But this column is not about deer versus people. It’s about corporations versus people. Also football. Even the U.S. Constitution.

This is the electronic time clock at the public speaking podium in Ann Arbor’s city council chambers. The elements in red (except for the American flag in the background) have been digitally added.

First, here’s some background. On Aug. 18, the anti-Israel activists had not been able to address the council during reserved public comment time at the start of the meeting – because the council rules stipulate that preference is given to speakers who want to address an agenda item. A boycott against Israel was not on the agenda.

So during that comment period, the council heard from five people who spoke in favor of spending the $20,000 on a deer management plan. The other five reserved slots were taken by: Thomas Partridge, who was officially signed up to talk about the planning commission’s work plan (one of the attachments in the clerk’s report); two people who signed up to talk about revisions to the taxicab ordinance; and two people who had signed up to talk about the lease agreement with the University of Michigan for three parking lots at Fuller Park.

That meant that anti-Israel activists were not able to reprise their demonstration at the previous council meeting, on Aug. 7, when eight of their group were signed up to speak. On that occasion, nearly all the commentary was complete. But then chants of “Boycott Israel” led mayor John Hieftje to recess the meeting. And he eventually decided to have Ann Arbor police clear the room of more than 50 activists. In this case, “clearing the room” translated into two officers telling the group’s leaders – Blaine Coleman and Mozghan Savabieasfahani – that they and their group had to leave. And after a few minutes, amid more loud chants and heated statements, the group left council chambers under their own power.

The contrast on obvious display at the Aug. 18 meeting was between two types of meeting attendees: (1) those who wanted to address the city council about an agenda item; and (2) those who wanted to address the council, but not on an agenda item.

That’s not the contrast I want to focus on. I want to focus on the contrast between two speakers who were alternates on the waiting list for reserved speaking time – both of whom wanted to address the council about an agenda item.

The two alternates were: Larry Baird, an Ann Arbor resident who signed up to talk about the Fuller Park lease agreement; and Michael White, a representative of Uber who was attending the meeting to speak against regulation of drivers for hire. Baird was slotted ahead of White on the alternate list.

The Person

Under the council’s rules, alternate speakers are assigned the slots of other speakers on the list if those slots are “vacated.” On Aug. 18, the first speaker on the list was Rita Mitchell, who was signed up to talk about the Fuller Park lease. When mayor John Hieftje started off public commentary, he called Mitchell’s name. A 10-second pause ensued as Mitchell did not approach the podium or say anything. Hieftje scanned the room. Ward 4 councilmember Jack Eaton then pointed her out, in the audience on the north side of the council chambers.

She remained there, telling Hieftje, “I’m electing not to speak.” Under the council’s rules, it would not have been allowed for Mitchell to transfer her speaking time to someone else. But she was within her rights to vacate the slot – which she did, first by not saying anything and then, when Hieftje addressed her, replying, “I’m electing not to speak.” So when the other nine speakers had completed their turns, Larry Baird – as the first alternate – should have been allowed to speak, according to the council’s rules.

Here’s what happened instead. Hieftje ended the public commentary section. Ward 2 councilmember Jane Lumm ventured there was another speaker left. But Hieftje disallowed Baird’s turn as Baird approached the podium, explaining “Ms. Mitchell was here and chose not to speak. It’s not as if she wasn’t here. And so we’re gonna continue with our agenda.”

The incorrect application of the council’s rule by Hieftje meant that Baird’s only guaranteed opportunity to speak during the meeting would come after the council’s action on the Fuller Park lease, at the end of the meeting.

The Corporation

In that regard, Uber – in the form of Michael White – was in the same boat as Baird. But later in the meeting, the council chose to invoke a different rule, which worked to Uber’s benefit.

When the council came to the taxicab ordinance on the agenda, Uber was invited to the podium to speak. Under the council’s rules, any councilmember can invite someone to address them outside of public commentary reserved time, unless three councilmembers object. No one objected when Lumm invited Uber to the podium.

Uber spent about 25 minutes at the podium doing a great job of not actually answering point-blank yes/no questions posed by councilmembers, but hammering all of Uber’s standard marketing points.

Having used Uber a half dozen times, I would note in passing that I think those are easy marketing points to hammer – because Uber provided a great travel alternative when I used it. If concerns about safety and equity can be sorted out, I think rideshare services should have a place in Ann Arbor’s transportation marketplace.

However, based on Uber’s performance at the podium, I’ll probably be giving Lyft a try.

People Versus Corporations

When the council came to the Fuller Park lease item, Baird was still present in council chambers and available to speak. But no councilmember was stirred to invite Baird to the podium to deliver the three-minutes of rightful in-person public commentary he’d been denied. The council voted to postpone the lease item, without hearing from Baird, who was not able to stay until the end of the meeting to address the council at that time.

So the real contrast on display at the Aug. 18 Ann Arbor city council meeting was not deer versus people. It was corporations versus people. What I observed was a council that was – at least on that occasion – more interested in hearing from a corporation than it was from a person who lives here.

Bear in mind that Ann Arbor city councilmembers are the sort of folks who are content to state publicly their personal opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission decision – which determined that corporations are people for the purposes of political campaign contributions. (That statement about the sentiments of councilmembers appears to be true, even if not all of them were willing to vote yes on a resolution in 2012 calling for the U.S. Congress to send a constitutional amendment to the states to overturn the ruling.)

And councilmembers routinely compete with each other in this kind of contest: Who can talk longer about the importance of public input? A few years ago, the council even enacted a public participation ordinance, requiring all developers to meet with residents in the early stages of proposed new developments.

Political Football

But when it comes to the practical implementation of that stated value of public participation, John Hieftje dropped the ball on Aug. 18.

As a quarterback of the council, Hieftje has never been particularly sure-handed, so that fumble wasn’t surprising – and consequently, not all that disappointing. What’s truly disappointing, to me at least, is that no one on Team Council dove into the pile to make the recovery. Jane Lumm might have come closest to that, when she ventured that there was another speaker remaining – after Hieftje announced that public commentary was over.

So Lumm at least yelled “FUM-BLE!” But Hieftje responded by declaring that the alternate speaker wouldn’t be allowed to speak – because Rita Mitchell was present in the audience.

At that point, no one on the council threw a red challenge flag – by asking that the text of the rule be reviewed, to see if and how it applied. At the end of the meeting, during council communications, Sumi Kailasapathy raised the question by citing the relevant council rule, stating that a mistake had been made. She asked if the situation could be rectified in some way. But as Chuck Warpehoski pointed out, following up on Kailasapathy’s sentiment: A point of order needs to be raised at the time the issue arises.

Otherwise put, you can’t ask for a review of the play after the game is over. So in the future, the council has to be ready to throw that challenge flag onto the field before the next play starts.

Knowing the Rule Book

Kailasapathy knew the exact wording of the rule by the end of the meeting, because I showed her the text of the rule during a recess. During that recess, I gave her and Stephen Kunselman (who were standing together) not just the rule but also a piece of my mind – because they’d sat mute at the council table and had not defended Baird’s right to speak under the council’s rule.

Kunselman responded by saying he didn’t have all the council’s rules memorized. Well, I don’t have them memorized, either. But I do know how to look stuff up [emphasis in bold italics]:

Public Commentary – Reserved Time:
A total of 10 speakers shall be allowed to address Council during the time designated as Public Commentary – Reserved Time by signing up with the City Clerk either in person or by telephone. Each person may speak a maximum of 3 minutes. Speaking times are not transferable, and vacated speaking times shall be assigned to the two alternate speakers on the waiting list. Speakers may not use public commentary-reserved time to address Council on an agenda item for which a public hearing is scheduled for the same meeting.

And the only thing any councilmember needed to do was to ask for a pause in the action: “Is that really the rule, Mr. Mayor? Can we take a minute and look that up?” To look up the rule would have taken any councilmember about as long as it took me, even while I was typing out live updates of the meeting – about 10 seconds at their laptop computer.

Granted, the inclination to look something up in the council rules is premised on having some doubt about the presiding officer’s determination. But I think any scenario that involves a citizen poised to speak, like Baird was, followed by a denial of that opportunity to speak, should itself trigger a big floppy red flag of doubt: Are we really justified under our own rules in denying someone the right to address us right now?

That didn’t happen, because the culture of the Ann Arbor city council does not include routine, matter-of-fact consultation of rules and laws – even though they are really easy to look up with modern digital technology.

Knowingly Misapplying the Rule

The day after the council meeting, I sent each councilmember a one-question emailed survey. It asked for their assessment of Hieftje’s application of the rule, which had the effect of prohibiting Baird from taking his rightful turn during reserved public commentary.

Of the eight councilmembers who responded, some hedged a bit, but all indicated at least some inclination toward the idea that the rule had been misapplied and that Baird should have been allowed to speak. Ward 2 councilmember Sally Petersen’s response was interesting, because she speculated about Hieftje’s interpretation of the rule. From Petersen’s email:

I considered this a “vacation” rather than a “transfer” of speaking time. I think Mayor Hieftje considered it otherwise because Rita was there in person. It’s up to interpretation because the rule doesn’t specify the condition when the person is present.

Hieftje himself was quite clear about his own interpretation of the rule. During the council’s recess, when I confronted him about his apparent mistake, I assumed his error stemmed from the fact that he just didn’t know the exact rule. But he insisted he already knew what the rule was, when I recited it to him: “I know what the rule says, Dave.” So I told him that only a perverse interpretation of the rule would allow Mitchell’s words – “I’m electing not to speak” – to be interpreted as an attempt to “transfer” speaking turns, or as an actual speaking turn.

Hieftje’s reply was incredible to me: He stated that it was not his interpretation that Mitchell’s words were an attempt to transfer her speaking turn to someone else; however, “I was concerned that someone else might think that.”

I’ve made an emailed query to Hieftje to invite any elaboration he might like to make on that statement, to which I have not received a reply. But based on the context of the Aug 18 and Aug. 7 meetings, it appears that Hieftje deliberately misapplied the rule due to the presence of anti-Israel activists – because he was afraid they might use that as an opportunity to object to an inappropriate “transfer” of speaking turns and possibly cause a disruption of the meeting.

Hieftje’s response to Kailasapathy at the end of the meeting is consistent with that understanding. Hieftje came close to admitting that he misapplied the rule. He told Kailasapathy that the council’s rules were under very close scrutiny, and pointed to the events of the last few days:

I will take another look at that. I’m happy to do that. The speaker was indeed here … I understand that it states “vacate” and I will agree to take a close look at that. But I also want you to understand that our rules are under a special scrutiny right now given what’s transpired at the last few council meetings, and we are paying very close attention, both at the clerk’s office, and throughout the city, to make sure that people believe that those rules are being administered fairly. At the last meeting we had three or four people who showed up to speak because they’d been told they could speak under public comment and yet they didn’t have a spot on the agenda. So we’re just being especially careful right now. And maybe I was being too careful.

So this unfortunate incident ultimately stemmed from an apparent concern by Hieftje that his own preferred interpretation of the council’s public speaking rule – about vacated speaking turns being assigned to the alternate speakers on the waiting list – might provoke the ire of anti-Israel activists. So he opted to err on the side of denying someone a rightful opportunity to speak.

A slightly different possibility – one raised by Margie Teall in her response to the emailed one-question survey – was that the mayor’s concern related to a possibility that a “loophole” would be created. Teall was absent from the meeting, but clearly got an account of the meeting from other sources. From Teall’s response:

My concern is that this could become a loophole around the sign-up time. Had [Baird] been one of the first 10 to sign up, he would have spoken regardless. What Rita [Mitchell] did gives me pause, and could be used in the future to secure speaking times for others who are unable, for whatever reason, to sign up when others are required to.

It’s worth noting that alternate speakers are required to sign up, just like the other speakers. So it’s not allowed for someone to sign up for a speaking slot, and then take some action to cause the slot to transfer to a person who has not signed up. That’s the “non-transferable” clause of the council rule.

It’s not clear to me what advantage this purported “loophole” described by Teall might afford to anyone who sought to exploit it. Nor is it clear what detriment there might be to anyone, if someone were to choose to exploit this “loophole.”

