Chris Haslinger (second from right), director of training for the United Association (UA) of plumbers and pipefitters, received a proclamation from the county board of commissioners at the board’s Aug. 6 meeting. They were gathering for a photo to mark the event. From left: Conan Smith, Andy LaBarre, Alicia Ping, Yousef Rabhi, Chris Haslinger, and Verna McDaniel, the county administrator. (Photos by the writer.)

The county has determined that it’s authorized to collect up to 1/10th of a mill for support of indigent veterans, without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy this type of tax – the Veterans Relief Fund Act, Public Act 214 of 1899 – predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. The county first began levying this millage in 2008, and collects the tax in December. The current proposal is to levy 1/27th of a mill in December 2014, which is expected to raise about $540,887 in revenues for use in 2015.

The county’s position is that Act 88 can also be levied without voter approval to fund economic development and agricultural activities. This year, the proposal is to levy 0.07 mills in December 2014 – the same rate that was levied in 2013. It’s expected to raise an estimated $1,022,276 in property tax revenues.

Final action on these tax levies is expected at the board’s Sept. 3 meeting.

Also related to Act 88, the board approved allocations of $87,760 in Act 88 revenues that were collected in 2013, to support six projects. Four of the projects are administrated by Ypsilanti-based Growing Hope, with the remaining two projects initiated by the Michigan State University Product Center.

During the Aug. 6 meeting, commissioners approved amendments to both the Act 88 projects resolution and the resolution to levy the tax this year. The amendments directed the county’s corporation counsel to provide a written opinion about how Act 88 revenues can lawfully be used, and how the tax can be lawfully levied without a vote of the people. The amendments were brought forward by Dan Smith (R-District 2).

In other action, the board received a second-quarter budget update, with projections showing a general fund surplus of $211,920 for the year. The board also made mid-year budget adjustments, which included allocating a $3.9 million surplus from 2013 into unearmarked reserves.

Commissioners approved a new policy to guide decisions on tax increment finance (TIF) proposals, and supported revised rules and guidelines from the water resources commissioner. Those revisions relate to procedures and design criteria for stormwater management systems.

A proclamation made during the Aug. 6 meeting honored Herb Ellis Sr., the first black man to be elected to the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. Ellis was elected in 1968 and served until 1982, representing Ann Arbor. During that time he also was the first black chair of the county board. He passed away on July 10, 2014 at the age of 98.

Another resolution recognized the contributions of United Association (UA), a union of plumbers, pipefitters, sprinkler fitters, welders, and heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration (HVACR) technicians. They’re in this area from Aug. 9-15 for their 61st annual training program, and have announced a new 15-year agreement to continue the program at the Washtenaw Community College.

The Aug. 6 meeting was held one day after the Aug. 5 primary elections. At the start of the meeting, board chair Yousef Rabhi congratulated all primary candidates, and said he looked forward to working with Ruth Ann Jamnick, the winner of the District 5 Democratic primary. He quickly added “pending the general election, but I think…” – a comment that drew laughs. District 5 – which covers August Township and parts of Ypsilanti Township – is heavily Democratic. Jamnick, who prevailed in the four-way Democratic primary, will face Republican Timothy King in the Nov. 4 general election. District 5 was the only race that was contested for the county board, with incumbent Rolland Sizemore Jr. not seeking re-election. Incumbents in all other districts of the nine-member board were unchallenged in the primary.

At the end of the meeting, the board voted to enter into a closed executive session for the purpose of reviewing attorney-client privileged communication. It is one of the exemptions allowed under the Michigan Open Meetings Act.

After about 30 minutes, three commissioners returned to the boardroom – Dan Smith (R-District 2), Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). They indicated to The Chronicle that they thought the discussion in the closed session had strayed away from the limits imposed by the OMA, and they had left the session because of that. They did not state what the nature of the discussion had been, nor the topic of the session.

Soon after, the remainder of the board emerged from the closed session, and the meeting was adjourned.

Act 88 Grants, Levy

The Aug. 6 agenda included a resolution to approve allocations to six projects, using funds from an Act 88 millage that the county levies each year. Commissioners were also asked to give initial approval to levy that tax.

Tony VanDerworp, the county’s economic development officer.

The county’s position is that Act 88 of 1913 can be levied without voter approval to fund economic development and agricultural activities. This year, the proposal is to levy 0.07 mills in December 2014 – the same rate that was levied in 2013. It’s expected to raise an estimated $1,022,276 in property tax revenues.

In previous years, the resolution setting this millage has outlined how the revenues would be allocated. The largest allocations have gone to the county’s office of community & economic development, and to the nonprofit Ann Arbor SPARK.

However, at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, the board adopted a new policy for allocating Act 88 revenues, drafted by Conan Smith (D-District 9). [.pdf of Act 88 policy] The policy included creating an Act 88 advisory committee to make recommendations to the board and prepare an annual report that assesses how Act 88 expenditures have contributed toward progress of goals adopted by the board. The policy allows the committee to distribute up to 10% of annual Act 88 revenues without seeking board approval. The policy also allocates up to 30% of revenues to the county office of community & economic development, which administers Act 88 funding.

This year, the 10% amounts to $91,753. Of that, $3,993 remains unallocated and will stay in the Act 88 fund balance to support future projects. Beyond that, a total of $87,760 in funding was recommended for six projects initiated by two organizations – the Michigan State University Product Center, and Ypsilanti-based Growing Hope [.pdf of staff memo]:

• $10,060 to the MSU Product Center to study the potential for enhanced food processing in Washtenaw County.
• $12,700 to the MSU Product Center to develop “MarketMaker,” a food industry business network and database.
• $20,000 to Growing Hope/Reconsider to run community education events on the Michigan Invests Locally Exemption Act and to study the potential and processes for investing locally in Washtenaw County.
• $13,000 to Growing Hope/Revalue to provide two full-day educational events to assist investors in incorporating local investment offerings into their financial plans.
• $13,000 to Growing Hope to create a study on increasing food assistance sales at farmers markets in Washtenaw County.
• $19,000 to Growing Hope to support the development of an Ypsilanti “MarketPlace,” a year-round farmer’s market, and “MarketHub,” a food distribution center serving underserved communities.

These recommendations were made to the county board by the Act 88 advisory committee. Members are: County commissioners Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Conan Smith (D-District 9); Todd Clark, president of United Bank & Trust; and Art Serafinski, chair of the Ypsilanti Convention & Visitors Bureau board. Staff support was provided by the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED), including economic development officer Tony VanDerworp, who attended the Aug. 6 meeting along with OCED director Mary Jo Callan.

Act 88 Grants: Board Discussion

Commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2) began the discussion by noting that he’s had some long-standing concerns about the legality of how the county is using Act 88 funds. Rather than sorting those issues out that night, he said he’d rather work with the county’s corporation counsel and come to an understanding about it.

He then brought forward an amendment for the projects resolution, requesting that corporation counsel provide the board with a written opinion about the lawful use of the sums raised under Act 88. Smith’s original proposed amendment stated:

FURTHERMORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners directs Corporation Counsel to provide an exhaustive written opinion, by December 31, 2014, detailing the lawful uses of sums raised under Act 88 of 1913 (MCLA 46.161), and that this opinion address in similar manner other possible interpretations.

Smith’s motion did not receive support from any other commissioners to bring it forward for discussion, so Alicia Ping (R-District 3) declared it dead due to the lack of support.

Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Conan Smith (D-District 9) and Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) had been out of the room during this part of the meeting, and returned to their seats just after the motion had been declared dead. Conan Smith said he’d be willing to support Dan Smith’s motion. Alicia Ping (R-District 3) – vice chair of the ways & means committee, who was chairing the meeting in the absence of Ways & Means chair Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) – allowed D. Smith to reintroduce the motion. It was then supported by C. Smith.

C. Smith said there’s been a lot of confusion about Act 88, “and we face it every year.” He and D. Smith had spent a lot of time on the phone talking about the meaning of the act, he said, so “it would be really helpful to have an interpretation that we can use as we go into our granting processes and the distribution of these funds.”

At the Act 88 committee meeting that was held earlier in the day, C. Smith said, they began talking about the grants process for next year, and about how to ensure that the allocations relate specifically to the purposes of the act – “just to make sure we’re on the straight and narrow.” One way to go about it is to leave it up to the committee to determine, though none of the committee members are lawyers, he noted. He thought it would be great to have a statement to rely on. Even if it’s not possible to be definitive – because the law itself is unclear – it would be useful to know what ways the law could be interpreted, he said. C. Smith concluded that he was comfortable with the amendment.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) asked Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, about what legal effect Hedger’s legal opinion would have – “what would it get us on the hook for down the road, good or bad?”

Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel.

Hedger replied that like any opinion, it would simply be his advice to the board. As policymakers, ultimately it’s the county commissioners who decide what to do, he noted. If the amendment were approved, he’d give them his best interpretation of how the Act 88 revenues can be spent. Hedger said that asking him to come up with alternative interpretations, as directed by D. Smith’s draft amendment, was a little “touchy-feely.” He added: “That would just be me speculating.”

As far as putting the county on the hook one way or another, Hedger said he didn’t think that was an issue, because it would just be an opinion.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) asked what D. Smith meant by the word “exhaustive.” D. Smith replied that Hedger has already provided the board with opinions on other topics that explain how phrases could be construed in different ways. That’s what D. Smith intended by “exhaustive.” The language in MCLA 46.161 is extremely convoluted, he added, so Hedger could explain how parsing the grammar in different ways would yield different interpretations. Then it’s up to the board to decide which interpretation to use, he said.

Rabhi said he thought an opinion was simply an opinion – not a description of other opinions. He wasn’t sure it was an appropriate approach to ask for alternative interpretations. Rabhi would support asking Hedger to give the board his interpretation of the law, but it wasn’t Hedger’s job to do more than that.

C. Smith said he’d asked D. Smith to include that language in the amendment. He noted that the very first sentence of Act 88 has a semicolon in it. That sentence states:

The boards of supervisors of the several counties may levy a special tax on the taxable property within their respective counties for the purpose of creating a fund; or appropriate out of the general fund an amount to be used for advertising agricultural or industrial advantages of the state or county or any part of the state, or for collecting, preparing or maintaining an exhibition of the products and industries of the county at any domestic or foreign exposition, for the purpose of encouraging immigration and increasing the trade in the products of Michigan, or advertising the state and any portion thereof for tourists and resorters.

As an English major, C. Smith said, his interpretation of a semicolon is to stop one thought, and append another thought to it – interrelated but separate. So for the Act 88 language, he said, there might be two legitimate interpretations of the function of that semicolon. It’s important for the board, which will be allocating the Act 88 dollars, “to have some degree of comfort that we’re doing it within the parameters of legality, even if those aren’t 100% clear,” he said.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

The courts ultimately are responsible for interpreting the law, C. Smith said. If the board asked for a legal opinion and someone then sued the county over Act 88, the board would have a document that showed the legal underpinnings for their decision – and “I would feel more comfortable with the decisions that we are making.”

Act 88 is a mess, C. Smith continued – it’s “ancient” legislation that’s been amended over the decades, making it even more convoluted. “Just knowing that we’re walking down a path that is legal – even if we’re not sure that that is the absolute right path – I think would be helpful for us on the committee to make an allocation of the funds,” he said. “What I definitely don’t want to do is to walk down a path that’s not legal.”

D. Smith said he wants to make sure there’s a very full discussion of the law’s various nuances. At the end of the day, Hedger will provide his best interpretation of the law, he added. But as part of that guidance, it’s prudent to explore other ways that it could be interpreted. It should answer as many questions as can be answered, he said, “so that this issue is put to rest once and for all.”

Rabhi said it seemed like D. Smith was trying to do Hedger’s job. He thought they should ask the person that they hired to be the county’s attorney for his opinion. If the board wants a white paper on Act 88, they should ask for that – but maybe not from Hedger, he said. Rabhi asked Hedger what he thought.

Hedger replied that after this discussion, he had a better feel for what the amendment is asking for. He said D. Smith was right – when Hedger writes legal opinions for the board, he often describes other interpretations that he doesn’t necessarily agree with. He didn’t have a problem with this approach.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) didn’t think the amendment accurately reflected what the board wanted from Hedger. C. Smith said he’d be comfortable striking the last clause: “…and that this opinion address in similar manner other possible interpretations.” D. Smith agreed to that change.

Rabhi thanked the Smiths, saying that striking the clause would allow him to support the amendment.

The revised amendment was as follows: [strike-through reflects a clause that was struck during deliberations]:

FURTHERMORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners directs Corporation Counsel to provide an exhaustive written opinion, by December 31, 2014, detailing the lawful uses of sums raised under Act 88 of 1913 (MCLA 46.161), and that this opinion address in similar manner other possible interpretations.

Outcome on the amendment, as revised: It passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Outcome on main resolution, as amended: The board unanimously passed the resolution allocating Act 88 funds, without additional discussion.

After the vote, Conan Smith commented that this was the first round of competitive Act 88 grants, and the projects are really interesting. “I think they’ll be very impactful on the community,” he said. He was especially excited about the grant to Growing Hope to study how to increase the use of food stamps at the Ypsilanti farmers market, so that people who use food stamps can get better access to fresh fruit and vegetables. He encouraged everyone in the community to take a close look at these projects.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) expressed some frustration about the amount of money in general that’s being spent on studies, rather than directly on projects. He thought that the Ypsilanti farmers market project should be expanded to other parts of the county.

Act 88 Levy: Board Discussion

Later in the meeting, the board was asked to consider a separate resolution that would authorize the county to levy the Act 88 tax this year.

Dan Smith brought forward a similar amendment, aimed at getting a firm understanding of the Act 88 millage:

FURTHERMORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners directs Corporation Counsel to provide an exhaustive written opinion, by October 1, 2014, detailing the exact mechanism under which Act 88 of 1913 taxes may be levied in excess of Article IX, Section 6 constitutional limits without a vote of the people.

There was no discussion on the amendment.

Outcome on the amendment: It passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Outcome on the main resolution, as amended: It passed unanimously.

2nd Quarter Budget Update

The administration gave an update on the county’s second-quarter financial status, for the period from Jan. 1 through June 30, 2014. County administrator Verna McDaniel introduced the update by calling it “good news.” [.pdf of presentation]

Finance analyst Tina Gavalier.

Tina Gavalier of the county’s finance staff told commissioners that property tax revenue is showing a projected surplus of $720,000 compared to what was budgeted for 2014. In addition, the sheriff’s office is projecting a roughly $200,000 surplus due to federal, state and local reimbursements for prisoner boardings. In the category of general intergovernmental revenues, there’s now a projected surplus of $370,000 due to state liquor tax funds and local reimbursements for animal control.

Several other areas are showing a revenue shortfall, however, compared to the amount budgeted. Those units include the clerk/register of deeds ($350,000 shortfall), district court ($209,000 shortfall), trial court ($73,000 shortfall) and interest income ($71,000 shortfall).

Gavalier noted that the trial court is still determining the impact of a Michigan Supreme Court decision prohibiting the assessment of court costs on criminal cases. The court can collect on anything that was assessed prior to the court ruling, she explained, but if no legislative action is taken, courts could see a substantial decrease in future revenues.

Overall, the net projected revenues for the general fund show a revenue surplus of $656,991.

On the expenditure side, the sheriff’s office has a projected over-expenditure of $673,000 related to overtime costs, inmate food and medical services, and law enforcement operating supplies. Gavalier said the sheriff and his staff are actively working to reduce that over-expenditure by year’s end. All other departments are reporting a combined operating surplus of $135,000.

In other expenditure categories, the line item for tax appeals and refunds is projected to have a surplus of about $239,000. The line item of central charges has a projected surplus of $93,000 due to tax refund overpayments being less than budgeted – partially offset by projected over-expenditures from the homelessness initiative that the board approved earlier this year. Appropriations are assumed to be on budget at $16.2 million. The expenditure projections also took into account structural and non-structural budget adjustments that have been made so far in 2014, totaling $560,000.

The net projected over-expenditures for the general fund are $445,070. So the projected general fund surplus for 2014 is $211,920.

Washtenaw County general fund projections for 2014.

If that $211,920 is added to the fund balance at year’s end, Gavalier said, then the fund balance would be 20.3% of the general fund expenditures.

Most departments that aren’t part of the general fund are on budget or are projecting a surplus, Gavalier reported. Two areas – veterans relief and risk management – are using their fund balances as planned, she said.

Some revenue issues to monitor include: (1) state legislation that might repeal or reform Act 88, (2) revenues for the clerk/register of deeds office, (3) court revenues, (4) personal property tax reform, and (5) payments from state revenue-sharing. Expenditure items to monitor include rising costs in the child care fund due to increased caseloads and placements, the sheriff’s office costs, and union contract negotiations.

Gavalier noted that the board will receive a third-quarter update in November, with a budget reaffirmation process taking place this fall for the 2015-2017 budget.

2nd Quarter Budget Update: Board Discussion

Responding to a query from Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), Tina Gavalier explained that the projected revenue shortfall of $350,000 in the clerk/register of deeds office was from lower-than-projected fees from document-processing – such as real estate transfers and marriage licenses. It’s lower than it’s been in the past several years. Rabhi quipped: “Buy houses and get married, everybody!”

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

Regarding the courts, Rabhi asked if there’s legislation pending to address the impact of the recent state Supreme Court ruling. He wondered if the county’s lobbyist needed to work on something in Lansing. [Washtenaw County and several other local municipalities pay Governmental Consultant Services Inc. to act as a lobbyist for their interests at the state level.]

County administrator Verna McDaniel said she hadn’t taken any action on this issue, but would be talking with the court administrators about it. She pointed out that the courts operate under a lump sum budget.

Rabhi said it might be worthwhile to see what other counties are facing, and to see if there’s potential to work across county lines. McDaniel said she’d get more information about that.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) wondered when the new GASB regulations take effect. He was concerned when the administration talks about a “surplus,” knowing that the county actually has about a huge amount of unfunded liability.

By way of background, Smith was referring to more than $200 million in unfunded liabilities from the retiree health care and pension funds. The new accounting changes – required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) – take effect in phases. In 2014, the main change will be more disclosures in notes to the financial statements, required by GASB 67. But in 2015, when GASB 68 is implemented, the county’s unfunded actuarial accrued pension liability will be booked as a liability in the county’s statement of net position, which will be a significant change, according to the county’s finance staff. New standards for health care liabilities will be addressed in the future by GASB, and the county’s accounting staff is working on that.

McDaniel replied that it’s an issue that staff will “continue to dialogue with this board about,” to get direction in terms of priorities and any additional actuarial payments that might be required.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) asked about the shortfall for the courts, saying she was concerned about it. She wondered how that will impact the memorandum of understanding with the county, regarding the lump sum budget under which the courts operate. McDaniel noted that in the past, the courts have been able to work within their lump sum budget. But this year, the impact of the Supreme Court ruling will be substantial, she said. So the courts will have to come up with a plan about how they’ll handle it. The impact could be as much as a half million dollars, McDaniel said. “We’ll work with them, and we’ll have more information as this develops.”

Ping also asked for a breakdown in line-item costs that are contributing to the over-expenditures in the sheriff’s office budget. McDaniel said that the sheriff, Jerry Clayton, felt confident that expenses will even out over the remainder of 2014, based on actions that his office is taking.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

2014 Budget Adjustments

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to mid-year budget adjustments, including allocating this year’s higher-than-expected property tax revenues and a $3.9 million surplus from 2013. Initial approval had been given at the board’s July 9 meeting.

The adjustments increased the general fund budget’s expenses and revenues by $720,486 for 2014, $733,233 for 2015, $745,980 for 2016 and $758,727 for 2017. The county operates on a four-year budget, with the fiscal year matching the calendar year.

The adjustments were recommended by county administrator Verna McDaniel, who requested setting aside the $3,920,818 surplus from 2013 in unearmarked reserves, rather than spending it. The projected year-end 2014 fund balance is $20,638,675. The county board had previously approved a goal of holding a fund balance equal to 20% of its general fund budget. For 2014, the general fund budget is $103,127,202. [.pdf of staff memo and mid-year budget resolution]

In addition, the following mid-year budget adjustments were made to the general fund:

• Structural adjustments resulting in a $494,677 increase in expenditures for: (1) providing employee health care coverage for autism; (2) a consultant to help with the board’s budget priority work, (3) a “local government initiatives” intern; (4) reinstatement of two full-time equivalent positions in the sheriff’s office; and (5) salary adjustments for non-union employees.
• Non-structural, one-time, adjustments that increased expenditures by $65,000 for homelessness initiatives.

The administration recommended that the remaining $160,809 be held as an undesignated allocation until budget projections improve as new information becomes available. Finance staff gave a second-quarter budget update on Aug. 6, projecting that the county will have a $211,920 general fund surplus at the end of 2014. [.pdf of budget presentation]

From left: County prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie and commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2).

When an initial vote was taken on July 9, commissioners Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Conan Smith (D-District 9) had voted against it. On Aug. 6, both raised the same concerns they’ve voiced earlier.

Conan Smith said he hoped that when the county achieves its goal of a fund balance equal to 20% of the general fund budget, then any extra surplus would be “put to work in the community.” With its vote that night, the board will have achieved fiscal stability, he said, and he looked forward to achieving community stability as well.

Dan Smith stressed the importance of setting a budget and sticking to it, with adjustments coming only during the annual budget affirmation process – rather than throughout the year. There are other things to focus on, he said, including policy issues.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he agreed with C. Smith. The board has done a lot to make sure the county’s financial security is in place. Looking forward, there are some investments that the county can make in the community. He thanked C. Smith for advocating on that issue.

Outcome: The budget adjustments passed unanimously.

Veterans Relief Tax

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to levy a tax to support services for indigent veterans.

The county has determined that it is authorized to collect up to 1/10th of a mill without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy this type of tax – the Veterans Relief Fund Act, Public Act 214 of 1899 – predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. The county first began levying this millage in 2008, and collects the tax in December. Services are administered through the county’s department of veterans affairs.

Since 2008, the county board has slightly increased the rate that it levies each year. In 2012, the rate was 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. It was raised to a rate of 1/30th of a mill in December 2013, to fund services in 2014.

The current proposal is to levy 1/27th of a mill in December 2014, which is expected to raise about $540,887 in revenues for use in 2015.

There was no discussion of this item at the board’s Aug. 6 meeting.

Outcome: The board unanimously gave initial approval to levy this millage. A final vote is expected at the board’s Sept. 3 meeting.

New TIF Policy

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval a policy to guide the county’s participation in tax increment financing (TIF) authorities.

Commissioner Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) and county administrator Verna McDaniel.

At its Oct. 16, 2013 meeting, the board had passed a resolution directing county administrator Verna McDaniel to develop a policy for evaluating future TIF proposals. The resolution stated that the policy would be developed with input from staff of the office of community and economic development, the equalization department, and the brownfield redevelopment authority. The Oct. 16 resolution was passed over dissent by the board’s two Republican commissioners, Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

Subsequently, an advisory committee was formed to help develop the policy. Members were: county commissioner Andy LaBarre (D-District 7); county treasurer Catherine McClary; corporation counsel Curtis Hedger; and finance director Kelly Belknap.

The two-page policy brought forward by McDaniel lays out a process by which the board would consider any proposed or amended Corridor Improvement Authority (CIA) or Downtown Development Authority (DDA) where the capture of county tax revenues is requested. [.pdf of TIF policy]

New TIF Policy: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) referred to this section of the policy:

III. Tax Increment Financing Participation Process

Any local unit of government proposing a new or amended Corridor Improvement Authority or Downtown Development Authority, or other statutory entity empowered to capture, incremental County tax revenues are requested, shall adhere to the following review process, in addition to those specified by the appropriate state enabling legislation:

…

D. Any County participation in these Tax Increment Financing Districts shall be through the execution of a participation agreement. A participation agreement shall include, at a minimum, extent of County participation including estimated amount (consideration of dollar for dollar and percentage estimates), duration, and methods, if any, of termination and reporting requirements.

IV. County Opt Out Authorization

In the event a requesting entity fails to adhere to this process, the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners authorize the County Administrator to take the appropriate steps to opt out of participation in the proposed tax increment financing plan.

It appeared to D. Smith that no additional board approval would be required, in order for the county administrator to begin opt-out proceedings if the requesting entity doesn’t follow the agreed-upon process. He didn’t object to that approach, but wanted to make certain that it’s what is intended.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) responded, saying that D. Smith’s interpretation was correct. Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger said the committee gave that authorization because of a potential timing issue. There are times when deadlines related to the TIF process would occur before the next board meeting, “so it gives the administrator some flexibility,” he said.

LaBarre said the policy is an attempt to give the board as broad a framework as possible. This is a tool the board could use, he said, but he also urged the board to look at each individual proposal in its set-up and its context. There are so many different types of tax-capture mechanisms for many different purposes, so he wanted to give that caveat. LaBarre praised the county staff for their work in developing this policy, saying “I simply went along for the ride.

Outcome: The TIF policy passed unanimously on an initial vote. A final vote is expected at the board’s next meeting, on Sept. 3.

Appointments

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), the board’s chair, made several nominations for appointments.

• Food Policy Council: Khadije Wallace to the slot for a citizen representative, for a term ending Dec. 31, 2014.
• River Raisin Watershed Council: Evan Pratt, the county’s water resources commissioner, as the Washtenaw County representative; and Harry Sheehan, environmental manager with the water resources commissioner’s office, as the county alternate. Those terms both end on Dec. 31, 2014.
• 2014 Remonumentation and Land Survey Peer Review Group: Thomas Sutherland, John Jekabson, Kevin Gingras, Patrick Hastings and Kenneth Coleman.

Outcome: All appointments were confirmed.

Water Resources: Revised Rules & Guidelines

The board’s Aug. 6 agenda included an item to support new rules and guidelines proposed by the county’s water resources commissioner, Evan Pratt. The changes relate to procedures and design criteria for stormwater management systems. [.pdf of revised rules and guidelines]

The previous rules and guidelines had been adopted in 2000. According to a staff memo, the new changes reflect updated requirements of the county’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II stormwater discharge permit, which is administered by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

Pratt attended the Aug. 6 meeting, but there were no questions from commissioners and no discussion on this item.

Outcome: The resolution supporting the revised rules and guidelines was approved.

Communications & Commentary

During the Aug. 6 meeting there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Proclamations – UA

At its July 9, 2014 meeting, the board had passed a proclamation welcoming the United Association (UA), a union of plumbers, pipefitters, sprinkler fitters, welders, and heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration (HVACR) technicians. They’ll be in this area from Aug. 9-15 for their 61st annual training program. For the past 25 years, that program has been held in Washtenaw County on the Washtenaw Community College campus, bringing about 2,400 participants to the county with an estimated economic impact of $5 million. [.pdf of UA proclamation]

Chris Haslinger, director of training for the United Association (UA) of plumbers and pipefitters.

At the Aug. 6 meeting, Chris Haslinger, director of training for the UA, was on hand to receive the proclamation. He thanked the board. He described the growth of the training program over the years, pointing out that this year there will be 450 first-time attendees. He noted that the community here welcomes the UA members, and that the union receives a great deal of assistance from the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti convention and visitors bureaus. Both presidents of those bureaus – Mary Kerr and Debbie Locke Daniel – also attended the county board’s Aug. 6 meeting.

