Aerial view showing location of trail improvements at Gallup Park. (Links to larger image.)

Funds would be used to renovate the path from the Geddes Dam at the east end of the Gallup Park pathway, to the parking lot east of Huron Parkway. The project also entails renovations to the large loop that encircles that portion of the park, totaling about 2 miles of trail. The application amount hasn’t yet been determined, but will likely be for $400,000 to $500,000. The entire project budget is in the $600,000 range, with likely about $200,000 in matching funds to come from the city’s parks and recreation maintenance and capital improvements millage.

In describing the project, park planner Amy Kuras told commissioners that it’s being undertaken in conjunction with a major “universal access” playground that’s being developed at Gallup, using a $250,000 contribution from the Rotary Club of Ann Arbor. For background on that effort, see Chronicle coverage: “Rotary to Fund Universal Access Playground.”

PAC voted to recommend applying for the TAP grant at its March 18, 2014 meeting. The application will next be considered by the city council. The deadline to apply for the current round of funding is April 21.

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

Sub-regions on the national (blue), state (red) and local (green) scales were highlighted at the Ann Arbor city council’s Oct. 14, 2013 work session on regional transportation.  (Image by The Chronicle.)

The projects all fit into the general rubric of regional transportation – relative to different scales of the concept of “region.” Eli Cooper, the city of Ann Arbor transportation program manager, led off the session with some introductory remarks that framed the session in those terms – regions defined on a national, state and more local scale.

Nationally, Amtrak provides rail service between major cities like Chicago and Detroit. And it’s to support that service that the city of Ann Arbor is currently planning for a new or reconstructed Amtrak station. A contract for a required planning study, 80% of which is funded with a federal grant, appears on the council’s Oct. 21 agenda. [Legistar file 13-1128]

On a smaller regional scale, SEMCOG (Southeast Michigan Council of Governments) is the lead organization for a possible new kind of future service on the same tracks as the Amtrak inter-city service: an Ann Arbor-Detroit commuter rail service. That would be at least two years out, partly because no operating funds for the service have yet been identified. Those funds could eventually come from the nascent southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority (RTA), which could ask voters in a four-county region – Macomb, Oakland, Washtenaw and Wayne – to approve either a transit property tax or a vehicle registration fee dedicated to supporting transit.

On the smallest regional level, voters in member jurisdictions of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority could be asked as soon as May 2014 to approve additional transportation funding. The AAATA currently includes the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti, and Ypsilanti Township – provided that the Ann Arbor city council approves the township’s membership at its Oct. 21 meeting. [Legistar file 13-1267]

As AAATA staff stressed at the Oct. 14 work session, the board of that organization has not yet made a decision to place a millage request in front of voters. If approved by voters, the additional funding – likely to be 0.7 mills – would be used to increase frequency and time of service in the local region.

Details about the service improvements are the subject of a series of public meetings, which is set to start this Thursday, Oct. 17 from 4-6 p.m. That first session takes place just before the AAATA board meeting at the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown location.

National Scale: Midwestern Region

For regions on a national scale, Amtrak is the provider of rail transportation. And for Amtrak, Ann Arbor is part of the midwestern region, which includes the connection between Chicago and Detroit. Amtrak’s Charlie Monte Verde ticked through some highlights of Amtrak’s operation nationally for the city council. That included the transport of 31.6 million passengers in fiscal year 2013, which ended Sept. 30, 2013. That figure is a record, he said, continuing a trend that has seen record ridership in 10 out of the last 11 years. That’s translated to a decrease in federal operating subsidy to 12% of operating costs.

Amtrak ridership by month since 1994. (Chart by The Chronicle based on data from MDOT.)

In Michigan, Monte Verde told the council, Amtrak ridership has increased 63% since 2000, which has translated to a 98% increase in ticket revenue over that same period. He described Ann Arbor’s Amtrak station as the busiest in Michigan. The 2013 fiscal year had shown a 10% increase in ridership compared to FY 2012, he reported, with over 158,000 riders. That made it the busiest year in the Ann Arbor Amtrak station’s history, Monte Verde said.

Charlie Monte Verde of Amtrak.

Monte Verde also described seven different station projects that are either in the works or have been completed, including Ann Arbor’s potential project. He said that now is the “golden era” of station construction and rehabilitation. He called Amtrak an “eager and appreciative stakeholder” as Ann Arbor seeks to construct a new state-of-the-art multi-modal rail station.

Later in the city council’s work session, MDOT director of rail operations Tim Hoeffner described a station as “the gateway to your community.” He added: “That should be your face – that should be what you want to put forward. That shouldn’t be what we want to have come forward from Lansing.”

Hoeffner contrasted the stations and the rail infrastructure with the “equipment” – the “most sexy” part of the rail operation. “It’s that new-car smell,” he said, and that’s important because that’s where passengers spend most of their time. Right now, Amtrak is doing the best it can, but he compared it to driving a 1950s car every day, and trying to keep it in good repair: Where would you find parts? Right now, he said, they think in the following terms: “Do the bathrooms smell? If they don’t, that’s a good day.”

By 2016-17, he felt that issue would be solved. A $268 million multi-state grant from the federal government would allow the purchase of new cars and locomotives. The vendor has been selected, he reported: Nippon Sharyo.

Besides the Ann Arbor station project, other Michigan station projects include: Battle Creek (complete station rehabilitation finished in June 2012); Troy-Birmingham (groundbreaking for new intermodal facility in November 2012, with expected completion in fall 2013); Dearborn (construction of a new multi-modal Amtrak and transit facility began in April 2012, with completion expected in 2013); East Lansing/Lansing (new facility to be constructed in 2014); Grand Rapids (construction ongoing to add Amtrak to Central Station); and Jackson (over $1.2 million invested since 2008 to rehabilitate the historic station).

The question of station construction was of interest to the Ann Arbor city council because of the contract associated with the Ann Arbor Station project appears on the Oct. 21 meeting agenda.

Ownership of track within Michigan was one theme of Monte Verde’s remarks. The Chicago-Detroit corridor could be divided into sub-regions based on track ownership. Amtrak owns the 97-mile stretch extending from Porter, Ind., to Kalamazoo, Mich.

State Level: Amtrak Corridor

The track ownership theme was picked up by Tim Hoeffner, MDOT’s director of rail operations, later in the meeting. Hoeffner described to the council some barriers that have been overcome and some that remain with respect to the physical condition of track between Chicago’s Union Station and Detroit’s New Center Station.

Amtrak routes and track Improvements. Just east of Chicago, the blue-highlighted section – owned by Amtrak – has already been improved to support up to 110 mph operations. Further east, the green-highlighted section of track was recently acquired by MDOT from Norfolk Southern. That section is expected to have improvements made that will make it also capable of carrying speeds up to 110 mph. (Map from Amtrak. Part of council information packet.)

Hoeffner told the council he’d spent most of the day out in the field overseeing construction and infrastructure improvements. When MDOT closed on the purchase of the track between Kalamazoo and Dearborn, he said, MDOT started taking responsibility for the maintenance, using Amtrak as its contractor early this year.

That initial work focused on stabilization, but the biggest part of the construction activity started a few weeks ago, when Norfolk Southern brought in some of their construction “mega gangs” – for installing about 130,000 ties as well as sections of rail. The amount of work that will be done before Thanksgiving this year, he said, would ordinarily take two construction seasons. But Norfolk Southern had time in its construction schedule that allowed MDOT to contract with the former owner of the track to get a lot of this work done early.

Hoeffner allowed that the construction work had meant some at-grade crossings throughout Washtenaw County had to be closed for what he described as a short while. The track construction that’s happening now, he said, is not just stabilization work, but will allow the trains to attain speeds of up to 110 mph.

From Chicago, heading toward Detroit, the first 40 miles is some of the busiest section of railway in North America, Hoeffner said. But major projects are in the works that could alleviate congestion on that segment of track, he said. That came about due to MDOT taking the lead, he said, partnering with Illinois and Indiana for a feasibility study on a dedicated passenger rail route between Chicago’s Union Station and Porter, Ind. The study has progressed to the final set of alternatives in the environmental review.

On that first 40 miles of the route, near Union Station, Hoeffner also described a $130 million project to create railroad-to-railroad grade separation at the Englewood location – which is supposed to start construction in early 2016. There’s also $70 million of crossover work in Indiana, which is expected to begin after the government shutdown ends.

After that first 40 miles, Amtrak owns the next 97 miles. That 97-mile stretch extends from Porter, Ind., to Kalamazoo, Mich. Hoeffner reported that a collaborative effort between Amtrak and MDOT had already resulted in track improvements along the Porter-to-Kalamazoo 97-mile stretch that now allowed operations of up to 110 m.p.h. – making it the only significant stretch of rail with 110 m.p.h. operating capability outside of the northeast corridor of Boston, New York, and Washington D.C.

Michigan Dept. of Transportation director of rail Tim Hoeffner.

Continuing eastward, the next 135-mile stretch of track – from Kalamazoo through Ann Arbor to Dearborn – was acquired last year by MDOT from Norfolk Southern. Track improvements are required under the purchase agreement. That’s now taking place ahead of schedule, Hoeffner told the council, with two typical construction seasons’ worth of work anticipated to be completed between September and Thanksgiving of this year.

In West Detroit, where Contrail transitions to Canadian National, Hoeffner said, MDOT is bidding out a new bridge, to establish a direct connection. That would take 5-10 minutes off the Amtrak running time.

What’s the motivation for MDOT to partner with Amtrak to improve ridership? Section 209 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) of 2008 shifts much of the cost of supporting Amtrak services from the federal government to the state government – starting in FY 2014 (Oct. 1, 2013). The operating assistance to Amtrak from MDOT had thus increased from about $8 million annually to $25 million starting this year on Oct. 1. Partly as a result of that, Hoeffner said, MDOT was partnering with Amtrak to try to grow ridership and thus increase revenue. The key to that is improving on-time performance, he said.

Throughout his remarks, Hoeffner stressed that the goal is not increased speed per se, and he emphasized that the term MDOT uses is “accelerated rail” not “high-speed rail” – which refers to even higher speeds. The “accelerated rail,” he said, has goals of improving reliability (hitting scheduled arrival times), providing more flexibility for travelers and reducing overall trip time. Right now, he allowed, on-time performance isn’t very good, and that’s why they’re working to improve it. They’re also working on providing information about what the delay is. Hoeffner said that to be competitive with automobile travel on the interstate, travel time between Chicago and Detroit would need to be reduced to four hours.

As one measure of the initial success in improving the train service along the Chicago-Detroit corridor, Hoeffner offered a recent anecdote. Typically Amtrak offers a tour for state legislators, where they board the train in Lansing and take the train to Chicago to hear presentations and have discussions. MDOT director Kirk Steudle usually goes on those trips, Hoeffner continued, saying that due to Steudle’s busy schedule, he might not ride the whole way.

So Steudle would typically get on at Battle Creek or Kalamazoo and ride to New Buffalo and get off there. Generally, what Hoeffner would do is have one of his staff get off the train in Battle Creek or Kalamazoo and drive Steudle’s car to New Buffalo. Steudle asked Hoeffner to do that this year: “I had to tell him no. You get a real interesting look when you tell the boss ‘No,’” he said. The reason he said no was that Amtrak service is now competitive with the automobile on the highway in that corridor.

SE Michigan Level: Ann-Arbor Detroit Commuter Rail

Also positively affected specifically by the transfer in track ownership from Norfolk Southern to MDOT would be a possible new type of service in the easternmost sub-region of the Chicago-Detroit corridor – using the same tracks that Amtrak uses for the intercity Chicago-Detroit service.

That was a highlight of Carmine Palombo’s remarks to the council. Palombo is transportation programs director at the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), currently the lead organization on the Detroit-Ann Arbor commuter rail project. That service is envisioned to provide five round trips daily between Ann Arbor and Detroit. Intermediate stops would be located in Ypsilanti, Detroit Metropolitan Airport and Dearborn.

When Norfolk Southern owned the section of track on which the Ann Arbor-Detroit commuter service is planned to be offered, Palombo said, there was a considerable cost that would have been incurred for use of the track. Now that MDOT has purchased the track, he said, we have a “more benevolent owner.” “That’s going to do us well,” he added.

Palombo stressed that before passenger commuter rail could be operated, as part of the purchase agreement between Norfolk Southern and MDOT, certain track improvements have to be completed – for example, sidings that will allow for continued freight operations while adding commuter trips. Most of the money that MDOT needs to undertake those improvements has been received from the federal government, he said.

Palombo described the planned connection of the Ann Arbor-Detroit commuter rail to the M-1 streetcar project in Detroit. That’s a project that would stretch 3.3 miles along Detroit’s Woodward Avenue with 11 stops between Larned Street in Detroit’s Central Business District up to West Grand Boulevard at the North End. Palombo described that project as starting construction next year.

While double-decker railcars to provide an Ann Arbor-Detroit commuter service have been leased by MDOT and refurbished, it’s not yet clear how the operations for such a service might be funded, Palombo said. The cars have been safety tested by the Federal Railroad Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, and they’ve passed every test they’ve undergone. “They’re beautiful,” he said. Palombo mentioned the two displays of the new railcars that had been held over the summer and early fall – at the Ann Arbor Green Fair and Ypsilanti’s Heritage Festival.

But Palombo indicated that for the next two years, nothing more than perhaps some special-event trains might be possible as demonstrations. “We need some money to run this thing,” he said. Palombo indicated that SEMCOG and MDOT are “committed to moving forward on this project.” The entity that might be in a position to provide some operational and coordinating support for that project is the nascent Regional Transit Authority (RTA).