U.S. Constitution

To sum up, the council used its own internal rules to give greater deference to a corporation’s right to speak at its Aug. 18 meeting than it did to a person’s right to speak under those rules.

But who cares about the Ann Arbor city council’s dumb old rules? They’re just the stupid rules of a local government unit. It’s not like they’re the U.S. Constitution.

But they are like the U.S. Constitution. And here’s why. Take a look at the First Amendment, just look at it – with emphasis added in Hieftje’s preferred email font:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So the First Amendment is, among other things, about a right to petition the government. This is more fundamental even than a requirement imposed by Michigan’s Open Meetings Act (OMA): A public body must provide an opportunity for the public to address it during its meeting.

So when the city council sets up rules for public commentary, it’s not just establishing the exact manner in which the council will comply with the OMA. Those rules also establish one formal mechanism under which someone can petition the local government – which is a constitutional right. So when the council mucks about with the application of its public speaking rules, it’s mucking about with the right to petition the government.

That’s not to say that it’s necessarily a violation of someone’s constitutional right to petition if their right to speak under the council’s rules is denied. There are plenty of other ways to petition the Ann Arbor city council, including sending them email. Uber knows that well enough. Margie Teall noted in her response to my one-question survey that she’d received over 1,800 emails (!) about the taxicab ordinance via Uber’s online petition.

And Baird told me that he’d sent his planned remarks by email to the council before the meeting. Of course, that doesn’t justify Hieftje’s misapplication of the public speaking rule. Listening to someone read aloud for three minutes is not the same thing as glancing through a few hundred words of text. Written petitions are different in kind from oral petitions.

Conclusion: Simplify Access

Most Ann Arborites won’t care if someone did or didn’t get a chance to speak at a city council meeting. That’s because most Ann Arborites don’t think of their local government as a government of them, by them, or for them – because they’ve got way better things to do with their giant brains than think about anything as trivial as local government. I’d hazard that there are more Ann Arborites with a deeply held opinion about Obamacare than have a strong view on a need for a new, improved local rail station.

So we’ll continue to elect folks to the jobs of city council and mayor who are content to engage in a regular tussle over a relatively small fraction of the total votes that could potentially be cast in a local election. I don’t think there’s any particular incentive for our current local electeds to look for ways to increase participation in those elections, or in the boring, routine work of our collective governance.

That boring work might entail showing up to a city council meeting every once in a while and telling councilmembers what’s on your mind – for a minute or two, or even for the current maximum of three.

If someone does show up and they’ve followed the rules, the least we can do is ensure they’re allowed to speak. Figuring out what the rules are – when you have to sign up, which speakers get preference, and (now apparently) what counts as vacating a speaking turn – is one barrier to participation in Ann Arbor’s local governance. That’s because the Ann Arbor city council has enacted procedures designed to limit and discourage public comment, not to promote and market it.

I think it should be possible in one sentence to explain to any newly-arrived resident in Ann Arbor how to address our local city council: Show up at one of their regular meetings, at 7 p.m. on the first and third Mondays of the month, and sign in. That’s it.

Of course, if everyone who shows up and wants to speak is allowed three minutes, then we could routinely wind up with a citizens filibuster. But suppose we set an upper limit on the total time for public commentary. And suppose everyone who showed up and signed in was allowed 30 minutes divided by the number of people who’d signed up – with the proviso that the minimum time allowed to any speaker was a minute. That type of scheme would be a lawful way to provide for public commentary under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act, according to Attorney General Opinion #5332.

So that’s one small specific concrete suggestion for improving the ease of participation in our local governance. If the new edition of the council to be elected in November has additional or better ideas for including a wider swath of the community in our local governance, I will cheer for all that. But after Sept. 2, of course, my cheers won’t come from the hard benches of city council chambers.

Based on a less than 10-minute meeting of the council’s rules committee on Nov. 29, no changes to the rules were planned to be put forward at this time. The council’s rules committee – established by last year’s council – consisted of Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and mayor John Hieftje. Marcia Higgins had also served on that committee, but left the council when she did not win re-election last month.

The .pdf file attached to the council’s online agenda – which reflects the council’s rules to be considered for adoption – includes a revision that was explicitly discussed and, for the time being, rejected at the committee’s Nov. 29 meeting. [.pdf of city council rules]

That change replaces “personality” (an archaic usage meaning a disparaging remark about a person) with “personal attack” in the following rule: “The member shall confine comments to the question at hand and avoid personality.” At the council’s Nov. 18 regular meeting, when the council voted to delay adoption of the rules pending a review of the rules, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) had asked that the rules committee look at the rule requiring that councilmembers “avoid personality” during deliberations.

At the Nov. 29 committee meeting, Kunselman weighed in specifically for retaining the more archaic wording as reflective of history and tradition. The outcome of that committee discussion was that no changes would be recommended at this time, as any changes should be reviewed by the rules committee with its new membership. But in the document approved by the council at its Dec. 2 meeting, the revised language is included.

A consensus on the committee at the Nov. 29 meeting seemed to be that the new membership of the rules committee should include Sally Petersen (Ward 2) in place of Kunselman, as Kunselman did not wish to continue on the rules committee. In addition, Petersen’s ethics initiative, which was approved at the council’s Nov. 18, 2013 meeting, tasks the rules committee with a certain amount of work – so the rules committee consensus on Nov. 29 appeared to be that the committee would be well-served by her membership. The new rules committee for the coming year will consist of Petersen, Taylor, Briere, Hieftje and Warpehoski.

The rest of the new council committee assignments were also made at the Dec. 2 meeting. [.pdf of all assignments] Some discussion had occurred throughout the council’s recent consideration of the city’s Downtown Development Authority ordinance about the possibility of appointing the city administrator instead of mayor John Hieftje to serve in the statutory slot on the DDA board, but that did not come up at the Dec. 2 meeting. [For additional background on the appointment to the DDA board, see: "Column: Connecting Dots – DDA, FOIA."]

Added at 1:08 a.m. after initial publication: While the issue of the DDA appointment did not come up during the meeting, city administrator Steve Powers was listed in the .pdf file of committee assignments as being appointed to the DDA. So Powers will now serve for the next year on the DDA board. 

Other council appointments to other boards and commissions included Briere to the planning commission, Briere and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) to the environmental commission, Taylor to the greenbelt advisory commission (GAC) , and Petersen to the local development finance authority (LDFA) board.

The council’s calendar of regular meetings and work sessions was also adopted at the Dec. 2 meeting. The basic pattern is first and third Mondays for regular meetings, except when there’s a holiday or an election during the week of the meeting. Work sessions are slotted in for the second Monday of the month. The next council work session is scheduled for Monday, Dec. 9, which will be the occasion of the council’s annual retreat. That’s scheduled to last from 4-11 p.m.

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

The Ann Arbor city council’s Dec. 2, 2013 agenda is comparatively light, but might not lead to an especially short meeting.

The sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber, installed in the summer of 2013, includes Braille.

Items that could result in considerable council discussion include final approval of a repeal of the city’s crosswalk ordinance. A scheduled public hearing on that issue could also draw a number of speakers. The council gave initial approval to the repeal at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting – on a 9-2 vote.

The tally could be closer for the final vote, as mayor John Hieftje, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) could join Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4), who had dissented on the initial approval. Also a possibility is that a compromise approach could be worked out. The possible compromise would leave intact the language about motorists stopping, but still limit the right-of-way to just pedestrians within a crosswalk – that is, it would not afford the right-of-way to those standing at the curb.

Some of the public’s perspective and council discussion on the crosswalk issue was aired out during the council’s Sunday caucus, held in council chambers at city hall. This week the caucus was rescheduled for 1 p.m. instead of its usual evening start time, to accommodate more discussion of the local crosswalk law. The caucus drew six councilmembers and a dozen members of the public, and lasted three hours.

Another topic that could extend the Dec. 2 meeting is related to the pending sale of the Edwards Brothers property on South State Street to the University of Michigan for $12.8 million, which was announced in a press release last week. A right of first refusal on the property is held by the city of Ann Arbor as a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council almost three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011.

There’s some interest on the council in holding a closed session on Dec. 2 to review the options and the impact of those options. Any interest on the council in acquiring the land, which seems somewhat scant, would be based on a desire eventually to put the land back on the tax rolls. The topic of land acquisition is one of the legal exceptions to the Michigan Open Meetings Act, which requires all deliberations of a public body to be open to the public. If the council holds a closed session on that topic, it could extend the Dec. 2 meeting.

One reason the council may have little appetite for acquiring the Edwards Brothers property is that the city has just now managed to sell a downtown property the city acquired 10 years ago – the old Y lot on William Street, between Fourth and Fifth avenues. Approval of the $5.25 million sale to Dennis Dahlmann came at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting. But it’s possible that not all the due diligence will be completed before Dec. 16, when the city owes the $3.5 million principal it used to purchase the property. As a hedge against that possibility, the council will be asked on Dec. 2 to approve a six-month extension on the installment purchase agreement with Bank of Ann Arbor for the $3.5 million.

In the meantime, the minutes of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s most recent operations committee meeting reflect the DDA’s expectation that all of the equipment used to operate the public surface parking facility at the old Y lot will need to be removed by Dec. 31, 2013.

The city’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers property is linked to a tax abatement. And on the council’s Dec. 2 agenda is an item that would establish an industrial development district (IDD) for a different property, at 1901 E. Ellsworth, where Extang Corp. and GSG Fasteners are located. Creating an IDD is a step in the process for granting a tax abatement.

Land control and use is a predominant theme among other Dec. 2 agenda items as well.

The council will be asked to give initial approval to a rezoning request for the Traverwood Apartments project – from ORL (office, research and light industrial district) to R4D (multiple-family district). The First Martin Corp. project would include 16 two-story buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. The site plan and final rezoning approval would come before the city council at a future meeting. The Dec. 2 meeting will also include council’s consideration of a donation of 2.2 acres to the city from Bill Martin just north of the Traverwood Apartments project site. The acreage to be donated is next to the city’s Stapp Nature Area and the Leslie Park golf course.

At its Dec. 2 meeting, the council will also be asked to approve the site plan for a three-story addition to the Running Fit store at the northwest corner of Fourth Avenue and Liberty Street in downtown Ann Arbor. The first floor will be retained as retail space, but six residential units would be built on the upper three floors – one two-bedroom and five one-bedroom units.

The city council will also be asked to place a value on land currently used as on-street parking spaces – $45,000 per space. By formally adopting that figure, any future development that causes the removal of on-street parking could be charged that amount. It would be paid to the Ann Arbor DDA, which manages the city’s public parking system. In this matter, the council would be acting on a four-year-old recommendation, approved by the Ann Arbor DDA in 2009.

In non-land issues, the council will be introduced to newly hired firefighters at its Dec. 2 meeting. The budgeted staffing level for the fire department is 85. However, the statistical section from the city’s most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) shows 82 AAFD staff in fiscal year 2013. That’s because the council approved the hiring of additional firefighters after the fiscal year began, bringing the total to 85.

The CAFR itself is indirectly included in the council’s agenda – as part of a presentation that will be given by chief financial officer Tom Crawford on the result of this year’s audit. It was a clean audit that showed the general fund doing about $2.4 million better than budgeted.

Among the other myriad statistics in the CAFR are the number of parking violations recorded by the city – which are again down in the range of 90,000, as they’ve been for the last three years. That’s about half what they were in 2006 and 2007. Those numbers in the CAFR don’t include University of Michigan parking tickets – although the city and the UM have an agreement under which the city processes tickets and hears appeals for the university. A renewal of that agreement is on the council’s agenda for Dec. 2.

On Dec. 2 the council also has a fair amount of its own internal business to wrap up, associated with the seating of the new council, which took place on Nov. 18. That includes adoption of the council rules. Based on a less than 10-minute meeting of the council’s rules committee on Nov. 29, no changes to the rules would be put forward at this time. Based on that meeting, it appears that Sally Petersen (Ward 2) will replace Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) on that council committee. The rest of the new council committee assignments are also supposed to be made at the Dec. 2 meeting.

