Highlights of new items include measurements of service performance – an initiative that comes in the context of additional transportation services to be offered starting Aug. 24. Those services will be funded with proceeds from a new millage that voters approved on May 6, 2014.

Another highlight is the construction of a walkway across the block between Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue on the north side of the parcel where the new Blake Transit Center has been constructed. The re-orientation of the new transit center to the south side of the parcel makes it possible to contemplate the walkway along the north side, which abuts the Federal Building. According to CEO Michael Ford’s regular written report to the board for August, he has made a funding request from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to fund the construction of the pedestrian walkway.

This brief was filed from the AAATA headquarters building at 2700 S. Industrial Highway, where the board held its Aug. 21 meeting – due to the closure of its regular meeting location at the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The library building was closed to due to the repair of the public elevator.

Jamie Kidwell, the city’s sustainability associate, and Wayne Appleyard, chair of the Ann Arbor energy commission. (Photos by the writer.)

The action plan identifies steps to implement 16 broad goals in a sustainability framework that was added to the city’s master plan last year. The goals are organized into four categories – resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community – that were culled from existing city plans and reorganized into this new framework.

The intent is to track efforts toward achieving the 16 goals, which cover a wide range of issues – from increasing renewable energy use and developing a resilient local economy to eliminating pollutants and maintaining Ann Arbor’s unique sense of place. The action plan includes specific indicators that measure progress in each area.

Jamie Kidwell, the city’s sustainability associate, is taking the lead on this project, and fielded questions from commissioners. Part of the goal is for each of the city’s commissions to incorporate these sustainability efforts into their own work plans, she noted. But the action plan is primarily to guide staff efforts. The action plan is also coordinated with the city’s budget process, tying in to the city council’s budget priorities.

Commissioners expressed interest in more collaboration – both among the city’s various commissions, and with other jurisdictions. One start will be to share their work plans, though not all commissions have those.

Commissioners also discussed the idea of holding an annual joint meeting of multiple commissions, possibly in September. Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that the kick-off for developing the sustainability framework had begun with a joint meeting – with the planning, energy and environmental commissions – in April 2010.

Sustainability Action Plan: Overview

Jamie Kidwell, the city’s sustainability associate, began her briefing by explaining how the action plan is tied to the city’s sustainability framework. Each of the framework’s 16 broad goals is tied to targets for achieving that goal, and concrete actions to hit those targets. “The intent of this document is to really help measure our progress towards our sustainability goals, and to really ground those big, lofty goals … to some of these more measurable actions.” [.pdf of draft sustainability action plan]

The action plan will be a living document, Kidwell said. Some new indicators are included in the plan, she noted. It will be a learning process for staff, and some of the indicators will work better than others, Kidwell said. That means there will be adjustments in the future.

Because the document is primarily for staff, Kidwell said, there have been conversations among staff about how the goals, targets and actions are already being worked on in the short term. The plan isn’t meant to be all-inclusive, she noted, so not everything that staff are working on will be included. She stressed that it’s not really a new plan, but rather a reorganization of some efforts that are already underway.

Jamie Kidwell, the city’s sustainability associate.

One key component of the action plan is that it brings in budget goals that are set by staff each year during the budget cycle. The benefit of that approach is that it allows staff to work with an existing mechanism, Kidwell said, capitalizing on the budget process to more clearly communicate the sustainability goals to other staff, city advisory commissions, the city council and the public.

For example, this year the planning unit’s budget goals are explicitly tied to sustainability goals, Kidwell noted. [Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Rampson stated that the budget goals are still in draft form and are being reviewed by the city administrator. They will become available to the public as part of the budget book when it is presented to the city council in late April or early May.]

The draft action plan also includes a chart that identifies which unit within the city will be responsible for each of the sustainability goals. For example, the sustainability goals for local food are the primary responsibility of the parks and recreation unit, which includes the farmers market and greenbelt program. Kidwell noted that this chart might change, based on feedback from staff.

Kidwell said she wanted to talk to the city’s advisory commissions about the action plan in part because there’s opportunity to help both staff and the commissions find areas that are of common interest. Most commissions develop a work plan for each fiscal year, she noted. How do those work plans feed into the sustainability process?

The intent is to update the action plan every two years, Kidwell said. She asked commissioners for feedback about whether they thought the document would be useful to them, and if it helped communicate the city’s targets and actions regarding sustainability. “Does it really help you get your arms around what city staff is working on, in terms of our sustainability goals?” she asked.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, reported that she’d reviewed the action plan with planning commission chair Kirk Westphal and Ken Clein, the commission’s secretary. They’d compared it to the planning commission’s work plan, and had found that there was alignment. [The planning commission most recently reviewed its work plan in detail at a Jan. 7, 2014 working session. See Chronicle coverage: "Planning Commission Reviews 2014 Priorities."]

Sustainability Action Plan: Commission Discussion

Chuck Hookham of the energy commission reported that he’s involved with several national programs on sustainability and infrastructure, and he gives presentations on these topics. When talking to the public, one of the main questions that’s asked is “What are we getting out of this?” he said. If taxpayer money is being spent, where’s the return on investment? As professionals, he said, they need to be better at communicating that.

Chuck Hookham, an Ann Arbor energy commissioner.

Hookham speculated that if he were to ask people in the community to define sustainability, he’d probably get a hundred different answers. So the city needs to be more specific about its goals. “I think that’s how we’ll get to the end game, which is improving life in the future,” he said.

In terms of communicating with the public, Jamie Kidwell said the city plans to have a very robust online version of this action plan. Part of that includes transitioning the current State of Our Environment report to a State of Our Sustainability report, she said. The idea is to provide snapshots online of city projects, and a report of indicators in the action plan, so that the community has concrete evidence that the city is working toward these goals.

Mark Clevey, an energy commission member, wondered how specific the indicators will be. For example, for the indicator of renewable electricity generation, will it be broken down into the number of solar energy systems, or how much renewable power is purchased from utilities?

Kidwell said the level of specificity is still under discussion. The State of the Environment report has 60 indicators that include a very deep level of detail, she noted. “We might be taking a fresh look at how we tell that story.” She encouraged commissioners to give feedback.

Clevey told Kidwell that “more is better” in terms of detail. Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, noted that the time that staff spends entering data is time that they won’t have to do other things. The city can use interns for some of that work, she said, but “we’re trying to balance what gives people a sense of information, without being a slave to updating the data constantly.”

Rampson said if commissioners know of websites that they think would be effective models for presenting this information, they should let Kidwell know. Hookham cited the Envision sustainable infrastructure rating system, created by the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure. He described it as a program that’s similar to LEED, except that it deals with non-building facilities.

From left: Sabra Briere and Bonnie Bona of the planning commission. Briere also serves on the city council.

Bonnie Bona of the planning commission asked how the staff was dealing with creating indicators for targets that aren’t numerical. For example, the “engaged community” goal has this target: “Increase effectiveness of communication and service delivery.” How do you quantify that? she asked.

Kidwell noted that there are several areas – including community services, human services, and economic development – that are much harder to quantify. “I think we’re going to have to grow into some of these,” she said. One way to help make some of the indicators “less squishy,” Kidwell said, is to look at the targets and actions, and ask: What will these do, and what indicator follows from that?

Kidwell gave an example by looking at a human services goal: “Provide services that meet basic human needs of impoverished and disenfranchised residents to maximize the health and well-being of the community.” A target to achieve that goal is: “Increase housing stability of public housing residents.”

Within that target, several actions are identified:

• Create a Family Self Sufficiency Program for public housing and voucher residents to increase financial self-sufficiency.
• Increase employment of low-income households on housing commission projects.
• Create permanent supportive housing site with 24-hour front desk security.
• Increase supportive services to public housing units, including food, mental health, case management, and financial literacy.

For these actions, staff have identified the following indicators: (1) number of case managers for public housing sites; (2) percent of public housing residents employed; (3) percent of public housing units with supportive services; and (4) coordinated funding impact(s).

The idea is to find correlations between the indicators and targets/actions, Kidwell said. It’s more difficult for some of the goals, and the staff will be looking for feedback on whether they’ve identified the best indictors – especially as they start tracking the results, she said. “I think it’s going to be a learning process.”

The April 8 working session was the last meeting that Dina Kurz will attend as a member of the Ann Arbor energy commission. Her term ends on April 18, 2014 and she is not seeking reappointment. She was first appointed in April 2008.

Bona encouraged staff and commissions to think of these indicators in terms of “how they help us get the work done.” Then the indicators become something that’s needed, she said, rather than just a tracking of what has occurred.

Kidwell pointed out that the plan tries to capitalize on items that are already being tracked. That’s one reason why it’s being tied to the budget process. The staff goes through a process of identifying targets within each budget cycle, including what they hope to achieve during the fiscal year. As these things get pulled into the sustainability action plan, she said, the plan will evolve.

Kirk Westphal, chair of the planning commission, asked if it would be helpful for a smaller committee – with members from various commissions – to work on goals from the sustainability plan. Kidwell hoped that the action plan would help commissioners identify ways to work together. As an example, several different commissions have talked about incentives for sustainable “green” buildings. Westphal said he could envision how a committee with members from the planning, energy and environmental commissions could “really button down what the metrics are” for achieving that goal.

Mike Shriberg of the energy commission asked Kidwell to talk more about the intersection of the budget with the action plan. Kidwell replied that as part of the budget process, city staff are asked to identify what they’ll be working on in the short term, what they expect to achieve, and the metric for assessing their work. The hope is to coordinate that work with the sustainability action plan.

Rampson told commissioners that every city administrator has a different take on how they want the staff to develop the budget. City administrator Steve Powers, who started with the city in the latter part of 2011, has been working with the city council to identify budget priorities. Those priorities include fiscal discipline, public safety, infrastructure, economic health, affordable housing, and quality of life. Powers is trying to get the city staff to think about how their work fits within those priorities, Rampson said.

Rampson noted that she, Kidwell and other staff are advocating to incorporate the sustainability framework into this process as well, to see how work on a day-to-day basis fits within that framework. The planning commission’s work program fit really nicely, she said. For example, the planning commission’s work on downtown zoning – a project that the council had asked the commission to undertake – fits within the sustainability action plan under the category of integrated land use and following goal: “Encourage a compact pattern of diverse development that maintains our unique sense of place, preserves our natural systems, and strengthens our neighborhoods, corridors, and downtown.”

Mark Clevey of the Ann Arbor energy commission.

Within that goal, one of the targets states: “Encourage dense land use and development patterns which draw people downtown and foster an active street life, contribute to its function as an urban residential neighborhood and support a sustainable transportation system.” An action item to achieve that target is to implement the rezoning and code amendment recommendations of the downtown zoning evaluation. That’s part of the planning commission’s work program for this year, Rampson said.

“In the ideal world,” Rampson said, “you have that line-of-sight from what you’re doing on a day-to-day basis all the way through to the sustainability goal and on to council’s budget priorities.”

Kidwell said the draft action plan reorganizes some of the current budget goals from various city units, slotting them into sustainability goals. Going forward, the hope is that each unit, as they set budget goals, will have the sustainability plan in mind. That will make it easier to pull the budget goals into the plan, she said.

Sabra Briere, who serves as the city council representative on the planning commission, said the council will benefit from seeing the direction that everyone is heading. It’s really easy for councilmembers to lose sight of what’s happening in the whole organization, “because you’re dealing only with what’s right in front of you,” she said. The sustainability action plan is a working document that will help councilmembers see how the priorities they set in December are being implemented for the budget process in May, Briere said. [The city's fiscal year runs from July 1 through June 30. The budget is adopted no later than May for the coming fiscal year.]

Bona noted that the budget isn’t the only document that drives investments. The capital improvements plan (CIP) also addresses the city’s investments in infrastructure and assets. There’s a sophisticated matrix for developing priorities in the CIP, she said. But that matrix looks at “the act of building, not the use,” Bona said. [.pdf of CIP prioritization matrix]

Nate Geisler, energy programs analyst.

Kidwell replied that the sustainability goals are already part of the CIP prioritization process. Projects get points in the prioritization ranking if they further one or more of the sustainability goals. That’s not the perfect approach, she added, but it’s a start. Kidwell said she’s already had some conversations with Deb Gosselin, who oversees the CIP process, about whether changes should be made to the matrix in the upcoming CIP cycle. Again, it’s a learning process, Kidwell said.

​Energy commissioner Shoshannah Lenski praised the action plan. She suggested including some very broad indicator, possibly by category, that signals how much progress is being made. It might simply be a green, yellow or red circle next to each target, for example. It could be a qualitative assessment by staff, she said, about whether they think they’re on track with the targets.

Kidwell joked that there’s a blank page in the draft document titled “Plan Progress.” It’s blank because the staff are working on how to best represent the data. She noted that the State of Our Environment report uses green, yellow or red colors to indicate good, fair or poor progress toward the goals, and arrows to indicate whether the indicators are moving in the desired direction.

Dina Kurz of the energy commission asked about incorporating “the language of resilience.” Resilience is an important vocabulary word, she noted, adding that it would fit into one of the targets for a safe community: “Adapt to and effectively manage current hazards and emerging threats from climate impacts.” The word could even be included in targets for public health and disaster preparedness. “What we’re hoping for is that the community remains resilient,” Kurz said.

Kurz thought it would be an important descriptive term. The concept of resilience would be complicated to use as a measure, but it could be an umbrella measure for a lot of different goals. The energy commission, for example, has talked about the benefit of the city’s hydroelectric dam that produces electricity, she said. Local electrical production is a valuable resource, she noted, and there might be other opportunities along the Huron River to produce electricity. That’s a measure of resilience.

The category of local food is another good fit for resilience, Kurz said. Having local food production and promoting that – through farmers markets, for example – is a way to provide resilience if there are disruptions in transportation from outside sources. All of these things interweave, she noted. Local food and markets, she said, also provide a center for community and neighborhood development.

Noting that this was her last meeting as an energy commissioner, Kurz encouraged other commissioners and staff to continue working hard to understand what’s going on in various parts of the community, and to bring those things together “under one tent.”

From left: Energy commissioners Erik Eibert and Mike Shriberg.

Brigit Macomber reported that the energy commission is starting to look at the issue of “time of marketing,” which she said seems to dovetail with green housing. That seems like a topic that lends itself to working with other commissions, she said. How could they make that happen?

Wayne Appleyard, chair of the energy commission, explained that this concept would require a homeowner to disclose energy usage when selling a house, and it might include an energy audit. The “time of marketing” refers to the fact that the disclosure would occur when a property is marketed, as opposed to the “time of sale.” It would allow a homebuyer to make a more informed choice, he said, and it could allow them to secure a mortgage that might include funding for energy efficiency improvements.

Kidwell noted that the action plan includes targets for energy efficiency. Responding to Macomber’s query about collaboration among commissions, Kidwell said the best way to involve multiple commissions on a topic would be to talk to the staff who support the commissions’ work.

Rampson said the key is to find the best fit for overlapping issues. The planning commission isn’t involved directly when single-family residential properties are sold. It might be a better fit for planning commissioners to work with the energy commission on the commercial energy disclosure project, she said, as part of the site plan review that the planning commission undertakes. Even when something isn’t required by city code, Rampson said, the planning commission can introduce the concept to people as they come through the site plan review process.

Macomber explained that she’d been asking a process question. There are rules about how many people can meet, and at what point it becomes a public meeting, she noted – referring to requirements of the Michigan Open Meetings Act. It would be helpful to get staff direction about how to approach joint commission work. “I think it’s great to have the commissions working together. I see a lot of potential in that,” she said.

As a starting point, Kidwell suggested that each commission could begin sharing their work plans with other commissions, and flag a few areas where there might be mutual interest. Westphal asked if each commission’s work plan is posted. It varies, Kidwell said. Westphal suggested emailing work plans for each commission to members of all the commissions.

David Wright of the energy commission.

Briere highlighted topics she’d like to discuss with the energy commission, such as solar shading. She indicated that she wasn’t sure of the mechanism for holding such discussions. She’s also interested in the fact that if you invest in a solar roof, the assessment of your property increases. “So not only do you not get a tax break anymore, but you get a penalty,” she said. As the city promotes installing solar roofs, how do they deal with that?

Appleyard replied that the city council, on which Briere serves, probably has the ability to create a policy. He reported that when energy commissioners met with the city assessor, the assessor had said he’d been told by state officials “that he had the ability to interpret things,” Appleyard said.

David Wright of the energy commission said his understanding is that the city has some discretion regarding assessments, “and we need to further understand what that discretion exists.” Is it with the state tax commission? Or is there some discretion that falls to the city?

Briere said the council has been told that they can’t set policy related to assessments, so she was trying to figure out what can be done in other ways. Wright replied: “We want to help figure that out.”

Appleyard noted that recently, three commissions – planning, energy and environmental – had passed similar resolutions recommending to council that sufficient staff be hired to implement the city’s climate action plan. “I think there was some real power in having more than one commission pass resolutions,” he said, “so I think we need to make use of that, when possible.”

Macomber asked if commissioners would be having regular joint sessions. Kidwell said it’s up to commissioners, and noted that the precedent is there. If there’s interest from multiple commissions, the staff can figure out how to schedule it.

Shriberg noted that the sustainability plan is a great forum for bringing commissions together, because the plan’s indicators touch on the interests of many commissions. Kidwell suggested an annual meeting to talk about progress toward the plan’s goals. Commissions could also present their work plans to each other at that time.

Planning commissioner Jeremy Peters said that one of the planning commission’s jobs is to look far into the future. Having a process like the one Kidwell described would help with that.

Ken Clein of the planning commission wondered if there’d been any thought to coordinating with Washtenaw County government as well. It’s important to realize that Ann Arbor doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Kidwell said staff had struggled with that question in developing the sustainability plan. As a starting point, the plan makes the city’s work more transparent, she noted. Another step would be incorporating partners, she said – for example, she’s already been talking with the county’s office of community & economic development about their work.

From right: Planning commissioners Kirk Westphal, Diane Giannola and Paras Parekh.

Kidwell reported that she’s working on a countywide housing project, too – that’s just one example of work that’s being done with other partners, she said.

Briere gave several examples of areas where there are commissions in multiple jurisdictions that do similar work – Ann Arbor has a park advisory commission, and Washtenaw County has a parks & recreation commission. Many jurisdictions have housing-related commissions. She said she didn’t know all of the commissions that existed countywide. She wondered if the staff saw any opportunity to bring together commissions outside of Ann Arbor with Ann Arbor commissions, “to really talk through the next set of ideas, whatever they may be.” It would be great to see regional planning, Briere said.

