Emma Hall’s 1883 talk, delivered at the National Conference of Charities and Corrections in Louisville, Kentucky, analyzed the best methods of reforming girls.

On the morning of Sept. 26, Ypsilanti resident and Normal School graduate Emma Hall faced a distinguished audience. “The reformation of criminal girls,” she began, “is no longer a doubtful experiment.”

Born February 28, 1837 on a farm in Lenawee County’s Raisin Township, Emma was the second of her parents Reuben and Abby’s eight children. Most of the family relocated to Ypsilanti around 1870. Reuben’s teaching background and Abby’s upbringing as a Congregational minister’s daughter may have influenced Emma’s career as a prison reformer. She became Michigan’s first woman to lead a state penal institution, and was later made a member of the nation’s top prison advisory committee.

After graduating from the Normal in 1861, Emma taught recitation at Professor Sill’s Seminary for Young Ladies in Detroit, for a yearly salary of $550 [about $10,000 in 2014 dollars]. Emma met Detroit House of Corrections prison superintendent Zebulon Brockway. Beginning with his work at the Detroit prison, which opened in 1861, Brockway would become a nationally-recognized though controversial prison reformer.

In 1868, Brockway opened the House of Shelter. This adjunct to the Detroit House of Corrections offered a radical experiment for women prisoners, many of whom had been arrested for prostitution. Instead of barred cells, the House of Shelter offered a comfortable group home in which each woman had her own bedroom. The home was furnished and decorated as a well-to-do middle-class home.

Brockway made Emma its first matron. She moved in and lived full-time with the women.

Emma instituted a program of domestic arts education and cultural activities designed to impart marketable skills and a refined character. Family-style meals were shared at a table set with good china and table linens. The women learned sewing techniques and attended evening school and religious instruction. Recreation included singing, playing the parlor organ, embroidery, and a Thursday night tea with prose and poetry recitations. At least one woman learned to read at the house.

Detroit’s House of Shelter, Emma’s introduction to prison reform methods.

State officials praised Emma’s work in their 1873 report “Pauperism and Crime in Michigan in 1872-73.” They said, “Culture of this kind, amid such surroundings, cannot fail to be productive of great good in preparing those who receive it for useful home life, and we cannot but regard the House of Shelter as one of the best agencies for saving those likely to fall that it has been our province to find.”

A new supervisor at the Detroit House of Corrections took a dimmer view of the venture. In 1874, Emma and Zebulon resigned from the House of Shelter. The new supervisor converted the onetime sanctuary into his private residence.

But Emma’s devotion and energy had won the attention of state officials, and she was appointed matron of the state public school at Coldwater, Michigan’s institution for orphaned or disadvantaged children.

Here Emma first encountered a recurring nemesis to her drive and vision: a supervisory board of inexperienced members who encountered not obedience but authority from Emma. She resigned after only a short term at Coldwater. In a letter to Michigan governor John Bagley, she wrote of her resignation, “I would not be a tool in the hands of the local board.” The resignation did not slow her career; she was appointed matron of the School for the Deaf and Dumb in Flint, and remained there for several years.

In 1878, Mary Lathrop read her essay “Fallen Women” at the annual meeting of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union in Grand Rapids, a small event that would sweep Emma into a new role. Far from a quaint anti-tippling society, the WCTU offered vote-denied 19th-century women one of their most effective avenues into some measure of political power.

Discussions about Lathrop’s topic coalesced into a goal to erect a women’s and girls’ reform school. The plan led to an energetic WCTU-initiated petition drive across the state for the legislature to create such a school. Completed petitions, with dozens or hundreds of signatures, began pouring into Lansing. “Early in the session of the Legislature of 1879 these [petitions] began to fall around the members like autumn leaves,” notes the 1881 edition of the Joint Documents of the State of Michigan.

In 1879 the Michigan legislature approved funding for a girls’ reform school in Adrian. Governor Charles Croswell appointed Emma to its board of directors, and then made her supervisor, the ultimate authority for every facet of the Industrial Home for Girls and its highest-paid staff member, with a $1,000 annual salary [$24,000 in 2014 dollars]. The three members of the school’s board of directors, including president Arthuretta Fuller, lacked Emma’s experience in managing state institutions.

County agents across Michigan began to send girls to Adrian. Criteria for selection included prostitution, homelessness, a sordid home environment, or a determination that a girl was in some way “wayward.” The girls were examined by a doctor on arrival. Many had untreated medical issues and sexually transmitted diseases. The average age was just over 13.

Emma housed the girls in the campus’s four cottages that were meant to create a less penal, more homey “family style” similar to the House of Shelter. Nearby, a farmhouse on the grounds became the residence of the school doctor, engineer, handyman, housekeeper, and of Emma.

Emma organized a regular schedule for the girls, from 5:30 a.m. to a quarter to nine at night. During a typical day, the girls attended about 2 and half hours of school and 3 and half hours of sewing class. Together with staff, the girls sewed 4,650 items in one 14-month period, including all of the bed linens, carpets, and clothing required by the school. The output included machine-knit stockings and an undergarment that combined a chemise and pantaloons, called a “chemiloon.”

In the school’s 1882 biennial report the supervisory board noted, “the influence of Miss Hall upon the girls is manifest in their love for her, and in their steady improvement under her management.” Emma’s former boss at the Flint Institute for the Deaf and Dumb remarked, “during the many years she was connected with [this] institution, her knowledge of the duties of her position, executive ability, and habits of industry made her administration most successful. The same qualities have enabled her to organize and put in operation one of the best institutions of the state.” Zebulon praised her accomplishment in an 1882 letter: “It is in advance of anything I know in the same department of benevolent endeavor.” But in another letter of the same year, he cautioned Emma, whose zeal he had seen firsthand. “The average . . . supervisor will by and by complain that the comforts and care given to your girls is greater than that enjoyed by the children of such families as his own, and may therefore be hesitant to supply you funds.”

That Christmas the school featured a program of music and recitations, a dinner of chicken pie, and a welcome visit from University of Michigan alumnus Reverend Joseph Estabrook, president of Olivet College. A Christmas tree was covered in presents for the 91 resident girls. Additional presents that the girls’ family members sent were distributed – though not many. Emma later noted in a report, “Some girls [were] remembered.”

The following fall, Emma was invited to read her paper before the delegates at the Louisville convention. Shortly thereafter, National Prison Association secretary William Round, asked Emma to serve on its board of directors and advise on issues affecting penal institutions nationwide. Her colleagues on the board included former President Rutherford Hayes and future president Theodore Roosevelt. Emma wrote in reply, “To be associated with such distinguished and successful workers in the interest of humanity and to be one of two ladies chosen first gives me new courage and inspiration.”

This high honor may have sparked a different reaction in Adrian. The following spring, the school’s board of directors unanimously asked Emma to resign. Emma did so on April 14, 1884.

One hint that this action may have resulted from petty politics lies in an April 27, 1884 letter from Emma’s friend Theresa Burrows, apparently in reply to a letter that Emma sent to her. Theresa wrote from her home in San Bernardino, “How could, even as vindictive, unprincipled and selfish a woman as [board president] Madam Fuller accomplish such a fatal thing to all their interests as your resignation!”