Halsinger reported that the UA had reached an agreement with WCC to extend the program here through 2028. There are eight people based in the Ann Arbor area who work year-round on UA training programs, he said. Eight people might not seem like a lot, he added, but it’s important that they live here and contribute to the community.

He described some other initiatives undertaken with WCC, and concluded by thanking the county, the city of Ann Arbor, Local 190 and Local 704. “We look forward to a future in the Ann Arbor community,” he said.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) responded by thanking Halsinger and sharing an anecdote. He said he was on a conference call with U.S. vice president Joe Biden, discussing the future of the country’s talent and job resources. Rabhi said he asked Biden a question and mentioned the partnership between WCC, the county, the UA and other communities as an example of the direction that the country should be heading. He thanked Haslinger for UA’s investment in this community.

Communications & Commentary: Proclamations – Herb Ellis Sr.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) read a proclamation honoring Herb Ellis Sr., the first black man to be elected to the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. Ellis was elected in 1968 and served until 1982, representing Ann Arbor. During that time he also was the first black chair of the county board. [.pdf of proclamation]

Jeff Ellis.

Ellis had passed away on July 10, 2014 at the age of 98.

Jeff Ellis, one of Ellis’ sons, was on hand to accept the proclamation. His father’s life was dedicated to serving others, either through education, civic organizations or as an elected official, he said. In particular, Ellis had been interested in public health issues, promoting educational opportunities for young people, and improving the lives of senior citizens.

Herb Ellis was a pioneer in the community, as one of the first black teachers in the Ann Arbor public school system, and the first person of color to be elected to the county board of commissioners. He was recognized as a consensus-builder, Jeff Ellis said. “He believed in leading by example, and did his best to be a positive role model in all aspects of his life. By most accounts, he was successful in that effort.”

Communications & Commentary: Proclamations – Donald Shelton

The board had a third proclamation – for 22nd circuit court judge Donald Shelton, who is retiring this year. [.pdf of proclamation for Shelton] Shelton was out of town and did not attend the Aug. 6 meeting. Yousef Rabhi reported that the proclamation would be given to Shelton at a retirement party later this year.

Communications & Commentary: Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a recent candidate for political office in the state legislature and Ann Arbor city council. He called on the county to redouble its efforts after the Aug. 5 primary election to give priority to eliminating homelessness, generating adequate affordable housing, true countywide affordable and accessible public transportation, affordable health care and education. He supported Act 88 funding but didn’t think the grants reflected these priorities. Partridge advocated for support of Democrat Mark Schauer in his bid for governor, and for a progressive Democratic platform to address the needs of the most vulnerable residents. The state needs a balanced budget, but not one that’s balanced on the backs of those who are least able to fend for themselves in this economy.

Executive Session

At the end of the meeting, the board voted unanimously to go into executive session for the purpose of reviewing attorney-client privileged communication. It is one of the exemptions allowed under the Michigan Open Meetings Act. Commissioners retreated to a room in the administration’s offices, along with several staff members and others who had been invited into the closed session.

After about 30 minutes, three commissioners returned to the boardroom – Dan Smith (R-District 2), Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). They indicated to The Chronicle that they thought the discussion in the closed session had strayed away from the limits imposed by the OMA, and they had left the session because of that. They did not state what the nature of the discussion had been, nor the topic of the session.

Soon after, the remainder of the board emerged from the closed session, and the meeting was adjourned.

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

Absent: Felicia Brabec, Ronnie Peterson.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 3, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

Residents who live near the proposed Glendale Condos development turned out to oppose the project, which was postponed by planning commissioners. (Photos by the writer.)

Nearly two dozen residents spoke during a public hearing to oppose the project at 312 Glendale, citing concerns about increased flooding and other stormwater problems, dangers of a proposed retention/detention pond, increased traffic, and a loss of landmark tress and green space.

The project had been previously postponed a year ago, at the planning commission’s July 16, 2013 meeting. That meeting had drawn about an hour of commentary from residents who opposed it then as well.

The current proposal has been scaled back – but still drew considerably opposition. The plan now calls for six duplexes, each with two two-bedroom condos. (The original proposal had been for eight duplexes.) Based on the size of the parcel and the site’s zoning, up to 39 units would be allowed by right.

It was a retention/detention pond that drew most concern from commissioners. Wendy Woods said the potential danger it posed would prevent her from supporting the project. Ken Clein questioned the contention of the architect, Scott Bowers, that the pond had been mandated by the office of the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner. Clein and other commissioners asked planning staff to get more information from the water resources commissioner about whether there are other options to handle all of the site’s water detention – such as additional underground systems.

The water resources commissioner is Evan Pratt, who formerly served on the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Also prompting some concerns – but ultimately gaining a recommendation of approval from commissioners – was a proposal for new condominiums on West Liberty Street, called The Mark. The proposal from developer Alex de Parry is to demolish an existing car wash at 318 W. Liberty and build an 11,910-square-foot structure with seven residential condominiums – five two-bedroom and two three-bedroom units. Each condo would have its own two-car tandem garage for a total of 14 parking spaces, although no parking is required.

The lot, on the north side of Liberty, is east of the historic Peter Brehme house at 326 W. Liberty and located in the Old West Side historic district. Concerns raised during a public hearing focused on the fact that a small portion of the site’s corner lies within the floodplain, as well as a general objection to high-end development in the downtown core. One woman also criticized the aesthetics and height of the project. The project’s architect, Brad Moore, responded to concerns about the floodplain by saying that none of the building is within the floodplain. The garages are out of the floodplain, and the living space is located above the garages, he noted.

Two other projects were recommended for approval during the 4.5-hour meeting. Delta Chi plans to tear down its existing fraternity house at the corner of Hill and Oxford and build a much larger structure in its place. The current occupancy of 23 residents would increase to 34 people, including a resident manager. A fraternity representative fielded questions about the decision not to make a voluntary parks contribution. Some commissioners expressed skepticism at the contention that fraternity members didn’t use city parks, and asked that the contribution be reconsidered.

Finally, a $10.5 million expansion of the Gift of Life Michigan facility on Research Park Drive is moving forward to city council, after planning commissioners recommended approval of a site plan and rezoning. The nonprofit wants to build a three-story, 40,786-square-foot addition to connect two existing buildings at 3161 and 3169 Research Park Drive. The additional space will accommodate offices, a special events auditorium and “organ procurement suites.” The nonprofit’s website states that the Gift of Life is Michigan’s only federally designated organ and tissue recovery program.

Glendale Condos

The July 1 agenda included a residential project at 312 Glendale, south of Jackson Avenue, which had been previously postponed a year ago at the planning commission’s July 16, 2013 meeting. That meeting had drawn about an hour of commentary from residents who raised concerns about the project, including increased flooding, the lack of pedestrian access, increased traffic and the loss of landmark trees. The site, owned by Jeffrey Starman, includes a former orchard.

Vacant houses at 312 Glendale. Nearby neighbors use the driveway as a cut-through to the west segment of Charlton Avenue. (Photos by The Chronicle.)

The project has been scaled back since then – but still drew considerably opposition. The plan now calls for removing two vacant single-family houses and building six duplexes, each with two two-bedroom condos. (The original proposal had been for eight duplexes.) Based on the size of the parcel and the site’s zoning – R4B (multi-family residential) – up to 39 units would be allowed by right.

Each unit would include two garage parking spaces, with 12 additional surface spaces on the site. That’s double the number of spaces required by zoning.

Sixteen of the 23 landmark trees would be removed, and 103 new trees would be planted. The developer has also agreed to make a voluntary $7,440 contribution to the city’s parks system. There are two areas on the north with steep slopes, which are considered natural features.

A public sidewalk would be built along Glendale. There would also be pedestrian connection between two buildings on the site, connecting the drive and the new public sidewalk on Glendale. Another sidewalk connection would be built between the end of the east/west portion of the drive and the Hillside Terrace property to the west.

There would be a new curbcut onto Glendale Drive, slightly north of the existing curbcut, which would be removed. A traffic study wasn’t done because the projected increase in traffic during peak hours wasn’t large enough to trigger that requirement.

Regarding stormwater management, the development agreement requires that the developer pay for disconnecting three footing drains from residences in the nearby neighborhood – or “an equivalent amount of sanitary flow removal.” On the site itself, the proposal called for stormwater facilities to be located on either side of the entrance driveway – an underground basin on the north, and a surface retention/detention pond on the south. The intent is for any stormwater runoff to be captured within the site, and not to affect the surrounding neighborhood.

Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff gave all the staff reports at the July 1 meeting.

Planning staff recommended approval of this project. [.pdf of staff report]

By way of additional background, a year ago, both Ward 5 city council representatives attended the planning commission meeting when this project was brought forward. One of them – Chuck Warpehoski – was among the speakers at that public hearing. He was cut off at that meeting by commissioner Diane Giannola, who cited the commission’s bylaws: “A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission as a petitioner, representative of a petitioner or as a party interested in a petition during the Council member’s term of office.” Warpehoski, who’d been unaware of that rule, stepped away from the podium.

The situation prompted additional discussion of that section of the bylaws, which were ultimately revised in an attempt to clarify the ability of councilmembers to address the commission, among other things. The planning commission approved a bylaws revision at its Feb. 20, 2014 meeting. The changes also require city council approval. However, the city attorney’s office held back the revisions and they have not yet been forwarded to the council.

At a July 8 working session, planning commissioners were provided with a new draft that had been developed by assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald. His changes focused on how to handle public hearings in general. [.pdf of McDonald's draft] It’s likely that the commission will reconsider these bylaws revisions later this summer.

Glendale Condos: Public Hearing

The public hearing drew 22 speakers – the project’s architect, and 21 residents who were opposed to the development. Issues that were raised were similar to those expressed a year ago, and included concerns about increased flooding and other stormwater problems, dangers of the proposed retention/detention pond, increased traffic, and a loss of landmark tress and green space.

No trespassing signs are posted in the former orchard.

In addition to commentary during the public hearing, the planning commission received several letters about the project, which were included in the online meeting packet.

Here’s a summary from the July 1 public hearing.

Vince Caruso introduced himself as the coordinating member for the Allen’s Creek Watershed Group. The neighbors have a lot of concerns, because the development would be on a de facto park, he said. He wondered if there’s a calculation comparing the amount of impervious surface in this new plan compared to the old one. There are major flooding issues on Glendale, he said.

Caruso said the developer, speaking at a public forum on the project, had to be directly challenged after making the statement that no stormwater would leave the site. The developer also hadn’t notified all residents of Hillside Terrace about the forum, Caruso said. His daughter worked there, and told him there’s a very active residents’ group.

The drive out of the site will result in cars shining lights directly into houses across the street, devaluing their property, Caruso continued.

Regarding stormwater management, he said the design hadn’t changed “but the labels have been swapped.” The retention/detention pond, which is 7 feet deep, is a hazard to the community and an eyesore. It’s an extreme solution and indicative of the fact that this is way too much development for the site, he said. These kinds of basins are notoriously under-managed, he added. In recent years, there was a drowning in a similar basin near Target, he said. In years to come, when the fence around the basin is in disrepair, he said, “children and pets will have access to a clear and present danger to the community.”

Caruso also said the models for flooding in the Allen’s Creek watershed aren’t very accurate, since they don’t reflect the stormwater problems in the Glendale area. When Hillside Terrace was build, residents in the Glendale neighborhood sued and eventually settled with the city for flooding damages. “I think that’s a fairly clear indication that there’s stormwater issues to be addressed,” he said.

Libby Hunter read aloud a letter from Charles Dunlop, who lives on Glendale Circle. [.pdf of Dunlop's letter] He opposed the project, having concerns about traffic and water run-off.

Diane Robins of Old Orchard Court told commissioners that several of her neighbors were also at the meeting. They lived just north of the proposed project. They had concerns about stormwater runoff, flooding and sewage overflow, which she said are already severe in the neighborhood. The development is likely to adversely affect downstream property owners, she said. They’re concerned that the development will damage the environment and neighborhood “beyond its already fragile state.”

Vince Caruso and Diane Robins.

To document these issues, the neighbors created a flood, stormwater and sewage survey, modeled after the city’s water survey. Results from the first survey were presented to the planning commission a year ago, she noted – on July 16, 2013. More recently, they did another survey and doubled the number of responses. About 135 surveys were distributed, with 70 responses – a response rate of over 50%. The vast majority of respondents had problems with water, she noted. Copies of this information were sent to commissioners. [.pdf of Robins' correspondence]

There’s extensive flooding in the neighborhood, Robins reported, and she hoped commissioners would take these concerns into consideration. She requested that the stormwater modeling and evaluation be completed by the city prior to further consideration of this development.

Ethel Potts also expressed concerns about stormwater issues, and described how the current trees, shrubs and lawn help contain the water on that site. The development would make most of the site impermeable, she said. Potts questioned whether the retention/detention pond was safe, even with a fence. She described other aspects of the project that she characterized as badly planned, and told commissioners they could not approve the development.

Kira Slovacek, another resident of Old Orchard Court, was also concerned about the threat to the health and safety of residents. The pond would be a breeding ground for mosquitoes, she said, and increases the risk of West Nile virus. Such ponds are also frequently described as an “attractive nuisance,” she noted, and given this one’s proximity to a public sidewalk, “the risks of exploration are even greater.” Drowning is the most serious risk, she said, especially in a neighborhood heavily populated with children. Fencing isn’t an effective solution, she added. As the mother of two small children, with another one on the way, Slovacek said she’s very concerned, and she wanted to know what additional safety measures will be taken.

Slovacek’s husband, Ian Hubert, spoke next. He referenced a handout that he’d given to commissioners. He’d also sent an email to commissioners prior to the meeting. [.pdf of Hubert's email] He said the proposed buildings are much larger than existing single-family homes, and don’t fit will with the neighborhood. Hubert also expressed concern about the proposed locations for snow storage, noting that melting snow would run down the hill or clog the retention/detention pond with debris.

Tom O’Connell told commissioners he’s lived on Orchard Street for 47 years. He expressed concerns about flooding in the neighborhood. He said he lived there when neighbors sued the city over the Hillside Terrace development. He wondered why the city would allow a retention pond in a residential neighborhood. The city should fix the existing flooding problem before starting a new problem with this development, he said.

Kathy Boris, a Charlton resident, asked about the detention apparatus and the retention/detention pond. The fact that this development requires so much stormwater management indicates to her that it’s too large for the site. There’s too much impervious surface in the site plan. She asked if the land would be graded so that stormwater would flow into the catch basins. She also wondered if the development agreement would stipulate what maintenance would be required for the stormwater system. She listed several types of maintenance that the EPA recommended for such systems. Is there a legal mechanism to ensure that this maintenance occurs? Who’ll be held accountable if the system fails?

Josh Greenberg opposed the Glendale development.

Another Charlton residents, Kris Kaul, said she also has a rental property at the corner of Abbott and Glendale – directly across from the proposed development. The neighborhood feels very quiet and enclosed, and not a place that would support this development. Her main concerns were traffic and stormwater. Right now, it’s very difficult trying to turn left onto Jackson from Glendale, she said. Adding possibly 24 more cars will only increase the problem. It’ll make the quality of life there much worse. She was also concerned about the retention/detention pond. “It’s just a matter of time before a pet drowns in that retention pond,” she said.

Josh Greenberg lives on Glendale, and said he moved to the neighborhood because it’s very quaint with beautiful trees that have been there for decades or even a century. This project will change the neighborhood and he didn’t know if the development was worth it.

Sandra Berman of Glendale Circle thought that one of Ann Arbor’s goals is to create green spaces. There’s a beautiful orchard there now. She walks past there and sees children playing in the orchard, neighbors talking to each other – but now a condo development is proposed, despite the concerns. “My question is why would we do it?” she asked. Maybe there are financial reasons, but “that’s really not what our town is about,” she said.

Priscilla Parker, another Charlton resident, said she carefully reviewed the city’s master plan land use element section, and it’s clear that this development doesn’t meet two of the goals. Goal A is “to ensure that development projects are designed and constructed in a way that preserves or enhances the integrity of natural systems.” But this project will destroy natural systems, she said. Goal D is “to support the continued viability, health and safety of City residential neighborhoods.” Parker noted that there are serious issues regarding the retention/detention pond. She said everyone pays taxes for green space inside the city, and 312 Glendale is the perfect place to do that. She asked anyone who opposed the project to stand up – almost everyone in council chambers did.

Kira Slovacek.

Several other residents spoke against the project, including Melissa Whitney, Mary Cronin, and Andrea Pertosa. They raised similar objections and concerns about the retention/detention pond, flooding, traffic, impervious surface, and the elimination of green space. Gretchen Hahn read a letter from Rita Mitchell, who advocated that the city use funds from the open space and parkland preservation millage to buy the land for a park and green infrastructure. Susan Cybulski agreed with other speakers, and expressed concern that residents of Hillside Terrace – many who are elderly and infirm – couldn’t attend this meeting so that their voices can be heard.

Steve Thorpe thought developers should foot the bill for sending out notices. He also noted that when he was chair of the planning commission several years ago, he allowed people to applaud – it was a discretionary matter, “and the city didn’t come to a grinding halt.” Thorpe then spent the remainder of his speaking turn applauding, and was joined by others in the room. [Thorpe was responding to a request by the current chair, Kirk Westphal, not to applaud speakers during the public hearing.]

Ed Vielmetti said he wasn’t directly affected by this project, except to the extent “that we’re all citizens of Ann Arbor and we’re all affected by everything that goes on.” He talked about sump pumps in residences throughout Ann Arbor, and problems related to them. Because of the city’s footing drain disconnect program, the risk of sump pump failure is put on the residents to mitigate. “There’s no Internet of sump pumps in this town, and maybe there should be.” The city might be able to do something to help citizens manage stormwater issues in some way, especially in cases where it’s being made worse by new development, he said.

Lynn Borset spoke on behalf of the Virginia Park neighborhood. She referred to a communication she’d sent to commissioners last year, titled “Speaking for the Trees.” The information is still relevant, she said. [.pdf of Borset's 2013 email] Borset noted that the city forester also has noted concerns about the impact of construction on this site. She also wondered why there wasn’t a vehicle connection between Hillside Terrace and the proposed development.

Lynn Borset raised several objections to the project.

Other concerns related to density, open space and the retention/detention pond. She had raised some of these issues in a recent email. [.pdf of Borset's 2014 email] The development is over-capacity for this site, she said.

Gus Teschke pointed out that the development will include dumpsters, even though there are no other places with dumpsters in the neighborhood. It doesn’t align with community standards, he said. He questioned whether the site would meet the county requirements for containing stormwater. Teschke also noted that the local chapter of the Sierra Club is opposing the project. [.pdf of Sierra Club letter]

The final speaker was Scott Bowers, the project’s architect. They haven’t taken the neighbors’ comments lightly, he said. There have been several iterations of this plan. The project has been scaled back, he noted, and they’d designed the stormwater management system based on direction from the county water resources commissioner. “This is what they told us we needed to do,” he said. He explained how the retention/detention pond worked, saying it was the best spot to be located. Maintenance would be the responsibility of the condo association. There is additional parking on the site, compared to the previous plan, in response to neighborhood concerns about parking on the streets, he said. Two buildings had been eliminated to protect the natural feature of the steep slope and vegetation on the north side.

Bowers said they’ve gone to great lengths to preserve the existing trees as well as they can, and they’re grading the site so that stormwater will drain into catch basins. He noted that the buildings are duplexes, and that there are duplexes in the neighborhood already. The initial plan had called for four-plex units, he said.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion

Commissioners discussed this project for about 90 minutes and covered a range of issues, including stormwater management, traffic, open space, and design. Kirk Westphal, the commission’s chair, said that commissioners aren’t unsympathetic to issues connected with this project, but their charge is to look at developments with regard to the city’s code and master plan. So while the site is pastoral and hasn’t been developed, it’s private property, he noted. “It’s not really in our purview to decide whether this should be a park or not, or whether the private property owner should develop it or not.”

This report organizes the commission’s discussion thematically.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Stormwater, Flooding

Diane Giannola asked how long water would remain in the retention/detention pond. Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff replied that it would depend on the size of the storm. Giannola wondered whether there would constantly be standing water – because that would determine whether mosquitoes would breed there.

Kirk Westphal.

Paras Parekh asked how common it is for ponds to be used in developments like this. Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, explained that most recently within the downtown, most of the stormwater detention for developments has been below ground. But when land is available on a site, most of the post-1970s development – both residential and non-residential – has incorporated detention ponds. Sometimes the ponds have water, like those around Briarwood mall. A lot of times the ponds are dry, and simply appear as depressions within a development, she explained.

Parekh noted that the Glendale Condos site uses both underground detention as well as the pond. Was there a reason why it couldn’t all be handled below grade? Rampson replied that she thought it was because this site’s design is constrained by the steep slope.

Ken Clein asked if the soils are suitable for infiltration. Thacher said that was part of the county water resources commissioner’s review, and they determined that the soils were suitable. Clein wondered if there’d be any discussion about using more below-ground infiltration in the stormwater system, rather than a retention/detention pond. Rampson noted that the county water resources commissioner has jurisdiction over these issues. That’s why the planning staff isn’t able to answer questions in the same level of detail as they can on other issues, she explained. The county has jurisdiction because the stormwater system will be shared among several units within the site.

Wendy Woods asked for an explanation of the difference between retention and detention. Rampson explained that for detention, a pond is designed to hold water in a large storm. Water flows into the pond, then gradually goes into an underground pipe system. The idea is to hold it on the site as long as possible, so that all the water doesn’t feed into the city’s stormwater system at the same time.

A retention pond, in contrast, keeps water for a longer period while it infiltrates and evaporates. Examples are at Briarwood mall or large residential complexes, like Traver Lakes or Geddes Lakes. In some cases, detention ponds are attached to retention ponds, Rampson noted.

Aerial view of 312 Glendale.

Jeremy Peters asked if there was any oversight for maintenance. Thacher replied that the development agreement includes requirements for construction and management of the stormwater management. The responsibility will be assigned to the condo owners, with annual inspections to be conducted by a professional engineer. Written copies of those inspections must be provided to the city’s public services staff.

Kirk Westphal asked who would neighbors call if there are problems with the system? Thacher said they could call public services staff at city hall. He asked if there is any redress for the community, if something goes wrong. Thacher said that if the pond fails, the development agreement states that the city can force the owners to repair it, or put liens on the property for work that the city does.

Westphal then asked who should be contacted if someone has concerns about existing requirements for stormwater management – such as the open retention/detention pond. Rampson replied that the Washtenaw County office of the water resources commissioner sets the rules that the city uses. Possible revisions to those rules will be discussed by the county board later this year. [The position of water resources commissioner is an elected countywide post with a four-year term. The current water resources commissioner is Evan Pratt, who served on the Ann Arbor planning commission before his 2012 election.]

Responding to another query from Westphal, Thacher explained that this project’s stormwater standards are slightly stricter, because of the neighborhood issues. That’s why there can’t be any net increase of water leaving the site, which required a beefed-up stormwater system. “They’ve taken the neighborhood concerns very seriously, and made the developers put in extra precautionary measures because of that,” she said.

Rampson noted that much of that neighborhood was developed prior to the existing stormwater management requirements. So on most residential sites, the water runs off impervious surfaces and flows downstream. More modern development must meet requirements to manage the stormwater on-site, so that the new impervious surface doesn’t increase the runoff.

Architect Scott Bowers.

Sabra Briere asked whether the runoff from Hillside Terrace that flows onto the Glendale Condos site will be retained or detained. Architect Scott Bowers stated that the stormwater management system captures everything that come onto the site. The pond is open because it allows the water to evaporate or be sucked up by vegetation or percolate into the ground. That handles the water faster than simply an underground percolation system, he said. The system also has a mechanism that releases water into the city’s stormwater system at the “pre-development rate,” he said.

Responding to a follow-up question from Briere, Bowers said that all the runoff from roofs, sidewalks and other impervious surface enters the site’s retention/detention system through a stormwater piping system. Those are either catch basins in the roadway, or swales that lead to the retention/detention pond. All the downspouts are connected into this system directly or through swales.

Woods wanted to know the dimensions of the retention/detention pond. Bowers replied that it’s about 78 feet by 78 feet, and about 7 feet deep at its lowest point. Woods asked whether those dimensions were required by the county water resources staff. Bowers said the development team figured out the volume and provided that information to the water resources staff, and the development team’s engineers calculated the size of the pond that would be needed to deal with that volume.

Woods said she couldn’t get past the concerns about safety related to this pond. She pointed to a goal in the city’s master plan “to support the continued viability, health and safety of City residential neighborhoods.” A pond with those dimensions is a safety concern, she said – how would that be mitigated?

Bowers replied that there will be a six-foot security fence around the entire pond, with a locked gate. “Again, this was directed by Washtenaw water resources. This was a mandate for us to do this,” he said.

Woods imagined that children would be attracted to the water and fence, and climbing over it. She didn’t think she could overcome the concern, and didn’t think she’d support this project. “For me, it really is a hurdle.”

Giannola asked if it would be an actual pond, or whether it will be a grassy area in general that holds water only after a storm. Bowers indicated that the retention part of the pond will likely hold some water most of the time, until it percolates or evaporates. “It will constantly go up and down, depending on the weather,” Bowers said.

Ken Clein.

Clein questioned whether the water resources commissioner actually mandated the design. In his experience, that office typically tells a developer what the design must accomplish, but they don’t mandate a particular design.

Bowers replied that for this project, a year ago the planning commission sent the development team back to talk with the county water resources staff. Originally, all of the detention was underground, he said. But after talking with Evan Pratt and his staff, this design emerged – to hold the water while it either percolates or evaporates. The developer, Bowers said, was told to hold all water on the site – aside from the volume of water that leached off the site pre-development. It’s a very expensive system, he added. “This wasn’t something that we really chose to do, but this is where we were directed.”

Clein said that in his experience, open systems are typically less expensive than underground systems. Bowers replied that this site is doing both, because the project is being held to higher standards. “We’re off the charts on what we’re doing – this isn’t normal,” Bowers said. They even eliminated two dwelling units to be able to do this, he added.

Clein said he wasn’t comfortable moving forward with the petition, without getting further clarification from the water resources commissioner.

Susan Bowers, who’s also working on this project, said that Pratt and other county and city officials had held a closed meeting that the project’s civil engineers were not allowed to attend. That group decided that the project needed additional stormwater management, she said.

Clein pointed out that the city hall property also retained all of the water that fell on the site, but it’s all handled underground. [Clein is a principal with Quinn Evans Architects, which designed the city hall renovation.] He said he could imagine that the county water resources staff indicated that a pond would be the cheapest and easiest way to handle the additional stormwater capacity.

Wendy Woods.

The open pond approach is done elsewhere, Clein acknowledged, but considering that it’s a development that needs to fit into the neighborhood, it’s different from a pond in a commercial area like South State or South Industrial. “It is inconsistent with the fabric of the neighborhood to have a detention pond there,” Clein said – no matter how nice the fence looks. So he wanted to get more information about whether it was mandated by the water resources commissioner or just a suggestion.

Bonnie Bona clarified with Bowers that a security fence is required because of the pond’s depth and slope. She assumed that if there was more space on the site, the pond would be shallower and wouldn’t need a fence.

Clein said it wouldn’t be fair to reject the project because of something that the developer was mandated to do. On the other hand, if there was a misunderstanding and there are alternative ways to design it, then the planning commission should know that, he said.