Kidwell agreed that it’s something to support. She gave the example of the Reimagine Washtenaw project, which involved several jurisdictions – Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township and Pittsfield Township – to improve the Washtenaw Avenue corridor between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

Rampson noted that the Reimagine Washtenaw project is at a critical point, because the federal grant that’s paid for staff is ending in the next year. Now, each community must decide whether it wants to continue paying for that staff work, she said. The challenge is how to keep a project like this moving ahead.

There’s benefit in not reinventing the wheel, Rampson said – that’s a reason to collaborate with other communities.

Commissioners wrapped up by discussing the timing of an annual meeting of multiple commissions, possibly in September. Rampson noted that the kick-off for developing the sustainability framework had begun with a joint meeting – between the planning, energy and environmental commissions – in April 2010. [See Chronicle coverage: "Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor."]

Rampson suggested that the chairs of these three commission meet to do some planning, and to include the housing and human services advisory board too, and possibly the park advisory commission. Another possibility is to create a committee focused on the CIP.

As a follow-up to sharing work plans, Kurz asked that the planning commission’s work plan be shared with other commissions, so that it could be used as a template. [.pdf of planning commission's work plan] The environmental commission also has an active work plan, which was adopted in September 2013. [.pdf of environmental commission's work plan] The energy commission doesn’t have a current work plan. Nor does the housing & human services advisory commission, but Briere indicated that she would bring up the issue at the HHSAB’s next meeting.

Planning commissioners present: Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Ken Clein, Diane Giannola, Paras Parekh, Jeremy Peters, Kirk Westphal.

Energy commissioners present: Wayne Appleyard, Mark Clevey, Erik Eibert, Chuck Hookham, Dina Kurz, ​Shoshannah Lenski, Brigit Macomber, Mike Shriberg, Ken Wadland, David Wright.

Staff present: Planning manager Wendy Rampson; Nate Geisler, energy programs analyst; Jamie Kidwell, sustainability associate.

Next planning commission meeting: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the second floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor.

Next energy commission meeting: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 at 6 p.m. in the second floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [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.

City planning manager Wendy Rampson and Kirk Westphal, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission, at a Jan. 7, 2014 working session in the basement of city hall. (Photos by the writer.)

Planning manager Wendy Rampson gave the mid-year update, reporting on items that were moving ahead, delayed or stalled. Some projects – like the downtown zoning review – had taken more time than anticipated, she reported. That meant some other projects didn’t get as much attention. [.pdf of work plan status report]

Two projects on the work plan have been completed: (1) an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, and (2) the second-year update to the capital improvements plan (CIP). Other work – like the years-long effort to reorganize the city’s zoning ordinances, known as ZORO, continues to languish. That project is being overseen by the city attorney’s office, with support from planning staff.

Based on feedback from the four commissioners at the working session, as well as input from other commissioners via email, some items on the work plan will be tweaked.

City staff have drafted an action plan to implement goals of the city’s sustainability framework, which was approved last year. Planning commissioners are interested in moving that forward.

Commissioners also expressed interested in forming a new committee to explore the impact of pending changes to mandated floodplain insurance, with a cross-section of representatives from planning, the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner’s office, the city’s historic district commission and local creekshed groups.

In addition, Rampson was asked to explore the possibility of forming a joint planning commission with representatives from the four jurisdictions along the Washtenaw Avenue corridor – the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township and Pittsfield Township. A right-of-way report for that corridor will be completed soon, which will be reviewed by the commission.

Commissioners also directed Rampson to develop a list of pros and cons for eliminating drive-thrus as a by-right option in certain zoning districts, and instead requiring developers to seek a special exception from the planning commission in order to build one. Some commissioners think that drive-thrus – especially for fast food restaurants – make an area less pedestrian-friendly. Also of concern are the emissions generated from idling vehicles.

More immediately, the commission’s ordinance revisions committee will be reviewing recommendations from an advisory committee on R4C/R2A residential zoning. There will also likely be work on ordinance revisions for downtown zoning, depending on what direction is given by the city council. A set of recommendations already approved by planning commissioners is on the council’s Jan. 21 agenda.

Work Plan Overview

Each year, the planning commission sets a work plan, prioritizing initiatives and long-term projects that they’ll work on with staff during the city’s fiscal year, which runs from July 1 through June 30. For fiscal 2013-2014, commissioners developed a work plan in June of 2013, which was formally approved at their June 18, 2013 meeting.

At the commission’s Jan. 7, 2014 working session, Kirk Westphal, who chairs the group, reported that the commission’s executive committee had met to review the work plan and get an update on the status of various projects that the planning staff is undertaking. The intent was to review these projects at the working session and see if any priorities have shifted. The city is about halfway through its fiscal year.

The work plan has two main sections: (1) items related to master planning, and (2) items related to ordinance revisions or implementation. [.pdf of work plan status report]

Several items in the work plan haven’t moved forward as quickly as expected, according to city planning manager Wendy Rampson. The review of downtown zoning had been “all consuming” during the first six months of the fiscal year, she noted, and the ongoing R4C/R2A zoning review had also taken up considerable time. Neither of those efforts have produced anything tangible yet, she added, “but all of the discussion that’s gone on in the community has resulted in some consensus-building in that area.”

Rampson told commissioners that she was looking for direction about where the planning staff should put its energy in the next six months. The commission will also hold a retreat in the spring to look at priorities for next year.

The work plan also will be reviewed at an upcoming meeting of the full planning commission. Only four commissioners attended the Jan. 7 working session.

Master Planning

Under the category of master planning, the planning commission’s work plan has two main projects: (1) developing an action plan for the city’s existing sustainability framework; and (2) corridor projects on Washtenaw Avenue and North Main Street.

Master Planning: Sustainability Framework Action Plan

The planning commission and city council had approved a sustainability framework last year, adding it as an element of city’s master plan. The framework has 16 overarching sustainability goals, which are organized into four categories: resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community. City staff have drafted an action plan to implement the goals of that framework. [.pdf of draft action plan]

Planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that the staff made some good progress on drafting the action plan over the summer, but now “it’s basically stopped.” The two staff members who had taken the lead on it – Jamie Kidwell and Jill Thacher – got pulled into other projects, she said.

The draft action plan hasn’t yet been circulated to the three groups that were involved in developing the sustainability framework: The planning, energy and environmental commissions. If there’s interest in prioritizing this project, getting feedback from these commissions would be the next step, Rampson said.

The intent of the action plan is to take each goal of the sustainability framework and pick one to three items that could be implemented throughout the organization.

For example, under the category of integrated land use, one of the goals from the framework is: “Encourage dense land use and development patterns which draw people downtown and foster an active street life, contribute to its function as an urban residential neighborhood and support a sustainable transportation system.” Two action items have been drafted to help achieve that goal:

Develop a reuse strategy for end of life, vacant city-owned properties in and near downtown.

Implement the recommendations of the Connecting William Street effort, once adopted.

By way of background on Connecting William Street, at its March 5, 2013 meeting, the planning commission voted to add the Connecting William Street report as a resource document. However, the city council has not taken any action regarding that effort, which was undertaken by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority at the direction of the city council.

Action items for other land use goals include implementing recommendations of the South State Street corridor study and the North Main/Huron River corridor task force, continuing participation in Reimagine Washtenaw, and implementing appropriate city code revisions related to the R4C/R2A zoning review.

Kirk Westphal noted that the sustainability framework represents the highest priorities of several city commissions, and it made sense to him to finish the project by completing the action plan. “So even if we’re not always on the same page, at least we’re in the same pamphlet,” he joked.

In response to a query from Paras Parekh, Rampson said the action plan would be a working document. If approved, the staff would review progress on these items each year.

Rampson said it’s possible to link almost everything that the planning commission works on to the sustainability action plan. The Zoning Ordinance Reorganization (ZORO) project, for example, is linked to economic health and public engagement – the idea that there’s a clear understanding of the rules for development.

Jeremy Peters supported working on the action plan, saying it’s a point of pride if someone can look at work on the sustainability goals and say, “This is why I want to live in Ann Arbor. This is why I want to start my business in Ann Arbor.”

Diane Giannola urged each of the commissions to focus on the action items that are most relevant to their work. She was worried that it would be difficult to reach consensus on all of the action items.

Rampson said she’d schedule a time for the planning commission to discuss how to move forward, possibly at a working session in February.

Master Planning: Washtenaw Avenue, North Main Corridors

Wendy Rampson noted that two projects related to central corridors – Washtenaw Avenue and North Main – are on track.

Planning commissioner Paras Parekh.

The North Main/Huron River corridor task force had completed its work in the summer of 2013. The question for commissioners is whether they want to do a full-blown corridor study for North Main, as they did for South State Street, Rampson said.

Paras Parekh noted that there had been a lot of ideas about North Main, calling it a “vital part of the city.” He thought the commission should make a decision about what to do with the task force report, one way or another. Diane Giannola observed that a full-blown corridor study, like the one that was done for South State Street, is intense and would require a lot of work. Rampson pointed out a similar study for North Main would likely be less intense, because the North Main/Huron River corridor task force has already done a lot of public engagement and research. “It gives us a bit of a jump start,” Rampson said.

Regarding the Washtenaw Avenue corridor, the planning commission was briefed about Reimagine Washtenaw at a working session in December of 2013. The commission will need to decide what it wants to do next, regarding recommendations for that project.

Rampson reported that a Washtenaw Avenue right-of-way study being conducted by Smith Group/JJR would be completed soon. She suggested that the planning commission could look at how the right-of-way recommendations would impact potential redevelopment along Washtenaw Avenue. That corridor passes through four jurisdictions: the city of Ann Arbor, Pittsfield Township, Ypsilanti Township, and the city of Ypsilanti. Rampson noted that the biggest challenge for Ann Arbor’s section is that it’s the widest part of the corridor. Any changes that would narrow the road would affect the service drives, which include parking areas.

Because the Reimagine Washtenaw recommendations will be coming soon, that’s probably the most timely project for implementation, Rampson said.

Parekh confirmed with Rampson that the changes would happen incrementally over the next few years, as properties get redeveloped. Owners would not be required to conform the existing buildings and setbacks to new zoning, for example. Although major changes would not happen immediately, Rampson noted that some property owners are interested in redevelopment. She cited the owners of the Victory Inn at 3750 Washtenaw Ave. near the US-23 interchange, saying they’ve come in to talk with planning staff about redeveloping that site.

It’s important that new requirements are in place so that when redevelopment does occur, it can conform to what the city and other jurisdictions would like to see along Washtenaw Avenue, Rampson said. Changes in transit will also impact some of the corridor improvements. “This is real planning – when you’re looking so far into the future,” she added. In addition to some of the “problem-solving” projects on the planning commission’s work plan, it’s good to have a longer-term project as well, Rampson told commissioners.

Kirk Westphal confirmed with Rampson that it would be possible to have a joint planning commission for the corridor, with representatives from each jurisdiction. He wondered if creating that would be the best first step. Rampson noted that state law governs the formal process of setting up a new joint planning commission. She pointed out that once it’s created, it has to be sustained – so the question is whether there’s enough energy among all the jurisdictions to do that. Responding to another question from Westphal, Rampson said a joint planning commission doesn’t preclude the formation of a corridor improvement authority (CIA).

Rampson reported that a joint technical committee – composed mostly of staff from the four jurisdictions, the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, and the Michigan Dept. of Transportation – continues to meet monthly. Their work has been driven by the right-of-way study, so after that the committee “will have to figure out what our reason for being is,” she said.

Also, there’s some funding from the U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development’s Sustainable Communities planning grant for public art in the Washtenaw Avenue corridor, Rampson said, and Deb Polich of the Arts Alliance is working on that. Polich is also participating in the joint technical committee.

The involvement of elected officials in this project has started to wane, Rampson reported. The staff has also tried to get merchant associations involved, she added, but it’s been difficult along the Washtenaw Avenue corridor. The core businesses for the Washtenaw Avenue Merchants Association are Hiller’s grocery, Paesano restaurant, and Wheels in Motion, Rampson said, but she wasn’t sure how active the group is.

Rampson said she’d follow up with Nathan Voght of the Washtenaw County office of community and economic development, who is providing staff support for Reimagine Washtenaw, to explore a possible joint planning commission.

Master Planning: Completed Projects

Rampson noted that two projects on the work plan in the master planning category have been completed: (1) an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan; and (2) the second-year update to the capital improvements plan (CIP).

The planning commission approved an update to the non-motorized transportation plan at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. The document includes sections on planning and policy, as well as recommendations for short-term and long-term projects, such as bike boulevards, crosswalks, sidewalks and larger efforts like the Allen Creek greenway and Border-to-Border Trail. The city council subsequently approved the update as well. Items in the city’s master plan must receive approval from both the planning commission and the council.

The council does not approve the CIP – as that’s the planning commission’s purview. But the city council has budgetary control over the plan. Commissioners approved the 2015-2020 CIP at their Dec. 3, 2013 meeting, and it was forwarded to the council as an information item.

The CIP is a supporting document for the city’s master plan, and the city council bases its capital budget on the CIP. It includes a list of major capital projects, both those that are funded and those for which funding hasn’t yet been identified. [.pdf of staff memo and CIP for FY 2015-2020] Most of this year’s updates relate to FY 2015, which begins on July 1, 2014. This year reflects the first-time inclusion of projects undertaken by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the Ann Arbor housing commission.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations

Several items on the work plan relate to ordinance revisions, including reviews of downtown zoning and R4C/R2A residential zoning, the ongoing Zoning Ordinance Reorganization (ZORO) project, and possible ordinance changes related to floodplain issues.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations: Downtown Zoning

The recommendations regarding changes to downtown zoning were originally due to the city council by October 2013. The planning commission had finished that work and approved the set of recommendations on Dec. 3, 2013. Wendy Rampson reported that the recommendations will be on the city council’s Jan. 21 agenda. “So we’re making progress on that, but it’s slow,” she said.

Kirk Westphal noted that even if the council signs off on the recommendations, then the planning commission gets “restarted” as they work with staff to develop actual ordinance revisions that implement the recommendations.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations: R4C/R2A

Amendments to the city’s R4C/R2A zoning were scheduled to be completed by March of 2014, but that project isn’t moving ahead as quickly as planned, Rampson reported. She noted that a final report will be submitted soon by an advisory committee, and at that point the planning commission will need to decide what to do next. [.pdf of final advisory committee report]

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

A review of these residential zoning ordinances has been in the works for several years. An advisory committee was originally established by the Ann Arbor city council in 2009. Its purpose was to give input as the planning commission developed recommendations for what some city staff have called a “broken” zoning district. The committee’s original recommendations were delivered to the commission in 2012, and planning commissioners adopted their own set of recommendations for the council in April of 2013.

Although there was considerable overlap, the planning commission’s recommendations diverged from the advisory committee in some significant ways. Some advisory committee members felt their work had been cut short and that the final report presented to the planning commission on behalf of the committee did not fully reflect the committee’s consensus. They also wanted to weigh in on some of the commission’s recommendations, including a proposed “group housing” overlay district.

So the city council reconstituted the advisory committee in the summer of 2013, with slightly different membership. The group met four times, then created a new report for the planning commission to consider.

Most recently, planning commissioners were briefed on the advisory committee’s report at a Dec. 10, 2013 working session. For background, see Chronicle coverage: “R4C/R2A Zoning Proposals Reviewed.”

On Jan. 7, Diane Giannola said that she and Bonnie Bona are interested in making some proposals related to the R4C zoning ordinance, like making it easier to convert garages into “carriage houses,” for example.

The next step will be for the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee to look at all of the recommendations for the R4C/R2A zoning, and decide how to move forward. It’s possible that a new set of recommendations would be brought forward to the full planning commission. Ultimately, the city council would need to give direction on how the planning commission should proceed in developing actual revisions to the zoning ordinances.

The advisory committee’s final report will be part of the planning commission’s Jan. 23 meeting agenda.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations: Citizen Participation Ordinance

An evaluation of the city’s citizen participation ordinance was due to be completed by October 2013, but hasn’t made much progress. Rampson said that Angeline Lawrence of the city’s planning staff has written a memo with suggestions about how to improve the city’s citizen participation. So Rampson would like to review that with the commission’s citizen outreach committee. Members of that committee are Sabra Briere, Diane Giannola, Paras Parekh and Jeremy Peters.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations: ZORO

ZORO stands for Zoning Ordinance Reorganization. It’s a project that began in 2009. The goal is to do a comprehensive review of 11 chapters of the city code that are related to development, and to present the material in a more concise, user-friendly way, clarifying terminology, and eliminating inconsistencies and outdated material.

The chapters being reorganized by ZORO are:

• Chapter 26: Solid Waste
• Chapter 47: Streets and Curb Cuts
• Chapter 55: Zoning
• Chapter 56: Prohibited Land Uses
• Chapter 57: Subdivision and Land Use Regulations, and the attached Land Development Regulations
• Chapter 59: Off-Street Parking
• Chapter 60: Wetlands Preservation
• Chapter 61: Signs and Outdoor Advertising
• Chapter 62: Landscaping and Screening
• Chapter 63: Soil Erosion, Sedimentation Control and Storm Water Management
• Chapter 104: Fences

Don Elliott of the consulting firm Clarion Associates was hired by the city to do the initial work, and presented a draft report about two years ago. Since then, it has been worked on by planning staff and the city attorney’s office, which is overseeing the project. Over the years, planning commissioners have expressed frustration that ZORO hasn’t been completed. At the commission’s April 23, 2013 retreat, for example, it was a topic of discussion.

On Jan. 7, Rampson reported that ZORO has made no progress in the last six months.

Kevin McDonald of the city attorney’s office, who’s point person for the project, was originally scheduled to give commissioners a ZORO update at a Jan. 14 working session. However, a special meeting of the planning commission was convened on that night instead, for the purpose of holding closed session with McDonald to discuss attorney-client privileged information. That is one of the exemptions allowed under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations: Floodplain Ordinance/Insurance

Rampson told commissioners that it looked like FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) was going to delay moving to mandating market rate flood insurance, “so that gives us a little breathing room.”

By way of background, at its March 5, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council gave final approval to an ordinance change that will adopt a new Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the city. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) makes flood insurance available for properties in participating communities – Ann Arbor is a participant. If a building has a federally-backed mortgage and it’s located within the “1% annual change floodplain” (previously called the “100-year floodplain) then flood insurance is required.