Up to now, however, the RTA has spent the majority of its effort since being established – during the lame-duck legislative session of December 2012 – completing various administrative tasks. That administrative work is nearly complete, Palombo indicated, so SEMCOG would be starting to talk to the RTA about Ann Arbor-Detroit commuter rail.

SE Michigan Level: Regional Transit Authority

Washtenaw County has two representatives on the board of the four-county authority, which includes Macomb, Oakland, Washtenaw and Wayne counties as well as the city of Detroit. One of those representatives, Liz Gerber, addressed the Ann Arbor city council at its Oct. 14 work session.

Liz Gerber, a Washtenaw County representative to the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) board. Gerber is also a professor at the University of Michigan Ford School of Public Policy. The second RTA board member from Washtenaw County is Richard Murphy.

She described a range of administrative tasks the board had been working on, to get the organization to a point where it could begin to complete its legislative mandate. That mandate includes coordinating transportation in the four-county region and operating service in four different corridors, one of which is the Detroit-Ann Arbor corridor.

However, the RTA’s enabling legislation is not mode-neutral, and makes it much easier for the RTA board to establish bus rapid transit (BRT) services than it does any rail-based service. Rail projects require a unanimous vote of the RTA board.

The RTA does not yet have any dedicated operating funds. The initial legislation passed in December 2012, combined with additional funding from MDOT, has provided an initial $650,000 to cover administrative expenses of the RTA. The RTA has also been awarded a $6 million planning grant, some of which could be applied toward a limited set of administrative costs.

One source of funds the RTA could use is MDOT’s local bus operating (LBO) funds. At the work session, Gerber stressed that under the terms of the operating agreement that the RTA had worked out with the transit providers in the RTA region, those LBO funds would be used by the RTA only as a last resort. The RTA has the ability to levy property taxes or collect vehicle registration fees – but only if approved by voters.

Local Region: Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority

Voters in the smallest of the regions discussed at the council’s Oct. 14 work session could be asked as soon as May 2014 to approve additional transportation funding. That’s the region defined by the combined geographies of the member jurisdictions in the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. That currently includes the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township – provided that the Ann Arbor city council approves the township’s membership at its Oct. 21 meeting.

Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.

The AAATA is following direction from the Ann Arbor city council in taking the approach of expanding governance by only adding member jurisdictions located geographically near Ann Arbor who request membership. That contrasts with the all-in-one-go attempt to form a viable countywide authority in 2012, which did not gain traction and is now demised. Both the city and the township of Ypsilanti have historically received some transportation services from the AAATA through purchase-of-service agreements.

The idea of expanding the geographic footprint to include more jurisdictions that are full-fledged members of the AAATA is to establish a more stable source of the funding for transportation services in that geographic region. The more stable funding source would take the form of a millage levied by the AAATA. The power to place a millage on the ballot is one the AAATA has had all along, but has never exercised.

As AAATA staff stressed at the Oct. 14 work session, the board of that organization has not yet made a decision to place a millage request in front of voters. But that could come as soon as May 2014. If approved by voters, the additional funding – likely to be requested at the level of 0.7 mills – would be used to increase frequency and time of service in the local region.

Details about the 5-year service improvements are the subject of a series of public meetings, which is set to start this Thursday, Oct. 17 from 4-6 p.m. That first session takes place just before the AAATA board meeting at the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown location, 343 S. Fifth Ave.

Details on planned service improvements are available on the AAATA’s Moving You Forward website. In his remarks to the city councilmembers at their Oct. 14 work session, AAATA CEO Michael Ford was keen to emphasize that the five-year service plan improvements do not include the operation of any rail service.

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

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

Left to right: DDA board member Sandi Smith, Ann Arbor Housing Commission executive director Jennifer L. Hall, and DDA board chair Leah Gunn. (Photos by the writer.)

And board members voted unanimously to support the resolution, which DDA board member Sandi Smith had brought forward. Smith, who also represents Ward 1 on the Ann Arbor city council, is planning to bring the policy resolution to the council for consideration at its Sept. 17 meeting.

DDA board members were positively inclined toward their own resolution, but sought to clarify that the “proceeds” meant net proceeds – that is, whatever is left after any debt associated with city-owned land is paid off. The loan for the city’s acquisition of the former YMCA lot, for example, still has a principal of $3.5 million associated with it. Smith indicated at the meeting that the resolution she brings to the council might involve the DDA forgoing the repayment on investments it has made in city-owned property – like interest payments on the former YMCA lot or the demolition costs associated with that property.

The board also made an amendment to the resolution during the meeting, adding the phrase “a percentage of [proceeds].” The change gives the council flexibility to adopt a policy that doesn’t require the entire amount of the net proceeds to be directed to the affordable housing trust fund.

At the Sept. 5 meeting, the board also heard a request from the executive director of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, Jennifer L. Hall, for a $260,000 allocation from the DDA’s own housing fund. The DDA has a housing fund that’s not necessarily dedicated to affordable housing. But the request Hall was making was for Baker Commons, a public housing project located within the DDA’s geographic district, at Packard and Main. The money would primarily go toward replacing the roof with one made of metal.

The board also got its regular update on the parking system. The basic message: revenue is up, and usage is up. The board also had a look at the unaudited financial figures for the end of fiscal year 2012, which concluded on June 30. Except for capital expenses, which were less than budgeted, most categories were on target. The DDA had budgeted all expenses for the new Library Lane parking structure for that fiscal year, but not all invoices have come in yet.

The board was also updated on a possible change to the way that transportation planning and funding takes place in Washtenaw County. Discussions by the policy board of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) suggest the  possibility that Washtenaw County could form its own metropolitan planning organization (MPO). Currently, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), which includes a total of seven counties, serves as the MPO  for Washtenaw County. The change would affect how federal transportation funding is administered locally.

Affordable Housing Trust Fund Policy

The board was asked to consider a resolution encouraging the Ann Arbor city council to adopt a policy on proceeds from the sale of city-owned land – one that would allocate such proceeds into the city’s affordable housing trust fund. The city council’s resolution will be considered at that body’s Sept. 17 meeting. It’s being brought forward by Sandi Smith, who serves on both the city council and the DDA board.

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

Affordable Housing Trust Fund: Commentary

Reporting from the downtown citizens advisory council, Ray Detter told the board that the CAC had also discussed the DDA’s resolution on using proceeds from city-owned land sales to support affordable housing. Members of the CAC have always supported affordable housing, he said.

But Detter cautioned the DDA and the city council that the CAC is committed to maintaining and improving the existing low-income housing in the downtown – whether it’s in the form of the Delonis Center homeless shelter, the housing commission’s Baker Commons, or the privately-owned Courthouse Square. The CAC supports rehabbing existing units rather than tearing down existing affordable housing to build new units, Detter said.

Affordable Housing Trust Fund: Board Discussion

Sandi Smith introduced her resolution by telling her DDA board colleagues that on Sept. 17 she would be bringing forward a resolution to city council that would direct the proceeds of the sale of city-owned property into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

She observed that, “We have not had a tremendous amount of success in building affordable housing.” It’s something she has watched the community struggle with, she said, during her time serving on the DDA board and on the city council.

The funds need to come from somewhere, she stressed. She contended that insufficient affordable housing units are being provided in downtown and near downtown. The recent failure of the Near North project hammers the point home, she said. So she wanted to ask for the DDA board’s support in bringing the city council’s resolution forward. She allowed that the city council resolution was not yet in final draft form, so there is some ambiguity about it.

The details are not 100% clear, Smith allowed, but the request for the DDA’s part is to say that the DDA agrees with the overall concept – and that the DDA is willing to forgo some payback on some investments that the DDA has made in city-owned properties. As an example, Smith gave the portion of the ongoing interest payments the DDA has made on the loan used to purchase the old YMCA building. The DDA would be forgoing repayment of that interest. [Those payments total about $140,000 annually, half of which have been paid by the DDA and half by the city of Ann Arbor. The property was purchased in late 2003, and the building was subsequently demolished. It's now a surface parking lot.]

Roger Hewitt wanted clarification that the “proceeds” of any sale would be considered after the payment of any debt attached to the property. Smith pointed out it’s not a benefit to the city to leave a debt unpaid with nothing behind it – saying that would not make a lot of sense. Proceeds would be construed as “net” proceeds, she said. Hewitt indicated that he was comfortable with that. He also pointed out that the DDA’s resolution was an advisory resolution only – because it’s ultimately a city council decision.

John Mouat indicated his support for the notion, saying it was a terrific idea. But obviously, he said, the “devil is in the details.” From his perspective, he would prefer to see the proceeds from city-owned land sales not simply go into the general fund.

Mouat also wanted to see some consideration given to the fact that the DDA is still working on the Connecting William Street project – looking at five city-owned parcels and what uses would eventually be made of those parcels. [Recent Chronicle coverage of a DDA presentation to the planning commission: "Planning Group Briefed on William Street Project."]

Some of the things that people have said they want out of those parcels, Mouat continued, include performance space, parks, good architecture, sustainability. So the community vision for those parcels still needs to be determined, he said. [For response to Connecting William Street from the city's park advisory commission, see Chronicle coverage: "Park Commissioners: More Green, Please."]

Mouat also pointed out there might be some things the city needs to provide as incentives – to help realize the community’s vision for those parcels. So he liked the concept of reinvesting the proceeds of the sale in those parcels themselves or putting proceeds into the affordable housing trust fund.

Mayor John Hieftje pointed out that the city council resolution will only be as strong as the six councilmembers [a simple majority on the 11-member body] who sit around the table at the time. He also pointed out that there are other capital needs that might come along. In that context, he suggested an amendment to include the phrase “a percentage of [the proceeds].”

The amendment was approved unanimously.

Outcome: With no further discussion, the DDA board approved the resolution encouraging the city council to adopt a policy directing a percentage of the proceeds of city-owned land sales to the affordable housing trust fund.

Ann Arbor Housing Commission: New Roof

During public commentary at the start of the DDA board’s meeting, Jennifer L. Hall – executive director of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission – addressed the board. She discussed a request for $260,000 from the DDA’s housing fund, the bulk of which would be put toward the replacement of the roof of Baker Commons.

By way of background, the DDA’s housing fund is not the same fund as the city’s affordable housing trust fund. The DDA’s housing fund receives money through transfers from the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) fund. It currently has a balance of about $1 million – $400,000 of which is committed to Village Green’s City Apartments project, and another $500,000 of which had been committed to Avalon Housing’s Near North project. It was recently announced that Near North will not go forward.

Baker Commons roof. View is looking to the south, across the intersection of Packard and Main streets.

Hall noted that the Ann Arbor Housing Commission is the public housing authority for the city of Ann Arbor, which has jurisdiction for about 360 city-owned units. The housing commission also administers about 1,400 federal housing vouchers for the entire Washtenaw County.

Ninety percent or more of the population served by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission are extremely low-income residents, Hall said. Most of the people who live in housing commission units are disabled or elderly and many of them do not have jobs. So it’s really the lowest income folks in the community who are served by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, Hall said.

The housing commission has only one property within the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district, Hall explained – Baker Commons, on the corner of Packard and Main streets. So she wanted to make a request to fund a current urgent need: a roof for Baker Commons.

The roof has had ongoing leaking problems, and the housing commission has undertaken periodic patches. However, in the last year or so it is gotten much worse, Hall reported. There has been leakage into housing units and damage to the roof trusses, she explained. For all of the housing units, the commission is trying to move towards doing more long-term cost savings – so rather than replacing the Baker Commons roof with an asphalt roof, they explored using a product that would last longer and realize long-term savings.

So the housing commission went out and got a bid for a steel roof, which came back at $246,000. There are many advantages to a steel roof, Hall said. The only real disadvantage is the increased upfront cost, she explained – which is about three times more than an asphalt roof. On the other hand, she said such a roof can last forever – as long as you keep repainting it. The original guarantee is 20 years for the roof, and as long as you keep repainting it, you should never have to take it down to replace it.

From left: Jennifer Hall appears to be showing Leah Gunn how steep the Baker Commons roof is.

Hall noted that the roof of the building has an extremely steep pitch, so it is a very expensive project to replace the roof no matter what kind of roof is put on – because it’s a high-rise building with such a steep pitch. The commission would like to replace it once, and then have it last for a very, very long time, she said. Some of the benefits for the steel roof include: no off-gas; resistance to wind, fire, mildew, insects and rot; extended life for air-conditioning units; decrease in attic temperatures; and decreased energy use overall. It decreases the heat-island effect. Hall also pointed out that the product that the housing commission has chosen was made in Michigan.

A few additional items, for which Hall requested funding, fell into the category of energy-saving devices – programmable thermostats and occupancy sensors for interior lighting in common areas. The programmable thermostats are estimated to save $50 per year for each of the one-bedroom units in Baker Commons. The sensors would be estimated to save around $770 a year.

Ann Arbor Housing Commission: Board Response

Mayor John Hieftje made remarks generally supportive of Hall’s to request on behalf of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission. He said the 30-year funding trend across the nation for housing commissions was downward.

Board chair Leah Gunn suggested referring Hall’s proposal to the DDA’s partnerships committee.

Outcome: This was not an action item, and no vote was taken.

FY 2012 Financial Statements

Roger Hewitt gave an update on the financial reports for the end of the fiscal year, which concluded on June 30, 2012. The figures are as yet not audited, but the DDA is ready for the audit to take place, Hewitt said. There was not too much variation between the budget as amended in May 2012 and the final figures, Hewitt reported. The one area where a considerable difference appears is in capital expenses.

