Former Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel and Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office community & economic development, talk with former University of Michigan treasurer Norm Herbert before the start of the May 22, 2014 county board working session. Guenzel and Herbert are members of a task force on supportive housing. (Photos by the writer.)

The leadership team of the Task Force on Sustainable Revenues for Supportive Housing Services briefed commissioners on their recommendations, including the goal of building a $50 million endowment over 20 years. Payouts from the endowment would fund supportive services – such as treatment for mental illness and substance abuse – with the intent of addressing the root causes of homelessness. The concept is called permanent supportive housing, and is part of the community’s broader Blueprint to End Homelessness, which was created in 2004 and is being updated.

A possible millage – recommended at 0.25 mills, for no more than 20 years – would help fund supportive services while the endowment is built. County commissioners are being asked to consider putting such a millage on the ballot, possibly in 2015.

Former county administrator Bob Guenzel, a task force member, told commissioners that the task force believes this approach “is absolutely the right thing to do, to end homelessness and keep people housed. We feel very strongly about that. It’s a moral issue.” There’s also a strong business case for this approach when looking at the cost of emergency services and the criminal justice system, compared to the cost of permanent supportive housing, he said.

Several steps have already been taken to achieve these goals. An endowment was established in 2011, with $2.1 million in commitments so far. That amount includes a $1 million gift from the St. Joseph Mercy Health System to create the endowment, which is called the Sister Yvonne Gellise Fund for Supportive Services for Housing. Gellise is the former CEO of St. Joe’s. She’s on the task force and is a founding board member of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance. Another $1 million commitment comes from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation (AAACF), where the endowment is housed. AAACF Cheryl Elliott is another task force member. In addition, an anonymous donor has contributed $100,000.

The first fund distribution – of $26,100 – will be made this fall in a competitive grant process. AAACF’s distribution committee – an all-volunteer group – will be responsible for making grant recommendations.

AAACF is also helping provide a three-year, part-time development job to support fundraising for this endowment. Funding for the position will come from the Washtenaw Housing Alliance ($25,000), the AAACF ($5,000) and an anonymous donor ($10,000).

The foundation will post this position in early June, Elliott reported, with the intent of making a hire as soon as possible. The position would be in place until at least mid-2017. The employee will report to AAACF’s vice president for development and donor services, and to the Sister Yvonne Gellise Fund development committee. Members of that committee are the same people who’ve served on the leadership team of the task force, Elliott said. In addition to herself, members are Bob Chapman, Sister Yvonne Gellise, Bob Guenzel, Norm Herbert and Dave Lutton. They hope to get an additional two or three members, she said.

The next steps in this process include a request to the county board to sunset the task force at the June 4 board meeting. The board will also be asked to consider the task force’s recommendation for a millage. “Please use this year and into 2015 to set a millage strategy,” Elliott said.

The task force also stressed the importance of a public outreach and education effort, to help build awareness and support for the endowment.

The task force presentation was attended by five of the county’s nine commissioners. During their discussion, Conan Smith (D-District 9) expressed interest in having the county bond for this initiative – either for the full $50 million, or some portion of that amount. The county now has a triple-A bond rating, Smith noted. [That news had been announced earlier in the day. In general, higher ratings allow organizations to secure better terms for borrowing funds.] “This gives us an opportunity… to actually have some real impact in the community,” Smith said.

Task force members indicated that they hadn’t considered the option of bonding, and Elliott had some concerns about whether it would be legal to use taxpayer dollars for an endowment. They plan to explore the possibility, including consultation with legal counsel.

Background

By way of brief background, Washtenaw County and several other community partners developed the Blueprint to End Homelessness in 2004. Washtenaw Housing Alliance – a consortium of housing and shelter providers, social service agencies, and other groups that provide support services – was given the task of implementing the blueprint.

As part of the implementation efforts, in 2007 the county board created the Task Force on Sustainable Revenues for Supportive Housing Services. Its charge was this: “Explore locally viable long-term revenue sources for the creation and sustainability of supportive housing units and related services.”

The following year, the task force delivered a report and set of recommendations, which the county board adopted on Oct. 2, 2008. [.pdf of 2008 report and recommendations] As summarized in the report, the recommendations are:

Promote Supportive Housing in Washtenaw County: Mobilize new supportive housing service funding for 500 units at an average cost of $5,000/unit/year.

Charter an Implementation Process: Charter a “Phase II” planning and implementation process (via action of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners) to provide continuing leadership and coordination in advancing achievement of the recommendations articulated in this report of the Task Force on Sustainable Revenues for Supportive Housing Services.

Educate the Public: Design and launch a public education campaign focused on the nature and value of supportive services with an aim of raising community support and resources for supportive housing initiatives and the 500‐Unit Plan.

Secure Bridge Funding: Mobilize multi‐systems commitments of up to $1.2 million/year in public‐private resources as “bridge funding,” to support at least 200 units of supportive housing, based on the model being implemented through the Joint Integrated Funding Pilot Project in 2008‐2010. This gap funding will be replaced by new revenue sources, as described within this report.