Emma’s school in Albuquerque as it appeared shortly after she died there.”

The following day, Emma received a sympathetic letter from onetime Ann Arbor resident Reverend George Gillespie, chairman of the state’s Board of Corrections and Charities. He told Emma that in such cases with an inexperienced board of managers the supervisor often receives the blame. His letter was followed by a “letter of esteem” signed by numerous Adrian residents. Written in an elegant, almost calligraphic script, the letter had been hand-carried to each person who signed it, judging by the signatures’ varying pen nib effects and ink colors.

Emma left Adrian and embarked on a tour of the Western states. Within a month she was writing postcards and letters to her family in Ypsilanti, marveling that she was 2,600 miles away and praising the comfort of Pullman cars. Her July 7, 1884 diary entry reads only, “Yosemite!”

Emma secured a position teaching at a boarding school for Native American children in Albuquerque, a lowly job compared to Adrian. Teachers were paid little, housed poorly, and even had to purchase some of their own food. Emma wrote to her family in November, “I did not expect ease or many comforts hence am not disappointed.”

Emma’s situation was worse than was apparent. She experienced heart trouble. Her diary entry for November 29, 1884 reads only: “Could not get up.” The next day: “Not able to get up.”

Most of her letters to her family had heretofore been signed “Your affectionate Emma” or “Your loving Emma”; on November 30 she signed one “Goodbye, with love to each one.” In tiny script at the bottom of this letter Emma wrote, “Some things are intolerable.”

Among her surviving papers is a receipt from Albuquerque’s Sloan and Mousson Co. for “one oak air tight case, embalming, &c., $95.” After her December 27, 1884 death, Emma’s body was returned to Ypsilanti.

Her many friends sent letters of condolence to her family. Henry Hurd, medical superintendent at the Eastern Michigan Asylum wrote with his wife Mary, “We sympathized with her in the undeserved trials of the past year.”

Local lawyer C. R. Miller said, “It affords me some consolation to think I was not entirely useless to her and her work while she was at the head of the reform school. I gave her what aid and strength I could because I thought she was right and was doing a good work well.”

Reverend Joseph Estabrook recalled “the Christmas day of two years ago, a part of which I spent with her in the girls’ reform school in Adrian. Her work was a grand and glorious one there. No one can compute the good which she accomplished while there, and the immense loss to the state when she was removed. No mistake could have been more sad, and my sense of the great wrong done to her and to the unfortunate girls of Michigan was never so keen as now.”

The history of the Adrian school darkened after Emma’s departure. Conditions deteriorated and rumors of cruelty spread, so that the school was investigated by state officials in 1899. Twenty years later it had reached its nadir, and the Michigan legislature heard horrific descriptions of neglect, solitary confinement, and vicious abuse that at least resulted in a thorough overhaul of the incompetent staff.

Emma Hall had created a much different reality for her girls, and earned the respect of prestigious colleagues. It is an honor to the people of Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County that she rests in our Highland Cemetery.

Mystery Artifact

The last column featured a simple, once common device that readers guessed correctly.

Mystery object.

Yes, it’s a pair of ice tongs, once used to transfer a block of ice into the ice compartment of one’s icebox.

Patti nailed it! TJ, I thought your guess of “canning tongs” was really good, as well.

I don’t know enough about canning to imagine or describe how canning tongs might be shaped differently – perhaps a kind reader can help. Good guess!

This time we’re looking for the identity or function of this odd device.

It’s rather strange and complicated; take your best guess!

Laura Bien is a local history writer. Reach her at ypsidixit@gmail.com.

The plan covers 400-408 N. River St. and 107 E. Cross St., an historic property that has been declared ”functionally obsolete and blighted.” That qualifies the project as a brownfield under the state’s brownfield redevelopment financing act (Public Act 381), which allows the owner to receive reimbursements for eligible activities through tax increment financing (TIF). Approval also will allow the developer to apply for Michigan Business Tax Credits. The property is currently owned by Thompson Block Partners LLC, led by Stewart Beal of Beal Properties.

Beal plans to create 16 “luxury lofts” in the structure’s second and third floors, and up to 14,000 square feet of commercial space in the remainder of the site. The project is estimated to cost about $7 million.

The resolution passed by the board also ends a previous brownfield plan for part of the same site, which was approved in 2008. A fire in 2009 delayed the project. The new plan now covers the 107 E. Cross, which was not part of the original plan, and includes public infrastructure improvements, such as streetscape enhancements along North River Street.

The Washtenaw County brownfield redevelopment authority approved this plan at its March 6 meeting. Subsequently, the plan was approved by the Ypsilanti city council on March 18. The city council’s action included approving an “Obsolete Properties Rehabilitation” certificate, which freezes local millages at the current, pre-development level for 12 years. Because of that, the project’s TIF capture will apply only to the state’s school taxes.

The project can get up to $271,578 in eligible cost reimbursed over a 12-year period, for activities including brownfield plan and work plan preparation, limited building demolition, selective interior demolition, site preparation and utility work, infrastructure improvements, architectural and engineering design costs, asbestos and lead abatement, and construction oversight.

The intent of the state’s brownfield redevelopment financing is to support the redevelopment of urban sites that will increase the municipality’s tax base. Tax increment financing allows an entity to capture the difference between the taxable value before a project is undertaken, and the value of the property after it’s developed.

A public hearing on this proposal was held at the April 2 meeting, when the board also voted to give initial approval to the plan. Only one person – Tyler Weston, representing Thompson Block Partners – spoke, telling the board that it would help the project. Weston attended the April 16 meeting, but did not formally address the board. There was no discussion on this item.

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

The plan covers 400-408 N. River St. and 107 E. Cross St., an historic property that has been declared ”functionally obsolete and blighted.” That qualifies the project as a brownfield under the state’s brownfield redevelopment financing act (Public Act 381), which allows the owner to receive reimbursements for eligible activities through tax increment financing (TIF). Approval also will allow the developer to apply for Michigan Business Tax Credits. The property is currently owned by Thompson Block Partners LLC, led by Stewart Beal of Beal Properties. Beal’s father, Fred Beal, attended the April 2 meeting but did not formally address the board.

Beal plans to create 16 “luxury lofts” in the structure’s second and third floors, and up to 14,000 square feet of commercial space in the remainder of the site. The project is estimated to cost about $7 million.

The resolution given initial approval by the board also ends a previous brownfield plan for part of the same site, which was approved in 2008. A fire in 2009 delayed the project. The new plan now covers the 107 E. Cross, which was not part of the original plan, and includes public infrastructure improvements, such as streetscape enhancements along North River Street.

The Washtenaw County brownfield redevelopment authority approved this plan at its March 6 meeting. Subsequently, the plan was approved by the Ypsilanti city council on March 18. The city council’s action included approving an “Obsolete Properties Rehabilitation” certificate, which freezes local millages at the current, pre-development level for 12 years. Because of that, the project’s TIF capture will apply only to the state’s school taxes.

