From left: AADL associate director Eli Neiburger, board president Prue Rosenthal, and board treasurer Jan Barney Newman.

On a 6-1 vote, the board asked the council to reject designating a portion of that city-owned site – which is adjacent to the downtown library – as a public park or plaza at this time. Nancy Kaplan cast the lone dissenting vote.

In presenting the resolution, Rebecca Head noted that the library hasn’t objected to the concept of open space at the Library Lane site, as part of overall development of that city-owned property. But the AADL board resolution states that the council resolution “does not allocate the City resources needed to create a successful park, such as physical maintenance, programming, and monitoring unsafe behavior; and … the City has not been able to allocate resources for those purposes to the nearby Liberty Plaza park, Wheeler park, Sculpture plaza on North 4th Ave., or the Kerrytown plaza. …”

Several trustees weighed in to support the resolution. Barbara Murphy said she was conflicted, because she supports having a park or plaza on the Library Lane site at some point. But the council resolution seemed to be putting the cart before the horse, she said. She pointed out that the AADL board resolution is not advocating for tall buildings – but some kind of development is needed, she said.

In dissenting, Kaplan described the long history of efforts to put a public park or plaza on the Library Lane site. She didn’t want to cut off that process. Kaplan also raised the point that the library board would be asking the council to reject a resolution without knowing the exact content of that resolution – because the council could amend the resolution during its deliberations later in the evening. [The council did make a significant amendment to the part of the resolution addressing the amount of square footage.]

Board president Prue Rosenthal told Kaplan that “I don’t think we’re trying to cut off anything.” All that the AADL is asking, Rosenthal said, is that issues should first be addressed – like how the park would be used, who’ll take care of it, how the security will be handled – “so that behavior we’ve seen around the outside of the [downtown library] building will not increase in that space and spill over into our library.”

AADL director Josie Parker attended the city council meeting, which started at the same time as the library board meeting but didn’t adjourn until 1 a.m. Parker read aloud the board’s resolution to the council, and described some of the challenges that the downtown library faces with security.

The downtown library was the focus of another part of the March 17 AADL board meeting, as trustees were updated on renovations to the front entrance. Ken Van Tine, an architect from InForm Studio, answered questions about possible design revisions since a March 13 public forum. InForm will be presenting a revised design to the board’s facilities committee, before the design is brought to the full board for approval.

Trustees also received results from an EPIC-MRA survey that the library had commissioned. About 500 respondents were surveyed in mid-February. Bernie Porn – president of the Lansing-based firm – described the outcome as “a great news poll, in terms of results, and I think you all should be very, very proud.” There are a couple areas of concern, he said, “but they’re not the kinds of things that can’t be overcome.”

The library previously did a survey in early 2012, in part to gauge public support for financing a new downtown library. The board later put a bond proposal on the November 2012 ballot to fund a new downtown building, but it failed to receive a majority of votes. Since 2012, the positive job rating for AADL has increased by 7 points – from 81% in 2012 to 88% in 2014. That’s a significant increase, Porn said. The 2014 survey also showed that only 3 in 10 respondents knew that AADL is “an independent governmental body” funded by its own separate tax assessment. This is one area of concern, Porn noted, adding that it’s certainly something that’s “solvable.”

The current survey results are expected to help guide development of the library’s next strategic plan, which will be completed later this year.

On March 17, the board also passed a resolution authorizing the library director to enter into a bike share program license agreement with the nonprofit Clean Energy Coalition. The CEC is managing the new program called ArborBike, which is launching this spring. It would include a bike station on AADL’s downtown library property on South Fifth Avenue, as well as locations at other sites in downtown Ann Arbor and on the University of Michigan campus. There will be about 14 bikes at the downtown AADL station on the north side of its property.

Library Lane Park

The Ann Arbor city council’s March 17 agenda included two resolutions related to the city-owned Library Lane site, where an underground parking structure is located just north of the downtown library on South Fifth Avenue. A new resolution directed the city administrator to take steps toward possibly selling the development rights for the top of the Library Lane structure. Another council resolution, proposed from its March 3, 2014 meeting, would designate a portion of the surface of the Library Lane underground parking structure in downtown Ann Arbor for an urban park that would remain publicly owned.

It was the second council resolution that prompted action from the AADL board on March 17.

Rebecca Head, chair of the board’s communications committee, reported that the committee had met with Ann Arbor city councilmembers and the mayor “to open up the communications pathway between the Ann Arbor District Library board and city officials.” Committee members are Head, Margaret Leary and Prue Rosenthal.

Head said that each councilmember was asked about their vision for downtown development and for the future of the city-owned Library Lane surface. At the end of those meetings, she said, the committee drafted a resolution in response to the city council resolution that focuses on the Library Lane lot. [.pdf of AADL resolution] [.pdf of council resolution at the start of its March 17 council meeting]

Head introduced the resolution from the floor – it had not been included with the original board packet. [At the March 17 council meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) complained that he'd met with AADL board members, but that they had not indicated that they were contemplating passing a resolution.]

The resolved clause states:

That the AADL Board asks the Council to reject the Resolution until the entire site at 319 South Fifth Avenue receives a complete review by experts in zoning, land use, economic development, and others who can determine the highest and best use of the property; ensure the safety and security of AADL patrons; and consult with the owners and occupants of surrounding properties, downtown business owners, and other stakeholders Council may identify.

Library Lane Park: Board Discussion

Jan Barney Newman thought the resolution stated the board’s feelings very clearly and accurately regarding the aspects of development needed on that site for the safe, intelligent and productive use of the space. She supported the resolution.

AADL trustees Ed Surovell and Rebecca Head.

Barbara Murphy said she found herself somewhat conflicted, because she strongly supports the concept of some sort of open space there. But in some ways, she said, the cart is being put before the horse. The council resolution talks about creating a park there of a certain size without addressing the various issues of how it will be handled financially or in terms of security, she noted. Further, the council resolution makes a suggestion that the library be part of programming the site, she said, but there’s been no consultation about that.

Murphy supported the AADL resolution, but hoped that the council would take it in the spirit in which it’s intended – that the board is cautious about the council moving too quickly and approving something without full details.

Margaret Leary said the communications committee drafted the resolution very carefully. “We didn’t want to overstate AADL’s position,” she said. AADL never objected to the plans from 2007-2008 that showed a plaza on that site, Leary noted. The library board also reviewed the report that the city’s park advisory committee had passed in the fall of 2013 – which called for a plaza at Library Lane – and trustees didn’t object to that.

The intent when the Library Lane parking structure was built was to create a plaza in conjunction with development on that site, Leary said. The city went to the trouble of rezoning that property as D1 – rather than public land – so that a very large, tall building could be put there, she noted. The idea was to surround the plaza with buildings that would be filled with people as much of the day and night as possible, seven days a week, in order to activate the park or plaza. The park would be activated by the presence of the buildings, she said.

The second important piece of that approach is that the city wouldn’t have to pay for the park or maintain it, Leary said. The developer and owner of the buildings surrounding the park or plaza would see the advantage of having it, and it would be sized appropriately for the number of people who might use it. There would be activities planned on it “so that it would not become a lounging area for people who had no place else to go,” Leary said. Her hope is that the site will be developed as originally planned, and that it won’t be an expense for the city at all.

Murphy responded, pointing out that the AADL resolution doesn’t mention tall buildings or indicate support for that. Murphy said she agreed with Leary that the plaza or park should be activated by something, but not necessarily by tall buildings.

The Library Lane parking deck is highlighted in yellow. The name “Library Lane” is based only on the proximity of the structure to the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The library does not own the structure or the mid-block cut-through. (Base image from Washtenaw County and City of Ann Arbor GIS services.)

Nancy Kaplan said this resolution had caused her to do some homework. She noted that the proposal for a park or plaza on the Library Lane site has been on the city’s agenda for a long time. She pointed to a 1991 Luckenbach/Ziegelman report that looked at development of the entire block. [.pdf of Luckenbach/Ziegelman report] The report includes a concept drawing for a park or plaza on South Fifth Avenue, in addition to Liberty Plaza at Liberty and Division, she noted. Kaplan read from the report, which stated that a park or public open space should be developed on the South Fifth Avenue side: “Downtown is almost totally devoid of grass. There is no grass to sit on or eat lunch. No grass for young children to play on. No grass to provide a welcome change of ground plane from the concrete, brick and asphalt of downtown.”

Kaplan said she gives this report a lot of credibility because the authors included Carl Luckenbach, the architect who designed the AADL’s Malletts Creek branch as well as initial plans for a new downtown library. He was also the architect for the Library Lane underground parking structure, she noted.

The city’s park advisory commission report is another factor, Kaplan said. PAC’s report came about after the Connecting William Street study, when the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority stated that they “don’t do parks,” Kaplan said. So the city council asked PAC to study the issue. Kaplan said PAC’s process was very good, and included meeting with specific groups as well as the general public. PAC also did a survey, she said.

PAC’s recommendations state that “any new downtown park or open space should prioritize community preferences,” Kaplan noted. She read from the PAC report: “The Library Lot is large in size and has a central location that was ranked highest by survey and public meeting participants alike for potential park space.” She said PAC acknowledged that programming and maintenance would be needed.

Finally, Kaplan pointed out that the AADL board isn’t at the city council meeting, “so we do not know precisely what will be proposed, how it will be modified, whether it will be voted up or down or postponed.” There are two council resolutions that are on the agenda that night, she noted – to designate an urban park location, and to use a broker to sell the property. The library board doesn’t know how deed restrictions or premiums might be used to get commitments that would benefit both the park and the developer, she said.

Those people who support a park on the site want it to be successful and safe, Kaplan said. “I think it is not necessary to cut off all that has been done to study the Library Lot.” Rather, the process should continue with participation from all the property owners and the community, she said. Kaplan concluded by saying she wouldn’t support the resolution.

Prue Rosenthal responded, saying “I don’t think we’re trying to cut off anything.” All that the AADL is asking, she said, is that issues should first be addressed – like how the park would be used, who’ll take care of it, how the security will be handled “so that behavior we’ve seen around the outside of the [downtown library] building will not increase in that space and spill over into our library.” Rosenthal thought the council resolution actually cuts off the possibility of making the most out of that site.

From left: AADL trustees Margaret Leary and Nancy Kaplan.

Kaplan said the council resolution merely designates the space as a park. The community has supported that, she said – even architects and engineers. She noted that the resolution being brought forward by councilmember Stephen Kunselman would direct the city administrator to hire a broker to start the process of developing that site.

Head told Kaplan that she appreciated the history Kaplan had highlighted – “in particular the report from 23 years ago, though I have to say that a lot has changed in Ann Arbor in 23 years, including the use of Liberty Plaza.” Head was very concerned about what happens in Liberty Plaza, saying she knows it’s not a sustainable park. The whole point of the AADL resolution is that “we are for parks,” Head said. Although it’s the city council’s business, “it has a huge effect on the downtown library.” So the AADL resolution asks that the city do its homework first, she said, “and then let’s have a park – that would be great.”

If there’s a park at the Library Lane site, Head said she wanted it to last. “I don’t want it to be a park that isn’t used, that has problems, that is not sustainable. I want a sustainable park that we can all use.”

Murphy said Kaplan had brought up an interesting point about the uncertainty of the council’s action – because it’s not clear what the council resolution will ultimately be. She wondered if the AADL resolution should be amended, asking the council to exercise extreme caution in moving forward until the entire site receives a complete review. That might be a way of letting the council know how concerned the library board is, without opposing a specific council resolution, she said.

Newman noted that the council resolution called for a park along the entire western edge of the Library Lane site, along South Fifth Avenue. She said she’s read opinions from planners and architects who say that would be a detriment to any other development on the site.

In fact, the council resolution was amended later in the evening on March 17. Council deliberations highlighted the question of whether the public area would take up the entire Fifth Avenue frontage. The idea of a cantilevered building over the northwest corner of the site was championed by Kunselman as one approach. The city council’s key resolved clause, as adopted at the Mach 17 states:

Resolved, That City Council approve the reservation of the site for an urban public park of between approximately 6,500 and 12,000 square feet on the surface of the Library Lane Structure bounded by the Fifth Avenue sidewalk on the west, the Library Lane Street curb to the south, the western entry to the central elevator to the east, with the northern boundary to be determined at a future date;

Newman said the mayor had made a very interesting proposal of connected green areas on city properties, “which would give a lot of opportunity for gathering and meeting in a public grassy area in a number of locations,” she said. [Mayor John Hieftje made that presentation at the council's March 3, 2014 meeting.] As long as those proposals are being considered, Newman added, it’s really premature to designate the Library Lane site as a park. The library is interested in careful planning of a permanent public space.

At this point, Leary called the question – a procedural move to end debate and force a vote.

Outcome: On a 6-1 vote, the board passed a resolution opposing the city council resolution about designating a portion of the Library Lane site as a park. Nancy Kaplan dissented.

Library Lane Park: City Council Action

Later in the evening, the council did amend its resolution during a lengthy and sometimes heated debate.

AADL director Josie Parker before the start of the March 17, 2014 city council meeting.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) brought forward an amendment to the first resolved clause, describing the site as a public space, publicly owned, of at least 6,500 square feet, with the northern boundary to be determined at a future time. The original resolution, developed by Jack Eaton (Ward 4) in collaboration with the Library Green Conservancy, had designated 12,000 square feet as the size, running across the entire western edge of the Library Lane site, along South Fifth Avenue.

The council’s discussion included remarks by AADL director Josie Parker, who attended the council meeting and was called upon by mayor and other councilmembers to comment. She read aloud the AADL board’s resolution.

In her initial remarks to the council, made at the invitation of mayor John Hieftje during the council’s deliberations, Parker described the current challenges faced by the library in managing its space. She rejected the idea of labeling the problem as one related to the homeless.