It’s a legal requirement that the DDA show positive budget numbers for the year, Hewitt explained. So for that reason, all conceivable capital expenses related to the new underground parking structure were included in the past fiscal year’s budget, even though the DDA did not expect that they would all need to be paid that year. That way, the DDA made sure that it remained within the letter of the law. [Last year, the DDA's auditor had noted an overage as a violation of Michigan's Uniform Budgeting and Accounting Act, which was due to a construction invoice submitted late in the year.]

So the major variations between the end-of-year figures in the budget were capital expenses that were budgeted but not actually expended. Those expenses will come due in the current fiscal year, Hewitt pointed out. [.pdf of end-of-year FY 2012 statements]

TIF (tax increment finance) fund income was very close to what had been budgeted, Hewitt said, as were TIF operating expenses. TIF capital expenses were about $2.4 million less than budgeted. But that money will be spent in the current fiscal year, he cautioned. The parking fund showed a similar situation, he continued. Parking revenue was very close to what had been budgeted. But about $800,000 was not spent, which had been in the parking fund budget – it will be spent in the current fiscal year. For the parking maintenance fund, about $1.4 million was not spent, but will be spent in the current fiscal year. For the housing fund, interest rates were a little bit higher than expected, so there was a bit more income than budgeted.

Hewitt then ticked through the fund balances for four funds in the DDA’s budget. The TIF fund has a little over $3.6 million. The housing fund has a little over $1 million. The parking fund balance is about $2.1 million. And the parking maintenance stands at about $1.6 million. Some additional money will be spent on the completion of the Library Lane underground parking structure, he allowed, but the total fund balance is such that it could comfortably take care of those additional expenses.

Parking Report

The DDA manages the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city of Ann Arbor. That contract pays the city 17% of gross revenues. The DDA in turn subcontracts out the day-to-day operations of the system to Republic Parking. So the monthly parking report is part of every DDA board meeting.

Parking Report: Monthly, Quarterly Numbers

The update on the parking system was delivered by board member Roger Hewitt. The trend that the DDA has seen for the last 12 months – and increasingly so in the last six months – Hewitt said, has been significantly higher revenues. That’s attributable to increased usage and also partly due to rate increases, he said. But the majority of the increase in revenue, he contended, was a function of greater usage of the parking system.

In June 2012, revenues were up 19% over June 2012 June 2011, while the number of hourly patrons for the same period was up 2.65%. Hewitt concluded that the hourly patrons are staying longer. Of the 19%, Hewitt estimated 6-8% is the amount of the rate increase. So he concluded there was a 10% increase in revenue attributable to increased usage. Hewitt concluded that it’s fortunate that the new Library Lane underground structure is open, because there is clearly demand for parking.

For the fourth quarter, Hewitt continued, revenue in the parking system was up 14% – with hourly patrons just about level. For the last 12 months revenues are up 12% – two-thirds of which was due to rate increases and the balance of which was increase in usage, Hewitt said. Hourly patron numbers for that period were up only about 2%, so the hourly patrons are staying longer, he concluded.

Hewitt concluded that demand and the financial condition of the parking system are very strong. The initial numbers for the first 10 days that the new structure had been open, Hewitt said, were 4,000 hourly patrons in the first week, which meant $45,000 of revenue.

By way of background on rate increases, the DDA board approved additional rate increases on Jan. 4, 2012. Some of those increases were just recently implemented, starting in September 2012. Rate increases implemented starting in September include those at parking structures and lots, where rates climbed from $1.10 per hour to $1.20 per hour.

But other changes were implemented starting Feb. 1, including a change in the billing method at parking structures and hourly lots – from half-hourly to hourly.

To compare the hour-increment billing method to the half-hour billing method, assume that parking times are evenly distributed among those people who parked between N and (N + 0.5) hours and those who parked between (N + 0.5) and (N + 1) hours, where N is some whole number.

On the hour-increment billing method – for the current hourly rate of $1.10 – the first group would pay for N + 1 hours, or roughly $0.55 more than under the half-hour-increment method, when they’d pay just for N + 0.5 hours. The second group would pay for N + 1 hours under either billing method. So by changing from half-hourly to hourly increments, half of the roughly 2 million annual hourly patrons would pay $0.55 more – generating roughly $550,000 more revenue annually.

Parking Report: Parking Management

Hewitt complimented Republic Parking manager Art Low on the management of the system during the art fairs in July. On the Friday of art fairs, for the first time in the history of the parking system, every single parking structure was full at one time – and that had never happened before, Hewitt said. Of course, Hewitt pointed out, it was during the art fairs. But that included three levels of the underground parking structure that were open to the public. [It has four levels, which are now all open.] So it was a very, very busy day, he concluded. Art fair revenues were up 30% over last year. Part of that is having extra capacity and part of that is having very good management of getting people into the structures, he said.

Hewitt also gave an update on the new automated payment equipment that’s being installed in the Liberty Square parking structure and the Fourth and Washington structure. The new equipment allows people to pay for their parking before getting into their cars to exit the structure, and then use their validated ticket to raise the gate arm so that they can leave – instead of paying an attendant sitting in a booth. [The new automated equipment is being paid for by Republic Parking under a $1.3 million lending arrangement with the DDA.]

Attendants will still be available in the structure, Hewitt explained, but they won’t be sitting in a booth working exclusively as cashiers. A lot of parking systems across the country are moving in that direction, he said. It makes for shorter lines when exiting and a more efficient operation, he said.

Hewitt emphasized that parking personnel are not being removed entirely from the structures. They are being used more efficiently and effectively, he said, because they are also providing light maintenance, and walking through the structures providing assistance as needed. [Republic parking manager Art Low previously had explained to the DDA's operations committee that the personnel change had required creating a new job classification for collective bargaining – one that is slightly higher-paid than booth cashiering. He allowed that the total number of staff will eventually decrease over time.]

The Fourth and Washington structure is in the process of having the equipment installed. And the equipment has already been installed at Liberty Square. Up to now, Liberty Square had been designated strictly for monthly parking permits during the day. Now, over 100 monthly permit holders had moved into the underground parking garage, so some hourly spaces are opening up at Liberty Square, Hewitt said – and the hourly patrons are using the automated payment system.

Parking Report: Charts and Graphs

Ann Arbor Public Parking System: Hourly Patrons. The yellow line shows patrons for the recently-concluded fiscal year 2012. The number of hourly patrons was in most months very slightly more than the same month the previous year. But in some months, the number was less. FY 2013 (green) is off to a slow start for hourly patrons compared to previous years.

Ann Arbor Public Parking System: Revenue. The yellow line shows revenue for the recently-concluded fiscal year 2012.  It reflects substantial increases in every month compared to the same month in the previous years. FY 2013 (green) continues that trend.

Ann Arbor Public Parking System Revenue Per Space – Surface Lots. The top two facilities in the system, measured by revenue per space, are the Huron/Ashley/First (bright red) lot and Kline’s lot on Ashley (bright blue). They generate significantly more revenue per space than a heavily-used structure like Maynard Street (light blue). The most erratic performance of any lot appears to be the Fifth & William lot. The dramatic increases starting in late 2009 reflect the closing of the neighboring lot where the new Library Lane parking structure was built.

Ann Arbor Public Parking System Revenue Per Space– Structures. The highest revenue-per-space structures (Fourth & Washington and Maynard Street) are still considerably lower than a surface lot like Huron/Ashley/First (light red). Considered as a facility unto itself, on-street meters generate less revenue per space than most other facilities in the public parking system. That’s due in part to the fact that enforcement of the meters does not extend past 6 p.m.

Ann Arbor Public Parking System: Number of Spaces by Fiscal Year. The number of spaces available shows some fluctuation month to month. But the increases in revenue clearly can’t be attributed to an increase in the parking space inventory.

Washtenaw: Separate from Seven-County Region?

During routine reports, John Mouat mentioned that he is the Ann Arbor DDA’s representative to the Washtenaw Transportation Study (WATS) – a group made up of county and township officials, a city council member and other “various folks” whose job it is to help guide the direction of transportation spending in the county. The world of transportation is a exoteric world of acronyms and other strange things, he said. The organizing body for determining federal funding is the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), which is a seven-county organization – dominated by Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb counties, Mouat said.

Mouat wanted people to be aware of a discussion going on right now – about whether Washtenaw County should form its own metropolitan planning organization (MPO). The logic for bringing it forward is the idea that currently it’s a long and complex process to get initiatives done that WATS would like to see implemented. [.pdf of chart showing average additional time of 77 days due to SEMCOG's involvement] [.pdf of comparison by WATS of current arrangement and separate MPO]

The other point is that for some people, Washtenaw County is seen as unique and different from other counties, he said. Washtenaw County’s interests might be different from the interests of other counties. Other counties might be more interested in roads and bridges and not as much in nonmotorized projects, transit projects and so forth. So it might be possible for Washtenaw County to represent itself better as a separate entity than through SEMCOG.

But it’s not a simple matter, Mouat cautioned. For one thing, SEMCOG is against it. Also the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) has expressed considerable concern about it. [.pdf of MDOT letter] [.pdf of SEMCOG letter] He himself also has some concerns. He said it’s easy to be attracted to the idea of the county having control over our own destiny, but he feared the potential repercussions of breaking away from SEMCOG. He reported that there has been a bit of tension in trying to get meetings to happen with MDOT. He hoped that in the next couple of months some headway will be made on the topic.

Mouat thanked board chair Lee Gunn for attending the most recent WATS meeting in his absence. Gunn reported that not a lot happened at the meeting she had attended. But Mouat had been right about there being tension in the room, she said. Mouat call it a “very tough issue,” pointing out that the idea of Washtenaw County forming its own metropolitan planning organization is counter to the idea of regional planning. So it’s a balance between that and our own interests, he said.

Communications, Committee Reports

The board’s Sept 5. meeting included the usual range of reports from its standing committees and the downtown citizens advisory council.

Comm/Comm: DDA Board Retreat

Board chair Leah Gunn announced that there would be a DDA retreat on the afternoon of Nov. 16. More details will be forthcoming.

Comm/Comm: Construction Update

John Splitt gave an update on the completion of the Library Lane underground parking garage. He indicated that the punch lists are still being worked on. He hoped to have them finished very soon. But he confirmed that now all four levels of the parking structure are open.

Comm/Comm: Downtown Parks, Planning

Joan Lowenstein gave an update on the Connecting William Street project. The team is now presenting the draft scenarios to various groups. In the month of August, she reported, the project team had met with 11 different citizen groups, area associations and commissions. More such meetings will take place in September. She also described an upcoming webinar that same evening to introduce the Connecting William Street scenarios.

Another public meeting will take place on Sept. 10 at noon at the downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth. That would be a much more traditional meeting, compared to the webinar format. Lowenstein indicated the result the DDA wanted was a somewhat generalized idea of a consensus for massing and density on the sites. Really specific uses are not being proposed – although Lowenstein noted that generally described uses like residential, office, retail, hotel, lodging, and those kinds of things are a part of the different scenarios.

Mayor John Hieftje reported that he had addressed the Ann Arbor park advisory commission about the possibility of redesigning Liberty Plaza at the corner of Division and Liberty streets. The idea would be to make it into a better park than it is – although he contended it had come a long way since it was first built. He stressed the need to prioritize park initiatives, pointing to the greenway and the future of the 415 W. Washington and 721 N. Main Street properties. [For a detailed report of Hieftje's remarks to PAC and commissioners' response, see "Park Commission Focuses on Downtown, Dogs."]

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, former planning commissioner Eric Lipson addressed the board.

Lipson introduced himself as the general manager of the Inter-Cooperative Council of the University Michigan, with headquarters 337 E. William St. He indicated the ICC was very interested in the Connecting William Street planning process. He thanked DDA planning specialist Amber Miller and DDA executive director Susan Pollay for coming to the ICC to present the Connecting William Street scenarios and to have ICC representatives take the survey.

Lipson said he was also there addressing the board as a member of the Library Green Conservancy to keep alive the concept of a plaza on top of the Library Lane underground parking structure. People who have passed by the location, since the completion of the underground parking structure, have probably seen what he has seen, Lipson ventured – namely, that the space between Fifth Avenue and the elevator structure is highly underutilized for parking. The Fifth and William street surface parking lot was full when he’d walked past it that day, but there were only three or four cars on top of the Library Lane structure, he said. That portion of the lot is so obviously a plaza, he said.

He pointed out that mayor John Hieftje had suggested that his group form a private conservancy, and he reported that the group had in fact formed a conservancy. He also noted that Roger Hewitt had told his group that ultimately this will be a city council decision. So he reported that the Library Green Conservancy is still pressing ahead, because his group did not want the topic to go “off the radar.”

Lipson also pointed out that the Calthorpe study, commissioned by the city in the mid-2000s, had mentioned in several places a public space and a public plaza. And the Calthorpe study had indicated that the spot where the top of the underground parking garage is located would be a perfect place for such a public plaza, he said. In that report, public plazas and a gathering space are mentioned dozens of times, but there had been no mention of a conference center or hotel space. Why did we have all those charrettes and all that public process associated with the Calthorpe study, Lipson wondered, if it wasn’t going to be used?

So Lipson told the board that the Library Green Conservancy was not going to go away, and would continue to advocate for a public plaza at that location – recognizing that there were many other people advocating for other things.