Ann Arbor’s previous FIRM dated from Jan. 2, 1992. In 2004, the FEMA began a map revision process for Washtenaw County. Various drains in the city were re-analyzed, using updated data, and on July 27, 2007, FEMA issued preliminary maps. After required public review, appeal and revisions, on Oct. 3, 2011, FEMA issued a letter with a final determination, indicating that the new maps would become effective on April 3, 2012. [.pdf of Oct. 3, 2011 letter] [.pdf of Dec. 20, 2011 reminder letter]

Planning commissioner Jeremy Peters.

Compared to the previous 1992 maps, 321 parcels are no longer analyzed as lying within a floodplain. However, 116 parcels that were previously not analyzed as in a floodplain are now in a floodplain, according to the new maps. Building-wise, 452 structures are no longer analyzed as lying within a floodplain, while 88 buildings are now in a floodplain, according to the new maps. [See also Chronicle coverage: "Column: Digital Information Flood."]

Federal legislation passed in 2012 – the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act – will result in dramatic rate hikes for flood insurance, because federal subsidies will be eliminated. However, implementation of those increases has been delayed.

On Jan. 7, Rampson explained that the plan is to incorporate changes into the city’s flood and zoning ordinances that reflect the insurance risk factor. The primary changes will relate to the flood ordinance, which isn’t the planning commission’s purview. However, any zoning changes would come through the planning commission.

Historic structures have been exempt from regulations related to floodplains, Rampson said. But now, any structure in a floodplain must carry flood insurance, and the rates are expected to increase significantly. The deeper a property is into the floodplain, the higher the insurance rates would be. That might result in disinvestment within those areas, she said, or possibly owners would elevate buildings, which would change the character of a neighborhood. [If a structure is elevated above the flood depth, its insurance rates would be lower.] It’s primarily the impacts on historic districts that the city staff felt should be addressed by possible zoning ordinance changes.

Rampson suggested that the effort should be coordinated with the historic district commission. The question is whether the HDC would come up with a new set of standards for dealing with historic structures in a floodplain. The Secretary of the Interior’s standards don’t really address it, she said. Rampson noted that the HDC has been briefed on this issue by city planner Jill Thacher, “so they already understand that this will be a problem.”

Diane Giannola proposed putting together a committee to tackle this issue, and include former planning commissioner Evan Pratt, who is now Washtenaw County’s water resources commissioner. Other members could be pulled from the HDC, the planning commission, the zoning board of appeals, and local creekshed associations. Giannola noted that Pratt has extensive background on this issue.

Rampson asked about priorities. If planning commissioners want the staff to work on this project, what other project will be moved to a lower priority? Giannola recommended holding off on launching a North Main corridor study, and that the floodplain project should take priority over that.

Rampson reported that Jerry Hancock, the city’s stormwater & floodplain program coordinator, had briefed the city council on this issue last year. He had anticipated that the council would provide direction on what steps to take next, but that hasn’t happened yet. Giannola didn’t think that councilmembers understood the implications of the flood insurance rates on historic districts.

Rampson said she’d work on pulling a committee together to work on this issue. Giannola, Kirk Westphal, Jeremy Peters volunteered to serve.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations: Redevelopment Ready

The city council – at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting – authorized the city to participate in the Michigan Economic Development Corp.’s Redevelopment Ready Communities Certification Program. The planning commission had been briefed on the program at a Sept. 10, 2013 working session.

The program was originally developed by the nonprofit Michigan Suburbs Alliance, and later acquired by the state through the MEDC. [Both organizations have local connections. The suburbs alliance is led by Conan Smith, an Ann Arbor resident who also is an elected official serving on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. MEDC's CEO is Michael Finney, former head of Ann Arbor SPARK.]

The program is viewed as a tool to help communities put in place elements that would allow redevelopment to happen. Those things include master plans that are clear about what community expectations are for new developments, and zoning that reflects those expectations in a very specific way. It means that when developers look at a specific property, they’ll be able to know exactly what they can do. The program includes a list of best practices focused on six categories: (1) community plans and public outreach; (2) zoning policy and regulations; (3) development review process; (4) education and training; (5) redevelopment ready sites; and (6) community prosperity (economic strategies, marketing and promotion). [.pdf of best practices document]

In March of 2013, the MEDC announced that 8 communities – including Ann Arbor – had been selected for the program’s first round to receive a formal Redevelopment Ready Communities evaluation. If the city completes this evaluation successfully, Rampson said, then it would be certified as a “Redevelopment Ready” community. The state has indicated that communities with this certification could receive priority points on grants from MEDC and the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA).

On Jan. 7, Rampson reported that the city is moving forward more slowly than expected, and will probably get started on the certification process in March. That had originally been the timeframe for expected completion of the certification.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations: Sign Ordinance

A project to revise the city’s sign ordinance is on the work plan for completion by June of 2014. Rampson reported that the staff is waiting for funding to pay for a consultant before that work can start.

Potential Future Projects

In addition to the projects already underway, Wendy Rampson provided an updated list of potential projects that planning commissioners have previously indicated an interest in pursuing:

• Economic development initiatives
• Student neighborhood property conditions/enforcement in R4C
• Southeast area neighborhoods visioning
• “Mixed use” overlay amendment
• Neighborhood outreach/engagement
• Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance amendments
• “Age-Friendly” master plan and ordinance amendments
• Non-motorized plan implementation/pedestrian safety & sidewalk initiatives (with systems planning unit)
• Lowertown land use amendments
• Ordinance amendment to make all drive-thrus special exception uses
• High school student representation on the planning commission

Potential Future Projects: Drive-Thrus

Diane Giannola asked what the impetus was to look at eliminating the current by-right use of drive-thrus. It’s come up in discussions about corridor improvements, Rampson replied. One of the challenges in encouraging major corridors to be less auto-friendly is that the city keeps getting proposals for drive-thru restaurants, like Tim Hortons, she said. Currently, drive-thrus are allowed “by right” on any property that’s zoned C3 (fringe commercial). It’s particularly an issue along Washtenaw Avenue, where most of the property is zoned C3.

Planning commission chair Kirk Westphal.

Kirk Westphal noted that most restaurant proposals include drive-thrus. “It’s just a cash box in a busy corridor,” he said, “but it makes everything around it not walkable.” To him, it’s a broader question of looking at which parts of the city could evolve into a “walkable node.” If those areas are identified, then the city could ban drive-thrus there. In the meantime, changing the ordinance to require a special exception use for a drive-thru seemed like a good safeguard, he said, so that the planning commission could make a decision on a case-by-case basis.

In response to a query from Paras Parekh, Rampson explained the process for changing the ordinance. Language for an ordinance revision would be drafted by city staff and reviewed by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee. The planning commission would hold a public hearing on it, vote on a recommendation, then send that recommendation to city council. The council would need to approve any ordinance change.

Rampson noted that some cities have banned drive-thrus completely. With a special exception use, it would allow drive-thrus under certain conditions. Those conditions would need to be articulated.

In addition to restaurants, other businesses that use drive-thrus include banks and pharmacies, Rampson noted.

Based on the interest that commissioners were indicating, Rampson said the planning staff would add it to their work plan and draft some ordinance language for commissioners to review.

Diane Giannola and Jeremy Peters asked for an analysis for making this change. “You’ll have landowners and business owners and franchisees up in arms, so it would be good to see some pros and cons,” Peters said. Giannola cautioned that eliminating drive-thrus might result in the need for more parking.

Westphal responded, saying that it might result in fewer fast food restaurants coming to town. “I don’t know that McDonald’s would build a new restaurant if they couldn’t include a drive-thru,” he said. “So that’s one question: Do we have enough drive-thrus?”

Rampson added that from a sustainability perspective, vehicle emission from idling at drive-thrus is an issue. The air quality issue has caused some communities to ban drive-thrus.

Present: Diane Giannola, Paras Parekh, Jeremy Peters, Kirk Westphal. Also: City planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Absent: Eleanore Adenekan, Sabra Briere, Bonnie Bona, Ken Clein, Wendy Woods.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Jan. 23, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the second floor city council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. The typical Tuesday meeting has been shifted to Thursday to accommodate scheduling changes related to the Jan. 20 Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. [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.

Gillian Ream is the city of Ypsilanti’s representative on the newly expanded Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority board. (Photos by the writer.)

The board gave public notice through a formal resolution that the organization would start using the new name specified in its newly-amended articles of incorporation: “Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.”

Eli Cooper, who also serves as the city of Ann Arbor’s transportation program manager, was among the board members at the meeting who noted the substance underlying the addition of the word “area” to the organization’s name.

That substance is a recently approved revision to the articles of incorporation of the AATA, which added the city of Ypsilanti as a member to the authority. The AATA board had given final approval for that change at its June 20, 2013 meeting, after the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti had already approved the change. The revision to the articles to include Ypsilanti as a member is intended to provide a way to generate additional funding for transportation. The AAATA could, with voter approval, levy a uniform property tax on the entire geographic area of its membership – something the AATA did not do.

The cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti now levy their own millages, which are transmitted to the AAATA. However, Ypsilanti is currently at its 20-mill state constitutional limit. A millage levied by the AAATA would not count against that 20-mill cap. While there had been an outside chance that a millage request could be placed on the ballot as soon as November 2013, it now appears likely for May 2014.

Board discussion reflected the fact that the new acronym for the organization is a challenge to pronounce letter-by-letter. Suggestions had been made to adopt a convention of calling the AAATA “A3TA” or “Triple-A-TA” – but the board’s resolution indicated only that “TheRide” will continue as the organization’s mark.

Gillian Ream is the city of Ypsilanti’s new appointee to the expanded board of the AAATA. The Aug. 15 meeting was the second one she’d attended – but her first as a voting member.

The draft FY 2014 budget, for the fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1, already reflects the membership of the city of Ypsilanti – as the proceeds from Ypsilanti’s transit millage are recognized under “local property tax revenue” instead of “purchase of service agreements.” That draft currently shows about $33.3 million in both revenues and expenditures.

The FY 2014 work plan – which that budget is supposed to support – was the second ceremonial but still substantive item on the board’s agenda. In addition to maintaining a range of basic transportation services, the work plan includes a number of other initiatives. Among them are projects that have been widely discussed for a longer time – like increased services in the “urban core,” the east-west commuter rail, north-south commuter rail (WALLY) and a high-capacity connector between northeast Ann Arbor through the University of Michigan campus and farther south to the Briarwood Mall area. Projects included in the work plan that have not received as much publicity include traffic signal prioritization (in favor of public transit vehicles) and a unified fare media (payment) strategy.

Sue Gott noted during the meeting that the work plan had been under development for five months. The plan was met with general enthusiasm by board members, with Susan Baskett reflecting the board’s sentiment: “I just love this document!” It was adopted on a unanimous vote.

The other voting item on the agenda was authorization to use three different printers for small-scale print jobs over the next five years. The only wrinkle to approval of that item came in connection to adjusting the sequence of resolutions, so that the resolution formally adopting the AAATA’s new name preceded the printing contracts.

Also during the meeting, the board heard a range of public commentary. Among the points made by the public was the fact that despite discussions about possible changes to Route #11 in Ypsilanti, Route #11 will remain unchanged this fall. Also during public commentary, the passing of longtime disability activist Lena Ricks was noted. Ricks had served on the AAATA’s local advisory council.

Notification of Name Change

The board considered a resolution giving formal notification of a name change from the “Ann Arbor Transportation Authority” to the “Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.”

Notification of Name Change: Background

The resolution indicated that as of Aug. 15, 2013, the transportation authority will begin using the new name on all official communications and transactions. That’s the date when the filings with the state became official.

The board’s Aug. 15 resolution indicated that the organization will continue to use “TheRide” in its marketing and branding. That’s partly a response to the increased challenge of pronouncing the acronym of the new organization letter-by-letter. Suggestions had been made to adopt a convention of calling the AAATA “A3TA” or “Triple-A-TA” – but the board’s resolution indicated only that “TheRide” will continue as the organization’s brand.

The name change reflects a more substantive revision to the articles of incorporation of the AATA, which added the city of Ypsilanti as a member to the authority. The AATA board gave final approval for that change at its June 20, 2013 meeting. By that time, the city councils of the two cities had already approved the change. The Ann Arbor city council voted on June 3, 2013 to approve the change in governance, while the Ypsilanti city council took its vote on June 18. Both councils voted unanimously to support the move. [.pdf of new AAATA articles of incorporation] [.pdf of old AATA articles of incorporation]

The change to the articles to include Ypsilanti as a member is intended to provide a way to generate additional funding for transportation. The AAATA could, with voter approval, levy a uniform property tax on the entire geographic area of its membership – something the AATA did not do. The cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti now levy their own millages, which are transmitted to the AAATA. However, Ypsilanti is currently at its 20-mill state constitutional limit. A millage levied by the AAATA would not count against that 20-mill cap.

While there had been an outside chance that a millage request could be placed on the ballot as soon as November 2013, it now appears likely for May 2014.

The change to the articles of incorporation also gave Ypsilanti the right to appoint a member of the board – which expanded from seven to nine members. Gillian Ream was appointed to the board by the city of Ypsilanti, and cast her first votes as a board member on Aug. 15.

The other additional board seat is to be appointed by the city of Ann Arbor. At the Ann Arbor city council’s Aug. 8, 2013 meeting, Jack Bernard was nominated to fill that spot. The council will vote on that appointment at its Aug. 19 meeting.

The articles of incorporation might need to be revised again soon, to accommodate the possible addition of Ypsilanti Township as a member of the AAATA. At the Aug. 14, 2013 meeting of AAATA’s planning & development committee, it was discussed that the township had indicated some preliminary interest in joining the authority.

The interest of Ypsilanti Township in joining the AAAATA comes in context of the more limited “urban core” initiative, which came after a demised attempt to form a functioning countywide authority in 2012. During his report to the board on Aug. 15, AAATA CEO Michael Ford indicated that since the last meeting of the urban core partners on June 27, meetings have continued internally and also with representatives of partner municipalities. Those include the city of Ypsilanti, the townships of Ypsilanti and Pittsfield and the city of Saline.

Eventually the board would be presented with a recommendation, Ford said. Work continues on the details of the service plan, he said, to answer questions of local jurisdictions about the service they would be provided.

Notification of Name Change: Public Commentary

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Carolyn Grawi of the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living addressed the board on the topic of the organization’s name.

AAATA board chair Charles Griffith talked with Ann Arbor CIL director of advocacy and education Carolyn Grawi before the Aug. 15 meeting started.

She recalled that about two years ago at a planning retreat, the question had come up about the name of a possible new transportation authority. At that time, the comment she made was that the transportation authority should stick with TheRide.

It doesn’t matter what entities are added – it’s open to everyone, she said. TheRide logo already appears on the organization’s buses and in e-mails that are sent. She felt that continuing to use TheRide would be important to maintain consistency.

People do get tripped up on the extra As, she allowed.

Grawi’s consistent view on the name of the organization actually dates back even longer than she indicated during public commentary. From The Chronicle’s Oct. 16, 2008 board meeting report:

In addition to Jim Mogensen and Clark Charnetski, whose comments are noted above, Carolyn Grawi spoke. She said she thought that “TheRide” and the existing AATA logo was a very strongly identified brand and that it should be used as the AATA looked to expanding its service.

Notification of Name Change: Staff Comment

During his report to the board, CEO Michael Ford stated, “Today it’s official!” Ford explained that Aug. 15, 2013, was the official transition date from the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. “It’s a great day. Gillian, we’re happy to have you aboard as a voting member now!” Ford told Gillian Ream, who is the city of Ypsilanti’s appointee to the expanded board.

In more detail, Ford described how the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) had indicated there would be no hold up of grant funds to the transportation authority due to the name change. The amended articles of incorporation had been sent to the Ann Arbor city clerk’s office, who in turn forwarded them to the Office of the Great Seal in Lansing. That had taken place on Tuesday, Ford reported. As part of the process, Ford continued, legal counsel had been consulted to determine the timing of the official change. In order to help make notice of the change more efficient, Ford explained that a resolution had been added to the meeting agenda. That would provide a one-page declaration of the name change – instead of providing the full articles of incorporation, which include the new name.

Plans for transitioning to the new name include changing the name on buses, where it’s needed. Ford noted that 52 out of the fleet of 80 buses have lettering indicating only TheRide. The word “area” will be added to the other 28 vehicles over the next few months, Ford said. There’s also a matrix for making other updates, such as letterhead, payroll, checks, and fare media. Vendors of the authority will also be notified, Ford said.

Ford restated his appreciation for everyone’s hard work who had contributed to the achievement of the milestone. He called it a great accomplishment. Ford announced that some kind of celebration was planned for September and details of that would be shared as they become firmer.

Notification of Name Change: Board Deliberations

Commenting on the resolution about the name change, Eli Cooper said he been struggling over the past several months with the “proper articulation” of the name of the organization, trying out variants – Triple-A-TA, A3TA, AAATA. However you express the name of the organization, Cooper ventured that it’s important to acknowledge and respect that the Ann Arbor area now has a transportation authority. It’s no longer just the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, he continued. The move is much more significant than just a name change, he said.

From left: AATA board members Gillian Ream and Sue Gott.

Sue Gott noted that similar feedback to Cooper’s had come during public commentary at the previous day’s planning and development committee meeting. She agreed with Cooper that some time should be spent in thinking about what name the organization eventually “lands on,” and it should be intentional about what usage is adopted. Board chair Charles Griffith noted that that the resolution itself included the idea of promoting TheRide as the organization’s brand. It could also be the shorthand for the way the agency is described.

Eric Mahler allowed that he was not an intellectual property lawyer, but suggested that it might be appropriate to think about possible copyright issues. If the organization lands on something that it wants to use, it would be important to make sure that someone else’s copyright is not being infringed.

Griffith noted light-heartedly that he learned from Gillian Ream that there could be some competition for the name AAATA from a species of insect. Ream quipped that it might become a mascot. On a serious note, Ream felt that because the staff had suggested continuing to promote TheRide as a shorthand, she also felt that made a lot of sense.

Outcome: the board unanimously approved the resolution formally notifying the public of the name change of the organization to the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.

FY 2014 Preparations

Preparations for the start of the 2014 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, were reflected in an agenda item on the work plan. The board was asked to vote on the work plan, but the budget will not be presented until next month’s regular meeting, on Sept. 26.

FY 2014: Budget

The budget picture for the coming year will be eased somewhat compared to last year, when the AAATA had to scramble to reduce its planned budget based on roughly $800,000 less in state operating assistance (local bus operating funds) than had been planned for. Over the last year, the state legislature approved supplemental funding for transit agencies statewide that more than erased the original shortfall. The AAATA’s share of the statewide allocation was $985,000.