Responding to a query from Westphal, Wendy Rampson said the commission could ask the water resources commissioner for documentation about the county’s decision-making process. Rampson wondered whether it would be more direct to ask the water resources staff if an underground system would be acceptable. Clein said that would be a good follow-up question.

Rampson clarified for Westphal that the city’s stormwater requirements, in Chapter 63 of the city code, state that projects must meet the standards of the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner. If a project meets code, essentially the city is obligated to approve it, she said.

Woods responded, saying that even if a project is meeting code, if there are concerns about health and safety, then the planning commission – as an advisory group – needs to make its own determination about that. It would ultimately be up to the city council to decide, she said.

From left: Diane Giannola and Bonnie Bona.

Jeremy Peters asked if it would be theoretically possible to design a stormwater system that’s entirely underground and still meet the county’s requirements. Yes, Scott Bowers replied – though it takes more land mass, because it would need to hold more water. The water only percolates underground – it doesn’t evaporate, so it stays in the detention system longer than an above-ground pond.

Briere asked if it’s possible to put the detention system underneath the site’s internal streets. Yes, Bowers said. For large commercial projects, such systems are sometimes located under parking lots and drives.

Responding to a query from Giannola, Bowers said the system needs to be in that front corner because of the grade changes and slopes on the site – it can’t be placed in one of the higher elevations.

Giannola said she wasn’t afraid of these retention ponds. They’re ugly, she added, but she didn’t think they were dangerous. Most of the ponds she’s seen in her neighborhood, tied to commercial developments, aren’t full of water.

Bona asked what kind of contaminants would fill the retention/detention pond – and ultimately end up in the sediment. Bowers replied that sediment would include debris, sand, dirt, and petroleum from cars. Bona replied that if people didn’t want contaminant to collect, they should probably not fertilize their lawns and not drive cars. But people do drive cars, she added, so the good news is that the contaminants are being collected and not sent to the Huron River. She asked how often the sediment would get cleaned out. Bowers replied that in this case, the system will be checked annually, and cleaned out as needed.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Streets, Parking Pedestrian Issues

Sabra Briere clarified with staff that the streets inside the development would be private, not public. The developer is responsible for snow removal. Eleanore Adenekan asked where snow would be stored. Jill Thacher replied that one location is at the top of a hill, with another spot near the pond.

Eleanore Adenekan.

Briere noted that snow storage on the northeast side of the site is by a slope down to the public sidewalk. She wondered how the complex would deal with melted water, “because that new sidewalk should not get icy.” Scott Bowers acknowledged that it’s an issue, and said they could look at other areas of the site to designate for snow storage. Or they could eliminate some surface parking and put the snow in those spots, he said. They’d like to put it by the retention/detention pond, because it would then melt into the pond.

Responding to a query from Ken Clein, Thacher reported that the site plan was reviewed by the fire marshal, and the site is required to include a turnaround area for emergency vehicles. Permeable pavers will be used for that area, she noted.

Clein observed that the city requires 18 parking spaces for this size development, but the site plan includes 36 parking spaces. He wondered if the additional spaces are in response to community feedback. Thacher said she believed that was the case, because of concerns raised about overflow parking on Glendale. Clein noted that additional parking means more impervious surfaces, which in turn leads to more stormwater issues. “These things are tied together,” he said.

Briere noted that a year ago when this project was being considered by the planning commission, one of the issues was the location of the new drive into the site. Commissioners had talked about aligning the drive with Charlton, so that headlights from cars exiting the complex wouldn’t shine into houses across the way. She wondered why that alignment didn’t happen.

Architect Scott Bowers replied that there were issues with grading, and how to configure buildings on the site. That southeast corner has been difficult, he said. That’s where the detention system and retention pond will be located.

Adenekan asked whether there could be a traffic light at the intersection of Glendale and Jackson. Jerry Spears, one of the project’s developers, said they’d be willing to consider that.

Paras Parekh wondered how many parking spots were in the original plan. There were eight surface spaces in that plan, replied Susan Bowers, one of the project’s architects.

Susan Bowers, Jill Thacher

Parekh asked how many parking spaces per dwelling were in the original plan, noting that there are now three per unit – a total of 36 spaces. Scott Bowers replied that there were 24 spaces originally – eight surface spaces, and two for each of the eight dwelling units. Parekh asked if they’d consider reducing the number of surface spots to eight again, to decrease the amount of impervious surface – and potentially decreasing the cost of the stormwater management. Bowers replied they’d like to have some spaces for guest parking.

Bona also supported reducing the surface spaces. She noted that realistically, there are two spaces available in each driveway – though those aren’t counted in the total, for site plan purposes. Bowers explained that only three of the buildings have driveways with sufficient depth to allow two parked cars.

Clein asked about the retaining wall along the sidewalk. At its highest point, the wall is five feet tall, Scott Bowers said. It will be a masonry wall.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Trash, Recycling

Responding to a query from Briere, Thacher explained that dumpsters will be located at each end of the private drive “stubs.” There will be bins for recycling and solid waste. She wasn’t sure how composting would be handled.

Bona asked how the site would accommodate recyclables. Susan Bowers, an architect with the project, replied that recycling bins are located next to the dumpsters. The city’s solid waste staff told the developers that they needed 300-gallon containers.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Trees

Clein asked about the root zone of one of the landmark trees, and whether it would be impacted by the development – a point raised during the public hearing. Thacher replied that the city forester, Kerry Gray, had extensive discussions about that tree and others, and had ultimately signed off on the plan. The goal was to keep as many of the landmark trees as possible.

Bona asked what kinds of trees will be added. Susan Bowers listed several varieties, including Allegany serviceberry, balsam fir, American hornbeam, Dawyck beech, Princeton Sentry ginkgo and others. Bowers noted that the trees are being planted according to the city’s requirements.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Density, Open Space

Bona noted that only 12 units are proposed, but the zoning allows for up to 39 units for a parcel that size. She reviewed the density allowed for adjacent zoning districts. The Glendale Condo site and Hillside Terrace have the same zoning. She pointed out that the project is proposing about half of the allowable density.

Developer Jerry Spears.

Responding to a query from Bona, Thacher explained that in calculating the percentage of open space on a site, the elements that aren’t considered open space are all the structures, drives, and parking spaces. Sidewalks count as open space, as does the retention/detention pond.

Peters asked if the property has ever been a public park. No, Thacher said. It was annexed into the city in 1987, but not zoned until 1994. It was zoned R4B as part of a proposed expansion of Hillside Terrace. That project wasn’t constructed and the site plan for it expired in 1999. It’s been in private hands, she said.

Bona noted that the original condo proposal presented a year ago called for eight buildings, and now there are six. The zoning allows for a building height of 35 feet, but the proposed buildings are only 17.5 feet tall. She asked whether they’d considered making a couple of two-story buildings and eliminating another building, so that there would be more open area to work with for stormwater management.

Scott Bowers said they looked at that option, but it wasn’t favorable to the developers.

Bona said she didn’t have a problem with more density than what is proposed. The current proposal is less dense than the surrounding neighborhood, she noted. She pointed out that if there are fewer buildings, there will be less impervious surface.

“Land is scarce and precious in this community, and to put a few big units on a large lot of land is contrary to the way I think about Ann Arbor,” Bona said.

Bona told Bowers that she’d love it if the units were much smaller, “but we haven’t enacted that ordinance revision yet – I’ll work on it.”

Bona said she’d like Bowers or the developer to consider making some of the units taller, and possibly eliminating a building. She said she appreciated the financial and marketing balance that’s at play. But she hoped the developer would “at least take a shot at that.”

Sabra Briere (left) talked with Diane Robins (standing) and other residents during a break in the July 1 planning commission meeting.

Scott Bowers replied that the project’s first design was for four buildings, each with four smaller, two-story townhomes. Neighbors didn’t like it at all, he said. Bona noted that to be fair to the neighbors, the site feels like a park – they wouldn’t have liked it even if just two houses were being added, she said. “All I’m asking is just to open your mind and reconsider.”

Giannola said she liked how the buildings look. The ranch houses with garages are a style that Ann Arbor doesn’t have much of. But townhouses would also be great, she said. To her, the project actually fits into the neighborhood.

Later in the meeting, Jerry Spears – one of the project’s developers – responded to some of the issues that had been raised. He noted that this has been a two-year effort so far. The density has been decreased, and now it’s a very low-density project, he said. The engineers on the project have said that they’ve never developed such an extensive stormwater system for such a small development. Spears said he’s built many projects in Ann Arbor, and takes a lot of pride in them.

“These are not monstrous individual spaces,” he said, referring to the size of the units. “I don’t know how I could make them any smaller. I tried to make it taller – they [the neighbors] said it was too tall. I tried to make it denser – they said it was too dense.” The project has come full circle, he said, and he recommended that the planning commission vote on it that night. He said the project meets every county requirement, “so that’s my position.”

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Postponement

Kirk Westphal, the commission’s chair, said he understood the developer’s request to take a vote on the project that night, but it was still up to the commission as to whether they want to do that. Because the retention/detention system is unusual for a neighborhood like this, Westphal was in favor of getting more information about what other options are available. Westphal said he understood the concerns that have been raised – because he has small children, too.

Wendy Rampson.

Wendy Woods said she wanted to make sure her decision is based on the correct information. She moved to postpone the item, so that planning staff can get more information from the water resources commissioner.

Sabra Briere wanted to make certain that the planning commission gets a clear understanding of the options that the developer can choose from. The proposed stormwater management system works, but several commissioners aren’t happy with this solution, she noted. “We find a 7-foot-deep pond not a positive, in a residential neighborhood,” she said. “So if other things would work, it would be good to know that too.”

Ken Clein supported the motion to postpone. He had little doubt that the proposed system meets code. But he wasn’t sure it was the most appropriate solution for this location. He had no problem with the density and general layout of the site. The big issue for him is the retention/detention pond and security fence, and whether that’s appropriate for this neighborhood. He wanted to clarify whether the water resources commissioner had mandated this design, or whether an underground system would be an option.

Bonnie Bona said she typically didn’t support postponement unless the developer was willing to reconsider aspects of the plan. But in this case, if the planning commission voted that night, she thought they’d just be passing the buck to city council. While there might be a technical adherence to the code, Bona thought that Woods’ comments about the public’s health and safety is relevant. So she’d prefer to postpone and get the developer to take one more look at this proposal.

Bona also said she sympathized with the developers for responding to neighborhood concerns “almost to their own detriment.” All of the vacant sites that are close to downtown are difficult sites to develop, she said, so there’s no easy solution.

Paras Parekh also supported postponement. In addition to the stormwater issues, he’d like the developers to consider reducing the number of surface parking spots.

Westphal said that occasionally, a mismatch emerges between a project and the city’s code or master plan. In this case, it’s further complicated because the regulations in play – regarding stormwater management – are set by a body that supersedes the city’s jurisdiction. He supported postponement, but it gave him pause that they aren’t following the recommendations of the county water resources commissioner, who had signed off on the stormwater aspects of this project. “Hopefully we’re OK with the consequences of that,” he said.

Paras Parekh, Sabra Briere.

Jeremy Peters said he didn’t think the planning commission was not following the recommendation of the water resources commissioner. Rather, they’re just interested in seeing what all the options are for this project – especially since the depth of the proposed pond is a widely held concern. It’s definitely within the planning commission’s purview, he said, and appropriate to ask about other possible solutions.

Eleanore Adenekan asked if the postponement would be for a certain date. Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, said the planning staff would try to get the requested information as quickly as they could.

Diane Giannola stressed that the commission should be very clear about the information that they want, and that it should relate to this specific site. There are tradeoffs, she said. If people want low density, it might have to include a pond in the front. The question is whether this is the only stormwater detention system that works, she said.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to postpone the project.

Glendale Condos: Coda

At a July 8 working session, planning manager Wendy Rampson indicated that when the project is brought back to the planning commission it will incorporate a revised stormwater management system.

The Mark Condos

After being postponed by Ann Arbor planning commissioners in May, a site plan for new condominiums on West Liberty Street was back on the July 1 agenda.

The proposal from developer Alex de Parry is to demolish an existing car wash at 318 W. Liberty and build a three-story, 11,910-square-foot structure with seven residential condominiums – five two-bedroom and two three-bedroom units. Each condo would have its own two-car tandem garage for a total of 14 parking spaces, although no parking is required.

Rendering of Mark Condominium proposal, as viewed from West Liberty next to the former Moveable Feast building.

The 0.25-acre lot, on the north side of Liberty, is east of the historic Peter Brehme house at 326 W. Liberty – where the Moveable Feast restaurant was located several years ago. On the other side is a city-owned parcel that’s now used as a surface parking lot, connected to 415 W. Washington.

The site is located in the Old West Side historic district. The historic district commission issued a certificate of appropriateness for the project on March 13, 2014. It’s located in Ward 5 and is zoned D2 (downtown interface).

The project would require two footing drain disconnects on other properties or the equivalent mitigation, according to a planning staff report. [.pdf of staff report]

In May, De Parry was told that the existing six-inch water main in West Liberty Street would need to be upsized to a 12-inch water main. The city staff told him that the six-inch main wouldn’t have the capacity to handle the additional development, in particular the building’s fire-suppression system. That was the reason for postponement at the planning commission’s May 20, 2014 meeting.

At that time, De Parry told commissioners that the development team had just been informed about the issue, and they were analyzing the budget impact and alternatives that they might pursue.

The current agreement is for De Parry to pay for installation of an eight-inch water main, rather than the 12-inch water main.

The Mark Condos: Public Hearing

During the public hearing on July 1, four people spoke – three of them with concerns about the project.

Vince Caruso.

Vince Caruso introduced himself as the coordinating member for the Allen’s Creek Watershed Group. He noticed that the packet of material for this project doesn’t mention the floodplain, but the parcel is actually in the floodplain in the back corner, he said. Caruso urged caution with this development. There are several new developments in and around the Allen’s Creek watershed. He noted that the first plan for the homeless shelter on West Huron had to be scrapped because it was shown to be in the floodway, which would have been illegal, he said. It cost about $1 million to modify the plan. Even then, he added, they violated many city regulations that they initial said they’d meet. The shelter is built right up to the edge of the floodway, and is still in the floodplain, he said.

The city has received a letter of map revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regarding an area very close to The Mark project, Caruso reported, for an area that includes the YMCA site, 415 W. Washington and the homeless shelter. The revision raised the floodplain 33%, he said. The affordable housing project on North Main was also scrapped because of floodplain miscalculations, he contended. The Allen’s Creek Watershed Group is hoping to do a study that would provide better information about flood hazard issues. He described several initiatives that the group is involved with, saying “we can make big changes, but we need to make sure we don’t put people in harm’s way.” People have drowned in Ohio in recent years trying to get their cars out of buildings that were in the floodplain or very close to it, he said. People might not realize they’re moving into a structure that’s so close to the floodplain, he noted. The issue needs more study, he concluded.

Lynn Borset told commissioners that she hadn’t realized this project was on the agenda and she wasn’t planning to speak. But aesthetically, she thought it was a shame that this apartment building will be taller than adjacent historic building, and “will not have anything to recommend it, in terms of the exterior design.”

Brad Moore, the project’s architect, noted that the civil engineer for this development was available to answer questions. The floodplain is below the level of the garages, and all of the living space is above the garages. The entrances to the living space are on the west side of the building, a level above the garages. Even if there were some adjustments to the existing floodplain boundary, there wouldn’t be a problem, Moore indicated. The developer’s team has worked closely with Jerry Hancock, the city’s stormwater and floodplain program coordinator, he said. There wouldn’t be water on the site even with a 100-year storm event, he added, so that issue had been addressed adequately.

Architect Brad Moore showing plans for The Mark condominiums on West Liberty.

In terms of aesthetics, Moore described the design as a long negotiation process with the city’s historic district commission, which has jurisdiction over design issues and placement of the building. He noted that the HDC had given approval to the project, and at those meetings, Moore said the president and vice president of Old West Side association had spoken in favor of the project. He hoped that planning commissioners would also vote in favor of it.

Steve Thorpe supported what Caruso had said. If any portion of the site is within the floodplain, the city has a legal obligation to address it, he said. He’d noticed that the staff report had included excerpts of goals from the city’s downtown plan. But he thought two of the goals that were cited weren’t compatible with this development. One of the goals was to “encourage a diversity of new downtown housing opportunities,” but Thorpe expressed skepticism that The Mark’s units would be affordable for median income families or individuals. “When is this gonna stop?” he asked. More high-end residences downtown are being built, and it seems like that’s changing the city’s character, at least in the downtown core, he said. He thought one of the objectives of the downtown plan is to emphasize diversity.

Thorpe also pointed to this goal cited in the staff report, excerpted from the downtown plan: “Protect the livability of residentially zoned neighborhoods adjacent to downtown.” He’s been a resident of one of these neighborhoods for 30 years, and there are traffic and parking issues that are directly related to downtown development, he said. Also, property taxes are going up because property values are going up – and downtown development might be contributing to that, he contended.

Thorpe said he walked by the site recently, and the developer’s sign had some graffiti on it that said something like “More yuppified housing for Ann Arbor.” To him, that said a lot. “I just think at some point we’ve got to put the brakes on this and try to rectify the imbalance that’s taking place,” he concluded.

The Mark Condos: Commission Discussion

Commissioners discussed a range of issues, including the floodplain and stormwater management, traffic, design, and aspects related to the Old West Side historic district. This report organizes the discussion thematically.

The Mark Condos: Commission Discussion – Floodplain, Stormwater

Ken Clein began the discussion by asking about the floodplain issues that had been raised during the public hearing. City planner Jill Thacher described the floodplain as located in a small area in the rear corner, in the northeast portion of the site. She noted that no development is proposed in that corner.

Alex de Parry.

Clein clarified with Thacher that even if a portion of the site is in the floodplain, there’s no prohibition to building on the site. You just can’t build residential or inhabitable space within a certain distance of the floodplain. That’s the reason this development’s building won’t be in that part of the site, Thacher said.

At Clein’s request, architect Brad Moore showed the commission drawings of the buildings in relation to the floodplain. There’s no habitable space on the lower level, Moore noted – just garages, bike parking and trash bins.

When Clein observed that he only saw stairs on the architect’s drawings for two units, Moore explained that the other units will have private elevators – operated by hydraulic lifts. Only the north and south units will access the garage via stairs.

Bonnie Bona said it was important to explain to the public the differences between floodway and floodplain. A floodway is where water “moves like a river” during a flood, she said. A floodplain is the area where water backs up. Even if the floodplain cut through the middle of the site, she noted, you could still build residential units there – they would just need to be elevated above the floodplain.

Bona asked Moore to explain how the floodplain line was determined. Kathy Keineth of Perimeter Engineering came to the podium – she’s the project’s civil engineer, and described how the analysis was conducted using computer models.

Jeremy Peters.

Bona then asked what the project will do to mitigate the risk of flooding – not just for this site, but for the rest of the city. Moore replied that currently, the site has no stormwater management and water just sheets off the pavement. For the condo project, there will be a detention system so that all stormwater falling on the site will be contained there and allowed to infiltrate.

Sabra Briere asked staff about the footing drain disconnects, saying that there’s been a lot of discussion about that program. “Are we helping developers find alternatives to the developer offset mitigation program?” she asked.

Thacher replied that the program continues to operate. Briere indicated that she knew it was still operating, but also that it’s under review.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that the residential footing drain disconnect program is under review, and “there’s been a lot of discussion on the developer side of the equation.” Staff have been meeting almost weekly for the past few weeks, she said. In the development agreements, the staff is trying to leave the language flexible and to refer to sanitary sewer mitigation, Rampson explained, adding that “it may or may not be footing drains.” The staff is also trying to identify some multi-family buildings that could be disconnected, rather than performing work on individual homes.

The Mark Condos: Commission Discussion – Landscaping

Bona noted that aside from the public land that abuts the site, the other adjacent parcels were zoned D2 – so there was no requirement for landscaping buffers. She asked about the plans for landscaping, adding “I hope it’s not lawn.” Kathy Keineth of Perimeter Engineering reported that two street trees will be planted in front, with some landscaping closer to the building. A series of terraced walls will be located in front, and an existing retaining wall on the west side will be removed.

The Mark Condos: Commission Discussion – Historic District Commission

Bonnie Bona confirmed with the developer’s team that they didn’t go through the city’s design review process. Architect Brad Moore said that if a project requires approval from the historic district commission, it’s not required to go to the design review board. He noted that compliance with the design review board is voluntary, but a developer must comply with the HDC recommendations – or the HDC won’t issue a certificate of appropriateness.

Jeremy Peters asked about the guidelines for new buildings within an historic district. He said aesthetics weren’t in the planning commission’s purview, but he knew there are guidelines for historic districts. Jill Thacher replied that the Secretary of the Interior’s standards are the guiding principles for the HDC. Summarizing, she said, the HDC is looking for new construction that’s compatible with the district – in terms of height, massing and materials – that doesn’t overwhelm or detract from the district’s historic structures.

Bonnie Bona.

In this case, Thacher said, the height of the building was one issue, but the biggest issue for the HDC was the front setback. The zoning requirement is for a 15-foot setback, but the HDC pushed for a larger setback of about 30 feet. The point was to set back the building so that the new construction didn’t completely obscure the historic house to the west, she said. One of the HDC’s charges is to preserve viewsheds, she noted.

In terms of design, new buildings are supposed to look “of their time,” Thacher explained, and should not try to mimic something that was built a long time ago.

Ken Clein said the design had done an admirable job in finding a nice moderation between modern and historic. Pushing it back off the street helps make the new building feel more in context with the neighborhood, he said.

Clein clarified with Moore that mechanicals will likely be small rooftop units, but Moore noted that the mechanical design hasn’t been completed. Clein also asked about the exterior building materials. Moore explained that there will be traditional glazed windows, some ironwork, brick and some smooth panels that are similar to a hardiepanel. The accents around the windows and copings would match the ironwork, he said. Responding to a query from Clein, Moore said the brick will be four-inch and one-inch veneers, depending on where it’s located. He stressed that there will be no visual difference between the different types of brick.

Bona said it would have been nice if Moore had considered using some other lightweight material, rather than a thin brick veneer. She said perhaps the HDC could be more critical of that in the future. Moore replied that the design originally didn’t include that brick, but the HDC requested that they add it. Bona quipped: “I guess ‘of our time’ means playing tricks.”

The Mark Condos: Commission Discussion – Diversity of Housing

Bona addressed the comments made by Steve Thorpe during the public hearing, about the master plan’s goals for increasing housing diversity. That’s something that the planning commission is continuously challenged with, she said – trying to put something affordable on high-valued property is difficult. The city’s zoning code currently includes a premium that developers can earn, getting more floor area if they provide affordable housing in their development. But that premium isn’t being used, Bona noted.

So the commission is working on how to create incentives for getting more affordable housing throughout the city, she said, including downtown. “The current premium mechanism we have in place just is not working.” She noted that the commission would completely agree about the need for more diversity, but it can’t always happen on site – especially on smaller sites, like the one for The Mark condos.

Regarding Thorpe’s comments that development is raising property values and creating hardships for people paying higher property taxes, Bona pointed out that recently the planning commission heard from residents who were concerned about an action that they thought might lower property values. She hoped that values wouldn’t move in either direction very quickly.

The Mark Condos: Commission Discussion – Traffic

Bona also disputed Thorpe’s claim that more density causes more traffic problems. “Denser housing tends to produce less traffic – most of the studies are saying that,” she said. The traffic issues downtown are more likely related to the attractiveness of Ann Arbor for people who live outside the city, she said. Personally, she thought that downtown development was helping improve the traffic situation.

Wendy Woods wanted to know what will happen to traffic on West Liberty when the new water main is installed. Kathy Keineth of Perimeter Engineering said they haven’t yet designed the water main. That will happen after the city approves the site plan, she said. The tentative plan is to install the water main about 3 to 5 feet behind the curb, then just abandon the old water main that’s located under West Liberty. However, that plan hasn’t been cleared with city staff yet, Keineth said. The goal is to minimize work on West Liberty, so the intent is to keep at least one lane open. Brad Moore clarified that the work would only take a few days at most.

Outcome: The project was unanimously recommended for approval. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Delta Chi Fraternity

Planning commissioners considered a proposal to tear down the existing Delta Chi fraternity house on Hill Street and build a much larger structure in its place.

The Delta Chi fraternity house at 1705 Hill St. was built in 1915, designed by the architect Samuel Stanton.

The fraternity plans to demolish the existing 4,990-square-foot house at 1705 Hill St. – at the northwest corner of Hill and Oxford. It was built in 1915 for a University of Michigan professor and designed by the architect Samuel Stanton. Delta Chi has owned it since 1947.

The house would be replaced with a 12,760-square-foot structure on three levels, including a basement. The current occupancy of 23 residents would increase to 34 people, including a resident manager.

The house is now on the northwest corner of the site, and a curbcut for the driveway is located at the intersection of Hill and Oxford. The proposal calls for building the new house closer to the southeast corner of the lot, with a parking lot on the west side and a new curbcut onto Hill – away from the intersection. [.pdf of staff report]

The minimum parking requirement is for seven spaces, but the plan calls for 16 spaces on the parking lot. There will be a shed with spaces for 20 bikes, and another four bike spaces in the back yard. Stormwater would be detained beneath the parking area.

The site is zoned R2B (two-family dwelling and student housing). All of the neighboring parcels are also zoned R2B, and contain fraternity houses or duplex residential homes.

The project is estimated to cost $2.2 million.

None of the large trees on the site will be removed. The fraternity declined to make a recommended voluntary parks contribution of $3,100 to the city.

Aerial view of Delta Chi site.

A statement from the fraternity gives their rationale for that decision: “While we can see the merit of such a donation for a large, new development that may bring additional residents to the city, we feel that this is not fitting in our situation. The Delta Chi Building Association has owned this property continuously since 1947, and during that time has consistently paid our property taxes and special millage assessments designated for Parks and Recreation. During our 67 years of ownership, we believe that we have contributed much more than the contribution suggested to support the Ann Arbor Parks and Recreation system.”

The planning commission was asked to recommend approval of a site plan and, in a separate resolution, to grant a special exception use for the project. A special exception use is required because the property is zoned R2B (two-family dwelling district and student dwelling district). Fraternities are allowed in R2B districts only if granted special exception use by the planning commission. No additional city council approval is required for that.

The site plan does require city council approval.

Delta Chi Fraternity: Commission Discussion

Wendy Woods asked about the decision to reject the voluntary contribution to parks and recreation. She encouraged the fraternity to rethink that position. She asked that a representative of the fraternity talk about that decision.

John Levinson, treasurer of the Delta Chi alumni board.

John Levinson introduced himself as treasurer of the Delta Chi alumni building corporation, which owns the house. He’s been a member of the fraternity since 1969, and has been on the alumni board since he graduated from UM in the mid-1970s. It’s their experience and belief that students don’t use any of the city parks and recreation facilities, he said.

Levinson noted that city staff had explained that increased density on the site would result in additional use of the parks, so the fraternity should “pay to play.” But “we just don’t think we’re going to be playing,” he said, and that’s why they declined to make the voluntary contribution.