Comm/Comm: Bicycle Issues – Cages, Sidewalks

John Mouat reported from the operations committee on a concept for establishing a “bicycle cage” at the Maynard Street parking structure – a place where bicyclists could have their bicycles secured inside a fenced-off area accessible with a swipable pass. There would be some costs associated to the bicyclists to access the spaces. He said it might be used by people who have high-end bikes or who have concerns about the security of their bicycles. They would be under a cover. The next steps would be getting cost estimates. Mayor John Hieftje indicated his support for the idea.

If the program were successful at the Maynard Street location, Mouat said, it could be extended to other locations. But one of the questions is: How far will people walk? Where would you like to park your bike in relation to where you’re trying to get to? It would help reduce the number of bikes that are parked on the streets, he pointed out.

There has also been some ongoing discussion about what to do with abandoned bikes, Mouat said. He reminded the board that the DDA had previously had a role in helping to tag bikes that were abandoned, but that has been deemed “inappropriate.” Nader Nassif pointed out that each of these cages can hold about 50 bikes, so he felt it was a good use of the space.

Hieftje tacked onto the discussion of the bike cages an idea he’s floated before to the DDA board – that he believes bicycle riding on downtown sidewalks should be prohibited. He imagined that such a move would generate a lot of public discussion. The Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition has done some work on the issue, he said. As the number of pedestrians increases, Hieftje said, it’s something he thinks the DDA board should pursue to foster a good pedestrian environment.

He contended there is really no problem riding a bicycle on the streets in downtown Ann Arbor. He felt that anybody who can ride a bike can also master riding in downtown Ann Arbor. He noted that a concern that had been raised against such a prohibition in the past involves families who want to bring their kids downtown. But Hieftje felt there would be ways to make allowances for that type of activity within the ordinance – for example, by exempting people of a certain age, or exempting people who are riding with their children.

Comm/Comm: Student Housing

Jim Mogensen told the board he wanted to make some observations about student housing. He noted that a lot of student housing projects are being built. He observed that there is no zoning for student housing. He noted that the state legislature has discussed the idea of not allowing local governments to have non-discrimination ordinances, but he pointed out that Ann Arbor’s non-discrimination ordinance says that you cannot discriminate against people based on their student status. It doesn’t say that you can’t discriminate against students, just that you can’t discriminate against people based on their student status, he stressed.

He emphasized to the board that the large student housing developments downtown are not temporary. That contrasts with the relatively temporary student housing projects built in “residential for cash” zoning districts. ["Residential for cash" is Mogensen's standard word play for R4C multi-unit zoning.] But the current projects that are being built would be much harder to redevelop, he cautioned. So the projects are going to be there, and they would probably have to be reused. He pointed to Courthouse Square as an example. That matters to the DDA for a couple of reasons, he said. When the numbers stop working, or if there has been over-development, the DDA board might find that people come ask them for some of the TIF money.

The other thing is that some of the residential projects have been created with some assumptions about behavior – more walking and pedestrian use, for example. If these units are redeveloped for young professionals, no matter what we might hope will happen, Mogensen said, there will be a greater demand for cars, and that’ll be something that has to be incorporated into planning. He encouraged the board to incorporate that kind of thinking as a footnote to their planning.

Comm/Comm: Building Boom

Ray Detter reported from the downtown area citizens advisory council (CAC). The group had discussed a large packet of written material, part of which fell into the general category of “building boom and tight rental market.” Detter then listed out a number of projects: the Library Lane underground parking garage, Blake Transit Center, the Ann Arbor District Library, The Varsity, 618 South Main, The Landmark, Zaragon West, City Apartments, the former St. Nicholas Church property, Ed Shaffran’s plans to put condos on top of the Goodyear Building, Howard Frehsee’s building on South State Street and his plans perhaps to put a high-rise on the back of that building, plans for the former Borders building, the Zingerman’s Deli addition, and the closing of White Market.

Also included in the discussion were some unannounced developments that have not yet been reported in the news media, he said. Detter described a purchase by Ed Shaffran of the old Brauer building at Catherine Street and North Fifth Avenue, and a plan to put apartments in that location. [Responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle, Shaffran indicated that while a purchase agreement had been signed, there are a number of contingencies to work through before a sale would take place. One of the future uses being considered, wrote Shaffran, is residential. But that would require a rezoning of the property, which is currently a planned unit development (PUD), restricted to office-only use.]

Also discussed was an upcoming purchase of the Papa John’s Pizza property at Huron and Division – by the Connecticut firm Greenfield Partners. Detter noted that the firm had already purchased the neighboring property just west of Sloan Plaza. A project could now be extended all the way to Division Street, and Detter expressed his hope with the addition of the neighboring property, a better-designed building would result, and there would be better protection for the residents of Sloan Plaza.

The CAC was supportive of these developments, Detter said, in the same way that the group has been supportive of projects in the past – by making suggestions for improvements and monitoring the review of projects as they go through the process, including the city’s design review board.

Detter also described a range of different projects outside the downtown on which the CAC tended not to take positions. But because such projects would ultimately have an impact on the downtown, the CAC wanted to be involved in the ongoing discussion. Among the examples Detter gave were the location of a possible new rail station and the construction of a greenway.

Present: Nader Nassif, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat.

Absent: Newcombe Clark, Bob Guenzel, Russ Collins.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2012, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [confirm date]

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

Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city of Ann Arbor, at the Ann Arbor planning commission's Jan. 10, 2012 working session. Behind her are students from Huron High School, who attended the meeting for a class assignment. (Photo by the writer.)

The forecast is used as a planning tool by local governments and regional organizations, and is updated every five years. A preliminary forecast from 2010-2020 has been distributed to communities in southeast Michigan, including Ann Arbor, to get feedback that will be used in making the final forecast through 2040. At a public forum in Ann Arbor last month, SEMCOG staff also presented an overview from its preliminary 2040 forecast for Washtenaw County.

For the county, the initial forecast shows the population growing from 344,791 in 2010 to 352,616 in 2020 – a 2.2% increase. By 2040, the county’s population is expected to reach 384,735, an increase of about 40,000 people from 2010.

The population in Ann Arbor is projected to stay essentially flat, while some of the county’s townships – including the townships of Augusta, Lima, Manchester, Saline and Superior – are expected to see double-digit growth.

Total employment for the county is expected to grow 20.6% through 2040, from 236,677 jobs in 2010 to 285,659 jobs in 2040. About 50% of all jobs in the county are located in Ann Arbor.

The forecast has implications for policy and planning decisions, including decisions related to transportation funding. For example, the forecast will form the basis for SEMCOG’s 2040 long-range transportation plan, which is expected to be released in June of 2013.

The transportation issue was highlighted during Tuesday’s planning commission meeting. And in a follow-up interview with The Chronicle, Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, expressed concerns that the forecast might underestimate population and household figures.

Cooper said he’s trying to ensure that SEMCOG has all the data it needs to inform good decision-making. For example, a list of recent and pending developments that SEMCOG is using doesn’t include some major new residential projects, he said, such as The Varsity Ann Arbor. [.pdf of development list used in SEMCOG draft forecast]

This forecast comes in the context of several major transportation projects that are being discussed within the county. That  includes a possible countywide transportation system and a potential high-capacity transit corridor in Ann Arbor that would run from Plymouth Road at US-23 through downtown Ann Arbor to State Street and southward to I-94.

The discussion at Tuesday’s working session centered primarily on SEMCOG’s draft forecast for Ann Arbor through 2020. The meeting covered other topics, including an update on the planning staff’s 2012 work plan. This report focuses on the SEMCOG forecast.

SEMCOG Forecast

Wendy Rampson, who oversees planning operations at the city, introduced the SEMCOG forecast by saying that it’s a dry subject, but important – especially for transportation planning. The projections are fairly sophisticated, she said, starting at a macro level by making growth assumptions regionally, then sorting down to the jurisdictional level of counties, cities and townships.

At the same time, SEMCOG forecasters gather data from individual communities, such as site plan reviews for new developments, demolitions, tax assessment figures, and other information. For example, SEMCOG has compiled a list of current and proposed developments, including 33 in Ann Arbor. [.pdf of development list used in SEMCOG draft forecast] All of this data is factored into the forecast model, Rampson said, to derive the best possible projections of changes in population, the number of households, and employment. SEMCOG uses UrbanSim software to develop these forecasts.

SEMCOG Forecast: Employment

The new draft forecast reviewed by the planning commission projects that employment in Ann Arbor will grow 4.5% between 2010 and 2020, from 121,289 jobs in 2010 to 126,783 jobs in 2020. That’s a gain of 5,494 jobs.

However, Rampson said SEMCOG has backed off of its employment growth projections made five years ago for Ann Arbor. The previous employment forecast for Ann Arbor – posted on SEMCOG’s website – is for 134,191 jobs by 2020. The draft revision now projects 126,783 jobs by 2020, or 7,408 fewer jobs than previously forecast.

She said this revision seems reasonable, given the economic climate, but that it concerns Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, who felt the previous forecasts were already too conservative. Cooper is working with city staff to make sure SEMCOG has all the relevant data to make an accurate forecast, Rampson said, including potential development at the University of Michigan.

Rampson referred to a Dec. 14 email to city staff from SEMCOG lead planner Jeff Nutting, who outlined more details of how the forecast is developed. Nutting specifically described how UM data factors into the forecast:

Land owned by the University of Michigan is tax exempt, so there is not any building or land data contained in the tax assessment files for parcels they own. We obtained from U-M Planning their information on buildings owned or leased by U-M, including square footage, building activity and mail stops. U-M employment, as for all other establishments in the state, is obtained from the State Unemployment Insurance data that all establishments file on a monthly basis, reporting number of employees by location. These employment numbers were broken out to individual buildings owned or leased by U-M using mail stops, a method suggested by U-M Planning.

Of course, U-M has facilities outside the City of Ann Arbor, so not all jobs end up allocated to buildings in the city. The allocation is of course controlled by the number of jobs U-M is actually reporting. In addition, both the city and university master plans were input into the model in the form of future land use and density constraints. Updates to past announcements, such as U-M no longer moving all jobs in leased buildings into the old Pfizer buildings, were also input.

Planning commissioner Erica Briggs asked how accurate the SEMCOG forecasts have been in the past. Fairly accurate, Rampson said, and the forecasts are improving each cycle – although she noted that the forecasts didn’t predict the recent economic downturn. For example, a previous forecast had projected Ann Arbor employment at 125,340 jobs in 2010. Actual employment that year was 121,289 – 4,051 fewer jobs than projected.

Another employment-related factor in the forecast is how Ann Arbor’s job market is changing with respect to the rest of Washtenaw County, Rampson noted. In 2005, 53% of all jobs in Washtenaw County were located in Ann Arbor. That dropped to 51% in 2010, as a higher percentage of new jobs were located outside of the city. The new draft forecast projects a further drop, estimating that by 2020, only 50% of the county’s jobs will be located in Ann Arbor. It’s a change, but not a dramatic decrease, Rampson said. [.pdf of 2020 draft employment forecast for communities in Washtenaw County]

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola clarified with Rampson that the figures for jobs refer only to the actual positions, not to the number of people who both work and live in the county.

SEMCOG Forecast: Population & Households

The number of households in Ann Arbor is expected to grow 3%  through 2020, from 47,060 to 48,449 – an increase of 1,389 households. [.pdf of 2020 draft forecast of households in Washtenaw County communities]

Rampson pointed out that while the forecast calls for more households, Ann Arbor’s population is expected to remain stable – growing only 0.4% to 114,367 people by 2020. [.pdf of 2020 draft forecast of population in Washtenaw County communities] What this means, she said, is that more housing units are being added and people are dispersing – the forecast indicates that there will be fewer people per household. The forecast likely reflects a demographic change: More older residents with no children at home, for example, as well as more younger, single residents.

The Dec. 14 email from SEMCOG’s Nutting stated that the new draft forecast of 48,449 Ann Arbor households in 2020 is more households than SEMCOG had previously projected for 2040 in its last forecast. The new forecast indicates more positive assumptions about Ann Arbor’s housing unit growth than SEMCOG analysts had five years ago, he wrote. The city is also expected to have stronger housing growth in the next decade than any other community in Washtenaw County.

Planning commissioner Bonnie Bona asked whether SEMCOG’s model takes into account zoning changes – the fact that the city now allows for greater density with mixed-use zoning. It’s difficult to project how much residential development will ultimately occur on parcels that have mixed-use zoning, Bona said.

Rampson replied that SEMCOG does consider factors like Ann Arbor’s relatively new A2D2 zoning and its downtown plan. She said she would follow-up with SEMCOG and ask how the forecast handles mixed-use zoning specifically.

Erica Briggs asked if her understanding was correct – that developers’ plans to build more housing factors into SEMCOG projections of household growth. Basically, she said, it sounds like if housing is being built, the assumption in the forecast is that those units will be filled. That’s right, Rampson said. And because the population is projected to grow only slightly, the forecast assumes that over time, there will be fewer people living in each unit.

That approach to the forecast seems questionable, Briggs said. It doesn’t address the fact that at some point, the city might simply have too many housing units. Rampson replied by saying she didn’t think the forecast model includes vacancy rates. However, the model does use historic patterns of population migration into and out of the region to make projections at the macro level. The model then disaggregates those projections to the local communities. ”None of this is predictive,” Rampson cautioned. “It’s just a planning tool for us.”

Bona said it would seem to make more sense to calculate job growth, and from that make projections about population, which would then inform housing needs.