The council’s calendar of regular meetings and work sessions will also be adopted at the Dec. 2 meeting. The basic pattern is first and third Mondays for regular meetings, except when there’s a holiday or an election during the week of the meeting.

This article includes a more detailed look of many of these agenda items. More details on other meeting agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. Readers can also follow the live meeting proceedings Monday evening on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network.

The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the Dec. 2 meeting, published in this article below the preview material. Click here to skip the preview section and go directly to the live updates. The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m. Updates might begin somewhat sooner.

Crosswalk Law

The council will be asked to give final approval of a repeal of the city’s crosswalk ordinance. The council gave initial approval to the repeal at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting – on a 9-2 vote.

Current Ann Arbor local law differs in two ways from the state’s Uniform Traffic Code. First, under current local law, motorists in Ann Arbor are supposed to yield the right-of-way to those pedestrians not just “within a crosswalk” but also to those who are “stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk.” Second, when driving toward a crosswalk, motorists in Ann Arbor don’t have the option to yield to a pedestrian by merely slowing down; instead, they’re required to yield by stopping.

Here’s what the current law says (as a result of amendment on Dec. 19, 2011):

10:148. Pedestrians crossing streets

(a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.

(b) A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.

(c) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (Corresponds to UTC rule 706)

For more detail on the evolution of the local law, see “Column: Why Did the Turkey Cross the Road?”

A possible compromise the council might consider would leave intact the language about motorists stopping, but still limit the right-of-way to just pedestrians within a crosswalk – that is, it would exclude those standing at the curb.

The compromise could be based on the wording of the ordinance used by Traverse City:

When traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the right-of-way to every pedestrian within a marked crosswalk.

Representatives of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition, who are advocating against repealing the crosswalk ordinance, contend that Traverse City police enforce “within a crosswalk” by including the curb. When The Chronicle interviewed Traverse City code enforcement officer Lloyd Morris by telephone, he indicated that a pedestrian merely standing at the curb, not in the roadway, would not be considered to be “within a crosswalk.” But he allowed that Traverse City enforces the language to mean that a pedestrian who is not in the roadway but approaching the crosswalk with a clear intent to enter the roadway should be given the right-of-way. But at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting, assistant city attorney Bob West indicated that he didn’t interpret “within a crosswalk” to mean anything except being in the roadway.

At least some of the community debate on the topic has included the question of whether Ann Arbor’s ordinance is unique. On a national level, the ordinance language used in Boulder, Colorado includes more than just those pedestrians within a crosswalk:

A driver shall yield the right of way to every pedestrian on a sidewalk or approaching or within a crosswalk.“

And in Seattle, a similar effect is achieved by defining the crosswalk to extend from the roadway through the curb to the opposite edge of the sidewalk:

‘Crosswalk’ means the portion of the roadway between the intersection area and a prolongation or connection of the farthest sidewalk line or in the event there are no sidewalks then between the intersection area and a line ten feet therefrom, except as modified by a marked crosswalk.

Edwards Brothers Land

A pending sale of the Edwards Brothers property on South State Street to the University of Michigan for $12.8 million was announced in a press release last week. A right of first refusal on the property is held by the city of Ann Arbor as a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council almost three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011.

The topic of land acquisition is one of the legal exceptions to the Michigan Open Meetings Act, which requires all deliberations of a public body to be open to the public.

The council’s deliberations on granting the tax abatement nearly three years ago contemplated the possibility that the council could be faced with a decision about whether to act on the right of first refusal, which was associated with the tax abatement. At the time, city assessor David Petrak pegged the value of the land at anywhere between $1 million and $50 million. From The Chronicle’s report of that Jan. 18, 2011 meeting:

The cover memo also indicates that the Edwards Brothers real property is located immediately adjacent to a University of Michigan park-and-ride lot, and it’s felt that UM may have some interest in purchasing the property, which would remove it from the city’s tax rolls. In that light, the city staff built a stipulation into the tax abatement that would give the city the right of first refusal on any future land sale. So if UM offered to purchase the property, the city would have an opportunity to make an offer – presumably with the idea that the city would then sell the land to some other private entity, thereby returning the land to the tax rolls.

City assessor David Petrak briefly introduced some of the background on the request to the council.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) pressed for some additional explanation. Without additional information, she said, she could not support it. Why was the city considering the application? The answer was that by statute it must be considered.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) reminded the council that Edwards Brothers has been in Ann Arbor for over 100 years. When the previous abatement was granted, he said, the company was “this close” to moving the operation to North Carolina. Instead, due to the abatement, the company decided to remain in Ann Arbor and preserved around 400 jobs in this community.

With respect to Edwards Brothers not meeting the employment numbers required by the first tax abatement, Rapundalo cited the dire economic times, noting in particular that the book business has not exactly been thriving. So he did not want to hold the job losses against the company. He called Edwards Brothers a long-standing corporate citizen. He also said that if the company left, he would not doubt for a second that UM would pick up the property.

From the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) elicited the fact that the tax abatement would apply to a new press – a typical economic requirement in a very competitive industry, he said. Petrak went on to explain the right of first refusal on the possible sale of the real estate, if Edwards Brothers decided eventually to leave anyway.

City administrator Roger Fraser elaborated in more detail on Crawford’s description of the press to be acquired. It’s particularly suited to quick turnaround on small printing jobs, and offers an opportunity to pick up some additional business for the company. The right of first refusal on the land sale, he said, was an attempt to extract some additional public benefit from the agreement.

Smith pressed for information about what the approximate cost of the land would be, if the city found itself having to contemplate whether to exercise its right of first refusal. Petrak didn’t have that information, but when continued to be pressed by Smith, he allowed that it was between $1 million and $50 million.

Mayor John Hieftje established with Crawford that there’d been no negative impact to the city’s revenues due to job losses at the company. Hieftje said the right of first refusal did not matter to him at all, but the 400 jobs at the company represented good, if not fancy, jobs. They might not earn the average $80,000 salaries that Pfizer workers earned, but they were good jobs. Hieftje also noted that the percentage of property that is abated in the city is minuscule.

…

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) observed that 415 jobs is a lot of jobs. The fact that there’d been only a 13% drop he characterized as a “great feat.” If it were a new company, he said, they would all be out helping to cut the ribbon.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) expressed his support for the abatement.

As that report from 2011 indicates, the abatement applies to “personal property” that’s used in book production. If that equipment is moved to the Edwards Brothers Jackson Road plant, as part of the company’s effort to consolidate operations, then that equipment would no longer qualify for the tax abatement. That’s because it will have been moved outside of the industrial development district (IDD) where the 2011 abatement was granted.

Bank of Ann Arbor Loan

An agreement to sell the old Y lot on William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues downtown – to hotelier Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million – was approved by the council at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of rider] [.pdf of sales agreement]

But it’s possible that not all the due diligence will be completed before Dec. 16, when the city owes the $3.5 million principal it used to purchase the property. As a hedge against that possibility, the council will be asked on Dec. 2 to approve a six-month extension on the installment purchase agreement with Bank of Ann Arbor for the $3.5 million. The interest rate would be the same as the interest rate at which the city is currently borrowing the money – 3.89% with no penalty for pre-payment.

If additional interest is owed due to the extension of the loan, presumably the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority would also continue with its share of the payments. That was an arrangement agreed to in 2003 through action by the DDA’s executive committee, not the full DDA board. The DDA’s portion of the interest payments could factor into the calculation of the net proceeds from the former Y lot sale. A year ago at the council’s Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, the council adopted a resolution that indicated the proceeds of the sale would:

“… first be utilized to repay the various funds that expended resources on the property, including but not limited to due diligence, closing of the site and relocation and support of its previous tenants, after which any remaining proceeds be allocated and distributed to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund …

However, two days after the council meets on Dec. 2, the board of the Ann Arbor DDA will be considering a resolution that would waive any need to repay the DDA for those interest payments or for the expenditures by the DDA to demolish the old Y building in 2008. [.pdf of Dec. 4, 2013 draft DDA resolution on Y lot proceeds]

Possibly relevant to the question of whether the DDA can simply waive any required repayment by the city to the DDA is the source of funds used by the DDA to make those payments. In recent years, the DDA has used parking funds to make the interest payments. To the extent that in earlier years, funds captured under the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) may have been used to make interest payments, it’s not clear if the DDA could simply allow the city to retain those funds as part of the proceeds of the Y lot sale.

Traverwood Apartments

On the council’s Dec. 2 agenda is a project proposed by First Martin Corp. that would construct a complex of 16 two-story buildings on the west side of Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road. The development is called Traverwood Apartments.

Aerial view of proposed Traverwood Apartments at 2225 Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road.

Only the initial vote on the zoning is being considered on Dec. 2. The final vote on the zoning and the site plan will appear on a future council agenda.

The project, estimated to cost $30 million, would include 16 two-story buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. Eight of the buildings would each have 15 units and 11 single-car garages. An additional eight buildings would each have 12 units and 8 single-car garages.

The city’s planning commission recommended approval of the site plan and the required rezoning at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. The site is made up of two parcels: a nearly 16-acre lot that’s zoned R4D (multi-family residential), and an adjacent 3.88-acre lot to the south that’s currently zoned ORL (office, research and light industrial). It’s the smaller lot that needs to be rezoned R4D.

Land to be donated by Bill Martin to the city of Ann Arbor indicated in red outline.

The Dec. 2 agenda includes the council’s consideration of a donation of 2.2 acres to the city from Bill Martin just north of the project site. The donated acreage is next to the Stapp Nature Area and the Leslie Park golf course.

Running Fit Addition

At its Dec. 2 meeting, the council will be asked to approve the site plan for a three-story addition to the Running Fit store at the northwest corner of Fourth Avenue and Liberty Street in downtown Ann Arbor.

Aerial view of the Running Fit building, at the northwest corner of East Liberty and South Fourth.

The first floor will be retained as retail space, but six residential units would be built on the upper three floors – one two-bedroom and five one-bedroom units.

The city planning commission recommended approval of the site plan at its Oct. 15, 2013 meeting.

The location in Ward 1 is zoned D1, which allows for the highest density development in the city. It’s also located in the Main Street Historic District.

The city’s historic district commission issued a certificate of appropriateness on Aug. 15, 2013.

The project is expected to cost about $900,000.

Cost of In-Street Parking Spaces

The city council will also be asked to place a value on portions of the public right-of-way currently used as on-street parking spaces – $45,000 per space. By formally adopting that figure, any future development that causes the removal of on-street parking spaces could be charged that amount.

In this matter, the council would be acting on a four-year-old recommendation approved by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority in 2009:

Thus it is recommended that when developments lead to the removal of on-street parking meter spaces, a cost of $45,000/parking meter space (with annual CPI increases) be assessed and provided to the DDA to set aside in a special fund that will be used to construct future parking spaces or other means to meet the goals above. [.pdf of meeting minutes with complete text of March 4, 2009 DDA resolution]

The contract under which the DDA manages the public parking system for the city was revised to restructure the financial arrangement, which now pays the city 17% of the gross parking revenues. But it also included a clause meant to prompt the city to act on the on-street space cost recommendation. From the May 2011 parking agreement:

The City shall work collaboratively with the DDA to develop and present for adoption by City Council a City policy regarding the permanent removal of on-street metered parking spaces. The purpose of this policy will be to identify whether a community benefit to the elimination of one or more metered parking spaces specific area(s) of the City exists, and the basis for such a determination. If no community benefit can be identified, it is understood and agreed by the parties that a replacement cost allocation methodology will need to be adopted concurrent with the approval of the City policy; which shall be used to make improvements to the public parking or transportation system.

Subject to administrative approval by the city, it’s the DDA that has sole authority to determine the addition or removal of meters, loading zones, or other curbside parking uses.

It’s not clear what the specific impetus is to act on the issue now, other than the fact that action is simply long overdue. In 2011, the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research expansion was expected to result in the net removal of one on-street parking space. [For more background, see: "Column: Ann Arbor's Monroe (Street) Doctrine."]