Woods asked whether that meant the fraternity members don’t ever go to Gallup Park, Argo Park, the new skatepark, or any of the other city parks and recreation facilities. Levinson said that’s their opinion, though he hadn’t surveyed members. He said he keeps in close contact with the house, and most of the activities are with the university’s intramural sports and facilities.

Woods said it would be highly unusual for any residents of the city not to use the city’s parks and recreation facilities at some time. Levinson replied that he knows the fraternity members use the city’s golf courses, but he characterized that as “pay to play” because they pay fees to use the courses.

It’s true that the parks contribution is voluntary, Woods noted, “but when you have a public good, it’s always worth a conversation.”

Levinson explained that the fraternity hasn’t raised all the money it needs for this project. He said after they know whether they have enough money for the project, they’d be willing to reconsider the parks contribution.

Site plan for the new Delta Chi fraternity house at 1705 Hill.

Bonnie Bona pointed out that the golf courses are subsidized by city taxes – the fees that players are charged doesn’t cover the expenses. She noted that she works near Argo Pond, and there are a lot of university students who use the Argo Cascades. She also observed that The Rock is located on a small city park at the corner of Hill and Washtenaw. Levinson acknowledged that fraternity members have used that park. “And who pays to maintain that little park? The city of Ann Arbor,” Bona replied. Levinson stressed that it was indeed a very little park, however.

Levinson told commissioners that he never said the parks weren’t valued, but he didn’t think fraternity members used the parks as much as “regular citizens of Ann Arbor.” He noted that the fraternity also pays taxes, which supports things like the golf courses.

Levinson explained that although the new house will hold more residents, they won’t be increasing the overall population. The fraternity members will just be relocating from university housing or other non-university housing. Bona pointed out that the spots vacated by the fraternity members will be filled by others, so the change will, in fact, be adding more residents to the city.

It’s a good thing to increase density and to have students living near the university, so that they can walk and use public transit, Bona said. It’s also a very nice project, she added.

Levinson said they’re trying to fix problems that exist with the current house. “I go to sleep at night wondering what’s going to happen if that old place burns, to be very honest – because it’s old.” The house contains plaster and lathe, and although there are functional smoke alarms, there’s no sprinkler system, he noted.

Sabra Briere reported that she also lives in a house with original plaster and lathe, which was built in the 1830s. She appreciated the fraternity’s efforts to “retain the charm of the existing house” and to retain some tradition. Levinson said it had been a somewhat selfish motivation, because they knew that contributions from alumni would be tied to the look of the house.

Ken Clein clarified that there would be no retention/detention pond on the site – a reference to the controversial Glendale Condos project that had been postponed earlier in the meeting.

In response to another query from Clein about ADA features, Levinson explained how the first floor is designed to include an accessible residential unit, and that there’s a lift that allows access to the first and second floors.

Outcome: In separate votes, commissioners unanimously approved the special exception use and recommended approval of the site plan. The site plan proposal will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Gift of Life Expansion

A $10.5 million expansion of the Gift of Life Michigan facility on Research Park Drive was on the July 1 agenda.

Aerial view of Gift of Life Michigan site.

The proposal calls for building a three-story, 40,786-square-foot addition to connect two existing buildings at 3161 and 3169 Research Park Drive, which are owned and occupied by the nonprofit. According to a staff report, the additional space will accommodate offices, a special events auditorium and “organ procurement suites.” The nonprofit’s website states that the Gift of Life is Michigan’s only federally designated organ and tissue recovery program.

The proposal includes a site plan and a request to rezone the properties from office (O) and research (RE) to office/research/limited industrial (ORL). The parcel at 3161 Research Park Drive is currently zoned O. The parcel at 3169 Research Park is zoned RE. The plan is to combine those lots before the city issues building permits.

The project would reduce the four existing curb cuts to Research Park Drive to three, connecting one of the loop driveways to an existing driveway at the east end of the site. A parking lot at the back of the site will be expanded by 38 parking spaces. Two alternate vehicle fueling stations are proposed in parking spaces near the main entry, with the driveway at the center of the site providing access for ambulances. A new shipping and receiving facility will be located on the northeast corner of the site. [.pdf of staff report]

The only speaker during the public hearing was Curt Penny of Eckert Wordell, a Kalamazoo-based architectural firm. He stated that the project team was on hand to answer any questions.

Gift of Life Expansion: Commission Discussion

This item was considered late in the meeting – after 11 p.m. – and discussion was brief. Wendy Woods praised the Gift of Life’s work. Jeremy Peters said he appreciated a reduction in the number of curbcuts, saying that it helped promote pedestrian usage.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the site plan and rezoning. It will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Communications & Commentary

Every meeting includes several opportunities for communications from planning staff and commissioners. Here are other highlights from July 1.

Communications & Commentary: Public Commentary

In addition to the public hearings held for specific projects, there were two opportunities for general public commentary. Steve Thorpe spoke during the first slot for public commentary, introducing himself as a downtown resident and former chair of the city’s planning commission 14 years ago.

Steve Thorpe.

He wanted to raise the issue of height limits. He thought that D1 and D2 districts are a good idea, although the city made some mistakes on the location of those downtown zoning districts.

When he was chair, Thorpe said, the public and the commission were moving fairly rapidly toward considering height limits. At that time, commissioners felt that the public was receptive to height limits, he said. “Unfortunately, I think city council kind of pulled the rug out from under us” and instead established the downtown residential task force, which he was a member of. Thorpe said he resigned before the task force issued its final report, because he didn’t agree with its projections for the number of downtown residents.

The buildings that are being constructed downtown are changing the density, he noted, and that’s bringing other problems. It’s beginning to alienate people and how they remember Ann Arbor. He said he wasn’t resisting change, but the city needs to manage it better. “Let’s not close the door on downtown height limits,” he said, and perhaps something can be done that’s consistent with the D1 and D2 districts. [The overlay character districts for D1 and D2 include height limits of 180 feet and 60 feet, respectively.]

Communications & Commentary: Affordable Housing

Planning commissioner Jeremy Peters gave an update on work that’s being done to add affordable housing units to the city. He and planning commissioners Wendy Woods and Eleanore Adenekan are working with members of the city’s housing & human services advisory board and staff of the Washtenaw County office of community & economic development. The intent is to look at issues where these three groups have similar interests, and eventually to provide some strong guidance for city and county leaders.

Based on the last needs assessment, about 1,500 more units of affordable housing are needed in this community, he said. The group is trying to identify questions that they need to have answered, as well as information that each of their respective boards and commissions might want. One of those questions is the definition of affordable housing, which he noted could mean a wide range of things.

Another issue is to look at the city’s premiums that are offered to developers, and how to modify those so that the premiums are more effective as a tool to build more affordable housing units.

The group’s next meeting is on July 24 at the county annex, 110 N. Fourth Ave., starting at 6:30 p.m.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Ken Clein, Diane Giannola, Paras Parekh, Jeremy Peters, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods. Also: City planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Next meeting: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 at 7 p.m. in council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

Andy Levin of Lean & Green Michigan talks with Washtenaw County commissioner Felicia Brabec before the county board’s Dec. 4, 2013 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

They ultimately gave initial approval to a notice of intent to form a PACE program. If created, the program would allow commercial property owners in Washtenaw County to fund energy improvements by securing financing from lenders and repaying the loan through voluntary special assessments.

The county’s proposal entails joining the Lean & Green Michigan coalition and contracting with Levin Energy Partners to manage the PACE program. Andy Levin, who’s spearheading the PACE program statewide through Lean & Green, was on hand during the Dec. 4 meeting to field questions. Levin – son of U.S. Rep. Sandy Levin and nephew of U.S. Sen. Carl Levin – was head of the Michigan Dept. of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth (DELEG) during Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s administration, when the PACE legislation was enacted.

Also attending the Dec. 4 meeting was state Sen. Rebekah Warren (D-District 18), who spoke briefly during public commentary to support the county’s initiative. She was instrumental in passing the state enabling legislation to allow such programs in Michigan. Warren is married to county commissioner Conan Smith, a co-founder of the Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office, which is a partner in Lean & Green Michigan.

A final vote on the notice of intent is now scheduled for the board’s first meeting next year – on Jan. 8, 2014. A public hearing on this issue has been set for the board’s Jan. 22 meeting. That’s because the board would need to take an additional vote to actually create the PACE district. No date for that vote to create the district has been set.

In other action, commissioners accepted a $150,000 state grant to establish the Washtenaw County Trial Court’s Peacemaking Court. Timothy Connors, a 22nd circuit court judge who’s leading this initiative, attended the Dec. 4 meeting and told the board that this project will explore and determine what, if any, tribal court philosophies or procedures might have applicability in Michigan’s courts. Participation in the peacemaking court will be voluntary.

The board also made a raft of appointments, including appointing the county’s water resources commissioner, Evan Pratt, as director of public works. That vote came over dissent from commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. The board of public works had raised a question about the appointment’s potential conflict-of-interest, given that Pratt holds an elected office as water resources commissioner. The county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, prepared a legal opinion on the issue, stating that the appointment would not be prohibited by the state’s Incompatible Public Offices Act.

No appointment was made to the southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority (RTA). Richard Murphy – one of two RTA board members from Washtenaw County – is not seeking reappointment. During the Dec. 4 meeting, board chair Yousef Rabhi indicated that there’s some uncertainty about when Murphy’s one-year term actually ends, and he was sorting that out with state and RTA officials. Because RTA board members weren’t sworn in until April of 2013, some state and RTA officials believe the term extends until April – even though appointments for Washtenaw County’s two slots were made by the previous county board chair, Conan Smith, in late 2012.

The application process is still open for the RTA, with a new deadline of Jan. 12. That same deadline applies to openings on the county’s food policy council and parks & recreation commission. Applicants can submit material online, or get more information by contacting the county clerk’s office at 734-222-6655 or appointments@ewashtenaw.org.

Countywide PACE Program

On Dec. 4, commissioners were asked to take an initial step to create a countywide Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program.

The goal of PACE is to help commercial property owners finance energy improvements by securing financing from lenders and repaying the loan through voluntary special assessments. In Michigan, the legislation that enables this approach (Public Act 210) was enacted in late 2010, at the end of Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s last term in office.

The proposal being considered by the county entails joining the Lean & Green Michigan coalition and contracting with Levin Energy Partners to manage the PACE program. Andy Levin, who’s spearheading the PACE program statewide through Lean & Green, was on hand during the Dec. 4 meeting to field questions. He described his role as “matchmaker,” helping the property owners find energy contractors and lenders.

The law firm of Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone is a partner in Lean & Green, and would act as legal counsel for any deal done through the county’s PACE program. Several other counties are part of Lean & Green, according to the group’s website. Other partners listed on the site include the Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office, which was co-founded by county commissioner Conan Smith. Smith is married to State Sen. Rebekah Warren, who also spoke briefly during public commentary on Dec. 4 to support the initiative. She was instrumental in passing the state enabling legislation to allow such programs in Michigan.

The city of Ann Arbor was one of the first Michigan communities to establish a PACE program, which it did in 2011. The city used a federal grant that paid for the nonprofit Clean Energy Coalition to develop the city’s program. Its first projects moved forward earlier this year, when the city sold over $500,000 in PACE bonds through Ann Arbor State Bank, making it the first city in Michigan to complete a PACE bond sale. The financing funded projects at four locations: Arrowwood Hills Cooperative Housing, Big Boy Restaurant, the Goodyear Building, and Kerrytown Market & Shops.

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

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

8. Reserve Fund

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

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

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

Commissioners discussed the topic for about an hour, with most of that time centered on questions they asked of Levin.

The state statute requires a three-step process to create a PACE program. On Dec. 4, the board was being asked to take the first step – approving a resolution of intent to notify the public that the board intends to move forward with creating a PACE district. The statute lays out the information that the county must include in notifying the public – including different types of financing options.

The next step would be to hold a public hearing. The final step would be a resolution that actually creates the countywide PACE district. That last step would likely come before the board in late January or early February.

Countywide PACE Program: Public Commentary

Rebekah Warren, an Ann Arbor resident and state senator (D-District 18), spoke during public commentary. She said she was there to lend support to the resolution regarding PACE. She noted that she had introduced the bill when she served in the state House of Representatives, and helped shepherd it through in a bipartisan package of bills that passed the Democratic-controlled House and Republican-controlled Senate at the time. Jeff Irwin, who served on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners then, also helped advocate for the legislation, she said. [Irwin, also an Ann Arbor Democrat, was subsequently elected to the state House of Representatives, representing District 53.]

Rebekah Warren, an Ann Arbor resident and state senator representing District 18. She is married to county commissioner Conan Smith.

Warren described energy efficiency as a “little forgotten piece of our energy work.” It’s “not quite as sexy as some other things we do,” she said, “but the cheapest energy form out there is energy never used.” So why don’t more people invest in energy-efficiency improvements? It’s expensive on the front end, Warren noted, and sometimes the paybacks are long, so people need help with the financing.

Such improvements are great for the environment, Warren said. The more that people can rely on renewable energy sources, the better it is for the planet. It’s also great for property values, she argued – energy-efficiency upgrades to commercial or residential properties makes them more attractive for resale. It also helps the financial bottom line for homeowners and businesses. It’s a win-win for the community, for citizens, and for the planet, she said.

The PACE program in Michigan was born in Washtenaw County, Warren noted, and it would be fantastic to see the county board move forward on this policy to do the kind of work that needs to be done here. She said she’d be happy to make herself available as a resource, and to support the program as it moves forward.

In responding to Warren’s commentary, commissioner Conan Smith (D-District 9) – who is married to Warren – said he was excited that the board would be considering the first step in establishing a PACE program. He noted that the board wouldn’t be creating the program that night, but rather would be voting on a resolution of intent to tell the public that they were considering such a program. He said he would have preferred a faster process than what the legislation laid out.

Countywide PACE Program: Board Discussion – How It Works

Conan Smith (D-District 9) began the discussion by apologizing for not attending the board’s Nov. 7 working session that included a briefing on the PACE program. He hoped that everyone’s questions would get answered, and he hoped to get board approval at both the initial ways & means meeting and at the regular board meeting that same night. [Typically, a resolution is given initial approval at a ways & means meeting, then is moved to the board agenda two weeks later. In December, however, there was only one meeting scheduled.] He said that the resolution of intent doesn’t obligate the county to do anything. “It just starts the process,” he said.

Smith suggested setting a public hearing for a board meeting in January 2014. That would give the public ample opportunity to read through the program before giving feedback, he said. Then the board could take action to actually create the PACE program at its meeting in early February. It’s a long timeline to get the program going, Smith said. There’s some urgency, he added, because there’s a property owner in Washtenaw County who wants to do a substantial project that could cost millions of dollars and create up to 20 jobs. It’s a project that’s in his Ann Arbor district, Smith noted, and he hoped to get that kind of economic activity moving.

He again asked the board to pass both the initial and final approval for the resolution of intent that night, then get into the “meaty debate on public policy in January and February.”

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) said in concept it seemed like a good thing. But she questioned one of the resolved clauses:

3. The Board of Commissioners formally states its intention to provide a property owner based method of financing and funds for energy projects, including from the sale of bonds or notes which shall not be a general obligation of the County, amounts advanced by the County from any other source permitted by law, or from owner-arranged financing from a commercial lender, which funds and financing shall be secured and repaid by assessments on the property benefited, with the agreement of the record owners, such that no County moneys, general County taxes or County credit of any kind whatsoever shall be pledged, committed or used in connection with any project as required by and subject to Act 270.

It seemed to be stating that the county would help finance projects, she said, but also that no county money would be used to do that. If it’s such a great program, she asked, why would the county have to put up any money?

Conan Smith responded, explaining that the county doesn’t need to put up any money for this program, although it could. He noted that the city of Ann Arbor decided to use some taxpayer dollars for its program, but it’s not necessary for the county to do that.

By way of background, the Ann Arbor city council created a PACE program and established an energy financing district over two years ago, at its Oct. 3, 2011 meeting. Several months earlier – in March 2011 – the council had voted to set up a $432,800 loan loss reserve fund to support the program, using an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) awarded to the city by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

C. Smith said that ideally, institutions like the county government can set up a program to be supportive of third-party financing – making sure that banks and credit unions are participating. He described how the program would work if he owned a business. He’d go to a bank to get financing for an energy efficiency project. Instead of refinancing his mortgage to do it, one option would be to go through the PACE program. It allows the business owner, the lender, and the county to enter into a contractual agreement. If the business owner pays the lender, the county isn’t involved. But if the business owner doesn’t pay, then the county starts its normal foreclosure process, C. Smith said. So it’s really just using the county’s foreclosure process to secure the business owner’s loan, he said, and no county dollars are involved.

In that case, Ping replied, why couldn’t the lender start the foreclosure process instead?

Andy Levin of Lean & Green Michigan explained that the language in the board’s resolution, which Ping had highlighted, mirrors exactly the language in the state enabling legislation – that’s why it’s included. But the mechanism that people are using is private lending, he said.

Energy efficiency improvements require an upfront investment that results in a payoff, he explained, but it typically takes several years to break even. Commercial loans are usually for a shorter period than the break-even point of such investments, Levin said, and that’s the problem that PACE sets out to solve.

The program draws on the special assessment power that each local unit of government holds. That way, the lender is the beneficiary of a property tax obligation. That’s different from a typical loan, in that it must be repaid before any other commercial loan. More significantly, he said, it runs with the land. So if the property is sold, the new owner is responsible for the PACE loan obligation. In turn, that means that the lenders are willing to make longer-term loans related to the useful life of the energy improvements – typically 10-20 years.

Levin pointed out that since 2008, PACE has been adopted by 31 states and the District of Columbia. And the states that are adopting this program aren’t just the stereotype “blue” states you might assume, he noted. The most recent state to adopt PACE was Texas, signed into law by Republican Gov. Rick Perry. “It’s totally apolitical – it just works for business,” Levin said.

A typical lender doesn’t have the risk profile or ability to make a loan like this for 20 years, Levin said, so a lot of lenders for energy improvements are private equity companies. There are three funds that exist for no other purpose than to make PACE loans, he said, and they’re all in Michigan.

Ping then asked about what happens when the property is sold, but the new owner isn’t a good credit risk. Does someone else have to approve the transfer of the PACE loan, given that it runs with the property? No, Levin replied – the PACE lender would not have any power over that sale.

The reason that lenders offer PACE loans is that it’s a long-term, secured, debt-based investment, Levin said. A lot of big organizations – like pension funds and insurance companies – need to have that kind of investment in their portfolios. And ultimately, the property is the collateral, he noted.

County commissioners Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) thanked Levin and asked him to thank Levin’s dad for the work he does in D.C. [Levin's father is U.S. Rep. Sandy Levin and his uncle is U.S. Sen. Carl Levin.]

LaBarre wondered what would be the worst possible scenario for Washtenaw County, under the program. Levin described a scenario in which a PACE loan is made for a property, but then the property owner defaults and goes into foreclosure, and the property can’t be sold or is sold for less than the taxes owed. The PACE lien is equal to any other taxes owed on the property, Levin explained. That’s the only way any government entity could lose money, he said.

LaBarre wondered if Levin was seeing success with the program in Michigan. Were mainstream lenders participating, or just boutique investors? Levin described Michigan as an “infant” regarding PACE. So far, four counties and two cities had joined Lean & Green Michigan, he said. [The website lists the counties of Huron, Ingham, Macomb and Saginaw, and the cities of Rochester Hills and Southfield. The following day, on Dec. 5, the Wayne County commission voted to create a PACE program and join Lean & Green Michigan.]

Nationally, the PACE market has been roughly doubling every year, Levin said, and he projected that 2014 would be “the breakout year.” The biggest deal so far was for a Century City Hilton in Los Angeles, he said. In Michigan, a project in Southfield is getting consent for a PACE loan from Comerica, which holds the property’s mortgage, Levin said. He described it as a big step, because the lender who holds the mortgage on a property must give consent “or we cannot do the project.” That is a requirement of Michigan’s PACE legislation, which he said he fully supports.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) wanted Levin to provide examples from other counties – “the good stuff and the bad stuff.” Levin replied that he couldn’t yet provide examples from Michigan, but he could bring examples from other states.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) pointed to the cover memo statement that indicated the contractor doing work on any PACE project of $250,000 or higher must guarantee the energy saving on that project. How is that possible? she asked. Levin replied that the state statute doesn’t specify how that’s done, but just states that it must be done. It was put into the legislation by large companies like Johnson Controls and Siemens because that’s a guarantee they can make, he added, and they thought it would give them a competitive advantage over smaller firms. The guarantee is usually based on an energy audit. If the energy company doing the work doesn’t have the wherewithal to guarantee the energy savings, it would have to get insurance to cover that, Levin said.

Responding to another question from Brabec, Levin said that legally, the county is creating a countywide PACE district. So a company based in Wayne County couldn’t use Washtenaw County’s PACE program. But by joining Lean & Green Michigan, all of the local governments participating in Lean & Green would be using the same processes and application, he said. So if a company has multiple properties throughout Michigan, the company would have just one process to follow if it worked through Lean & Green Michigan. That’s the advantage of local governments joining the Lean & Green coalition, he said.

Countywide PACE Program: Board Discussion – Ann Arbor’s PACE

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) asked how the city of Ann Arbor handles the administration of its PACE program. Levin called it an “open question.” The city had paid a private nonprofit to create and run its PACE program, Levin explained, but that contract ended in March of 2013. Levin contrasted that program with Lean & Green Michigan, saying that Lean & Green is a market model as opposed to a publicly-funded program.

Commissioner Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Conan Smith further explained that the city had hired the nonprofit Clean Energy Coalition to create the PACE program, saying that no one else had done it in the state before that. It was anticipated that a lot of the CEC’s work – including legal documentation – would be leveraged by other communities across Michigan to build their own programs, he said. The city used federal grant funding to pay for CEC’s work, Smith added. He noted that CEC itself had been created by the city. It was previously called the city’s Clean Cities program before spinning off into a separate entity, he said, so there’s been a long relationship between CEC and the city.

By way of additional background, Matt Naud – the city’s environmental coordinator – told The Chronicle during a phone interview that the city doesn’t currently have the same level of staffing for its PACE program that it did during the CEC contract. However, Nate Geisler was recently hired as a full-time employee to staff the city’s energy program, and Naud indicated that Geisler would likely be working on PACE as part of that job.

So far, there has been one round of financing through the city’s PACE program. At its Feb. 19, 2013 meeting, the city council authorized issuing up to $1 million in PACE bonds, to be secured through special assessment revenues and the city’s reserve fund. The city ultimately sold $560,000 in PACE bonds through Ann Arbor State Bank and was the first city in Michigan to complete a PACE bond sale. The money funded projects at four locations: Arrowwood Hills Cooperative Housing, Big Boy Restaurant, the Goodyear Building, and Kerrytown Market & Shops. A fifth project – at the building on South State where Bivouac is located – was planned, but ultimately fell through, because the building’s owner would not sign off on the project, according to Naud. He reported that all the projects are completed except for the work at Arrowwood.

Some of the differences between the city’s approach and the one proposed by Levin relate to timing and interest rates. Naud noted that there are no administrative fees for the city, and interest rates are lower than what Lean & Green Michigan projects will likely secure on the commercial market. According to a press release issued by the city earlier this year, property owners involved in Ann Arbor’s first round of PACE financing have 10 years to repay PACE assessments at 4.75% interest.

Related to timing, Naud noted that because the city deals with smaller projects, it might take more time to line up enough projects to bundle into a bond offering.

Naud said he didn’t foresee that the city would end its PACE program unless a decision were made to not spend any staff time on it. He noted that there are strong economic development arguments to be made for energy-efficiency improvements that PACE supports, and that it also helps achieve goals in the city’s climate action plan, which calls for an 8% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2015, compared to 2000 levels.

During the county board’s deliberations on Dec. 4, Brabec asked whether an Ann Arbor company would need to use the Ann Arbor PACE district or the county’s. Levin replied that it would be the company’s choice. Levin said that if a company’s project is over $350,000, it couldn’t go through Ann Arbor’s PACE program because the city can’t accommodate larger projects. He said he was totally supportive of Ann Arbor’s PACE program, and called the city a pioneer in the effort.

However, Levin said it’s impractical for every city and township to create its own PACE program. It makes more sense for the county to do it, he said.

Countywide PACE Program: Board Discussion – Other Administrators?

LaBarre said he’s spoken about this program with the county treasurer [Catherine McClary]. He said she seemed supportive, although she wanted to know more about it. He asked for Levin to describe the process for a business owner who was interested in the PACE program. Would they talk to the county, or to Levin’s organization, or a bank?

Levin explained that if the county decides to create a PACE program by joining Lean & Green Michigan, then Levin would become the county’s PACE administrator. Most local governments in Michigan don’t have the money to hire new staff to handle the administration, he noted. The only thing that the county does is to have a designated official who signs the special assessment agreements with property owners.

A property owner would come to Lean & Green Michigan, Levin said – there’s an application on its website. He noted that a mall owner in Ann Arbor who’s interested in PACE found out about it because an executive met Levin at a national PACE retreat. The company doesn’t want to use the city of Ann Arbor’s PACE program, he said, because the project is too big for the city and the company doesn’t want to use public funds. That property owner would have the ability to approach Lean & Green Michigan with everything in order, he said, including the energy audit and financing.

But smaller property owners might not have that ability. So part of his role is to “play matchmaker,” Levin said, helping the property owner find an energy contractor and a lender.

From left: Corporation counsel Curt Hedger and commissioner Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) asked about the administrative fees that Levin would be charging. Levin replied that the fees for Miller Canfield, the law firm that’s a partner in this venture, would vary depending on the deal. It could range from a few thousand dollars to tens of thousands, depending on the size of the project. The fees for his firm, Levin Energy Partners, are generally 2% of the deal upfront.

Yousef Rabhi followed up on that question, asking for more details about how Levin would get paid. Levin clarified that his fees could be paid by the contractor, or it could be part of the closing costs. He noted that other costs associated with the project include a mandatory energy audit. The statute also requires a plan for ongoing monitoring and verification of those energy improvements.

Levin explained that the point of setting up Lean & Green Michigan was as an alternative to each local government paying a substantial amount of money to create and run its own PACE program. Taxpayers shouldn’t pay anything, and the entire process can be market-driven, Levin said.

Rabhi asked whether the program that Levin is proposing for Washtenaw County means that anyone who wants to do a PACE project through the county must work with Levin’s firm. Yes, Levin said. The county would be naming Levin as the third-party administrator for its PACE program. Levin pointed out that the county could actually create multiple PACE programs, if it wanted to. The county board can also end the program at any time, he said.

Rabhi asked if there are other options for entities to administer the county’s PACE program. Not in Michigan, Levin said. He described himself as part of a “brother and sisterhood of PACE pioneers” – about 30-40 people nationwide. Levin noted that he was head of the Michigan Dept. of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth (DELEG) during Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s administration, when the PACE legislation was enacted.

When he left that position, he realized there was an issue with administering the program, because local governments don’t want to pay for administering their own PACE program or issue bonds that would be paid off through a special assessment. He also talked with representatives from large corporations, who told him that they weren’t interested in dealing with different rules and regulations that would be set up if each local government had its own PACE program.

That’s what led him to the idea of having one statewide PACE market, Levin said, and that’s why he created Lean & Green Michigan. Any county or city can join for free, he said, and after that, the local governments don’t have to do much. Every deal involves a property owner, an energy contractor and a lender. All three of those parties prefer the idea of one big Michigan market, instead of a lot of smaller programs, he said.