Planning commissioner Kirk Westphal noted that University of Michigan students are a factor in population projections. For UM, a change of 1,000 people “is a rounding error,” he joked. [The university's Ann Arbor campus has an enrollment of about 42,000 students.]

Westphal noted that the number of housing units was projected to increase roughly 3.5 times more than the population. He indicated that he didn’t quite know what to make of that aspect of the forecast.

Rampson ventured that more young singles are staying in town after graduating from UM, and likely moving from group housing – like dorms or fraternities and sororities – into single-unit apartments. Eric Mahler, the commission’s chair, said the trend in housing is away from large McMansions and toward smaller units, which might be driving the increase in the number of households in SEMCOG’s forecast.

Planning commissioner Wendy Woods asked about infrastructure for services like municipal sewer and water. As the university grows, there’s less capacity for development elsewhere in the city, she said. Does SEMCOG’s model take that into consideration? Rampson replied that those kind of capacity issues are handled only in a very macro way. For example, the model would factor in whether an area has access to water and sewer, but it would not look at data such as the size of a water main, for example.

A chart showing SEMCOG's draft forecast of the Washtenaw County population change by age between 2010-2020. This information was presented by SEMCOG staff at a December public forum in Ann Arbor. (Links to larger image)

Woods also queried Eleanore Adenekan, a commissioner who’s also a local real estate agent, asking whether SEMCOG’s forecast for households aligns with what Adenekan sees in the market. “Absolutely,” Adenekan said.

But Rampson questioned some of the underlying data that Nutting cited in his email to city staff. Nutting wrote that SEMCOG’s forecasted growth of households is based in part on 2,000 net housing units that have been added in the city since the beginning of 2010. Rampson said that number seemed high to her. “Eli  [Cooper] won’t be happy with me,” she said, “but we’ll have to follow up.”

Briggs noted that SEMCOG’s forecasting model doesn’t seem to jibe with the sustainable community approach that Ann Arbor is trying to create. For example, the most household growth is forecast for the townships, she noted, adding that “it will be interesting to see how that plays out.”

Mahler asked whether data would be available regarding race and age of the city’s population. It would be helpful, for example, to know how many people are in their 20s, or are older than 65, because their needs for services like transportation might differ from the general population. He also wondered if data were available that might predict the size of K-12 school populations.

[A preliminary forecast showing population change by age in Washtenaw County through 2020 was part of a SEMCOG public forum in December, but was not presented at Tuesday's planning commission session. The forecast calls for population gains among all age groups over 55, as well as in age groups from 20-24 years old and 35-39 years old. All other age groups will see population losses, according to the forecast.]

Rampson said she’d follow up with SEMCOG to get more information on how the forecast includes mixed-use development, and whether the forecasting model accommodates the sustainable cities planning concept. She’d also ask for forecast data on school-age population, as well as general age, race and national origin demographics.

SEMCOG Forecast: Transportation

Tony Derezinski, who serves on both the planning commission and city council, had attended an outreach meeting held by SEMCOG in mid-December to discuss the draft forecast. He said that Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, had attended the meeting, too. Ford was extremely interested in the forecast, which has a direct relationship to what AATA is doing, Derezinski said. That’s especially true for population growth in the county’s townships, he said, given that AATA is looking to expand services outside of Ann Arbor.

Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, also attended the December SEMCOG meeting, Derezinski continued. Rampson noted that Cooper is looking for transportation funding sources for the future. An area’s employment, population and number of households have implications for federal transportation funding. Rampson said that given the economy, it will take time for growth in these areas to return to previous levels, assuming it ever does.

In a follow-up phone conversation with The Chronicle, Cooper elaborated on his concerns with the forecast. He said his concerns are based on an understanding of how these numbers are used by transportation planning agencies, and that he wants to provide SEMCOG with the best possible data to inform good decision-making.

For example, he noted that the list of residential developments used by SEMCOG doesn’t capture everything that’s being planned in the city. [.pdf of development list used in SEMCOG forecast] The Varsity Ann Arbor – a 13-story building at 425 E. Washington with 181 apartments and a total of 415 bedrooms – was recently approved by Ann Arbor city council and will begin construction soon, but it’s not on the list. Nor is the 618 S. Main development, with a proposed 180 apartments, that’s just now moving through the city’s approval process. A request for site plan approval is on the planning commission’s Jan. 19 meeting agenda.

Cooper also questioned whether the draft forecast takes into account the city’s zoning changes made in recent years – including changes in area, height and placement – that would accommodate more residential growth.

The forecast has implications for how investments are made in transportation infrastructure, Cooper said. For example, if SEMCOG forecasts that 15,000 jobs will be added in Ann Arbor through 2040, but the population forecast remains stable, then the city will expect to see an increase of “in-commuting,” Cooper said. And since most commuters use vehicles, that increase will result in traffic congestion and put pressure on the city’s parking system.

However, if the forecast assumes that a portion of those jobs will be held by people who live in Ann Arbor, he said, and that the population will increase as a result of the added employment, then there might be a stronger argument for investing in the Plymouth-State Street transit corridor, or in more frequent bus service within the city.

Cooper said he thought that SEMCOG analysts were open to additional input. He also noted that the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) has provided SEMCOG with its own forecast through 2040, which will help inform SEMCOG’s projections. [.xls spreadsheet of WATS forecast through 2040]

For background on local transportation issues, see Chronicle coverage: “AATA OKs Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti Route Increases” and ”Washtenaw Transit Talk in Flux.”

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

Kate Murphy, left, and Anne Alatalo attended the county board's Oct. 13 working session to voice support for funding the Humane Society of Huron Valley. (Photos by the writer.)

HSHV, which is under contract with the county to provide state-mandated animal control services, is among several outside agencies that the county funds. The proposed two-year budget for 2012 and 2013 includes a total of $1.2 million in annual cuts to outside agencies – the county budget would drop HSHV’s annual funding from $500,000 to $250,000. HSHV’s current contract with the county ends on Dec. 31. Some commissioners expressed dismay, but indicated that in light of other pressing needs – like food and shelter for struggling families – the cuts to HSHV are appropriate.

The other outside agency item that received attention on Thursday was the county’s $125,000 membership with the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, as well as $10,000 for water quality work provided by SEMCOG. Paul Tait, SEMCOG’s executive director, attended the meeting with two other staff members to answer questions and urge commissioners to retain their participation in the regional planning group. None of the six other counties who are part of SEMOG are withdrawing their membership, Tait said.

Several other budget cuts are proposed in this category, including a decrease in funding to the Delonis Center homeless shelter (from $160,000 to $25,000) and the Safe House domestic violence shelter (from $96,000 to $48,000). Money for the county’s coordinated funding of human services – targeting six priority areas, including housing and food – will drop by $128,538 (from $1,015,000 to $886,462).

But most of Thursday’s discussion by the board focused on the two areas that received attention during public commentary: SEMCOG and HSHV. In addition, Chuck Warpehoski, director of the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, spoke on behalf of 94 co-signers of a letter urging the county to continue funding human services.

The board will also hold a public hearing on the budget at its Oct. 19 meeting, and it’s likely that supporters from other groups will address the board at that time.

Setting the stage for the board’s discussion on Thursday, commissioners got a staff update on the need for basic assistance in the county. It was not encouraging news.

Update on Need for Human Services

Mary Jo Callan, director of the county/city of Ann Arbor office of community development, was asked to give commissioners an update on the demand for food, shelter and other basic needs in Washtenaw County. She’d been part of a presentation on the same issue at the board’s Sept. 8 working session, and began her remarks on Thursday by noting that the news since then isn’t encouraging.

Emergency services like those provided at the county’s Harriet Street community services office or by the Barrier Busters network are in greater demand. There’s been an unprecedented number of calls, Callan said, and state and federal funding is diminished. Local nonprofit agencies are bracing for funding cuts from the county, she said, and the county itself expects cuts in state and federal funds it receives for these services.

Callan reminded commissioners that the state legislature has passed a 48-month lifetime limit for receiving cash assistance from the state Dept. of Human Services (DHS), which was to take effect Oct. 1 and will affect 72 low-income households in Washtenaw County. [By comparison, 6,560 families in Wayne County will be affected.] A court had ruled that people receiving this aid hadn’t been properly notified about the cutoff, so families and individuals got payments in October, but will be cut off on Nov. 1. Each month after that, about 10-12 additional families will be cut off in the county, she said.

The local DHS office has a caseload of 54,000 cases, Callan said. Of those, 40,000 relate to food stamps. DHS has now instituted an asset test for people to qualify for food assistance – you can’t have more than $5,000 in assets, excluding your home. This new layer has added to the difficulty of processing cases and is costing more in staff time than the money it’s saving, Callan said. That, in turn, is impacting local agencies that provide food assistance, like Food Gatherers. [The asset test was criticized in an Oct. 14 opinion piece by three former state budget directors, published in the Detroit News. The writers urged Gov. Rick Snyder's administration to reconsider the test.]

Food Gatherers is also facing severe cuts from some of its funding sources, even as demand increases, Callan said. She noted that the state has eliminated the tax credit for food banks, which will also impact funding.

Regarding the homeless in Washtenaw County, Callan said that last year, 4,700 people were homeless – 55% of those for the first time. Shelters are reporting increased demand compared to last year, but fundraising is more difficult because tax credits for shelters have been eliminated too. The Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, which runs the Delonis Center shelter in Ann Arbor, is reporting that it won’t be able to afford to open its warming center this winter, unless additional funding is raised. [At the Ann Arbor city council's Oct. 17 meeting, $25,000 was authorized to fill in the gap between private donations and the roughly $81,000 budget for the warming center.]

The area’s rent burden remains high, Callan said. The average rent and utilities is about $1,000 per month. For a family of three with an income of $18,500, that means they’re paying about 70% of their income on housing, with only about $500 per month left over for food, clothing and other needs.

Callan said that SOS Community Services has become the single point-of-entry for people seeking housing assistance. [Its housing access phone number is 734-961-1999.] Last week, SOS fielded 195 calls for help with housing – 38% of those were from people facing eviction, 33% were seeking shelter, and 11% were homeless seeking permanent housing. For about half of the calls, the resources weren’t available to help and people were turned away, Callan said.

In summarizing other funding cuts, Callan said that DHS is cutting childcare assistance by 5-15%, and reducing the number of hours covered from 90 to 80 per week. That decrease is especially difficult for parents who must take the bus to work, she said.

Callan also reported that at the end of September, unemployment insurance for more than 800 people in the county expired. About 800 more are expected to time-out in each of the coming months.

She concluded by noting that her office is developing a job training program for the east side of the county, where unemployment is highest. Commissioners can expect to see a fleshed-out proposal at their Nov. 2 meeting.

Outside Agency Funding: Overview

Tina Gavalier of the county’s finance office gave a brief summary of the administration’s budget proposal regarding outside agency funding. To help address a projected $17.5 million two-year budget deficit, the county’s original goal was to cut $1 million from its spending on outside agencies. That category includes dues, agencies that provide human services like housing and childcare, and special initiatives like support for the economic development agency Ann Arbor SPARK. [.pdf list of all outside agency funding]

The proposed budget allocates a total of $1.855 million to outside agencies in 2012 and 2013. That’s down from $3.095 million in 2011 – a $1.2 million decrease per year.

The most dramatic cuts include eliminating the county’s $125,000 annual membership in the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), cutting funding for the Humane Society of Huron Valley’s contract from $500,000 in 2011 to $250,000, and cutting funding to the Delonis Center homeless shelter from $160,000 to $25,000. Funding for the Safe House domestic violence shelter would drop from $96,000 to $48,000.

Also eliminated completely would be payments to the Huron River Watershed Council ($11,892), the NEW Center ($21,000), and the Area Agency on Aging ($23,712). The $200,000 for the county’s reserve for housing would be cut, as would $110,000 for a housing contingency fund. Money for the county’s coordinated funding of human services will drop by $128,538 (from $1,015,000 to $886,462).

The packet of materials for commissioners also included a five-year funding history for outside agencies. [.pdf of five-year funding] In 2006, funding in that category totaled $1.158 million, reaching a high in 2011 of $3.095 million. The proposed $1.855 million would return funding to roughly 2010 levels.

Outside Agency Funding: SEMCOG

The proposed 2012 and 2013 budget proposes eliminating the county’s $125,000 membership with the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, as well as $10,000 for water quality work provided by SEMCOG.

Outside Agency Funding: SEMCOG – Public Commentary

Paul Tait, executive director for the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), told commissioners that he understood they had difficult decisions to make – these are not easy times. He referenced the memo he had sent to the board outlining benefits of SEMCOG membership. [.pdf of Tait's letter] Because of the agency’s ability to leverage regional economies of scale to obtain federal grants, he said, they are able to return value to the county 10 times in excess of the county’s dues. [The memo lists items totaling $1,355,500 that SEMCOG brings to Washtenaw County, including data collection, and work developing commuter rail and the Detroit Regional Aerotropolis.] Tait noted that the county’s dues to SEMCOG have actually dropped by 13% in recent years.

Washtenaw County is part of the region, Tait said – 35% of workers in the county commute here from other areas, and nearly 24% of Washtenaw County residents commute to jobs in nearby counties. Washtenaw County officials need to be at the table, he said. It’s also an investment in the county’s future, he said, and he urged commissioners to retain their membership.

Outside Agency Funding: Commissioner Discussion – SEMCOG

Wes Prater asked Tait to answer some questions. Referring to Tait’s list of services that SEMCOG provides, Prater noted that it states the county would pay $325,000 for activities that SEMCOG now does related to developing commuter rail from Ann Arbor to Detroit. If the county drops its SEMCOG membership, who’ll pick up that cost? Prater asked.