The $45,000 proposed amount is based on an average of the estimated construction cost for an above-ground space of $40,000, and $55,000 for a below-ground parking space, as estimated in 2009. By way of background the Ann Arbor DDA’s most recent financial records show that last year, on-street parking spaces generated $2,000 in gross revenue per space or $1,347 in net income per space annually. The contract with the city under which the DDA operates the public parking system stipulates that the city receives 17% of the gross parking revenues. So the city’s revenue associated with an on-street parking space corresponds to $340 per space annually.

The resolution on the council’s Dec. 2 agenda is sponsored by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Taylor participated in recent meetings of a joint council and DDA board committee that negotiated a resolution to the question about how the DDA’s TIF revenue is regulated. In that context, Taylor had argued adamantly that any cap on the DDA’s TIF should be escalated by a construction industry CPI, or roughly 5%. Taylor’s reasoning was that the DDA’s mission is to undertake capital projects and therefore should have revenue that escalates in accordance with increases in the costs to undertake capital projects. Based on that reasoning, and the explicit 2009 recommendation by the DDA to increase the estimated $45,000 figure in that year by an inflationary index, the recommended amount now, four years later, could be closer to $55,000, assuming a 5% figure for construction cost inflation.

The actual cost of building an underground space in the recently completed (2012) underground Library Lane parking structure could provide a more current estimate, but the DDA has not made public a breakdown of how that project’s actual costs lined up with its project budget.

The last two month’s minutes from the DDA’s committee meetings don’t reflect any discussion of the on-street parking space replacement cost. Nor has the issue been discussed at any recent DDA board meeting.

Audit, Firefighters, Other Stats

In non-land issues, the council will be introduced to newly hired firefighters at its Dec. 2 meeting.

The statistical section from the city’s most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) shows a budgeted staffing level for the fire department of 82, in fiscal year 2013. But the council approved the hiring of additional firefighters after the fiscal year began, bringing the total to 85.

The CAFR is indirectly included in the council’s agenda – as part of a presentation that will be given by chief financial officer Tom Crawford on the result of this year’s audit. It was a clean audit that showed the general fund doing about $2.4 million better than budgeted.

Highlights from that FY 2013 audit report, which has now been issued in final form to the city, include an increase to the general fund balance from about $15.4 million to about $16.2 million. The $800,000 increase contrasts to the planned use of roughly $1.6 million from the general fund balance in the FY 2013 budget. About $200,000 of the increase was in the “unassigned” fund balance.

The result of the audit, in the new GASB terminology, was an “unmodified” opinion – which corresponds to the older “unqualified” opinion. In sum, that means it was a “clean” audit. The concerns identified last year had been addressed to the auditor’s satisfaction.

Members of the council’s audit committee met on Oct. 24. 2013 to review the draft audit report, and were enthusiastic about the $2.4 million better-than-budget performance for the city’s general fund, which had expenditures budgeted for $74,548,522 in FY 2013.

Challenges facing the city this coming year include the implementation of the new GASB 68 accounting standard starting in FY 2015, which begins July 1, 2014. That standard requires that most changes to the net pension liability will be included immediately on the balance sheet – instead of being amortized over a long time period. The GASB 68 standard must be implemented for an organization’s financial statements for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2014.

Two of the city’s funds were highlighted by Crawford at the Oct. 24 meeting as having potential difficulties associated with the GASB 68 standard – solid waste and the public market (farmers market). For the public market fund, Crawford floated the idea to the audit committee that it could be folded back into the city’s general fund, on analogy with the golf fund. Starting this year (FY 2014), the golf fund has been returned to general fund accounting.

Among the other myriad statistics in the CAFR are the number of parking violations recorded by the city – which are again down in the range of 90,000 as they’ve been for the last three years. That’s about half what they were in 2006 and 2007. Those numbers in the CAFR don’t include University of Michigan parking tickets – although the city and the UM have an agreement under which the city processes tickets and hears appeals for the university. A renewal of that agreement is on the council’s agenda for Dec. 2.

Here’s a sampling of the kind of data available in the statistical section of the FY 2013 CAFR, which includes data from previous CAFRs as well. [.pdf of final audit report released on Nov. 15, 2013]

Ann Arbor parking violations. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor traffic violations. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor physical arrests. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor police services data. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor fires extinguished. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor fire inspections. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor emergency responses by fire department. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor fire services data. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor police department staff strength. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor total city employees. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor water main breaks. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor taxable value. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Internal Council Business

On its Dec. 2 meeting agenda, the council also has a fair amount of its own internal business to wrap up, associated with the seating of the new council, which took place on Nov. 18.

That internal business includes adopting the council rules. Based on a less than 10-minute meeting of the council’s rules committee on Nov. 29, no changes to the rules were planned to be put forward at this time. The council’s rules committee – established by last year’s council – currently consists of Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and mayor John Hieftje.

However, the .pdf file attached to the council’s online agenda – which reflects the council’s rules to be considered for adoption – includes a revision that was explicitly discussed and, for the time being, rejected at the committee’s Nov. 29 meeting. [.pdf of city council rules]

That change replaces “personality” (an archaic usage meaning a disparaging remark about a person) with “personal attack” in the following rule: “The member shall confine comments to the question at hand and avoid personality.” At the council’s Nov. 18 regular meeting, when the council voted to delay adoption of the rules pending a review by the rules committee, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) had asked that the rules committee look at the rule requiring that councilmembers “avoid personality” during deliberations.

At the Nov. 29 committee meeting, Kunselman weighed in specifically for retaining the more archaic wording as reflective of history and tradition. The outcome of that committee discussion was that no changes would be recommended at this time, as any changes should be reviewed by the rules committee with its new membership. But based on the inclusion of the change in the Legistar document, it’s not clear what the status of that proposed change is meant to be.

A consensus on the committee at the Nov. 29 meeting seemed to be that the new membership of the rules committee should include Sally Petersen (Ward 2) in place of Kunselman, as Kunselman did not wish to continue on the rules committee. In addition, Petersen’s ethics initiative, which was approved at the council’s Nov. 18, 2013 meeting, tasks the rules committee with a certain amount of work – so the rules committee consensus on Nov. 29 appeared to be that the committee would be well-served by her membership.

The rest of the new council committee assignments are also supposed to be made at the Dec. 2 meeting.

The council’s calendar of regular meetings and work sessions will also be adopted on Dec. 2. The basic pattern is first and third Mondays for regular meetings, except when there’s a holiday or an election during the week of the meeting.

5:48 p.m. Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition board chair Erica Briggs has forwarded to the city council three documents – including a letter of support, and names of more than 600 people who’ve signed an online petition supporting the existing crosswalk ordinance. [.pdf of comments from supporters] [.pdf of WBWC letter to mayor and council] [.pdf of names of 668 people supporting existing crosswalk law]

6:35 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m.

6:38 p.m. Here in council chambers, the partitions are already pulled back in anticipation of a large crowd on the crosswalk ordinance. Folding chairs are set up to provide additional seating. Carolyn Grawi of the Center for Independent Living is here. Three members of the city’s commission on disability issues attended yesterday’s council caucus: Larry Keeler, Lloyd Shelton, Linda Evans.

6:49 p.m. Erica Briggs has arrived, as has Lloyd Shelton. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) is the first councilmember to arrive. City administrator Steve Powers is now here. Assistant city attorneys Mary Fales and Abigail Elias are also in council chambers.

6:49 p.m. Firefighters to be introduced have also now arrived.

6:52 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) has now arrived. Chambers are beginning to fill up.

6:55 p.m. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) are now here.

7:07 p.m. Chambers are now packed. We’re shoulder-to-shoulder. Much of the supplementary seating is now occupied. It will still be standing-room-only despite the additional seats.

7:12 p.m. Professor Jonathan Levine is here, as are several others who could be counted as public transportation and non-motorized advocates.

7:12 p.m. We appear to be nearly ready to begin.

7:14 p.m. And we’re off.

7:15 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance, roll call of council. All except for Margie Teall (Ward 4) are present.

7:15 p.m. Teall’s absence might affect the council’s ability to achieve a political compromise on the crosswalk ordinance.

7:15 p.m. Approval of agenda.

7:17 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) wants to swap the order of public hearings so that the crosswalk ordinance has its public hearing after the others. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wants to move C1 before B1. That’s Traverwood Apartments rezoning before the crosswalk ordinance.

7:17 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the agenda as amended.

7:18 p.m. INT-1: Introduction of new firefighters. The current authorized staffing level for the AAFD is 85. After the FY 2013 was approved last year authorizing staffing at 82, the council approved a subsequent increase to 85, based on the receipt of some grant funding.

7:20 p.m. Assistant fire chief Ellen Taylor is introducing the new firefighters. She’s describing the one-year probationary period. She’s introducing five of the seven new firefighters in the city. They get a round of applause.

7:20 p.m. INT-2: FY 2013 audit results. The 2013 fiscal year ended June 30, 2013. The council’s audit committee reviewed the draft report on Oct. 24, 2013. It was a clean audit that showed the general fund doing about $2.4 million better than budgeted. Highlights from that FY 2013 audit report, which has now been issued in final form to the city, include an increase to the general fund balance from about $15.4 million to about $16.2 million. The $800,000 increase contrasts to the planned use of roughly $1.6 million from the general fund balance in the FY 2013 budget. About $200,000 of the increase was in the “unassigned” fund balance.

The result of the audit, in the new GASB terminology, was an “unmodified” opinion – which corresponds to the older “unqualified” opinion. In sum, that means it was a “clean” audit. The concerns identified last year had been addressed to the auditor’s satisfaction. Challenges facing the city this coming year include the implementation of the new GASB 68 accounting standard starting in FY 2015, which begins July 1, 2014. That standard requires that most changes to the net pension liability will be included immediately on the balance sheet – instead of being amortized over a long time period.

7:26 p.m. Tom Crawford leads with some light humor: “I’m sure the crowd has come to hear this report.” He gets the intended laugh. Now he’s into a discussion of net assets of the city – over a billion dollars. But that’s mostly buildings and roads, not much of which can be used to pay for things, he notes. There’s $82 million that’s actually available. The general fund has a balance of about $14 million. Street repair millage had $18 million in it. Minimum balance for that fund is $9 million. Crawford explains that the apparent excess is partly due to timing of when road repair takes place. He’s talking about the potential liabilities of various funds. He highlights the public market fund – which has an adequate fund balance, but is actually weak in the context of GASB 68 requirements.

7:27 p.m. The pension system is 80% funded. VEBA is 39% funded. Their return achieved 11% last year, Crawford reports. He characterizes the general fund last year as doing about $2.4 million better than budgeted. It was a good year for the general fund, he says.

7:27 p.m. INT-3: Volunteer appreciation. Phillip Delekta is being honored with a mayoral proclamation for his volunteer work with the Ann Arbor police department.

7:29 p.m. Delekta is now explaining his work with the citizens emergency response team. He’s thanking the police and fire department personnel who’ve helped. Football games, the Ann Arbor marathon and the art fairs are some events they help with. He gets a round of applause.

7:29 p.m. Public commentary reserved time. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Tonight’s lineup for reserved time speaking includes just two speakers: Thomas Partridge and Henry Herskovitz. Partridge is speaking on ending discrimination. Herskovitz will be talking about the council’s 2014 meeting calendar, which will be set tonight.

7:33 p.m. Thomas Partridge is now addressing the council. He’s using the hand-held microphone. It doesn’t seem to be working. He says he’s an advocate for all residents of the city, county and state who need advocacy due to various challenges. Sound of kids in the audience makes this tough to hear. He calls for an end to discrimination. He contends that red-lining is practiced in Ann Arbor – with respect to housing and transportation. He says the council needs to be reformed. The council should see the world through the eyes of the most unfortunate among us, he says.

7:37 p.m. Henry Herskovitz says he’s speaking about the establishment of the council’s 2014 calendar. He wants the council reconsider a decision made 10 years ago to give preference to those commenters who want to talk about items on the agenda. That was based on a desire to prevent people from talking about Palestine and Israel, he says. He’d not been able to talk to the council at its previous meeting about “blacklisting of companies by MasterCard” – because it wasn’t an agenda item.