Indicating that he hoped Levin wouldn’t take offense, Rabhi said it was important to review all of the county’s options and ensure that they were proceeding in the right way.

County commissioners Alicia Ping (R-District 3), Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Levin replied that “it’s a huge entrepreneurial risk on my part, I mean, to be honest.” He’s doing a lot of setup that could take years, Levin said, and until projects start coming in, there’s no funding. “Not many people are willing to do that.”

Conan Smith told Rabhi that the short answer to the question of whether there is some other provider besides Lean & Green is “No.” Essentially, Lean & Green Michigan is a sole source provider of this service in the state, he said. As evidence, he pointed to an RFP (request for proposals) process that Wayne County undertook for a PACE administrator. There was one response, he said – from Lean & Green Michigan. “No one else wants to do this work,” Smith said. Washtenaw County could go through that same RFP process, he added, but he didn’t think there was anyone else who would respond.

In response to another query from Rabhi, Levin said that Lean & Green Michigan is the name of a program that Levin Energy Partners administers. He considers the Miller Canfield law firm to be an important partner too. Rabhi asked if the county was locking itself into using Miller Canfield on the legal side, under this proposal. Yes, Levin replied, to the extent that any outside counsel is needed.

Levin said he’s not just looking to get some energy projects done. “I’m looking at how Michigan can be the most innovative state in driving down the costs of these projects for property owners.”

Ronnie Peterson said he’d be supporting this proposal. It’s similar to other partnerships the county has in order to provide services to citizens, he said, giving Ann Arbor SPARK as an example. [SPARK is a nonprofit entity that provides economic development services, and receives appropriations from the county to help support that work.] Peterson said it didn’t cost the county one dime, and it will help Washtenaw County businesses function in a changing climate. The county can opt out of its arrangement with Levin at any time, he noted.

Peterson said he knew Levin on a personal basis, and that as a Harvard Law School graduate, Levin had more options than taking on this program. Peterson said he was grateful that Levin is giving back to the state with his talents and relationships that he’s built over the years. “I trust Andy Levin, and that does make a difference to me,” Peterson said.

Countywide PACE Program: Board Discussion – Next Steps

Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked whether it would be a “done deal” if commissioners approved the proposal at their board meeting that night, following the ways & means meeting. If not, why were commissioners pushing it through to be voted on at the board meeting?

Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, explained that the state statute requires a three-step process to create a PACE program. The board is being asked to take the first step – approving a resolution of intent. It notifies the public that the board intends to move forward with creating a PACE district. The statute lays out the information that the county must include in notifying the public – including different types of financing.

The next step would be to hold a public hearing. The last and most important step, Hedger explained, will be a resolution that actually creates the countywide PACE district. That would likely come before the board in late January or early February, he said.

Sizemore asked if there was a way to stipulate that labor for these projects would come from the county. Ronnie Peterson replied that Andy Levin is very respected in the labor community, and had been involved with the AFL-CIO on a national level. Sizemore said he didn’t need an answer that night, but it was an important issue that he wanted to address.

Conan Smith offered an amendment to the resolution, to set a public hearing on the proposal for Jan. 22.

Outcome on Smith’s amendment: On a voice vote, commissioners passed the amendment to set the public hearing date for Jan. 22. Rolland Sizemore Jr. dissented.

The board then discussed whether to take both an initial vote that night at its ways & means committee meeting, plus a final vote at the board meeting immediately following it that same night. [Typically, items receive initial approval at ways & means, then are brought to the regular board meeting two weeks later. However, there was only one board meeting in December – on Dec. 4.]

Yousef Rabhi wondered why the board couldn’t take a final vote at its first meeting in 2014, on Jan. 8. He noted that commissioners could still hold the public hearing on Jan. 22. Conan Smith noted that the first meeting of the year typically includes only organizational items, like officer elections, but he supported doing regular business then, too.

Ronnie Peterson didn’t have a problem giving the item final approval later that night, noting that the proposal doesn’t cost the county any money. Felicia Brabec pointed out that some commissioners had additional questions, and that it wouldn’t change the timeline to have a final vote for the notice of intent on Jan. 8, given that the hearing was already set for Jan. 22.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to a notice of intent to form a PACE district. A final vote on the notice of intent is expected on Jan. 8, with a public hearing on Jan. 22. A vote to establish the PACE district itself will come in late January or early February.

Peacemaking Court

At their Dec. 4 meeting, commissioners were asked to authorize acceptance of a $150,000 grant to establish the Washtenaw County Trial Court’s Peacemaking Court. The grant, awarded by the State Court Administrator’s Office, is for funding from Oct. 1, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2014.

The state grants are intended to support creative approaches in the court system. The Peacemaking Court is described in a staff memo:

Like tribal peacemaking programs and restorative justice programs, the Peacemaking Court will provide a great benefit to youth and the community in juvenile cases by reducing recidivism and giving youth a diversionary option to avoid a record that can preclude future educational and employment opportunities. Domestic relations and other family cases will benefit from more durable and tailored solutions that result from a clearer understanding of the different perspectives or “truths” of all those involved. This, in turn, will enable the healing of important relationships, in contrast to the harm and polarization that too often results for families through the adversarial process.

The Peacemaking Court will allow the parties and those most affected by the conflict to talk about the event, its impact on them, and to look at the whole conflict in a comprehensive context that leads to understanding and meaningful solutions that address the needs of all those involved. When participants are respected and the individuals responsible for causing the problem are part of the decision process and take responsibility for their actions in a meaningful way, the resolutions are more comprehensive and address the needs of everyone involved, as well as the issues that underlie the problem. An important difference between the traditional system and the peacemaking court process is that the resolution is determined WITH the court not BY the court.

Key members involved in this project are 22nd Circuit Court judge Timothy Connors, 14A District Court judge Cedric Simpson, project director Susan Butterwick, and Robert Carbeck, who is 22nd Circuit Court deputy court administrator and budget director. [.pdf of grant application]

Connors, who has spearheaded this initiative, was on hand at the Dec. 4 meeting to describe the project and answer questions. Carbeck also attended but did not formally address the board.

Peacemaking Court: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) invited judge Timothy Connors to the podium to describe the grant.

Timothy Connors, 22nd circuit court judge.

Connors said he knew commissioners wanted to know about funding. He told them the program not only doesn’t cost anything for the county, but it’s money coming in from the state. The only role for the county would be in administering the funds, he said.

The grant is to explore and determine what, if any, tribal court philosophies or procedures might have applicability in Michigan’s courts, Connors explained. These are things that can be borrowed from the more than 500 tribal nations across the country, he noted, including some of the tribal courts in Michigan that are leaders in the country. He’s been working with these courts and came to the conclusion that there’s a lot to learn.

Peacemaking courts are being held overseas, most notably by two communities in England, Connors reported, saying he’s met with representatives from those communities. Their approach is borrowed from New Zealand’s indigenous culture.

Connors noted that a lot of this work is based on South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings held during Nelson Mandela’s presidency. “So I can’t imagine anybody really being threatened by it,” he said. Only people who want to participate will use this approach, he explained – saying it’s not imposed on anyone. It’s designed to offer an alternative way to resolve differences. After 23 years on the bench, he said, he’s learned that the court system often addresses the symptom, but seldom talks about the disease.

Judge Cedric Simpson will be participating from the 14A District Court. Connors said the approach is already being offered in the domestic relations and family court, and there’s interest in it from business-related cases and in the probate court. “It is my commitment to spend the rest of my career with you working and trying to do the best I can in my final 11 years,” he said. [Judges are elected to six-year terms, and Connors' current term expires in January 2019. He was likely referring to the statutory age limit – judges must be under 70 years old at the time of their election.] Connors said he hoped the county took advantage of the grant, and that he’d keep the board informed of the educational sessions that will be held about the peacemaking court.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) thanked Connors for his work. He said he’s been involved in alternative dispute resolution with the court, and was a small claims mediator, so “I know the power that conversations can have.” Learning from what other cultures have done is a great idea, Smith said, and he’s proud of the county and grateful to Connors and the team that pulled this together.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) echoed those sentiments, saying he was glad to have a small role in this project. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) also thanked Connors, and recalled a conversation they’d had recently about former judge Francis O’Brien. Peterson noted that O’Brien had been well-known across the state and country for advanced programs and treatment models for juveniles. He was pleased to see that Connors was making sure that the legacy of O’Brien continued.

Peterson also said he was pleased that the wall between the county board and the court is coming down. He hoped the dialogue would result in additional innovative programs, but he joked that the initiative had to come from the judges: “We dare not to mess with you in robes, because of the power that you possess,” Peterson quipped.

Connors responded, saying he didn’t see those walls and that such walls between the county administration and the court would be “ridiculous.” He said he intended to involve the county’s detention center in the decision-making, and indicated that the goal for everyone is to help the children.

Infrastructure Projects

Two infrastructure projects – in Dexter Township and Freedom Township – were on the board’s Dec. 4 agenda for approval.

The board was asked to authorize issuing up to $460,000 in bonds for the Copper Meadows drain project in Dexter Township, northwest of Ann Arbor. The drain is located in the Copper Meadows subdivision off of North Territorial Road, near the Dexter town hall. The bonds would be repaid with special assessments on Dexter Township, Washtenaw County, and property owners in the drainage district. The first assessment would be levied in December 2014. [.pdf of staff memo on Copper Meadows project]

The board also was asked to pass a resolution that directs the county’s board of public works to undertake a lake improvement project at Pleasant Lake in Freedom Township, located southwest of Ann Arbor. The township’s board of trustees has passed a resolution asking for the county’s assistance in implementing and financing of a project to control invasive and nuisance species at the lake. The proposed five-year project would require special assessments on property owners that would benefit from the work.

Outcome: Both infrastructure projects received unanimous final approval by the board.

Appointments

Over 30 appointments to various county boards, committees and commissions were on the Dec. 4 agenda for approval. [.pdf of appointments]

Washtenaw County water resources commissioner Evan Pratt was appointed as the county’s director of public works.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) read aloud his list of nominations, making a few additional comments along the way. He noted that an application for an opening on the agricultural lands preservation advisory committee had been received after the deadline, so he’d be bringing a nomination forward in January for that.

There were several unfilled positions on the local emergency planning committee, he noted, for slots that require certain types of representation – to represent hospitals, agriculture, and several other specific areas, for example. In total, the county needed to fill 23 positions, but only nine nominations were brought forward on Dec. 4.

An opening on the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission that resulted from the retirement this month of long-time commissioner Nelson Meade will not be immediately filled, to allow for the opening to be publicized.

Openings for most positions had been publicized in October and November. An appointments caucus was held on Nov. 21 to discuss the openings and applications. That caucus drew only two commissioners, however – Rabhi and Conan Smith (D-District 9), who both represent districts in Ann Arbor.

The deadline had been extended until Dec. 1 for openings on three entities: the southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority (RTA); the Washtenaw County historic district commission; and the Washtenaw County food policy council. As a result of the extension, additional positions were filled on the HDC (Alec Jerome) and the food policy council (Markell Miller and Caitlin Joseph).

Also, no appointment was made to the RTA. Richard Murphy – one of two RTA board members from Washtenaw County – is not seeking reappointment. During the Dec. 4 meeting, board chair Yousef Rabhi indicated that there’s some uncertainty about when Murphy’s one-year term actually ends, and that needs to be sorted out with state and RTA officials. Because RTA board members weren’t sworn in until April of 2013, some state and RTA officials believe the term extends until April – even though appointments for Washtenaw County’s two slots were made by the previous county board chair, Conan Smith, in late 2012.

Rabhi said he planned to re-open the application process, with a new deadline to be determined, after these issues are clarified.

Outcome: Appointments were approved unanimously.

Later in the month, the application process was re-opened for the RTA, with a new deadline of Jan. 12. That same deadline applies to openings on the county’s food policy council and parks & recreation commission. Applicants can submit material online, or get more information by contacting Peter Simms of the county clerk’s office at 734-222-6655 or appointments@ewashtenaw.org.

Appointments: Director of Public Works

In addition to the other appointments, the board was asked to appoint Evan Pratt, the county’s water resources commissioner, as director of public works, effective Jan. 1, 2014. The current director of public works is Daniel R. Myers. According to a staff memo, the board of public works had raised a question about potential conflict-of-interest with this appointment. From the memo:

Since Evan is currently the elected Water Resources Commissioner for the County, the Board of Public Works wanted to assure themselves that it was not a conflict for the person serving as the Water Resources Commissioner to also be appointed the Director of Public Works. With the assistance of Corporation Counsel they researched this issue and it was determined that it would not be a conflict of interest. Additionally, the current organizational structure of Public Works places the Director under the management direction of the Water Resources Commissioner so there is already direct involvement in Director of Public Works activities. [.pdf of corporation counsel opinion]

Earlier this year, Dan Smith (R-District 2) had asked the corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, to weigh in on a separate issue – about the constitutionality of levying taxes based on pre-Headlee state laws. During deliberations at the board’s Oct. 16, 2013 meeting, Hedger said he would never put a legal opinion in a cover memo unless he’s directed by the board to do so. The board is his client – not individual commissioners, he told them, adding that he writes legal opinions under the board’s direction.

In the case of the opinion produced for the appointment of Pratt, Hedger indicated that the board leadership had asked for the opinion, on behalf of the entire board, as did the county administrator and the outgoing public works director.

Outcome: The appointment was approved on an 8-1 vote, over dissent from Rolland Sizemore Jr. He did not publicly state his reason for voting against this appointment.

Recognitions

Commissioners voted on resolutions of appreciation at their Dec. 4 meeting to honor two men who have served the county for decades: Dick Fleece and Nelson Meade.

Outgoing county health officer Dick Fleece and Ellen Rabinowitz, interim health officer.

Fleece has worked for the county for 38 years in the field of public and environmental health, and is retiring at the end of 2013. He was appointed the county’s environmental health director in 1994, and has served as the health officer since 2009. [.pdf of resolution of appreciation for Fleece] Fleece received a standing ovation from commissioners and staff.

At the county board’s Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, commissioners had appointed Ellen Rabinowitz as interim health officer.

Also on Dec. 4, commissioners honored Nelson Meade, who is stepping down from the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission after serving for over 40 years. [.pdf of resolution of appreciation for Meade] He was an administrator at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health and had served in various roles in city government, including two terms on the Ann Arbor city council. His departure from WCPARC was announced at its Nov. 12, 2013 meeting.

Meade did not attend the Dec. 4 meeting, but was given the framed resolution at a reception later in the week. And at the Dec. 10 WCPARC meeting, it was announced that County Farm Park will be renamed in Meade’s honor, as the Nelson Meade County Farm Park. The 141-acre park is located on Ann Arbor’s east side, at the southwest corner of Washtenaw Avenue and Platt Road.

Outcome: Both resolutions passed unanimously.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Public Health

At the board’s Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, Ellen Rabinowitz was appointed as interim health officer for the county, because the county’s current health officer, Dick Fleece, was retiring. As they’d done in the past, at that meeting both Conan Smith (D-District 9) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) advocated for the county to create a board of public health. From The Chronicle’s Nov. 6 meeting report:

Conan Smith (D-District 9) told Rabinowitz that he really wants to see a public health board created. He asked her to report back to the board about what a public health board would mean to the department, and the process required to set it up. Rabinowitz replied that it’s an important issue to explore. The possibility of pulling together a board of experts is something she’s interested in exploring. Peterson said it should be a goal to establish such a board by the end of 2013, because public health advocates who might serve on the board should be involved in selecting a permanent director.

…

Regarding a public health board, Fleece said he’s heard varying opinions. Some people say that such boards require a lot of care and feeding to the extent that the board becomes a burden on staff. In other cases, the board can be an advocate and serve as a good source of information. There will be decisions to make regarding how much authority to give a public health board, he noted.

Fleece also pointed out that the county’s public health department already seeks advice from many sources, including the University of Michigan School of Public Health. He said he’d do everything he can to help with this process.

At the board’s Nov. 20, 2013 meeting, Rabinowitz told commissioners that she’d been working with the county administrator to develop a document that she planned to present to the board on Dec. 4. The document would lay out all the issues that need to be explored in reestablishing the board of public health, she said, including budget impacts, potential composition, and how it would relate to other existing boards.

Washtenaw County administrator Verna McDaniel.

On Dec. 4, Rabinowitz told the board that she knew Peterson had wanted a resolution on this issue to come forward at that meeting. However, she said she wasn’t ready yet because she’s still doing the due diligence and gathering information that’s needed to reestablish a board of public health. She was meeting the next day with the director of local public health services at the Michigan Dept. of Community Health to sort out why such a board is optional and what authority it would have. She’s also pulling together information about all the different ways that the county’s public health department currently receives public input, “because clearly that is one key role for a board of health,” she said.

Rabinowitz reported that she’ll also be meeting in January with the dean of the University of Michigan School of Public Health and the associate dean for public health practice to get their input. Her intent is to bring forward a resolution in the first quarter of 2014.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked Rabinowitz, saying that he knew she wanted to do what’s best for the county, what’s legal under the state statute, and what’s best in terms of engaging citizens. He noted that the county public health department already works with about 10 different citizen boards and commissions that are working on specific areas, like environmental health. He wanted to look at elevating the voice of people who sometimes don’t have input, and he looked forward to the proposal she’d be bringing forward next year.

Peterson said his desire to have a board of public health would not go away. The county has a parks & recreation commission, a board of public works, a drain board and a road commission, he noted, and a board of public health is just as important. He expected an update from the county administrator in January regarding the status of such a board. He argued that the county board needs to appoint people to a public health board who could advocate on behalf of children and other vulnerable citizens.

Conan Smith said he also was committed to putting a board of public health in place to guide commissioners. However, he added, he also understands the need for time to figure it out and do it right. He didn’t want to delay it with the intention of killing it, but thought it was worthwhile to get it done right.

Rabhi said he didn’t see the additional time as a delaying tactic, and he appreciated the time that staff was putting into it.

On a different topic, Alicia Ping said she hoped Rabinowitz could serve as a resource. Ping had recently received an email from the Saline mayor, reporting that there had been another heroin overdose in that city. The mayor is coordinating a response with the Saline police department and school system, she said, and has asked Ping to reach out to the county to see what resources are available.

Communications & Commentary: Misc. Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge spoke during both opportunities for public commentary during the evening. He introduced himself as a recent candidate for Ann Arbor city council, as well as a previous candidate for other offices. He urged the board to do more for the community’s most disadvantaged residents, finding ways to provide better access to health care, housing, transportation and education. He asked commissioners to work during their vacation period to help those in need. He argued that Gov. Rick Snyder and the state legislature had neglected and bullied the most vulnerable citizens on Michigan, as well as middle-class residents.

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

From left: Bill Higgins, Harry Sheehan and Mike Anglin, a Ward 5 Ann Arbor city councilmember. Sheehan is environmental manager with the Washtenaw County office of the water resources commissioner, and gave an update on the Upper Malletts Creek stormwater management project. Higgins lives in the neighborhood that’s the focus of the project. (Photos by the writer.)

The report of the downtown parks subcommittee includes several broad recommendations based on feedback gathered over the past few months, with an emphasis on “placemaking” principles that include active use, visibility and safety. The most specific recommendation calls for developing a park or open space on top of the city-owned Library Lot underground parking structure, adjacent to the downtown library.

A park at that location should exceed 5,000 square feet, according to the report, and connect to Library Lane, a small mid-block cut-through that runs north of the library between Fifth and Division. That connection offers flexibility, because the lane can be closed off for events to temporarily increase the size of a park or open space at that location.

Commissioners discussed and made some minor amendments to the subcommittee’s recommendations, which they then unanimously voted to approve. Most of the discussion focused on the Library Lot site. The recommendations will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Also on Oct. 15, Harry Sheehan briefed PAC about how a stormwater management project for Upper Malletts Creek might impact three city parks: Eisenhower, Churchill Downs and Lawton. The project, overseen by the Washtenaw County office of the water resources commissioner, is still in the planning phase. It’s intended to help control flooding in a neighborhood that’s roughly bounded by I-94, Scio Church Road and Ann Arbor-Saline Road, on the city’s southwest side.

Park planner Amy Kuras updated commissioners on capital projects throughout the parks system, highlighting projects that were completed this summer as well as work that’s ongoing, like construction of the Ann Arbor skatepark.

Missy Stults, PAC’s representative on the city’s environmental commission, reported that the commission has developed a work plan with strategies that are mostly tied to the city’s sustainability framework and climate action plan. For example, the plan includes work to promote re-useable water bottles and to discourage the use of plastic water bottles. One idea is to develop an app that would show people where to get public water, including water fountains in city parks. Tying in with that work plan item, Colin Smith – the city’s parks and recreation manager – reported said the city is looking to replace several water fountains at parks and recreation facilities with fountains that indicate how many plastic bottles have been saved by people using the water fountains. He noted that similar fountains are used at the University of Michigan.

Oct. 15 was the final meeting for Julie Grand, who is term limited after serving six years on PAC. Grand, who served on the downtown parks subcommittee, thanked commissioners for passing the recommendations, saying “it’s a great way to go out.”

Downtown Parks Recommendation

A group that’s been meeting since early 2013 – to explore the possibilities for a new downtown park – delivered a set of recommendations at the Oct. 15 meeting. [.pdf of 21-page full subcommittee report]

Ingrid Ault, who chaired the downtown parks subcommittee, began the presentation by reviewing the genesis of this effort. This subcommittee – Ault, Julie Grand, Alan Jackson and Karen Levin – has been meeting regularly since early February. Their work relates in part to a request that mayor John Hieftje made last summer. It’s also meant to supplement the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street project. Ault noted that the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan also identified a desire for downtown open space.

The subcommittee’s work was guided by this mission statement:

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

In addition to conducting research, inventorying existing downtown and near-downtown parks, and holding focus groups and public forums, some subcommittee members also attended a “placemaking” seminar in Lansing, held by the Michigan Parks & Recreation Association.

Ingrid Ault, chair of the park advisory commission, also chaired PAC’s downtown parks subcommittee.

Ault said that placemaking principles helped guide the recommendations. Examples she cited include places that have surrounding “active uses” with high pedestrian traffic and good visibility, places that promote activities that the community desires, and that are easily accessible and flexible. Spaces also need to feel safe and comfortable, she said.

Julie Grand continued the presentation, reviewing results of a survey conducted by the subcommittee that yielded more than 1,600 responses. [.pdf of 110-page downtown park survey results] The subcommittee recommendations were based in part on that feedback. Grand noted that most respondents lived in the 48103 zip code area, which might reflect proximity to the downtown or that residents there just like to take surveys, she quipped.

The eight recommendations are wide-ranging, but include a site-specific recommendation to develop a new park/open space area on the top of the Library Lot underground parking structure. Now a surface parking lot, the site is owned by the city and is situated just north of the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown building. The recommendation calls for only a portion of the site to be used for a new park/open space, and stresses that AADL should be involved in the planning process.

The subcommittee’s eight recommendations, as amended during the meeting, are as follows [added text in italics, deletions in strike-through]:

1. The development of any new downtown park or open space should prioritize community preferences. The most commonly expressed community-based priorities include: a central location; sufficient size for passive recreation/community gatherings; shade; and natural features.

2. New downtown parks and open space should adhere to placemaking principles. Necessary criteria for a successful downtown open space include: high traffic/visibility; flexible programmable space; active use on at least three sides; the ability to provide activities desired by the community; and funding for maintenance and security.

3. Any new downtown park should enliven the downtown, complement existing parks and development, and serve the community desire for a central gathering space.

4. Any additional downtown park space should not come at the expense of the quality or maintenance of Ann Arbor’s existing parks. Downtown parks are expected to be more costly to develop and maintain. Further, existing downtown parks are not currently utilized to their potential. Given the limits of current parks funding, the development of new parks should not be approved without an identified funding source for capital development, ongoing maintenance, and programming.

5. Significant capital/structural improvements to Liberty Plaza should only be made in concert with the adjacent property owner. Short-term efforts should continue to focus on smaller-scale incremental changes (removal of shrubbery) and programming opportunities (fee waiver). Future improvements should also work to create a permanent and highly visible connection between the Library Lot and Liberty Plaza.

6. The downtown could benefit from the addition of small “pocket” parks and flexible spaces. The City should work with potential developers of city-owned properties to identify opportunities, create, and maintain privately funded, but publicly accessible open spaces. (e.g., the Y and Kline lots). As a part of this effort, staff should develop recommendations for how development contributions can better serve to provide and improve downtown passive recreational opportunities, including proposals such as flex space (parklets), streetscape improvements, and public art.

7. The public process for downtown parks and open space does not end with these recommendations. Any additional park/open space would require robust public input regarding the design, features, and proposed activities.

8. Based on the aforementioned criteria, the Downtown Parks Subcommittee recommends that a park/open space be developed on the Library Lot that takes advantage of the flexibility offered through temporary closures of Library Lane. The size of this space should exceed the proposed allocated open space in the Connecting William Street study (5,000 square feet). However, the subcommittee is strongly in favor of a mixed-use vision for the Library Lot that utilizes the city’s investment in development-ready foundation and infrastructure. Adjacent Development of the site and adjacent parcels, including the accompanying increases in activity, is essential for the future success of this site additional downtown open space. In order to adequately address issues of safety and security, the Ann Arbor District Library must also be strongly represented in the planning process.

The Library Green Conservancy has been advocating for a park atop the Library Lot, but conservancy members envision a much larger footprint than the one proposed by the Connecting William Street report. During deliberations on Oct. 15, it emerged that the subcommittee hoped for more than the minimum size of 5,000 square feet that was mentioned for a park or open space on that site in the Connecting William Street report.

The subcommittee’s report also described the input received from several groups that gave feedback about possible downtown parks, including from Library Green Conservancy members and officials of the Ann Arbor District Library. The AADL’s downtown building is adjacent to the Library Lot. From the report:

The AADL representatives shared issues they have experienced with security, drugs, and loitering both inside and outside of the downtown library branch. They shared that they employ four full time security guards to deal with these issues, and have concerns about adding a large public open space outside of their building. Although in concept a park sounds like it would complement the library and its programs, without continuous security, high level of maintenance and continuous programming, there was concern that the space would create another venue for the behavioral issues they experience on a daily basis at the library and at Liberty Plaza.

For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Parks Group To Weigh In On Downtown Need,” “Committee Starts Downtown Parks Research,” “Survey Drafted for Downtown Parks,” as well as coverage included in the PAC meeting reports for March 19, 2013 and May 21, 2013.

Downtown Park Recommendation: Commission Discussion – Library Lot

Christopher Taylor, an ex officio, non-voting member of PAC who serves on the city council, kicked off the discussion by asking about the Library Lot recommendation. He asked whether the proposal includes Fifth Avenue access to the parcel. Julie Grand replied that she intentionally made that recommendation vague. In writing up the recommendations, she didn’t feel comfortable making it more specific, because she felt there should be a conversation about it at PAC. She noted that in the Connecting William Street plan, there’s the idea of potentially opening up any open space on Library Lot more on the Fifth Avenue side.

Christopher Taylor, an Ann Arbor city councilmember and ex officio member of the park advisory commission.