The project can get up to $271,578 in eligible cost reimbursed over a 12-year period, for activities including brownfield plan and work plan preparation, limited building demolition, selective interior demolition, site preparation and utility work, infrastructure improvements, architectural and engineering design costs, asbestos and lead abatement, and construction oversight.

The intent of the state’s brownfield redevelopment financing is to support the redevelopment of urban sites that will increase the municipality’s tax base. Tax increment financing allows an entity to capture the difference between the taxable value before a project is undertaken, and the value of the property after it’s developed.

A public hearing on this proposal was also held at the April 2 meeting. Only one person – Tyler Weston, representing Thompson Block Partners – spoke, telling the board that it would help the project.

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

Chart 1: AAATA Millage Vote Survey. Of the 841 registered voters surveyed, 63% said they would definitely or probably vote for an additional transit tax, while 31% said they definitely or probably would vote against an additional transit tax. Half the respondents were asked about a tax at the rate of 0.5 mills while the other half were asked about a 0.9 mill tax. There was not a significant difference in the two groups. The amount of the potential millage request in 2014 is 0.7 mills.

The AAATA’s release of partial survey results on Feb. 7 comes about two weeks before the next monthly meeting of its board of directors, on Feb. 20. At that meeting, the board will almost certainly consider whether to place a millage on the ballot – either for May 6 or later in the fall of this year.

The purpose of the potential millage – which would be the first one ever levied by the AAATA – would be to fund a 5-year plan of service improvements, approved by the AAATA board at its Jan. 16, 2014 meeting. The millage itself would last for five years.

Generally, those improvements include increased frequency during peak hours, extended service in the evenings, and additional service on weekends. Some looped routes are being replaced with out-and-back type route configurations. The plan does not include operation of rail-based services. The AAATA has calculated that the improvements in service add up to 90,000 additional service hours per year, compared to the current service levels, which is a 44% increase.

If a millage were approved in May, those improvements that involve extending the hours of service later in the evening and the weekend could begin to be implemented by late 2014. However, increases in frequency along routes, which would require acquisition of additional buses, would take longer.

The AAATA refers to the plan in its communications as the 5YTIP. The AAATA has calculated that the additional tax required to fund the 5YTIP is 0.7 mills. A draft five-year plan was presented to the public in a series of 13 meetings in the fall of 2013. Changes to the five-year plan made in response to public feedback were included in the board’s information packet for the Jan. 16 meeting. [.pdf of memo and 5-year improvement plan] [.pdf of presentation made to the board on Jan. 16]

The dedicated transit tax already paid by property owners in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti is levied by each city and passed through to the AAATA. Those taxes would stay in place if voters in the AAATA’s three-jurisdiction area approved a 0.7 mill tax. For Ann Arbor, the rate for the existing millage is 2.056 mills, which is expected to generate a little over $10 million by 2019, the fifth year of the transportation improvement plan. For the city of Ypsilanti, the rate for the existing transit millage is 0.9789, which is expected to generate about $314,000 in 2019. For the owner of an Ann Arbor house with a market value of $200,000 and taxable value of $100,000, a 0.7 mill tax translates into $70 annually, which would be paid in addition to the existing transit millage. The total Ann Arbor transit tax paid on a taxable value of $100,000 would be about $270 a year.

The transit improvement program also calls for an additional $1,087,344 to come from purchase-of-service agreements (POSAs), based on increased service hours in Pittsfield, Saline, and Superior townships.

A subset of a financial task force that had formed during an effort in 2012 to expand the AAATA to a countywide authority has concluded that the 0.7 mill would be adequate to fund the planned additional services. At the most recent meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, on Feb. 5, DDA board member Bob Guenzel stated that he had continued to participate on that task force, and reported that the group had forwarded its finding on the currently contemplated 0.7 millage to the AAATA.

Besides Guenzel, who is former Washtenaw County administrator, the current configuration of that group includes Mary Jo Callan (director of the Washtenaw County office of community and economic development), Norman Herbert (former treasurer of the University of Michigan), Paul Krutko (CEO of Ann Arbor SPARK), and Mark Perry (director of real estate services, Masco Corp.) and Steve Manchester.

The survey on voter attitudes toward a millage was conducted for the AAATA by CJI Research with a mixed methodology – of telephone contacts, and a mail invitation to respond online – during October and November of 2013. The sample of respondents was divided into two groups – those who were asked about their attitudes toward an additional 0.5-mill tax and those who were asked about their attitudes toward an additional 0.9-mill tax. According to CJI, the groups showed virtually no difference in the distribution of responses.

Of the 841 registered voters surveyed, 63% said they would definitely or probably vote for an additional transit tax, while 31% said they definitely or probably would vote against an additional transit tax.

The Feb. 7, 2014 press release issued by the AAATA highlighted three of its conclusions from the survey results: (1) that the AAATA is highly regarded by voters in the three member jurisdictions; (2) residents in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township are supportive of transit service expansion even if it means a new tax; and (3) among survey respondents, the best reasons to support a transit expansion are to help retain and attract jobs, generate economic activity by taking customers and workers to area retailers and other employers, and to improve service for seniors and the disabled. The margin of error for the survey was no more than 3.4%, according to the press release.

At the Jan. 16 AAATA board meeting, board chair Charles Griffith indicated that he felt the board would be taking the next step on implementing the program very soon. That indicates a probable vote on the millage question at the next board meeting, on Feb. 20. If the board voted then to put a millage question on the ballot, that would be in time to meet the Feb. 25 deadline for a millage request to be placed on the May 6, 2014 ballot.

A new millage would be decided by a majority vote of all three member jurisdictions of the AAATA. The two Ypsilanti jurisdictions were added as members of the AAATA just last year. The Ann Arbor city council voted to approve changes to the AAATA’s articles of incorporation – to admit the city and the township of Ypsilanti as members – at its June 3, 2013 and Nov. 18, 2013 meetings, respectively.

This most recent survey conducted by CJI is the third biennial study the AAATA has commissioned, starting in 2009. The 63% positive attitude in this most recent survey – confined to just the three member jurisdictions of the AAATA – is somewhat stronger than the support measured among residents countywide in 2009 and 2011. Results from all survey years are shown in Chart 1 and Chart 2 below:

Chart 1: AAATA Millage Vote Survey. Of the 841 registered voters surveyed in the cities of Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Township, 63% said they would definitely or probably vote for an additional transit tax, while 31% said they definitely or probably would vote against an additional transit tax.

Chart 2: Millage Vote 2009 and 2011 Surveys. Asked early in the survey if they would support a 1 mill tax for countywide transit, 54% of survey respondents countywide said they definitely or probably would. Asked later in the survey, a combined 59% of voters said they’d probably or definitely vote for a 1 mill transit tax.