7:37 p.m. Communications from council. This is the first of three slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:39 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) leads off by announcing he’ll be putting forward a compromise amendment on the crosswalk ordinance. “That will be my first order of business,” he says. “We will not be repealing the pedestrian ordinance,” he says. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) says that Kunselman means that he hopes a repeal will not happen. Added late to the agenda, she notes, are the city council committee appointments, including resolutions on the environmental commission and greenbelt commission.

7:41 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) is speaking about the crosswalk ordinance. Kunselman’s compromise would strip out language that requires motorists to stop for pedestrians at the curb or curbline, Taylor stresses. Mayor John Hieftje is clarifying that the compromise would still not require motorists to stop for motorists at the curb. Kunselman reads aloud the language.

7:43 p.m. Taylor quips “with summer just around the corner” that a resolution will be brought forward in the near future (not at this meeting) about the art fairs. The council provides financial support for the Ann Arbor Summer Festival, and Taylor is indicating that the art fairs should also be supported.

7:44 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) thanks several people who are present: Matt Grocoff, Chris Hewett and Erica Briggs. A meeting will take place on Dec. 11 at Bach School at 6:30 p.m. on pedestrian safety and traffic calming. Screaming children in the audience.

7:45 p.m. Briere is calling the public’s attention to a meeting to be held on Dec. 4 at 6:30 p.m. on a presentation of results of the Allen Creek berm opening feasibility study.

7:47 p.m. CC-1 Appointment of 2014 city council committees. [.pdf of committee assignments]

7:47 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) ventures that nobody wants to spend time with him on the University of Michigan student relations committee.

7:48 p.m. Hieftje says that Jack Eaton (Ward 4) was going to be asked to serve. Eaton asks when it meets. Hieftje explains that it’s not regular. Eaton accepts the assignment.

7:48 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm all the committee assignments.

7:50 p.m. Local Development Finance Authority (LDFA) appointment. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) to LDFA.

Outcome: The council has voted to appoint Petersen to the LDFA.

7:51 p.m. Planning commission, greenbelt advisory commission. Briere is returned to the planning commission and Taylor to the greenbelt advisory commission by a unanimous vote.

7:52 p.m. Environmental commission. Anglin and Briere are appointed to the environmental commission.

7:52 p.m. Commission on disabilities. The council has established a position for a councilmember and appointed Petersen to that spot.

7:52 p.m. CC-2 Approval of 2014 city council rules. Internal business tonight includes adopting the council rules. Based on a less than 10-minute meeting of the council’s rules committee on Nov. 29, no changes to the rules were planned to be put forward at this time. The council’s rules committee – established by last year’s council – currently consists of Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and mayor John Hieftje. However, the .pdf file attached to the council’s online agenda – which reflects the council’s rules to be considered for adoption – includes a revision that was explicitly discussed and, for the time being, rejected at the committee’s Nov. 29 meeting. [.pdf of city council rules] That change replaces “personality” (an archaic usage meaning a disparaging remark about a person) with “personal attack” in the following rule: “The member shall confine comments to the question at hand and avoid personality.”

At the council’s Nov. 18 regular meeting, when the council voted to delay adoption of the rules pending a review of the rules, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) had asked that the rules committee look at the rule requiring that councilmembers “avoid personality” during deliberations. [For additional background see Internal Council Business above.]

7:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to adopt its rules for the year.

7:53 p.m. Communications from the mayor. Mayoral communications fall typically into two categories: (1) nominations to boards and commissions that will be voted on at a subsequent meeting; and (2) requests for confirmation of nominations that have been made at a previous meeting.

7:53 p.m. MC-1 Appointments. The council is being asked to confirm the nomination of David Blanchard, put forward at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting, to the housing and human services advisory board.

7:53 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm David Blanchard’s appointment to the housing and human services board. It runs through June 4, 2016.

7:53 p.m. MC-2 Nomination. Elizabeth Bletcher is being nominated to replace Al Gallup on the Elizabeth Dean Fund committee. For some historical background on the Elizabeth Dean Fund, see “Dean Tree Fund Committee Changed.” That nomination will be voted on at a future meeting.

7:53 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Tonight three public hearings appear on the agenda. The first is on the repeal of the crosswalk law. The second is on establishing an industrial development district (to facilitate granting a tax abatement) at 1901 E. Ellsworth. The third is on a site plan to build a three-story addition to Running Fit at the corner of Liberty Street and Fourth Avenue downtown. The order of the hearings was changed at the beginning of the meeting, so that the crosswalk law public hearing will come last.

7:56 p.m. PH-2 Establish Industrial Development District at 1901 E. Ellsworth. Luke Bonner, vice president of business development for Ann Arbor SPARK, is addressing the council. The petition was initiated by the property owner, he says. The establishment of a district will allow a tenant there, Mahindra Genze, to then apply for a tax abatement.

7:58 p.m. Alan Clark is addressing the council as a Ward 3 resident working at a start-up, called Mahindra Genze. It was started in the basement of the chief engineer. The location at Phoenix Drive has “max-ed out,” he says. Another new hire came in today, Clark says, and there’s around 25 employees there. Clark moved to Ann Arbor from Washington D.C. to become the seventh employee. He’s describing the product: an electric scooter. They’ll sell the product nationally, he says. There’s international interest in the product as well.

7:59 p.m. Clark says the company is looking to hire another 34 employees and wants to start production early next summer.

8:01 p.m. Thomas Partridge is now addressing the council. He says he’s usually conservative with respect to such requests. But he’s endorsing this request. He calls for the establishment of a larger district, he says, which was the point of the state’s enabling legislation.

8:02 p.m. Here are the names of the firefighters who were introduced earlier: Brian Schotthoefer; George Allard; Nicholas Kaczor; Christopher McGlothin; John Crowell; Ryan Newkirk; and Christopher Brown.

8:03 p.m. That’s all for this public hearing.

8:04 p.m. PH-3 Running Fit addition site plan. Architect Brad Moore is addressing the council. The expansion will add more stories for residential units. He notes that there were previously more stories before it burned back in the 1950s. He notes that the city’s historic district commission gave it a unanimous approval, as did the planning commission.

8:05 p.m. Thomas Partridge contends that there’s been a history of discrimination involved in zoning and site plan approvals. The site plan should be re-examined with respect to accessibility issues, he contends. Affordable housing is needed, he says.

8:07 p.m. That’s all for this public hearing.

8:07 p.m. PH-1 Crosswalk ordinance change. Hieftje asks people to line up and be ready to speak.

8:08 p.m. Hieftje advises that it’s not required to use the whole three minutes, but people can do so. Erica Briggs, chair of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition, leads off.

8:11 p.m. Briggs urges the council not to repeal the ordinance. She says that the Kunselman compromise really does amount to a repeal. She’s ticking through familiar points. She’s citing pedestrian crashes so far this year – 36, and  she contends that this reflects a 16% decrease since the ordinance was passed. She cites the community-wide support for the ordinance. She invites people to stand who are against the repeal. The vast majority of people here are standing.

8:15 p.m. James Briggs addresses the council from his wheelchair. City clerk Jackie Beaudry then reads aloud his statement on his behalf. “It boils my blood,” says the statement, to see the ordinance repealed. He calls the approach that some councilmembers are taking one that asks people to “check your brains at the door.”

8:15 p.m. Katie Brion tells the council that she walks to school with her kids crossing Madison to get to Bach Elementary School. After the ordinance passed, she’s seen a huge improvement, she says. Enforcement should be the focus, she says.

8:18 p.m. Judy Stone speaks in favor of retaining the ordinance. She’s relating her experience almost hitting someone. She’s paid more attention to pedestrian crossings, since the installation of flashing lights, she says. The response to say “get rid of this system” goes in the wrong direction. It’s her own responsibility to modify her behavior, she says. Elderly people or people with children in tow shouldn’t have to put themselves in harm’s way, she says. Stone calls for a strong and ongoing educational campaign. “We need to keep at it,” she says. It would be shortsighted to repeal the ordinance, she says.

8:20 p.m. Matt Grocoff introduces himself as a resident of Seventh Street. He relates his experience taking his daughter back home and attempting to cross the street. The traffic was heavy and fast. He waited at the crosswalk with his daughter in his arms. Cars didn’t stop. Then an Ann Arbor Public Schools bus went through the crosswalk as he was already standing there with his child in his arms, he reports. He’s posted a video of the encounter on Safety on Seventh. He calls for a sober, thoughtful process.

8:24 p.m. Cory Snavely supports the ordinance as it stands. The point of contention, he says, is which pedestrians have the right-of-way, so Kunselman’s compromise doesn’t really do anything for that. He applauds the installation of the HAWK signal and pedestrian islands. He noticed a difference, he says, when the ordinance was passed. The only safe street to step into is one with no cars or cars that are stopped, he says.

8:26 p.m. Charles recalls spending a year in the hospital after being struck by a car. “When a car hits you, it wins, no question,” he says. He was proud that the ordinance had been passed and calls it a demonstration that Ann Arbor is a progressive town. He talks about how M.A.D.D. had changed culture with respect to drunk driving. And he calls for a similar cultural change for pedestrian safety.

8:28 p.m. Lloyd Shelton leads off by saying that the setup for addressing the council is not accessible. He’s astounded and disappointed that the city council would leave him out of the equation. “To put the onus on me is wrong. I would wag my finger at you if I could,” he says. Kunselman’s amendment is “exclusionary,” he says.

8:31 p.m. Annie Wolock tells the council she’s lived in Ann Arbor for 35 years. She wonders if repealing or changing the law is the right way to approach citizen safety. She calls for more law enforcement and education. Changing the law now will lead to more confusion, she says. “We need to stay the course,” she says and reevaluate after 10 years. She calls for tabling the issue.

8:34 p.m. Marissa Arnold has been a bus driver at UM for 15 years. She’s noticed a shift in culture for pedestrians. On a daily basis, pedestrians don’t do what their mothers taught them, she says – they just go out into the street. She says that pedestrians think that because they have an ordinance to back them up, they can just walk across the street without checking traffic. She calls for balance. She calls for more education. “Everyone has somewhere they need to go and be,” she says. So she supports the amendment of the ordinance as Kunselman is proposing. It’s too difficult to assess the intent of someone standing at the curb, she says.

8:37 p.m. Jeff Hayner urges the council to increase education, engineering and enforcement of the current ordinance. Failing that, he’s in favor of repealing it. He’s spoken to thousands of people, he says. [He ran for Ward 1 city council earlier this year.] He heard from a lot of people who wanted to see the crosswalk ordinance repealed. But he’s not sure that’s the right thing to do. He says that the lack of engineering leads to people not knowing what to do – giving the example of three crosswalks in succession that are marked in different ways. He calls education of pedestrians and their responsibilities an important priority.

8:39 p.m. Another UM blue bus operator [Kwajalynn Burks] is addressing the council. She wants more HAWK signals. Other drivers are always trying to beat her somewhere, she says. Pedestrians feel entitled, she says, which could lead to a fatality. At some intersections near campus, there’s no end to the pedestrian flow, she says. The “pedestrian rules” type of marketing has pushed pedestrians to adopt that mindset, she says.

8:42 p.m. Helen Aminoff says she’s lived here since 1960. The push to repeal the crosswalk law was prompted by the tragedy of a death in a Plymouth Road crosswalk, she says. That incident was not a result of the crosswalk ordinance, she points out. The driver had passed a car that had been stopped at the crosswalk and struck the pedestrian, she says. There’s room for improvement and tweaking, she allows, but she doesn’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

8:44 p.m. Ted Reynolds relates an experience from 10 years ago. He was in the middle of a crosswalk when he saw a car come through a red light. He dodged the car, but fell and struck his head on the pavement. His brain had lost the connection to his right foot. He has not driven since then. He says he didn’t want to become an old geezer who rams into people in a crosswalk. He’s against anything that makes it easier for drivers to go through crosswalks and strike pedestrians.

8:45 p.m. Emma Wendt is advocating for the current crosswalk ordinance. She says she wants more of her peers to move to Ann Arbor. It’s a walkable, liveable, progressive city, she says. But her friends on the coast find it odd that she likes living in the Midwest. When they hear that Ann Arbor is planning to repeal the crosswalk ordinance, they’re aghast, she says.