Re‐allocate Mainstream Services Funding: Advocate with mainstream service systems to mobilize supplemental commitments of up to $500,000 per year in mainstream systems resources [e.g. Community Support & Treatment Services (CSTS), Employment Training & Community Services (ETCS), Head Start) to help address inflation in services costs and expand impact of new community investment in supportive housing services.

Establish User Fees: Establish a strategy to recruit appropriate consumer service contributions (user fees) toward supportive services costs in new units created through the 500‐Unit Plan.ƒ

Explore Millage Funding: Explore the development of a millage strategy that will generate the needed amount of dedicated and sustainable revenue over a period of time not to exceed twenty years.

Raise Endowment Funding: Raise $10‐20 million in new private/corporate/foundation funding to create a Supportive Housing Services Endowment (by 2014), sufficient to generate significant continuing revenues dedicated toward the total of ongoing services costs required for 500 new units of housing.

A leadership team was formed to work on the second phase of this effort, and workgroups were established in three areas: (1) public education; (2) millage strategy; and (3) private endowment.

The results of this effort were presented to county commissioners on May 22.

Task Force Presentation

Bob Chapman – the task force chair, CEO of United Bank & Trust, and chair of the Washtenaw Community College Foundation – introduced other members of the task force leadership team, who all attended the May 22 working session:

• Cheryl Elliott, president of the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.
• Sister Yvonne Gellise, retired CEO of the Saint Joseph Mercy Health System.
• Bob Guenzel, retired Washtenaw County administrator.
• Norm Herbert, retired University of Michigan treasurer and associate vice president.
• Dave Lutton, president of the Charles Reinhart Company.

Their intent, Chapman said, was to give the county board some background about the Blueprint to End Homelessness and its plan for adding 500 units of permanent supportive housing, as well as the history of the task force. They would also introduce a plan for creating an endowment for supportive services, and would ask that the board formally dissolve the task force at its June 4 meeting.

Task force members Dave Lutton (standing) and Bob Guenzel.

Bob Guenzel told commissioners that this work goes back over 10 years. [It began when Guenzel was still county administrator. He retired in 2010.] The Blueprint to End Homelessness, which was developed in 2004, included major priorities that the community planned to focus on: (1) homeless prevention, to help keep people secure in their homes; and (2) housing with supportive services.

Regarding housing with services, Guenzel noted that the most difficult people to house are those who need services to help them find housing and to stay housed. The idea is to form a system of care and to engage the community to do that, he said. Dave Lutton chaired the committee on this topic, to develop realistic goals and to articulate why it’s important to provide supportive services.

Lutton spoke next, noting that there are currently about 350 units of permanent supportive housing in the county, so they haven’t met the target of 500 yet. People in these units earn below 30% of the area median income (AMI). The blueprint had called for 250 units for families and 250 units for individuals, with a goal of breaking the cycle of poverty and homelessness, “which is very challenging,” Lutton said.

Permanent supportive housing combines housing with services that people need, Lutton explained. The theory is that if housing is stabilized, there’s a better chance of addressing the underlying needs and challenges that contribute to homelessness, such as substance abuse and mental illness.

The agencies that form the Washtenaw Housing Alliance in reality are dealing with people who are earning about 15% AMI, Lutton said, so these are people who are extremely poor.

Contributing factors to homelessness are many and varied, Lutton said. Factors include lack of employment, drug and alcohol dependencies, physical disabilities, and mental illness – as well as a lack of support systems for the mentally ill, compared to a few decades ago. If people are housed, it’s much easier to tackle these other challenges, he said.

Someone living in permanent supportive housing pays no more than 30% of their income for rent. There are government vouchers and other subsidies that help offset the gap between that amount and the actual cost of housing, Lutton noted. The key factor is that the tenant holds the lease and it’s not limited by a length of tenancy. That’s another way to encourage housing stability, he said.

Permanent supportive housing requires property management, Lutton said, as well as a greater level of cooperation, coordination and communication with the landlord and support service providers. Participating landlords are “admirable, and know that they’re taking on a more challenging population than the mainstream public,” Lutton added, so it’s important to have a safety net – a quick, effective response – when a problem occurs.

Carole McCabe, executive director of Avalon Housing.

The whole system of supportive services is voluntary, Lutton explained. That is, it’s not thrust upon a family or individual. They agree to be open to the services. Services are customized according to each tenant’s needs, he noted, and include case management, crisis intervention, and assistance with all kinds of basic needs, including food and health care. When it’s done well, Lutton said, the tenant begins to feel like part of a community, and becomes connected to other tenants. “That again reinforces permanency,” he said. Lutton noted that tenants of the nonprofit Avalon Housing, which provides permanent supportive housing, stay an average of seven or eight years. A lot of what Avalon does is to create a sense of community for its tenants, he said.

Guenzel told commissioners that the task force believes this approach “is absolutely the right thing to do, to end homelessness and keep people housed. We feel very strongly about that. It’s a moral issue.”