And I would just like to point out to all of us here tonight that the public library in Ann Arbor is actually the only public building in the community that is a park within walls. All of the conditions that exist in a public space outside every day exist every day inside the public library.

It takes a lot of money to manage that space in such a way so that everyone there is comfortable, everyone there is safe. And it isn’t about a label. You have not heard me use a word used here tonight multiple times by many of you. You’ve never heard me use that word in expressing concern of the public library board about the existence of a public park next to the public library.

It’s about behavior. Any group that tilts the balance of a public space out of proportion to anyone else in that space can cause a disruption and discomfort. A teenager. A lot of crying babies. Anyone. It is not about a condition. I will say to you this evening, because I’m compelled, some of the most obnoxious behavior exhibited at the public library in Ann Arbor is done by persons who are very well housed, very well fed, and very well educated. It is not about those things. It is just about simply behavior.

Later during the council’s March 17 meeting, Parker was asked again to take the podium by Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5). In her second set of remarks, Parker was more explicit about some of the worst behavior: heroin use. She cited security concerns, and pointed out that the police are already called to the downtown library every three days or so. “We manage it, and you don’t know about it, and that makes it successful,” Parker told the council.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had characterized the AADL board’s position as “fear mongering,” and Parker’s remarks in part responded to that characterization:

There have been five heroin ODs in the public library in the three and half years – the last one in the last five months. This is your public library. Your downtown public library. This is not fear mongering. This is real. … It isn’t about adding a problem, it isn’t about making a problem worse. It’s about acknowledging reality. It’s just a reality.

Most of the issues currently in the public library are drunk and disorderly. … Right now, it’s probably every day that someone is removed from the library by the police department for drunk and disorderly, almost every day. This is your downtown public library. …

We’re not saying “no park.” We’re saying take the time to plan it properly in the context of what is truly occurring downtown. … You have heroin in your community and no one wants to talk about it. It’s being sold in the public library, it’s being used in the public library. And people are being taken out unconscious OD’d in the public library. … We are asking you to think about this again. We are asking you to make sure you have the funds to manage what you’re planning, so it is a success.

I think a park with playground equipment and fountains for the little children who come in and out of the library sounds wonderful. I can’t imagine my child playing in a playground with needles on the ground. Unless someone is cleaning them up every morning, the way they do in Liberty Plaza, that’s what will be there. … We’re asking you to plan the same way, so that if a plaza or park is near the public library, it’s successful.

After about 2.5 hours of discussion, the council voted 7-3 to pass the urban park resolution as amended. Dissenting were mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4). Sally Petersen (Ward 2) was absent.

The council also passed the resolution directing the city administrator to obtain brokerage services and to list the surface of the Library Lane deck for sale. A key “whereas” clause and two of the “resolved” clauses read as follows:

Whereas, Developing the public space at the same time the site is developed will provide for increased activity, safety, and security; limit nuisance behavior at this public space; provide potential funding for public space features and programming; and have a responsible private entity for ongoing maintenance and
…
Resolved, That the City will seek, as conditions for development rights at a minimum, public open space, private maintenance of the public space, and pedestrian access to the public space as features of any private development;

Resolved, That implementation of the conditions for development rights will be determined by City Council through selection of the purchase offer that best responds to mixed-use, density, integration with surrounding uses, and public space and through the City’s established site plan procedures and policies;

The phrase “public space” sometimes is meant to include publicly-accessible, but privately-owned space. Kunselman responded to an emailed query about his intended interpretation of “public space” by writing: “It’s meant to give the broadest interpretation so as to solicit the widest range of interest by prospective purchasers.”

A report on deliberations at the council meeting is included in The Chronicle’s live updates from city hall during the March 17 meeting.

Downtown Library Entrance

The AADL administration and board have been seriously discussing renovations to the downtown library’s front entrance since the summer of 2013, prompted by concerns about the poor condition of the entrance doors. The board’s facilities committee – Margaret Leary, Jan Barney Newman and Ed Surovell – have been taking the lead from the board’s perspective.

Revised design for a sign on the renovated entrance to the downtown AADL building. (Image from InForm Studio.)

At its Feb. 19, 2014 meeting, the full board was briefed about initial concept designs for the entrance. The project’s architect is InForm Studio, the architecture firm that previously designed AADL’s Traverwood branch.

The entrance would continue to be oriented to South Fifth Avenue, with new doors into the building. The initial plans called for replacing the existing strip of teal panels that wrap around the front of the building – above the doors and windows – with a “concrete skin” panel. Wood paneling would be used in the ceiling of the outside walkway adjacent to the building. Sloping entry walkways would be located on the north side from the Library Lane parking structure and on the south side from William Street, with steps in front leading to South Fifth Avenue. Additional elements include landscaping, a bench, handrails and other features that visually link the library to the adjacent city-owned Library Lane.

One of the most dramatic elements of the original design was a large, translucent sign – made of glass or cast resin – that would be placed between existing brick columns on the north side of the front facade, closest to Library Lane. The idea was for the sign to be lit from the inside, with additional lighting along the walkway, to create a glowing effect. Some board members expressed concerns about that sign and the potential to create security problems, since it would screen a portion of the walkway.

Subsequently, a public forum was held on March 13 to get feedback. At that meeting, new versions of the design were presented that changed the size and location of the sign. Other revisions were made to the front steps and the color of the horizontal strip on the front facade.

Downtown Library Entrance: Facilities Committee Report

At the board’s March 17 meeting, Margaret Leary, chair of the facilities committee, said she wanted to address an issue that was raised during the March 13 public forum to get input on the proposed renovations to the front entrance. Some people had advocated to move the front entrance from the building’s west side, facing South Fifth Avenue, to the north side, facing Library Lane. She said she had previously reported to the board about the facilities committee’s deliberations on that issue. From The Chronicle’s report of the Feb. 17, 2014 meeting:

The first thing that InForm was asked to do, Leary said, was to look at whether the entry should remain at its current orientation, facing South Fifth Avenue on the west, or be moved to the north of the building, facing the Library Lane underground parking structure. Leary noted that a north entrance would have been used if the library had built a new building.

But when the committee considered the consequences of moving the entrance now, in terms of the amount of usable space on the first floor, they decided against it. It would have taken all the space used by the existing teen room, she said, and the entire first floor would have been reorganized, as well as possibly some things in the basement and other floors.

People at the March 13 forum had asked about that decision, Leary noted, so she wanted to expand on the rationale for it. The idea of orienting the entrance to the north first emerged during the city’s planning for the adjacent Library Lane underground parking structure and discussion of the potential development on top of that structure, she said. That discussion was in conjunction with talks about how a potential new AADL building might mesh with whatever might be developed on the Library Lane site. Neither of those two possibilities – a new AADL building, or new buildings on top of the Library Lane structure – appear imminent, Leary said, so the reason for orienting the library’s entrance to the north no longer exists.

Will Hathaway, a member of the Library Green Conservancy, addressed the AADL board at a March 13, 2014 public forum about the downtown library front entrance. He asked the board to consider re-orienting the entrance to the north side, facing Library Lane.

Despite these circumstances, Leary continued, the AADL asked InForm Studio last fall to look at the possibility of moving the entrance to the building’s north side. The facilities committee learned that it would not be easy or inexpensive, she said. There are grade changes running in two directions on the site, she explained – from north to south, and east to west. That means that a new entrance on the north side, in order to be accessible, would require using much of the interior of the building on that side, where the teen room is now located. It would require complex structural changes instead of cosmetic changes to the west side.

In addition, putting the entrance to the north would require moving the teen room, Leary said, which would add to the cost and perhaps create a “cascading effect of moves” of other operations within the first floor and possibly the basement.

Leary also pointed out that installing a new entrance to the north would result in a disruption of operations for a significant period. The overall cost of undertaking this project would run into the millions, she said. This is based on AADL’s experience with earlier renovations and with cost estimates obtained in 2010 and 2011 for renovating the building. That compares to an estimated cost of a few hundred thousand dollars for the west entrance renovations, she said.

More importantly, Leary said, renovating the existing entrance will better serve AADL’s current patrons, who arrive from the north, south and west in about equal numbers. Putting the entrance on the north would effectively hide it from patrons arriving from the south or coming from the University of Michigan along William, she said. The improvements to the current entrance will also improve accessibility from the north, Leary said.

The current orientation to the west is appropriate for the library and for adjacent sites, Leary concluded. “An entrance on the north would be both expensive and impractical.”

Downtown Library Entrance: Revised Design

Ken Van Tine, one of the principals from InForm Studio, attended the March 17 meeting to answer questions about the updated version of the design.

Ken Van Tine of InForm Studio.

Barbara Murphy noted that the board had received several communications about the front entrance. One that struck her in particular was from a2modern, a group created to highlight mid-century modern architecture in Ann Arbor. Members of a2modern feel that any changes to the front will destroy Alden Dow’s original design concept. Her personal view, Murphy said, is that by making two large additions and various other changes over the years, “the building is not what it once was, and it doesn’t have any particular historic value.” She was curious about Van Tine’s opinion on that issue.

Van Tine replied that he had a lot of respect for Alden Dow. Dow was very innovative and progressive for his time, and was always on the forefront of architecture. “Do I think he’d want to stay set in his ways? No, I don’t think he really would,” Van Tine said.

The porcelain panels on the front facade probably aren’t what Dow would have selected if he’d had his choice, Van Tine said. Dow typically used copper, so the selection of porcelain was probably a budget issue – that was Van Tine’s speculation.

The a2modern members had also raised concerns about changing the color of those panels. Van Tine said keeping the same color would be fine. Rebecca Head said her understanding is that the colors have changed significantly over the years – the original color was teal, she said, and now it’s turquoise. Van Tine noted that exposure to the sun plays a big role in changing colors and fading.

Nancy Kaplan reported that Doug Kelbaugh – an architect and professor at the University of Michigan College of Architecture and Urban Planning – had also spoken at the March 13 forum and had been in favor of keeping the teal porcelain panels. Prue Rosenthal disputed Kaplan’s characterization of Kelbaugh’s remarks, saying it wasn’t about keeping those specific panels. Rather, she said, he objected to the possibility that a new sign would cover part of the panels.

The Chronicle attended the March 13 forum. Here’s what Kelbaugh had to say:

I think this design has a lot of very nice nuances and subtle details that really do enhance the entrance. Speaking to this question of respecting and honoring Alden Dow’s initial intentions and his design, I think people are right to say that this horizontal band is important. I think it’s a distinguishing feature. So I actually don’t think it’s a good idea to put the sign on it, to be honest with you. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s possible to replace the enamel panels in a color that would exactly match. It’s a very tricky technology and I think that to get it to match, particularly as it’s weathered so long, would be difficult. So I think maybe the whole band would have to be done, either in an enamel or some other sympathetic material. So I agree with that.

I too was worried … about the translucent panel blocking and making the ramp up a little too hidden from public view, and I’m wondering if that could be solved simply by making it transparent rather than translucent. Above eye level it could be translucent with a sign, and it could either bleed slowly into transparency or at a line. I think it’s possible to have the original glass pylon in a way that doesn’t interrupt the horizontal band, that is a nice feature without making it a security risk at all.

I think the bench is beautifully designed and the ramp to the south is very elegant as well. I’m wondering if the little triangular piece of grass sticking out … is going to get trampled to death. A lot of people are going to want to turn that corner to go down Library Lane. I would consider pulling that back, which makes the ramp more accessible to everybody, not just people who are physically challenged. I think it’s going to be tough to maintain. I think all of these issues could be addressed and I applaud the library for going ahead.

As for an entrance on the north side, it would be wonderful. I think that awaits a bigger renovation. This is pretty cosmetic. There probably should ultimately be an entrance on the north, but I think at this point it would be premature. It’s quite possible that the future will hold opportunities to make a really good entrance on the north, rather than a sort of compromise one.

At the March 17 AADL board meeting, Kaplan wondered if InForm had revised its design based on suggestions made at the March 13 public forum, especially regarding rails and signs in Braille. Would the board be seeing another iteration?

Margaret Leary responded, saying that the facilities committee had discussed the major items from that forum. The committee has asked AADL director Josie Parker to talk with the architects about three things in particular: (1) the addition of a second handrail; (2) signs; and (3) the front bench. The architects haven’t been specifically been asked to do anything yet, Leary said.

Van Tine said he’s aware of some of the issues but there aren’t any new designs yet. “What we’ve done so far is very conceptual,” he added. “There’s nothing written in stone.” Everything is very flexible at this point.

Murphy asked about maintaining access during construction. Would the current front entrance remain open? Van Tine replied that they’d likely close off half of the entrance, but the other half would remain open.

In terms of process, Leary said that InForm will develop a new plan after talking with Parker, and that plan will be reviewed by the facilities committee before coming to the board for approval.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

EPIC-MRA Survey Results

Bernie Porn, president of EPIC-MRA, gave a presentation to the board about results from a recent survey conducted for the library.

Bernie Porn, president of EPIC-MRA.

By way of background, at its Jan. 20, 2014 meeting, the board had approved a budget adjustment of $25,000 for a satisfaction survey of 500-600 library district residents, to be conducted by Lansing-based EPIC-MRA.

The library previously did a survey in early 2012, in part to gauge public support for financing a new downtown library. The board later put a bond proposal on the November 2012 ballot to fund a new downtown building, but it failed to receive a majority of votes.

In general, the new survey measured the public’s recognition of AADL’s products and services, the regard for AADL as a public institution in the region, and the avenues by which people obtain information about the library. Results will help inform the library’s next long-term strategic plan. The current strategic plan runs through 2015.