8:47 p.m. Chris reports that he was hit in 1980 by a car. He was on the sidewalk on a ramp and the person turned left. A good buddy of his, a “little person” in a wheelchair, was crossing Stone School, he says, and was killed. An apparatus needs to be set up to make cars slow down, he says.

8:48 p.m. The gentleman now addressing the council supports the current ordinance. Before he moved to Ann Arbor, he says, he was director of disability resources for a university in Illinois. Each of you will have a disability if you don’t die first, he tells the council.

8:51 p.m. John Weir is a Ward 4 resident. He walks where he goes – by choice. It matters a lot to him to live in a place where he feels safe and doesn’t need to own a car. That matters to a lot of his peers, he says. The other towns and cities of Michigan are not the only places that compete with Ann Arbor. The norm for Boston, where he’s from, he says, is better education and enforcement than Ann Arbor. “We can do better,” he says.

8:53 p.m. Don Whitaker has lived in Ann Arbor for 28 years and he supports the current ordinance. He’s an automotive engineer and commutes to Detroit every day. He was proud of the council when the council passed the ordinance originally, calling it a progressive move. Walkable cities are good for property values, he says. The main reason we should have the ordinance is safety, but a vision of a better community for everybody is also important. We need to work on education of pedestrians and motorists alike, he says.

8:56 p.m. Carolyn Grawi, of the Center for Independent Living, speaks in favor of keeping the current ordinance. She says there’s a lot of work to be done on engineering and education. She points out that in 1978, the law changed so that you’re supposed to stop for people with white canes. Before the ordinance, it took 35 minutes for someone with a white cane to cross, she says, which is not acceptable. She agreed with the UM bus drivers that pedestrians also need education.

8:58 p.m. Steven Kronenberg cautions against the idea that it should be an issue of motorists versus pedestrians. He points out the link between the amount of traffic on the roads and the number of parents who drive their children to school. He urges the council to preserve the ordinance.

9:02 p.m. Tricia Jones introduces herself as a Ward 5 resident. She feels for the UM bus drivers who spoke, but says that students have behaved that way forever. The recent data at non-signalized intersections, she says, show that incidents have decreased from 34 to 11 – but she allows that it’s just for 10 months of the year. She urges the council to preserve the ordinance.

9:03 p.m. Andrew Peters is a student at UM law school. He and his wife chose Ann Arbor over Boulder and Manhattan. They didn’t know about the crosswalk ordinance before they moved here. But when they visited they noticed that people were able to walk around the city. He was concerned that before something is changed – about something that makes Ann Arbor what it is – more thought should be given to it.

9:05 p.m. Julie Grand says that she visited some personal websites of councilmembers. She’s quoting their own sentiments at them to argue for waiting for a recommendation from the pedestrian safety task force.

9:08 p.m. Jonathan Levine said he’s relieved that Kunselman is bringing forward an amendment that would still require motorists to stop. A number of states are updating their laws from “yield” laws to “stop” laws, he says. If Ann Arbor is going to be different from the rest of Michigan, it’s important to think about how it should be different. He argues from the point of view of how to treat the negligent pedestrian versus the patient pedestrian. A law requiring motorists to stop for pedestrians standing at the curb rewards patient pedestrianism, he says.

9:11 p.m. Ken Clark notes that Michigan actually doesn’t have a law on crosswalks. He reviewed all the 2012 pedestrian crashes. 77% of the crashes last year were assessed by the police as the fault of drivers, he says.

9:14 p.m. Jeff Gaynor, a teacher at Clague Middle School who’s on the school’s Safe Routes to School committee, explains how the group had applied for a grant. Three of the engineered crosswalks had been installed on Green Road with that money, he says. In his 35 years of teaching, he’d taken his students on hundreds of field trips and taught them how to cross the street. There has been an increase in the number of cars that stop, he says, but the behavior is not yet universal.

9:15 p.m. Gaynor says that he can’t tell his students to step off the curb and hope that cars will stop.

9:17 p.m. Mike Miller says he logs 30-35 miles a week walking different routes. He thinks that the ordinance has made things better. He thinks Kunselman’s amendment is a step backwards. He calls for more engineering and education. He thinks that stoplights might be put in on certain streets. Through enforcement we could get a more effective law, he says.

9:19 p.m. Julia Roberts is speaking as a resident (she’s an AAATA transit planner). She’s lived in Ann Arbor for eight years – having moved here from Chicago. She’s proud of the ordinance that was passed. The crosswalk law isn’t responsible for reckless driving or walking. She asks for the council to wait for a recommendation by the pedestrian safety task force.

9:20 p.m. Tony Pinnell, a translator for European companies, advises the council that repealing the ordinance would send a bad message – and would be bad business.

9:21 p.m. Chip Smith says he lives in Ann Arbor to give his daughter a chance to walk to school. In the 18 years he’s lived here, the city has made progress but it’s still not a walkable city. He calls for the council to wait until the pedestrian safety task force can make a recommendation.

9:23 p.m. Mary Benson describes the situation as “Russian Roulette.” She thinks the issue isn’t addressed in either version of the ordinance. “I think we need more red lights,” she says. That’s universally understood. People don’t know what the flashing beacons mean. “We can educate until hell freezes over,” she says. There will still be 10,000 new drivers every year, she says. She also calls for enforcement of jaywalking laws.

9:24 p.m. Larry Deck says that he doesn’t see how Kunselman’s amendment gets to the heart of the matter. He encourages the council to wait for the recommendation of the pedestrian safety task force. He calls for a culture of mutual respect.

9:26 p.m. Ed Vielmetti says he started looking at maps of pedestrian crashes. Many of them happen near UM campus and downtown. There are two problems. One is main arteries along big long stretches. The other problem is downtown pedestrian safety, where cars are turning. He cites State Street as a particularly difficult area.

9:30 p.m. Kathy Griswold says that almost 10 years ago she spoke to the council and asked why Ann Arbor couldn’t be more like some other cities. But Ann Arbor doesn’t want to do the work, she said, to enforce existing ordinances. She contends that the crosswalk ordinance was borne out of a desire to help Ann Arbor win awards. Ann Arbor’s crosswalk ordinance isn’t consistent with AAPS school safety rules, she says, or with the state’s UTC. She contends that a professional engineer hasn’t been heard from. She asks if the city wants to work hard or just have an ordinance.

9:31 p.m. Robert Gordon addresses the council as a Ward 3 resident. He says this is a “rush” to repeal. He calls for waiting for the pedestrian safety task force to make its recommendation.

9:34 p.m. Thomas Partridge recounts his various candidacies for public office. He calls for using scientific data and for enacting ordinances to make a better community. Councilmembers come to meetings having made decisions before the meetings, no matter how many people come to the podium to make reasoned, logical arguments, he contends. He’d attended his first caucus meeting yesterday, when they had spoken in emotionally committed ways to the repeal. He calls the language of the ordinance “muddled.” He tells councilmembers to put themselves in a wheelchair and then try to cross Huron Street.

9:36 p.m. Karen Moorhead asks the council to move carefully and slowly. She hopes that the council might reconsider how much the ordinance means. Think about enforcement, engineering, and education, she says.

9:37 p.m. Recess. The public hearing on the crosswalk ordinance is done. We’re now in recess.

9:49 p.m. And we’re back.

9:50 p.m. Approval of minutes from previous meeting.

9:51 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the minutes of the previous meeting.

9:51 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes just one item: a resolution to approve purchase order for Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) for annual geographic information system (GIS) software maintenance and license agreement ($58,900).

9:51 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration, but no one moves to separate out the one item from itself.

9:51 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the consent agenda.

9:51 p.m. C-1 Approve rezoning for Traverwood Apartments. The council is being asked to give initial approval for rezoning of a 3.88 acre parcel for the Traverwood Apartments project – from ORL (office research light industrial district) to R4D (multiple-family district). The site plan for this project, being developed by First Martin Corp., is not being considered by the council tonight. But the $30 million project would include 16 two-story buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. [For additional background, see Traverwood Apartments above.]

9:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to give initial approval of the rezoning necessary for the Traverwood Apartments project. A final vote will come at a future council meeting after a public hearing.

9:52 p.m. B-1 Crosswalk ordinance. The council will be asked to give final approval of a repeal of the city’s crosswalk ordinance. The council gave initial approval to the repeal at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting – on a 9-2 vote. Current Ann Arbor local law differs in two ways from the state’s Uniform Traffic Code. First, under current local law, motorists in Ann Arbor are supposed to yield the right-of-way to those pedestrians not just “within a crosswalk” but also to those who are “stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk.” Second, when driving toward a crosswalk, motorists in Ann Arbor don’t have the option to yield to a pedestrian by merely slowing down; instead, they’re required to yield by stopping. Here’s what the current law says (as a result of amendment on Dec. 19, 2011):

10:148. Pedestrians crossing streets (a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger. …

For more detail on the evolution of the local law, see “Column: Why Did the Turkey Cross the Road?” [For additional background in the preview above: Crosswalk Law]

9:53 p.m. Kunselman leads off by calling it a great discussion with the citizenry. That had led to the effort not to repeal but to amend the ordinance, he says. It would also make it more consistent with the language on the city’s signs, he says. He now reads forth the ordinance in its entirety.

9:54 p.m. The key part is “shall stop and yield the right of way to every pedestrian within a crosswalk …”

9:55 p.m. Hieftje says that Kunselman can just substitute the amendment in place of the previous repeal, without a vote.

9:57 p.m. Kunselman says that the issue has been talked about for several months. The death on Plymouth Road was very emotional, he says. Whether that death resulted from the words in the ordinance, it was a situation to be taken seriously, he says. Kunselman complains that Erica Briggs of WBWC had taken the conversation he’d had with her and used it as “propaganda.”

9:58 p.m. Kunselman reviews the Traverse City ordinance, which requires stopping, but doesn’t talk about pedestrians anywhere except within a crosswalk.

10:01 p.m. Kunselman argues from the point of view of uniformity. We don’t want to have confusion among drivers trying to guess how to operate, he says. About the crash data, he says, any decrease can’t be attributed to the crosswalk language. He says that the citizenry has called for more enforcement and education. So at the next council meeting, “by golly” he’s going to propose a budget amendment to fund more traffic enforcement.

10:03 p.m. Kailasapathy says that it’s not the case that councilmembers were asking pedestrians to step into traffic. And it’s not acceptable to have to wait a long time to cross the street, she says. “We’re telling you to wait and find a gap,” she says. She calls for HAWK and other signals and infrastructure. She supports any amendments to the budget to support this – like hiring more police, or spending money on infrastructure. The marginal rate of return on pedestrian infrastructure is greater than investing in something like a rail station, she says.

10:06 p.m. Lumm agrees with investing in infrastructure and enforcement capability as budget priorities. She appreciates everyone coming out to speak. She’s talking about the crash data. She says it can’t be used as a definitive argument either way. She’s reviewing the history of the crosswalk ordinance changes.

10:07 p.m. Lumm says she tried back in 2011 to get the crosswalk ordinance language revised to refer only to “within a crosswalk.”

10:10 p.m. Briere says that Lumm is correct that the data doesn’t support a particular conclusion. November and December – for which 2013 data is not available – are months when accidents have historically been higher, she says. Briere says the question is what problem they’re trying to fix. The public has said more education, enforcement and engineering is necessary. So she doesn’t see how changing the ordinance helps. She says that accidents happening with pedestrians are in the crosswalk, not when cars are stopping for pedestrians stopping on the curb.

10:11 p.m. Briere clarifies what a “traffic signal” is: a red-yellow-green light. So it doesn’t include flashing beacons or stop signs, she explains.

10:11 p.m. Briere notes that the ordinance doesn’t apply to most downtown locations.

10:13 p.m. Briere says she’s going to reflect more on this issue. But she says she’ll paraphrase Jeff Hayner, who ran against her this last election – he had called for education, enforcement, and engineering, not repealing the ordinance.

10:14 p.m. Anglin is for spending the money on education and engineering. Right now there are too many irregularities, he says. He notes that many of the drivers are parents driving their kids to school. He says he’ll support the Kunselman amendment, and says it’s important to follow through and support it.

10:15 p.m. We’re in a state of confusion, Anglin says. And until that confusion is removed, we won’t have a safe community.