Instead of a planned use of fund balance this year, AAATA controller Phil Webb is now projecting that the organization will end the year with a $400,000 surplus. Of that amount, $300,000 would be used to restore the AAATA’s operating reserves to the 3-month minimum required by board policy. That will leave the AAATA with a $100,000 net surplus this year for a budget that called for $32.7 million in expenditures.

Next year’s FY 2014 budget is forecast to be balanced, with a $22,000 surplus. It relies on state operating assistance levels that would remain consistent with what the AAATA received this past year, after the supplemental funding was approved. That’s an assumption that the Michigan Dept. of Transportation has indicated is reasonable, according to AAATA officials.

Initial look at AAATA expenses for FY 2014 in the draft budget. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from AAATA.)

Initial look at AAATA revenues for FY 2014 in the draft budget. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from AAATA.)

FY 2014: Budget – Staff, Board Comment

During his report to the board, CEO Michael Ford noted that the AAATA had received its portion of the additional appropriation made by the state legislature, which would increase the percentage of operating expenses subsidized by the state during the current fiscal year from 27.11% to 30.65%. That resulted in a surplus for the first 10 months of the fiscal year. The unrestricted net asset level – the fund balance reserves – was also now over the three-month minimum level for the first time this fiscal year, Ford said.

Susan Baskett, in reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, noted that the advertising revenue was over budget by $185,000, which had far exceeded expectations. Baskett gave the report from that committee, in the absence of the other two committee members – Roger Kerson and Anya Dale.

FY 2014: Work Plan

The board was asked to approve a work plan for the coming fiscal year. It’s organized under five broad categories: (1) transportation services; (2) research and development initiatives; (3) programs, partnerships, and external relations; (4) capital projects; and (5) management responsibilities and initiatives. [.pdf of AAATA work plan]

In addition to maintaining a range of basic transportation services, the work plan includes a number of other initiatives. Among them are projects that have been widely discussed for a longer time – like increased services in the “urban core,” the east-west commuter rail, north-south commuter rail (WALLY) and a high-capacity connector between northeast Ann Arbor, through the University of Michigan campus and farther south to the Briarwood Mall area.

Projects included in the work plan that have not received as much publicity include traffic signal prioritization (in favor of public transit vehicles) and a unified fare media (payment) strategy.

FY 2014: Work Plan – Staff, Board Comment

Michael Ford told board members that he appreciated the hard work of the staff and input from the board on the work plan. He called it a new, detailed and transparent work process.

Sue Gott described the work plan as quite a comprehensive summary of all the business and services conducted by the AAATA. She told other board members that even though the date on the document has been updated, it’s essentially the same document that the board had reviewed at its July meeting. No further substantial edits had been undertaken. She described the document as having been under consideration by the planning and development committee for the last five months. It’s an outcome of the board’s retreat, she said, and reflects a large amount of input from the staff and board members.

Board chair Charles Griffith said he was glad to see plans for a number of performance measures that would relate to the elements of the work plan. Susan Baskett said the document makes very clear what areas the staff is working on and makes it possible for anyone to come forward and ask: Who is doing what, and what are your priorities? “I just love this document,” she said. And she thanked the staff for putting it together.

Eli Cooper supported the resolution and felt it was important to highlight the items that were described as basic services. The organization’s goal is to move people around the community and that’s what the work plan focuses on, he said. But the work plan also includes a look ahead at the deployment of advanced technology – whether it’s signal priority systems, or evaluating “big data,” he noted

The basic core service in and of itself should be celebrated, Cooper contended, but the work plan is also a forward-looking program of work that will be done in the coming year – to prepare for many years to come. There’s a lot in the work plan to continue the excellent service that’s already provided within the community, Cooper said. But it also looks forward in a way that will continue to allow the AAATA to position itself as the “leading public transportation authority in the state.”

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to adopt the fiscal year 2014 work plan.

Printing Services Contract Authorization

The board was asked to authorize the purchasing of printing services for small print jobs over the next five years from possibly three different printers: Dollar Bill, Green Light Graphics and Print-Tech Inc.

Even though the resolution giving the authorization mentioned smaller print jobs of $3,000 or less, board approval was needed because the total cost was expected to exceed $100,000 for the five-year period. The threshold for required board approval is $100,000.

The Ride Guide, which contains all the routes and schedules, is printed under a separate contract from those the board was asked to authorize under the Aug. 15, 2013 resolution.

Printing Services Contract Authorization: Board Deliberations

The item on print jobs was listed first among the voting items on the agenda. When board chair Charles Griffith invited discussion on the item, Sue Gott wondered if the resolution wording should reflect the new name of the organization. In the board packet the resolution referred to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, without the word “Area.”

AAATA board member Eric Mahler.

Griffith observed that the board had not yet adopted the resolution formally notifying everyone of the name change. The situation elicited some laughs around the board table. Gott assured everyone she was simply seeking clarification. Griffith then ventured that a motion to table might be the correct parliamentary procedure. Eric Mahler noted that it was important procedurally to switch up the order. And he felt that the board had some flexibility to switch the order of the items. So the board first dispatched the item on the official name change of the organization.

When the board returned to the print job resolution, Griffith noted that the only reason it was coming to the board at all was that the cumulative total amount over five years was expected to exceed the $100,000 threshold triggering the requirement for board approval.

Susan Baskett asked for clarification about the protocol for passing resolutions, venturing that it might be appropriate to read the text of the resolution into the record. Even if it’s not protocol to read the entire resolution, she indicated it would be helpful to the public and the community at large to summarize the content of the resolution. Griffith invited Baskett to do that. So Baskett then reviewed the key points of the resolution. During this summary, she noted that the three companies were non-union, but they were local.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the resolution on print job contracts.

University of Michigan

The meeting included a number of threads tied either directly or indirectly to the University of Michigan.

UM: Board Appointment

Pending confirmation by the Ann Arbor city council to the expanded board of the AAATA is Jack Bernard, who’s a lecturer in the University of Michigan law school and an attorney with UM’s office of the vice president and general counsel. He is also currently chair of the university’s council for disability concerns.

Given the nature of wrangling over Eric Mahler’s recent appointment to the AAATA board, Bernard’s chairship of that group could be a key qualification. Some councilmembers objected to Mahler’s appointment, arguing that someone who could represent the disability community should be appointed instead.

If Bernard is confirmed by the city council at its Aug. 19 meeting, that would bring the total of UM employees on the board to three, or one-third of the nine members. The other two UM employees on the AAATA board are Sue Gott (the university’s head planner) and Anya Dale (a representative in the office of sustainability).

UM: Public Commentary

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Jim Mogensen offered a comment on page 13 of the board’s information packet – a point made in CEO Michael Ford’s written report to the board. There is a paragraph, Mogensen said, about the ExpressRide service. [That service operates between Ann Arbor and Chelsea, and Ann Arbor and Canton. The University of Michigan had recent stepped forward to make up an operating deficit on the service to ensure its continuation for the next year. The majority of riders who use the service are UM employees, and their fares are subsidized by UM. The AAATA has adopted a policy of not using the local transit millage to support this service].

In describing refinements to the delivery model, Ford’s report stated: “… we are working to ensure that the role and funding level is fair and appropriate for the University of Michigan.” Mogensen told the board that he felt this is a public policy issue going beyond staff-to-staff type conversations, or even board conversations. Instead, Mogensen felt this issue needed to be thought through at the public level.

A while back, Mogensen told the board, he was trying to find out what the parking and transportation budget was for the University of Michigan. He’d gone through all the various public documents and a librarian had finally said that it’s not available in that much detail – and so he would have to go to the Fleming Administration building. So he did. They weren’t exactly sure what to do with him, Mogensen reported, but he told them what he was looking for. Finally he’d been told, “Sir, this information is available only on a need-to-know basis.” Quipped Mogensen, “And apparently I didn’t need to know!”

What he’d wanted to know was where the money comes from, what the various streams of funding are and how it’s allocated. By way of contrast to the University of Michigan, Mogensen said, if you go down to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, all that information is very much available. It’s important to have that kind of information, he said. He cautioned the board that this issue would come up again in a much more significant way, as discussions about the connector study move forward. The numbers connected to the connector study are likely to impact public policy issues and would change the system as a whole, he said.

UM: M-Ride Fares

At the planning and development committee meeting the previous day, Gillian Ream had pressed the question of why passenger fare revenues were down but ridership is going up. That question had arisen as the committee discussed the draft budget for FY 2014. AAATA controller Phil Webb responded to Ream’s question by attributing the phenomenon to the mix of passengers. About 50% of passengers are riders for whom someone other than the passenger pays the fare – such as the University of Michigan’s M-Ride or the getDowntown’s go!pass program. There are also other discount programs, Webb explained.

AAATA controller Phil Webb makes a literal point before the meeting. Seated next to him is Bill De Groot, an AAATA financial analyst and planner.

Webb described how the M-Ride agreement is structured, which pays for about 2.7 million rides per year. The arrangement between UM and the AAATA is structured to provide $1 per ride of revenue to the AAATA. Some of that $1 per ride is covered by state and federal matching money earned by the UM through its own transportation program, Webb said.

But there’s a two-year delay between the logging of the ridership in the national transit database and receipt of that money. For instance, Webb explained, in 2011 UM put the information in from the FY 2011 year, and in FY 2013, the university receives a certain amount of money because of that program, which is conveyed to the AAATA. And that reduces the amount of cash that the university pays to the AAATA. The AAATA still gets a dollar for each of the 2.7 million rides – it’s just that $1.2 million of it shows up as federal and state revenue. And the cash payment from UM to the AAATA is about $1.5 million. The cash amount – which the AAATA recognizes as passengers fares – went down this year because the federal portion went up.

UM: Connector Study

The Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority is currently conducting an alternatives analysis study for possible high-capacity transit in the corridor running from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street, then further south to I-94. The alternatives analysis phase will result in a preferred choice of transit mode (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and identification of stations and stops.

Area of study for the connector. (Image links to study website.)

A previous study established the feasibility of operating some kind of high-capacity transit in that corridor. That feasibility relied on the large number of university-affiliated ridership anticipated in the center of the corridor.

Even among advocates of the project, there’s a strong consensus that the university should bear a substantial portion of the cost, because the university will reap a substantial amount of benefit.

During his report to the board, Michael Ford described how the staff had been working internally on the connector study to develop a matrix to assign responsibilities that would advance the project. Three subcommittees of the management committee had been formed, he reported: a government and finance committee; alignment and station location committee; and transit operations and land use.

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

At its Aug. 15 meeting, the AAATA board entertained various communications, including its usual reports from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the planning and development committee, as well as from CEO Michael Ford. The board also heard commentary from the public. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Passing of Lena Ricks

During public commentary time at the start of the meeting, Carolyn Grawi, director of advocacy and education for the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living, alerted the board to a loss in the community – Lena Ricks. Grawi described Ricks as a long-time local advisory council (LAC) member. [The LAC is a group that provides input and feedback to AAATA on disability and senior issues.]

The memorial for Rick’s was being held on Saturday, Aug. 17 at King of Kings Lutheran Church at 2 p.m. She hoped that the community would recognize Rick’s hard work and devotion to disability rights. Grawi described Ricks as the “matriarch of the disability movement,” beginning with work almost 40 years ago.

From a note forwarded to The Chronicle by Jennifer Chapin-Smith of Partners in Personal Assistance:

Lena Ricks, 76, a lifelong advocate for people with disabilities, died August 14. Until her death she served as the Executive Director of Partners in Personal Assistance (PPA), which she founded in 1999. The nonprofit ensures that people with disabilities live independent, self-governed lives by directing the personal assistance they receive.

Ricks moved from Tennessee to Ann Arbor, where she was one of the founders of the disability rights and service nonprofit organization Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living in 1976. She served as Washtenaw Community College’s Special Needs Office Associate Director in the 1980s. She worked as a counseling social worker for many years. She served on the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s LAC and the Washtenaw County National Alliance on Mental Illness Board of Directors.

Ricks earned her Masters of Social Work at Eastern Michigan University in 1994 and a bachelor’s of business administration at Cleary University in 1984.

Ricks is survived by daughter Tammy and son-in-law Tommy Henderson, son Geno and daughter-in-law Ann Ricks, son Darrell and daughter-in-law Rhonda Ricks, grandchildren April, Charlie, Chad, Brandi, Kayla, Cassidy, Ranay, Jami, Michael, Kyle, Rachel, Jasmyne, great-grandchildren Chase, Carter, Geno II, Jordan, Libby, Jaxson, Korbin, Colt, several nieces and nephews, and special family friends Jody Burton-Slowins, Dr. Jennifer Doble, Daphne O’Garro and Awa Abdul.

Her husband Virgil Ricks, mother Vadie Sturgill, and siblings Glen, Kelly, Frank, J.D and June Sturgill predeceased her.

Ricks’ memorial service will be held at King of Kings Lutheran Church, 2685 Packard Ann Arbor, Saturday, Aug. 17 at 2 p.m.

Comm/Comm: Regional Transit Authority (RTA)

Ford announced that the Southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority (RTA) board, at its Aug. 7 meeting, had approved a master agreement with local transit providers in the area of the authority. [The RTA was established by the state legislature in late 2012 as a transit authority encompassing a four-county region – Washtenaw, Wayne, Macomb and Oakland counties, plus the city of Detroit. The RTA could generate revenue for itself through vehicle registration fees or a property tax levy, if voters were to approve either of those measures. For its initial administrative operations, however, the RTA faces a revenue challenge.]

The master agreement included an agreement to use a reduced portion of the state’s local bus operating (LBO) funds for initial operations of the RTA, Ford reported. The master agreement also ensures that any “coordination penalties” would be returned to the local agencies, Ford said. Ford offered his thanks to local leaders as well as the Washtenaw County board representatives to the RTA [Richard Murphy and Liz Gerber] for their diligence and protection of the AAATA.

Also during the Aug. 7 meeting, the RTA board had interviewed candidates for the chief executive officer position, Ford reported. They’d voted to hire John Hertel, who’s the current director of SMART. From Ford’s written report to the board:

The Board interviewed three candidates for CEO, Al Martin (former DDOT director), Larry Salci (former SEMPTA director), and John Hertel (current SMART director). At the end there were six recommendations for Hertel (Wayne (2), Oakland (2), and Macomb (2) and 3 for Salci (Washtenaw (2), and Detroit (1).

Ford told the board that he and board chair Charles Griffith were scheduled to meet with Hertel later in the month. Ford said he also had meetings scheduled with the executive directors of the People Mover and Detroit Dept. of Transportation.

Ford noted that the RTA would be convening an October board meeting in Ann Arbor – on Oct. 2 at 2 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown location.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Carolyn Grawi – Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living director of advocacy and education – suggested that the AAATA step up its communication about the RTA with the Ann Arbor community. She wanted the AAATA website to include descriptions of activity at the RTA. She felt that local residents might not necessarily look outside of the AAATA to find out what’s going on with the RTA, but they would visit the AAATA website.

Comm/Comm: Blake Transit Center Construction

Ford gave the board an update on progress toward completing the new Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor.

View of construction on the new Blake Transit Center from the Fourth and William parking structure, looking east. On completion of the new building, the existing structure and peaked awning will be demolished and the driveway will be configured to move bus traffic from Fourth Avenue eastward to Fifth Avenue – sometime by the end of 2013. (Photo and illustration by the writer on Aug. 16, 2013.)

Ford described the project as within budget. However, the target date for completion will need to be extended past the target of the end of October. He described the delay as resulting from difficulty in coordinating workers from different trades in a very small space, and a project that requires steps to be completed in sequence.

At the planning and development committee meeting held the day before, Terry Black – AAATA’s manager of maintenance, who is overseeing the construction project at the staff level – had described the project as within budget. However, he said the project had needed to use some of the contingency funds. Black also noted that the project has two phases – the completion of the new Blake Transit Center building, followed by the demolition of the existing building and the completion of the driveway that will connect Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue.

Black estimated the time from the date of completion of the new transit center building to the opening of the new driveway at about one month. During that committee meeting – when asked by Eli Cooper to characterize the delay in terms of weeks or months – Black indicated that the delay could be measured in weeks.

Factoring in the one month it would take to finish the driveway phase of the project, Black allowed that it might be close to Christmas before all components of the project are done.

Comm/Comm: AirRide Service

The AirRide service to Detroit Metro Airport remains steady, Ford said during his report to the board, averaging more than 1,200 rides for each of the last three weeks.

Comm/Comm: New Website

The launch of a new website for the AAATA has been delayed for a few months now. Ford indicated that the launch of the new website had been delayed by another week, as developers continue to work on outstanding issues. [The issues relate to real-time information that will provided about the exact location of buses. The remaining challenge is to convey accurately that a vehicle that has arrived at the end point of its route is ready to head back in the reverse direction.] Ford hoped that the new website would be ready by the end of August.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Jim Mogensen suggested that the archive of meeting minutes and information packets be improved on the AAATA website.

Comm/Comm: Rail Demo at Heritage Festival

During his report to the board, Michael Ford noted that during the Ypsilanti Heritage Festival over the next few days, SEMCOG would be hosting a static display of rail cars in Depot Town next to the Ypsilanti Freighthouse – similar to the display that had been held in connection with the Mayor’s Green Fair in Ann Arbor in June.

Comm/Comm: Route Changes

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Jim Mogensen reminded the board that on June 20, 2013, the board had approved the route and schedule changes. He hadn’t been able to attend that meeting. One of the proposed changes involved changes to Route #11, with plans to reconfigure it. As a result of public feedback, the decision was made not to make those changes.

As a resident of a facility that’s located on Route #11, he knew that there were a lot of people who ride that route who were interested in the issue. And now there’s a lot of confusion about what was going to happen. Mogensen noted that now there’s just a list of routes with the changes, and Route #11 is not included on the list. You really have to go into depth to figure out why and how that happened, he said. So he suggested that along Route #11, the AAATA could put up signs explaining what is happening.

After the meeting, AAATA manager of service development Chris White clarified for The Chronicle that the outcome of the process was that no changes were made to service on Route #11.

Comm/Comm: Briarwood Mall

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Carolyn Grawi of the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living reported that she looked at the new bus stop area that’s being created near Briarwood Mall. She shared some concern about the configuration of sidewalks and ramps. The sidewalk that has been built is 10 feet wide, which meets the minimum requirements, she allowed. But once you add in garbage cans and shelters and people waiting in line, she felt that there would not be enough room.