Taylor pointed out that there’s always been open space anticipated in the plan for the top of the Library Lot, and that the heavy foundation of the underground parking structure was created with the idea that part of the surface would be open space, as well as development that would have access to Fifth Avenue from the north side of the Library Lot parcel. He asked whether that plan is consistent with the subcommittee’s recommendations.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, read a related recommendation for the Library Lot site in the Connecting William Street plan: “Must have a plaza/open space on site. (Minimally, develop the 5,000-square-foot intended plaza/park space.) Could expand plaza space north along Fifth Avenue (up to 12,000 sq. ft.) at the developer’s/City’s discretion.” [.pdf of Connecting William Street report]

Smith said that as a departure point for PAC’s discussion about size, the subcommittee felt it should be no smaller than 5,000 square feet. Beyond that, it’s worth discussion by PAC, he said.

Grand noted that the most important point was that any open space should connect to Library Lane, so that the lane could be temporarily closed off and used as flexible space for events.

Alan Jackson said the subcommittee didn’t want to constrain the creativity that might occur later in terms of how the site is developed. Nor did they have the ability to assess things like the structural limitations of the site, he noted. The subcommittee’s intent is to identify the kind of open space that is needed, and the general size, he said.

Karen Levin emphasized that the subcommittee’s task was to look at all of the potential downtown open spaces. Most of the other spaces had greater limitations, and that’s why the subcommittee decided that the Library Lot was the best site in terms of placemaking principles. The next step would be to design the open space, “which was not our task,” she said.

Taylor asked subcommittee members to talk about placemaking principles as applied to the current built environment around the Library Lot.

Ault replied that there are already some best practices in place. The Ann Arbor District Library, for example, already draws over 600,000 visitors to that location – adjacent to the Library Lot – every year, “so that’s huge,” she said. But placemaking principles would call for having eyes on a park at that location 24/7, she added, and for having a reason to stop and use the space rather than traveling through it. That’s the part that’s critical, but not currently in place, she said. There’s a bus station across the street, and two restaurants – Earthen Jar and Jerusalem Garden – nearby. But neither of those restaurants face the Library Lot, she noted, and they are separated by an alley.

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

Smith added that the majority of buildings and businesses that surround the Library Lot currently face away from that site, not toward it. Grand added that urban open space is different from neighborhood parks, and successful open space includes things like having at least three sides of active use facing the space. Right now, she added, the Library Lot has zero active sides. If placemaking principles aren’t part of designing an urban park or open space, then it can actually detract from the downtown experience, she said, rather than enhance it.

In terms of developing the Library Lot site, Jackson stressed that a key feature should be to have the development relate to the open space on the site. Mike Anglin recalled that when the city was deciding where to locate a new courts and police facility, the Library Lot site was considered. But opponents argued that having a municipal facility there would create dead space at night, he said. [The Justice Center was eventually built next to city hall, at Fifth and Huron.]

Now, Anglin said, the Library Lot area is pretty active at night. He was encouraged that the subcommittee recommended the Library Lot for a new park or open space. He said the parks millage and the library millage “go hand in hand – we love both of them.” Last year, the library “took a really bad hit,” he said – a reference to the failed bond proposal that would have funded a new downtown library.

Now, Anglin said, the library can work with the city in helping design the Library Lot space.

Taylor said what he’s heard is that placemaking principles would recommend three sides of active use, but this location has none. Also, his understanding was that “material development” on the site and adjacent to the site is critical for the success of any open space at this location.

Smith affirmed Taylor’s understanding, saying that those sentiments are expressed in recommendation (8). The subcommittee wants to see open space on the Library Lot site, but the property needs to be developed to some level before that space will be successful. An opportunity might exist to include language in any development agreement about including open space, as well as long-term care of it, Smith said.

Downtown Park Recommendation: Commission Discussion – Liberty Plaza

Missy Stults asked about recommendation (4), which indicated that existing downtown parks aren’t currently used to their maximum potential. She wondered whether the subcommittee had discussed how to remedy that.

Ingrid Ault replied that the subcommittee had discussed the issue, and had specifically looked at Liberty Plaza, located at the southwest corner of Liberty and Division. Some improvements have already been made, she noted, such as removing tall shrubbery to increase visibility, and installing a sensory garden. The activation of the space is important, with the Bank of Ann Arbor’s Sonic Lunch being a “perfect example” of that, Ault said. The fee waiver for using Liberty Plaza – which was recommended by PAC at its June 18, 2013 meeting, and subsequently approved by council – is another way the city is trying to improve the space, she added.

Map from PAC’s subcommittee report showing locations of sites that were examined as possible new downtown parks.

Colin Smith noted that the general recommendations of the subcommittee are a good departure point for activities that PAC will be undertaking in the future. That includes developing recommendations for the budget, he said. A recurring theme is that to make spaces successful, it requires programming – and that requires people and effort. “It doesn’t just happen,” Smith said.

Karen Levin noted that one of the positives for putting a new park or open space on the Library Lot is that potential exists for a connection to Liberty Plaza. Ault pointed out that the Kempf House Museum is also in that area, adjacent to Liberty Plaza.

Bob Galardi said he didn’t think the city has yet realized the full potential of the fee waiver. No one has yet approached the city to put in a month-long art installation, for example. That fee waiver is something in the offing to help the plaza, he said. Smith noted that a musician had reserved the plaza for a performance recently, using the fee waiver.

Stults reported that the environmental commission’s work plan includes a recommendation to work with neighborhoods, as something that’s critical for building more resilient, stable communities. All neighborhoods have parks, so there’s a very interesting connection to be made, she said. Stults plans to make a budget recommendation to fund a park programmer, to make sure that all neighborhood parks are activated in a way that builds community and a sense of place.

Downtown Park Recommendation: Commission Discussion – Amendments

At the suggestion of Christopher Taylor, one change was made to the second recommendation – adding the word “necessary”:

2. New downtown parks and open space should adhere to placemaking principles. Necessary criteria for a successful downtown open space include: high traffic/visibility; flexible programmable space; active use on at least three sides; the ability to provide activities desired by the community; and funding for maintenance and security.

All other changes focused on the final recommendation (8) about the specific Library Lot site. The original recommendation stated:

8. Based on the aforementioned criteria, the Downtown Parks Subcommittee recommends that a park/open space be developed on the Library Lot that takes advantage of the flexibility offered through temporary closures of Library Lane. The size of this space should exceed the proposed allocated open space in the Connecting William Street study. However, the subcommittee is strongly in favor of a mixed-use vision for the Library Lot. Adjacent development, including the accompanying increases in activity, is essential for the future success of additional downtown open space. In order to adequately address issues of safety and security, the Ann Arbor District Library must also be strongly represented in the planning process.

Taylor pressed to include language that acknowledged the need for development on the Library Lot, not just on adjacent sites. He also suggested adding the word “density” to the phrase “accompanying increases in activity” so that it would read “accompanying increases in activity and density.”

Alan Jackson wasn’t sure the word “density” captured what the subcommittee intended. Taylor described the word as a proxy for “more people doing more things” downtown, and he thought it was consistent with what the subcommittee was recommending. However, there was little enthusiasm among commissioners for adding the word, with the sense that it was restrictive because it typically refers to residential development.

Ann Arbor park advisory commissioner Bob Galardi.

Julie Grand said the subcommittee recognized the need for development on that space in order to activate the area. They also didn’t want to ignore the real investment in infrastructure that had been made to support a building on the Library Lot site, she said. “I think those are two very strong reasons to support development on it,” she added.

Bob Galardi didn’t want the recommendations to go forward without including a mention of development. If something isn’t built on that site that faces the open space area, “that is a real problem, at least for me,” he said. The library will draw people past the site, he noted, but a mixed-use development could draw people into the space.

There was some discussion about the size of the open space, with consensus that it should exceed the minimum 5,000 square feet that was recommended in the Connecting William Street report. By way of comparison, Smith reported that Liberty Plaza is nearly 12,000 square feet, while Sculpture Plaza is slightly smaller than 5,000 square feet. Beyond indicating a desire to exceed a minimum amount of space, Smith didn’t think it was necessary to make a specific size recommendation. What really matters is the quality of the design, he said.

Taylor made some suggestions for changes, including a mention of the city’s investment in infrastructure and adding a reference to density. He noted that as an ex officio non-voting member of PAC, he was not in a position to move amendments himself.

After additional back-and-forth about possible wording, commissioners ultimately agreed to several friendly amendments in the eighth recommendation [added text in italics, deletions in strike-through]:

8. Based on the aforementioned criteria, the Downtown Parks Subcommittee recommends that a park/open space be developed on the Library Lot that takes advantage of the flexibility offered through temporary closures of Library Lane. The size of this space should exceed the proposed allocated open space in the Connecting William Street study (5,000 square feet). However, the subcommittee is strongly in favor of a mixed-use vision for the Library Lot that utilizes the city’s investment in development-ready foundation and infrastructure. Adjacent Development of the site and adjacent parcels, including the accompanying increases in activity, is essential for the future success of this site additional downtown open space. In order to adequately address issues of safety and security, the Ann Arbor District Library must also be strongly represented in the planning process.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the downtown parks subcommittee report and recommendations, as amended. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Upper Mallets Creek Project

Harry Sheehan – environmental manager with the Washtenaw County office of the water resources commissioner – briefed commissioners about how a broad stormwater management project for Upper Malletts Creek might impact three city parks: Eisenhower, Churchill Downs and Lawton.

After the March 15, 2012 major storm in this region, he said, coupled with chronic flooding problems in this neighborhood, the water resources commissioner’s office – in partnership with the city of Ann Arbor – began to look at potential stormwater management solutions. The area is roughly bounded by I-94, Scio Church Road, and Ann Arbor-Saline Road, on the city’s southwest side.

The Upper Malletts Stormwater Conveyance Study has tentatively identified three major projects to help manage stormwater and control flooding. Two of those projects would affect local parks:

• Building two stormwater detention basins along the north and south ends of Eisenhower and Churchill Downs parks, which are connected. These basins – covering about 2.5 acres – would help manage the stormwater flow from the north along Scio Church Road and from the drainage area west of I-94. (Eisenhower Park is located along I-94, just south of Scio Church Road. Churchill Downs Park is a 1.18-acre neighborhood park located between a residential area and I-94.) Estimated cost: $1.7 million.
• Building a large underground detention basin at the north end of Lawton Park, which is located on Mershon between Delaware and Scio Church. The basin would manage storm flows from both north and south of Scio Church. Existing park amenities – including the baseball/softball diamond – would be replaced and upgraded. Estimated cost: $4.125 million

A third project, which would not involve a city park, entails building a detention basin north of Scio Church Road and east of Seventh Street, on property south of Pioneer High School that’s owned by the Ann Arbor Public Schools. That piece would cost an estimated $1 million and cover about 2.8 acres.

The total project would cost about $10 million, Sheehan said – $2 million for design and $8 million for construction.

In the animated .gif below, which loops continuously, the first frame indicates in black the March 15, 2012 flooded areas. The next three frames show the modeled cumulative effect of adding each of the proposed stormwater detention facilities. That is, the maps show what the flooding would have been like, if the proposed stormwater detention facilities had been in place on March 15, 2012.

Maps by Spicer Group, the engineering consultant for the upper Mallets Creek stormwater study. Scans and animation by The Chronicle.

The overall project would require city council approval, and it’s not yet clear when a proposal will be brought forward. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, characterized Sheehan’s presentation to PAC as informational, given the potential impact on some parks. When funding is secured, the commission would be briefed on a more detailed plan and would be asked for a recommendation to be forwarded to the city council.

For additional background on stormwater management in this area, as well as related issues, see Chronicle coverage: “Sidewalks: Repair, Build, Shovel.”

Sheehan told commissioners that at public meetings held about the project, residents seemed generally positive. Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner who attended the most recent forum, said she had expected it to be a contentious meeting. People generally were relieved to see someone there from the city’s parks staff, she said, and generally it was a positive meeting.

Upper Mallets Creek Project: Commission Discussion

Missy Stults asked if the project is looking at projections for future storm events, to make sure that the stormwater management system will be able to handle the potential impact of climate change.

Harry Sheehan, environmental manager with the Washtenaw County office of the water resources commissioner.

Harry Sheehan replied that the study entailed looking at several different storm events. In Ann Arbor, the March 2012 storm was extremely localized to this neighborhood. In contrast, earlier this year when there was heavy flooding along the Miller Avenue corridor, he’d driven down the Upper Malletts Creek neighborhood and it was fairly dry. The impact of climate change makes these storm events more intense over a shorter period of time, he noted.

What makes stormwater management more challenging is that the ground is generally saturated in the spring when these types of intense storms typically occur, Sheehan said, and there will likely be more of this due to global warming.

Julie Grand asked for more information about the impact on parks, noting that Lawton Park is located near an elementary school.

Amy Kuras reported that at Lawton Park, the biggest impact will be on the open field, which would be taken out of use during construction. Afterward, it won’t change the use of the park because it’s an underground detention basin.

At Churchill Downs Park, the paths, basketball court and playground would be removed for construction. However, Kuras said, those facilities are ready to be replaced anyway.

In response to a question from Graydon Krapohl, Sheehan explained that if approved, construction likely would happen in the fall of 2014 and finish up in the spring – but no specific year has yet been determined for the project. Kuras added that for the sports field, it would be seeded in the fall after construction, then probably reseeded again in the early spring.

Alan Jackson said he’d gone to one of the meetings, and that it would be helpful to show park commissioners where exactly these projects would occur in the parks. He agreed with the assessment that there seemed to be a lot of positive feedback from residents, though there were concerns about work that would be done in close proximity to Lawton Elementary.

Christopher Taylor asked about the cost, wondering how much of the $10 million is for the parks compared to stormwater, and whether grant funding might be available. Sheehan replied that the project would likely use two of the state funding sources that the county has used in the past for similar projects. The project would pay for any replacement due to disruption in the parks.

Kuras added that if the parks system wanted to do improvements that went beyond the replacement of existing parks facilities, then the city would pay for that.

Mike Anglin said he noticed that the Spicer Group did the analysis for this project. He wondered if Sheehan had records of where the major flooding has occurred, and how close that flooding is to the city’s parks. Sheehan replied that the office of the county’s water resources commissioner has compiled that information, but not necessarily in a readily searchable way.

Sheehan said the outcome of a stormwater calibration study that’s being done now would be useful in graphically representing previous flooding so that future improvements and the impact on reducing that flooding could be shown.

Anglin said he’s hearing that residents don’t want to report when there’s flooding in their homes, because that has financial implications regarding insurance, he noted. He wondered if there was a way of doing some kind of “secret recording” because it seems like the city needs the data. Sheehan told Anglin he’d get a response on that question from the city’s systems planning unit.

Anglin said he’d like to continue to look for possible land acquisition in the city’s watersheds, adding that the city should “buy them, as fast as we can.” The city can’t afford to keep doing projects like this stormwater management work, he said, nor can the city afford the drop in property values that results from people leaving the community because of potential flooding.

Praising Sheehan and others who’ve been working on this issue, Anglin said the city needs to get the word out that they’re working “aggressively” on the problem.

Taylor said he noticed that there doesn’t seem to be work planned for the area east of Seventh Street. He wondered if there are any plans for that neighborhood. Sheehan replied that they looked at that area, but when the analysis was done, doing stormwater detention in that area provided only very limited benefit. The project would require that pipe running underneath Seventh to be replaced, to create a clearer flow path for the water, Sheehan said, but that’s the only thing planned at this point.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Upper Mallets Creek Project: Public Commentary

At the end of the meeting, Bill Higgins addressed the commission during public commentary. He said he lived south of Scio Church Road, near Pioneer Woods and Greenview Park. Residents are concerned about the appearance of the woods after the work is done. He said he knows it’s not a city park, but somehow the school system needs to get involved in the design process. Scio Church Road is a “disaster,” he said, and now the city is putting money into it for sanitary sewer, water problems, sidewalks and gutters. [See Chronicle coverage: “Sidewalks: Repair, Build, Shovel.”]

Higgins wondered how many of the commissioners had visited Eisenhower Park, especially on the north side, which fronts Scio Church Road. People have to bypass the park and walk along the road to get to the bridge over I-94 – to get to the Ice Cube and Pittsfield branch library. That park could be enhanced and developed, and it would be good for the city to start looking at that possibility, he said. There could even be a small parking lot put in there, he said. Very little attention has ever been paid to people who live south of Scio Church Road, he noted. Higgins said he personally has “waterfront property” occasionally, so he’s very interested in the proposed impounds. Unless all of the impounds are built, “it won’t work,” he concluded.

Capital Projects Update

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, told commissioners that in the late fall or early winter, staff will typically give an update to PAC about projects that have been worked on during the construction season. On Oct. 15, the presentation was given by park planner Amy Kuras.

Highlights from her report:

• In Esch Park – a roughly 4.5-acre neighborhood park located near Packard Road – asphalt paths were replaced with concrete and a new pathway to the play area was constructed to provide barrier free access. The basketball court was reconfigured and replaced, landscaping was added, and several pieces of playground equipment were replaced.
• The first phase of a major renovation at Gallup Park‘s livery and dock area is finished. The second phase started on Labor Day and will continue until the weather gets bad. It will include entry road improvements and separating the service drive from the pedestrian path. The project is funded in part by a $300,000 state grant.
• Work is underway at the urban plaza next to the Forest Avenue parking structure in the South University area – known as “Transformer” Plaza, because there are several utility transformer boxes located there. As part of the site plan approval process for the Landmark and Zaragon II apartment complexes in that area, developers were asked to make donations to the parks system. That funding is being used to improve the plaza, Kuras said. The project – repaving the plaza with colored, patterned concrete – was done in conjunction with street improvements to Forest Avenue this summer.
• A major donation had been made to the city for landscaping in the parks, so that funding was spent to “spruce up” the entrances to several recreational facilities, Kuras said, including Bryant and Northside community center, the senior center near Burns Park, the ice arena at Buhr Park, the golf courses, and the rain garden at Gallup.
• Roofs were replaced at Mack pool and Veterans ice arena.
• Ballfields were renovated at West Park, Veterans Memorial Park, and Southeast Area Park.
• Work continues on the skatepark in the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park. Kuras described the partnership of the city, Washtenaw County parks & recreation, and the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark, as well as funding from the state. Here’s a short video clip provided by the parks staff of workers recently applying “shotcrete” to one of the bowls.

Capital Projects Update: Commission Discussion

Alan Jackson asked whether the solar panels on the roof of the Veterans ice arena were re-used. Amy Kuras said she met with members of the city’s energy commission and energy staff, to try to figure out what to do with the panels. About a third to a half of the panels no longer function. In addition, the previous installation of the panels is believed to have contributed to the roof leakage, she said. So the staff will continue to work on that issue, but at this point the panels are being stored outside of the building.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, commended Kuras for her work on these projects, as well as other staff, including Jeff Straw, Matt Warba and Nicole Woodward.

Ingrid Ault said she’s been hearing “unbelievably positive” feedback from residents about these improvements, and it’s exciting to see.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Environmental Commission Work Plan

Missy Stults, PAC’s representative on the city’s environmental commission, reported that the commission has developed a work plan with about 10 strategies that are mostly tied to the city’s sustainability framework and climate action plan. [.pdf of environmental commission's work plan] The plan includes work to promote re-useable water bottles and to discourage the use of plastic water bottles. So the idea is to develop an app that would show people where to get public water, including water fountains in city parks. There’s also work to map the city’s vulnerability to climate change, she said, such as flooding.

From left: Park advisory commissioners Missy Stults and Karen Levin.

Stults also said there’s a community visioning process underway to understand what a resilient Ann Arbor would look like. It includes how the city would bounce back from events that impact residents, she noted, but also how the city can “bounce forward” and prepare for the future. This will be about an 18-24 month process. In a related item, she reported that the city council recently approved applying to be designated as one of 100 Resilient Cities by the Rockefeller Foundation.

There are also preliminary discussions about how to handle smoking in the city’s parks, Stults said. It was an issue that one of the city councilmembers who serves on the commission has raised, because it had been raised by constituents. [Two councilmembers – Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) serve on the environmental commission.]

The commission is also looking at recommending a resolution to the city council advocating to ban fracking in the city.

Tying in with the work plan item regarding water use, Colin Smith reported said the city is looking to replace several water fountains at parks and recreation facilities with f0untains that indicate how many plastic bottles have been saved by people using the fountain. He noted that the city took the idea from similar fountains used at the University of Michigan.

Mike Anglin, a Ward 5 city councilmember who serves as an ex-officio member of PAC, noted that councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1) recently brought forward a resolution to the council regarding the Pall-Gelman 1,4 dioxane plume. He felt the environmental commission should always keep that situation in mind, even though it’s embarrassing to the city. You can’t control the weather, he said, but you can probably control this issue with sustained interest.

Anglin said “we’re about to replace a judge who has been responsible for the administration of this for years. He’s going to resign, and we have the chance to appoint a new judge, who may be assigned to this.” [Anglin seemed to be referring to Donald Shelton, chief judge of the Washtenaw County 22nd circuit court, who oversees a consent judgment between the state and Pall Corp. However, circuit court judges are elected, not appointed – unless they resign mid-term. Because of his age, Shelton will be ineligible for re-election when his term ends next year. The state constitution requires that judicial candidates at the time of election must be younger than 70 years old. However, Shelton has not indicated that he will be resigning before the end of his term.]

No one likes to hear that there’s something bad in the community that people should be paying attention to, Anglin said. But the fact is that a mature society faces these issues, he said. There’s a group that’s hoping to vet the judges who might handle this case, Anglin said. That will have an impact on the judge who will ultimately handle this, he added, “because once they’re in, you can’t vet them. You can’t say anything about cases that they’ll handle. But we have a lot to say now.”

Anglin indicated that it’s important to appoint a judge who’s an environmentalist and who’ll enforce regulations. “What we have to do is get a strong set of marching orders that everybody agrees to, from the governor down,” to look at best practices. He noted that the city of Ann Arbor handles 1,4 dioxane at the former landfill, located at Platt and Ellsworth. The technology to do this is available, he said.

Anglin hoped the Ann Arbor city council would appoint at least three councilmembers to an oversight group, including someone from Wards 1 and 5, which are the wards most affected by the Pall Gelman plume, he said. They could look at what can be done and how to move forward. That’s something the environmental commission can explore, he said.

Communications & Commentary: Dog Park Update

Karen Levin, chair of PAC’s dog park subcommittee, reported that the group has now held two public forums, with a lot of good feedback. The subcommittee will be using that feedback, along with survey responses, to continue evaluating possible sites for a new dog park. [.pdf of 306-page dog park survey results] [.xls file of dog park survey results]

Communications & Commentary: Manager’s Report

Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith noted that on Wednesday, Oct. 23 there will be an appreciation potluck for volunteers of the city’s natural area preservation program. It will be held at Cobblestone Farm at 2781 Packard Road from 6:30-9:30 p.m.

Communications & Commentary: Farewell to Julie Grand

The Oct. 15 meeting was the last one for Julie Grand, PAC’s former chair who is term limited after serving six years. Ingrid Ault, who was elected chair to replace Grand at PAC’s Sept. 17 meeting, called her “an amazing force” for the commission. Ault thanked Grand for her work.

Oct. 15 was the last PAC meeting for Julie Grand, who is term limited.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, noted that Grand’s service on PAC almost exactly parallels his own tenure as manager. He said they’ve worked well and collaboratively on several projects, and have seen many improvements over the years. The parks staff have appreciated working with Grand and the support she’s provided to the city’s parks system, he said.

Grand recalled that people would ask her why she attended so many meetings. It’s actually been a pleasure the entire time, she said. That’s because PAC supports a service that the community is really engaged with, Grand said. The parks staff is phenomenal, and the city is fortunate to have that.

She noted that there’s been a transition on PAC, as she’s watched old members leave and new members arrive. Before the new members were appointed, she’d felt a lot of stress, she reported, and had been a “bug in the mayor’s ear” for about a year, urging him to find good appointments. So she’s relieved now that she sees the commission will be left in such good hands.

She told new commissioners that they were fortunate, because in past years PAC had to focus on budget cuts. Now, from that foundation the commissioners can build on it and work on new policies to improve the existing system, she said, without having to make cuts every year.

Grand thanked commissioners for passing the recommendations on downtown parks, saying “it’s a great way to go out.”

She received a round of applause from staff and commissioners, who after the meeting took Grand out to Arbor Brewing Company for a farewell celebration.

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

Absent: Tim Berla.

Next PAC meeting: Tuesday, Nov. 19, 2013 at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

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

The Upper Malletts Stormwater Conveyance Study, which is overseen by the Washtenaw County office of the water resources commissioner, has identified three major projects to help manage stormwater and control flooding on the city’s southwest side. Two of those projects would affect local parks:

• Building two stormwater detention basins along the north and south ends of Eisenhower and Churchill Downs parks, which are connected. These basins – covering about 2.5 acres – would help manage the stormwater flow from the north along Scio Church Road and from the drainage area west of I-94. (Eisenhower Park is located along I-94, just south of Scio Church Road. Churchill Downs Park is a 1.18-acre neighborhood park located between a residential area and I-94.) Estimated cost: $1.7 million.
• Building a large underground detention basin at the north end of Lawton Park, which is located on Mershon between Delaware and Scio Church. The basin would manage storm flows from both north and south of Scio Church. Existing park amenities – including the baseball/softball diamond – would be replaced and upgraded. Estimated cost: $4.125 million

A third project, which would not involve a city park, entails building a detention basin north of Scio Church Road and east of Seventh Street, on property south of Pioneer High School. That piece would cost an estimated $1 million and cover about 2.8 acres.

Harry Sheehan, environmental manager with the Washtenaw County office of the water resources commissioner, made a presentation to park commissioners on Oct. 15 and answered questions about the project, which is still in the planning phase.

The overall project would require city council approval, and it’s not yet clear when a proposal will be brought forward. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, characterized Sheehan’s presentation to PAC as informational, given the potential impact on some parks.

For additional background on stormwater management in this area, as well as related issues, see Chronicle coverage: “Sidewalks: Repair, Build, Shovel.”

This brief was filed from the second-floor council chambers at city hall, where PAC holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Top: Example of a cross-lot walkway, leading from street to school. Middle: Sidewalk that was cut flush funded by the city’s sidewalk repair millage. Bottom: Recommended detention ponds in Eisenhower Park near the proposed Scio Church sidewalk.

Yet these existing and future slabs of concrete are themselves a constant topic of confusion and controversy: Who’s responsible for repairing the busted slab in front my house? Who’s supposed to shovel snow off the sidewalk in the winter?

Sidewalks also connect up to other equally important if also dull components of local governance – like stormwater management and public art.

So here’s a quick rundown of some specific sidewalk-related issues that the Ann Arbor city council will be considering.

The council’s agenda for Monday, Oct. 7, includes an item on the definition of sidewalks. If an existing walkway meets the definition of a “sidewalk,” then the city bears responsibility for its repair for the duration of the sidewalk repair millage. All other things being equal, the adjacent property owner would be responsible for snow removal in the winter.

The Oct. 7 agenda item focuses on walkways that aren’t really on the “side” of anything – walkways that connect a street to a park or school, or that connect two parallel streets. The city calls them “cross-lot” walkways. If such walkways were added into the definition of “sidewalk” – as the city council is contemplating – then the city would be responsible for repair. That’s a result welcomed by property owners. But it would put the burden for snow removal on those property owners – a less welcome result. That was the sentiment that led the council to postpone final consideration of a change to the definition of “sidewalk” three months ago, on July 1, 2013.