In presenting the summary on March 17, Porn described it as “a great news poll, in terms of results, and I think you all should be very, very proud.” There are a couple areas of concern, he added, “but they’re not the kinds of things that can’t be overcome.” [.pdf of 2014 survey results] [.pdf of 2014 results compared to 2012]

The 500-sample survey was conducted between Feb. 9-15. The process involved randomly selecting commercially listed telephone numbers as well as cell phone numbers, stratified so that each area of the district in terms of population was reflected in the sample. It’s a plus-or-minus 4.4 error rate, with a 95% confidence level. Participants were adult residents of the Ann Arbor Public Schools district, which has the same boundaries as AADL. Porn noted that the survey didn’t screen for registered voters. Of all respondents, 63% were residents of Ann Arbor, 20% were residents of Pittsfield Township, and 17% were residents of all other parts of the district.

Key survey findings include:

• Since 2012, the positive job rating for AADL providing library services increased by 7 points – from 81% in 2012 to 88% in 2014. That’s a significant increase, Porn said.
• There was a 17 point increase in the percentage of households that use AADL facilities/programs – from 61% in 2012 to 78% in 2014.
• Only 3 in 10 respondents knew that AADL is “an independent governmental body” funded by its own separate tax assessment. This is one area of concern, Porn noted, but it’s certainly something that’s solvable.
• Only 2 in 10 households had no members who use any AADL facilities or services.
• Nearly half of households with no members who used AADL said the top reason for not using it was “having the Internet at home” or “getting everything they need online.”
• Top AADL services used were: book loans (35%); DVD-video (13%); and Internet access (6%).
• Less that 3 in 10 knew that AADL subscribes to databases and online services like Brainfuse Homework Help, Ancestry.com and Reference USA Business Databases.
• More than 6 in 10 were aware of the events, exhibits and classes described to them. Among those who were aware, 3 in 4 said one or more household members attended such events or activities, and 58% offered the highest satisfaction rating.
• The best ways respondents said to communicate with them is e-mail, the AADL website, direct mail and newspapers.
• 12% said the “library” is a local government service that provides the most value for taxes paid, with “school-education” (20%) and “police-public safety” (13%) scoring higher.
• With the growth of computers and the Internet, 52% said libraries are about the same importance as before, 35% said libraries are more important, with 13% saying less important.

Porn’s presentation, which lasted about 45 minutes, reviewed these and other results in more detail, including a demographic breakdown of responses. [.pdf of EPIC-MRA presentation]

When respondents were asked about the level of taxes for all government services – a standard question in all surveys, Porn said – 29% said that taxes were too high, while 57% said taxes were “about right” and 6% indicated taxes were “too low.” He said that when “too high” responses are over 30%, it indicates that taxpayers are less persuadable for a tax increase. Taxpayers are most receptive when responses are in the teens or low-20s, he said. Tax proposals are very difficult to pass when percentages of “too high” responses are in the 40% range or higher.

Barbara Murphy said she was “flabbergasted” by the number of respondents who said taxes were about right or too low. “That’s not who comments in the newspaper,” she said.

Porn then showed responses about the level of taxes specifically for AADL. Of respondents, 16% indicated that taxes were too high for AADL, compared to 67% who said taxes were about right and 11% who said taxes for AADL were too low. “People see value clearly from the taxes they pay for their library,” he said.

Porn showed demographic breakdown for respondents who said that taxes for AADL were too high. Highlights included: 26% were age 50 or older with no college education; 35% said they didn’t use libraries or used libraries other than AADL; 37% thought taxes were too high in general for local government/schools; 22% thought AADL was part of city government, used the library few times a year, or have incomes over $100,000.

“You can target these groups and provide educational information that may help them feel less negative toward taxes,” Porn said. He added that those weren’t really negative numbers.

EPIC-MRA chart of recent survey results for a question about AADL taxes.

Porn reviewed how respondents thought AADL was funded: 30% knew that AADL was an independent governmental body with its own separate property tax assessment. But 23% thought AADL was a division of Ann Arbor city government and paid for from tax revenue received by the city, and 12% thought it was part of the Ann Arbor public schools and funded from tax dollars allocated to the local school operating budget.

“The problem that you run into because of this uncertainty is that when you do have a situation in the future … when you’re looking at renewing taxes or increasing taxes for services, if people feel that you’re competing with other levels of government and not an entity unto yourself, that can cause them to think that a vote for the library is taking something away from these other people that they inaccurately believe are a source of your funding,” Porn said. “That is probably the one thing in the survey that you need to address – and I think it can be addressed with branding and information that your communications folks can put together.”

By way of background, in 1994, Proposal A changed the state law so that public school systems could no longer operate public libraries using the school millage. When that happened, the Ann Arbor Public Schools and city of Ann Arbor moved to form the Ann Arbor District Library as a separate entity. In 1995, voters approved the establishment of the AADL with an independent governing board. At the same time, voters authorized a 2.0 mill tax in perpetuity to operate the library system – the millage does not require renewal. Due to the state’s Headlee Amendment, that 2.0 mills has been rolled back over the years to about 1.92 mills, which is now the maximum amount that AADL can levy each year. However, the library currently levies only a portion of that amount – 1.55 mills. The millage rate is authorized each year as part of the library’s budget cycle. The AADL did seek a separate 30-year millage in 2012 as part of a bond proposal to build a new downtown library. A majority of voters rejected that initiative.

Ed Surovell wondered if there was any correlation between home ownership and the understanding about how AADL is funded. Porn replied that the survey didn’t ask whether respondents were renters or homeowners. Porn said he’d be in favor of asking that question in future surveys.

Margaret Leary noted that last fall, the city of Ann Arbor had paid for a survey by an outside agency that does surveys nationwide for municipalities. It provided comparative information to other cities. [National Citizens Survey was conducted for the city in the fall of 2013 by mailing a questionnaire to a random sample of 3,000 city residents, 778 of whom completed surveys. .pdf of draft Ann Arbor National Citizens Survey report and .pdf of responses, benchmarks, methodology and questionnaire]

Porn described that type of survey as, to a large extent, a “cookie cutter survey that does not give a great deal of customization.” Leary said she understood that, but in exchange you get comparative data.

Leary asked how Porn would compare the accuracy and validity of surveys like the National Citizens Survey and the EPIC-MRA survey to a SurveyMonkey survey with self-selected respondents that didn’t monitor how many times any individual could respond, and that didn’t let the entire community know about it.

Porn replied that self-selection leads to the same phenomenon as people who write to their legislators – people who are passionate about a particular issue, either for or against it.

Leary asked a more pointed question: Can you make public policy based on a SurveyMonkey survey? Porn indicated that it was not a good idea to do that.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Bike Share Agreement

On the March 17 agenda was a resolution authorizing the library director to enter into a bike share program license agreement with the nonprofit Clean Energy Coalition. [.pdf of bike share agreement]

The CEC is managing a new bike share program called ArborBike, which is launching this spring. It would include a bike station on AADL’s downtown library property on South Fifth Avenue, as well as locations at other sites in downtown Ann Arbor and on the University of Michigan campus. There will be about 14 bikes at the downtown AADL station on the north side of its property.

The AADL board had been briefed on the program at their Aug. 19, 2013 meeting, and received an update about the agreement on Feb. 17, 2014. The library has been waiting for the University of Michigan to finalize its agreement with the CEC, before moving forward with an agreement that would require board approval.

Margaret Leary, chair of the board’s facilities committee, reported that the committee had met earlier in the day and supported the agreement. The library’s attorney has reviewed the agreement and has stated that it is fair and protects the library from liability issues, she said. The agreement also has adequate provisions for the library to get out of it if necessary, Leary noted. The bike share program seems like a good use of the downtown facility, she concluded. She added that the library’s own bike racks might be moved, but won’t be eliminated.

Rebecca Head said she’s thrilled that this is happening. UM has already signed an agreement, she noted, “and when the university feels that liability issues are taken care of, I think the Ann Arbor District Library can also feel like the liability issues have been taken care of.”

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the bike share agreement.

Committee Reports

The board has seven committees: communications, budget and finance, facilities, policy, director’s evaluation, executive, and strategic plan. Because membership on each committee consists of only three trustees, which is less than a quorum of the board, the meetings are not required to be open to the public under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. The board has the option of making its committee meetings open to the public, but has chosen not to do so.

On March 17, three committee reports were given – facilities, strategic plan, and communications. The facilities and communications reports are included in other sections of this article.

Committee Reports: Strategic Plan

Nancy Kaplan, chair of the strategic plan committee, reported that the committee met on Feb. 25. Other committee members are Rebecca Head and Barbara Murphy. They discussed the history of AADL’s strategic initiatives, and the process of developing an updated strategic plan. The current strategic plan runs through 2015.

She quoted from the introduction to the 2004-2010 strategic plan, which describes it as “a guide that helps inform decisions and focus energy. It does not supercede current policies or any laws governing district library practices. It is a flexible, living document that will be visible and updated annually.”

With that in mind, Kaplan said, the committee decided to keep the current strategic initiatives. Each initiative includes goals and projects, so those will be updated with input from staff and a citizens survey, she said. The committee’s next meeting is on April 21. The committee’s charge is to finish its work by December, she noted, “and we plan to do that.”

Library Stats

Each month, the board is provided with library statistics in five categories: Collections, users, visits, usage and participation. The data is compared to year-ago figures, when available.

AADL collections data: February 2014.

AADL users data: February 2014.

AADL visits data: February 2014.

AADL usage data: February 2014.

AADL participation data: February 2014.

Financial Report

Ken Nieman – the library’s associate director of finance, HR and operations – gave a brief report on the February 2014 financial statements. [.pdf of financial report]

Through Feb. 28, the library has received 97.6% of its budgeted tax receipts. The library had $11.9 million in unrestricted cash at the end of February, with a fund balance of $8.44 million.

Three line items – purchased services, software, and copier expenses – are over budget, but are expected to come back in line by the end of AADL’s fiscal year on June 30, according to Nieman.

Nieman also noted that during February, the library received $40,000 from the nonprofit Friends of the AADL, which raises money primarily by operating a used bookshop in the basement of the downtown library.

Board discussion was brief. Margaret Leary said she wanted to underscore the generosity of FAADL. Every year, the group gives the library at least $100,000 in total, she noted. Rebecca Head agreed, saying that the board is very appreciative. Jan Barney Newman praised FAADL’s work at marketing and operating the bookshop.

Zach Steindler.

Public Commentary

Only one person spoke during public commentary on March 17. Zach Steindler told the board he was a resident of Ann Arbor, and he thanked the library for providing such excellent service.

He said he was a small business owner, and he knows that their work is often a very thankless job. [Steindler is co-founder of Olark.com.]

Steindler said he uses AADL about 4-5 times a month. “I might not be the most frequent user, but I think it’s pretty great,” he said.

Present: Rebecca Head, Nancy Kaplan, Margaret Leary, Barbara Murphy, Jan Barney Newman, Prue Rosenthal, Ed Surovell.

Next regular meeting: Monday, April 21, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the fourth-floor conference room of the downtown library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor District Library board. Check out 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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Park Fee Waiver for Charities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Park Fee Waiver for Charities: Commission Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Park Fee Waiver for Charities: Public Commentary

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

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

Land Acquisition Annual Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karen Levin, an Ann Arbor park advisory commissioner.

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Survey Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Officer Elections

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

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

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Manager’s Report

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

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary: Recreation Advisory Commission

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

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary: Dog Park

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

Communications & Commentary: Downtown Park

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alan Haber takes notes on a draft survey about downtown parks. He was attending the May 28 meeting of a subcommittee of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission, which is putting together a survey that will be released in June. The subcommittee will be making recommendations regarding downtown parks and open space. (Photos by the writer.)

In a variety of ways, the survey attempts to gauge interest in downtown parks and open space, and to identify the types of activities and features that people might want, such as playgrounds or performance space. The survey also includes questions about assessing the existing downtown parks, including the farmers market, Liberty Plaza at Liberty & Division, and Sculpture Plaza at Fourth & Catherine.

This subcommittee of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission has been meeting regularly since early February. Their work relates in part to a request that mayor John Hieftje made last summer. It’s also meant to supplement the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street project. For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Parks Group To Weigh In On Downtown Need,” and “Committee Starts Downtown Parks Research,” as well as coverage included in the PAC meeting reports for March 19, 2013 and May 21, 2013.

Several leaders of the Library Green Conservancy attended the May 28 meeting, and gave input on the survey throughout the discussion. The conservancy previously has criticized a survey conducted by the DDA as part of Connecting William Street, saying that the DDA survey did not give respondents the option of supporting downtown parks and open space.

Based on feedback at the May 28 meeting, parks staff will revise the survey for final review at the subcommittee’s June 11 meeting. The intent is to launch the survey soon after that meeting. The goal is to incorporate survey results as recommendations are developed for downtown parks/open spaces, which will likely be delivered to the city council in August.

Downtown Parks Survey

During the May 28 meeting, the subcommittee worked on an 18-question draft survey that had been developed by the city’s parks & recreation staff. [.pdf of draft survey, prior to revisions made on May 28]

In addition to general questions about the respondent’s relationship to downtown Ann Arbor and demographic information, the survey attempts – in a variety of ways – to gauge interest in parks and open space. It also tries to identify the types of activities that people want in a downtown park or open space. The survey also includes questions about assessing the existing downtown parks, including the farmers market, Liberty Plaza at Liberty & Division, and Sculpture Plaza at Fourth & Catherine. Most of the questions have options for open-ended responses.

A sampling of the draft survey questions:

• How important are downtown parks/open spaces to you?
• Do you think Ann Arbor needs more downtown parks/open spaces?
• If more downtown parks/open spaces were added, do you think downtown would be better served by a large or small park/open space?
• What activities are most important to you in a downtown park/open space?
• What features are most important to you in a downtown park/open space?
• Should the city of Ann Arbor consider alternative funding sources for the maintenance and programming of downtown parks/open spaces?
• Should Ann Arbor focus more attention and resources on the existing downtown parks, including Liberty Plaza, Sculpture Plaza, and the farmers market – instead of creating new downtown parks/open spaces?
• Looking at the downtown’s existing parks, what do you like/dislike?
• Ann Arbor has many downtown street festivals and outdoor programming. Do you think these activities serve as temporary parks/open spaces?