County commissioner Yousef Rabhi, right, chairs the board's working sessions. At right, Paul Tait, executive director of the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, lobbied for the county to continue its membership in SEMCOG.

Tait said that SEMCOG has taken the lead on that project, along with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation. SEMCOGS been doing it on a shoestring since there’s been no dedicated funding, he said, but the project is close to getting federal dollars. By early 2012, there might even be demo service, he said. The project needs a champion, Tait said, and he didn’t know who would fill that role if SEMCOG didn’t.

Prater said he was concerned about dropping membership. He questioned whether the county would need to get certified in order to receive certain federal transportation grants – would the county road commission be capable of that? He felt there needed to be more of a conversation about the implications of leaving SEMCOG.

County administrator Verna McDaniel said she’d continue discussions with SEMCOG executives and county commissioners on the issue.

Ronnie Peterson noted that SEMCOG is one of the few organizations that puts multiple local governments in the same room, including six other counties as well as townships and cities. He asked whether other counties are cutting their memberships. No, Tait said – only Washtenaw County is considering that. Tait added that SEMCOG would continue to provide services to local municipalities within the county that are also members, like Ann Arbor. But it’s the regional, long-term efforts – like commuter rail – that benefit from having county officials at the table, he said.

Peterson requested seeing a 10-year list of services that SEMCOG has provided to the county. It’s more than just transportation, he said. Tait replied that SEMCOG works with the county’s water resources commissioner on various projects, and provides discounted aerial photography, among a host of other services.

Peterson said he can’t imagine walking way with six other counties in the room. What would be the substitute for regional planning? he asked.

Yousef Rabhi said the ultimate question is this: If the board decides to keep the $125,000 membership, then where will that amount be cut elsewhere in the budget? Peterson replied that the buck stops with the board, not the administration. The board is responsible for dealing with the budget, and they need all the facts they can get before making a decision about SEMCOG.

Rabhi noted that the budget discussion certainly will continue, regarding SEMCOG and all other items. He’s been attending SEMCOG meetings on behalf of the board since he was elected, and one value is being part of a regional conversation that includes Detroit, Oakland County and Macomb County, among others. They don’t always agree, but it’s a productive conversation. If Washtenaw County decides to remain a member, Rabhi added, there are ways to derive more benefits than they currently are. SEMCOG offers services like training programs and workshops that they could take more advantage of, he said. But ultimately, it’s about finding the money.

Prater told his board colleagues that if there’s value in SEMCOG, he didn’t want to lose that opportunity. They needed more information before deciding to withdraw.

Alicia Ping suggested perhaps withdrawing membership for a couple of years, then rejoining. It’s not like the whole county would go without SEMCOG’s services, she said – other municipalities are members, too.

Later in the meeting, Dan Smith recalled that Gov. Rick Snyder had proposed legislation regarding the creation of metro governments. He said he hadn’t heard anything about it recently, but that might serve as an alternative to SEMCOG.

By way of background, Snyder outlined his proposal for metropolitan authorities in a March 21, 2011 message regarding community development and local government reforms. An excerpt:

We should permit open minds across the state to not only enter into collaborations, but to consolidate governmental units and activities as appropriate in their respective communities. The final decision regarding such consolidation should be left at the local level, but the consideration of such consolidation must not be prevented or discouraged by state government. I will support new legislation that permits the establishment of metropolitan government as a metropolitan authority in Michigan. Under such legislation, existing county government would be superseded by the new metropolitan government, with all the functions of the county and city government performed instead by the metropolitan government. In addition, the legislative and executive powers of the city would be transferred to the metropolitan government.

I want to emphasize again that such legislation cannot and should not be mandatory. Rather, it should be drafted in a way that permits broader discussion about consolidation at the local level.

Outside Agency Funding: Humane Society, Human Services

Several human services agencies that receive support from the county are facing cuts in the proposed 2012 and 2013 budget. In addition, the Humane Society of Huron Valley, which is under contract with the county to provide state-mandated animal control services, is slated for a cut in annual funding from $500,000 to $250,000. HSHV’s current contract with the county ends on Dec. 31.

Outside Agency Funding: HSHV, Human Services – Public Commentary

Six people spoke on behalf of the Humane Society of Huron Valley (HSHV), and one person spoke on behalf of 94 others in the community who signed a letter of support for human services funding.

Kate Murphy said she lives in Livingston County so she doesn’t have the opportunity to vote for or against any of the commissioners. But she does spend a substantial percentage of her entertainment and charitable giving budget in Washtenaw County, she said, adding that she hoped that gave her some standing for her comments. She also noted that her experience as a former administrator at Michigan State University and as someone who ran for public office makes her aware of the financial challenges that the county faces. Even so, the proposed 50% cut to HSHV funding “seems beyond drastic to me.”

At least two commissioners appear to be under the impression that there’s no mandate to fund services for abandoned and abused animals, Murphy said, but that’s wrong. If the funding cuts go through, who will take care of the 4,500 abandoned and abused animals that were rescued by HSHV last year? She wanted to hear their plans. Murphy gave examples of three dogs who had been saved by HSHV, and asked what would have become of them otherwise.  She also noted that in Livingston County, a pack of wild dogs have attacked and killed two people – dogs left in the wild will form packs, and it’s dangerous. She urged commissioners to rethink cuts to the HSHV contract.

Jerry Nordblom of Webster Township noted that he’s a volunteer for seven local nonprofits, including HSHV. He told commissioners that a raccoon had come onto the deck of his house and was dying – he called the humane society and they came out within an hour, took the animal back to their facility and put it out of its misery. Nordblom also described the saga of a dog named Brownie, who was beaten with a tire iron and dumped by a man who also abused his girlfriend. The man, who at that time was out on parole for another crime, eventually pled guilty to a charge of animal torture – a felony.

Nordblom said the humane society helped him prepare a victim impact statement for the dog, describing how animal abuse is a symptom of the same pathological problem that leads to other violent crimes. Judge Schwartz agreed with him vigorously, Norblum said, and gave the maximum sentence. Meanwhile, Brownie has been renamed and is now a trained therapy dog, visiting nursing homes and children in schools. Nordblom said when he joked in an email that the dog would be available to commissioners for therapy, he didn’t mean to imply that they had dementia or acted like children.

Jo-Anne Julius of Pittsfield Township said she’s one of more than 500 volunteers for HSHV, and worked for them when the nonprofit was still operating out of a “shanty,” before its new facility was built. The buildings had been deplorable but the care was stellar, she said. Julius encouraged commissioners to visit the new facility, saying that it’s not a place where animals go to die. The kill rate is 18% – the lowest in the state.

Customer service is a priority, and she’s proud to be part of it, Julius said. Children and neighborhoods are safe because of HSHV’s animal control service. There are families that are having their homes foreclosed and can’t keep their pets. Who will they call? Who’ll take the 1,200 calls each year for help with abandoned and injured animals or diseased wildlife? It will fall to the county, she said. Julius said she wouldn’t mind paying more taxes to support such an efficient, essential organization. Please uphold the county’s end of the contract, she said.

Heather Karschner of Ann Arbor told commissioners that she works in the nonprofit sector and understands the challenges that the county faces. Some causes will inevitably lose funding. But HSHV is a smart investment, she said. It’s an innovative, effective organization with one of the highest save rates in the state. They take care of basic services, and conduct about 500 cruelty investigations each year. Working for them as a volunteer, Karschner said she can attest that there’s not a lot of waste in the organization. They use their resources well, their workers are dedicated, and the volunteers equal about 17 full-time workers, she said.

Anne Alatalo, a Superior Township resident, said she adopted her first pet from the humane society in 1957 – she’s a lifelong county resident. What message are they giving if the county doesn’t support this service? she asked. She’s especially concerned about cruelty cases. HSHV has a room full of unadoptable cats who were rescued from a hoarder, she said. It’s important to be compassionate. Alatalo also noted that many people believe HSHV gets funding from other sources, like the federal government, the U.S. Humane Society or the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). They don’t, she said. What’s more, the $500,000 from the county is something that HSHV has counted on in its planning – she urged commissioners to continue their support.

John Koselka identified himself as an attorney and Scio Township resident. He said he reviewed a recent article about the county’s funding for HSHV, noting there were some incorrect statements. The county is not giving a charitable contribution to HSHV – it’s paying a low amount for services that the county is mandated to provide. If the county provided those same services, rather than contract with HSHV, it would cost much more, he said. The HSHV estimates that it would cost the county $1.5 million annually to provide the mandated services itself – and that doesn’t include the cost of building a facility. If HSHV tells the county it can’t provide the services for $250,000, then what?

There are about 10 cruelty cases every year, and the county must house those animals in a humane way until the court case is over, Koselka said. Who will do that? What if the county had to house 350 animals at a private facility for $12 per day, with an average stay of 90 days? He noted that last year the county paid $180,000 for two animal control officers. But mostly what they do is pick up animals and drop them off at HSHV, he said.

Though she did not attend Thursday’s working session, HSHV executive director Tanya Hilgendorf had prepared a six-page letter earlier this month that responded to the proposed cuts. [.pdf of Hilgendorf's letter] In part, the letter states:

When
 we
 were 
planning
 to 
build 
our 
new
 animal
 shelter, our
 contract 
with 
the
 County 
was 
$200,000 
annually
 for
these 
services 
–
  a 
level 
we
 knew
 we
 absolutely 
could 
not
sustain 
going 
forward. 

Therefore, 
we
 offered 
the 
County 
the
 option 
to 
either 
pay 
us 
a 
fair 
amount
 closer 
to 
actual 
costs 
or 
to 
make 
plans 
to 
build 
and 
run
 their 
own
 animal 
control 
facility.

 This 
was 
a 
very 
important 
turning 
point.

 HSHV 
would 
have
 needed 
a 
shelter 
only
 half 
the
 size 
and
 half 
the
 cost 
if 
we 
weren’t 
providing 
contracted 
County
 services.

Then 
County 
Administrator
 Bob
 Guenzel
 and 
the 
Board 
of
 Commissioners 
said
 unequivocally
 they
 did
 not 
want 
to
 provide 
this 
service 
themselves
 and
 understood 
the
 vast
 cost 
savings 
and 
benefits 
to
 the 
community 
in 
this
 contractual 
arrangement – a
 clear
 win/win.
 As
 such,
 we
 kindly
 agreed
 to 
a 
multi‐year, 
incremental
 strategy
 that
allowed 
the 
County
 to
 increase 
our 
contract 
over
 four
 years 
until 
finally 
reaching 
$500,000 
in 
2010.
 After
 that,
 we
 agreed
 that 
HSHV 
would 
get
 an 
annual
 cost 
of 
living 
increase 
so 
that 
in
 10 
years 
we
 would 
not 
find 
ourselves 
in 
the
 same 
compromising
 financial 
position.

Last week 
the 
County 
Commissioners unilaterally 
changed
 that 
agreement 
without
 renegotiation
 or 
even 
notifying
 the 
HSHV.
 So 
today, 
we 
are
 at
 another 
crossroads 
and 
the
 County 
will
 need
 to 
decide
 whether 
they 
want 
to 
provide
 HSHV 
fair 
payment
 for 
services 
rendered 
or 
they
 want 
to 
provide 
some 
or 
all 
of
 the
 services 
themselves.

The HSHV board president Michael Walsh has also sent a letter to commissioners, stating that the humane society’s board and staff were shocked to hear of the funding cuts. [.pdf of Walsh's letter] Attachments to the letter included (1) a financial and legal analysis by HSHV of the services it provides to the county; (2) a May 1, 2008 letter from then-county administrator Bob Guenzel to University of Michigan president Mary Sue Coleman, which references a 10-year contract with HSHV; and (3) a chart comparing the cost of animal control services provided by HSHV compared to other counties.

Speaking in support of human services funding, Chuck Warpehoski, director of the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, told commissioners on Thursday that he was there on behalf of 94 co-signers of a letter urging the county to continue funding human services. [.pdf of joint letter] The letter makes three points, he said. It thanks the county for supporting the social safety net, which is important for the community. It acknowledges that the commissioners have difficult decisions ahead. For his final point, Warpehoski unfurled the letter with the 94 signatures, and asked that the county not balance its budget on the backs of the poor.

The commissioners are hearing from groups like SEMCOG, which says it does important work, he noted. But it’s also important that children whose parents have lost their jobs have food on the table, he said. Yes, it’s important that the humane society takes care of animals that have suffered abuse, but it’s also important the Safe House can provide support for victims of domestic violence. Warpehoski urged commissioners to continue their support for human services.

Outside Agency Funding: HSHV, Human Services – Commissioner Discussion

Barbara Bergman said her first concern is for the well-being of children and families in this county. There’s a real food scarcity, and whenever anyone asks her what they can do to help, she tells them to write a check to their local food bank.

Bergman said she grew up on a farm in Livingston County and has had a dog almost all of her adult life, though she doesn’t have one now. She knows that rogue animals present a serious problem, but it’s also a problem if children don’t get the support they need – they sometimes grow up and do horrible things, she said, even though they don’t bite.

She noted that humans are the singular beings who understand their own mortality. Her dogs did not understand that, when she’s had to put them down. The animals don’t deserve to suffer. She described one dog she had that was “snarky” – whenever she left it with sitters, she made sure they understood that their safety came first.