More convincing to some people, Guenzel added, is that there’s a tremendous business case for this approach. Homelessness is very costly for taxpayers, he said. Studies – including research by the Corporation for Supportive Housing – have shown that emergency room and hospital in-patient days decreases by 50% for people who are in permanent supportive housing. Use of emergency detox services decreases by 80%. And earned income – which helps people get back on their feet, Guenzel noted – increases by 50%. So there’s a strong business case for this approach when looking at the cost of emergency systems compared to the cost of permanent supportive housing, he said.

Other community costs are also impacted, Guenzel noted. The average cost for permanent supportive housing is about $40 a day. That compares to the average daily cost of the state prison ($94), county jail ($129), and emergency shelter ($66). That’s a tremendous savings to taxpayers, he said, compared to the costs of the criminal justice system and homeless shelters.

In the past 10 years, new units of permanent supportive housing have come on line, Guenzel said. When the YMCA closed its downtown location, the city lost 100 units of low-income housing, he noted. Other units have come on line, but not all of them include support services. There are currently an estimated 350 units of permanent supportive housing, including about 75% that are managed by the nonprofit Avalon Housing. Most recently, Avalon opened a complex on Pauline Boulevard.

Guenzel noted that single-site complexes like the one on Pauline are more cost effective to offer supportive services, compared to housing at scattered sites with private landlords. But to meet the needs of the community, all types are necessary, he said.

Chapman spoke next, reminding commissioners that in 2007 the county board created the task force. Its charge was to “explore locally viable long-term revenue sources for the creation and sustainability of supportive housing units and related services.” In 2008, the task force delivered a report with recommendations, which was approved by the board.

From left: Norm Herbert, Cheryl Elliott, and Bob Chapman.

Those recommendations included starting a second phase of this effort, Chapman said. They created a leadership team and established workgroups in three areas: (1) public education; (2) millage strategy; and (3) private endowment.

Regarding public education, the real intent is to raise the public’s awareness and support for resources that would be needed to sustain supportive housing services. That was necessary, Chapman noted, because the task force’s main recommendation back in 2008 was to seek a voter-approved millage. The millage would provide dedicated revenue for a period not to exceed 20 years.

At the same time, the third initiative was to build a private endowment, Chapman explained. So at the end of a 20-year millage, there would be money available to replace those tax revenues.

However, starting in last 2008 there was a significant change, Chapman noted: “We went through the Great Recession.” That period included a reduction in state and federal funding sources, and “no appetite for a millage,” he said.

Norm Herbert picked up the presentation, noting that fundraising slowed down considerably in 2008 as well. So the task force decided to shift the priority away from a millage and toward building an endowment. They set an initial goal of $17 million. That amount was largely influenced by the amount it would take to fund supportive services for 136 units, Herbert said. They were using an annual cost of $5,000 per unit to provide the services.

The value of an endowment is that it’s permanent, and provides an annual payout in good and bad economic times, Herbert noted. “It’s a reliable source of revenue, and should provide the same or greater purchasing power over the time that these needed supportive services can be provided,” he said.

Given the challenges of building an endowment, it was important to determine “community readiness” for such an initiative, Herbert explained. The firm Hammond & Associates LLC was hired in 2013 to conduct that assessment. They held 21 one-on-one confidential interviews, as well as two group interviews. “We learned through that process that more community education was needed, both on the complexities of homelessness, and secondly, on the workings of an endowment fund and of how that would provide the ongoing needed support,” he said.

Sister Yvonne Gellise.

They also learned that professional expertise would be needed to assist with building the endowment. “It wasn’t just a matter of going out and asking for support, as we do with annual fund drives,” Herbert said. “This took on a different level of complexity, because people need to understand how an endowment works.”

Herbert reported that the task force has achieved some success so far. They established an endowment in 2011 and raised $2.1 million in commitments. That amount includes a $1 million gift from the St. Joseph Mercy Health System to create the endowment, which is called the Sister Yvonne Gellise Fund for Supportive Services for Housing. Gellise is the former CEO of St. Joe’s, and is a founding board member of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance.

Another $1 million commitment comes from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation (AAACF), where the endowment is housed. In addition, an anonymous donor has contributed $100,000.

Cheryl Elliot, the AAACF’s CEO, reported that the fund will disburse revenue annually using a process set up by AAACF with input from the Washtenaw Housing Alliance, the county’s office of community & economic development, and the coordinated funding partners. The first fund distribution, of $26,100, will be made this fall in a competitive grant process, she said.

The AAACF’s distribution committee – an all-volunteer group – will be responsible for making grant recommendations, Elliott said. She added that it looks like an additional $24,500 will be available for grants in 2015.

Regarding staff to help build the endowment, in March of 2014 the AAACF board agreed to contract a three-year part-time development position at the foundation solely to support the fund development efforts for this endowment. Up to $40,000 will be needed annually for this job, Elliott said, and will come from the Washtenaw Housing Alliance ($25,000), the AAACF ($5,000) and an anonymous donor ($10,000).

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) was a member of the task force on sustainable revenues for supportive housing services.