10:18 p.m. Warpehoski says he doesn’t see how the Kunselman amendment lines up with the rhetoric of uniformity. He likes his irony like he likes his coffee: bitter. Tomorrow is the International Day for Persons with Disabilities, he points out.

10:19 p.m. Warpehoski talks about his goals for the pedestrian safety task force. He’s not convinced that an inappropriate sense of pedestrian empowerment exists. He doesn’t buy that argument – but allows that that’s a data question. That data could be collected, he says, or the council could take a fire-ready-aim approach.

10:21 p.m. Warpehoski says that he walks a lot, with his kids. And he says he’s noticed that things have improved since the ordinance was passed. He says he feels safer as a pedestrian since the ordinance was passed. He says he’ll vote no on Kunselman’s proposal.

10:23 p.m. Taylor says he rejects the idea that Kunselman’s proposal is a compromise. He’s ok with Ann Arbor being different with its crosswalk law. No ordinance can protect drivers or pedestrians from negligence, he says. He repeats an argument from the Nov. 18 meeting – that the ordinance can’t be so powerful to embolden pedestrians but too weak to compel motorists to stop. He calls the budgetary amendments that others have talked about “chest thumping.”

10:24 p.m. Taylor says that the alleged confusion and fear has been “sown” and is not real, because the ordinance is very simple.

10:28 p.m. Eaton thanks everyone who showed up to speak. But he also says his vote is informed by those he talked to during his council campaign. The small numbers in the data, he says, mean that conclusions can’t be drawn. Eaton calls for a real education program and a real enforcement regime. “Here were are again tinkering with the ordinance,” he says. Ultimately, the money will have to be spent, like Griswold said, Eaton says.

10:31 p.m. Petersen says that she’s struggled with the logic of the ordinance. She says the data doesn’t show that increasing the right-of-way for pedestrians has increased safety. Petersen is skeptical that enforcement of the current ordinance would actually work. And she’s skeptical that effective education is possible in a transient community. Pedestrians should take full responsibility for their own safety, she says.

10:31 p.m. Petersen puts her faith in engineering. She says she’ll support an ADA compliant pedestrian bridge over Plymouth Road.

10:35 p.m. Warpehoski says he can count votes and realizes that he’s not going to win this one. But some comments of colleagues have gotten under his skin. He responds to Eaton’s characterization of the engineering efforts to date by saying the staff should be applauded for their efforts. Warpehoski explains that Petersen’s characterization of how a pedestrian claims the right-of-way is not correct. He agrees that pedestrians need to take responsibility for their own safety, but argues that pedestrians can best do that when they’re standing on the curb and can expect that motorists can stop.

10:36 p.m. Petersen responds to Warpehoski by saying that what he’s describing is ideal and that there’s not adequate enforcement to get to the point where motorists will actually stop.

10:39 p.m. Taylor says there’s are those who are unable to make the judgment as to whether it’s safe to enter the roadway. Under the current ordinance, it’s proper for the motorist to stop for someone just standing at the curb. Taylor says that the public speaker who talked about the culture change associated with drunk driving made a good analogy. That casts interesting light on where we are as a culture, he says.

10:42 p.m. Briere says that Petersen wants better enforcement, engineering and education and thinks there’s no way to achieve those goals, and thinks that the ordinance needs to be changed. She ticks through a paraphrase of positions taken by Eaton and Kailasapathy. Briere says that as more cars stop for pedestrians, more and more cars will stop for pedestrians. When drivers are not prepared to see a pedestrian – because they don’t have to stop for pedestrians – then they’re not prepared to stop for a person with a white cane or a person in a wheelchair, she says.

10:44 p.m. Briere also says that for “foreigners,” the more they see people stop for pedestrians, the more those “foreigners” will stop for pedestrians.

10:46 p.m. Hieftje says that in light of the closed session that’s scheduled, he would like to have the council suspend the council rule that requires a closed session to begin before 11 p.m. That rule is now suspended. Now back to the crosswalk ordinance.

10:48 p.m. Lumm is arguing against tabling. She says there’s been a lot of debate about the ordinance. Lumm is now holding forth with prepared comments.

10:50 p.m. Lumm’s comments are based essentially on an argument for uniformity across Michigan.

10:53 p.m. Hieftje corrects Anglin’s previous statement that “most bicyclists get hit” saying that some do but most don’t. Hieftje says he doesn’t think there’s a case in the data for changing the ordinance.

10:55 p.m. Hieftje talks about a video that the council had been shown years ago that showed pedestrians not using a pedestrian bridge. That’s a response to Petersen’s expression of support to build a pedestrian bridge on Plymouth Road.

10:56 p.m. Hieftje says that education, better signage, and engineering will help. But he doesn’t see how changing the ordinance will help. He doesn’t see the logic of requiring a person in a wheelchair to roll out into the road to see if cars are going to stop.

10:59 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 6-4 to change the ordinance. But Hieftje says he will veto the change.

11:00 p.m. DC-1 Establish 2014 city council calendar. In this item, the council is complying with a charter requirement: “The Council shall fix the time and place of its regular meetings and shall hold at least two regular meetings in each month.” The pattern of the council’s regular meetings is: First and third Monday of the month with a work session on the second Monday.

11:00 p.m. Briere raises the question of a conflict with Passover.

11:00 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm its calendar of regular meetings.

11:00 p.m. DC-2 Approve city policy regarding removal of on-street metered public parking spaces. The council is considering establishing a value for on-street parking spaces, in situations where the builder of a project makes a proposal that results in the loss of an on-street metered parking space. The $45,000 proposed amount is based an average of an estimated construction cost for an above-ground space of $40,000, and $55,000 for a below-ground parking space.

By way of background the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s most recent financial records show that last year on-street parking spaces generated $2,000 in gross revenue per space or $1,347 in net income per space annually. The contract with the city under which the DDA operates the public parking system stipulates that the city receives 17% of the gross parking revenues. So the city’s revenue associated with an on-street parking space corresponds to $340 annually. [For additional background, see Cost of In-Street Parking Spaces above.]

11:01 p.m. Taylor says he’s going to ask for a postponement. A public hearing is recommended, he says, for any kind of fee. So he moves to have it postponed until Dec. 16.

11:01 p.m. Briere asks if there’s sufficient time to give notice or a public hearing. There is.

11:02 p.m. Lumm thanks Taylor for bringing it forward. She agrees with the concept. She thanks staff for their answers to questions.

11:03 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the question of how much it should cost to remove an on-street parking space.

11:03 p.m. DB-1 Approve Running Fit addition site plan. The site plan entails a three-story addition to the Running Fit store at the northwest corner of Fourth Avenue and Liberty Street in downtown Ann Arbor. The first floor will be retained as retail space, but six residential units would be built on the upper three floors – one two-bedroom and five one-bedroom units. [For additional background, see Running Fit Addition above.]

11:03 p.m. Hieftje says he supports the project.

11:03 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the Running Fit addition.

11:03 p.m. DB-2 Accept donation of 2.2 acres from W. Martin. The council is being asked to consider of a donation of 2.2 acres to the city from Bill Martin just north of the project site for Traverwood Apartments. Earlier in the meeting, the council gave initial approval to a zoning change related to the project. The donated acreage is next to the Stapp Nature Area and the Leslie Park golf course. [image of map showing location]

11:05 p.m. Briere says she wants to make sure the official record reflects the correct size of the donation.

11:05 p.m. She thanks Martin for the donation.

11:05 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to accept the acreage as a donation from Bill Martin to the city.

11:05 p.m. DS-1 Approve contract with Emergency Restoration Company ($729,000). The contract is for asbestos abatement in city hall. The council is being asked appropriate $400,000 in funds for the contract.

11:06 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract for asbestos abatement in city hall.

11:06 p.m. DS-2 Approve contract with Nova Environmental Inc. ($35,600). This is a contract for an air monitoring project during the city hall asbestos abatement project.

11:08 p.m. Anglin wants to know why this contract would not be included in the one for the work itself. Matt Kulhanek explains that this contractor would be overseeing the work of the other contractor. That’s why the items are separate.

11:08 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the air monitoring contract.

11:08 p.m. DS-3 Establishing a tax abatement district at 1901 E. Ellsworth. Once an industrial development district (IDD) is established, the property owner can apply for a tax abatement. The consideration of the tax abatement is a separate vote, which will be taken at a future meeting.

11:12 p.m. Kailasapathy asks for CFO Tom Crawford. She gets confirmation that the point is eventually to allow for application for a tax abatement. Crawford says that abatements can be requested for any new investment, not just personal property. She wants to know how much the value of the tax abatement would be. She notes that the company, Mahindra Genze, is a large company in India, like GE here. So it’s not really a small start-up. The amount of the investment would be $1.6 million. That’s $25,000 in total tax and the general fund portion of the city would be less, he says.

11:13 p.m. Crawford responds to Kailasapathy by explaining that the question for the council to weigh is whether the company has alternative locations. Kailasapathy wonders if this isn’t just a “race to the bottom” among various communities vying to attract the company.

11:16 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers notes that another consideration was that it would be a manufacturing operation, which is underrepresented in Ann Arbor. The fact that it’s located in an identified important corridor is also important. Kailasapathy gets confirmation that the tax abatement would likely be around three years, but could be up to 12 years.

11:18 p.m. Eaton reports that he’d had the opportunity to sit down with Luke Bonner of Ann Arbor SPARK and Alan Clark of Mahindra Genze. But he’s skeptical about tax abatements. He gets confirmation that the district is attached to the property, not the tenant. Crawford notes that Ann Arbor’s practice is to close the district after the original intent is fulfilled.

11:21 p.m. Eaton says when he looked up the city’s policy, it has a sunset clause. Crawford says that the policy is supposed to be reviewed. Eaton quotes the policy that makes clear that it does end and has already expired. Crawford: “I stand corrected.” Crawford notes that the prior city policy reflects the state’s criteria, so it’s not as if there’s no guidance.

11:23 p.m. Hieftje says that if the investment weren’t made by this company, the city wouldn’t get any tax revenue. Crawford says there’s a history of neighboring jurisdictions aggressively pursuing companies. Hieftje agrees with Kailasapathy’s characterization of the process as a “race to the bottom.” But these are the rules that the state of Michigan has set up, he says.

11:27 p.m. Petersen asks Crawford how common tax abatement is as an economic development tool. Crawford says that very few are done in Ann Arbor – in his nine years, it’s been done for around nine companies, he thinks. Ann Arbor SPARK’s Luke Bonner clarifies that it was a multi-state competition for the location. There were internal forces within Mahindra Genze that would have preferred the manufacturing location to be in a southern state. Previously, Bonner worked in Sterling Heights, where the personal property tax revenue was about $10 million, which he describes as about what all of Washtenaw County generates. That was a function of a policy to grant tax abatements.

11:31 p.m. Petersen supports this as important for economic development, which is a council priority. “I just think this makes sense for us,” she says.

11:31 p.m. Taylor says he’s delighted to support this, echoing Hieftje’s comments about these being the rules of the game. Lumm says she’s also not crazy about tax abatements because they pit one community against another. But she thinks the addition of jobs and the particular technology is a good fit for Ann Arbor. Kunselman also says he met with the representatives of the company, and he’s excited about the product. It’s located in one of the poorest parts of the city, he says, and he hopes that some of those jobs go to locals.

11:31 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to establish the IDD at 1901 E. Ellsworth.

11:31 p.m. DS-4 Approve agreement University Of Michigan for municipal parking citation processing, collections and record management services. This is the renewal of an agreement with the University for processing parking tickets.

11:32 p.m. Hieftje says that last Saturday, UM was clocking speeders on Huron Street. He points out that UM does write tickets on city streets.

11:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the agreement with UM for parking ticket processing.

11:32 p.m. DS-5 Approve six-month extension of installment purchase agreement with Bank of Ann Arbor to finance purchase of former Y lot. ($3,500,000). In the event that completion of due diligence on the pending sale of the old Y lot is not done by Dec. 16 – the date on which the city’s $3.5 million balloon payment is due – this approval will allow the city to continue the financing arrangement it has with Bank of Ann Arbor for six months. [For additional background, see Bank of Ann Arbor Loan.]