So on Oct. 7, the council will be asked to consider a different approach to that definitional change – one that would allow the so-called “cross-lot” paved pathways to qualify as sidewalks under the city’s ordinance, but not trigger a winter maintenance requirement for adjacent property owners.

The fresh look would mean that the council’s possible action on Oct. 7 would be considered only an initial approval of the ordinance change. Final enactment of the change would require a second vote at a subsequent council meeting. If approved, the ordinance would allow cross-lot paths to be repaired under the city’s sidewalk repair program – funded through the five-year millage approved by Ann Arbor voters in November 2011. That program is noticeable to residents in the form of pink markings that appear on sidewalk slabs – an “R” for replace and a “C” for cutting an out-of-alignment section so that it lines up flush with the next slab.

The millage can pay for repair or replacement of existing slabs of sidewalks, but not for the construction of new sidewalks. So that millage money isn’t available to build a new stretch of sidewalk along the south side of Scio Church Road (or to fill in a smaller gap on the north side) – a section of sidewalk that residents have petitioned the city to build. The petition for a sidewalk there is based on several considerations, including a desire to connect to amenities west of I-94, like the Ice Cube, Wide World of Sports and the Ann Arbor District Library’s Pittsfield branch. It’s also seen as a pedestrian safety issue, because the lack of a sidewalk on one side of the road could induce pedestrians to cross the road at places where motorists don’t expect pedestrians to cross.

The city council authorized $15,000 of general fund money for the study of alternatives along that stretch – alternatives that were presented at a meeting held on Sept. 18 at Lawton Elementary School and attended by about two dozen people. Next up for the city council, likely on Oct. 21, will be a request for a design budget, so that costs of the project can be estimated with more precision.

Among the alternatives that were considered, but not pursued in much detail, was construction of a pathway through Eisenhower Park. That’s where the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner is now recommending that a pair of detention ponds be constructed – to help mitigate overland flooding in the area. That recommendation was presented to a group of about 80 neighbors on Sept. 30 – also held at Lawton Elementary School.

And a fence that that might need to be constructed along the proposed Scio Church sidewalk – to prevent people from falling down the steep incline – received a glancing mention at a recent meeting of the Ann Arbor public art commission. A proposal to fund a public art project that would be integrated into the fence was tabled by the commission at its Sept. 25, 2013 meeting.

Cross-lot Sidewalks

The city council had given initial consideration to the change in the definition of a sidewalk at its June 3, 2013 meeting. When the final decision came before the council on July 1, 2013, councilmembers heard from residents like John Ohanian and Miranda Wellborn Eleazar, whose properties abut cross-lot walkways.

Under the ordinance change the council considered that evening, the city’s sidewalk repair millage could be used to fix any defects in the slabs – but Ohanian and Wellborn Eleazar would have to shovel the walkway during the winter. That concern led to a postponement by the council until Oct. 7.

This cross-lot path was described by John Ohanian at the city council’s July 1, 2013 meeting as one that he’d become responsible for shoveling if the city adopted the change in the definition of sidewalk.

This is the path – looking east from Frederick and Middleton into Greenbrier Park – that abuts Ohanian’s property.

This is the cross-lot path that the Eleazars would become responsible for shoveling, if the change to the definition of sidewalk is adopted.

The cross-lot path that leads from Roon the Ben in the Turnberry neighborhood to the ballfields for Scarlett-Mitchell schools. A pending ordinance change could eventually place responsibility for capital repairs on the city, but give adjacent property owners the responsibility of shoveling snow.

On Oct. 7, the council will be asked to consider a revised approach to these cross-lot walkways. The ordinance would still be changed to include them in the definition of a “sidewalk” – so repairs could be paid for with sidewalk millage money. But the ordinance change would not assign responsibility for snow clearance to the adjacent property owners. The staff memo accompanying the Oct. 7 ordinance proposal estimates that the total city cost for repairs and snow clearance for 34 cross-lot walkways would be $7,000 – $5,100 for plowing and $1,900 for repair.

The 34 cross-lot walkways that would be affected by the ordinance change would need to be accepted by the city for public use, in order for the ordinance language to apply. That’s a companion resolution the council will also need to approve.

Because the change to the ordinance is substantively different from the approach the council had previously given initial approval, any action taken on Oct. 7 by the council would be considered another initial approval, according to the staff memo. For the ordinance change to be enacted, it would need a second, final vote by the council at a subsequent meeting.

Construction of New Sidewalks

As part of the current fiscal year 2014 budget approved on May 20, 2013, the city council included $75,000 for a sidewalk gap prioritization study.

But before and after the adoption of the budget, the city council approved money related to specific gaps – for an alternative study or actual design work. The council has made such allocations on three occasions in the last year, starting on Nov. 19, 2012. That’s when the council approved $15,000 for an alternatives analysis of a stretch along Scio Church Road, west of Seventh Street and east of I-94.

Purple indicates stretches of Scio Church Road where no sidewalk exists.

Residents who live on and near Scio Church had submitted a petition asking for the construction of a sidewalk along the south side of the road. That petition prompted the city council allocation of money for an alternatives analysis.

For some of the other specific sidewalk projects, the council allocated a design budget. For Scio Church Road, the alternatives analysis comes first, because the design won’t be straightforward – due to the physical challenges involved, related to the sloping terrain.

In fact, those physical challenges were cited by city senior project manager Liz Rolla at the Sept. 18 Lawton Elementary School meeting as one possible reason why the sidewalk gaps exist along that stretch. One resident, who described herself as new to the area, asked for a nutshell explanation of why, on the south side of the road, there’s a sidewalk heading west until halfway between Delaware and Churchill, “and then there’s nothing.”

In addition to the physical challenges, Rolla ventured that when the sidewalks were constructed, the perceived need for pedestrians to go west all the way to I-94 and beyond was not as great. Facilities like the Ann Arbor Ice Cube, Wide World Sports Center and the Pittsfield branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, she said, were from her perspective relatively new – but for her kids, they seem like they’d been there forever. Those facilities create a need for pedestrian travel westward.

One resident at the meeting traced the problem to the city’s failure to install proper sidewalks when the land was annexed from Pittsfield Township, citing the city’s requirements that regulate how public sidewalks and driveway entrances are constructed. He was reluctant to see just the gap on the south side of Scio Church addressed, reasoning that the city should provide sidewalks on both sides of the street.

An outcome of the Sept. 18 meeting is that the staff will request that the city council provide money for a design budget – for both sides of Scio Church, including the shorter gap on the north side of the street. That request is supposed to be on the council’s Oct. 21 agenda, according to the staff summary of the meeting. [.pdf of Sept. 18, 2013 staff summary of Lawton Elementary School sidewalk meeting]

The sentiment of the attendees at the Sept. 18 meeting was that – while they very much wanted to see sidewalks constructed to eliminate the gap – they were reluctant to see what they viewed as unreasonable costs imposed on adjacent property owners, who would bear some of the project’s cost. That cost is typically imposed by the city through a special assessment of properties that front the sidewalk. Because much of the south side of Scio Church, where the proposed sidewalk would be constructed, is adjacent to city parkland or the rear of cul-de-sacs, few property owners would be special assessed.

Lawton Elementary School sidewalk meeting on Sept. 18, 2013.

One resident who attended the Sept. 18 meeting, and whose property would be special assessed, indicated he had not signed the petition, nor had he known about it: “The funding of this is a very, very big deal to me,” he said. “This is money that I’m hoping that my son can use to go to college. A portion of that would have to go to this project if this property is assessed.”

Rolla and city engineer Nick Hutchinson, who also attended the meeting, stressed throughout the discussion that the numbers they’d provided should not be seen as the amounts that residents would have to pay – because the estimates were only very rough, and not all elements of the project would be subject to special assessment. Retaining walls, for example, would likely not be assessed, Hutchison indicated.

Another factor reducing the potential burden to local property owners is the possibility that federal surface transportation funds could be used to offset part of the cost. But Hutchinson stressed that even if the city was successful in obtaining such federal funds – which are administered through the state of Michigan – a 20% local match would still be required.

Residents at the meeting appeared sensitive to the potential financial burden that just a few residents might have to bear. The resident who had organized the petition to the city reported that he got the feeling from talking to the neighborhood that there are ways to share the burden of the assessment – either formal or informal ways among those who wouldn’t ordinarily be special-assessed. Speaking for himself, he said, “I’m eager to do it.” Another resident chimed in, quickly: “I was just going say the same thing. I am perfectly willing to chip in,” she said. “I definitely want sidewalks,” she continued. “Me, too!” added another. “Yes, I am in favor of that as well,” another resident said.

Rolla told attendees that the preliminary conversation with the city attorney’s office had indicated that a formal arrangement of those neighbors – people contributing to the sidewalk who wouldn’t ordinarily be specially assessed – would best be done through a single point of contact for a group of property owners, like a neighborhood association.

The dollar figures that residents reacted to were the following for the three numbered alternatives – as the option of building a pathway through Eisenhower Park wasn’t pursued in any detail. Even the staff’s preliminary consideration led to the conclusion that the park path option would be cost prohibitive.

0. Build Path through Park
   Challenges: Slope issues (Americans with Disabilities Act); it would require removal of many
   trees; it’s isolated with no streetlights; requires crossing of creek.
   Cost: Cost prohibitive. Not pursued.
1. Pedestrian Crossing Island near Churchill
   Estimated cost: $56,000
   Funding mechanism: In the past, pedestrian islands have been funded in conjunction with major road reconstruction projects, safety funds, street millage, MDOT. Not specially assessed to residents.
   Responsibility for snow shoveling: City of Ann Arbor
2. Fill-in North Side Gap
   Requires: Grading, retaining wall, tree removal.
   Rough estimated cost: It’s about 370 feet long, with estimated cost of $90,000, which means about $245 per lineal foot.
   Funding mechanism: In the past, this type of project is funded by special assessment to fronting properties or installed by the property owner.
   Responsibility for snow shoveling: Property owners who have property that fronts the sidewalk.
3. Extend South Sidewalk to Maple
   Requires: Grading, retaining wall, tree removal, replacement of guardrail, addition of curb and gutter and fence.
   Rough estimated cost: It’s about 2,000 feet long, with estimated cost of $360,000, which is about $180 per lineal foot.
   Funding mechanism: In the past, special assessment has been used, but only a few of the properties along the stretch could be special assessed, as the rear of cul-de-sacs would not be subject to the assessment. Federal surface transportation funds could be used, requiring a 20% local match.
   Responsibility for snow shoveling: Property owners who have property fronting the sidewalk (corner lots). This does not include cul-de-sac lots with no connection to the sidewalk. The city would plow the sidewalk where no other adjacent property owner is responsible

Next up for the city council, on Oct. 21, will be a request for a design budget, so that costs of the project can be estimated with more precision.

Detention Ponds, Art

The project extending the Scio Church sidewalk to Maple Road includes a fence – to keep pedestrians from falling down the embankment. That fence was the subject of deliberations by the Ann Arbor public art commission at its  Sept. 25, 2013 meeting.

The art commission tabled the proposal. [.pdf of AAPAC's intake form for the Scio Church fence] Typically the city would, at this kind of site, install a standard kind of chain link fence. But Craig Hupy – the city’s public services area administrator – had previously told the public art commission that there might be an opportunity for something more creative, if AAPAC wanted to explore that possibility. The AAPAC budget for the tabled fence enhancement was recommended to be between $40,000 and $80,000 from the remaining Percent for Art street funds.

Those funds won’t be replenished after they’re spent, because the city has ended the Percent for Art approach to funding public art. In the future, public art funding will come from partnerships, fundraising and any money that the city council allocates to “enhance” capital projects. The remaining Percent for Art funds are supposed to be spent on projects that are tied thematically or physically to the funds of origin.

Although the Scio Church fence art project was tabled on Sept. 25, the city’s public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, told art commissioners he could put together a more detailed proposal for AAPAC’s October meeting.

The end of the sidewalk near Maple, where the fence and a guardrail would need to be reconstructed, received comment at the Lawton Elementary School meeting of Sept. 18 – in connection with a pair of potential detention ponds in the adjacent Eisenhower Park. The Washtenaw County water resources commissioner is recommending that the ponds be constructed there as part of recommendations for mitigating flooding in the area.

At the Sept. 18 meeting, one resident suggested that the earth that would need to be excavated to create the detention ponds could be used to help soften the angle of the slope from Scio Church Road down into the park, possibly helping to meet the challenge of sidewalk construction there. The same resident expressed desire for the sidewalk construction to be coordinated with the detention pond construction, so that the city does not construct a new sidewalk, fence and guardrail, and then tear it out to gain access to Eisenhower Park for the detention pond project.

While the sidewalk construction project could be undertaken in late 2014, the detention pond probably entails a longer timeline. The final report from the upper Mallets Creek stormwater study isn’t due until early 2014. And from that point, the recommendations would need to be adopted into the city’s capital improvements plan, which is the purview of the city planning commission. And after that, the city council would need to decide whether to approve funding allocations for any or all of the recommended projects. [For previous coverage of that project, see: "County Gets Info on Flooding, Shares Options"]

Those recommendations, however, have been developed and modeled. They were unveiled at a meeting on Sept. 30, 2013 – also held at Lawton Elementary School. Although the three proposed stormwater facilities were described as “alternatives,” project manager Harry Sheehan, who’s managing the project in the water resources commissioner’s office, indicated that all three projects are being recommended:

Proposed Pioneer High School detention pond. Cost estimate: $1.2 million. Surface area: 2.8 acres. Total volume: 400,000 cubic feet.

Proposed Lawton detention pond. Cost estimate: $5.15 million. Surface area: 1.1 acres. Total volume: 280,000 cubic feet.

Proposed Eisenhower Park detention ponds. Cost estimate: $2.1 million. Surface area: 2.5 acres. Total volume: 470,000 cubic feet.

At the Sept. 30 meeting, the effect of each project on the mitigation of flooding was presented as modeled for the March 15, 2012 storm, which had resulted in significant overland flooding in the Landsdowne neighborhood.

In the animated .gif below, which loops continuously, the first frame indicates the March 15, 2012 flooded areas in black. The next three frames show the modeled cumulative effect of adding each of the proposed stormwater detention facilities. That is, the maps show what the flooding would have been like, if the proposed stormwater detention facilities had been in place on March 15, 2012.

Maps by Spicer Group, the engineering consultant for the upper Mallets Creek stormwater study. Scans and animation by The Chronicle.

The Chronicle is like a sidewalk – because we can’t survive without concrete (financial) support. The kind of support we hope you’ll provide is through voluntary subscriptions. Those voluntary subscriptions support our coverage of public bodies like the city of Ann Arbor. 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!

The projects will be managed by the county’s office of the water resources commissioner, Evan Pratt. Three projects relate to stormwater control along the Allen Creek, with the goal of reduced flooding downstream and decreased e. coli and phosphorous entering the Huron River. They include: (1) up to $435,000 for stormwater control along South Fourth Avenue between Huron and Liberty streets; (2) up to $1.155 million for stormwater control along Madison Avenue between South Seventh and Main streets; and (3) up to $575,000 for stormwater control along South Forest from South University to an area north of Hill St.

The county board also approved bonding for up to $465,000 to design and build rain gardens in Ann Arbor, and up to $700,000 to plant trees throughout the city. No specific locations were identified for these projects, which are part of the Huron River Green Infrastructure initiative.

All five projects have been approved to be funded through the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality’s Clean Water Revolving Funds low-interest loan program.

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

The water resource specialist will work in the county’s office of the water resources commissioner, Evan Pratt. The job is authorized at a salary range between $30,515 to $40,253. According to a staff memo, the position is needed due to heavy drain construction activity and an increase in soil erosion application inspections. The job is described as a revenue-generating position, bringing in an estimated additional $41,337 in each of the first three years, and a minimum of $15,000 annually after that. The staff memo indicates that the office has identified reductions within its budget to offset the increased cost of the position.

Pratt had attended the March 20 meeting and told commissioners that the construction activity is primarily in the city of Ann Arbor, which is paying for the work. He described the change as “budget neutral,” saying this was the most cost-effective way to proceed, by shifting some responsibilities elsewhere within his office.

The IT system support technician was authorized at a salary range between $37,464 to $52,355. According to a staff memo, the new position is needed to provide back-up for the IT help desk and other staff support. It will be funded from IT contracts and a structural reduction of $32,647 in the tech plan appropriation.

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

From left: Conan Smith (D-District 9) and Dan Smith (R-District 2) at the Washtenaw County board of commissioners meeting on March 20. Dan Smith cast the lone vote against new contracts with labor unions representing county employees, citing concerns over the length of the agreements. Most of the contracts run through Dec. 31, 2023. (Photos by the writer.)

About 85% of the nearly 1,300 county workers belong to a union. The board also approved similar wage and benefit changes for the county’s non-union employees.

The right-to-work law will make it illegal to require employees to support unions financially as a condition of their employment, but labor agreements in place prior to March 28 will not be affected until they expire. Most of the previous contracts with the county’s labor unions were set to expire on Dec. 31, 2013. All but one of the new deals will run for more than 10 years – through Dec. 31, 2023.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) cited the length of those contracts as a reason for casting his no vote – he was the only commissioner to vote against the union contracts, though he supported the agreement for non-union employees. The duration eliminates the flexibility to deal with different conditions that might face the county in the future, he said. There is no “re-opener” clause that would allow either side to renegotiate before 2023.

Despite his no vote, Smith praised the most significant changes that will impact employees hired after Jan. 1, 2014. Those employees will participate in a defined contribution retirement plan, instead of the current defined benefit plan – the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS). In defined benefit plans, retirees receive a set amount per month during their retirement. In defined contribution plans, employers pay a set amount into the retirement plan while a person is employed. The most common defined contribution plan is the 401(k). Similar changes in retiree healthcare plans will also affect new employees.

The shift in the county’s approach to retirement plans and retiree healthcare was a major concern for several other commissioners. While acknowledging the benefits of eliminating the county’s legacy costs, Conan Smith (D-District 9) cautioned that retirees could be put at risk without the predictable stability of a defined benefit plan. However, he also noted that the board can’t continue to put the institution at risk by “guaranteeing something that we don’t know we’re going to be able to afford in the long run.”

Those legacy costs were a factor alluded to during the March 20 discussion, linking to another major decision that is expected to come before the board: bonding to cover the county’s unfunded liabilities for employee pensions and retiree healthcare. The issue hasn’t been discussed directly at any of the board’s regular meetings, but commissioners have been informed that a proposal likely will be brought forward by administration.

Based on actuarial valuations at the end of 2011, the county had $101.27 million in unfunded liabilities for its defined benefit pension, and $148.46 million in unfunded liabilities for its retiree healthcare. Those amounts will be higher when the 2012 actuarial valuations are completed later this year. The new accounting standards of GASB 68 require that unfunded liabilities must be included in an organization’s financial statements for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2014.

Commissioners also got a year-end 2012 financial update during the March 20 meeting – the final 2012 audit will be brought to the board in April. Total revenues exceeded total expenditures by $2.26 million. The county had planned for a surplus of $1.889 million to carry into 2013 – so the year ended with an excess of $327,607 above that targeted amount.

In other action items, the board voted to form a committee that will explore the feasibility of creating a land bank, and appointed three people to the committee: Commissioner Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), county treasurer Catherine McClary, and Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development. The committee is directed to report back to the board by Aug. 7, 2013.

During communications from the board, Conan Smith reported that the southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority board has now been fully appointed, and will convene on March 28 for an orientation meeting. He suggested that the two Washtenaw County representatives – Richard “Murph” Murphy and Liz Gerber – come talk to commissioners about what the county’s interests and priorities are. “The earlier we weigh in, the more systemic the impact of our comments are going to be,” he said. “If we don’t talk to them until they’ve already made decisions, then it’s going to be too late.”

Labor Agreements

The county administration and labor have been negotiating new contracts since February. At the board’s Feb. 20, 2013 meeting, commissioners had approved a resolution opposing the right-to-work legislation, with a clause that directed the county administration to renegotiate union contracts, as requested by union leaders. The resolution stated a “goal of reaching four (4) year agreements to protect and extend each bargaining unit’s union security provisions, as well as enter into a letter of understanding separate from the existing collective bargaining agreements for a period of ten (10) years.”

That was an approach taken by other institutions statewide, including the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. [See Chronicle coverage: "AATA OKs Labor, Agency Fee Accords"] However, the county administration and union leaders ultimately felt that the strategy of a separate letter of understanding would be more vulnerable to legal challenges. They opted instead for longer-term labor agreements and no separate letter of understanding.

Since mid-February, the board has held four lengthy closed sessions to discuss labor negotiations – including a closed session near the beginning of the March 20 meeting that lasted over an hour. Labor negotiations are one of the few reasons under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act that public governing bodies are allowed to hold sessions out of public view.

Nancy Heine, president of AFSCME Local 3052, talks with Washtenaw County commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. Local 3052 – which represents 48 general supervisors and four supervisors in the juvenile division – agreed to a new five-year contract.

The vote to go into closed session was 8-1, with dissent by Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5), who did not state any reason for his no vote.

The administration and AFSCME Local 2733 had reached a tentative agreement on March 7, which union members ratified on March 13. Other union bargaining units subsequently ratified similar agreements. However, the ratified agreements differed slightly from the version that had been shown to commissioners at their most recent closed session on March 6, so another closed session was held on March 20 to go over those changes.

In broad strokes, the agreements provide for annual wage increases, a cap on employee healthcare contributions, and the elimination of “banked leave” days. Banked leave days have been used in recent years to help balance the budget by cutting labor costs. The days are unpaid, but don’t affect retirement calculations.

Some of the major changes relate to benefits for employees hired after Jan. 1, 2014. Those employees will participate in a defined contribution retirement plan, instead of the current defined benefit plan – the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS). In defined benefit plans, retirees receive a set amount per month during their retirement. In defined contribution plans, employers pay a set amount into the retirement plan while a person is employed. The most common defined contribution plan is the 401(k).

In some ways, the change reverts the county to its previous approach. Until about 2009, employees participated in the Money Purchase Pension Plan (MPPP), a defined contribution plan. Most county employees were shifted from the MPPP to WCERS, the county’s defined benefit plan. The MPPP was never eliminated, but is used primarily for county commissioners who choose to participate in it.

The county will also shift away from a defined benefit retiree healthcare plan for new employees, in favor of retiree health reimbursement accounts (RHRAs).

Most details in the contracts match the agreement reached with AFSCME 2733, the county’s largest bargaining unit, with 630 members. Highlights from the AFSCME 2733 agreement include:

• Restoring 3.85% to an employee’s annual salary in 2014 by eliminating banked leave days. In addition, employees will receive a 2% non-structural salary increase.
• In 2015, there will be a 1% salary increase if county property tax revenues do not rise. However, if tax revenues do increase, employees will receive a salary increase of either 2% (if revenues increase by up to 4%) or 3% (if revenues increase by 5% or more).
• Employees will receive 2% salary increases in 2016 and 2017. The 2016 increase will be structural; the increase in 2017 will be non-structural.
• The remaining years through 2023 alternate in this same three-year pattern of (1) formula increases tied to tax revenues, followed by (2) a 2% structural increase and (3) a 2% non-structural increase.
• Current employees will remain in the county’s defined benefit retirement plan, unless they choose to transfer into a defined contribution plan.
• Employees hired after Jan. 1, 2014 will participate in a defined contribution retirement plan, with each employee providing 6% pre-tax contributions that are matched by 6% from the county. Contributions will increase to 7% in 2016 and 2017, and to 7.5% in 2018 through 2023. Vesting for employer contributions will occur over several years, with workers becoming fully vested after 10 years of employment.
• For current employees, their contributions to the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) – the defined benefit plan – will be capped at 10% in 2014 and 2015. That cap will be lowered to 9% in 2016 and 2017, 8.5% in 2018 and 2019, and 8% in 2020 through 2023.
• The county will adopt state-mandated “hard caps” on health care contributions by public employers. Current workers will pay $75 per month in medical premium-sharing.
• Workers hired after Jan. 1, 2014 will have negotiated health care benefits. Their retirement health care will be handled through retiree health reimbursement accounts (RHRAs), with staggered contributions by the county based on years of employment. The current retiree healthcare plan – the Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA) – is a defined benefit plan.

At the March 20 meeting when commissioners returned from their closed session, they took up the issue of the labor agreements. Dan Smith asked to pull out the non-union agreement for a separate vote. The other six contracts were handled as a group.

The bargaining units that struck new deals are:

• AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) Local 2733 Units A, B, C, Juvenile Division, and Juvenile Detention – a total of 630 employees. [.pdf of AFSCME 2733 contract summary]
• AFSCME Local 3052 General Supervisors and Juvenile Division Supervisors – a total of 52 employees. [.pdf of AFSCME 3052 contract summary]
• Assistant Prosecutors Association Units I & II – a total of 24 employees. [.pdf of APA contract summary]
• Public Defenders Association Units I & II – a total of 13 employees. [.pdf of PDA contract summary]
• Michigan Nurses Association Units I & II – a total of 13 employees. [.pdf of MNA contract summary]
• T-POAM (Technical, Professional and Officeworkers Association of Michigan) Units I & II, District Court – a total of 30 employees. [.pdf of T-POAM contract summary]

A similar agreement was on the table for the county’s roughly 225 non-union employees. [.pdf of non-union agreement]

The resolution for non-union workers also provides the same benefits to the county’s five statutory elected officials: Treasurer (Catherine McClary), clerk/register of deeds (Larry Kestenbaum), water resources commissioner (Evan Pratt), county prosecuting attorney (Brian Mackie) and sheriff (Jerry Clayton). It also “aligns” the salaries for the treasurer and clerk/register of deeds to the current salary of the water resources commissioner – $101,685, effective immediately. Previously, the treasurer and clerk/register of deeds earned $98,570 and $101,528, respectively. The sheriff and prosecuting attorney each earn a salary of $119,268.

All of the new contracts contain only one element that takes effect in 2013: An additional banked leave day will be added, and must be used sometime this year. The intent is to ensure that the new contract differs from the previous one during the rest of 2013, to guard against possible legal challenges. If there were no changes in 2013, it could be argued that there were no real contract differences until 2014 – well after the right-to-work law went into effect.

Two bargaining units did not negotiate new contracts – the Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM), which represents 254 employees, and Command Officers Association of Michigan (COAM), with 33 members. Those public safety employees are exempt from the right-to-work law.

For background on the county’s unions, see Chronicle coverage: “County Board Briefed on Labor Issues.” Most of the current contracts were authorized in September of 2011.

Labor Agreements: Broader Context

These new agreements will be a factor in the budget that’s being developed for 2014, 2015 and beyond. The county administration is hoping that the board will approve moving from a two-year budget cycle to a four-year budget planning process.

Caryette Fenner, president of AFSCME Local 2733.

The administration has projected a $24.64 million general fund deficit over a four-year period from 2014 through 2017. A much smaller general fund deficit of $3.93 million is projected for 2014, but county administrator Verna McDaniel hopes to identify $6.88 million in structural changes for that year – a combination of new revenues and cuts in expenditures – in order to eliminate the cumulative deficit going forward. When McDaniel briefed commissioners on budget preparations at their Jan. 16, 2013 meeting, she indicated a desire to find $2.62 million in reductions to employee compensation and benefits.

The county also faces a challenge due to its unfunded liabilities related to employee pensions and retirement healthcare. New Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) standards, enacted in 2012, require that public employee pension liabilities be reported on an organization’s balance sheet. Expenses related to pensions and retirement healthcare are projected to spike in the coming years.

Based on actuarial valuations at the end of 2011, the county had $101.27 million in unfunded liabilities for its defined benefit pension, and $148.46 million in unfunded liabilities for its retiree healthcare. Those amounts are expected to be higher when the 2012 actuarial valuations are completed later this year.

The administration plans to propose dealing with those unfunded liabilities by issuing bonds to cover those costs. Although the county would be taking on significantly more debt as a result – and incurring interest expense – the idea is to take advantage of low interest rates and create a “smoothing” of payments over a more extended period.

The board has not directly discussed this possibility at any of its public sessions. John Axe of Axe & Ecklund – a Grosse Pointe Farms firm that serves as the county’s bond counsel – has attended at least one closed session of the board this year, when labor negotiations were discussed.

In response to an email query from The Chronicle, Tina Gavalier – a financial analyst for the county – described how the new contracts and bonding could affect the upcoming budget:

The preliminary estimated cost savings from these deals in terms of the settled contracts and the anticipated bonding for retiree health care and defined benefit pension obligations is approximately $2.1M per year. The savings is likely to increase or compound over time. The estimated cost savings is preliminary because of the basis of calculations used the 2011 actuarial valuation reports. Savings estimates will be finalized after the 2012 actuarial valuation reports are published (anticipated to be in late May or early June).

If the authorization to bond is approved by the Board of Commissioners and bonding is successful, $2.1M of the $2.62M reduction target for employee compensation and benefits will have been met.

The $2.62M was based on the preliminary financial state of the county presented in January. The updated financial state of the county will be presented in May after the equalization report is issued in April. Therefore, reduction targets may be modified based on the updated financial state of the county presentation.

Labor Agreements: Board Discussion

Before the March 20 vote, Conan Smith (D-District 9) began the board discussion by saying the contracts represent “a very, very substantial change in the way the county does business.” He thought it was important for the public to know the details. In large part, the county is moving away from a defined benefit pension system and back into a defined contribution system, he noted. This introduces substantial volatility for county retirees, he said, and does not provide for predictable stability that a defined benefit plan would. He appreciated that county administration has been “keenly sensitive” to the impact of that change.

The fact is that in moving out of a defined benefit plan, C. Smith said, “we are able to eliminate substantive legacy costs for the organization, which will create an enormous opportunity for us to do alternative types of investing to the community’s benefit at large.” It comes at the cost of introducing risk into the retirement system for employees, but after weeks of heavy debate, he said, he felt the county had created the best defined contribution program that they could. “It’s not the thing that I want,” he added, saying he’d prefer that the county keep its pension plan.

County commissioners Conan Smith (D-District 9) and Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

C. Smith said the process of reaching this decision was “interesting, open and thorough.” For years, he said, the county’s approach to labor negotiations has been remarkable in this way. The county was one of the first local governments to institute an interest-based bargaining process, “which was revolutionary,” he said. Smith noted that when county administrator Verna McDaniel was HR director for the county, he had asked her to teach members of the Michigan Suburbs Alliance about this approach. [Smith serves as executive director for the alliance, which is based in Ferndale.] So despite the fact that he’s disappointed about moving out of the defined benefit system, Smith said he’s very supportive of the contracts because he respects the negotiating process that was used.

C. Smith said he hoped the board and administration would be attentive to retiree health care. These new contracts are moving way from a defined benefit approach to retiree healthcare, and using another kind of investment system instead. [Smith was referring to retiree health reimbursement accounts (RHRAs), for employees hired after Jan. 1, 2014.] This is probably the most important thing that the county can do financially, he noted, because they have no control over the volatility of health care costs, which have been skyrocketing. He hoped that national responses to rising health care costs will have an impact, “but we don’t know that.” So the board can’t continue to put the institution at risk by “guaranteeing something that we don’t know we’re going to be able to afford in the long run.”

The proposal to move out of guaranteed retiree health care is dramatic, C. Smith said, and will likely pose significant challenges to employees. Both administration and the board will need to be very attentive in the coming years to ensure that this new system will provide the right kind of security. He said it’s the right move fiscally for the county.

These are big changes, C. Smith concluded. He thanked other commissioners and the administration for “bearing with me through my panic modes.” He described the solution as decent. It’s “imperfect, in my opinion, but quite good – B+.”

Dan Smith (R-District 2) spoke next. As with all contracts and negotiations, you end up with things you like and things you don’t like, he said. In this case, there are some things that he liked a lot. “And then, as these things go, there are things you don’t like so much.” It’s important to look at the entire document as a whole, he said.

The thing that made D. Smith uncomfortable is that most of the contracts are long-term – more than 10 years. “That is very likely longer than the service of most of us sitting around this table,” he said. A 10-year contract “severely binds future boards and dramatically eliminates the flexibility that they have to respond to situations that may face them seven or eight years down the road.” There are some benefits to that as well, Smith noted, but he’s not able to find enough data or information that would make him comfortable with that length of time. It would be different with a two-year contract, which gives the county the chance to respond to changing conditions, he noted. With a 10-years contract and the unknowns surrounding the costs and benefits of the various provisions, “I’m just not comfortable moving forward with that at this time.”

D. Smith also cited concerns about legal questions “that continue to nip away at this.” He wished the legislature would just leave this issue alone, but instead they continue to pick at it “week after week after week.” He didn’t know how it will play out, but “I do know that if we did this contract in the traditional way … we wouldn’t have a bull’s-eye on our back for that.”

D. Smith said he wouldn’t be supporting the union contracts. He appreciated the time and effort that the administration had put in to reach these agreements so quickly. He was very pleased with some of the provisions, and looked forward to seeing how those played out. But 10 years is too long a time to risk taxpayer dollars, he said. He realized there were competing interests – taxpayers, employees, the services that the county provides to citizens – that all have different needs. He realized that the new contracts try to address those needs in various ways, but he wasn’t comfortable with it in its entirety. He concluded by thanking the administration, and saying he was sorry he couldn’t support the contracts.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) expressed support for the contracts. The final product included the “varied thinking on this board,” he said. Hearing some of the issues raised by Dan Smith had been “exceedingly helpful,” LaBarre said. The flip side of concerns related to the 10-year length is the stability that these contracts bring – or at least the certainty of knowing the costs and benefits, for both the county and its employees.

Commissioners Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) and Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

LaBarre said Conan Smith did a laudable job in acting as a “conscience” on the real-life impact of the county’s workforce. LaBarre also thanked commissioners Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) and Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) for providing the framework to reach this final contract. [Rabhi serves as board chair; Brabec is chair of the board's ways & means committee.] “It’s an imperfect but very workable solution that I believe is in the long-term best interests of the county,” he concluded, “and most importantly, the long-term best interests of the citizens we serve.”

Rabhi also indicated strong support for the contracts. The process was an example of why unions have been an institution that has worked in this country, he said, and it’s an example of why Washtenaw County’s bargaining process is one to be modeled across the country. Labor and management had only a few weeks to make this happen, he said, and came together with the engagement of the board to work out these contracts. “It’s an amazing accomplishment, and one that we should all be proud of.” He agreed with Conan Smith that there were some features that “can make some of us uncomfortable.” Specifically, Rabhi cited the switch from defined benefit to defined contribution plans. But in the end, the contracts will have a significant impact on the county’s long-term fiscal stability.

The fact that it’s a 10-year contract sounds scary, Rabhi said. But it provides the stability that the county needs to move forward, and the tools to build a healthy and resilient workforce, he said. He applauded the process and all of those who were involved. It had been a challenge, and they all had stepped up to it. He agreed with Conan Smith about the need to be mindful of the long-term resiliency of county employees and fiscal strength in retirement. By helping to provide the tools that employees need to invest, the county can help employees make the right decisions about their retirement plan. That will be a priority for him moving forward.

Rabhi also highlighted the aspect of these contracts that builds in wage increases when property taxes increase. “So when the county is bringing in more money, we’re able to pay our employees more,” he said. It builds in an economic reality and stability, without ignoring the needs of employees to keep up with the cost of living. It will also allow the county to offer competitive salaries, so that they can hire and retain the most excellent staff in Michigan and the country. He concluded by again thanking everyone for their work.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) noted that she agreed with Conan Smith that the contracts were imperfect, but “for different reasons.” Ultimately, for her it’s about the stability of the entire organization. Without that stability, no individual employee can be secure in their job. There was some give-and-take in the negotiations, and when no one is completely happy, it’s a sign that everybody truly wins, Ping said. The county can now do more structured planning, based on what they know their costs will be. And any employee who comes on board will know what their pay structure will be like, so they can do some planning, too.

The county is eliminating legacy costs by eliminating the defined benefit plan, Ping noted. For her, that’s huge – it’s one of the best things that could happen, along with the changes to retiree health care. “It also gives us options on what we can do with our unfunded liabilities,” she said.

This process got started “because Lansing is meddling again,” Ping said, and that leads to unintended consequences. The contract is lengthy, but she believed it will be an “awesome” benefit to the county. While there are certain aspects that she doesn’t agree with, overall it’s the best thing that could happen for the county and its planning efforts. She thanked both the administration and employees.

Commissioner Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) cautioned the board against using acronyms. [Some commissioners referred to defined benefit and defined contribution plans as DB and DC, for example.] Noting that the public is watching on TV, he said commissioners should use “real words” and be more down-to-earth so that people can understand what the board is saying.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) told commissioners that he wouldn’t be voting on the contracts for AFSCME Local 2733 or Local 3052, citing a professional relationship he has with the union’s parent organization. [Peterson is the legislative/political director for the Michigan AFSCME area office.] He said he agreed with Conan Smith’s comments, and highlighted the “years of sacrifice” that employees have made. The new contracts are the best that the county has ever negotiated, he said. It’s a “sharing loss,” but employees again are giving up a lot to keep the organization afloat.

The employees do it because they trust the administration and board to do right by them in the years ahead, Peterson said. Employees need to get credit for their help in balancing the budget over the past few years, he said, citing furlough days, wage concessions and other “huge sacrifices.” While most employees in other organizations are now being forced to do that, Washtenaw County employees came to the table years ahead of that to keep the organization afloat and to keep jobs for their colleagues. He wanted to make sure everyone was mindful of their sacrifices, including sacrifices for future employees – some of the union membership will frown on that, he said.

The 10-year term is almost unheard of, he said. It’s not locking them into a commitment that’s too long, he added, but rather it’s locking the county into a road map for the future. If the county does well and tax revenues increase, it’s only right that the employees benefit from that, he said. “They are public service providers,” he said. “They are not public servants who serve for free. They’re entitled to their compensation.”

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) spoke briefly, saying he supported the move to the defined contribution system. He noted that the Chelsea city council had made the same decision several years ago when he served as a councilmember. It was overdue, he said. The long-term contract will help stabilize the county, and will give the workers knowledge that their jobs will be stable. It’s a good contract, he said.

Brabec wrapped up the discussion by also expressing her support. It’s been an open and transparent process, she said, that was done with great care “under some trying and difficult circumstances.” It will allow the county to address long-term liabilities and fiscal stability, and allow for a stronger county organization and a stronger workforce to serve residents. She thanked administration and labor for their work. It’s not perfect, she concluded, “but it’s the best imperfect.”

Outcome: The vote on contracts for AFSCME Local 2733 and AFSCME Local 3052 was 7-1, with Dan Smith dissenting and Ronnie Peterson abstaining. Commissioners unanimously approved the agreement with non-union employees. The vote was 8-1 on all other union contracts, with Dan Smith casting the lone vote of dissent.

2012 Financial Update

County administrator Verna McDaniel introduced finance analyst Tina Gavalier to give commissioners a 2012 year-end report, saying “I think you’ll be pleased.” Most recently, the board had received a financial update at their Jan. 16, 2013 meeting, to lay a foundation for setting the 2013-2014 budget.

From left: Finance analyst Tina Gavalier and Washtenaw County administrator Verna McDaniel.

Gavalier reported that the 2012 audit is wrapping up, and will be presented to the board at its April 3 meeting. So she characterized her presentation as preliminary, with the possibility of final “tweakings” before the audit is completed.

She told commissioners that she’d start with the good news: The county saw a $540,000 surplus in property tax revenues compared to what had originally been projected in the 2012 budget. Of that, about $111,000 is due to the timing of property tax collections, including $104,000 from Ann Arbor Township’s 2011 Huron Clinton Metro Authority millage, which was collected in 2012.

Other revenue surpluses include $536,000 more than budgeted from the county clerk/register of deeds office, related to real estate transfer taxes and fees, as well as services from e-commerce. In the “transfers in” category, a surplus of $506,000 related to closing out some non-general funds, Gavalier said, and transferring those into the general fund. And a $167,000 surplus from state revenue-sharing was due to payments under the 2012 incentive program.

In total, general fund year-end revenue surpluses reached about $1.7 million.

Gavalier also noted some revenue shortfalls, including about $687,000 in the sheriff’s office mostly due to delayed implementation of the consolidated dispatch services with the city of Ann Arbor. The district court also recorded a revenue shortfall of $286,000 primarily due to lower-than-expected court fees and fines. New case filings have declined for five straight years, she noted.

Overall, general fund revenue shortfalls totaled about $973,000.

Factoring in both surpluses and shortfalls, 2012 ended with a total general fund revenue surplus of $797,970.

Shifting to the general fund expenditures, a surplus of $1.7 million in fund balance reserves was planned and will be carried forward to use in 2013. There was also a savings of $336,000 in personnel services because of attrition, job vacancies and planned reductions. An additional $309,000 in net operational savings came across all county departments. For example, the trial court exceeded its “lump sum” reduction by $101,000, not counting personnel reductions.

The category of appropriations/transfers out was $731,000 higher than budgeted. Gavalier cited an increase in infrastructure management, and capital investment in technology, building maintenance and renovations.

The total expenditure “surplus” was $1.464 million for 2012 – that is, expenditures were $1.464 million less than budgeted for the year.

Through the end of 2012, total projected revenues of $102.04 million exceed total projected expenditures of $99.78 million by $2.26 million. The county had planned for a total surplus of $1.889 million to carry into 2013 – so the year ended with a surplus of $327,607 above that targeted amount.

2012 Washtenaw County general fund budget variance.

Chart showing 2012 Washtenaw County general fund status.

In 2011, the year-end fund balance was about $14.5 million, compared to a year-end fund balance as of Dec. 31, 2012 of about $16.8 million – or 16.3% of general fund expenditures in the 2013 budget.

Gavalier also reviewed several of the non-general fund outcomes for 2012. There are surpluses in the child care, facilities operations and maintenance, Friend of the Court, public/environmental health, building inspection, and risk management funds. On budget are funds for the prosecuting attorney, veterans relief, and office of community & economic development. The fund supported by the county’s Act 88 millage – for economic development and agricultural programs – showed a shortfall. Gavalier said the shortfall was planned, and includes a planned use of $15,000 from the program’s fund balance.

Looking ahead, Gavalier reminded commissioners that they’ll get the 2013 equalization report in April, along with the 2012 audit. The first-quarter 2013 budget update will be delivered in May. Throughout this year, staff will be working on the 2014-2015 budget, which will be presented to the board in September.

2012 Financial Update: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi wanted to highlight the shortfall of $687,000 in the sheriff’s office, most of it related to the dispatch consolidation with the city of Ann Arbor. [Rabhi represents one of three Ann Arbor districts on the county board.] It’s an example of a collaborative effort, and in the future it will save taxpayers money, he said – about $500,000 annually for Ann Arbor.

From left: Commissioners Yousef Rabhi, Alicia Ping, Andy LaBarre, and Ronnie Peterson.

The county is working to make regional collaboration a reality, he said, “but it is costing us something.” He wanted people to realize that the county is stepping up to the plate and putting up resources to help that consolidation go forward, because they believe in this approach. He said he didn’t like the shortfall, but wanted to highlight the investment that’s being made for the sake of regionalism.

Rabhi also noted that the county has a fund balance surplus at year’s end, and that’s something to be proud and excited about. But this good news comes on the heels of federal sequestration, which will impact county operations, he said, including employees and services. The budget surplus won’t offset sequestration entirely, he said, but perhaps it helps the county delay that impact a little bit. If the board prioritizes its programs and focuses on outcomes, he added, there’s a way to mitigate the impact of a loss of federal funding.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he was glad the county was working with Ann Arbor on dispatch consolidation, “but maybe Ann Arbor can be a little nicer and not charge us rent.” He asked whether the county will charge Ann Arbor rent when the dispatch operation eventually moves to county facilities on Zeeb Road. [Currently, the combined dispatch unit is located in the downtown Ann Arbor fire station No. 1 across from city hall.] Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, replied that the answer was “to be determined.”

Sizemore also wondered why the county showed a deficit in Act 88 funds. Gavalier reiterated that the 2012 budget for Act 88 funds included a planned use of the Act 88 fund balance.

Conan Smith asked for more details about the appropriations/transfers out, which was $731,000 higher than budgeted. Gavalier replied that because of overall budget reductions, the county has held flat the appropriations for the “1/8th mill fund” – which is used for maintenance projects – and the technology plan. In 2012, there was some extra money available to allocate, so the administration decided to provide more funding for those areas, Gavalier said.

“How does that happen without the board voting on it?” Smith asked. Gavalier replied that it was an administrative decision. County administrator Verna McDaniel elaborated, saying those funds had been “cut short” over the past few years. The plan was to eventually restore funding, she said.

Smith noted that the board had budgeted $1.3 million for the 1/8th mill fund in 2012. So capital construction got a “solid chunk of money” in the budget process, he said. Was McDaniel saying that it was still underfunded?

Gavalier said the 1/8th mill fund and tech plan funding have been flat since 2008 and 2009. Normally, the allocations are based on property tax values, she said, but that hasn’t been the case in recent years. So administration determined that if it were possible to increase the allocation to those funds, “it would help soften that reduction,” she said.

Allowing that he might sound rude, Smith asked where the budgetary authority was to make that appropriation without the board’s approval.

Commissioner Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

McDaniel replied that she knew her authority was for line items under $100,000. The decision was made to restore funding to those areas, she said, but the board can make changes if it wants. Smith clarified with McDaniel that the funds aren’t yet spent. Gavalier added that the money has simply been transferred into the fund for future capital needs, and there was no net impact on the budget.

Smith indicated that he understood – the county had more money than it anticipated, “so we had to put it in some fund.” He further clarified that Dill would be discussing how those funds would be used during a working session presentation on March 21. [Dill's recommendations, presented on March 21 as part of the county's "space plan," included demolishing the former juvenile center and redeveloping the vacant Platt Road site, as well as renovating and remodeling several other county facilities.]

Smith said he wanted to draw the board’s attention to the fact that the money in this line item hasn’t yet been spent. The board has discussed other priorities for the organization, he added, and they need to carefully weigh the appropriateness of making an investment in the county physical infrastructure against some of the programmatic cuts that have been made – such as support for nonprofits, or to offset the impact of sequestration.

Andy LaBarre, who chairs the board’s working sessions, noted that in addition to the space plan update, the March 21 working session would include a presentation by Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development, about the impact of sequestration. [.pdf of sequestration impact on county departments] [.pdf of sequestration impact on OCED programs]

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

County Land Bank

Commissioners were asked to form a committee that will explore the feasibility of creating a land bank. A resolution on the March 20 agenda also named three people to the committee: Commissioner Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), county treasurer Catherine McClary, and Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development. The committee is directed to report back to the board by Aug. 7, 2013.

A land bank is a mechanism for the county to take temporary ownership of tax- or mortgage-foreclosed land while working to put it back into productive use. “Productive use” could mean several things – such as selling it to a nonprofit like Habitat for Humanity to rehab, or demolishing a blighted structure and turning the land into a community garden.

The board has made attempts in the past to start a land bank, and actually formed one in the summer of 2009. But after commissioners were unable to resolve issues related to governance and funding, they voted to dissolve the land bank in March of 2010. Only three current commissioners were on the board at that time: Ronnie Peterson, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Conan Smith.

At its Sept. 1, 2010 meeting, the board voted to revive the land bank. However, the board never took the next step of funding it or getting approval from the state.

On March 20 it was current board chair Yousef Rabhi who brought forward the land bank resolution. At the board’s Feb. 20, 2013 meeting, Rabhi had announced his interest in this effort.

For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Banking on a Land Bank” (July 8, 2009 board meeting); and discussions during the county board meetings on March 17, 2010, July 7, 2010 and Aug. 4, 2010.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners voted to form the land bank exploratory committee.

New Jobs in Water Resources, IT

Two new jobs – in IT support and water resources – were on the March 20 agenda for initial approval.

A new water resource specialist will work in the county’s office of the water resources commissioner, Evan Pratt. The job is authorized at a salary range between $30,515 to $40,253. According to a staff memo, the position is needed due to heavy drain construction activity and an increase in soil erosion application inspections. The job is described as a revenue-generating position, bringing in an estimated additional $41,337 in each of the first three years, and a minimum of $15,000 annually after that. The staff memo indicates that the office has identified reductions within its budget to offset the increased cost of the position.

New Jobs in Water Resources, IT: Board Discussion

Commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2) expressed hesitation to add to the county’s payroll, but said he understood the need in these cases.

Evan Pratt, Washtenaw County’s water resources commissioner.

Evan Pratt, the county’s water resources commissioner, attended the March 20 meeting and spoke briefly, beginning his remarks by joking: “Long-time listener, first-time caller.” [He was first elected to this position in November of 2012.] Pratt said the construction activity is primarily in the city of Ann Arbor, which is paying for the work and has made at least a three-year commitment. “Existing staff was doing the work, but getting pretty far behind,” he said. He added that he had challenged his staff to figure out a cost-effective way to handle this without hiring part-time staff. The strategy includes shifting some clerical and accounting work to existing front-office staff.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he appreciated that Pratt would be hiring a full-time position, rather than using temporary or part-time workers.

Pratt said he wished he didn’t have to come before the board with this request while they were dealing with labor negotiations, and he didn’t want people in the public to think the county was sending a mixed message. Pratt indicated that he was sensitive to Dan Smith’s concerns, but thought this was the most cost-effective way to proceed, by shifting some responsibilities elsewhere within his office. “We see it as budget neutral,” Pratt said.

The IT system support technician was authorized at a salary range between $37,464 to $52,355. According to a staff memo, the new position is needed to provide back-up for the IT help desk and other staff support. It will be funded from IT contracts and a structural reduction of $32,647 in the tech plan appropriation.

Outcome: Both positions received unanimous approval from commissioners in an initial vote at the ways & means committee meeting. The items will be considered for a final vote on April 3.

Public Health Plan

The Washtenaw County public health plan – mandated by the state of Michigan – was on the agenda for a final vote. The board gave initial approval at its meeting on March 6, 2013. [.pdf plan of organization]

State law requires that the county submit a plan of organization every three years to the Michigan Dept. of Public Health. The 103-page document outlines the county health department’s legal responsibilities and authority; the department’s organization, vision, mission and values statement; community partnerships; services, locations and hours of operation; reporting and evaluation procedures; and procedures for approving the county’s health officer and medical director. In Washtenaw County, the health officer is Dick Fleece. Alice Penrose serves as medical director.

Approval of the health plan is part of the state’s accreditation process for public health departments, which was put in place in 2004.

There was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the county’s public health plan.

Water Quality Training Fee

A $75 fee for Washtenaw County’s training course to certify drinking water operators was on the agenda for final approval. The board had given initial approval at its meeting on March 6, 2013.

Entities with drinking water supplies or places that use certain water treatment processes – like factories or schools – are required by the state to have certified operators. Until the end of 2013, the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) reimbursed local health departments that offered these training courses, paying $75 for each certified operator who attended. Those funds will no longer be provided. The Washtenaw County public health department plans to continue offering the courses, but now needs to charge for this service.

The new fee will take effect on April 1, 2013.

Outcome: With no discussion, commissioners gave final approval to set the training course fee at $75.

Communications & Commentary

During the evening there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Regional Transit Authority

Conan Smith (D-District 9) highlighted the fact that the southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority board has now been fully appointed, and will convene on March 28 for an orientation meeting. He suggested that the two Washtenaw County representatives – Richard “Murph” Murphy and Liz Gerber – come talk to the board about what the county’s interests and priorities are. “The earlier we weigh in, the more systemic the impact of our comments are going to be,” he said. “If we don’t talk to them until they’ve already made decisions, then it’s going to be too late.”

The city of Detroit and counties of Wayne, Macomb, Oakland and Washtenaw are included in a regional transit authority created by state legislation passed on Dec. 6, 2012.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) said he’s been getting emails from people in the community who are interested in opting out of the RTA. He wanted to have a working session soon to talk about the RTA, “before we get too far down the tubes, to find out what our options are.”

Smith responded, saying there are no opt-outs allowed for the RTA under state statute. He thought Sizemore might be talking about the countywide effort that “AATA and the locals were trying to put together.” As far as the RTA, legally no one can opt out, he said. Sizemore replied that he still wanted a working session on it.

By way of background, the RTA was created by the legislature in December of 2012 to coordinate regional transit in the city of Detroit and counties of Wayne, Macomb, Oakland and Washtenaw. Conan Smith has been a strong advocate for Washtenaw County’s participation in the RTA. He lobbied the legislature to include Washtenaw County in the RTA, and accelerated the appointment process so that he could make the county’s two appointments to the RTA board before his term as board chair expired at the end of 2012.

However, other local leaders are concerned about the impact of the RTA on the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, which primarily serves Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. At a special meeting on Dec. 10, 2012, the Ann Arbor city council unanimously passed a resolution objecting to the inclusion of Washtenaw County in the RTA. There was subsequent lobbying to urge legislators to amend the law so that Washtenaw County would be excluded from the RTA – but that hasn’t happened.

Separately, the AATA has been meeting with representatives of the county’s “urban core” communities to discuss possible expanded public transit within a limited area around Ann Arbor. This follows last year’s derailed effort to build a countywide transit system. The AATA is hosting a meeting on March 28 to go over details about where improvements or expansion might occur, and how much it might cost. [See Chronicle coverage: "Costs, Services Floated for Urban Core Transit."]

Communications & Commentary: Healthy County

Alicia Ping noted that Washtenaw County has been ranked among the healthiest counties in the state. She congratulated the staff for their work.

The annual rankings are published by the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, looking at counties across the U.S. Dick Fleece, Washtenaw County’s public health officer, told commissioners that there are two categories: (1) health outcomes, based on morbidity and mortality; and (2) health factors, including health behaviors (tobacco use, diet and exercise, alcohol use and sexual activity), access to care and quality of care, social and environmental factors, and physical environment.

Washtenaw County ranked first in Michigan for health factors, Fleece reported, and fifth for health outcomes.

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

Only one person spoke during public commentary at the meeting. Thomas Partridge told commissioners that it was nearly the eve of Good Friday and Easter, and he wondered what Jesus would advocate if he were here today. Partridge thought Jesus would want everyone to be treated in a kind, respectful manner – despite differences of opinion. Commissioners need to work toward affordable, accessible housing and transportation, among other issues to help the most vulnerable residents of Washtenaw County.

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, April 3, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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