Grawi also suggested installing an additional ramp to eliminate the need of some commuters to traverse multiple lanes of traffic within the Briarwood Mall area in order to get to the existing sidewalk ramp.

Comm/Comm: General Complaint

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Thomas Partridge addressed the board as a write-in candidate for Ward 5 city council. He was there to advocate for all those who need transportation services and all those who could benefit from those services. He suggested that all of the board’s committee meetings should be held on the same day each month, one after the other, so that people could easily attend all of them. He called for the end of discrimination by the city and county government. He called for a nondiscriminatory countywide transportation system. He also accused the SelectRide company of egregious repeated acts by their employees that should be ended.

Present: Charles Griffith, Eric Mahler, Susan Baskett, Eli Cooper, Sue Gott, Gillian Ream.

Absent: Roger Kerson, Anya Dale.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Sept. 26, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

From left: Tony Derezinski and Eric Mahler attended their last meeting as planning commissioners on June 18. Mahler has been appointed to the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. Derezinski was not re-appointed to the commission, and is expected to be replaced by Jeremy Peters. Mahler’s replacement is Paras Parekh. (Photos by the writer.)

Commissioners had been asked to recommend approval of a “planned project” site plan, amended development agreement and modifications to the city’s landscaping requirements. This kind of project requires a public benefit, and commissioner Bonnie Bona argued strongly that the benefit should be a site that’s pedestrian- and bicycle-oriented. It’s especially important given Ann Arbor’s standing as one of the top 10 cities in the country for bicycle use, she said, and given that demand for pedestrian amenities will only increase. But as designed, sidewalks are an afterthought and their configuration within the site doesn’t make sense, Bona said. “There has got to be a better way.”

Bona said she couldn’t support this project unless the site plan addressed that design deficit. She proposed postponing it so that modifications could be explored, and other commissioners agreed – despite urging from the design team to recommend approval.

The meeting’s other main agenda item entailed adopting a master plan resolution and list of resource documents used to support the master plan. This is part of an annual evaluation of the master plan that’s required by the commission’s bylaws. Commissioners had held a public hearing on suggestions related to the master plan at their May 21, 2013.

Bona again brought forward a pedestrian-oriented issue, proposing to amend the list of resource documents to include the Allen Creek Greenway task force report from 2007. Commissioners unanimously approved that addition, along with two others: (1) the Downtown Vision and Policy Framework (known as the Calthorpe study), adopted in 2006; and (2) the Huron River Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP), as adopted in 2009. [.pdf of resource document list]

In other action, commissioners approved a work plan for the fiscal year starting July 1, identifying short-term as well as long-range projects. [.pdf of FY 2013-14 work plan] One high-priority project is the review of A2D2 zoning as directed by the city council, with a deadline of Oct. 1 to deliver recommendations to the council. The primary focus of that directive is the downtown D1-D2 zoning – especially in light of the controversial 413 E. Huron development, which the council recently approved. The plan is to bring in a consultant to manage that zoning review.

June 18 was the last meeting for planning commissioners Tony Derezinski and Eric Mahler. Mahler has been appointed to the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, and attended his first board meeting for that group on June 20, 2013. Commissioners praised the two attorneys, citing their combination of practicality and forward thinking. “I feel like our ballast is leaving,” Bona said.

Mahler will be replaced by Paras Parekh, who was confirmed by the city council at its May 20, 2013 meeting. Parekh attended the planning commission’s June 18 meeting as an observer, and will be joining the group after July 1. Jeremy Peters has been nominated to replace Derezinski, and is expected to be confirmed by the council on July 1. Peters works in creative licensing and business affairs with Ghostly Songs.

Hampton Inn Proposal

The June 18 agenda included a proposal for a new Hampton Inn at 2910 Jackson Ave. Commissioners were asked to recommend approval of a “planned project” site plan, amended development agreement and modifications to the city’s landscaping requirements.

Aerial view of the proposed Hampton Inn site (outlined in black) on Jackson Avenue, adjacent to the eastbound I-94 entrance ramp. Weber’s Inn is located nearby, just west of the Jackson Avenue split. To the east is the former Michigan Inn site.

The proposed four-story hotel, located on an 8.8-acre site north of Jackson and south of I-94, would include 100 bedrooms and 51,608 usable square feet. A 163-room Clarion Hotel is locaded on the same site, east of the proposed new hotel. The entire site would include 337 parking spaces for both hotels, as well as 10 new bicycle parking spots for the Hampton Inn and 8 at the Clarion. A driveway into the Hampton Inn would be across Jackson from the entrance to Weber’s Inn, which is located to the west.

A previous site plan for that location had been approved in 2008, and a Super 8 motel there was demolished. The foundation was laid for a new Hampton Inn, but the project was never completed and the building permits and site plan expired in 2011. The site is zoned R5 (hotel district).

The developer is seeking planned project status so that the existing foundation can be used. In 2008, no maximum front setback had been required. Now, however, a maximum front setback of 50 feet is required on at least one of the site’s three front property lines. A planned project status would allow that requirement to be waived. The existing foundation is set back 72.4 feet from the north property line.

A public benefit is required in order to secure the planned project status. The developer cited the benefit as using the existing infrastructure.

According to a staff report, a pedestrian crossing on Jackson Avenue is proposed from the Hampton Inn site to Hilltop Drive, which runs parallel to and south of Jackson and is separated by a landscaping island. The Ann Arbor Transportation Authority plans to relocate a bus stop on eastbound Jackson Avenue to be near this crosswalk, which would be just west of Mason Avenue.

Because Jackson Avenue is under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, MDOT must review the plans for this development. The planning staff memo also states that footing drains of 10 homes must be disconnected to offset the project’s increased sanitary sewer flow.

In giving the staff briefing on June 18, city planner Jill Thacher noted that a large berm runs the length of Jackson along the site, creating a steep hill with nine landmark trees and other landscaping. Over 200 trees stand on the site, she said. Stormwater management is handled through a series of three ponds, with a spillway onto the MDOT right-of-way along I-94.

Thacher also noted that the draft development agreement will need to include language related to the new crosswalk and sidewalks, indicating the responsibilities of the Hampton Inn for snow removal and maintenance.

Also requested was a modification to requirements of Chapter 62 – the city’s landscape and screening ordinance. That ordinance requires that at least 50% of the site’s interior landscape area be depressed bioretention and used for stormwater management. This site plan proposes 39% bioretention in one large area in front of the Hampton Inn.

The city’s planning staff recommended approval of the project.

Hampton Inn Proposal: Public Hearing

Andy Wakeland – the project’s civil engineer with Giffels-Webster Engineers of Washington Township, Mich. – introduced himself and others involved with the project, including Jeff Ryntz of Victor Saroki & Associates Architects of Birmington, Mich.

Akram Namou of A&M Hospitality is owner of the Hampton Inn project on Jackson Avenue.

Wakeland reviewed the project’s history, noting that the foundation had been put in place just as the “economy tanked” in 2008, leading to a suspension of construction. The intent was always to continue when the financing became available, “and now is that time,” he said. Wakeland reviewed other aspects of the project, including parking and bioretention.

Ryntz brought a rendering of the hotel and a sample board of masonry and other materials that they plan to use. He described the design and explained how the project goes beyond the standards that are required by the Hampton Inn franchise.

Akram Namou of A&M Hospitality and Executive Hospitality introduced himself as the owner. The project shows his firm commitment to the city of Ann Arbor, he told commissioners. Several years ago because of the recession, there was no financing available. Even so, with his own personal funds and personal loans, he started the project, hoping he would be able to continue it with other financing. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen “and I had to take a break,” Namou said. Now, however, he has secured financing to pursue the project. The Hampton Inn, which is owned by Hilton, is an upscale brand, he said, and it will make a nice addition to the area.

The final speaker was Steve Beisheim, an Ann Arbor resident. It sounds like a good project, he said, but he had some concerns about walkability. He urged commissioners to think about who uses the sidewalk, and about the impact of the parking lot in terms of pedestrians and the quality of life for everyone who lives in that area. He understood that parking needs to be located somewhere, but would it be better to have it out in front or out of the way? It might sound trite, he said, but those kinds of things add up. The planning commission needs to put these things into their rules, he said, because people won’t come up with it themselves unless there’s some kind of guide.

Hampton Inn Proposal: Commission Discussion

Diane Giannola started by raising a concern about the driveway into the Hampton Inn, noting that it was directly across the street from the entrance to Weber’s Inn. She asked if it was considered better planning to align the driveways this way, or to have them offset slightly. Jill Thacher replied that it’s better to align driveways, to create fewer conflict points for freeflowing traffic. Giannola worried that drivers would try to go straight across Jackson Avenue from Hampton Inn to Weber’s, and that the configuration would encourage them to do that. Thacher noted that the Hampton Inn exit onto Jackson would be right-turn only, but she could envision people trying to cross over into Weber’s.

Sabra Briere asked several questions about the sidewalks. She first asked what kind of sidewalk maintenance would be required in the development agreement. Thacher said it would entail keeping the snow shoveled in the winter, and keeping it open to pedestrians year-round. She noted that a section of sidewalk is on the MDOT right-of-way, so the development agreement would need to clarify “who’s responsible for what, and where.”

Thacher also clarified that the sidewalk doesn’t connect to other sidewalks. On the site’s east side it stops at the eastbound I-94 ramp, and on the west side it stops at the property line, adjacent to a vacant parcel. Briere asked whether a sidewalk would be required on the vacant parcel when it’s developed. Yes, Thacher replied, if the property is in the city.

Responding to remarks made during public commentary, Ken Clein noted that the sidewalk is close to the road, between the road and the parking lot. Because of the landscaping there, he didn’t think the parking lot would have a big visual impact on people who used the sidewalk. Clein, an architect, also asked some clarificational questions about the building materials that would be used, as well as the building’s design.

Wendy Woods asked how the two hotels would work together. The owner, Akram Namou, noted that he’s been in this business for many years. Based on his experience, these two hotels will complement each other perfectly. The Clarion is a full-service hotel, with meeting rooms, banquet rooms and a restaurant, he explained, while Hampton Inn is a limited-service hotel for strictly transient and corporate business. There are economies of scale for management, staff and marketing, he said.

Woods also noted that there are bicycle parking spaces planned for the site plan. Would bikes be made available for guests? she asked. Andy Wakeland replied that the bike spaces are required by city code. Normally, he said, there would unlikely be many pedestrians or bicyclists coming to the site. Planning manager Wendy Rampson added that it’s likely those bike parking spaces would be used by the hotel staff.

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Wendy Woods.

Woods also asked about the AATA bus stop that would be located on the south side of Jackson. How would traffic be handled, so that people could cross the street between the bus stop and Hampton Inn? She wondered if MDOT would put in a crosswalk signal there – like the high intensity activated crosswalk (HAWK) traffic signal at the intersection of Chapin and Huron. Thacher indicated that MDOT isn’t planning to do anything like that, other than installing pedestrian crossing signs.

Woods said her concern is that this is one of the worst places she could imagine a pedestrian trying to cross, given the entrance ramp to I-94, which she felt would cause people to increase their speed. Other factors include people coming off of I-94 onto eastbound Jackson, and people trying to turn into Weber’s. She indicated that it might be one of the first issues that Eric Mahler will take up as he moves from the planning commission to the AATA board. Wakeland responded, saying the location of the proposed crosswalk was the best possible place for it, because it goes to a center island between westbound and eastbound Jackson – rather than going across all lanes at once. He ventured that people might actually slow down to turn onto the I-94 ramp.

Bonnie Bona clarified with Thacher that only one public benefit is listed in the staff report because that’s the only public benefit claimed for the project. That category of benefit is: “An arrangement of buildings which provides a public benefit, such as transit access, pedestrian orientation, or a reduced need for infrastructure or impervious surface.” Bona wanted to know what the other possible benefits might be, in order to qualify for a planned project.

As outlined in Chapter 55 (Zoning) of the city code, in the section regarding planned projects:

(b) The proposed modifications of zoning requirements must provide one or more of the following:

1. Usable open space in excess of the minimum requirement for the zoning district. Where no minimum usable open space standard is required by the zoning district, a minimum usable open space standard shall be established by the approval of the planned project.

2. Building or parking setback(s) in excess of the minimum requirement for the zoning district. Where no minimum building or parking setback is required by the zoning district, a minimum setback standard shall be established by approval of the planned project.

3. Preservation of natural features that exceeds ordinance requirements, especially for those existing features prioritized in the land development regulations as being of highest and mid-level concern.

4. Preservation of historical or architectural features.

5. Solar orientation or energy conserving design.

6. An arrangement of buildings which provides a public benefit, such as transit access, pedestrian orientation, or a reduced need for infrastructure or impervious surface.

7. Affordable housing for lower income households.

8. A recorded conservation easement or similar binding instrument providing for permanent open space of 20 percent or more of the planned project, in any residential zoning district allowing 3 or fewer dwelling units per acre.

Bona voiced concern about pedestrian and bicycle access to the site. The site plan looks like a lot of emphasis was put on vehicular circulation, “and the sidewalk is an afterthought,” she said. Bona accepted that it makes sense to put the building on the existing footings – it was a benefit to the property owner. But when the list of public benefits provided by a planned project mentions infrastructure, it’s referring to the city’s infrastructure, not the infrastructure of private landowners. “So I’m not going to take this as a benefit. I’m going to try to get something else instead,” she said – transit access and pedestrian orientation. “There has got to be a better way.”

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Bonnie Bona.

Ann Arbor is one of the top 10 cities in the country for bicycle use, as a percentage of the population, Bona noted. So she didn’t want to hear excuses about how no one would use the sidewalk along Jackson. It might take a while for the rest of the sidewalk connection to be built, but there are a lot of cyclists, she said. Ann Arbor also has a growing retiree population too, and the need to use the bus services will only increase. Bona said she was setting the stage for putting more emphasis on the sidewalks. She clarified with the owner that the building is expected to last more than 20 years, and noted that pedestrian and bicycle use will only increase during the hotel’s lifespan.

Bona suggested that the site plan could be designed first by looking at the best ways to incorporate pedestrian walkways, then looking at how to work in parking around that – rather than the reverse. For example, how would a pedestrian get from the Clarion to the Hampton, or from the bus stop to the main entrance of the hotels? She expressed skepticism that pedestrians would actually use the proposed sidewalks, indicating that they’d likely just cut across the parking lot since that’s a more straightforward route to the hotel.

Wakeland noted that Hampton Inn officials would be reviewing the site plans too, and would want to reduce liability by making the pedestrian walkways as safe as possible. Bona argued that constructing sidewalks along routes that people would actually use is a safer approach. “If [pedestrians] are going to cut across anyhow, you’ve created an unsafe situation, because you have not provided a [sidewalk] where they’re going to walk,” she said.

Bona said she didn’t see a benefit in the site plan, so she wouldn’t be able to vote in favor of the project. She suggested postponing the item, with direction for the project team to design sidewalks “that make more sense” for everyone, including employees.

Bona also wondered why the proposed sidewalk along Jackson Avenue did not run next to the parking lot. When Wakeland indicated that they were trying not to impact landmark trees, Bona replied: “I don’t know when someone decided that you can’t put a sidewalk somewhere because of a landmark tree, but you can take landmark trees down for a building … or parking lot.”

Briere noted that it was a good thing to be talking about sidewalks, because it showed that commissioners were concerned about future access to the site. Sidewalks aren’t decorative, she noted – they’re useful. And if they’re going to be useful, they need to actually lead people somewhere.

Responding to queries from Briere, Namou indicated that the Clarion has about 5,000-6,000 square feet of conference space, and a conference might draw 200-300 people. It’s important to make traveling between the two hotels as attractive as possible, Briere said. She urged Namou to consider making the sidewalks attractive as an amenity – for exercise, or to take a break during a conference. As designed now, the sidewalks don’t lead anywhere, she noted. In order to be an amenity for the city, the sidewalks need to serve a purpose.

Wakeland made a suggestion for changing the sidewalk configuration to include a sidewalk that would lead to the Clarion entrance. He hoped the commission would give approval contingent on working with planning staff to make those changes.

Mahler wondered how the sidewalks would be lit, especially from Jackson Avenue. Wakeland noted that the lighting will be on the hotel site – and the city code prohibits light from spilling off site.

Mahler said Bona had posed an interesting challenge, to make the site pedestrian-oriented rather than car-oriented. He’d support seeing some alternative designs. He joked that he wouldn’t mind postponing, especially since he wouldn’t be here to deal with it later. [It was Mahler's last meeting as a planning commissioner.]

Giannola and Clein also weighed in to support postponement to address pedestrian issues. However, Clein urged commissioners to keep in mind the site’s location – between an MDOT business route [Jackson Avenue] and I-94. Although it might be different in a future world that doesn’t have cars, he said, the site now doesn’t connect well with other things. Most people don’t walk to a hotel, he said. “It’s not a downtown site. It’s a car-oriented site.”

Kirk Westphal, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Kirk Westphal said he was struck that the proposed sidewalks don’t acknowledge that people might want to walk from the Clarion or Hampton Inn over to Weber’s. People will probably want to do that, he said. Wakeland noted that a sidewalk such as one that Westphal proposed would need MDOT approval, since it would be partly in the MDOT right of way.

Wakeland reported that the site plan design had gone through several iterations, in part to make the sidewalks as amenable as possible. “I’m a walking fan myself, and a biking fan as well,” Wakeland said. “So I get what you’re going for.” He noted that this area is for a hotel use, and again hoped commissioners wouldn’t postpone the project. He offered to work with city staff on alternatives, and hoped that the commission would recommend approval contingent on that.

Responding to a question from Westphal, Rampson reported that the city has no standards for parking lot layout other than the aisle width and parking space size. Nor are there standards for pedestrian configuration within a parking lot. So the planning staff tends to look for the safest pedestrian crossings, with factors like visibility, the least amount of traffic and turns, and logical connections. Regarding sidewalk access to the Weber’s site, Rampson noted that the entrance into Weber’s off Jackson is not a clean turn – it’s a slip ramp. It’s something that the staff can continue to look at, she said, regardless of the commission’s decision on postponement.

Bona said she appreciated Briere’s perspective. Bona stays at hotels often when she travels – driving to the hotel, then going for a walk or a run after she’s there. She could imagine someone going for a run in the residential neighborhood south of Jackson. The idea of making a pleasant pathway through the hotel site was appealing to her, and she suggested that it could be made of asphalt, which would be cheaper than concrete. She stated that if the owner wasn’t interested in changing the site plan, she’d just vote against it.

