levied.

Communications & Commentary: Dog Park

Karen Levin gave a brief update on work of the dog park subcommittee. Survey results are posted online, with about 1,500 responses. [.pdf of 306-page survey results] [.xls file of survey results] Two public meetings are being held – on Sept. 11 and Sept. 24. The subcommittee is still gathering information, Levin said, both on possible locations for a more centralized dog park, as well as how to improve the city’s two existing dog parks.

Communications & Commentary: Downtown Park

Ingrid Ault, chair of the downtown park subcommittee, reviewed that group’s work. Like the dog park, there has been a survey that yielded nearly 1,600 responses. [.pdf of 110-page survey results] [.xls file of survey results] Two public forums – on Sept. 9 and Sept. 18 – were also held. Eight city parcels have been identified as having potential for additional public space, she said. Those parcels, which were part of the survey, are:

• the surface parking lot on South Ashley, north of William, known as the Kline lot
• the surface parking lot at the northeast corner of Main and William, next to Palio restaurant
• the ground floor of the Fourth & William parking structure
• the surface lot north of William, between Fourth and Fifth avenues – the former YMCA site
• the top of the Library Lane underground parking structure on South Fifth Avenue
• the surface parking lot at First & William
• 415 W. Washington, across from the current Y
• 721 N. Main, near Summit

The subcommittee is addressing three questions, Ault said: (1) Is there a need or desire for additional public space in the downtown or near downtown? (2) If yes, then what space would people like to see as an additional public space, and how would they like to use it? and (3) How does the city fund it?

Ault hopes to report back to PAC at its Oct. 15 meeting with recommendations. The goal is to forward recommendations to city council for its first meeting in November, she said.

In response to a query from Tim Berla, PAC chair Julie Grand said she expects the two committees will bring forward recommendations in the form of resolutions for commissioners to consider and vote on.

Present: Ingrid Ault, Tim Berla, Bob Galardi, Julie Grand, Alan Jackson, Graydon Krapohl, Karen Levin, Missy Stults, and councilmembers Mike Anglin and Christopher Taylor (ex-officio members). Also Colin Smith, city parks and recreation manager.

Next PAC meeting: Tuesday, Oct. 15, 2013 at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. PAC’s land acquisition committee meets on Tuesday, Sept. 3 at 4 p.m. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. If you’re already helping The Chronicle with some financial green, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.