The county’s contract with HSHV ends on Dec. 31 of this year, Bergman noted. The county previously had offered a 10-year contract, but the humane society didn’t want that, she said. Bergman said she’ll be among those commissioners who’ll ask the county administration to issue a request for proposals (RFP) for the animal control services that are mandated by the state. She’s pleased that the HSHV doesn’t kill animals unless forced to, but if it’s a choice between that and supporting families, then it’s really no choice.

Bergman said she doesn’t know what the county will be able to buy for $250,000, but they should find out. It probably won’t be luxurious for animals, and she’s sorry about that. It will be humane, but they probably won’t be able to save as many animals as they have in the past. But again, she said, animals don’t have intimations of mortality. And on a hierarchy of needs, she said, the needs that take priority are those supported by the 94 people who signed a letter of support for human services.

Alicia Ping described this meeting as the worst one she’s attended in her 12 years of public services. [Prior to her election in 2010 as county commissioner, Ping served on the Saline city council.] Unfortunately, when you allocate money, people get used to that level of funding, she said. And now, the money isn’t there. The humane society funding is what bothers her most, she said, because she’s passionate for those who can’t speak for themselves – animals and children. It was breaking her heart, but they needed to fund immediate needs more so than initiatives that are farther out, like SEMCOG. She noted that the county can’t even afford to repair its roads.

Dan Smith observed that in looking at the five-year funding levels, some of the 2012-2013 recommendations are simply taking funding levels back to what they were three or four years ago. While severe, that’s the reality that the county is facing, and nobody likes it. He also noted that Act 88 restricts the uses on which millage proceeds can be used – it’s for economic development and agriculture, and can’t support human services.

Yousef Rabhi said the funding cuts aren’t just numbers – they represent people, and animals. For him, the funding cuts to the Delonis Center and to coordinated funding stood out, because those areas support people who are facing challenges. The Delonis shelter funding is being proposed to drop from $160,000 to $25,000. “To me, that’s wrong,” Rabhi said. [Coordinated funding – the county's share of pooled resources with the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw United Way and the Washtenaw Urban County, to fund prioritized human services – would drop from $1.015 million this year to $886,462 in 2012 and 2013.]

Rabhi said he’d rather see the county eliminate its $26,230 annual dues to the Michigan Association of Counties. It’s better to spend that money on coordinated funding or services for the homeless, he said. The county already hires a lobbyist in Lansing to advocate for the county’s specific interests, he said, and it’s not clear that the more general advocacy that MAC provides is necessary. [At its Oct. 5 meeting, the board gave initial approval of a two-year contract renewal for Governmental Consultant Services Inc. – lobbyist Kirk Profit is a director of the Lansing-based firm. A final vote on the contract is expected on Oct. 19.]

Bergman also said she questioned the county’s membership in the National Association of Counties, but she didn’t see the dues listed in the budget. She agreed with Ping – these are difficult times. Bergman said the state needs a progressive income tax – people like her, who live in the lap of luxury compared to most of the world, should pay more, she said.

Ronnie Peterson wanted to know the specifics of the county’s contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley. Was the county fulfilling its end? He also wondered who would provide those services, if HSHV did not. It’s one thing to talk about funding, he said, but first the board needs to talk about their obligations. County administrator Verna McDaniel said she’d provide that information to the board. [.pdf of current contract]

By way of background, the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, prepared a memo of points related to the county’s relationship with HSHV that had been emailed to commissioners the previous day, on Oct. 12. [.pdf of Hedger's memo] Points made in the memo include:

• There is no mandate in the state Dog Law of 1919 indicating how long a county must hold a stray or unlicensed dog before it may be euthanized.
• The county is not responsible for stray cats, raccoons or any other species of animal.
• Under the Dangerous Animals Act (MCLA 287.321 et seq), a dangerous animal may be ordered by a court to be placed in a facility, including a humane society building, pending the outcome of the legal proceeding involving that animal. The owner, however, not the county or Humane Society, is financially responsible for the boarding of the animal during this period.
• The county paid $1 million toward the $7.5 million cost of the new HSHV facility, and issued bonds for the remaining $6.5 million. HSHV is making payments on those bonds, and is saving $682,000 over the seven-year repayment of the bond because the county’s bond ratings resulted in lower interest rates.
• Funding to HSHV from the county over the past decade has ranged from $159,000 in 2001 to $500,000 in 2011.
• In the fall of 2007, the county discussed funding the HSHV via a 10-year contract beginning in 2008 with the HSHV receiving $300,000 in 2008, $400,000 in 2009 and $500,000 per year for the remainder of the contract, with a 3% cost of living increase per year. However, the board never approved a 10-year contract and instead continued to execute 2-year contracts with the HSHV – including the current one that expires at the end of 2011. HSHV did not object when the proposed 10-year deal did not materialize in 2008, and agreed to the 2-year deal.

Peterson said he didn’t blame the county administration for proposing the HSHV cuts, but someone else had suggested it and it wasn’t him – his fingerprints aren’t on it, he said. HSHV supporters wouldn’t be sending emails to commissioners if this proposal had previously been discussed in public view, he said. If that had happened, the board wouldn’t have to face this “embarrassment of protests,” he said. When had this been deliberated? If it happened in private, that troubled him.

The HSHV is highly praised throughout the state and is a model for other organizations, he said. The relationship with the county needs to be clarified by the corporation counsel, he added. Hedger “does work for the board, doesn’t he?” Peterson asked.

McDaniel replied that she and her staff would provide detailed information to commissioners, but she cautioned against relying on verbal legal opinion. The reason to provide the corporation counsel’s legal opinion in writing is that it gives him the opportunity to conduct thorough research, she said.

Peterson argued that the HSHV contract should have been provided to the board in its meeting packet of materials. The board needs to be clear on what the relationship is, before voting on the budget. He said he’s independent in his thinking, “unbossed and uncontrolled” – and he likes it that way. HSHV and SEMCOG provide services that can’t be found elsewhere, yet they’ve been lumped into the same category as other types of funding, he said.

Peterson also said he wants to revisit the way the county handles coordinated funding. [The coordinated funding approach was approved unanimously by the board earlier this year, though Peterson has previously expressed reservations about the process. It involves a partnership of the county, city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw United Way and other entities to award funding based on a set of community priorities. The six priorities are housing/homelessness, aging, school-aged youth, children from birth to six, health safety net, and food. The process is managed by the office of community development, a joint county/city of Ann Arbor department. For an overview, see Chronicle coverage: "Coordinated Funding for Nonprofits Planned"]

There will never be enough money, Peterson said, but the current system pits HSHV against other agencies – and the humane society will never win if they’re competing against food for children. The county needs to sit down with representatives from the University of Michigan, United Way, the chamber of commerce and other entities to address this problem, he said. Literacy is another important need, he said.

Bergman clarified with Hedger that the commissioners had been sent a communication about the HSHV contract status. Hedger replied that he also planned to follow-up with additional research.

Rabhi said it’s unfortunate they’ve come to this point. The budget decisions are obviously difficult, and many people have taken cuts – county employees, the Delonis Center, Safe House and others, he noted. No one on the board is an animal hater, he said. There is a state mandate for the county to provide certain animal control services, he said, and he wanted to find out exactly what that mandate is, and how much it should cost the county. After that basic service is provided – via HSHV or another entity – then the county can look at doing something beyond that, if they want, he said.

Rabhi also noted that this discussion needed to be held in the context of the long-term support that the county has provided HSHV. That includes giving the nonprofit $1 million toward construction of the new facility, and issuing the bonds – saving nearly $700,000 off the cost of the debt. That’s all in addition to annual financial allocations in the budget, he said. He’s proud of that relationship, but he doesn’t like it when HSHV supporters talk about walking away from it if they don’t get as much money as they want. ”Put the guns down,” he said. “We can work together.”

Peterson said it’s not about the funding – it’s about the contractual agreement. Your word should be your bond, he said – that’s integrity, and it would matter to him in determining how he’ll vote.

Outside Agency Funding: Agriculture & Economic Development

Alicia Ping asked several questions related to the Food Systems Economic Partners (FSEP). The county has allocated $15,000 for the organization. What does FSEP do? she asked. County administrator Verna McDaniel described it as an excellent program providing support for the regional food network, and said she could provide more detailed information if Ping wanted it.

McDaniel noted that FSEP is funded by the county with proceeds from the Act 88 millage. [At its Sept. 21, 2011 meeting, the board voted to levy 0.05 mills for support of economic development and agriculture. The millage is expected to raise $688,913 – much of it will be used to fund Ann Arbor SPARK, the area's economic development agency. Jennifer Fike, FSEP's executive director, spoke during public commentary at the Sept. 21 meeting as well as other board meetings this year. Because the Michigan statute that authorizes this millage predates the state’s Headlee Amendment, it can be approved by the board without a voter referendum. Ping voted against the Act 88 levy.]

Ping asked whether FSEP feeds anyone, or does it help children get access to healthier food. McDaniel replied that the agency provides agricultural-related education and training, and that one of its missions is to support work like the Farm to School program.

Ping also asked about funding for the law library – $12,400 annually. McDaniel said that’s a state-mandated service that the county must provide, giving access to legal research for local attorneys. [The library is located next to the Washtenaw County Bar Association office in the county courthouse at 101 N. Huron in Ann Arbor. It has two computers with access to several legal research databases.] In response to a query from Ping, McDaniel said she didn’t know if the library is open to the general public.

Ping then objected to increased funding for Ann Arbor SPARK – from $200,000 to $230,000. McDaniel said it wasn’t actually an increase, but that $30,000 had dropped off from another county funding source, so the Act 88 millage was adjusted to cover that amount. The administration felt it was critical to continue employment-related funding. Ping said she opposed the Act 88 millage, and said that everyone was experiencing cuts – SPARK should be no different.

Dan Smith agreed with a comment that Barbara Bergman had made earlier in the meeting – he encouraged residents to write checks to causes that they support. Most of the county’s revenues come from property taxes, he noted, and property values have declined. His own house is worth 20% less than when he bought it 11 years ago. That’s great for him personally since he has to pay lower taxes, he said, but that’s also why the county is facing cuts.

Present: Barbara Levin Bergman, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Dan Smith.

Absent: Leah Gunn, Conan Smith, Rob Turner.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2011 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. [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 comment sessions are held at the beginning and end of each meeting.

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!

A report from the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, drafted by a task force on infrastructure led by county board chair Rolland Sizemore Jr., laid out steps that SEMCOG hopes to take to address the situation – including, most immediately, lobbying Lansing lawmakers to raise the state’s gas tax, which funds road construction and upkeep. The briefing prompted commissioner Jeff Irwin to express frustration at SEMCOG’s approach, which he indicated wasn’t bold enough to tackle the underlying problems that have fostered sprawl.

At their May 20 session, commissioners also got an update on what’s known as the Chevron project – a multi-year, multimillion-dollar effort to cut energy usage in county facilities. And staff of the county’s energy and economic development office asked for feedback from commissioners about what type of pilot project the county should pursue, as part of a recent federal energy grant. Some commissioners are leaning toward a solar photovoltaic installation.

The meeting also included a presentation by county administrator Verna McDaniel on a request for more funds to complete the county jail expansion and new 14A-1 District Court facility. The Chronicle covered that topic in a previous report.

SEMCOG: Regional Infrastructure Needs

Paul Tait, SEMCOG’s executive director, began the presentation with a grim statement about the region’s infrastructure: “We’re really headed for a train wreck.” The goal of SEMCOG’s infrastructure task force was to try to get ahead of the challenges, he said, and to figure out potential solutions.

Chuck Hersey, manager of SEMCOG’s environment department, described their first step, which was to assess the current situation, and it didn’t look good. The revenue base is declining on several fronts: Gasoline sales, which provide gas tax revenues, are falling. Travel is decreasing, and with new fuel economy standards, gasoline sales are expected to decline even more, Hersey said. Property values – and thus taxable values – are also falling, which impacts revenues for local governments. Water usage is down as well, which means revenues from water usage fees are also falling.

Bottom line: Current revenues are insufficient to maintain the infrastructure that’s in place – as revenues fall, investment in infrastructure is cut. Hersey noted that some believe cutting investments in infrastructure saves money. But underinvestment doesn’t save in the long-term, he said – it actually leads to increased costs, especially in the case of infrastructure like roads, and water and sewer systems.

Another problem: funding formulas and policies are outdated, he said, inasmuch as they depend on increased consumption. Yet increased consumption conflicts with newer “green” policy goals that push for less use of gasoline, water and electricity. These conflicting approaches are on a collision course, Hersey said.

The region’s shrinking population is another challenge, and it’s expected to drop even more in the coming years. As a result, the region has more capacity than it needs – and though it might offend some people to say this, Hersey added, the region needs to “right-size.” These changes aren’t something that are going to blow over in six months or a year, he said.

There are also fewer jobs, and per-capita income is falling – which means people’s ability to pay is falling, too, Hersey said.

He discussed how a consumer’s needs and expectations of service drive costs. Under the current paradigm, consumers expect a full level of service at all times. Service providers, like water plants, design systems that can deliver that expectation. This results in high fixed costs, Hersey said. For example, when people turn on their faucet to water the lawn, they expect water to flow at the same level of pressure – even if it’s been dry and hot for several days or weeks. So water systems are designed to meet that expectation. For roads, the expectation is that there will be little or no congestion at any time – so roads are designed to meet peak rush-hour needs.

The model is unsustainable, Hersey said.