The geographic distribution of support for the most recent survey showed strongest support in the city of Ann Arbor (66% definitely/probably yes), followed closely by the city of Ypsilanti (65% definitely/probably yes), followed by Ypsilanti Township (57% definitely/probably yes). Opposition was flipped from support, with 28% of city of Ann Arbor voters saying they’d definitely/probably vote no, 31% of city of Ypsilanti voters definitely/probably voting no, and 36% of Ypsilanti Township voters definitely/probably voting no. The city of Ypsilanti had the fewest number of undecided voters: 4%. Those results are shown in Chart 3:

Chart 3: Millage Vote Geographic Distribution 2013 Stacked bars indicate by geographic location those who said they’d definitely or probably vote yes on  a transit tax (blue), definitely or probably vote no (red) or didn’t know (yellow). (Data from the AAATA, chart by The Chronicle)

That’s similar to the support measured in those same specific areas two years ago. In 2011, support for a transit tax was strongest within the city of Ann Arbor, with 24% saying they would definitely vote yes and another 44% saying they’d probably vote yes, for a total of 68%. In that year, the two Ypsilanti-area jurisdictions were grouped with Pittsfield Township. About 56% of Ypsilanti-area plus Pittsfield said they would definitely or probably support a millage. Those results from past years are shown in Chart 4:

Chart 4: Millage Vote Geographic Distribution 2011. The light and dark green areas reflecting definite or probable yes votes on a transit tax diminish the further away that respondents were from Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

All the surveys attempted to measure how effective respondents think arguments are – for and against a transit tax. This year’s survey results were in at least some ways consistent with previous years’ surveys: Additional service for seniors and those with disabilities is seen as a persuasive argument to support a transit tax. Those results are presented in Chart 5 and Chart 6 below.

Chart 5: Arguments for Public Transit – Fall 2013 Survey. Perceived as the best argument for supporting a transit tax was the importance of transit service for seniors and those with disabilities. Perceived as less persuasive arguments were the ideas that the member jurisdictions need a faster way to get places and that transit is important to protect the environment.

Chart 6: Arguments for Public Transit – 2011 Survey. The idea that “If the tax is defeated, there will be no funding for door-to-door service for the disabled” was not one that survey respondents felt was a good argument to vote for a transit tax. It comes across negatively and people react negatively to it.

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!

Ypsilanti Township would become a member of the AAATA, if the Ann Arbor city council approves a change to the AAATA’s articles of incorporation at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting.

The governance change would grant a request from Ypsilanti Township to be admitted as a member of the authority, joining the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. The city of Ypsilanti requested membership in the AAATA just this summer, and that request was granted.

Some of the recent community conversation about the topic has included the idea that the governance changes were long overdue. That’s based on the fact that some transportation service to the two Ypsilanti jurisdictions – the city and the township – has been provided by the AAATA through year-to-year purchase of service agreements (POSAs) since at least the early 1980s.

As a result of action earlier this summer, the AAATA board has already expanded from seven to nine members, with one of the additional seats appointed by the city of Ypsilanti. The now-pending governance change, to add Ypsilanti Township as a member, would bring the total number of board seats to 10. [Amendment 3 of the AAATA articles of incorporation]

But the Ypsilanti jurisdictions asked for membership in the AAATA not just because they wanted a seat at the table. They also want to use that membership to help generate additional revenue in the AAATA geographic area – to pay for additional transportation services in all three jurisdictions. Those additional services are described in a five-year service improvement plan the AAATA has developed. The additional services – which include extended hours of operation, greater frequency, and some newly configured routes – were the topic of a series of 13 public meetings that were scheduled from Oct. 17 through Nov. 14.

For the city of Ann Arbor, the five-year plan would mean 33% more service, according to the AAATA. It’s the additional services, and the revenue needed to pay for them, that gave some Ann Arbor city councilmembers pause on Oct. 21, 2013, when the item first appeared on the agenda.

This article reviews some additional context, including the taxing powers of the AAATA, the issue of equity among jurisdictions, the AAATA’s performance as a transit authority, and a couple of vignettes from the series of public meetings held over the last month by the AAATA.

Ann Arbor City Council: Final Say

The Ypsilanti Township board voted on Sept. 9, 2013 to request membership in the AAATA. Two weeks later, at its Sept. 26, 2013 meeting, the AAATA board approved the amended articles of incorporation to add Ypsilanti Township as a member of the authority. And on Oct. 15, 2013 the Ypsilanti city council approved the change to the articles of incorporation.

That leaves action by the Ann Arbor city council as the final step in admitting Ypsilanti Township as a member.

One document that some Ann Arbor city councilmembers wanted to see on Oct. 21 was a memorandum of understanding between the AAATA and Ypsilanti Township that would ensure payment for transportation services. The fact that a draft document was not available at that time was one reason some councilmembers were inclined to delay approval. That document is now available. [.pdf of draft YT-AAATA MOU]

The Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber of Commerce has weighed in, urging the Ann Arbor city council to approve the amendment to the articles of incorporation. [.pdf of A2Y Chamber support letter]

Who Levies What Taxes?

Through their membership in the AAATA, the Ypsilanti jurisdictions would have the same ability as the city of Ann Arbor tax themselves – so they can pay for the additional transportation services in their geographic area. Specifically, AAATA membership would allow the Ypsilanti jurisdictions to join the city of Ann Arbor in taking advantage of the authority’s ability – under Act 55 of 1963 – to ask voters to approve a new transportation tax. Any request would need majority approval of voters across the entire geographic area of the member jurisdictions.

The power to request and then levy a voter-approved tax is one the AAATA has never used before. Readers might be familiar with two different existing transportation taxes – one paid by Ann Arbor property owners (2.053 mills) and another paid by city of Ypsilanti property owners (0.987 mills). Those existing taxes are not levied by the AAATA, but rather by the respective cities. The proceeds of those taxes are passed through to the AAATA. The city of Ypsilanti does not have the option of increasing the amount of its own transportation tax – because Ypsilanti is already at the state constitutional limit for taxes levied by a city, which is 20 mills. But an AAATA tax would not count against that constitutional limit.

The five-year service improvement plan that the AAATA has developed would need an estimated 0.7 additional mills levied across the geographic area of the authority. One mill is $1 per $1,000 of taxable value. So for a $200,000 house, with taxable value of $100,000, a 0.7 mill tax would translate into $70 a year. For an Ann Arbor taxpayer who owned that $200,000 house, that would translate into about $270 a year total in transportation taxes.

One option that’s been floated to pay for transportation improvements within the city of Ann Arbor – using just the existing Ann Arbor tax – would be to ask Ann Arbor voters to approve an override of the Headlee Amendment. Headlee has reduced the amount of the levy from its voter-approved level of 2.5 mills to the current 2.053 mills. So approval of a Headlee override would result in about 0.5 mill more revenue to fund transportation services within the city of Ann Arbor.