11:34 p.m. Briere says, “It’s my hope we never use this.” City administrator Steve Powers says that next week might be ambitious, but by the end of the year, the sale would almost certainly be completed. Lumm thanks the Bank of Ann Arbor for the terms, which include no prepayment penalty.

11:34 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the extension of the financing arrangement with Bank of Ann Arbor on the former Y lot.

11:37 p.m. Communications from council. Warpehoski follows up on Lloyd Shelton’s comment during the crosswalk public hearing. He says that Shelton is right about the accessibility of the council chambers. “We should be doing better as a seat of government for people with disabilities,” he says. People should not face an undue burden to address the council or be employed, he says. The configuration would not allow for a mayor or city administrator who uses a wheelchair. Briere points out that the chambers was built to serve as a courtroom.

11:37 p.m. Public commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

11:40 p.m. Ed Vielmetti is addressing the council. He reminds the council of the commitment to put items on the agenda in time for people to read them in advance and be able to comment on those items. The council appointments had not been added in a timely way, he points out. He also points out that the amendment on the crosswalk ordinance was not added until just minutes before the discussion. People would like to see the agenda settled on Friday, he notes.

11:41 p.m. Kathy Griswold says it was a major omission to not have a professional engineer recommendation for the original ordinance change. Having one person veto the revision puts a great burden on that one person, she says.

11:42 p.m. Closed session. The council is asked to go into closed session. The purpose is to discuss a privileged attorney-client memo that will be in writing, says assistant city attorney Abigail Elias.

11:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to go into closed session.

12:05 a.m. We’re back.

12:05 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

A sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chambers gives instructions for post-meeting clean-up.

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. 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.

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the Dec. 2 meeting agenda.

Items that could result in considerable council discussion include final approval of a repeal of the city’s crosswalk ordinance. A scheduled public hearing on that issue could also draw a number of speakers. The council gave initial approval to the repeal at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting – on a 9-2 vote.

The tally could be closer for the final vote, as mayor John Hieftje, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) could join Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4), who had dissented on the initial approval. Also a possibility is that a compromise approach could be worked out. The possible compromise would leave intact the language about motorists stopping, but still limit the right-of-way to just pedestrians within a crosswalk – that is, it would not afford the right-of-way to those standing at the curb.

Some of the public’s perspective and council discussion on the crosswalk issue might be aired out during the council’s Sunday caucus, held in council chambers at city hall. This week the caucus has been rescheduled for 1 p.m. instead of its usual evening start time, in part to accommodate more discussion of the local crosswalk law.

Another topic that could extend the meeting is related to the pending sale of the Edwards Brothers property on South State Street to the University of Michigan for $12.8 million, which was announced in a press release last week. A right of first refusal on the property is held by the city of Ann Arbor as a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council almost three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011.

There’s some interest on the council in holding a closed session on Dec. 2 to review the options and the impact of those options. Any interest on the council in acquiring the land, which seems somewhat scant, would be based on a desire eventually to put the land back on the tax rolls. The topic of land acquisition is one of the legal exceptions to the Michigan Open Meetings Act, which requires all deliberations of a public body to be open to the public. If the council holds a closed session on that topic, it could extend the Dec. 2 meeting.

One reason the council may have little appetite for acquiring the Edwards Brothers property is that the city has just now managed to sell a downtown property the city acquired 10 years ago – the old Y lot on William Street, between Fourth and Fifth avenues. Approval of the $5.25 million sale to Dennis Dahlmann came at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting. But it’s possible that not all the due diligence will be completed before Dec. 16, when the city owes the $3.5 million principal it used to purchase the property. As a hedge against that possibility, the council will be asked on Dec. 2 to approve a six-month extension on the installment purchase agreement with Bank of Ann Arbor for the $3.5 million.

In the meantime, the minutes of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s most recent operations committee meeting reflect the DDA’s expectation that all of the equipment used to operate the public surface parking facility at the old Y lot will need to be removed by Dec. 31, 2013.

The city’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers property is linked to a tax abatement. And on the council’s Dec. 2 agenda is an item that would establish an industrial development district (IDD) for a different property, at 1901 E. Ellsworth, where Extang Corp. and GSG Fasteners are located. Creating an IDD is a step in the process for granting a tax abatement.

Land control and use is a predominant theme among other Dec. 2 agenda items as well.

The council will be asked to give initial approval to a rezoning request for the Traverwood Apartments project – from ORL (office, research and light industrial district) to R4D (multiple-family district). The First Martin Corp. project would include 16 two-story buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. The site plan and final rezoning approval would come before the city council at a future meeting. The Dec. 2 meeting will also include council’s consideration of a donation of 2.2 acres to the city from Bill Martin just north of the Traverwood Apartments project site. The acreage to be donated is next to the city’s Stapp Nature Area and the Leslie Park golf course.

At its Dec. 2 meeting, the council will also be asked to approve the site plan for a three-story addition to the Running Fit store at the corner of Fourth Avenue and Liberty Street in downtown Ann Arbor. The first floor will be retained as retail space, but six residential units would be built on the upper three floors – one two-bedroom and five one-bedroom units.

The city council will also be asked to place a value on land currently used as on-street parking spaces – $45,000 per space. By formally adopting that figure, any future development that causes the removal of on-street parking could be charged that amount. It would be paid to the Ann Arbor DDA, which manages the city’s public parking system. In this matter, the council would be acting on a four-year-old recommendation, approved by the Ann Arbor DDA in 2009.

In non-land issues, the council will be introduced to newly hired firefighters at its Dec. 2 meeting. The budgeted staffing level for the fire department is 85. However, the statistical section from the most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) for the city shows 82 AAFD staff in fiscal year 2013. That’s because the council approved the hiring of additional firefighters after the fiscal year began, bringing the total to 85.

The CAFR itself is indirectly included in the council’s agenda – as part of a presentation that will be given by chief financial officer Tom Crawford on the result of this year’s audit. It was a clean audit that showed the general fund doing about $2.4 million better than budgeted.

Among the other myriad statistics in the CAFR are the number of parking violations recorded by the city – which are again down in the range of 90,000, as they’ve been for the last three years. That’s about half what they were in 2006 and 2007. Those numbers in the CAFR don’t include University of Michigan parking tickets –  although the city and the UM have an agreement under which the city processes tickets and hears appeals for the university. A renewal of that agreement is on the council’s agenda for Dec. 2.

On Dec. 2 council also has a fair amount of its own internal business to wrap up, associated with the seating of the new council, which took place at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting. That includes adoption of the council rules. Based on a less than 10-minute meeting of the council’s rules committee on Nov. 29, no changes to the rules will be put forward at this time. Based on that meeting, it appears that Sally Petersen (Ward 2) will replace Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) on that council committee. The rest of the new council committee assignments are also supposed to be made at the Dec. 2 meeting.

The council’s calendar of regular meetings and work sessions will also be adopted at the Dec. 2 meeting. The basic pattern is first and third Mondays for regular meetings, except when there’s a holiday or an election during the week of the meeting.

This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Monday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network.

Crosswalk Law

The council will be asked to give final approval of a repeal of the city’s crosswalk ordinance. The council gave initial approval to the repeal at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting – on a 9-2 vote.

Current Ann Arbor local law differs in two ways from the state’s Uniform Traffic Code. First, under current local law, motorists in Ann Arbor are supposed to yield the right-of-way to those pedestrians not just “within a crosswalk” but also to those who are “stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk.” Second, when driving toward a crosswalk, motorists in Ann Arbor don’t have the option to yield to a pedestrian by merely slowing down; instead, they’re required to yield by stopping.

Here’s what the current law says (as a result of amendment on Dec. 19, 2011):

10:148. Pedestrians crossing streets

(a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.

(b) A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.

(c) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (Corresponds to UTC rule 706)

For more detail on the evolution of the local law, see “Column: Why did the Turkey Cross the Road?”

A possible compromise the council might consider would leave intact the language about motorists stopping, but still limit the right-of-way to just pedestrians within a crosswalk – that is, it would exclude those standing at the curb.

The compromise could be based on the wording of the ordinance used by Traverse City:

When traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the right-of-way to every pedestrian within a marked crosswalk.

Representatives of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition, who are advocating against repealing the crosswalk ordinance, contend that Traverse City police enforce “within a crosswalk” by including the curb. But at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting, assistant city attorney Bob West indicated that he didn’t interpret “within a crosswalk” to mean anything except the roadway.

At least some of the community debate on the topic has included the question of whether Ann Arbor’s ordinance is unique. On a national level, the ordinance language used in Boulder, Colorado includes more than just those pedestrians within a crosswalk:

A driver shall yield the right of way to every pedestrian on a sidewalk or approaching or within a crosswalk.“

And in Seattle, a similar effect is achieved by defining the crosswalk to extend from the roadway through the curb to the opposite edge of the sidewalk:

‘Crosswalk’ means the portion of the roadway between the intersection area and a prolongation or connection of the farthest sidewalk line or in the event there are no sidewalks then between the intersection area and a line ten feet therefrom, except as modified by a marked crosswalk.

Edwards Brothers Land

A pending sale of the Edwards Brothers property on South State Street to the University of Michigan for $12.8 million was announced in a press release last week. A right of first refusal on the property is held by the city of Ann Arbor as a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council almost three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011.

The topic of land acquisition is one of the legal exceptions to the Michigan Open Meetings Act, which requires all deliberations of a public body to be open to the public.

The council’s deliberations on granting the tax abatement nearly three years ago contemplated the possibility that the council could be faced with a decision about whether to act on the right of first refusal, which was associated with the tax abatement. At the time, city assessor David Petrak pegged the value of the land at anywhere between $1 million and $50 million. From The Chronicle’s report of that Jan. 18, 2011 meeting:

The cover memo also indicates that the Edwards Brothers real property is located immediately adjacent to a University of Michigan park-and-ride lot, and it’s felt that UM may have some interest in purchasing the property, which would remove it from the city’s tax rolls. In that light, the city staff built a stipulation into the tax abatement that would give the city the right of first refusal on any future land sale. So if UM offered to purchase the property, the city would have an opportunity to make an offer – presumably with the idea that the city would then sell the land to some other private entity, thereby returning the land to the tax rolls.

City assessor David Petrak briefly introduced some of the background on the request to the council.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) pressed for some additional explanation. Without additional information, she said, she could not support it. Why was the city considering the application? The answer was that by statute it must be considered.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) reminded the council that Edwards Brothers has been in Ann Arbor for over 100 years. When the previous abatement was granted, he said, the company was “this close” to moving the operation to North Carolina. Instead, due to the abatement, the company decided to remain in Ann Arbor and preserved around 400 jobs in this community.

With respect to Edwards Brothers not meeting the employment numbers required by the first tax abatement, Rapundalo cited the dire economic times, noting in particular that the book business has not exactly been thriving. So he did not want to hold the job losses against the company. He called Edwards Brothers a long-standing corporate citizen. He also said that if the company left, he would not doubt for a second that UM would pick up the property.

From the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) elicited the fact that the tax abatement would apply to a new press – a typical economic requirement in a very competitive industry, he said. Petrak went on to explain the right of first refusal on the possible sale of the real estate, if Edwards Brothers decided eventually to leave anyway.

City administrator Roger Fraser elaborated in more detail on Crawford’s description of the press to be acquired. It’s particularly suited to quick turnaround on small printing jobs, and offers an opportunity to pick up some additional business for the company. The right of first refusal on the land sale, he said, was an attempt to extract some additional public benefit from the agreement.

Smith pressed for information about what the approximate cost of the land would be, if the city found itself having to contemplate whether to exercise its right of first refusal. Petrak didn’t have that information, but when continued to be pressed by Smith, he allowed that it was between $1 million and $50 million.

Mayor John Hieftje established with Crawford that there’d been no negative impact to the city’s revenues due to job losses at the company. Hieftje said the right of first refusal did not matter to him at all, but the 400 jobs at the company represented good, if not fancy, jobs. They might not earn the average $80,000 salaries that Pfizer workers earned, but they were good jobs. