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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ypsilanti Township in AAATA: Qualified OK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A timeline overview:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ypsilanti Township in AAATA: Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ypsilanti Township in AAATA: Board Deliberations

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

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

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

AAATA board member Susan Baskett.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ypsilanti Township in AAATA: Public Commentary Coda

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

Vivienne Armentrout.

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

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

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

AAATA FY 2014 Budget

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

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

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

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

AAATA FY 2014 Budget: Board Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selection of Pear Sperling for Legal Work

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Board Governance

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

Board Governance: Officer Elections

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

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

AAATA board chair Charles Griffith.

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

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

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

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

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

Board Governance: Committees

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

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

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

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

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

Board Governance: Meeting Schedule

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

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

Local Advisory Council

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

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

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

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

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

Comm/Comm: Regional Transit Authority (RTA)

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: On-board Rider Survey

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Blake Transit Center

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Environmental Law Conference

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

Comm/Comm: Ecology Center Fundraiser

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

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

Comm/Comm: Minutes, Ypsilanti Routes

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

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

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Briarwood Mall Bus Stop

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

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

Comm/Comm: Fair Fares

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first two of the seven Ann Arbor nominations needed for the new transit authority board were made at the Oct. 15 meeting: Susan Baskett, who currently serves as a trustee on the Ann Arbor Public Schools board; and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who currently serves on the city council. Derezinski will be leaving the council in mid-November, because he did not prevail in his August Democratic primary race. His last city council meeting will be Nov. 8.

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

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

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

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

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

Ann Arbor Rail Station

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ann Arbor Rail Station: Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ann Arbor Rail Station: Council Prelims

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

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

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

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

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

Ann Arbor Rail Station: Council Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ann Arbor Rail Station: Continued Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transit Connector Study

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transit Connector Study: Deliberations – Part 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transit Connector Study: Deliberations – Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

Transit Board Membership

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

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

Also placed before the council for their consideration were two of the seven Ann Arbor nominations needed for the new Act 196 transit board: Susan Baskett, who currently serves as a trustee on the Ann Arbor Public Schools board; and Tony Derezinski, who currently serves on the city council representing Ward 2. Derezinski will be leaving the council in mid-November, because he did not prevail in his August Democratic primary race. His last city council meeting will be Nov. 8. [Hieftje also announced that it would be his intent to nominate Derezinski to take the place, as a citizen appointee, of an anticipated resignee from the city planning commission. After Nov. 8, Derezinski will no longer be able to serve on that body as the council's representative, as he currently does. The planning commission resignation has not been announced, but it's likely to be Evan Pratt, a Democrat running for the job of Washtenaw County water resources commissioner.]

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

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

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

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

Proceeds of Land Sales

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

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

Sandi Smith (Ward 1).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proceeds of Land Sales: Public Commentary

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

Proceeds of Land Sales: Smith – Prelims

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

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

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

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

Proceeds of Land Sales: Smith – Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proceeds of Land Sales: Smith – Main Motion

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

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

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

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

Proceeds of Land Sales: Budget Committee – Amendments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lumm indicated she could live with 10%.

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

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

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

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

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

Human Services Coordinated Funding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Human Services Coordinated Funding: Council Discussion

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

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

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

Parks Grants

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

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

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

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

Ann Arbor Greenbelt Acquisitions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greenbelt: Public Comment

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

Greenbelt: Council Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stormwater Study

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

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

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

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

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

Citizens United Resolution

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

Citizens United Resolution: Public Comment

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

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

Citizens United Resolution: Council Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dissolution of Sign Board of Appeals

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

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

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

Dissolution of SBA: Council Deliberations

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

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

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

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

Airport Lease

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

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

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

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Sidewalk Gaps

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

Comm/Comm: North Main Task Force

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

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

Comm/Comm: Library Bond

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

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

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

Absent: Stephen Kunselman.

Next council meeting: Thursday, Nov. 8, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. Council meetings are typically held on Mondays, but this meeting is pushed back due to the Nov. 6 general election. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]

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

Also added to the meeting’s agenda were two of the seven needed nominations to the new Act 196 transit board: Susan Baskett, who currently serves as a trustee on the Ann Arbor Public Schools board; and Tony Derezinski, who currently serves on the city council. Derezinski will be leaving the council in mid-November, because he did not prevail in his August Democratic primary race. His last city council meeting will be Nov. 8.

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

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

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

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

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]