Translating millage rates into total dollars, Ann Arbor’s city transportation tax currently generates $9,565,000 annually, according to AAATA. A 0.7 mill additional tax would generate $3,230,007 in additional revenue in the city of Ann Arbor for a total Ann Arbor local contribution of more than $12.7 million. According to AAATA, Ypsilanti’s dedicated millage generates $274,000, which is less than its POSA agreement called for last year. The 0.7 mill tax would generate around $189,785 in additional revenue in the city of Ypsilanti, for a total contribution in the city of Ypsilanti of around $464,000. Ypsilanti Township currently pays $329,294 annually for transportation services under its POSA agreement. If a 0.7 mill tax were approved, that would generate around $707,969 in the township. Based on the amount of expanded services that the township would receive, the township contribution would be defined as just that $707,969.

Equity

The current, more localized expansion of the AAATA contrasts with a now demised effort in 2012 to incorporate all of Washtenaw County into a single countywide transportation authority. When the Ann Arbor city council withdrew Ann Arbor’s participation in that effort, at its Nov. 8, 2012 meeting, it gave encouraged the AAATA to “to continue to discuss regional transportation options among Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Ann Arbor Township, Pittsfield Township, and Scio Township, leading to a better understanding and process for improving local transit options…”

Over the course of the last year, the AAATA held a series of meetings with officials from those municipalities, a group that came to be called the “urban core” communities.

One outcome of those conversations was an interest in membership in the AAATA on the part of the two Ypsilanti jurisdictions. The city of Ann Arbor (pop. ~116,000), the city of Ypsilanti (pop. ~19,500) and Ypsilanti Township (~53,000) make up a bit more than half the population of Washtenaw County (pop. ~351,000).

The differences in financial contribution by each of the jurisdictions receiving transportation service from the AAATA was a topic that dates to the countywide effort. It’s also been a topic of the urban core conversations about equity: Is the amount of service provided commensurate with the financial contribution?

Various methodologies can be applied to the challenge of allocating costs. At a meeting held at the Saline city hall on April 25, 2013, AAATA staff illustrated how equity stacked up for some of those methodologies. According to AAATA staff, that equity analysis has not been re-run since then to reflect the latest refinements in the service plan, but the basic conclusions weren’t expected to be dramatically different. The chart below is by The Chronicle, using AAATA numbers from earlier this year. The analysis assumes a uniform millage across the five jurisdictions in the chart.

Interpreting the chart. The left axis is a percentage. Zero means that the ratio of benefit to revenue is 1:1. A positive bar means that a jurisdiction gets more benefit (services with greater cost) than the jurisdiction would contribute under a uniform millage. A negative bar means a jurisdiction gets less benefit (services costing less) than the contribution of that jurisdiction in a uniform millage.

The method used to calculate the cost of POSA agreements is by service hours.

Performance

One criticism of the AAATA that has been a part of recent community conversation is the contention that administrative overhead costs are too high – and that additional operational efficiency could and should be achieved before expanding service. At the Nov. 14 community engagement meeting, held in Ypsilanti at SPARK East on Michigan Ave., part of the presentation included a slide that in part confirmed the idea that AAATA’s operating expenses are per hour higher than average – 18% higher when compared to peer transportation authorities. But that same slide included analysis showing that the AAATA’s operating expenses per passenger were 17% lower.

AAATA operating expense per service hour.

AAATA trips per service hour.

Expense per passenger trip.

AAATA’s choice of the peer communities in this analysis was based on recommendations from the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) to use the Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) as an analysis tool for National Transit Database figures. Those peer communities are: Peoria, IL; Lexington, KY; Moline, IL; Lansing, MI; Syracuse, NY; Savannah, GA; Champaign-Urbana, IL; Roanoke, VA; Concord, CA; Erie, PA; Kalamazoo, MI; Harrisburg, PA; Fort Wayne, IN; Rockford, IL; Shreveport, LA; Hartford, CT; Fort Collins, CO; Scranton, PA; Gainesville, FL; and South Bend, IN.

Public Meetings

During the month-long delay by the Ann Arbor city council in voting on Ypsilanti Township’s membership, the AAATA has continued a series of 13 meetings – designed to introduce residents to a five-year service improvement plan – which would require additional funding.

At the Oct. 28, 2013 public meeting on service plan improvements, held at AAATA headquarters, Jack Eaton points at Route G, a proposed new route. He suggested that it continue from Stadium & Pauline on to Pioneer High School, before looping back to the north, which would complete a connection between two high schools – Skyline and Pioneer.

The series of meetings began on Oct. 17 before the council’s Oct. 21 decision to postpone. The last of those meetings took place in Ypsilanti on Nov. 14.

At the council’s Oct. 21 meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) provided one of the eight votes for postponement, so he was keen to assure Ypsilanti Township officials – who were present at the meeting – that he was still supportive of their membership in the AAATA.

He indicated at the council’s Oct. 21 session that he would be attending some of the public meetings to show his support. Responding to an emailed query, Kunselman wrote to The Chronicle that he’d attended three of the meetings – on Oct. 29 at the Michigan League, on Nov. 6 at Tappan Middle School and on Nov. 12 at the Malletts Creek branch of the Ann Arbor District Library.

The first meeting (which is available through CTN’s video on demand) was held just before the AAATA’s regular board meeting on Oct. 17. Details of the service improvements, including maps and scheduling, are available on the AAATA’s website.

The conversation at the public meetings ranged from policy concerns to extremely practical issues.

Looking northwest: Corner of South Maple and Scio Church.

On the policy side, for example, the AAATA staff heard from a taxicab driver at the first public meeting complaining that the cheap price of the AAATA’s new AirRide service to the Detroit Metro airport diminished his ability to earn a livelihood driving a cab.

As an example of the practical side, a question was raised at the Oct. 18 meeting about the ability of a bus to easily make the right-hand turn from South Maple onto Scio Church, which would be required by the new Route E. The turn is less than 90 degrees.

That pre-election question came from former bus driver Jack Eaton, who was elected to represent Ward 4 on the city council on Nov. 5. [Eaton's bus driving career included 10-years with Kalamazoo Metro Transit from 1974 through 1984. Eaton now earns his livelihood as a labor attorney.]

Responding to Eaton, AAATA manager of service development Chris White allowed that when he’d presented the new route configurations to AAATA drivers, that was the one concern they’d raised. White felt that by using part of the neighboring lane, that turn could be navigated.

Eaton will be attending his first meeting as a sitting councilmember on Nov. 18, with the Ypsilanti Township membership on the agenda.

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!

Map of showing the location of 82 acres of mostly agricultural land in Superior Township that the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission is preserving through a conservation easement.

The new parcel of mostly agricultural land, on the north side of Ford Road a bit east of Berry Road, is owned by Ford Road Property Company LLC. The intent is to provide a buffer between Ford Road and the land that WCPARC previously purchased, as well as Superior Township’s nearby Schroeter Park. WCPARC authorized purchase of the easement for $413,000, which will prevent the land from being developed.

In a separate vote, commissioners authorized moving ahead on the purchase of 10 acres in Bridgewater Township – located near the southern border of Washtenaw County on the south side of WCPARC’s 43-acre Riverbend Preserve. Commissioners approved the preparation of a purchase offer of $92,500 contingent on completing all necessary due diligence and WCPARC’s final approval.

Also on Oct. 8, WCPARC director Bob Tetens provided an update on the proposed recreation center near downtown Ypsilanti, a project that WCPARC began almost two years ago. The proposal is to build a multi-purpose recreation center on part of the 38-acre Water Street redevelopment area on the south side of Michigan Avenue, next to the Huron River. The project would be a partnership, with the city providing the land, the county constructing the building, and the facility to be managed by the Ann Arbor YMCA.

Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber attended the Oct. 8 meeting, to emphasize the city’s strong support for this project. Discussion focused on possible changes to the design developed by a team of University of Michigan architects and students. The need to make changes arose from the city of Ypsilanti’s 2013 master planning and rezoning project, which is nearing completion.

In addition to the regular financial reports and updates, other actions at the Oct. 8 meeting included approving WCPARC’s participation in Pittsfield Township’s State Road corridor improvement authority. The CIA to improve State Road would entail capturing a percentage of taxes from several local entities, including taxes that support WCPARC.

Natural Areas Preservation Program

Nearly every WCPARC meeting includes discussion or action related to the county’s natural areas preservation program. NAPP is funded by a 10-year countywide millage of 0.2409 mills, which brings in about $3 million annually. Voters renewed the millage most recently in 2010, through 2020. The program enables WCPARC to buy land worth preserving because of its natural features, and to purchase development rights on agricultural land.

The Natural Areas Technical Advisory Committee (NATAC) advises WCPARC on acquisitions for nature preserves. The Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Committee advises WCPARC on the purchase of development rights, primarily for farmland.

NAPP: Ford Road Property

Tom Freeman, former WCPARC deputy director who now serves as a consultant for the natural areas preservation program, made a presentation about the property on Ford Road. He reminded commissioners that this proposal was related to WCPARC’s February 2013 acquisition of several nearby parcels, totaling 67 acres.

From left: Nelson Meade and Fred Veigel of the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission’s Oct. 8, 2013 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Ford Road Property Company LLC owns the additional 82 acres, largely agricultural, that are now being considered. NATAC did not recommend outright acquisition of this parcel. Rather, the proposal calls for purchasing a conservation easement so that a farmer could continue to own, use and pay property taxes on the land.

Freeman’s written pointed out highlights of the property, including “a nice perennially wet area along Ford Road, and an old hedge row running down the middle of the property that hasn’t ever been farmed.”

Adjacent areas, he pointed out, include the Kosch preserve, the Superior Greenway, and other properties that are protected by Superior Township. Regarding the land’s topography, Freeman highlighted a significant change in elevation rising up from Ford Road. “It’s a gorgeous piece of property that is also a very productive agricultural site.” He added “We saw a magnificent buck when we last visited.”

Superior Township has provided a letter of support for this deal, Freeman said. He also described the three due diligence steps that WCPARC staff had taken:

• An appraisal by Bosserd Appraisal Services placed a value of $413,000 for a conservation easement on the 82-acre parcel, at $5,037 per acre.
• A phase 1 environmental site assessment prepared by Mannik & Smith Group found no evidence of recognized environmental concerns.
• A boundary survey with legal description and sealed survey drawing was completed.

NAPP: Ford Road Property – Commission Discussion

Commission member Fred Veigel asked about the use of active agricultural fields within properties that NAPP purchases [although this proposal was to purchase a conservation easement, not to buy the land outright]. Freeman responded that when NAPP purchases a property with fields in active use, the intent is to try to keep those fields in active use through a contract with a local farmer. In return for use of the land, the farmer is required to follow an agriculture management plan developed along guidelines established by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Services.

[Responding via email to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Freeman explained that allowing a field to go fallow often results in invasion by nuisance plants and weeds.]

The conservation easement allows the owner to continue to use the property in a fashion consistent with the terms of the easement, Freeman told commissioners. The Ford Road property will continue to be farmed, he said.

Outcome: On a roll call vote, WCPARC gave unanimous approval to purchase a conservation easement on the 82-acre Ford Road LLC property for $413,000.

NAPP: Dindoffer Property

Freeman also presented the recommendation to take the first step toward purchasing a 10-acre property in Bridgewater Township, near the southwest corner of Washtenaw County on the west side of Allen Road. The property is immediately south of WCPARC’s Riverbend Preserve. [This preserve is not yet equipped with parking for public access. WCPARC issued an RFP (request for proposals) in September 2013 to build a parking lot, bench and overlooks.]

Aerial view of Dindoffer property in Brigewater Township.

Freeman provided background on this proposed purchase. In 2006, the Tackett family nominated the property for consideration by NAPP, but the deal did not move forward. The property subsequently changed hands and the current owners, Johnathan and Kristin Dindoffer, decided to nominate the 10 acres for consideration by NAPP.

Freeman’s report highlighted the desirable qualities of the property: a wetland that’s the source of a seasonal stream running north across the property boundary and then into the River Raisin. “The most significant natural feature,” he continued, “is the frontage along the River Raisin … along the western boundary of the property.”

The land’s immediate adjacency to the Riverbend Preserve would provide a chance to expand the trail network being developed in the preserve. Freeman concluded by stating that an Oct. 2, 2013 Bosserd Appraisal Services assessment put the value of the property at $92,500, or approximately $9,158 per acre.

There was no substantive discussion, although a question about whether there is a house on the property revealed that there is not. The Dindoffers had intended to build on the land but had “decided otherwise,” Freeman said. He added that WCPARC was offering only $2,500 more than the Dindoffers had paid for it – “not enough to cover their taxes,” he said.

Outcome: A unanimous voice vote approved authorizing the WCPARC staff to prepare a purchase offer for the Dindoffer property for $92,500, contingent on completion of all necessary due diligence examination of the property and the commission’s final approval.

East County Recreation Center

During the Oct. 8 meeting, Ypsilanti Mayor Paul Schreiber spoke briefly to commissioners about the city’s strong interest in the East County Recreation Center.

By way of background, WCPARC has been working with the city of Ypsilanti, the Ann Arbor YMCA, and faculty and students of the University of Michigan Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning to develop a plan for a recreation center in the eastern part of the county. The focus has been on a 12-acre site located within Ypsilanti’s Water Street area, on the south side of Michigan Avenue just east of downtown and next to the Huron River. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Pursues Major New Parks & Rec Deal."]

Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber.

On Oct. 8, Schreiber talked about a meeting he’d had with WCPARC president Bob Marans and WCPARC director Bob Tetens. “The city is enthused – we need to keep working on it,” Schreiber told commissioners. “I’m here to facilitate communication. Let’s do it!”

Tetens reviewed the two-year process of planning for an east county recreation center. It began, he said, when WCPARC collaborated with the city of Ypsilanti to plan the piece of the Border-to-Border (B2B) trail that will run along the Huron River in Ypsilanti, crossing Michigan Avenue to continue on the east side of the river. [The trail is proposed for the west side of the 38-acre Water Street area, which the city is trying to develop.]

It became clear, Tetens continued, that the city’s interest was in the need to maximize commercial frontage along Michigan Avenue, in how to handle stormwater, and in providing enough parking. Tetens said that WCPARC staff worked with Ypsilanti city planner Teresa Gillotti, city manager Ralph Lange and University of Michigan professor of architecture Craig Borum. Borum – with a team of UM faculty and students – had developed a plan for the center that was discussed at a public session in September 2012.

There is now increased interest in the Water Street site, Tetens said, “perhaps from our interest, perhaps from the economy turning around.” He then described how the plan for the rec building was evolving. “So now we are ‘heading south’ [elongating the building to the south to minimize the Michigan Avenue frontage] and seeing how compact we can make our site.”

Coy Vaughn, WCPARC planner, continued the description by reciting basic facts about the area. The whole Water Street site is 38 acres. A strip 100 feet wide along the river might be set aside for a non-motorized trail; it could narrow as it leaves Michigan Avenue. Initially, about 12 acres was considered for the rec center site, he said. A marketing study done by the Ann Arbor Y brought the size of the building down from about 50,000 square feet to about 40,000.

Now, WCPARC staff are negotiating a development agreement with the city that will cover several aspects:

• Exact location and size of the parcel.
• Size and orientation of the structure.
• Proposed site plan and building design.
• Timeline for approval, permits, and construction.
• Plan for infrastructure development.
• Roles and responsibilities.
• Terms of a parcel transfer.

Tetens told commissioners that he had planned to bring a conceptual drawing to WCPARC that night, but discussions with the city in the last few days have revealed a “lot of moving parts in this project.” [The city is in the midst of rewriting its master plan and will follow that with rezoning. The Ann Arbor Y is studying the feasibility of managing the building. The county has to decide whether to pay for the building. And the city of Ypsilanti has to decide whether to give the land to the project.]

Tetens described another angle: the city is getting some interest from developers, who might want to put more residential uses on the site. He characterized that potential as “exciting, and if there is an interested developer we want to work with him.”

Vaughn described three new options for the rec building site, and explained that the UM architectural team is still helping with the project, for another $5,000. Those options include:

• Option A: Using 6.14 acres with a 304-foot frontage on Michigan Avenue, with parking to the rear of an elongated building massed on Michigan Avenue. Entrances would be on the west (from the B2B trail) and the east. The plan allows room for expansion of the building, and for a fishing dock on the river.
• Option B: 4.6 acres, 131 parking spaces, 348 feet along Michigan Avenue, and a building with a more square shape to free up desirable land along the river for residential use. Developers, Vaughn said, are excited about the prospect of building housing near the rec center.
• Option C: 5 acres, 170 parking spaces and 332 feet of Michigan Avenue frontage. This would save even more river frontage for residential.

East County Recreation Center – Commission Discussion

Commissioner Rolland Sizemore, Jr. – who also represents District 5 on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners – began the discussion by expressing his impatience with the pace of the project. He asked whether there is an agreement yet with the city about the B2B trail and the pedestrian crossing on Michigan Avenue. “I don’t see why we are being wagged around. We have to take this to the county board [of commissioners],” Sizemore said. “We started this at 10 acres and now we’re down to 4.” He said he could wait until the end of December, but after that he suggested that “we tell the city what we want and let them decide whether to accept it.”

Commission member Pat Scribner urged patience and trying to work with the city, “since there seem to be new possibilities and we want to get this right without being rigid.”

Tetens pointed out that a smaller building would be less expensive to build and operate – an example of a new development that makes the project easier and more likely to be deemed sustainable by the YMCA. He added a note of understanding for Sizemore’s impatience: “We have all overheated at one time or another. It won’t go on forever.”

Outcome: The topic was for discussion only; no vote was taken.

Pittsfield Township Corridor Improvement Authority

Director Bob Tetens brought up the issue of whether WCPARC wanted to participate in Pittsfield Township’s proposed State Road corridor improvement authority (CIA).

Dick Carlisle of Carlisle/Wortman Associates Inc. and Craig Lyon, director of utilities and public services for Pittsfield Township, had given WCPARC a presentation about the proposal at WCPARC’s Aug. 13, 2013 meeting. The project would entail capturing a percentage of taxes from several local entities, including taxes that support WCPARC.

Tetens briefly reviewed the aspects of the project that would overlap with what WCPARC would do – such as building non-motorized pathways for pedestrians and bicyclists. He also noted the potential loss of $600,000-$700,000 in WCPARC tax revenue over the 20 years of the project, but said it was “a good deal” for WCPARC because of “mission alignment.”

Curtis Hedger, Washtenaw County’s corporation counsel, had told Tetens that WCPARC should write a letter indicating whether the commission agreed to the reduction in taxable revenue. [All taxing entities in the CIA have 60 days to indicate whether they intend to participate. That 60-day "opt out" period began after a public hearing held on Oct. 9 by the Pittsfield Township board of trustees.]

President Bob Marans commented that he had heard no objection to participation during the presentation. There was no further discussion.

Outcome: Unanimous approval to write a letter agreeing to the reduction in taxable revenue.

Projects and Activities

Each month, WCPARC staff provide updates to commissioners about ongoing improvement to WCPARC’s facilities, and activities at parks and natural areas. The staff also share communications from users, whether individuals or groups. Some of this information is provided in writing in the board packet; more is provided with visuals and informal commentary. This report summarizes the most significant items.

• Rolling Hills Dog Swim: Staff reported that attendance at the 8^th annual event was the best ever, with 119 dogs swimming on Sept. 7.
• Hudson Mills B2B trail: The trail will be done within weeks, from the Westridge subdivision north for 3 miles.
• Ann Arbor Skate Park: The contractor has formed and installed reinforcement systems for the pools and some other skate park features, with concrete to be poured later in the month. Bob Tetens told commissioners that “short of going out to California, I don’t know what’s like it.” [WCPARC contributed $400,000 toward the skate park in September 2012. It's located in the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park in Ann Arbor.] Commissioner Fred Veigel expressed concern about safety and supervision at the park. Tetens responded that it will be a city of Ann Arbor park, and that skate parks normally are not staffed. Signs warn users about safety measures.
• Staff events and achievements: Three WCPARC staff took part in the first annual United Way kickball challenge for county employees. Thonda J. Petty received an award from the county for “service and program enhancements” at Rolling Hills Park.
• Sharon Mills Park: The new pedestrian bridge project is complete.
  

Communications & Commentary

Throughout the meeting there were several opportunities for staff and commissioners to share communications or bring up items of discussion about matters not directly related to the agenda. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Swift Run Dog Park

Commission member Rolland Sizemore Jr., who had spoken at the September meeting about problems at the Swift Run Dog Park, said he continued to get complaints about the park.

Sign at Swift Run Dog Park, a joint venture of the city of Ann Arbor and the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission.

Coy Vaughn responded, saying he had met with city of Ann Arbor parks and recreation staff about making improvements: adding benches, shade trees, and making the paths easier to walk on by adding finer gravel. They also talked about possibly paving the parking lot, but Vaughn reported that this cannot be done because the dog park is on top of a landfill.