Woods suggested looping the sidewalk through the landscaped area, so that it could be a kind of nature path – that might count as a public amenity. Wakeland cited issues with the steep grade and landmark trees.

When no commissioners put forward a motion to vote on the project, Wakeland said if the project was postponed, he hoped it could be put on the agenda for the commission’s next meeting, which falls on July 2. When Woods expressed concern that the project still needs MDOT approval, Bona pointed out that the only thing requiring MDOT approval related to the crossing on Jackson. Clein added that anything in the MDOT right of way – including landscaping or sidewalks – would also need approval.

Wakeland reported that MDOT has already reviewed the plan and has indicated that the plan is “approvable,” although the agency won’t officially sign off until it sees the final civil engineering plans.

Bona made a motion to postpone.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone action on this proposal.

Master Plan Review

Planning commissioners were asked to adopt a master plan resolution and list of resource documents used to support the master plan. This is part of an annual evaluation of the master plan that’s required by the commission’s bylaws.

Commissioners had held a public hearing on suggestions related to the master plan at their May 21, 2013. That hearing drew six speakers on a range of topics, including development in Lowertown, a park in downtown Ann Arbor, and adequate sidewalks, cleared of vegetation, so that kids can walk to school safely. On May 21 commissioners also had discussed possible revisions, primarily related to supporting documents. However, on the advice of planning staff, commissioners postponed action until their June 18 meeting.

From left: Ann Arbor planning manager Wendy Rampson and planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

Seven documents constitute the city’s master plan: (1) sustainability framework, adopted in 2013; (2) parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, as adopted in 2011; (3) land use element, as adopted in 2013 to add the South State corridor plan; (4) downtown plan, as adopted in 2009; (5) transportation plan update, as adopted in 2009; (6) non-motorized transportation plan, adopted in 2007; and (7) natural features master plan, adopted in 2004.

In briefing commissioners on June 18, planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that changes to the master plan include updating the date for the land use element from 2009 to 2013, to reflect this year’s addition of the South State corridor plan.

In addition, the June 18 resolution stated that in the coming fiscal year, the planning commission will: (1) complete the non-motorized transportation plan update; (2) continue to develop a corridor plan for Washtenaw Avenue and begin to develop a corridor plan for North Main Street to address land use, transportation and economic development in these areas; and (3) assist in developing a sustainability action plan, in coordination with the energy commission, the environmental commission, the park advisory commission, the housing commission, and the housing and human services advisory board.

There is also a list of resource documents that are used to support the master plan. [.pdf of resource document list]

The June 18 recommendation from staff, based on feedback from the May 21 meeting, was to adopt a revised list of resource documents, with two new additions: (1) the Downtown Vision and Policy Framework (known as the Calthorpe study), adopted in 2006; and (2) the Huron River Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP), as adopted in 2009.

Earlier this year, on March 5, 2013, the planning commission had voted to add the Connecting William Street study to the list of resource documents – a move that generated some controversy.

Master Plan Review: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona noted that at the May 21 meeting, she had indicated interest in adding the 2007 Allen Creek Greenway task force report to the list of resource documents. She proposed to amend the resolution updating the list of resource documents. Her rationale was that work is being done that affects the greenway, including proposals for the city-owned site at 721 N. Main, which will have a pathway through it.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson explained that the greenway task force report covered three city-owned properties, including 721 N. Main. Bona noted that the other two sites – 415 W. Washington and property at First & William – are still undeveloped. “The major piece is the concept of connectivity along that path,” she said. That concept is also incorporated into the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, Bona noted.

Bona thought the greenway report would be useful for discussions about how property that’s adjacent to the greenway gets developed – especially related to the floodway. The report included a lot of public input, she noted.

Wendy Woods and Sabra Briere both indicated support for adding the greenway report. Briere cited the usefulness of the report, primarily to inform zoning and planning of the areas adjacent to the greenway as it begins to form. Right now, much of that area is zoned for a certain type of residential development, she noted. But some people are looking at the area of a future greenway for commercial or higher-density housing, she said. It would be valuable to incorporate the greenway report along with the Calthorpe report, which also touched on the idea of a greenway. “How the city interacts with a proposed greenway will be a very valuable thing for us to think about as we keep our master plans refreshed,” Briere concluded.

Responding to a query from Kirk Westphal, Rampson described the greenway report’s recommendations as a starting point for discussions about modifying the master plan. She noted that the master plan is the official planning document, which can be informed by these supporting resource documents.

Outcome on amendment: Commissioner unanimously approved the amendment adding the Allen Creek greenway task force report as a resource document.

The remainder of the discussion was brief. Woods asked whether the resource documents were available online. Rampson replied that the documents can be downloaded from the master plan’s website, and that she would update that site with the added documents.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the master plan resolution and master plan resource document list, as amended.

Planning Commission Work Plan

At their June 4, 2013 working session, planning commissioners had discussed a work plan for both staff and the commission in the coming fiscal year, which begins July 1. Commissioners had identified projects and issues to tackle, as well as longer-range goals. [.pdf of FY 2013-14 work plan]

The most pressing of those short-term projects is the review of A2D2 zoning as directed by the city council, with a deadline of Oct. 1 to deliver recommendations to council. The primary focus of that is the downtown D1-D2 zoning, especially in light of the controversial 413 E. Huron development, which the council recently approved. The plan is to bring in a consultant to manage that zoning review, because the planning staff right now doesn’t have the capacity to take it on.

In addition to the A2D2 zoning review, other short-term efforts in the work plan related to master planning and ordinance revisions are:

• An action plan for the city’s sustainability framework. Completion target: September 2013.
• Implementation of sustainability action plan. Completion target: To be determined.
• Evaluation of the citizen participation ordinance. Completion target: October 2013.
• The non-motorized plan update. Completion target: October 2013.
• Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Reorganization (ZORO). Completion target: December 2013.
• Capital improvements plan (CIP) – second year update. Completion target: December 2013.
• Amendments to R4C/R2A zoning. Completion target: March 2014.
• Floodplain ordinance/flood insurance impacts. Completion target: March 2014.
• “Redevelopment Ready Communities” certification. Completion target: March 2014.
• Amendments to the land use element of the city’s master plan for two corridors plans – Washtenaw Avenue and North Main/Huron River. Completion target: June 2014.
• ZORO Phase 2. Completion target: June 2014.
• Sign ordinance amendments. Completion target: June 2014.

Several longer-term efforts are on the commission’s work plan too, including amendments to the city’s accessory dwelling unit ordinance and neighborhood outreach.

Bonnie Bona asked if the planning staff could support this schedule, and wondered what the challenges might be. Planning manager Wendy Rampson said the major challenge is the unknown of development reviews and permit reviews – it’s difficult to know what projects might be coming forward. For example, a project on a 54-acre parcel on Nixon Road will be coming in August, she said. That will be a fairly substantial review. And the staff has already started a Traverwood Apartments review, which is another substantial project.

“If we only have one of those a month, that’s fine,” Rampson said. But if three or four major projects are submitted each month like in “the old days,” she said, then that will limit the staff’s time that can be spent on items in the work plan. It’s possible to use consultants when appropriate, she said, although someone on staff would still have to manage the project. For example, the city staff doesn’t have the expertise to handle the sign ordinance amendments, so that’s probably a project that will require a consultant.

Rampson noted that when city planner Alexis DiLeo goes on maternity leave, the city will hire a temporary planner during that period. Even though there will be a learning curve for that person, she said, at least the staff will have the same number of people.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the FY 2013-14 work plan.

Appointments, Farewells

June 18 was the last meeting for planning commissioners Tony Derezinski and Eric Mahler. Mahler has been appointed to the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, and attended his first board meeting for that group on June 20, 2013.

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola talks with Paras Parekh, who has been appointed to the commission to replace Eric Mahler. Parekh attended the June 18 meeting as an observer, and will join the group after July 1.

He’ll be replaced by Paras Parekh, who was confirmed by the city council at its May 20, 2013 meeting. Parekh attended the planning commission’s June 18 meeting as an observer, and will be joining the group after July 1. He is director of marketing and membership for the University of Michigan alumni association, and received his undergrad degree in economics from UM. He has worked in marketing for about a decade, and spent two years as a legislative aide in the U.S. House of Representatives working for Congresswoman Lynn Rivers.

Derezinski, a former city councilmember, had been expected to be reappointed. His name had appeared on the list distributed to the council at its June 3 meeting as a nomination to the planning commission, but mayor John Hieftje did not read Derezinski’s name aloud that evening as a nomination. Instead, at the June 17, 2013 council meeting, Hieftje nominated Jeremy Peters to replace Derezinski, whose term ends June 30. Peters works in creative licensing and business affairs with Ghostly Songs. A council vote to confirm his appointment will take place on July 1.

On June 17, the council did vote to reappoint planning commissioner Bonnie Bona. Also reappointed was councilmember Sabra Briere, who serves as the council’s representative on the commission, for a term through Nov. 7, 2013. At that point the membership on the new, post-election city council will be settled. Briere is running for re-election and is unopposed in the Aug. 6 Democratic primary, but might face opposition in November from independent candidate Jaclyn Vresics. Vresics has taken out petitions for the Ward 1 seat but has not yet filed them with the city clerk’s office. The deadline for independent candidates to submit petitions is Aug. 7.

Near the start of the June 18 meeting, planning commissioners and staff said farewell to Mahler and Derezinski. Kirk Westphal, the commission’s chair, said the commission was honored by their service and saddened by their departure.

“I feel like our ballast is leaving,” Bonnie Bona said.

There are a lot of idealists on the commission trying to get things done, Bona noted, and the two attorneys have provided a lot of common sense practicality that’s useful – especially when some commissioners “wander off into areas that are more of our personal desire than something we can actually do,” Bona said. She’d miss that quality, and said their absence would likely make her become more practical.

Diane Giannola appreciated their “forward thinking,” especially regarding the Washtenaw Avenue and South State Street corridor studies. They’ve been more future-driven, she said, rather than “trying to just have the city stay the same. Even though sometimes that’s unpopular, I for one as a resident have always appreciated that.” She also said their legal orientation will be missed.

Wendy Woods agreed that the commission would miss the “wise comments that you gave to us, even if we didn’t always agree with you.” She thanked them for their service, and looked forward to seeing them in their future endeavors.

Sabra Briere acknowledged that she never really got to know Mahler, although she got to observe him across the table. She hoped to get to know him better as he continues his service to the city on the AATA board. However, she did get to know Derezinski, she said, because she sat next to him for four years on city council. The fact that there are different voices and viewpoints at the table, all trying to do the best for the community, “is what makes this board so rich, this community so wealthy,” she said.

Westphal highlighted Derezinski’s emphasis on collaboration. It seems to be getting more difficult to do these days, he said, but Derezinski has always “stayed the course.” Westphal appreciated Derezinski’s “quiet work” outside of the commission, citing the Reimagine Washtenaw project and issues related to aging. Those efforts bear great fruit in the long run, Westphal noted, but it takes a lot of work to get there. He cited Mahler’s service as planning commission chair as helping Westphal’s current tenure in that position. Westphal also appreciated Mahler’s ability to keep the commission on task and ensure that projects moved forward, as well as his legal expertise.

Sabra Briere, an Ann Arbor city councilmember who also serves on the city’s planning commission.

Westphal said commissioners would miss both Mahler and Derezinski, “both faithful co-pilots of the Blue Tractor as well” – a reference to the fact that some commissioners go to that local bar after meetings adjourn.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson told Mahler and Derezinski that she had valued their leadership on the commission. It’s a citizen body that demands a lot of its members, she noted, meeting almost weekly. She knew that sometimes Mahler wanted things to move forward more quickly, “but you are eminently patient.” It will be great to see his service continue on the AATA as that agency grows and becomes more important to the region, she said.

Rampson noted that Derezinski is “always good for a new idea.” Sometimes, that would cause her to brace herself when she saw him approaching, Rampson joked, but he brought enthusiasm and commitment to all his work. His emphasis on regional planning was a great vision. Both of them will be “sorely missed,” she said.

Derezinski told commissioners that he had to leave the meeting early for a family responsibility, “so I’m leaving not with a bang but with a whimper.” He thanked commissioners for the pleasure of their company. The commission is unique, he said, in that it works on tough decisions and respects each other. Strong feelings never escalate to personal, ad hominem attacks – it’s always been collegial and civil, he said, which is important. He recalled the ritual that he and Briere had on council, when they would bring each other coffee. Little things like that helped bridge the gap when they disagreed on issues, he said. It’s the kind of thing that makes government work well.

Derezinski also praised the city’s planning staff, saying that they were incredibly smart and hard-working. That’s not an accident, he said – it’s the result of leadership, goodwill and friendship. He thanked everyone for the wonderful time he’s had on the commission over the last four and a half years.

Regarding their gatherings at the Blue Tractor, Derezinski said they should remember the words of a poet whose name he couldn’t recall [A. E. Housman]: “And malt does more than Milton can. To justify God’s ways to man.”

Mahler thanked everyone, saying he enjoyed every minute on the commission. It’s mind blowing how much has been accomplished over the last six years, he said. He’s proud of that work, which was done respectfully and collegially. His work takes him around southeast Michigan and the state, and people envy Ann Arbor, he said. That envy in large part reflects the results of work by the planning staff and commission, he said.

Other commissioners gave the two outgoing members a round of applause.

Communications & Commentary

During the meeting there were several opportunities for communications from staff and commissioners, as well as two general public commentary times. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Public Commentary

Steve Beisheim spoke during the first opportunity for public commentary. He’d been reading a book called “Suburban Nation,” and watching a lot of videos by the authors. It’s mind-blowing, he said. The way that cities have been built out, the tax base doesn’t cover cost of the infrastructure. Even if federal funding is available to build infrastructure, local governments can’t afford to maintain it. From what he’s read, all the cities are doing things the same way, with regard to zoning, he said. That’s why every gas station is the same across the country, he said. There are other options, even though people tend to go against their best interests. He told commissioners that he’s trying to educate himself and see how they work, and hopefully he can be a positive influence in the future.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Ken Clein (arrived at 8 p.m.), Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods.

Absent: Eleanore Adenekan.

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, July 2, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [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.

At a June 4, 2013 work session, Wendy Rampson – the city of Ann Arbor’s planning manager – wrote down topics that the planning staff and commission will address in the short term, including an evaluation of A2D2 zoning. (Photos by the writer.)

The evaluation was positive, with most of the discussion focused on increasing collaboration with the city council and other city boards and commissions. The possibility of holding a joint session with members of the city council was raised, though some commissioners expressed skepticism about it. Ken Clein noted the challenge would be to avoid posturing by councilmembers, saying it might be difficult to have a productive discussion in a public forum. Wendy Woods observed that sometimes the planning commission is used for political cover. If a joint session is “just for show,” she said, then planning commissioners have better ways to spend their time.

Sabra Briere, a Ward 1 councilmember who serves on the planning commission, cited some benefits for a joint session: “If you want to work with council, sitting in the same room and at least getting a sense of where this year’s crop of councilpeople are can’t hurt – and it can help the council.”

Regarding the work plan, commissioners identified projects and issues to tackle in the coming fiscal year, which begins July 1, as well as longer-range goals.

The most pressing of those short-term projects is the review of A2D2 zoning as directed by the city council, with a deadline of Oct. 1 to deliver recommendations to council. The primary focus of that is the downtown D1-D2 zoning, especially in light of the controversial 413 E. Huron development, which the council recently approved. Rampson said the plan is to bring in a consultant to manage that zoning review, because the planning staff right now doesn’t have the capacity to take it on. It also helps to have someone look at the issue from a fresh perspective, she said.

Other projects for the coming fiscal year include: (1) developing an action plan for the city’s sustainability framework; (2) completing the Zoning Ordinance Reorganization (ZORO) effort; (3) recommending amendments to the R4C/R2A zoning districts; (4) working on certification for the state’s “Redevelopment Ready Communities” program; and (5) making amendments to the city’s master plan for two corridors plans – Washtenaw Avenue and North Main/Huron River.

Several longer-term efforts are on the commission’s work plan too, including amendments to the city’s accessory dwelling unit ordinance and neighborhood outreach.

Commissioners voted to approve the work plan at their regular meeting on June 18.

Planning Staff Evaluation: Collaboration

The planning commission gives an annual formal evaluation of the city’s planning manager and staff. Commissioners had completed a survey, and spent part of the June 4 working session reviewing the results of that survey. [.pdf of evaluation survey results] The session was also attended by Sharie Sell of the city’s human resources department.

Ken Clein noted that the evaluation was “overwhelmingly positive.” Much of the commission’s conversation focused on the issue of collaboration, and an interest in increasing the planning staff and planning commission’s collaboration with other city boards and commissions, as well as with the city council.

Collaboration was mention explicitly in some of the commissioners’ survey responses, which were made anonymously:

City Council can be tough, especially when they aren’t in the trenches…hang in there and let CPC know when we can be more proactively helpful. Would an annual joint working session be helpful (maybe including a couple other commissions that may have valuable input on current issues)?

I’d like to see us include other commissions (or at least a representative or two) when dealing with Energy, Environment, Parks, Housing, etc.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson wondered if some kind of collaborative element was important enough to add to the commission’s regular schedule, or whether it should be handled at the committee level.

Sabra Briere, a city councilmember who serves on the planning commission as the council’s representative, reported that the city administrator, Steve Powers, recently asked her if she thought a joint session between the council and planning commission would be useful.

Wendy Woods, a former city councilmember, wondered whether the point of a joint session would be to work on a specific issue, or whether other commissioners felt there was a general need for better communication and collaboration. She noted that the environmental commission includes representatives from other commissions, including planning. Perhaps that’s a model that should be adopted by more commissions, Woods said.

Sabra Briere serves on the city council and planning commission.

Diane Giannola worried that joint meetings of the planning commission and city council would bring politics into the commission’s work. She wasn’t interested in regular sessions with the council. Briere clarified that the idea was for a once-a-year working session, not regular meetings.

Ken Clein noted that the challenge would be to make sure that councilmembers aren’t just posturing. There are certainly issues in the community that warrant discussion, he said, citing possible changes to the R4C and D1 zoning, as well as other land use issues along the city’s main corridors. The challenge is to get people together in a productive atmosphere. It’s even more difficult to do in a public meeting, Clein said.

Briere recalled a joint meeting with the council and planning commission – held at the Community Television Network studios – that she described as very valuable. [That session, held in September 2009, also included members of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and focused on developing downtown design guidelines.]

Briere said she understood the concerns about politics and posturing. But she also hears people on council and on the planning commission say they’re waiting for direction from the other entity. The council is looking to the planning commission to help create a vision, she said.

Woods noted that sometimes the “help” is really the council looking for political cover. She observed that sometimes a member of the council will talk about taking an issue to the DDA to see what the DDA will do – even though that same person sits on the DDA board. [She didn't mention him by name, but mayor John Hieftje is the only person current serving on the council who also serves on the DDA board.] Woods pointed out that the planning commission is only advisory, so it concerns her when the council – as an elected body – isn’t the entity that’s creating a vision for the city.

Briere replied that each councilmember has a vision for the city, but that doesn’t mean the council as a whole has a collective vision. In that case, Woods said, perhaps the council needs a facilitator.

In that regard, Briere highlighted a council retreat late last year that focused on developing budget priorities. [See Chronicle coverage: "Council Focus: Budget, Safety, Infrastructure."] It was the first time that the council as a group had worked together to develop some consensus statements, she said. “If you want to work with council, sitting in the same room and at least getting a sense of where this year’s crop of councilpeople are can’t hurt – and it can help the council,” Briere said.

Woods responded, saying that councilmembers can pretend like they’re taking advice from the planning commission, but then they’ll just count votes to make their decisions, and use the commission for political cover. She noted that some councilmembers have told her that they’re glad she’s made certain comments in public. Why don’t those councilmembers feel like they can make the same kind of statements? Woods said that if people want to have a joint meeting and really listen to each other, that’s fine. But if it’s “just for show,” she added, the planning commissioners have a lot of work to do and have better ways to spend their time.

Briere replied: “I’m being the messenger.” The council hasn’t discussed having joint meetings, or raised these issues, she noted. The city administrator had queried her about it, as have some people who sit on other city boards and commissions, who are interested in talking about D1 zoning. “They want to talk about some of the impacts they see,” Briere said.

Giannola feared that a joint session would involve councilmembers trying to persuade planning commissioners to take action in a certain way. Briere reiterated that the council as a whole hasn’t talked about holding a joint session.

Rampson brought the conversation back to the topic of the evaluation, asking whether the staff should look for more collaborative opportunities, or take their cues from commissioners in terms of next steps. “We can be as proactive or opportunistic as you want us to be,” she noted, but it sounded to her like direction might need to come from commissioners or the council.

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Wendy Woods, who formerly served on city council.

Bonnie Bona cited the city’s master plan as the area in which the council and planning commission overlaps the most, from a voting perspective. By law, both the council and planning commission must approve the same version of any document in the master plan.

Relative to D1 and D2 zoning, Bona thought it would be great to get together with other commissions and the council. There’s a high level of interest, she said, and it’s better to be as inclusive as possible in those discussions. But perhaps those discussions can focus on the master plan level, as opposed to the zoning level, she added. If they were to hold just one joint session, Bona felt that should be the topic.

Bona also thought a well-facilitated discussion on R4C zoning would be useful, focused on “what are we trying to do?” rather than “how are we doing it?” She felt that R4C might get “hung up” in the details, and getting on the same page regarding the intent of the zoning would be helpful so that the process doesn’t “self implode.” It’ll be messy, Bona said.

Another possible joint-session topic would be the action items for the sustainability framework, Bona said. That issue covers more than just planning issues.

Bona also noted that the commission’s executive committee has in the past been responsible for council relations, and she suggested letting that committee decide when to bring in the council on any of these issues. Conversations in that committee can be more in-depth, she said, and they could strategize about the best use of everyone’s time. [As the commission's secretary, Bona currently serves on the executive committee. Other members are the chair (Kirk Westphal) and vice chair (Wendy Woods).]

Commissioners also talked about the need for a facilitator for any joint session, so that it would free participants – commissioners, council and staff – to engage fully in the discussion.

Their June 4 discussion was wide-ranging, and frequently circled back to other issues related to the city council. One issue raised was the length of recent meetings, which have lasted past midnight. Woods suggested that the council might consider doing things differently, possibly by starting meetings earlier in the day. Currently, council meetings begin at 7 p.m. She indicated that it’s hard for people to think straight at such late hours, and noted that some cities hold their council meetings during the day.

Briere pointed out that some councilmembers work during the day. She felt that daytime meetings actually limited participation by the public, because most people have jobs that would prevent them from attending a meeting before 5 p.m.

Briere also observed that until the past year, council meetings didn’t extend as late as they do now. The meeting length isn’t necessarily related to the number of public hearings or presentations, she said, although it can be. “It’s often a factor of who sits at the table,” she said. “There are times when individuals are more loquacious, ask more questions, and have more opportunity to speak – and that extends the discussion time for any given item.”

Briere recalled when the former Ann Arbor News used to publish a “council clock” to record the length of council meetings. [This was during the late 1990s, when meetings also ran long.] Westphal jokingly asked if the clock indicated how long each councilmember spoke. Briere said it hadn’t been that sophisticated, although now it would be easier to do that. She noted that if that were done today, people would note that some councilmembers never speak. That might be because some councilmembers don’t feel the need to extend the discussion, she said.

FY 2014 Work Plan

Commissioners also spent more than half of the June 4 session discussing the work plan for both the commission and planning staff. They identified projects and issues to tackle in the coming fiscal year, which begins July 1, as well as longer-range goals.

Kirk Westphal, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson highlighted several “must do” tasks for FY 2014. The most pressing of those is the review of A2D2 zoning as directed by the city council, with a deadline of Oct. 1 to deliver recommendations to the council. The primary focus of that is the downtown D1-D2 zoning. She said the plan is to hire a consultant to manage that effort, because the planning staff right now doesn’t have the capacity to take it on. It also helps to have someone look at the issue from a fresh perspective, she said.

The commission’s ordinance revisions committee will take the lead on that project. Members include Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods. Westphal noted that a review of A2D2 zoning had been part of the commission’s work plan, even before the council directive. That directive had been spurred by a controversial development at 413 E. Huron, at the corner of Huron and Division. The site is zoned D1, the highest density allowed, and developers are building a 14-story apartment building there. The council voted 6-5 to approve the project at its May 13, 2013 meeting.

Sabra Briere, who also serves on the council, noted that councilmember Marcia Higgins has reestablished the design review committee to review the city’s downtown design guidelines and process. Rampson reported that the planning staff is not staffing that effort, so it’s not part of the work plan. Westphal, who served  on the original design review committee, was nominated again but declined to participate on the current iteration.

In addition to the A2D2 zoning review, other short-term efforts in the work plan related to master planning and ordinance revisions are:

• An action plan for the city’s sustainability framework. Completion target: September 2013.
• Implementation of sustainability action plan. Completion target: To be determined.
• Evaluation of the citizen participation ordinance. Completion target: October 2013.
• The non-motorized plan update. Completion target: October 2013.
• Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Reorganization (ZORO). Completion target: December 2013.
• Capital improvements plan (CIP) – second year update. Completion target: December 2013.
• Amendments to R4C/R2A zoning. Completion target: March 2014.
• Floodplain ordinance/flood insurance impacts. Completion target: March 2014.
• “Redevelopment Ready Communities” certification. Completion target: March 2014.
• Amendments to the land use element of the city’s master plan for two corridors plans – Washtenaw Avenue and North Main/Huron River. Completion target: June 2014.
• ZORO Phase 2. Completion target: June 2014.
• Sign ordinance amendments. Completion target: June 2014.

Some of these projects will require more heavy lifting than others by the planning commission and staff. Regarding the ZORO project, which has been in the works for years, Rampson noted that when the staff has completed the draft revisions, it will likely take quite a bit of work to move forward – first by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee, then by the full planning commission.

Regarding the status of the R4C zoning changes, Rampson noted that earlier in the meeting, commissioners had discussed the possibility of holding a joint session with the council on this topic. After everyone agrees on the items that should be implemented, she said, then the staff and commission can work on an implementation plan. The commission’s recommendations on R4C/R2A zoning changes were provided to the council as an item of communication on May 20, 2013. “They probably barely even noticed it, because they were talking about other things,” Rampson noted. [The focus of that meeting was approval of the city's FY 2014 budget.]

Rampson also explained that the city has been accepted into the Michigan Economic Development Corp.’s “Redevelopment Ready Communities” program, which requires a formal presentation to the community’s elected body – the city council. That might happen at a working session, which could include the planning commission and other city groups. From the RRC website:

RRC is a certification program promoting effective redevelopment strategies through a set of best practices. The program measures and then certifies communities that integrate transparency, predictability and efficiency into their daily development practices. The RRC certification is a formal recognition that a community has a vision for the future and the fundamental practices in place to get there.

Rampson noted that the RRC was originally developed by the Michigan Suburbs Alliance, which sold the program to the MEDC. [The executive director of the Michigan Suburbs Alliance is Conan Smith, an Ann Arbor resident who also serves as a Washtenaw County commissioner – an elected position.] The MEDC has indicated that if a community becomes certified as an RRC, it makes that community more “readily accepted” into that state agency’s various grant programs, Rampson said.

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Ken Clein.

Another issue raised during the session related to the city’s flood ordinance. Rampson joked that it’s a situation in which not working on the flood ordinance might have actually helped the city. She said that last year, FEMA and Congress made changes to the federal flood insurance program that are fairly dramatic. Because the program was so deeply in debt – even prior to Hurricane Sandy – the legislation raised the federal flood insurance rates to market levels. If you have a property in a flood zone with a high flood depth and a federally backed mortgage, she explained, “your insurance rates may go up to as much as $25,000 a year.” [The 2012 Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act was passed with the intent to make the National Flood Insurance Program self-sufficient.]

With new FEMA flood maps in place, some property owners have raised concerns about the fact that their land is now located within a floodplain or floodway. Rampson noted that about 500 homes are in the Allen Creek floodway, and a large portion of those are located within an historic district. Until now, historic buildings have been exempt from a lot of the city’s flood-related requirements, she said. But if the federal changes remain in place and prices of these homes drop in value because of insurance requirements, property owners might want to take action to avoid paying insurance – like elevating homes above the flood depth. “That changes the whole look and feel of a street,” she said.

“I’m trying not to be too alarmist,” Rampson added, but it’s something to keep an eye on. It’s possible that there’s a backlash and Congress might revoke the changes, she said.

The commission also identified topics for long-term possible action:

• Economic development initiatives.
• Student neighborhood property conditions.
• Visioning for southeast area neighborhoods – in the Ellsworth and Stone School area.
• “Mixed use” overlay amendment.
• Neighborhood outreach/engagement.
• Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance amendments.
• “Age-friendly” master plan and ordinance amendments.
• Non-motorized Plan implementation
• Lowertown land use amendments.

Late in the session, Eric Mahler expressed frustration that so many items were being added to the work plan. [It was Mahler's last working session as a planning commissioner. His term ends on June 30, and he has been appointed to the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.]

He noted that the only thing the planning staff had been criticized for in its evaluation had been that they don’t move projects forward as quickly as some commissioners would like. Now, commissioners are adding to the list. Rampson replied: “We’re just getting it out of your system!” She said she wasn’t advocating to take on all these projects, but rather it was an exercise to ensure that commissioners laid out all their ideas. Woods added that the commissioners were brainstorming, particularly for the long-term items.

Mahler advocated for “moving the ball forward on what we’ve got,” rather than adding to the list. Rampson replied that it was important for commissioners to talk about their goals, but then it’s her job to bring them back to reality and talk about what’s possible for the staff to achieve, given their resources. The alternative, she noted, is for the commission to advocate to the city council for hiring a consultant for a particular project that the staff can’t handle.

On June 18, commissioners voted to approve the work plan with no additional revisions.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Ken Clein, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods.

Absent: Eleanore Adenekan.

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.

The plan, covering the fiscal year that begins July 1, 2012, had been reviewed at a June 12 working session. Items include  development of (1) corridor plans for Washtenaw Avenue and South State Street, (2) a sustainability framework action plan, (3) Zoning Ordinance Re-Organization (ZORO) amendments, and (4) R4C/R2A amendments. Among other things, the plan also includes evaluation of the city’s citizen participation ordinance and A2D2 zoning.

This brief was filed from the second-floor city council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron, where the planning commission meets. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

AATA's CEO Michael Ford presents an overview of the transit master plan to members of a financial group that will be making recommendations on funding options for countywide transportation. (Photos by the writer.)

The AATA fiscal year runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30. The budget approved by the board calls for expenses of $30,410,616 against only $29,418,995 in revenues, for a deficit in the coming year of $991,621. At the meeting, members stressed that the nearly $1 million deficit was due to one-time expenses associated with the planned transition to a countywide service. They also stressed that even by using unrestricted reserves over the next year to cover the planned deficit, the AATA would still be left with more than three months’ worth of operating expenses in its reserve.

Incurring a deficit this year was characterized as a way to “catapult” the organization forward, allowing it to pursue an aggressive work plan for the coming year, which was also approved at the meeting. Highlights of that work plan include reconstruction of the Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor. Design for the station is expected to be complete by the end of the year, with construction to start in spring 2012.

In terms of increased service, next year’s work plan includes a focus on: establishing the AATA as a vanpool service provider; establishing service to the Detroit Metro Airport; improving work-transportation connections between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti; and continuing work on commuter rail. Also related to enhanced services, the AATA is also holding rider forums in October to get feedback on proposed increased service on Route #4, between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

Related specifically to commuter rail, the board received an update at the meeting on the Washtenaw Livingston Line (WALLY) project, a proposed north-south commuter rail connection between Howell and Ann Arbor. The board expressed some caution about the project by passing a resolution that requires the board’s explicit approval for the expenditure of the $50,000 in next year’s budget allocated for station designs.

In other business, the board approved the selection of Plante & Moran as its new auditor. A new auditor rotation policy put in place by the board earlier this year made the previous auditor, Rehmann Robson, ineligible for the contract. The AATA board also approved a contract with an outside vendor to begin offering vanpool service.

In business that could be described as housekeeping, the board opted to keep its same slate of officers for the coming year and to keep the same meeting schedule – the third Thursday of the month. Jesse Bernstein was elected chair last year, and will continue in that role.

Also at the meeting, other members of the financial review group were announced. That group will be analyzing funding options for an expansion to countywide service. Previously, it had been announced that McKinley CEO Albert Berriz and former Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel would co-chair the group. Their first meeting was Friday, Sept. 16, the day after the AATA board met. Berriz stated at that first meeting that the group will meet three more times, and will produce a white paper by the end of this year.

Related to that countywide effort, the initial board for an unincorporated transit authority – a precursor to an eventual formal authority – could be seated by Oct. 20, the date of the AATA board’s next meeting. It would include representatives from Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, and other districts throughout the county.

AATA Work Plan

Highlights of the 10-page work plan for fiscal 2012 include reconstruction of the Blake Transit Center (BTC) in downtown Ann Arbor. During his report to board members, CEO Michael Ford said the acquisition of a six-foot-wide piece of land on the southwest border of AATA’s BTC parcel would be on the city council’s agenda for Sept. 19. (At that meeting, the council approved the AATA’s purchase of the land for $90,000, which will facilitate reconstruction of the BTC starting in the spring of 2012.)

In terms of increased service, the work plan includes a focus on: establishing the AATA as a vanpool service provider; establishing service to the Detroit Metro Airport; improving work-transportation connections between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti; and continuing work on commuter rail.

Related to Detroit Metro service, Ford told the board that work on getting airport service in place had continued and that in the last three weeks he’d worked with Wayne County Economic Development Growth Engine (EDGE) on the issue. He said follow-up work was being done on the definition of public transportation as it relates to airport service. [Detroit Metro Airport charges access fees to private transportation operators.] Ford said the AATA would try to select a private-public partnership soon – in November.

Related to improvement of work-transportation service between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor, on Dec. 1, 2010, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority offered a challenge grant of $14,417 to support that kind of service improvement. A description of the grant from The Chronicle’s meeting report:

Before the DDA board was a resolution that would offer a $14,417 challenge grant to fund service improvements for the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Route #4 bus, which runs between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor. The dollar figure for the grant is based on a total estimated price tag for the improvements of $180,000 and a Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) computer model, which estimates about 8% of riders on the #4 bus have destinations west of State Street in the DDA district.

Before the Sept. 15 board meeting, the AATA held a rider forum on the proposed service enhancements to the Route #4 bus service. It was attended by around a dozen people. Additional drop-in sessions with AATA staff on Route #4 service improvements include:

• Thursday, Oct. 6, 5-7 p.m. at Glencoe Hills Apartments clubhouse, 2201 Glencoe Hills Drive, Pittsfield Township.
• Tuesday, Oct. 11, 9-11 a.m. at University Hospital, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor. Classroom #2C108, across from the gift shop and cashier’s office.
• Tuesday, Oct. 11, 1-3 p.m. at Michigan Union, 530 S. State St., Wolverine Room AB, Ann Arbor.
• Wednesday, Oct. 12, 9:30-11:30 a.m. at Dom Bakeries, 1305 Washtenaw Ave., Ypsilanti.
• Tuesday, Oct. 18, 5-7 p.m. at Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor.

More information about the proposed changes is available online, along with details about how to give input.

The 2012 work plan also calls for continued work on AATA’s information technology, including its website as a communication tool, and improved point-of-sale systems to allow people to pay for their fares. [.pdf of work AATA 2012 work plan]

2012 Work Plan: Board Deliberations

As part of his report from the planning and development committee, Rich Robben reviewed next year’s work plan, calling it “very aggressive.” He described how it includes development of countywide networks and improvements to current service.

Service improvements highlighted by Robben included: adding service between Ann Arbor and the Detroit Metro airport; adding vanpool services; improving service between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti; upgrading the AATA website; expanding the bus storage facility at the South Industrial headquarters; expanding night ride service to Ypsilanti; and reconstruction of the Blake Transit Center.

During deliberations, Anya Dale characterized the work plan as challenging, but said she thought the AATA can accomplish it. Roger Kerson gave credit to AATA staff for being able to accomplish the goals in this year’s work plan.

Board chair Jessie Bernstein called it an active, committed, dedicated past year on the part of the AATA, saying that there’s another active plan for next year.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve its FY 2012 work plan.

AATA 2012 Budget

The board considered a resolution to approve its operating budget for the 2012 fiscal year, which runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30.

The budget calls for expenses of $30,410,616 against only $29,418,995 in revenues, for a deficit in the coming year of $991,621. That shortfall will be made up by drawing on the fund balance. According to the budget resolution, the AATA’s fund balance policy requires it to maintain reserves equal to at least three months’ worth of operating expenses. And the AATA expects to have $1.2 million more in its fund reserve to start the year than the minimum fund balance policy requires.

So the projected deficit – which the budget resolution attributes partly to one-time expenses associated with the transit master plan – is within the $1.2 million excess beyond the minimum three-month reserve, which the AATA holds in its fund balance. [.pdf of AATA 2012 operating budget]

In the most significant categories, the AATA’s revenues break down percentage-wise as follows: 31.4% local transit tax; 29.4% state operating assistance; 18.6% passenger fares; 12.8% federal operating assistance. The AATA also receives some revenue from surrounding municipalities that get transit service through purchase of service (POS) agreements. [2012 AATA revenue pie chart]

In the most significant expense categories, the AATA’s expenses break down percentage-wise as follows: 54.7% employee compensation; 18.2% purchased transportation from other providers; 9.3% other purchased services; 5.7% diesel fuel and gasoline. [2012 AATA expenses pie chart]

2012 Operating Budget: Board Deliberations

Reporting out from the planning and development committee earlier in the meeting, Rich Robben ticked through the figures from the 2012 operating budget. He said the budget will maintain and improve service, and will support the work plan and the transit master plan (TMP).

He acknowledged the roughly $1 million deficit, and described it as stemming from some one-time costs with development of the TMP, such as an improvement program for each district of the county, plus the governance structure. The deficit would be funded from unrestricted net assets, he explained. Even though unrestricted assets will be used, the AATA will still have 3.1 months of operating expenses in reserve after those assets are used in the course of the year, he said. By board policy, the AATA must maintain a reserve of at least 3 months of operating reserves.

Robben led off deliberations by saying it’s not a sustainable budget. But he said it would catapult the AATA towards a transition to countywide service. It’s aggressive, he said, but not taken lightly that the AATA would operate at a deficit. It’s also not AATA’s responsibility to build bank accounts, he said, so it’s appropriate to use the funds for this type of purpose.

CEO Michael Ford (right) talks with AATA board members Rich Robben and Anya Dale after the Sept. 15 meeting.

Anya Dale noted that many of the expenses that are causing the deficit are one-time costs. Now is the time, she said.

Roger Kerson said the budget reveals AATA’s next challenges. Planning was for this past year, he said, and next year is the financing challenge. It’s the right thing to do, he said, and he was looking forward to feedback from the financial review group that will be making funding option recommendations.

Board chair Jesse Bernstein said he was seriously concerned that the deficit year be a one-time commitment. He picked up on Kerson’s mention of the financial group, and noted that McKinley CEO Albert Berriz and former Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel were co-chairing that group. It’s composed of people who understand financing and the politics of funding public activities, he said.

Bernstein called the AATA’s efforts at a transition to countywide service not an empty transition, but a real transition. The budget deficit, he said, should be recognized as unusual and unique, for one year only.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved AATA’s fiscal 2012 budget.

WALLY Commuter Rail

On the agenda was a resolution that expressed general support for continuing to work with surrounding communities on the Washtenaw and Livingston Line (WALLY) project. WALLY would provide commuter rail service on a 26-mile route between Ann Arbor and Howell. Relevant entities identified in the resolution include the state of Michigan, Livingston County, the city of Howell and the Ann Arbor Railroad.

However, the one “resolved” clause requires that funds allocated for WALLY in the 2012 budget – $50,000 – cannot be spent, except with the explicit consent of the AATA board.

WALLY: Background

At the Sept. 15 meeting, the board received a status report on the WALLY project from Michael Benham, a special assistant for strategic planning at AATA. Benham was hired in 2009 to handle the WALLY project. Since then, he’s become responsible for directing the development of the countywide transit master plan (TMP), which the AATA has developed over the last year.

Highlights from Benham’s report included the fact that starting in 2008, AATA has spent a total of $102,853 on the WALLY project, while other partners have spent a total of $225,000. That money has been spent primarily on a study and public education efforts. As part of the AATA FY 2012 budget, the AATA has included another $50,000 for the project. That money would be put towards station design.

Benham’s report identifies $16 million already invested by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation in track improvements, with $19 million worth of work still needed. Another $6 million in optional capital improvements is also identified.

Benham’s report projects that after the necessary capital improvements are completed to operate the commuter service, annual operating costs would amount to $5.4 million. Fares would be expected to cover $2.1 million of that, with another $1.4 million coming from the state’s Comprehensive Transportation Fund. That would leave another $1.9 million of local funding still to be identified.

Benham pointed board members to an appendix in the report with comparative data on WALLY. He characterized WALLY as “right in the ballpark” with other similar projects – at the low end of the range for capital costs. For similar commuter rail connections already in place, he said, the average time from idea to actual service was 10.5 years. So if people ask why WALLY is taking so long, it’s not actually taking so long, he concluded.

[.pdf of WALLY status report (to reduce file size, does not include scans of letters of support)]

WALLY: Board Deliberations

Rich Robben said he wanted to make the observation that the board had some concerns about the viability of the WALLY project. That’s why the presentation had been requested from Michael Benham – to make a reassessment of financial issues and to look at the prospects of closing remaining gaps in funding.

Roger Kerson also noted that board member David Nacht (who did not attend the board meeting) had raised some concerns at a committee meeting. Kerson characterized WALLY as a challenging project, but said, “We’re up to the challenge.” Kerson said the AATA was changing the eco-system by making transit a priority. Traffic is real, and congestion is real, he said. Having an alternative to US-23 will be welcome. He said he was glad to be going ahead in a measured way. Board chair Jesse Bernstein said he couldn’t imagine a clearer statement of moving forward in a careful way.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the resolution requiring board approval for any expenditures associated with WALLY.

Auditor Rotation

The board considered a resolution authorizing a one-year contract with Plante & Moran for auditing services.

A policy adopted by the AATA board on June 16, 2011 limits contracting with any one auditing firm to a total of eight years. That meant that the auditing firm the AATA had previously used, Rehmann Robson, was not eligible to provide auditing services.

The request for proposals (RFP) was sent to 19 public accounting firms. Plante & Moran’s proposal was judged to be the best of the three proposals received by the AATA.

Auditor Rotation: Board Deliberations

Roger Kerson reported from the performance monitoring and external relations committee that the AATA had received three bids from the 19 solicitations they’d sent out. The AATA evaluation team had ranked Plante & Moran as the best of the three bids, and the committee supported that recommendation.

When the board deliberated on the issue, AATA controller Phil Webb described how the RFP was sent to 19 CPA firms. The 19 were picked from a list of firms in southeast Michigan that did similar work. Technical abilities were 60% of the evaluation score, he said. The cost part of the bids were opened later and counted for 40% of the evaluation. The evaluators were Webb, board treasurer Sue McCormick, CEO Michael Ford.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve selection of Plante & Moran as the AATA auditor.

Vanpools

A resolution on the agenda called for authorizing a contract with VPSI Inc. for vanpool services that is not to exceed $6,600 per year for each AATA owned/managed van. Vanpools are arrangements in which a vehicle is provided through the service, but is driven by one of the members of the pool. Riders pay for operational costs. Currently, the MichiVan program, operated by VPSI, provides such a service in the Ann Arbor area.

However, through fiscal year 2012 MichiVan will only continue to provide vanpool service for existing vanpools in the Ann Arbor area. It’s AATA’s intention to provide service for any additional vanpools that people might wish to create.

Vanpools: Board Deliberations

Reporting out from the planning and development committee, Rich Robben described how in a vanpool, the monthly cost is paid by riders. The capital cost will be paid by a federal grant.

Chris White, AATA manager of service development, told the board that AATA had been working on the project for a while now. [It was one of the service initiatives discussed at an Aug. 10, 2010 board retreat.] MichiVan will continue to operate (with about 100 vanpools) but there’s no ability to expand that number of vanpools. So AATA is looking to be a provider for expansion pools. It allows AATA a chance to get some experience before taking on a larger volume. The eventual goal, White said, is to assume operation of all of the vanpools in the county. This is an opportunity to do that gradually, he said.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to authorize a contract with VSPI Inc. for vanpool service.

AATA Housekeeping

The board handled a number of housekeeping items.

Housekeeping: Board Officers

The board elects new officers every year. This year, board chair Jesse Bernstein said at the Sept. 15 meeting that the current officers have agreed to continue. As the organization contemplates a transition to a countywide focus, it was felt that it would be good to have some continuity, he said.

AATA board officers are: Jesse Bernstein (chair); Charles Griffith (secretary); and Sue McCormick (treasurer).

The committee chairs are: Rich Robben (planning and development committee), and Charles Griffith (performance monitoring and external relations).

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to maintain the same slate of board officers.

Housekeeping: Board Meeting Schedule

Also on the agenda was the approval of the full board’s meeting schedule, as well as the schedule for its committee meetings. Board meetings fall on the third Thursday of the month. [.pdf of board and committee meeting dates] AATA board meeting information packets are generally available before the meetings on the AATA website.

During deliberations, Anya Dale asked if there was an opportunity to talk about holding meetings earlier in the day. CEO Michael Ford told Dale that there had not been a discussion about that, and he said that staff can be open to changes or modifications. Board chair Jesse Bernstein said he’d be very open to discussing times, once dates are firmed up.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve its meeting schedule.

Housekeeping: Local Advisory Council Appointments

Reporting out from the AATA’s local advisory council (LAC), a co-chair of that group, Jody Slowins, reported that terms were coming to an end, and that members would need to be reappointed. The LAC is a body that provides advocacy for seniors and disabled people.

Gloria Kolb had submitted an application, Slowins said, and the LAC welcomed her graciously.

Slowins said she’d been involved with the LAC for the last 12 years, and she’d never seen such a good group. The AATA’s paratransit coordinator, Brian Clouse, is strongly supportive of the LAC, she said.

Recommended for appointment to the LAC were: Gloria Kolb, Cheryl Weber, Clark Charnetski, Mary Wells, John Kuchinski, Lena Ricks, Eleanor Chang, and Stephen McNutt.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the appointments to the LAC.

Countywide Transit Finance Group

At the board’s August 2011 meeting, Ford had announced that McKinley Inc. CEO Albert Berriz and Bob Guenzel, retired Washtenaw County administrator, will be co-chairing a panel of financial and funding experts. They are tasked with reviewing a report on funding options and making recommendations that will form the basis of a governance proposal for countywide transit.

That governance proposal is expected to come from an as-yet-unincorporated board of an Act 196 transit authority (U196) to establish a countywide transit authority under that state statute. [Michigan's Act 196 of 1986 provides a mechanism for establishing a transit authority that includes a larger range of entities than just cities. In contrast, the AATA is formed under Act 55 of 1963]

The funding report to be reviewed and analyzed by the group is the third volume of the transit master plan (TMP). [.pdf of Part 1 of Vol. 3 Transit Master Plan Funding Options] [.pdf of Part 2 of Vol. 3 Transit Master Plan Funding Options].

CEO Michael Ford’s written report to the AATA board for its Sept. 15 meeting included a partial list of members in the group tapped to review the funding options report for the countywide transit master plan. At the meeting, an updated list was circulated.

Besides Berriz and Guenzel, members of the group include the following: Patrick Doyle (CEO, Domino’s Pizza); Ric DeVore (regional president, PNC Financial Services Group Inc.); Mary Jo Callan (director, office of community development, Washtenaw County); Mark Perry (director of real estate services, Masco Corp.); Andy LaBarre (vice president of government affairs, A2YChamber); Tim Marshall (president and CEO, Bank of Ann Arbor); Norm Herbert (retired treasurer, University of Michigan); Adiele Nwankwo (senior vice president, PB Americas Inc.); Mike Cicchella (financial planner, Cicchella and Associates, and former Northfield Township supervisor); Leigh Greden (executive director of governmental and community relations, Eastern Michigan University); Conan Smith (executive director, Suburbs Alliance and chair, Washtenaw County board of commissioners); Jonathan Levine (professor, University of Michigan college of architecture and urban planning); Jason Lindauer (wealth management advisor, Merrill Lynch, and mayor of Chelsea); Mark Ouimet (state representative, District 52); John Thorhauer (president and CEO, United Methodist Retirement Communities); Jon Newpol (executive vice president, Thomson Reuters); Dennis Schornack (special advisor on transportation, Governor’s Office); Jim Kosteva, (director of government relations, University of Michigan); Paul Dimond (attorney, Miller Canfield).

The first meeting of the group was Friday, Sept. 16 – the day after the AATA board met. Most of the members were able to attend. The group received a presentation of some of the material they’d already been given in written form. They also asked for specific additional information and analysis, including: the specific economic impact of transit investments in communities of comparable size to Ann Arbor; and a measure of the costs that could be avoided through increased investment in transit.

While the amount and timing of a possible countywide transit millage received scant mention, a robust theme of the initial conversation was the potential for creative private-public partnerships in funding improved transit. Berriz called his and Guenzel’s selection as co-chairs of the group symbolic of the potential for private-public partnerships.

Berriz told members of the group at the Sept. 16 meeting that they will meet three more times, and will produce a white paper by the end of the year.

In his public commentary at the AATA board’s meeting the day before, on Sept. 15, Larry Krieg, with Wake Up, Washtenaw!, congratulated the AATA for the people it had assembled for the financial review. It’s an impressive list, he said. He asked that “out-of-the-box thinking” be tried.

Krieg hoped that among the funding mechanisms the group could identify would be original, significant public-private participation.

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

At its Sept. 15 meeting, the AATA board entertained various communications, including its usual reports from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the planning and development committee, as well as from CEO Michael Ford. The board also heard commentary from the public. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Governance, U196 Board

During his report to board members, CEO Michael Ford gave a brief update on progress with future governance issues connected with the entity that would eventually administer countywide transportation.

WEMU's Andrew Cluley interviews AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein after the Sept. 15 meeting.

By way of background, the basic approach the AATA is taking to expanding countywide transit is to transition to an authority formed under Act 196 of 1986. The AATA has been working towards encouraging townships in the county to strike inter-governmental agreements [under Act 7 of 1967] to have joint representation to the board of any Act 196 organization. It’s conceived as a 15-member board, with seven seats from Ann Arbor, two seats from the southeast sector (Ypsilanti Township and Augusta Township), and one seat each for the city of Ypsilanti, Pittsfield Township, and multi-jurisdictional districts in the northeast, north middle, west and south middle parts of the county.

As a precursor to the Act 196 authority, the AATA hopes to seat an unincorporated authority (U196) by Oct. 20, the date of the board’s next meeting.

Ford reported at the Sept. 15 board meeting that he’d met with AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein and Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje about an inter-local agreement between Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the AATA.

Comm/Comm: Chelsea Express

Roger Kerson reported out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee that the Chelsea Express – a commuter service between Ann Arbor and Chelsea – is now near capacity. The AATA is now at the point of deciding what to do if the route meets capacity.

Comm/Comm: Website Development

Mary Stasiak, AATA director of community relations, said that one concern the staff is focusing on is to make sure the AATA “owns” everything that’s being developed for the site, given that some of it is being custom developed. The AATA has sent the initial designs back to the contractor for revision, because “we want to make it the best that we can,” she said.

Comm/Comm: Complaints

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as an Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County Democrat, an advocate for seniors and the disabled, and those needing and deserving of public services during this trying time in American history. He called for the election of a new chair of the board of the AATA to champion service that is friendly and caring in safe and ride-worthy vehicles. He questioned whether that’s been the case under current board leadership.

SelectRide should not receive the bid for the AATA’s A-Ride paratransit service, Partridge said. He called the vehicles that SelectRide puts on the road “jalopies” that have accumulated more than 200,000 miles before they are purchased by SelectRide.

Partridge also spoke at the second public commentary slot at the end of the meeting. He called himself an advocate for those who can’t attend the meeting. He said he had led the effort to get the board to meet in an accessible place. [Last year, the AATA moved its meetings to the boardroom of the Ann Arbor District Library from its headquarters on South Industrial Highway.] Despite those efforts, Partridge said, the board went ahead with their vote on the budget with three of its seven members absent. The budget items should have been deferred until the entire board could attend, he said.

He complained that AATA staff members got people to come to board meetings to salute their incompetence. The public is being cheated by publicly funding vehicles that should never be on the road, he said. SelectRide, the company that holds the para-transit contract with AATA, perpetuates discrimination against everyone, Partridge said, even their own employees.

His complaints have been whitewashed, Partridge contended, and he called on the board to elect new leadership.

Comm/Comm: Compliments

Carolyn Grawi spoke on behalf of the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living. She said she came to support the new local advisory council appointments. She also congratulated AATA for its work associated with the non-motorized Washtenaw Avenue walkway and the accessible crosswalk – AATA was among the many players on that project, she said. She also congratulated Mary Stasiak’s department for receiving an APTA AdWheel award, recognizing its billboard ads.

Present: Jesse Bernstein, Rich Robben, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale

Absent: Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Sue McCormick

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Oct. 20, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board. 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 budget calls for expenses of $30,410,616 against only $29,418,995 in revenues, for a deficit in the coming year of $991,621. That shortfall will be made up by drawing on the fund balance. According to the budget resolution, the AATA’s fund balance policy requires it to maintain reserves equal to at least three months’ worth of operating expenses. And the AATA expects to have $1.2 million more in its fund reserve to start the year than that minimum fund balance policy requires. So the projected deficit – which the budget resolution attributes partly to one-time expenses associated with the transportation master plan – is within the $1.2 million excess beyond the minimum three-month reserve, which the AATA holds in its fund balance. [.pdf of AATA 2012 operating budget]

During  deliberations, the four board members present stressed the unique, one-time nature of the deficit budget.

In the most significant categories, the AATA’s revenues break down percentage-wise as follows: 31.4% local transit tax; 29.4% state operating assistance; 18.6% passenger fares; 12.8% federal operating assistance. The AATA also receives some revenue from surrounding municipalities that get transit service through purchase of service (POS) agreements. [2012 AATA revenue pie chart]

In the most significant expense categories, the AATA’s expenses break down percentage-wise as follows: 54.7% employee compensation; 18.2% purchased transportation from other providers; 9.3% other purchased services; 5.7% diesel fuel and gasoline. [2012 AATA expenses pie chart]

In a separate vote, the AATA board also approved the 10-page work plan for the fiscal year. Highlights include reconstruction of the Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor. In terms of increased service, the work plan includes a focus on: establishing the AATA as a vanpool service provider; establishing service to the Detroit Metropolitan Airport; improved work-transportation connections between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti; and continued work on commuter rail.

The plan also calls for continued work on the AATA’s information technology, including its website as a communication tool and improved point-of-sale systems to allow people to pay for their fares. [.pdf of work AATA 2012 work plan]

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