The foundation will post this position in early June, Elliott reported, with the intent of making a hire as soon as possible. The position would be in place until at least mid-2017. The employee will report to AAACF’s vice president for development and donor services and the Sister Yvonne Gellise Fund development committee. Members of that committee are the same people who’ve served on the leadership team of the task force, Elliott said. In addition to herself, members are Bob Chapman, Sister Yvonne Gellise, Bob Guenzel, Norm Herbert and Dave Lutton. They hope to get an additional two or three members, she said.

The goals for the endowment itself are large but achievable, Elliot told commissioners. Over the next five years, the goal is to raise $5 million in gifts and pledges. For the seven to ten years after that, the goal is to raise $17 million. The long-term goal is to raise $50 million in 20 years – a combination of gifts, pledges and return on investments.

Elliott outlined next steps in the process, which includes asking the county board to sunset the task force at the June 4 board meeting. The board will also be asked to consider the task force’s recommendation for a millage. “Please use this year and into 2015 to set a millage strategy,” she said.

Gellise wrapped up the presentation, joking that “I’m getting a little tired of hearing my name – but at least it’s in connection with something good.” She hoped that commissioners saw the connection between having a home and improving the health of this community – referring to a presentation earlier in the working session by the county’s health officer, Ellen Rabinowitz.

Providing supportive services for housing is not only successful in keeping people housed, Gellise said, but is also cost-effective, with a good return on resources invested. “The bottom line – and I am a bottom-line person: It is the right thing to do. We need to do it,” she said.

Gellise thanked commissioners for their support, and asked them to “keep a millage on your radar screen.”

Board Discussion

Several of the five commissioners who attended the working session thanked the task force for their service.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked for clarification about the amount needed per unit to provide housing and supportive services. The $5,000 per unit annually is the cost to provide supportive services, to eventually be covered by the endowment. The $40 per day per unit is estimated rent – to be covered by both the tenant and any available subsidy.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Smith elicited from Cheryl Elliott the fact that the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation currently manages about $76 million in total assets. Elliott said the goal is to get an 8% return on investments to allow for a 5% spending policy and 3% inflation. The goal is to preserve the inter-generational equity or purchasing power of a gift or a fund, she said. So if someone set up a $10,000 endowment 50 years ago, “that fund had better be more than $10,000 today and have been paying out grant dollars every year,” Elliott said. AAACF staff and volunteers pay serious attention to that, she added.

Responding to additional queries from Smith, Elliott reported that AAACF was founded in 1963 and over those years the return on investments has varied. The way that funds are invested has also changed, she noted. Today the portfolio is very diverse, everything from traditional U.S. stocks to emerging markets and alternative investments – hedge funds, private equity, and real assets. Elliott noted that Norman Herbert sits on the foundation’s finance and investment committee.

Herbert said that over the last 20 years, AAACF has hit its target of an 8% return. In 2008, the portfolio lost 30.8% of its value, Elliott added, but the value was recouped two years after that. However, because the payout policy is based on a 16-quarter rolling average, AAACF was able to continue making grant payouts during that time, she noted.

Smith said he asked these questions to recognize that the AAACF has been doing this work for a long time, and has been quite successful.

Board Discussion: Bond vs. Millage

Conan Smith asked Bob Guenzel whether the task force had considered bonding as an option, rather than a millage. What if the county bonded for $50 million toward this initiative?

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), one of the commissioners representing Ann Arbor, is chair of the board’s working sessions.

Guenzel replied that there would still need to be a revenue stream to pay off those bonds. Smith indicated that if the county borrows at a 2% interest rate and invests the money, getting a return of 8%, then bonds could be leveraged to pay off the debt. “It seems to me like we might be able to achieve the greater community goal in a less costly way, perhaps, in a partnership like that,” Smith said. Guenzel said they’d certainly be willing to consider it.

Smith reported that he and Mary Jo Callan – director of the county’s office of community & economic development – have been exploring the concept of “social impact” bonds as a mechanism for financing social programs. He said it would be worth taking time to look at the potential of bonding. It seemed to him like bonding would require a substantially lower revenue stream to pay it off.

The county now has a triple-A bond rating, Smith noted. [That news had been announced earlier in the day. In general, higher ratings allow organizations to secure better terms for borrowing funds.] “This gives us an opportunity, if we’re going to do projects that scale, to actually have some real impact in the community,” Smith said.

Herbert said there might be some arbitrage issues coming into play that could be a concern, so they’d need to look at that. He indicated that the possibility could be explored.

Smith then asked if the county is currently contributing to this initiative. Amanda Carlisle, executive director of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance, replied that the county provides support through its participation in coordinated funding. Avalon Housing, for example, is getting $85,000 from the county this year through coordinated funding. Carole McCabe, Avalon’s executive director, noted that the amount is a decrease from last year.

Guenzel described funding for housing and supportive services as a “hodge-podge,” including federal grants as well as the local coordinated funding.

Smith asked if the county’s contribution to Avalon Housing would be diminished, if the endowment were fully capitalized. Is that the intent? Guenzel replied that it might be the outcome, if the endowment is large enough. But “that’s a very long way off,” he added.

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

“I’m not so sure it is,” Smith responded. For the sake of argument, Smith said, let’s assume the county is making a $100,000 annual investment in supportive housing now. If the county wants to ensure that same amount is provided in perpetuity, adjusted for inflation, then they’d need to give the endowment $2 million, he said. Herbert clarified that Smith’s calculation assumes a 5% distribution rate, and that 4% would probably be more reasonable to assume.

Smith suggested that the county give the endowment $2 million, and also somehow ensure that its current grantees – like Avalon Housing – would be held harmless in terms of support from the county, until the remainder of the endowment is built.

Cheryl Elliott told Smith that in Michigan, it’s not legal to put public taxpayer dollars into an endowment like this. Herbert noted that these are issues that would need to be researched.

Dave Lutton reported that the task force has been working on the understanding that a 0.25 mill tax would fund 500 units of permanent supportive housing. “We don’t think that 500 units is all that’s needed in Washtenaw County in terms of housing or permanent supportive housing, but it’s a great leap from where we’ve been,” he said. So that’s the first target of this plan.

Elliott added that the idea of a millage stems from looking at what other communities are doing, and at what would work best for Washtenaw County – a permanent endowment. Herbert noted that the intent is to build the endowment so that after a period of time, the millage is no longer needed. The goal of $50 million would support 500 units, which was part of the original Blueprint to End Homelessness.

Smith ventured that there are some “interesting financial opportunities for the county to be a partner in this strategy going forward.” That might include a millage, bonding, or potentially using county funds in an endowment-type effort, he said. This is a public good and a public responsibility, Smith added, and it’s something that taxpayers should want to be a part of.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) noted that an advisory committee will be looking at the use of the county-owned Platt Road property, a 13.5-acre site at 2260 and 2270 Platt Road. He thought there was an opportunity for affordable housing solutions at that location, and he asked the task force leadership team to consider advocating for that.

Related to the possible funding options, LaBarre asked how seriously should the county look at the possibility of bonding – assuming that a millage isn’t politically viable. Would the county’s upgraded credit rating have any kind of effect on that decision?

Herbert replied that legal counsel should be involved in helping to determine whether bonding is an option.

LaBarre then asked what the fallback plan would be, if a millage isn’t pursued or if voters reject it. Herbert responded: Under that scenario, the only real option would be to build the endowment through private donations. That’s an important part of the education initiative that the task force outlined, he said.

LaBarre wondered if there was any hope of support from the state or federal governments. “Not currently,” Herbert replied.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), who was part of the task force, thanked the leadership team for their work. She was amazed at their ingenuity, passion and dedication.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) also thanked the task force. A lot of things that the county is celebrating now are due to work that’s happened in the past, he said. Former county administrator Bob Guenzel had laid a lot of groundwork for this, Rabhi added. There are a lot of challenges, he noted, but the community now understands what the problem is and is seriously tackling it.

There are a lot of creative ideas, Rabhi said. He agreed with LaBarre that there’s a great opportunity at the Platt Road site. It might not result in a cash contribution from the county, but the site could be used for supportive housing, affordable housing or even mixed-income housing, he said. The 13.5 acres might be more valuable if used for housing – more so than if it were sold, he noted.

Rabhi thought there was a role for commissioners to play, even as individual community members helping to raise awareness of this initiative and to help build the endowment. “We can and should certainly play an advocacy role in helping to lead the community movement toward making that endowment a reality.”

Present: Felicia Brabec, Andy LaBarre, Yousef Rabhi, Conan Smith, Dan Smith.

Absent: Kent Martinez-Kratz, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Rolland Sizemore Jr.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. 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!

In the meantime, the task force will likely be meeting before the resolution comes back to the council. Indications at the March 3 meeting were that the budget for the task force and the scope of work for staff and consultant support could change considerably.

The total amount proposed to be appropriated for the task force project budget is $197,250. That amount includes an “estimated $122,500” as the approximate cost of the anticipated city staff effort for the project. The total project budget includes $77,400 for a professional services agreement with Project Innovations Inc.

The funds are to be sourced in part from an allocation made during the May 20, 2013 budget deliberations, which appropriated $75,000 for a study to prioritize sidewalk gap elimination. The connection between sidewalk gaps and the task force’s work is based in part on one of the other resolved clauses establishing the task force: “… the task force will also address sidewalk gaps and create a tool for setting priorities for funding and filling those gaps; …”

The pedestrian safety and access task force was established through a council resolution passed on Nov. 18, 2013. Confirmed as members of the task force on Jan. 21, 2014 were: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, and Owen Jansson.

Another key resolved clause establishing the group’s scope of work includes the following: “… the task force will explore strategies to improve pedestrian safety and access within a framework of shared responsibility through community outreach and data collection, and will recommend to council improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

The responsibilities of the task force include delivery of a report a year from now – in February 2015.

The funding for the task force is in part to be used to pay for the $77,400 contract with Project Innovations Inc. to provide facilitator support to the task force.

According to a staff memo written in response to councilmember questions, the facilitator would assist with an anticipated 18 task force meetings, 24 resource group (staff) meetings, five stakeholder meetings and three public meetings. The facilitator would be “preparing materials and agendas; facilitating the meetings; summarizing the meetings; facilitating communication and discussions between, and among, the task force members and the resource group; and, developing materials for community outreach in addition to the actual public meetings, including content for press releases and web page publishing, and a community survey.”

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, a “team of staff members has identified Project Innovations, Inc. as a firm in the region that has demonstrated skill in task force facilitation and robust community engagement efforts, and is uniquely qualified with the capacity to facilitate the pedestrian safety and access task force’s rigorous work approach within the specified timeframe.” Based on the phrasing in the memo, the work appears not to have been put out to bid and Project Innovations was identified as a “sole source” provider.

Project Innovations is the same firm currently providing facilitation support to a citizens advisory committee that is attached to a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study being conducted by the city.

The resolution establishing the task force does not explicitly charge the group with a review of the city’s crosswalk law. But the pedestrian safety task force was established in the same time frame as the council was considering an amendment to the city’s crosswalk law. The council ultimately voted to change the language of that law at its Dec. 2, 2013 meeting – so that motorists were required to concede the right-of-way only to pedestrians who had already entered the crosswalk.

That change was subsequently vetoed by mayor John Hieftje. Drawing on the phrasing used in Hieftje’s statement of veto, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) has indicated he intends to bring forward an amendment that would require motorists to stop at crosswalks for pedestrians only if “they can do so safely.” At the council’s Feb. 18, 2014 meeting, Kunselman announced he’d be pursuing such an amendment.

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

The item had been postponed from the council’s Nov. 7 meeting amid concerns about the funding needed to support the task force’s work. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy had described the staff and other support for the task force as costing on the order of $100,000, depending on the level of support and activities required. [.pdf of Nov. 7 memo on pedestrian safety]

At the Nov. 18 meeting, a substitute resolution was put forward by its sponsors – Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) – that in part tried to address the concern about budget by tapping some of the $75,000 the council allocated in the FY 2014 budget to prioritize which sidewalk gaps should be eliminated. [.pdf of substitute pedestrian safety task force resolution]

The pedestrian safety task force would consist of nine residents, including “representatives from organizations that address the needs of school-aged youth, senior citizens, pedestrian safety, and people with mobility impairments.” Applications from interested citizens should be turned in to the mayor’s office by Dec. 2, 2013, with the task force members appointed on Dec. 16, 2013. [.pdf of standard city board and commission task force application]

The task force would deliver a report by February 2015. That report would include recommendations for “improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

As the task force sponsors, Warpehoski and Briere had indicated that their intent is not to make the task force an alternative to repealing the city’s crosswalk ordinance. That repeal was given initial approval at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting.

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

Leading to the decision to postpone were concerns about the budget that would need to be approved in order to provide the necessary staff support for the task force. The vote to postpone was unanimous.

The pedestrian safety and access task force would consist of nine residents, including “representatives from organizations that address the needs of school-aged youth, senior citizens, pedestrian safety, and people with mobility impairments.” Applications from interested citizens should be turned in to the mayor’s office by Nov. 22, 2013. [.pdf of standard city board and commission task force application] The intent is to appoint the task force at the Dec. 2, 2013 city council meeting.

The task force would deliver a report by early September 2014. That report would include recommendations for “improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) had announced at the council’s Oct. 21 meeting that they’d be bringing forward the proposal to establish a pedestrian safety task force. At the Oct. 21 meeting, Warpehoski stated that the effort was not meant as an alternative to the efforts that other councilmembers are making to bring forward a repeal of the city’s pedestrian crosswalk ordinance.

The city’s ordinance differs from the Uniform Traffic Code (UTC) in two respects: (1) requiring motorists to stop for pedestrians, not just to slow as to yield; and (2) requiring motorists to take action to accommodate pedestrians standing at the curb at a crosswalk, not just those pedestrians who have already entered the crosswalk.

The resolution establishing the task force acknowledges that many residents are concerned that current city policies create an unsafe environment for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers.

Some of the recent community conversation has included the fact that traffic crashes involving a pedestrian have shown an increase in the last two years, the period during which Ann Arbor adopted its local ordinance that requires more of motorists than the UTC. The charts below are by The Chronicle using data from Michigan Traffic Crash Facts.

Pedestrian Traffic Crashes by Year: Ann Arbor

Pedestrian Traffic Crashes by Year: SEMCOG region.

Pedestrian Traffic Crashes by Year: SEMCOG Region by County

Pedestrian Crashes by Year: Washtenaw County Outside Ann Arbor

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

Mayor John Hieftje had indicated at the council’s Oct. 15, 2012 meeting that he would be moving to expand the task force in this way. The resolution was sponsored by Smith’s Ward 1 cohort, Sabra Briere. At the meeting, Briere was also appointed to replace Smith as the council representative to the task force.

Smith’s last meeting was Oct. 15, because she was unable to attend the final meeting of her term, which was Nov. 8. New councilmembers – including Sumi Kailasapathy, who’ll take the seat held by Smith – will be ceremonially sworn in at the council’s Nov. 19 meeting.

The task force is due to make a recommendation on a use for the city-owned 721 N. Main Street parcel by the end of the year. That comes in the context of a planned application by the city to the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund next year for a grant in connection with 721 N. Main. The group’s broader recommendation for the entire corridor is not due until mid-year 2013.

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

The task force was established by the city council at its May 7, 2012 meeting, with membership to include the following: one member of the park advisory commission, one member of the planning commission, one resident representing the Water Hill neighborhood, one resident representing the North Central neighborhood, one resident from the Old Fourth Ward, one resident representing the Broadway/Pontiac neighborhood, two business and property owners from the affected area, and one member of the Huron River Watershed Council.

At its May 21 meeting, the two sponsors of the resolution that created the task force – Ward 1 councilmembers Sabra Briere and Sandi Smith – proposed adding three additional representatives: a member of the city council, someone from the boating/fishing community of river users, a representative from the Huron River Citizens Association. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who also serves on AAPAC, then proposed an amendment to add an AAPAC member to the task force. The AAPAC addition was passed by council on a 6-5 vote. [See Chronicle coverage: "Positions Added to North Main Task Force"] Appointments are expected to be made at the council’s June 4 meeting.

At AAPAC’s May 23 meeting, Derezinski told commissioners that “basically, we need someone at the table.”

The task force is charged with delivering a report to the city council more than a year from now – by July 31, 2013 – that describes “a vision to create/complete/enhance pedestrian and bike connection from downtown to Bandemer and Huron River Drive, increase public access to the river-side amenities of existing parks in the North Main-Huron River corridor, ease traffic congestion at Main and Depot at certain times of a day and recommend use of MichCon property at Broadway; …”

Earlier than that – by the end of 2012 – the task force is to make recommendations on the use of the city-owned 721 N. Main parcel.

Brown has served on AAPAC since early 2009, and has chaired the commission’s projects committee. She is a principal of Rizzolo Brown Studio, an Ann Arbor architecture firm.

This brief was filed from the basement conference room of city hall at 301 E. Huron, where AAPAC held its meeting. A more detailed report will follow.

The member from AAPAC was added by a 6-5 vote that amended the original resolution. Voting for the additional member were Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), and mayor John Hiefjte.

When the task force was established at the council’s May 7, 2012 meeting, the membership had included the following: one member of the park advisory commission, one member of the planning commission, one resident representing the Water Hill neighborhood, one resident representing the North Central neighborhood, one resident from the Old Fourth Ward, one resident representing the Broadway/Pontiac neighborhood, two business and property owners from the affected area, and one member of the Huron River Watershed Council.

The appointment of actual members to the task force has not yet been made. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) indicated that the complete set of names might be expected by the council’s June 4 meeting.

The task force is charged with delivering a report to the city council more than a year from now – by July 31, 2013 – that describes “a vision to create/complete/enhance pedestrian and bike connection from downtown to Bandemer and Huron River Drive, increase public access to the river-side amenities of existing parks in the North Main-Huron River corridor, ease traffic congestion at Main and Depot at certain times of a day and recommend use of MichCon property at Broadway; …”

Earlier than that – by the end of 2012 – the task force is to make recommendations on the use of the city-owned 721 N. Main parcel.

The creation of the task force comes in the context of the city’s application to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for funds to demolish two former maintenance yard buildings on the city-owned 721 N. Main parcel. The application has been approved by FEMA, but is pending the update of the city’s All-Hazard plan, which had expired and is being updated. FEMA is willing to help fund the demolition, because the two buildings are located in the floodway. The city council’s eventual acceptance of the FEMA grant will require a deed restriction on development in the floodway portion of the parcel.

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

The creation of the task force comes in the context of the city’s application to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for funds to demolish two former maintenance yard buildings on the city-owned 721 N. Main parcel. The application has been approved by FEMA, but is pending the update of the city’s All-Hazard plan, which had expired and is being updated. FEMA is willing to help fund the demolition, because the two buildings are located in the floodway. The city council’s eventual acceptance of the FEMA grant will require a deed restriction on development in the floodway portion of the parcel.

At the most recent meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, on May 2, 2012, mayor John Hieftje expressed his view that the 721 N. Main property should become a city park as part of an Allen Creek greenway. At that meeting, he spoke of a possible grant from the state’s Natural Resources Trust Fund and matching funds from Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation to support the construction of such a park, with connections to the Border-to-Border Trail, which runs along the Huron River, on the opposite side of Main Street from the 721 N. Main property.

The memo accompanying the resolution includes the MichCon property – between the Amtrak station and the Huron River – as part of the task force’s scope: “This task force’s efforts should create/complete/enhance pedestrian and bike connection from downtown to Bandemer and Huron River Drive, increased public access to the river-side amenities of existing park in the North Main-Huron River corridor, ease traffic congestion at Main and Depot at certain times of a day and recommend use for MichCon property at Broadway.” [For discussion of MichCon's planned environmental cleanup work on the site, see previous Chronicle coverage of the March 20, 2012 meeting of the city's park advisory commission.]