In response to a question from commissioner Bob Marans about who is responsible for making improvements, Vaughn reminded the group that the dog park is a joint project between WCPARC and the city of Ann Arbor, and WCPARC owes money to the city as a partner. Once that is paid off, sometime in the next year, Vaughn said, “we could divest.”

Ann Arbor’s parks and recreation department is, he said, planning for other dog parks. [An update on that effort was provided at the Sept. 17, 2013 meeting of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission.] WCPARC director Bob Tetens commented: “This was our first dog park and it was polarizing – people who feared attacks from dogs, people who think dogs can do no wrong. Over the years, though, the park has been a success, with people and dogs out there all the time.”

Sizemore returned to his point: He hears complaints, and he wants to be sure the park is kept up to WCPARC’s standard. “I don’t want this to fall by the wayside just because we have to partner with Ann Arbor. If we can’t partner with them, let’s walk away from it.”

Communications & Commentary: Rutherford Pool in Ypsilanti

Commissioner Fred Veigel noted the appreciation that WCPARC had earned by contributing to the renovation of Rutherford Pool. He described a couple of items that still needed attention – a fence and some electrical work – for which he had obtained volunteer help to complete.

Financial Reports

Staff provide several different financial reports to WCPARC each month, focused on the past month’s expenses (the claims report), monthly and year-to-date reports on expenses and revenues in the form of fund balance reports, and a listing of major non-recurring expenses. The October meeting reviewed reports for September. There are separate reports on parks and facilities, and on the natural areas preservation program (NAPP), which includes preservation of agricultural lands. Each of these has its own, separate funding, although WCPARC administers all of these programs.

Financial Reports: Claims Report

Parks and facilities paid a total of $207,443 in September – including $20,430 for capital improvements, primarily at Rolling Hills and Independence Lake parks. WCPARC director Bob Tetens told commissioners, “You can see we are out of our capital improvements activity. The only expense was to remove the old spray zone at Independence Lake.”

NAPP claims exceeded that with $468,456, almost entirely the cost of acquiring land.

Total claims paid by WCPARC in September 2013: $675,899. [.pdf of September 2013 claims report]

Financial Reports: Fund Balance – Parks and Recreation

A report on the parks and recreation fund balance showed the projected fund balance of $8,455,552 by the end of the year – Dec. 31, 2013. The fund balance started the year at $12,950,815.

As of Sept. 30, 2013, revenue totaled $9,415,170 – primarily from property taxes ($6,408,702) and fees and services ($2,982,038). Expenses year to date were $10,386,711.

In addition, the parks budget includes an operating reserve of $6.7 million and ”partnership” funding commitments of $925,000. [.pdf of parks and recreation fund balance report]

Financial Reports: Fund Balance – NAPP

The Jan. 1, 2013 fund balance for NAPP was $10,263,644. Through Sept. 30, 2013, revenue was $3,460,249 and expenses were $4,095,192. The projected year-end fund balance for NAPP is $10,200,558. [.pdf of NAPP fund balance report]

There was no substantive discussion of the reports.

Outcome: WCPARC unanimously voted to receive, accept and file the financial reports.

Recreation Reports

These monthly reports include attendance at WCPARC facilities where attendance can be counted, with information about participation in measurable activities and revenue received at those facilities. The reports include the current year-to-date summary as well as comparable information for the prior two years.

Recreation Reports: Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center

The Meri Lou Murray rec center is doing better financially this year than the prior two years, according to a report by WCPARC director Bob Tetens, even though participation is down. Year-to-date participation as of Sept. 30, 2013 was 240,978 and revenue was $953,424. In 2012, year-to-date participation was 241,052 and revenue was $894,742. In 2011, participation was 254,755 and revenue was $906,187. [.pdf of MLM Rec Center report]

Recreation Reports: Pierce Lake Golf Course

As he has for the last several months, Bob Tetens recommended comparing Pierce Lake Golf Course’s use in 2013 to 2011 rather than 2012 because of the hotter weather in 2012, when the golf course opened two weeks earlier than normal.

Through the end of September 2013, 15,412 people had paid greens fees totaling $347,503. That compares with 18,376 people and revenues of $382,964 in 2012. In 2011, 14,403 people paid $313,016. Programming and retail operations brought in $101,807 in 2013; $105,311 in 2012; and $82,383 in 2011.

Total revenue in 2013 was $547,330, compared to $588,426 in 2012 and $479,345 in 2011. [.pdf of Pierce Lake Golf Course report]

Recreation Reports: Rolling Hills Park and Water Park

There is an entrance fee, and gate count, for everyone who enters Rolling Hills Park. There is a separate fee, and gate count, for those who go on to enter the water park there.

Through the end of September 2013, 30,305 people paid $237,838 to enter Rolling Hills Park. That’s down from a gate count for the same period in 2012 of 34,132 people, who paid $264,825. In 2011, 34,612 people paid $265,933.

The water park draws greater attendance, but both attendance and revenues are down in 2013 compared to the same period in previous years. So far in 2013, 94,266 people paid $715,239. That compares to attendance in 2012 of 114,522 people and $780,122; and a 2011 count of 115,012 people and $780,995 in revenues.

Total year-to-date revenue for all operations at Rolling Hills was $1,201,672 in 2013, compared to $1,317,599 in 2012 and $1,309,007 in 2011. [.pdf of Rolling Hills report]

Recreation Reports: Independence Lake Park and Blue Heron Bay

Blue Heron Bay is a water-feature area separate from the rest of Independence Lake Park. Because Blue Heron Bay opened in 2013, there are no comparisons to earlier years.

By the end of September 2013, 15,392 people paid $122,022 to use Independence Lake Park. That compares to 2012 attendance of 17,743 people and $137,217 in revenues. In 2011, 16,846 people attended the park, with revenues of $131,504.

Attendance at Blue Heron Bay was 17,668 through September 2013, for $69,787 in revenues.

Total revenue for all of Independence Lake Park was, through September 2013, $295,370 in 2013. That compares to $211,458 in 2012 and $208,474 in 2011. [.pdf of Independence Lake report]

Outcome: The recreation reports were received and accepted for filing unanimously.

Present: Janis Bobrin, Robert Marans, Nelson Meade, Evan Pratt, Patricia Scribner, Dan Smith, Rolland Sizemore Jr., and Fred Veigel. Also director Robert Tetens, deputy director Coy Vaughn, and consultant Tom Freeman.

Absent: Jan Anschuetz, Conan Smith.

Next meeting: Tuesday, Nov. 12, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the county parks and recreation department’s office at 2230 Platt Road in Ann Arbor.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission. 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!

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, as well as the date on which the board of the AAATA passed a resolution giving formal notification of the name change. The resolution was passed at the board’s regular monthly meeting.

The board’s Aug. 15 resolution indicates 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 indicates only that “The Ride” will continue as the organization’s mark.

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. 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 AAATA does not currently 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.

Bernard is a lecturer in the University of Michigan law school and an attorney with UM’s office of the vice president and general counsel. He is also currently chair of the university’s council for disability concerns. 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.

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.

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