The draft survey also asked about ideas for temporary parks/open spaces. The idea of “pop-up parks” has been mentioned at previous subcommittee meetings, as something that’s worked well in other cities. The nonprofit Project for Public Spaces has worked on this concept under the framework of “lighter, faster, cheaper” – developing engaging, temporary public places.

The draft survey also includes a map of the five city-owned properties that were examined as part of the Connecting William Street study, and asks respondents to rank the properties in terms of desirability for a downtown park or open space. Those sites are: (1) the Kline lot (on the east side of Ashley, north of William), (2) the lot next to Palio restaurant (northeast corner of Main & William), (3) the ground floor of the Fourth & William parking structure, (4) the former YMCA lot (on William between Fourth and Fifth), and (5) the top of the Library Lane underground parking garage on South Fifth, north of the downtown library.

The five city-owned sites that were the focus of the Connecting William Street project are indicated in blue.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks & recreation manager, told the subcommittee that the survey had been drafted with the mission of the subcommittee in mind. That mission is:

To determine whether and what additional parks are wanted and/or needed in downtown Ann Arbor, focusing on city-owned parcels in the DDA district while maintaining awareness of additional nearby properties, for example: Liberty Plaza, 721 N. Main and 415 W. Washington. The “deliverable” will be a set of recommendations for the City Council.

David Rohr, the city’s park planning assistant, said the staff tried not to ask leading questions, and to make the survey overall as fair and balanced as possible.

The subcommittee reviewed the draft survey item-by-item. Themes of the discussion included ensuring that the survey questions were clear, eliminating terms that might be considered jargon and giving examples, where appropriate.

From left: Ann Arbor park advisory commissioner Alan Jackson and David Rohr, a park planning assistant.

Smith cited a rule of thumb he uses: Could his mother understand it? If not, he suggested revising the terms. “Passive recreation” and “programmed activities” are phrases that have meaning for parks and recreation professionals, for example, but aren’t necessarily clear for the general public. Providing examples of these terms would be helpful, he said. Programmed activities might include concerts, plays or other performances. Passive recreation could be picnics, reading or visiting with friends. Active recreation in a downtown park or open space might include Frisbee, basketball, chess or pétanque.

Mary Hathaway, with the Library Green Conservancy, joked that she was like Smith’s mother. She suggested asking whether people would be interested in having a wifi hot spot – wireless Internet access – at a downtown park or plaza.

Alan Haber, also with the conservancy, hoped to get more feedback about activities and features that families might want, like a playground. Hathaway suggested that a fountain or interactive water feature should be included as an example – it could be a place for children to play.

One question asks people to identify desired features in a downtown park or open space. The question provides a list of possibilities, like seating, art installations, landscaping, “a place that feels safe,” and “a place that sells food and beverages.” Hathaway suggested adding the option of a shade feature – not necessarily trees, she said, but perhaps awnings or arbors.

The subcommittee also discussed whether the phrase “alternative funding sources” was clear. The term was meant to indicate sources that are not based on taxpayer dollars, such as grants or other kinds of private funding. Alan Jackson, a park advisory commissioner, suggested first asking a question about whether people would support extra staffing or security at a downtown park or open space, and following that up with the question about funding sources.

Downtown Parks Survey: Next Steps

The subcommittee talked about how best to distribute the survey. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, said the goal is to reach the widest group possible, including people who live and work downtown, residents who come downtown for specific purposes – like going out to eat, to special events, or to the library – and general parks users.

Park planner Amy Kuras noted that the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority had developed an extensive email distribution list as part of its Connecting William Street project. She suggested building on that list.

Members of the downtown parks subcommittee at their May 28 meeting. From the foreground: Julie Grand, Karen Levin and Alan Jackson. At the far end is former park advisory commission Gwen Nystuen, one of several members of the Library Green Conservancy who attended the meeting. A tornado warning forced the group to relocate the second half of its meeting to the basement of city hall.

Alan Jackson wondered about sending out surveys via regular mail, noting that it would be more costly but might reach people who can’t access an online survey. Kuras advised mailing out surveys only when requested. That was the approach she took when soliciting input for the parks, recreation & open space (PROS) update. She suggested putting up posters at public locations like the library branches and parks facilities, with contact information. Julie Grand proposed providing paper copies of the survey at those locations and other spots, including the Ann Arbor senior center and the Ann Arbor community center.

Alan Haber suggested putting the survey in locations to reach a broader age demographic, like the Neutral Zone – a downtown teen center – or local schools.

The parks staff will rework the draft survey based on comments at the May 28 subcommittee meeting, as well as any additional suggestions emailed to the staff. Smith cautioned commissioners not to deliberate about the survey via email, but simply to send their ideas for additional changes.

At its next meeting on June 11, the subcommittee will review the revised draft, with the intent of releasing the survey that same week. On June 11, the subcommittee will also set dates for public forums that it intends to hold, likely starting in July.

The subcommittee plans to bring a set of recommendations forward to the full park advisory commission, which will then forward those recommendations to the city council. The goal is to deliver the recommendations to the council sometime in August.

Public Commentary

Though members of the public who attended the May 28 meeting participated throughout the session, there were also two formal opportunities for public commentary.

Mary Hathaway thanked commissioners for “making us feel welcome.”

Alan Haber gave an update on the effort to put a temporary ice-skating rink on top of the Library Lane underground parking structure. He indicated that it was on hold, awaiting the recommendations on downtown parks, as well as on the Ann Arbor DDA’s decision about funding the project. He hoped the project would be considered, possibly for the fall.

Overall, he said he was encouraged that the subcommittee was looking at options that could be more than just a traditional park. But the concept that wasn’t captured in this survey, he said, was the idea of developing a central gathering place downtown. The options in the survey are delineated, he contended, and don’t represent an integrated vision for a civic center.

Haber also suggested that when survey results are compiled, it would be good to have the results analyzed by someone who’s an expert in data analysis – for example, someone from the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research. Amy Kuras replied that one of the park commissioners has already offered to contact someone at UM for this kind of analysis.

Gwen Nystuen echoed Haber’s comments, noting that the draft survey includes options for the kind of parks that already exist, but it doesn’t address the basic question of whether people want a central park. Some people want that as a focal point, she said, but the survey doesn’t quite capture it.

In response to Nystuen’s comments, park commissioner Karen Levin suggested adding the central park option to the survey, as a choice in the question about types of downtown parks that people are interested in seeing.

PAC members present: Alan Jackson, Karen Levin, Julie Grand.

Also attending: Also Colin Smith, city parks and recreation manager, park planner Amy Kuras, and David Rohr, park planning assistant. Members of the public included Gwen Nystuen, Mary Hathaway, Will Hathaway, Alan Haber and Eppie Potts.

Next downtown park subcommittee meeting: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 from 5-6:30 p.m. at city hall’s first floor south conference room. More information about that group is on the subcommittee’s website.

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

Survey results on the question of supporting a 1 mill tax for transit. (Image links to .pdf with higher resolution image.)

The results were generally consistent with those of a survey conducted two years ago by the same company. Asked toward the start of the interview if they would support a 1 mill tax for countywide transit, 54% of respondents said they definitely or probably would. Asked the same question toward the end of the interview, after receiving additional information, that figure nudged upward to 59%. That compares with “before” and “after” percentages of 51% and 58% two years ago. The geographic differences fell along predictable lines, with support strongest in Ann Arbor and weaker in the outlying townships.

Clark told the board that the four take-aways from the survey results are: (1) the AATA is highly regarded; (2) the public remains supportive of transit, even at a rate of a 1 mill tax; (3) the most compelling reason people give for supporting a tax for countywide service is to provide door-to-door service for seniors and people with disabilities; and (4) the most compelling reason people give for not supporting a tax for countywide service is a concern about taxes – not the efficiency of the AATA in its use of tax money. The board also heard caution during public commentary about the interpretation of survey results – they hadn’t yet seen the impact of negative advertising on any ballot proposal.

The survey comes in the context of an effort to establish an expanded countywide governance structure for the AATA, which might include asking voters to approve additional transit funding.

In its main business of the meeting, the board passed two resolutions that establish service between downtown Ann Arbor and Detroit Metro Airport. It’s expected to begin in April. One resolution set the fares for the service – basic one-way fare is $15 – while the other approved the contract with Indian Trails (Michigan Flyer) to provide the service based on a per-service-mile dollar cost. The service will be branded as “AirRide.” At the board table, David Nacht recalled how he’s wished for the moment when the AATA could offer such a service between Ann Arbor and the airport since the time he’d been appointed to the board – nine years ago.

The airport service is part of the AATA’s effort to expand services, as well as its governance and funding base, to a geographic area beyond the city of Ann Arbor. Of the $1 million the AATA has budgeted to spend from its reserves for the fiscal year 2012 budget, around $300,000 will go to support the airport service – though board members discussed the possibility that up to half of that could be recouped after-the-fact from federal or state grants.

In the context of the AATA’s effort to expand to countywide governance, the board passed a resolution at its Feb. 16 meeting expressing a basic policy position that a possible new regional transit authority – encompassing Washtenaw, Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties – should not be allowed to have a negative impact on the AATA’s own provision of local transit services. The new RTA is described in a set of bills currently being considered by the Michigan state legislature. The boards’ resolution also explicitly states that any new RTA needs to have a funding strategy that is above and beyond current levels of funding for transportation.

Two days earlier, according to a report from the Michigan Information & Research Service (MIRS), Washtenaw County commissioner Conan Smith testified before the senate’s transportation committee that he’d be open to giving up one of Washtenaw County’s two seats on a 10-member RTA board, in order to get the legislation passed.

In other business at the meeting, the AATA board also approved a $95,500 increase to the budget for its consultant on the countywide expansion effort. And the board authorized its annual application to the state for operating assistance – including a budget for expanded services.

Also discussed at the board meeting, though no formal vote was taken, was the AATA’s policy on the number of bags that passengers are allowed to carry on when using the A-Ride – the AATA’s paratransit service. Previously there was a two-bag limit. The policy has been revised so that the limit is not expressed in terms of a number, but rather in a way essentially stipulating that a passenger’s bags should not impinge on other passengers’ space – it’s a shared ride service. The change in policy was prompted by public commentary delivered at AATA’s November 2011 board meeting from a visually-impaired passenger who’d been denied a ride by the AATA’s contractor for the service, because he’d had too many grocery bags.

Voter Survey

The board received an overview presentation of the results from a survey of Washtenaw County registered voters about their attitudes toward paying additional taxes to support transportation countywide.

Voter Survey: Background, Method

Hugh Clark of CJI Research gave the presentation to the board. The survey research was done under a three-year contract that the AATA board authorized at its Aug. 24, 2011 meeting. The contract has two additional one-year options. The draft fiscal year 2012 budget for AATA included $75,000 for an on-board survey of riders and a telephone survey of Washtenaw County voters.

Geographic Regions of Analysis for Transit Survey. The light blue region corresponds to the western district of the proposed board representation on a possible Act 196 organization. The light pink area is Ann Arbor, which would also form a geographic unit in a possible Act 196 organization. The yellow area corresponds to union of the northeast, the north middle, and the south middle Act 196 districts – plus August Township (in the lower right corner). The green area corresponds to the union of Pittsfield, city of Ypsilanti, and the southeast Act 196 district – minus August Township.

CJI was also the firm that conducted the AATA’s on-board and telephone surveys in 2009. For a review of the results from the 2009 survey, see Chronicle coverage of the Jan. 20, 2010 board meeting.

At the board’s Feb. 16, 2012 meeting, Clark gave a brief sketch of the survey methodology, which drew a random sample of 1,356 registered voters for Washtenaw County. He described how the sample was divided into four groups, each of which had more than 300 people – western Washtenaw, eastern Washtenaw, Ann Arbor and the Ypsilanti area. Except for Augusta Township, in the southeastern corner of the county, the geographic areas of survey analysis correspond to unions of the areas proposed as districts in the proposed board structure for a new countywide transit authority, possibly to be incorporated under Act 196 of 1986.

In his presentation, Clark noted that it’s increasingly difficult to reach households that have only cell phones for their telephone service. In cases where no phone number corresponding to an address could be identified, Clark explained, CJI had done a mailing to the address and offered the survey to those potential respondents online. Clark described people as very cooperative.

[The survey solicitation letter gives instructions either to visit a website to take the survey online, or else call a number to have the survey administered by phone. The letter included $2 as a thank-you to respondents in advance, and offered another $5 for respondents who completed the survey by Dec. 16, 2011. People who did not respond to the initial letter were sent a reminder postcard.]

The survey itself contained 39 numbered questions, some of which included multiple parts. [.pdf of survey text]

The survey results come in the context of the AATA’s effort to expand its governance structure and its service area to include a wider geographic region than just the city of Ann Arbor – that is, most of Washtenaw County. That possible transition is currently being debated by the Ann Arbor city council, in the context of a four-party agreement – between the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the AATA.

A financial advisory group, co-chaired by Albert Berriz, CEO of McKinley Inc., and Bob Guenzel, retired Washtenaw County administrator, is expected to meet on Feb. 29 to produce its recommendations. The Ann Arbor city council is expected to take up the issue again at its March 5 meeting, having postponed the issue three times.

Voter Survey: General Attitudes

Clark began by presenting the board with some of the results from survey questions that dealt with general attitudes, not just about transit. For example, the very first survey question asked survey respondents: “Overall, how satisfied are you with Washtenaw County as a place to live?” Clark characterized the outlook of survey respondents as generally positive or optimistic.

In the 2011 survey, 95% of respondents said they were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with Washtenaw County as a place to live – statistically unchanged from the 2009 results.

The second survey question dealt with perceived changes in Washtenaw County as a place to live: “In your opinion, is Washtenaw County a better place to live than it was five years ago or is it a worse place to live?” Clark described the outlook as positive, but mixed, noting that in both years of the survey, at least a quarter of respondents felt that things are getting worse.

Sixty-two percent of survey respondents said that Washtenaw County is a better place or is staying the same as a place to live compared to five years ago. That compares to 63% of survey respondents who described it that way in the 2009 survey. The number of people who say things are getting worse is 29%, a bit up from the 2009 result.

Voter Survey: Attitudes Toward AATA, Transit

Clark then discussed results of survey items designed to measure attitudes toward transit – not necessarily attitudes about taxation – and the AATA as an organization. He led off that set of items by presenting the result of a question about transit use. About 40% of survey respondents said that in the past year, they or someone in their household had used AATA People Express, the Wave, or Manchester Senior Services. Clark characterized that as “very high” – stressing that it doesn’t mean that 40% of Washtenaw County residents have used public transit in the last year, but rather that they live in a household where someone has.

The perception of the AATA is positive among those who felt they had enough knowledge to answer the question, but Clark noted that 25% didn’t feel they could answer. The question to which survey respondents were asked to respond was: “Overall how favorable or unfavorable would you say your opinion of the AATA is?”

Of survey respondents who felt they could answer the question, 89% said they had a very favorable or somewhat favorable opinion of the AATA. That compared with 90% in the 2009 survey, which is statistically speaking the same outcome.

For a question designed to measure general attitudes of voters toward public transit, Clark characterized the result as a real consensus that public transit is very important – 69% say it’s extremely or very important. The survey question: “How important do you think it is to provide public transit services in Washtenaw County?”

Of survey respondents, 69% felt it is extremely or very important to provide public transit services in Washtenaw County. Only 9% felt it was either not very important or were not sure. That's essentially the same result as in 2009.

Voter Survey: Awareness of AATA Planning Efforts

The survey also contained an item designed to measure voter awareness of the AATA’s planning efforts over the last two years to develop a transit master plan (TMP) for the countywide area. Clark told the board, “The headline here is awareness is higher than expected.” He said that his partner and he were guessing what percent would be aware of the TMP in any meaningful sense, and they’d guessed maybe 5% or 10% as an outer bound – in fact 17% had heard of it, and had some recall.

So Clark told the board it might be disappointing to hear that 69% had not heard of the TMP. But he assured them “that’s not the way these things work.” It takes a lot of work and media coverage, he said, and he asked board members to reflect on how much they know about agencies with which they don’t work. The survey question: “Before hearing about it right now in this survey, had you heard of the Transit Master Plan for Washtenaw County?”

A total of 31% of survey respondents had heard of the AATA's planning efforts, including 17% with recall of some detail.

So 17% of respondents knowing about the TMP and having some recall is pretty good, Clark concluded. Clark also shared with the board the kind of details that survey respondents were able to recall [responses are verbatim from the report]:

• Expand it all the parts of the county
• Raises taxes
• I guess the one I’m thinking about increasing train service throughout the county
• Transportation services would be expanded into other areas and there’d be “connection points” for those traveling from outer areas into town.
• Connection for rail center AATA connection with remote commuters
• Yes they going to tax people for it
• Taxes
• Its financial, they are having an argument about it, about who’s going to finance it and who’s going to pay for it and about taxes.
• Provide a broader based transportation and they want to tax people for it
• Getting bus service to Dexter
• Looked at 3 plans
• The Fuller building may become part of the transit
• They are thinking about taking some of the routes away or reconstructing.
• I don’t know – I’m not going to ride the bus; why ride to work if you have a car?
• That it would include all the cities/villages in Washtenaw County.
• I recall they were talking about incorporating it expanded passenger rail system and that it mostly would be the AATA more or less taking over control of local bus systems like the wave
• They were going to be more broader and provide more public transportation for people in rural areas
• Transportation from Ann Arbor to the DTW airport; Transportation from Ann Arbor to Chelsea. Many would use both of these.
• County wide; the other key point they didn’t have any other point on how to get any funding for it except by raising taxes
• Expand the use of the bus service and the need of workers to get transportation in and out of Ypsilanti if they rely on it.

Voter Survey: Taxes

Clark described how the question about a possible millage (tax) to fund expanded countywide service was asked twice during the survey. The initial question came as the seventh item of 39 in the survey:

The new Washtenaw County transit agency will operate several public transit agencies now serving people in Washtenaw County, including A-A-T-A, The Ride, but also the smaller agencies called People Express, the WAVE, and Manchester Senior services. It will consider placing a tax issue on the ballot for the purpose of increasing public transportation service and extending it throughout all of Washtenaw County.

Assuming that this ballot issue would increase property taxes by one mill county-wide, would you definitely vote yes, probably vote yes, probably vote no or definitely no on this one mill property tax increase to expand public transit services throughout the county?

The responses to this initial question in both survey years (2009 and 2011) were characterized by Clark as a little higher but not dramatically so. When added to together, the definitely and probably yes category came to 54% in 2011, compared to 51% two years ago. Possible explanations for the slight increase might include the passage of time or the TMP or the more robust sampling effort (with the online option).

Asked early in the survey if they would support a 1 mill tax for countywide transit, 54% of survey respondents said they definitely or probably would.

Clark noted those who said they’d definitely vote yes or definitely vote no both came in at 18% – if you leave it to those voters, it’s a draw, Clark quipped.

The same question was asked again as item number 29 in the survey instrument – the last substantive question before a series of demographic items:

Thinking again about the one mill increase in the property tax for all of the things we’ve talked about to be done by the new Washtenaw County transit agency, if an election were held today, would you definitely vote yes, probably vote yes, probably vote no or definitely vote no on this one mill property tax increase to expand public transit services throughout the county?

More survey respondents moved into the positive category than moved negative, Clark reported. On the second question, a combined 59% of voters said they’d probably or definitely vote for a 1 mill transit tax.

Voter Survey: Geographic Differences on Transit Tax

Clark then presented a breakdown of support for the 1 mill transit tax by each of the four geographic regions analyzed in the survey. Not surprisingly, support for a transit tax was strongest within the city of Ann Arbor, with 24% saying they would definitely vote yes and another 44% saying they’d probably vote yes, for a total of 68%. On the low end of support is the western half of the county, with a total of just 42% saying they’d definitely or probably vote yes. More than half of western Washtenaw residents (51%) said they’d definitely or probably vote no.

The light and dark green areas reflecting definite or probable yes votes on a transit tax diminish the further away that respondents were from Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

Voter Survey: Reasons for Voting Yes or No

Clark then broke down survey respondents by their answers to the tax question, using their attitudes about the importance of providing transit services in Washtenaw County. Essentially, those survey respondents who supported a tax also felt that providing transit services is important. Of those who said they’d definitely support a 1 mill additional transit tax, 68% also said that providing transit services is extremely important. Of those who said they’d probably vote no on a transit tax, just 45% said they felt it was either very or extremely important to provide transit services.

Clark noted that it’s important to recognize that of those who said they’d definitely vote no on a transit tax, 8% still felt that providing transportation services is extremely important.

Cross-tabulation of questions on importance of transit and willingness to support transit with a tax.

The survey instrument also included items designed to measure the effectiveness of arguments for and against voting for a transit tax. Considered to be good arguments for voting yes on a tax were the 400,000 trips per year that transit agencies in Washtenaw County make, the increased ridership over the last several years, and the fact that less fuel is used by public transit riders. Not a good argument for voting yes was the idea of making an implicit threat: If the tax is defeated then no funding for door-to-door service for the disabled will be available.

The idea that "If the tax is defeated, there will be no funding for door-to-door service for the disabled" was not one that survey respondents felt was a good argument to vote for a transit tax. It comes across negatively and people react negatively to it, Clark told the board.

Among the ideas that survey respondents said would be good arguments for opposing a transit tax, Clark reported the lack of an ability to afford more taxes, and uncertainty in the economy. He noted that the fairness issue cut symmetrically across respondents. They were asked about the idea that it’s unfair for everyone in the county to pay for a tax that mostly benefits Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. And they were asked about the idea that it’s unfair for people in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti to pay more than others for transit benefiting everyone. A roughly equal number of people agreed or strongly agreed with each of those sentiments (32% and 30%).

Survey respondents did not feel that good arguments for voting against a transit tax would be that the time has come to oppose all tax increases, or that there's enough public transit service now, or that the AATA spends a lot of money on things that aren't important.

Clark also reviewed what the survey showed about the perceived benefits of transit – one main point is that public transportation is perceived as a way to attract jobs to the area, and it’s seen as an important backup for private transportation.

Clark said responses indicated that it’s not that survey respondents wanted public transportation available to them personally as a backup, but rather for the community. For many respondents, Clark said, their motivations are community-oriented. Public transportation is not oriented to them personally, but it’s something they want the community to have.

Voter Survey: Four Main Points

Clark summarized his presentation by telling the board there were four main points he wanted to leave them with:

1. AATA is highly regarded.
2. The public remains supportive even at a rate of one mill.
3. The single most compelling reason that people support transit is countywide door-to-door service for seniors and people with disabilities.
4. The single most compelling reason that people don’t support transit is concern about taxes – not the efficiency of the organization.

Voter Survey: Public Comment

During his initial turn at public commentary, Jim Mogensen reminded the board that the results they were seeing from the survey did not include the negative advertising that might be done in connection with a ballot question. He suggested that in the next two weeks [during the run-up to the Feb. 28 presidential primary in Michigan] they’d be able to witness the effects of such ads.

During the second opportunity for public comment, at the conclusion of the meeting, Mogensen suggested that the board look closely at the confidence level of the survey results. [The potential sampling error was given by Clark as ± 2.7%]

Thomas Partridge called on the board to place a millage proposal on the ballot at a time when it is likely to be approved. He also called on the board to create a new brand name to replace The Ride, which AATA currently uses. He suggested calling it The Freedom Ride, drawing a connection to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Transportation is the civil rights issue of our time, he said.

AATA Resolution on Regional Transit

The board considered a resolution expressing its intent to continue to work to improve transportation services and in support of a new regional transit authority (RTA) as described in legislation currently pending in the state legislature.

The legislation would create a four-county region for the RTA that would include Washtenaw, Wayne, Macomb and Oakland counties. The RTA legislation as introduced would give two seats on a 10-member board to Washtenaw County – with two seats for each of the other three counties, one for Detroit, and one non-voting ex-officio appointment made by the governor. [For coverage of the proposed legislation, see "Michigan Regional Transit Bills Unveiled"]

However, according to a Michigan Information & Research Service (MIRS) summary of initial testimony on Feb. 14 before the Michigan senate’s transportation committee, Conan Smith – chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners – would be willing to give up one of those seats: “Washtenaw County Commissioner Conan Smith not only supported the bills, but expressed an openness to support giving up one of Washtenaw County’s appointments on the RTA to Detroit if ‘that’s what it took” to get the bills passed.’”

The position expressed by the AATA’s resolution is that the funding for any new RTA for southeast Michigan, described in state legislation introduced in late January, should be supported with funds above and beyond the level expended by existing public transportation service.

At left is AATA board member Eli Cooper. Despite appearances, AATA chief executive officer Michael Ford did not have designs on Cooper's bottle of water. (Photos by the writer.)

The board engaged in some back-and-forth at the table over the precise wording of the resolution. The board’s most recently appointed member, Eli Cooper, wanted to make sure the resolution expressed specifically the importance of the AATA’s role in its current provision of transportation services, and conditioned the AATA’s support for an RTA at this time to an RTA that coordinates and connects existing services.

Cooper cautioned that the RTA proposal may be both inclusive and intrusive. He said that while the board supports a regional transit authority, its role should be for coordinating connecting services that don’t already exist.

Cooper’s suggestion was met with some apparent initial puzzlement from David Nacht, who ventured that Cooper’s intent was simply to express that the AATA gets to run its own buses in its own neck of the woods and that the role of the RTA would simply be to get people from one neck of the woods to another neck of the woods. Nacht wound up seconding each of Cooper’s motions to amend the language, which inserted phrases at two different points [indicated in italics]:

The AATA Board supports the development of a regional transit authority to provide connector corridor transit services in southeast Michigan and will participate in the planning and implementation of these important connector services.

In order to guarantee and assure the continuation of our role in providing local transit or existing services, funding for a southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority must be new, additional funding so that the existing (and future state and federal funding) for the current Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Board, and any Board that supersedes it, will not be negatively impacted. [.pdf of the draft resolution]

Nacht quipped that the gist is that “this conservative community” is concerned about the big government from Lansing coming in and taking over.

Board chair Jesse Bernstein, before opening the resolution to board discussion, framed it in the context of the “huge task” that AATA has undertaken in developing its transit master plan. He felt it was now time to solidify and clarify the discussions and provide the public with a clear statement of where the board stands now and where it hopes to go in the future.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the resolution expressing the idea that any RTA would have a specific role and would need additional funding above and beyond what already exists.

Ann Arbor-Detroit Metro Airport Service

The board considered two resolutions that together establish service between Ann Arbor and Detroit Metropolitan Airport. It’s expected to begin in April.

Ann Arbor-Detroit Metro Airport

One resolution set the fares for the service – a basic one-way fare is $15 – while the other approved the contract with Indian Trails (Michigan Flyer) to provide the service based on a per-service-mile dollar cost. The service will be branded as “AirRide.”

Details on the cost to riders include a one-way fare of $12 for advance reservation (and limited refundability) or $15 with refundability up to the time of departure. Round trip fare would be $22 for advance reservation (and limited refundability) or $30 with refundability up to the time of departure. Volume discounts also may be available for groups of up to eight people traveling together. [.pdf of resolution establishing fare structure]

The job of reading aloud the fare structure for the Ann Arbor-Detroit Metro Airport service fell to Roger Kerson.

AATA CEO Michael Ford has previously described the intent of the service to provide 12 daily trips each way, with a very limited number of stops, in order to achieve a trip time of around 40-45 minutes. At its Oct. 20, 2011 meeting, the board had authorized the negotiation of the contract with Indian Trails. At the Feb. 16 meeting, a resolution separate from the one setting fares established a two-year contract with Indian Trails at a cost of $2.56 per service mile, with the total cost for the contract not more than $700,000 per year.

Plans call for service to pick up passengers from the Fourth Avenue and William Street parking structure across from the AATA’s Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor. Parking at that structure will cost riders just $2 for as long as a two-week stay, through an arrangement with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The route will include a stop near Briarwood Mall. At Detroit Metro Airport, passengers will be picked up and dropped off at both the McNamara Terminal and the North Terminal.Including stops, the AATA is planning for an airport route of around 60 miles round trip.

In the first year of the service, the AATA is planning to support it with up to $302,000 from the unrestricted fund balance, which is part of the $1 million of fund balance that the board is planning to spend for this year’s budget.

Marketing and promotional efforts are expected to be shared by the Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau and the University of Michigan. Signs directing airport passengers to the service will be placed by the Detroit Metro Airport. The resolution approved by the AATA board also provides for an introductory promotional offer of $10 one-way and $20 round trip. At the AATA board’s planning and development committee meeting on Feb. 7, 2012, board member David Nacht characterized the airport service as part of “the world class development of a community called Ann Arbor.”

Service to Detroit Metro has been actively a part of the AATA’s work plan at least since a board retreat held on Aug. 10, 2010. And the board’s deliberations at its Feb. 18, 2009 board meeting included the fact that conversations between the AATA and Detroit Metro date back to the early 2000s.

Results of the recent CJI Research survey, conducted toward the end of 2011 and presented to the board at their Feb. 16 meeting, showed that 75% of registered voters throughout Washtenaw County said that hourly express service to Detroit Metro Airport was either very or somewhat important. [.pdf of survey results on airport service and other transit enhancements]

Ann Arbor-Detroit Metro Airport: Board Deliberations

David Nacht led off by saying that he’s been trying for the nine years that he’s been on the board to get to this moment: to have AATA provide bus service between Ann Arbor and Detroit Metro Airport. He said he didn’t have feelings about whether it had to be a public-private partnership – he just wanted it to be efficient and wanted it to work.

David Nacht appeared to be in better spirits at the meeting than this photo suggests. He was pleased that service was finally being implemented between Ann Arbor and Detroit Metro Airport.

Nacht said he was impressed with the work that Indian Trails did. Indian Trails has been limited in its ability to provide service to the airport, because the airport dealt with them as a private entity and charged an entry fee, Nacht said. Operating under the auspices of the AATA, providing public transit, Indian Trails will not be charged the fee that private operators would be. An additional benefit, said Nacht, is that Ann Arbor will have a presence in the airport. [Mary Stasiak, AATA manager of community relations, clarified after the meeting for The Chronicle that the signs the airport would use to provide direction to airline passengers to the service would not include "Ann Arbor" but only "public transportation."]

The marketing for AATA’s airport service, Nacht continued, will be beneficial to businesses, universities, and hospitals in Ann Arbor’s community as well as for residents of the community who go out of town. He said he genuinely hoped that the service works beautifully. But if it doesn’t, he said, the AATA needs to be flexible to find ways to make it work beautifully. Nacht said he was impressed with the contract negotiations – he had a sense that the contractor will work with the AATA.

It takes a while to get things done, Nacht said, noting that there was no additional board support other than himself when he first raised the issue nine years ago. But he noted that the CJI Research survey, about which the board had received a presentation that evening, indicated that 75% of respondents said that express service to the airport was very or somewhat important. He thanked staff for their work and said he was glad the rest of the board supported the service.

Roger Kerson questioned a roughly $300,000 figure on the cost breakdown for the service, and CEO Michael Ford confirmed that the number reflected the amount of the AATA fund reserve that would be used to support the service. After the meeting, Ford confirmed for The Chronicle that the $300,000 figure was part of the $1 million gap between revenues and expenditures that the AATA is incurring this year as a part of the board-approved budget.

Responding to a question from board chair Jesse Bernsetin, AATA controller Phil Webb indicated that starting two years after the new service, there’ll be additional federal dollars that would help support those additional service miles. Chris White, manager of service development, said he felt that around $130,000 could be recovered.

Kerson said he certainly supported the move to provide airport service, quipping that he didn’t want to get in the way of Nacht’s “quest.” But he noted that both the airport service and the increased frequency of service on Washtenaw Avenue between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti (Route #4) required dipping into reserves. There’s got to be a limit to how long the AATA would do that, he said. The AATA needs to get to expanded funding soon, Kerson concluded.

Nacht responded to Kerson’s remarks by saying that the concept is that the AATA is making an investment for a new service. He noted that other partners in the community are putting forth some resources – the DDA, for example, is offering parking at $2 for two weeks. If the service is not successful, Nacht said, “We don’t want to keep running it.” Once it becomes successful it will become important for those community partners to get more involved. Jesse Bernstein pointed out that one element of that partnership is that the University of Michigan will link to the AATA’s airport service on its transportation website.

Bernstein recalled how Rich Sheridan of Menlo Innovations had addressed the Ann Arbor city council at its Jan. 23, 2012 meeting and described his experience in Portland, Oregon, and how full the bus was that served the airport, and how it took over 30 years to put that system together. Michael Ford noted that the public transportation system serving the Portland airport is a train, not a bus. Charles Griffith prodded Ford to mention that Ford was previously in charge of all of bus and train operations for Portland’s public transportation system.

Nacht wrapped up deliberations by observing that the fare structure for the airport service meant that a large family with kids could use the service and the kids would ride for free. Also related to fares on the new airport service, during the public comment period at the conclusion of the meeting Cheryl Webber told the board she hoped that service for seniors and disabled people would be structured so that people who are visiting from out of town can have access to the service as well. If the discounted fare were limited to residents with their local card, visitors might not realize they can access the service.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved both resolutions related to establishing service between Ann Arbor and Detroit Metro Airport.

Budget for Consultant

The board considered a resolution to increase a contract with Steer Davies Gleave (SDG), by $95,500 to $288,817. The current contract with the London-based consultant, initially hired two years ago to help develop AATA’s transit master plan, is for “implementation assistance” of the plan. The original implementation assistance contract was approved by the board at its July 19, 2011 meeting.

At that July board meeting, some board members indicated they’d like to see SDG include more local resources as the process moves forward. The local planning firm Carlisle Wortman has since been engaged. The original contract with SDG for development of the transit master plan was for $399,805. It was previously extended and increased at the AATA board’s Nov. 18, 2010 meeting by an amount not to exceed $32,500.

The additional amount approved by the AATA board at its Feb. 16 meeting is meant to cover the costs of continued public engagement through district advisory committees throughout the county, support of a financial advisory group (scheduled to meet on Feb. 29), analysis of the AATA fare structure and payment mechanisms, and detailed description of the initial 5-year component of the 30-year transit master plan.

During deliberations, David Nacht said he was the guy who “killed” a consultant contract at the previous meeting for a different project. [That project related to an internal organizational review, which was tabled at the board's Dec. 15, 2011 meeting. As board chair Jesse Bernstein subsequently pointed out, that contract was simply being restructured, not killed.]

Nacht said it’s work that needs to be done, so the question for him is whether it is more efficient for the taxpayer to: (1) hire full-time staff; (2) hire someone on a part-time basis; or (3) work with consultants. Nacht noted that AATA’s strategic planner, Michael Benham, was hired at the staff level and has been quite instrumental with development of the transit master plan (TMP). But Nacht said he doesn’t want to significantly increase staff if the TMP is not passed. The AATA is trying to be conservative, Nacht said, and sometimes hiring an outside firm is more efficient.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to increase the amount of the consulting contract.

Annual State Aid Application

The board considered an annual resolution authorizing its CEO to apply for aid from the state of Michigan under Act 51 to provide transportation services. The resolution passed by the board cites AATA’s current year’s estimated revenue budget of “estimated federal funds $3,023,440, estimated state funds $10,988,677, estimated local funds $12,673,833, estimated fare box $6,552,000, estimated other funds $151,000, with total estimated expenses of $33,388,950.”

The budget amounts reflect the maximum that the AATA might use, provided it moves forward with elements of its transit master plan, which calls for expanded service. So it’s higher than the approved FY 2012 budget. As described in a staff memo:

The operating budget is just over $33 million, 9% higher than the adopted FY 2012 budget. The increase is primarily due to a full year’s operating cost for the route #4 service increase, a full year of operating cost for airport service, and implementation of the service expansion included in the TMP financial plan for 2013. The ability to implement this service expansion depends on developing a local funding source. The local funds are projected at $12 million, about $2 million higher than the FY 2012 budget.

At the Feb. 16 board meeting, in response to a question from board chair Jesse Bernstein, Chris White – manager of service development – explained that the state’s Act 51 requires application for state assistance every year. There’s a capital portion and an operating portion. This resolution was for the operating portion. The operating budget submitted with the application is used for planning purposes, White said. It’s important to include a budget for expanded service under the new transit master plan (TMP) to give the state an indication of the AATA’s intent. White described how he’d had a conference call with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) staff about about why the state aid planning budget for the AATA is increasing.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the application for state aid.

Bag Carry-On Policy

Although there was no vote, board members and the public discussed at the Feb. 16 meeting the subject of a changed policy on the number of bags that passengers on the A-Ride – AATA’s paratransit service – can bring with them on the shared-ride service. Background to the revised policy was a visually-impaired rider who addressed the board at its  Nov. 17, 2011 meeting – he’d been denied a ride from the AATA’s contractor for the service (SelectRide), which had simply enforced a two-bag policy that the AATA had for the shared-ride service.

At the board’s Dec. 15, 2011 meeting, David Nacht had expressed his displeasure at the way the passenger had been treated. From The Chronicle’s meeting report:

David Nacht then spoke at length, saying he would like to express that when the AATA provides services for the disabled, it’s critically important the riders don’t feel like they’re second-class citizens. Nacht said there was something incredibly compelling about a visually-impaired person leaving his house with his young child, to get groceries for that child who was helping him. “The idea that our agency would allow our contractor to effectively deprive that person of dignity in the name of enforcing a policy, I think, goes against our values,” Nacht said.

At the board’s Feb. 16 meeting, during his verbal report to the board, CEO Michael Ford reported that 17 peer transportation systems had been reviewed for a comparison of their policies on bags, and the AATA’s local advisory council (LAC) was advising that the AATA’s two-bag limit be revised. The idea would be to stress that the number of bags could not displace another passenger – the A-Ride program is designed as a shared-ride program. [The LAC is the body through which the AATA receives input on policies affecting seniors and disabled people.]

During her report from the LAC, Cheryl Webber stressed that the LAC hadn’t recommended that there be no limit to the number of bags, but rather that the limit be defined in a different way. Bags must be confined to the area of the vehicle occupied by the rider – whether that’s under their legs or on their lap. The rationale for that is based on the fact that it’s a shared-ride program. Webber noted that there’s still a requirement that any items carried with a passenger be safe – no explosives, toxic or noxious items.

Webber observed that a limitation of carry-on bags is hard to understand for passengers in the context of a shared-ride program if they don’t often see the rides being shared. It’s rare that the program is used in a way that results in rides being shared. She noted that she enjoys getting a ride by herself, but it’s a shared-ride program for a reason, to make it efficient and affordable.

During his remarks from the board table, Charles Griffith thanked the LAC and staff for taking up the issue of the extra bags and finding ways to be more accommodating.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Carolyn Grawi, director of advocacy education for the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living, noted that she’d worked as part of a subcommittee that had worked on the carry-on bag issue. She said it was good to see the collaborative effort of working together. She reminded the board that seniors and people with disabilities always need to be at the table.

Committee Membership

At the Feb. 16 meeting, the board reset its committee membership and chairships to accommodate the departure from the board of two of its members in the last three months (Sue McCormick and Rich Robben) and the addition of one replacement (Eli Cooper.)

Anya Dale, new chair of the AATA board's planning and development committee.

The planning and development committee will consist of: Anya Dale (chair), Eli Cooper and David Nacht. In practice, Dale had already presided over the Feb. 7 committee meeting as chair. The performance monitoring and external relations committee will continue to consist of Charles Griffith (chair) and Roger Kerson. The board’s governance committee consists of the board chair (Jesse Bernstein) plus the chairs of the two other committees.

Robben resigned from the board in November 2011, but served through the January 2012 board meeting. McCormick resigned around the same time, but her last meeting was December 2011. The nomination of Cooper – who serves as Ann Arbor city transportation program manager – was confirmed by the Ann Arbor city council in December 2011. [For coverage of the resignations and Cooper's appointment, see "Cooper Confirmed for AATA Board" and "AATA Board Bids Farewell to Robben"]

At the city council’s Jan. 23, 2012 meeting, mayor John Hieftje told the council that he hoped to bring a nomination for Robben’s replacement to them at the council’s next meeting, on Feb. 6, but he did not nominate anyone at that meeting. The AATA board does not currently have a treasurer, pending appointment of a replacement for Robben – McCormick had served in that office.

At its Sept. 15, 2011 meeting, the board had elected the same slate of officers that had served the previous year: Jesse Bernstein (chair); Charles Griffith (secretary); and Sue McCormick (treasurer). At that time, Bernstein noted that as the AATA contemplates a transition to a countywide focus, it was felt that it would be good to have some continuity.

The committee structure was also carried over from the previous year. At that time, the planning and development committee consisted of Robben (committee chair), Nacht and Dale. And before McCormick’s departure, the performance monitoring and external relations committee consisted of Griffith (committee chair), McCormick, and Kerson.

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

At its Feb. 16 meeting, the board entertained various communications, including its usual reports from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the planning and development committee, as well as from CEO Michael Ford. The board also heard commentary from the public. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Commuters, Residents

During his first turn at public commentary, Jim Mogensen addressed an item included in CEO Michael Ford’s written report, in which Ford had responded to public commentary made by Ethel Potts at the board’s Jan. 19, 2011 meeting. Ford had explained in his report that the service Potts had described as being eliminated had actually only been reduced. From the CEO’s report:

During public time at last month’s meeting a statement was made with regard to reducing service in order to serve a park and ride lot.  This is not the case.  Service was not eliminated, but rather service was reduced (with approval of the Board) because of very low productivity, not to provide service to the new Plymouth Road Park and Ride lot.

Mogensen told the board that he and Potts shared an interest in land use issues. He allowed that while the service on that route may not have been eliminated, for him, it meant that he had to stop using the bus. [Mogensen has addressed the board previously on that specific route, for example, at the May 12, 2010 board meeting.] The issue, he said, is related to a general policy issue of residents who are non-commuters and commuters who are non-residents. Resident non-commuters will always lose out to commuter non-residents, he said.

During his public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Mogensen continued the theme of balancing the needs of resident non-commuters against the needs of non-resident commuters. He pointed out that the express bus commuter service from Canton and Chelsea into Ann Arbor was being paid for in part by Ann Arbor’s local transit tax. [In AATA's financial performance reports, for each service provided, a line is included that's labeled "net local property tax applied" and year-to-date that figure for the commuter express service is $34,050.]

Mogensen also noted that the increase in service on Route #4 between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor and the new airport service is being subsidized in part by dipping into fund balance reserves. The needs of commuters and residents have to be balanced, he allowed, but he hoped that the new expanded services would not be balanced to the detriment of those who need to shop for groceries.

Comm/Comm: David Read

At the start of the meeting, board chair Jesse Bernstein introduced David Read, sitting in the audience as the representative on the U196 board for the north central district. Read is a Scio Township trustee. Board member David Nacht chimed in that he knew Read from his own service on the Scio Township board. He described Read as at times opposed to Nacht’s positions on the township board and at times supportive. He called Read a “class act” and said that he’s thrilled Read is a part of the countywide transit effort.

Comm/Comm: Website Development

From Jan Hallberg, IT manager for AATA, the board got an update on the status of the development of AATA’s new website.

Left to right: AATA manager of service development Chris White, CJI Research consultant Hugh Clark, and AATA IT manager Jan Hallberg.

She described the new website as having two different sections: (1) a basic website, which is currently being tested; and (2) the part with custom functionality. When the  first phase is launched, she said, the site will include all current functionality. The subsequent phases will add new functionality.

Within the next month, Hallberg said, different departments should be able to start populating the site with content. Two of the AATA marketing staff have gone through training on how to update the site. She noted that the new website will be a content management system (CMS). That means each department within the AATA will be able to keep its content up to date on an ongoing basis. She allowed that with the updates at each month’s board meeting, it might sound like it’s taking a while. But the new website is  going to have a lot of functionality that people have requested, she said.

Comm/Comm: Route #4

As part of the CEO’s report and as part of Charles Griffith’s report from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the board heard a preliminary summary of performance on Route #4, which runs between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. The board had approved an increase in service frequency on that route at its Nov. 17, 2011 meeting. Increased frequency began at the end of January.

At the board’s planning and development committee meeting the previous week (on Feb. 7), Chris White – AATA’s manager of service development – urged caution about the increased ridership and on-time performance on the route. It’s just the first week and it’s possible that riders are simply switching routes. Compared to the previous week, before the implementation of the more frequent service, ridership on Route #4 increased 8% compared to a systemwide ridership decrease of 0.6%.

On Route #4, ridership numbers were as follows: Jan. 23-Jan. 27: 18,388 | Jan. 30-Feb. 3: 19,796. Systemwide, ridership for the same period: Jan. 23-Jan. 27: 129,579 | Jan. 30-Feb. 3: 128,754. Over the same timeframe, on‐time performance of Route #4 increased 9% compared to a 1% increase systemwide. On-time performance for Route #4 after implementation of increased service was 95%. Systemwide, it was 89%.

Griffith said the initial news is good, but noted that there are still some [too] full buses out there.

During question time, Roger Kerson asked how the increased frequency on Route #4 was handled – did the AATA hire additional drivers, or did the AATA give additional hours to existing drivers? Ford indicated that another group of drivers had been hired – five new drivers for that particular route.

Comm/Comm: Performance Indicators

Following up on Kerson’s query about increased frequency on Route #4, David Nacht noted that he was struck by the increase in the ridership in the overall performance data. He told Ford that under Ford’s leadership, the AATA seems to be doing a good job of targeting those areas where people are more likely to ride the bus. AATA’s service miles are up 1% and its service hours are up 2%, but the total number of passengers is up 7%. Nacht stated that means the AATA is running more buses when more people are going to ride them. Nacht concluded that is a good use of tax dollars:

                              Year       Prior
                           to Date        Year
Service Outputs
AATA Service Hours          63,430      61,997     2%
AATA Service Miles         872,438     867,006     1%
AATA Passengers          2,165,332   2,020,942     7%
AATA Passenger Revenue  $1,546,352  $1,591,444    -3%
Weekday Passengers       1,991,582   1,855,544     7%

-

Charles Griffith noted as a follow-up that the expense per passenger and per mile are down 10% and 14% respectively. Nacht and Griffith were summarizing from the AATA’s year-to-date performance data.

Comm/Comm: Inter-Local Agreements, Four-Party Agreement, Next Steps

At the Feb. 16 meeting, CEO Michael Ford gave an update on the status of the AATA’s effort to expand its governance structure and its service area to include a wider geographic region than just the city of Ann Arbor – that is, most of Washtenaw County. That possible transition is currently being debated by the Ann Arbor city council, in the context of a four-party agreement – between the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the AATA.

The proposed governance structure under Act 196 of 1986 is based on inter-local agreements between several different local units of government in Washtenaw County. At the meeting, Ford indicated that the inter-local agreements among units of government forming districts in the proposed governance structure of an Act 196 authority had been filed with the state of Michigan. However, Sharon Township had become the fifth local unit to decide not to participate.

[.pdf of north middle district agreement][.pdf of west district agreement][.pdf of northeast district agreement][.pdf of south middle district agreement][.pdf of southeast district agreement]

The Ann Arbor city council has postponed consideration of the four-party agreement three times, in part because some councilmembers want to hear the funding recommendation of a financial advisory group before voting on the agreement.

Ford indicated that the financial advisory group’s meeting on Feb. 29 would be followed by a public meeting on March 2 to help answer any questions people might have. The city council is scheduled to take up the issue of the four-party agreement again at its March 5 meeting.

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

Next regular meeting: Thursday, March 15, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

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

At their monthly meeting on Tuesday, commissioners also discussed the need to publicize two projects: 1) an online survey seeking citizen input about public art, and 2) nominations for the annual Golden Paintbrush awards, which honor contributions to public art. A nomination form can be downloaded from AAPAC’s website.

Commissioners got updates on several public art projects in the works, discussed an upcoming retreat planned for May 12, and approved an annual planning process. They continue to await a response from German artist Herbert Dreiseitl, who was scheduled to come to Ann Arbor last week to work on his water sculpture for the municipal center, but was not planning to meet with AAPAC while he was here.

Council Approval of Guidelines, Bylaws Postponed

In her report as AAPAC chair, Margaret Parker said she’d attended the April 5 Ann Arbor city council meeting – approval of AAPAC’s bylaws and guidelines had been on the agenda. She said she sat through four hours of public commentary and discussion on The Moravian apartment complex, only to have councilmember Marcia Higgins ask to postpone the AAPAC agenda item when it came up toward the end of the meeting. Parker said that Higgins had questions for the city attorney, but it wasn’t clear to Parker what those questions were. She planned to follow up with Higgins before the next council meeting.

Public Art Planning and the AAPAC’s Annual Plan

Parker briefed commissioners about a meeting several AAPAC members had on April 6 with Sue McCormick, the city’s public services administrator who oversees the Percent for Art program. Parker had called the meeting to go over the city’s capital improvements plan, or CIP. The Percent for Art program is funded through the city’s capital projects, at 1% of each project’s budget – up to a limit of $250,000 per project. Parker said she was frustrated because she had called the meeting specifically to look over the CIP, but McCormick told them that the CIP report wouldn’t be ready until later this month. Parker also reported that McCormick didn’t expect any new capital projects in the coming fiscal year.

At the April 6 meeting, commissioners had discussed and clarified with McCormick the two categories of projects that involve AAPAC: city-generated projects, and projects generated by AAPAC.

The West Park project is an example of a city-generated project. [See Chronicle coverage: "Artist Selected for West Park Art Project"] City staff had a specific capital project – in this case, renovations of a city park – and asked AAPAC to help incorporate public art. The Fuller Road Station is another example of city staff asking AAPAC to become involved. Many of these city-generated projects have tight timelines that make it difficult for AAPAC to respond, some commissioners noted.

In contrast, AAPAC itself can decide to pursue specific projects – there are funds generated through the Percent for Art program that AAPAC can use for these efforts. An example of this would be deciding to commission public art for a “gateway” to the city, which commissioners have previously discussed.

There was also a discussion about the difference between “pooled” and “designated” funds. Parker illustrated the difference, using the example of the municipal center currently under construction. That project generated the maximum $250,000 Percent for Art funding, and those dollars were designated for use within the municipal center complex. In addition, other “pooled” funds are also used for public art at the municipal center – coming from water, sewer and stormwater capital projects. Those pooled funds could be tapped because the commissioned artwork at the center has a water theme, Parker explained.

Revenue line items in the Percent for Art budget reflect these “pooled” categories, and include the street millage, parks millage, solid waste, water, sewer, stormwater, airport.

McCormick suggested that AAPAC meet with the heads of city departments each November, to get a clearer idea of projects that AAPAC might be asked to participate in, Parker said.

Annual Planning Process

Commissioners reviewed and approved the outline of an annual planning process, which describes actions that AAPAC needs to take throughout the year. There was some discussion about whether to hold a planning retreat in the third or fourth quarter of the fiscal year, which ends June 30. This year, the retreat is planned for May 12. A consensus was reached to hold the retreat during the third quarter in future years, to give commissioners more time following the retreat to finalize their annual report to city council.

Connie Pulcipher from the city’s systems planning unit will facilitate the May 12 retreat. The meeting runs from 5:30-8:30 p.m. in the 7th floor conference room of the City Center Building, 220 E. Huron St. It is open to the public.

Annual Report

The Public Art Ordinance specifies that AAPAC deliver an annual report to city council, providing specific information. From the ordinance:

(i) A report on the status of all public art incorporated into or funded by capital improvement projects in progress or completed during the preceding fiscal year;

(ii) A maintenance report on each work of public art presently under city management detailing maintenance costs for the preceding fiscal year, anticipated maintenance costs for the next fiscal year, and any significant future maintenance concerns, including prioritized recommendations for the maintenance, repair or renovation of particular works;

(iii) A review of the city’s public art with regard to the purposes stated in this chapter;

(iv) A report on the oversight body’s efforts to promote awareness of public art;

(v) A report on donations of art and where such art was placed;

(vi) A report on additional funds raised and how such funds were used; and

(vii) Any other matter of substantial financial or public importance relating to the public art in the city.

Parker noted that in the past, AAPAC’s annual reports have been more of a general storyline about their work. She wondered whether they needed to produce two reports: one intended for a broader audience, and another for city council that would meet the ordinance requirements.

Connie Brown said the report required by the ordinance seemed technical in nature, and though it would be available to the public, AAPAC could reach out to the community more effectively in other ways, like a public forum.

Parker asked who would handle the annual report, and the consensus seemed to be that it was suited for the planning or PR committee, or both. Cathy Gendron of the PR committee offered to assemble the report, if others would contribute the information. Commissioners decided to discuss it further at the May 12 retreat, and to seek feedback from Sue McCormick.

Projects: Skatepark, West Park, Dreiseitl, DDA

Connie Brown gave the projects committee report. She passed out a chart that showed current projects in the works, which included a list of task forces set up for each project. An additional task force needs to be set up for the Fuller Road Station, she said. [AAPAC has been asked to give input for public art at the joint city of Ann Arbor/University of Michigan project, a large parking structure and bus station near the UM medical complex.] Brown and Cathy Gendron volunteered for the Fuller Road task force.

Ann Arbor Skatepark

Parker questioned why the Ann Arbor Skatepark wasn’t on the projects list. Brown said that it wasn’t a formal AAPAC project at this point, though it might be something they choose to do in the future. It’s not a project until AAPAC approves it or the city requests that AAPAC take it on, she said.

Expressing concern that the skatepark not be “erased,” Parker said she’d recently talked with Trevor Staples, one of the skatepark organizers, who had told her that fundraising was going well. She noted that they were having a public design charette on April 25 – she didn’t want to lose the opportunity to work with them, especially since they had reached out to AAPAC.

Everyone is excited about the skatepark, Brown said. But it’s not a city project – it doesn’t generate Percent for Art funds. AAPAC might choose to allocate money for a public art project there, she added, but it seemed too soon to make that commitment. Parker said they could discuss it at the retreat.

West Park Public Art

Cathy Gendron said she was eager to see the proposal from the artist selected to work on a public art project in West Park. Gendron said she had looked at the Lotus Gardenscapes website, but didn’t see anything relevant to the West Park project. Selected by a task force, AAPAC hasn’t released the artist’s name publicly – Parker said they hadn’t yet finalized an agreement with him for the project. Katherine Talcott offered to show Gendron the artist’s submission materials after the meeting. [See Chronicle coverage: "Artist Selected for West Park Art Project"]

Parker clarified that funding for the West Park public art project will come from the parks operating budget. Up to $10,000 is allocated for that project.

Dreiseitl Project at the Municipal Center

Brown asked whether anyone had heard from Herbert Dreiseitl yet – the commission has been waiting for a response from the German artist for several months regarding two interior pieces at the municipal center. There had been no word, Katherine Talcott reported, adding that Dreiseitl was expected to arrive in town on April 15 for a couple of days to talk with contractors for the large outdoor water sculpture he’s been commissioned to make. He might bring a new proposal for those interior pieces, or respond to AAPAC’s recommendations to alter his original designs.

Dreiseitl is working directly with project manager Quinn Evans Architects and Conservation Design Forum, Talcott said. She planned to ask Ken Clein of Quinn Evans to report back to AAPAC about what Dreiseitl proposes. The approval process – including the issue of how to fund additional pieces – would have to begin anew, she said. For the outdoor piece, the city is paying Dreiseitl nearly $740,000 in addition to $77,000 he received for designing that piece and two interior wall hangings that were not approved.

Update on DDA Partnership

Parker asked for the status of talks with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Jim Curtis said he had emailed DDA executive director Susan Pollay in March with a list of clarification questions, but hadn’t yet received a response. One crucial thing to clarify is who’s responsible for funding joint projects, he said.

At AAPAC’s March meeting, the commission had discussed a possible sculpture project at Hanover Park, which is part of the DDA’s Fifth and Division street improvement project. Elaine Sims asked what would happen to the current book sculpture in that park ["Arbor Sapientiae" by Ronald Bauer]. She confirmed that the DDA wanted it moved.

Parker said they’d need to set up a task force to decide what to do with it – either moving it to a new location, storing it or de-accessioning it. The task force should include community members, she said, not just AAPAC members. People are aware of the sculpture, she added, and it needs to be treated with respect. She said the same thing needed to be done with the nine-panel, 27-foot-wide mosaic by artist Gerome Kamrowski, formerly located at city hall – the municipal center task force will be handling that.

Public Relations: Survey, Public Forum

AAPAC’s PR committee includes Cathy Gendron and Marsha Chamberlin. The commission’s newest member, Jeff Meyers, has indicated he’d like to join as well, according to AAPAC chair Margaret Parker. Neither Chamberlin nor Meyers attended Tuesday’s meeting. Gendron gave the committee report.

Public Art Survey

An online survey has been posted to get feedback from citizens, Gendron reported. Parker said she’d heard that over 60 people had already taken the survey. Gendron said it seemed likely that most of those people were Parker’s friends, since Parker had sent out an email about the survey before a press release was issued. Parker said it didn’t matter who had responded – the people she knew could weigh in, just like anyone else. It did, however, raise a question about whether there was a good process for putting out a press release, Parker added. There should be specific steps taken each time, she said – those steps should include notifying all AAPAC members when the press release goes out.

Public Forum Set

Parker reported that the planning committee, on which she serves, had decided to set a date for a public forum. That date is Wednesday, June 23 from 7-9 p.m. at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library. [This has been a contentious issue among some of the commissioners at previous meetings. Parker has been asking the public relations committee – Gendron and Chamberlin – to plan a public forum. Chamberlin has previously said she didn't want to hold a forum simply to cross it off their list – she wanted to make sure such an event would achieve something more than that.]

At Tuesday’s meeting, Parker told Gendron that the event should showcase the projects AAPAC has been working on, what’s in the pipeline and what other communities are doing that’s related to public art. They could also talk about results of the survey, she said.

Jim Curtis cautioned that they needed to be discrete regarding projects that they haven’t completely finalized. “In some ways we’ll need to be ‘mum’s the word,’ a little,” he said.

Katherine Talcott, the city’s public art administrator, suggested bringing in a speaker, saying that someone from outside the community can bring a different perspective and be inspiring. Several commissioners agreed. Elaine Sims noted that part of AAPAC’s mission is to educate the public about art, and a speaker could do that. Talcott also proposed having some kind of hands-on activity for kids, and Sims suggested partnering with the Ann Arbor Hands-On Museum.

Parker expressed concern that with a speaker, there wouldn’t be time for people to ask questions or give comments about the city’s public art projects.

Gendron said she understood that the idea of a forum had been controversial, but now that it had been set, the PR committee would make it happen. They just needed to figure out a good way to publicize the event, she said.

“Just say ‘Free Food!’” Curtis suggested.

[For a report on AAPAC's public open house last year, in May 2009, see Chronicle coverage: "The Where and Why of Ann Arbor's Art"]

Golden Paintbrush Awards

Gendron reported that the PR committee is working on criteria for the annual Golden Paintbrush awards, given by AAPAC for contributions to public art. They are thinking of creating three categories: 1) professional projects, 2) community projects, and 3) public art supporters.

The awards are typically given in May. Parker asked how many nominations had been received, and was told that so far, there are none. This happens every year, Parker said. She urged commissioners to make nominations, and was worried that having categories would exclude possible nominees. “You can overdefine it and get nothing,” she said. Gendron said the categories were designed to help the commission organize nominations, not to exclude anyone.

Sims said she thought that the sculpture by Doug Hollis, located outside the entrance to the University of Michigan Hospital, should be nominated. [See Chronicle coverage: "New Sculpure Honors UM Transplant Team"] She pointed out that a conflict of interest prevents her from nominating it. [Sims is director of the UM Health System's Gifts of Art Program.] She also suggested nominating the snow bears crafted each winter in front of Krazy Jim’s Blimpy Burger.

Gendron said she’d try to get a notice asking for nominations on the Art Alliance’s new website. Applications are due May 1. [.pdf of Golden Paintbrush application form]

AAPAC Membership, Governance

Elaine Sims, who serves as the commission’s liaison to UM, reported that Lee Doyle is interested in serving on AAPAC. Doyle is chief of staff for the UM Office of the Vice President for Communications, and is a member of the President’s Advisory Committee for Public Art.

Parker said the planning committee would discuss the possible appointment of Doyle, adding that there were other people interested as well. AAPAC makes recommendations for appointments to the mayor, who then nominates members for approval by city council.

Parker also made a query she’s made at several previous meetings: “Anybody want to be chair?” Parker has served as chair of AAPAC since its inception, and has attempted to get someone else to take on that leadership position – so far, unsuccessfully. At Tuesday’s meeting, the results were no different. She said she’d like to have three positions: incoming chair, chair and outgoing chair. “And I might just assign those tasks,” she said.

“I don’t know if you have the power to do that,” Sims said.

Parker replied: “I do!”

Commissioners present: Connie Brown, Jim Curtis, Cathy Gendron, Margaret Parker, Elaine Sims. Others: Katherine Talcott

Absent: Marsha Chamberlin, Jeff Meyers, Cheryl Zuellig

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, May 11 at 4:30 p.m., 7th floor conference room of the City Center Building, 220 E. Huron St. [confirm date] A three-hour retreat is scheduled for Wednesday, May 12 from 5:30-8:30 p.m., also at the City Center.

The second mailing of the National Research Center's city of Ann Arbor 2008 Citizen Survey.

The Chronicle was among 3,000 Ann Arbor households that have received three pieces of mail over the last couple of weeks sent on behalf of the city of Ann Arbor by the National Research Center in Boulder, Colorado. First to arrive was a post card alerting us to the fact that our household had been “selected at random to participate in an anonymous citizen survey about the city of Ann Arbor,” and that we should watch the following week’s mail for the survey and instructions.

As indicated in the postcard, the materials arrived the following week. With the survey itself in hand, it was possible to determine the context of the survey in a bit more detail. It turns out that this is the same survey that was conducted last year (2007), and is the basis of the Voice of the People awards to the city’s recreational services and to the Ann Arbor District Library from the International City/County Management Association, which were presented earlier this year.

A call to the National Research Center and a conversation with the manager in charge of Ann Arbor’s project, Damema Mann, confirmed some of the nuts and bolts of the survey protocol:

• The mailing was in three waves, consisting of a post card, a first survey (blue), and a reminder survey (yellow)
• The survey forms are not optically scan-able, which means that results are tallied via data-entry keying by hand.
• Responses to the open-ended question, “Please finish this sentence: If I could change one thing about the city of Ann Arbor, it would be … ” are recorded complete with spelling and grammatical mistakes. Profanity has not come up with Ann Arbor’s survey, as best as Mann recalls, but for their public reports, the city would have the option of asking that symbol characters be substituted for profane words.
• It’s not possible to filter out responses from households that fill out both the initial survey and the follow-up reminder because the forms aren’t coded with the address to which they’re sent (which preserves anonymity of respondents on the survey vendor’s end). That also means there’s no “pull” between the first and second survey mailing, to prevent the second mailing from going to people who’ve already responded.
• It’s not possible for the city to prevent mailing of surveys to specific addresses where known malcontents live, because the only data provided by the city is a set of zipcodes. The addresses are sampled by the survey vendor from GIS data generated from these zipcode ranges.
• The survey is a template used nationally (which facilitates comparison with other municipalities) with a custom question at the end. Ann Arbor’s custom question asks respondents (i) to rank a range of investments like open space, public safety and online services on a scale of importance from “essential” to “not at all important”; (ii) to indicate what resources they use for news about the city of Ann Arbor; and (iii) to rank a range of factors as related to their quality of life in Ann Arbor, like bike paths, strict code enforcement, and preservation of historic districts, on a scale of importance from “essential” to “not at all important.”
• There’s no internet option for Ann Arbor’s survey. It’s not recommended as the sole response alternative (not everyone has access to a computer) and when it’s added as an option, it costs extra.

If it costs extra for an internet survey, how much does the the city of Ann Arbor pay for the administration of this paper survey and compilations of its results? According to information provided by Lisa Wondrash, who is communications unit manager for the city of Ann Arbor, the basic service for a survey that is mailed to 1,200 residents is $9,600. But the city of Ann Arbor expanded the distribution from 1,200 residents to 3,000 and added the open-ended question above. The additions cost $8,100, bringing the cost of the survey to $17,700. The cost includes benchmarking Ann Arbor against other similar-sized communities across the U.S.

Teeing Off: An Editorial Aside

I’d like to encourage Chronicle readers who have received the survey described in this article to complete and return it. Last year the response rate was around 38%, which is towards the high end of the range of response rates nationwide. You might as well do it – we already paid for it.

But in the context of a recent memo sent by city administrator Roger Fraser to city staff asking them to think about ways to achieve cost reductions in their departments of 15% over the next two years, I’d like to suggest that this survey is a good candidate for an expense to be cut. Yes, it’s important to solicit from citizens their feedback that might be critical, and anonymous surveys are one way to ensure that citizens can submit their feedback without fear of any kind of reprisal.

But we also have something called democracy, which provides that citizens can participate in decision-making by freely expressing their opinions. Perhaps that’s naiveté on my part to think that it should not be necessary to afford anonymity to citizens in order for them to feel comfortable expressing critical views in Ann Arbor.

I think that for the city, the perceived benefit has less to do with the information gained from citizens per se than it does with the fact that part of the set of deliverables is the possibility for awards – awards of the sort that the city’s recreational services and the library received from the International City/County Management Association last year. In general, I would submit that there is undue weight given to awards, certificates and rankings in Ann Arbor’s public discourse. The currency we trade with is too often awards and certificates. One good example is mayor of Ann Arbor John Hieftje’s response to a question during the fall mayoral debates aired on CTN about what leadership skills he would bring to the office of mayor. He cited awards he’d won for leadership.

Part of the reason the blog (when still actively maintained) Ann Arbor is Overrated resonated with its readership was not just the sense that Ann Arbor was rated too highly in some ranking or other, but the sense that Ann Arbor is over-ly rated, as in too often – ratings and rankings cashed in for rhetorical points, as a substitute for a realistic assessment of how much we have left that we can and must achieve. A digital cities award does not assuage my frustration when I cannot easily find the email address of a staff person at the city when I’m searching on the city’s website and I know the name of the person.

Here at The Chronicle we’ve published a couple of New Media Watch items in our first three months citing announcements of Ann Arbor rankings in other publications. So to that extent at least, we’ve been complicit in the acceptance of awards and rankings as a legitimate currency of conversation. Perhaps we should contemplate a news blackout on rankings and ratings.

At the Dec. 8 city council working session, administrator Roger Fraser praised the efforts of city staff in their apparent initial success in changing the financial direction of Leslie Golf Course. The measure of success was not an award or a certificate, but rather the bottom line. One could argue that the real key was not the hard work of staff but rather the liquor license that city council had awarded to the course. But I think Fraser got something right in connecting the staff’s energy and renewed sense of commitment to the opportunity council had provided to make the improvements necessary for successful golf at Leslie. What he didn’t do was connect the renewed enthusiasm he’d observed among staff to an award or certificate they’d received.

Looking past this year to the next two years, I don’t think the potential for awards gives us $17,700 worth of value. But if Ann Arbor doesn’t participate in the survey, surely some amount of useful information might go missing.

In an attempt to make up partly for that information deficit, I’ll suggest that we put together an online survey available here on The Chronicle to serve two specific purposes. The first goal would be to add citizen input to Fraser’s directive to staff: how do you think we could save 15% over the next two years? The second goal would be to supplement the picture of Ann Arbor that the National Citizens Survey gives.

So until the end of the year, we’ll take suggestions in the comments section of this article for survey questions along those lines. We’ll launch the survey on Jan. 1, 2009. Thanks in advance for your help.