The task force is supposed to conduct a series of public workshops, and consult with independent professionals and city staff. By July 31, 2013, the task force is supposed to provide a report. The task force is also supposed to provide a recommendation on the use of the 721 N. Main parcel by Dec. 31, 2012. That earlier deadline is there to facilitate the city’s application to the state for the Natural Resources Trust Fund, which has a deadline of April 2013.

The city’s 2007 Non-Motorized Plan shows a long-term vision for pedestrian and cycling amenities on the west side of the Huron River, including an underpass for the railroad tracks that would essentially extend a shared-use path from Fifth Avenue at Depot Street under the tracks across Riverside Park the MichCon property, where it could eventually connect with the Border-to-Border trail. [.pdf of map from 2007 Non-Motorized Plan] Responding to an emailed query, transportation program manager Eli Cooper wrote to The Chronicle that the Non-Motorized Plan is currently being reviewed for its regular update.

The specific members of the North Main Huron River task force have not been named, but the makeup of the group set forth in the resolution is as follows: one member of the park advisory commission, one member of the planning commission, one resident representing the Water Hill neighborhood, one resident representing the North Central neighborhood, one resident from the Old Fourth Ward, one resident representing the Broadway/Pontiac neighborhood, two business and property owners from the affected area, and one member of the Huron River Watershed Council.

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

The task force is currently “on hold” following its Feb. 29, 2012 meeting, when it made its recommendations to the AATA. A few days after that task force meeting, the Ann Arbor city council ratified its part of a four-party agreement – between the AATA, city of Ann Arbor, city of Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County – that provides a framework for possible transition to a new governance structure for the AATA.

The April 19 board resolution addresses part of the reason that the task force was reluctant to make a specific funding recommendation: Pending currently is state legislation on transportation funding through vehicle registration fees and the establishment of a regional transit authority for a four-county area in southeast Michigan (including Washtenaw County). From the board’s April 19 resolution: “…the AATA will monitor proposed legislation and other conditions affecting transit funding, and reconvene the FTF as needed to consider amendments to their recommendations …”

The financial task force had calculated that there’s a roughly $32.9 million gap between existing funding and what would be needed to fund the first five years of expanded services. To cover that gap, the task force calculated that a countywide millage of 0.5 mill would be needed – if the mechanism of funding were to be a countywide transit tax. But the task force declined to identify a millage as the solution to that funding gap, in light of pending legislation at the state level that might make other mechanisms available. [.pdf of Feb. 29 report draft approved by whole group]

The categories of service recommended as part of the first five years of the program include ongoing bus replacements, urban bus network enhancements (including enhancements to the WAVE, a western Washtenaw express), countywide door-to-door and flex services, express bus services, local community circulators, park-and-ride lots, vanpool services, and “superstops” in the Washtenaw Avenue corridor.

The subcommittee also recommended an average increase for fixed-route fares of $0.50, with the possibility of fare increases for paratransit services as well. Higher fares should be charged for express bus services, with the possibility of distance-based zone fares.

Also significant in the financial task force report was a recommendation that certain projects – like the north-south high-capacity connector, the Washtenaw Avenue high-capacity service, as well as the east-west and north-south commuter rail service – be considered separately. Those projects are not recommended for inclusion for local expenditures in the first five years. It’s also recommended that the Ann Arbor downtown circulator service (previously called The LINK) should be discretionary and should rely on private investment.

The language of the resolution passed by the AATA board on April 19 does not accept the task force recommendations unconditionally. The resolved clause reads [emphasis added] “… accepts the recommendations of the Financial Task Force for consideration by the AATA and the community.”

And the minutes from the April 10 meeting of the planning and development committee indicate that there may not be universal agreement on the AATA board with at least one of the task force recommendations – to exclude rail projects from expenditures of local funds in the first five years of the plan, and to spend local money only on local projects.

From the minutes: “Eli Cooper was assured by Michael Benham [AATA strategic planner] that the FTF is an advisory task force, with the board having ultimate authority to accept, decline, or modify their recommendations. Eli expressed concern with only using local money for local projects for the first 5 years. If this was to occur, then the Board may not be in alignment with their overall priorities (for expansion of services). Other than that, Eli was interested to hear more about the FTF and staff opinions as to how they see the first 5 years playing out.”

This brief was filed from the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library at 343 S. Fifth, where the AATA board holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The revised ordinance prohibits panhandling in one generally-defined additional location (in or within 12 feet of a public alley) and one specific location (within 12 feet of the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library.) [.pdf of revisions to existing ordinance as they were drafted at the start of the April 4, 2011 meeting]

The proposal to revise the law grew out of a street outreach task force, which was appointed at the council’s Sept. 20, 2010 meeting and charged with developing cost-effective recommendations for addressing the issue of downtown panhandling and the needs of those who panhandle. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Task Force Consults Panhandlers"]

At the council’s March 21, 2011 meeting, the council received a report from two members of the task force – Maggie Ladd, executive director of the South University Area Association, and Charles Coleman, a project coordinator with Dawn Farm. A recommendation contained in the report included revising the city’s ordinance on solicitation to prohibit panhandling in additional locations. [.pdf of street outreach task force report]

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 100 N. Fifth Ave. A more detailed report will follow: [link]