There are several components to a solution, he said: 1) restructuring revenue-collection systems, 2) taking a holistic view of needs and outcomes, rather than just looking at silos of interest, like transportation or water, 3) pushing for service providers to collaborate, 4) reducing costs, 5) strategically investing funds, focused on where infrastructure currently exists, and 6) developing a legislative strategy.

Hersey passed out a nine-page draft of action steps in these categories, developed by SEMCOG’s infrastructure task force but not yet approved by its executive committee. When approval is given, they’ll start working to implement these steps, he said. [.pdf of draft action steps]

SEMCOG: Commissioner Questions, Comments

Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he’d like to see Washtenaw County become a pilot program for implementing some of these changes. He said he thought that Janis Bobrin, the county’s water resources commissioner, would be willing to help (she attended the May 20 working session, but did not address the board), as would the road commission and the board of commissioners. If they’re successful, they might be able to leverage their work to get more funding from the state, he said.

Leah Gunn pointed out that the county has a patchwork of delivery for infrastructure services, which makes it difficult to coordinate. There are 28 jurisdictions in the county, and many of those local governments deliver services. There are also privately owned utilities for electricity and natural gas. As for the tension between relying on gas tax revenues while at the same time discouraging consumption, she wondered what SEMCOG would advise the state legislature to do.

SEMCOG’s Paul Tait said a gas tax increase is needed in the short term, but ultimately there needs to be a different mechanism for raising revenue, such as a tax on vehicle miles driven. Chuck Hersey said that utilities like DTE Energy are willing to work with the public sector – in many cases, better communication is a place to start. For example, DTE officials aren’t always aware of road projects undertaken by state or local governments. That would be one place to start collaborating for efficiency and reduced costs, so that DTE could do utility upgrades and repairs while the roads are already torn up for construction.

Ultimately, Gunn noted, the government needs more revenues for infrastructure projects. Citing an anti-tax sentiment in Michigan, she said, “I wish you well!”

Wes Prater said he didn’t see anything about performance or management in the SEMCOG report – that’s a key factor in reducing costs, he noted. He hoped the information they were compiling would be distributed to people who could make a difference.

Barbara Bergman said she worried about taxes that were regressive, putting an unfair burden on the poorest residents. Raising the sales tax would be “grossly unfair,” she said. Bergman hoped the current situation hurt enough so that state legislators would risk their careers to set things right. She also expressed concern for the environment, noting that the funding priorities needed to be the basics of food, clothing and shelter – making environmentalism “a luxury.”

Mark Ouimet pointed out that the data were snapshots, and they really needed something more like a movie – especially projecting into the future as much as possible. He said that because the revenue pressures and needs are so great, he imagined it would prompt entities like DTE to recognize the need to partner.

Kristin Judge commented that SEMCOG could serve an important role, as a place for entities in the region to work together. She suggested that SEMCOG make sure to coordinate its efforts with the Michigan Association of Counties and Governmental Consultant Services Inc., the Lansing-based firm led by Kirk Profit that Washtenaw County and other local governments pay to lobby for their interests at the state level.

Tait replied that their biggest effort at the moment was working to increase the gas tax, and that they “haven’t been able to turn the corner” on that.

Ken Schwartz noted that the economy has been declining for a decade, and that governments need to control their costs. He also spoke about the need to find small things that people can do to help the situation. Almost every storm drain is clogged, he said – somehow, they need to find ways to urge people to get out and take care of things like that in front of their own house. He cited the example of how putting a sign on the storm drains – stating that the drains lead directly to the river – dramatically reduced the amount of motor oil that people dumped. It takes political leadership, he said. They need to look at their history – when they’d been in economic difficulty before, what did they do? How can they learn from the past?

Jeff Irwin raised the issue of “right-sizing,” which Hersey had mentioned in his presentation. Irwin said it was unfortunate that Hersey backed off his statement, because the region does need to face reality. Thirty to forty years ago, the population was roughly the same, Irwin said, but now it’s spread out over a vast area of sprawl. “It’s just insane,” he said, destroying our communities and leading to financial and environmental disaster. How is the region going to focus the investment of transportation dollars on its core communities? Irwin asked.

Irwin noted that there was no mention of public transportation in the SEMCOG presentation, but it needs to be discussed. He described the public transportation network as a joke – other regions are ahead in that regard, and they’re “eating our lunch.” He cited his frustration at the delay in the commuter rail project between Ann Arbor and Detroit, which SEMCOG is spearheading. He asked whether they were going to talk about actually reducing infrastructure.

Hersey pointed to an editorial in the May 9, 2010 Detroit Free Press with the headline “Too Much Stuff, Too Few Dollars,” which he indicated was prompted by SEMCOG. It made the same point, he said – the region can’t support, and doesn’t need, the infrastructure that’s currently in place. He said SEMCOG talks about the need to invest strategically, and to collaborate.

Irwin asked whether it was reasonable for SEMCOG to draw circles around the region’s six largest urban cores, and to say that they’ll focus their efforts only on those areas. Or will the organization continue down the same path, he wondered, trying to make everyone happy, which he said ends in failure. [Irwin had earlier noted that SEMCOG is a member-organization, getting its financial support primarily from the local governments that join.]

When Irwin said he didn’t feel that these issues were being addressed seriously, Tait said, “We hear you.”

Wes Prater questioned how collaboration can be accomplished when the state constitution requires home rule. It’s impossible, he said, unless the constitution changes and you can form a continuous district, rather than having so many government jurisdictions.

Jessica Ping asked how SEMCOG was spreading the word about this infrastructure report. Tait replied that the task force had just signed off on it earlier that week, and the next step was to have it approved by SEMCOG’s executive committee in July. After that, they could start working to implement it – including reaching out to government leaders as well as getting a grassroots effort to push for these changes.

County Energy Use & Investment

Later in the meeting, staff from the county’s energy and economic development office gave an update on what’s known as the Chevron project – a multi-year, multimillion-dollar effort to cut energy usage in county facilities. They also asked for feedback from commissioners about what type of pilot project the county should pursue, as part of a recent federal energy grant.

Chevron Project Results

In the summer of 2004, the county board authorized a $6.088 million long-term contract with Chevron Energy Solutions. The company’s efforts under the contract, financed by a 20-year bond, consisted of 26 energy-efficiency projects at 18 county facilities. The projects included replacing boilers and chillers, installing new controls for HVAC equipment, replacing air handlers and rooftop units, upgrading lighting and adding insulation, among other things. They also agreed to track energy usage for four years after their work was completed – that tracking period ends this July.

At the board’s May 20, 2010 working session, Anya Dale – a specialist with the county’s office of economic development and energy – described the impact of the Chevron project.

Chart showing financial impact of Chevron project in Washtenaw County since 2006 for five county-owned facilities. (Links to larger image)

Energy savings were tracked by Chevron at only five of the 18 buildings where improvements were made, Dale noted – the five buildings where the most extensive work was done. Tracking began in August 2006, with the first year running through July 2007. In that period, Chevron had guaranteed $215,158 worth of total savings, and reported that actual savings reached $265,114 for the five buildings they tracked. Of that, $144,187 was in energy savings and $120,927 was an estimate of avoided maintenance or replacement costs, Dale said.

For the following years, Chevron said savings reached $264,290 in 2007-08, $416,974 in 2008-09, and $73,380 through February of this year.

Actual reductions in electricity and natural gas usage were also tracked for the five buildings: the administration building at 220 N. Main and the courthouse building at 101 E. Huron (both in downtown Ann Arbor), the Eastern County Government Center at 415 W. Michigan Ave. in Ypsilanti, the Dept. of Human Services building at 22 Center St. in Ypsilanti, and the county building on Towner Street in Ypsilanti.

Using data collected by the county between 2003 and 2007, Dale said, all but the administration building saw double-digit reductions in electricity usage. For natural gas usage, three of the buildings saw double-digit reductions in usage. An increase in natural gas usage at the Eastern County Government Center is possibly due to poor insulation, she said.

Energy Usage 2003-2007
Building         % change       % change
                 electricity    natural gas
Admin                0            -57
Courthouse         -14            -23
Eastern County     -32             +9
Human Services     -14            -20
Towner             -35            -26

-

Dale said there hasn’t been consistent data collection for other buildings that aren’t being tracked by the Chevron contract. She presented a general snapshot from 2007 to 2009, looking at electricity usage in 28 buildings and natural gas usage in 22 buildings. (The Washtenaw County Parks Commission covers utility bills in its facilities, and those figures weren’t included in the analysis.)

Chart showing energy usage and utilities costs in county facilities from 2007-2009. (Links to larger image.)

Of those county buildings examined between 2007 and 2009, overall energy usage appears to have declined, Dale said – though she cautioned that incomplete data in 2009 for natural gas likely means that the usage was likely higher. The staff estimates that from 2007 to 2009, the number of kilowatt hours used has dropped 15%, while therms (natural gas) have declined 26%.

The county needs to do a better job of tracking this data, Dale said. To do that, they plan to streamline the utility-tracking process and gather data in a more consistent format. After initially focusing on quantitative data, they’ll then focus on gathering qualitative data – like outside temperatures and space usage – with help from a new Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office, which the county is paying $76,690 to help fund.

Chevron Project: Commissioner Questions, Comments

Some commissioners questioned the data provided by Chevron. Wes Prater said he’d like more information about how Chevron arrived at its amounts in the “other savings” category – he wanted to pin them down on that data. The company made over $1 million in profits off this job, Prater said, and part of it was a guarantee of savings. The county should make sure those savings are real. [In a follow-up conversation with The Chronicle, Dale said that Chevron made a $450,000 profit on the project, or a 7.4% profit margin. She said Prater's reference to a $1 million profit might have included the firm's charges for general administrative overhead.]

Ken Schwartz asked whether the staff was auditing the numbers that Chevron provided, or whether that data was simply being accepted at face value. Dale reported that the staff tracked utility bills, and those direct savings as stated by Chevron are accurate. Schwartz followed up, asking if weather conditions had been factored in. If it was a particularly warm winter, then energy usage would be lower anyway and wouldn’t necessary reflect energy efficiency efforts. Dale said that temperatures hadn’t been tracked.

Schwartz noted that the county was paying $420,000 a year for the project – those costs needed to be part of the calculation of savings. After those payments are made, is the county still saving money? he asked. Brett Lenart – also on the staff of the county’s office of energy and economic development – pointed out that new equipment had been put in place that the county would have needed to buy anyway. He also reminded commissioners that the data from Chevron included just five buildings, but that many more facilities had been part of the project.

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Project

Brett Lenart made a presentation describing efforts that are funded by a $766,900 three-year Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant from the U.S. Dept. of Energy. There are four projects, including retrofitting county facilities and upgrading energy efficiency, developing energy policies for the county, and establishing a revolving loan fund for energy-related efforts. But Lenart’s presentation on May 20 focused on the fourth effort: developing a renewable energy demonstration project.

He told commissioners that the staff was looking for feedback on what type of project they should pursue. He laid out four options to consider:

1. A rebate program for solar hot water systems. Lenart said the advantages to this project include dispersing grant dollars into the community, creating jobs for the workers who install these systems, and making the systems more competitive with solar photovoltaic systems that are currently cheaper because of available incentives. Disadvantages, he said, would be that it wouldn’t directly benefit the county government, and would require more overhead to administer the program, process applications and gather data.
2. A grant to one or more nonprofit housing organizations for solar hot water installation. Lenart described several advantages to this project: It would provide grant dollars to local nonprofits, create jobs, and result in energy savings for the county’s low-income residents. However, there would be no direct energy savings to county government facilities, and it would require a certain amount of administrative overhead to select the nonprofit for the project.
3. A solar hot water system on a county facility. This project would provide a direct energy savings benefit to the county, Lenert said. It also presents an educational opportunity, showing the payback for using a solar hot water system. The county would have direct access to data to track these savings. On the downside, there would be less job creation than in the first two options, Lenart said.
4. A solar photovoltaic demo on a county facility. Currently, financial incentives are available (through DTE Energy’s Solar Currents program) for photovoltaic systems that generate electricity – having a demo project with this technology would highlight the availability of those incentives for local residents. There are also federal tax incentives available as well. Without incentives, he noted, the payback period for solar photovoltaic is much longer than for solar hot water systems. This project would also yield direct energy savings to the county, Lenart said. [The county has already installed a photovoltaic demo system at its Zeeb Road facility.]

In rating these projects, staff saw more advantages in installing a solar hot water system or solar photovoltaic system on a county facility, Lenart said. But they were hoping for feedback and direction from the board.

Energy Projects: Commissioner Questions, Comments

Leah Gunn said that given the county’s financial situation, she thought they should look at their own costs first when considering which option to pursue.

Wes Prater supported the solar hot water project, saying it fit well with the county’s existing weatherization program for low-income residents. He noted that the plumbers and pipefitters union Local 190 is interested in solar hot water systems, and has built a model in their training facility on Jackson Road. It was important to provide savings to the area’s residents who need it most, he said.

Ken Schwartz suggested that residents should provide the direction – if solar photovoltaic systems are more popular, then perhaps that should guide the county. Tony VanDerworp, who leads the county’s office of energy and economic development, pointed out that solar photovoltaic systems are more popular now because there are financial incentives to install them. It’s not clear how long those incentives will last. [The incentives are designed to help DTE reach its mandated Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires that utilities get 10% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2015.]

There was no clear concensus from the board – Barbara Bergman asked whether commissioners could email the staff with their thoughts. VanDerworp urged commissioners to provide feedback as soon as they can, and Lenart noted that the staff is under a fall deadline to submit its proposal to the U.S. Dept. of Energy, as part of the grant funding.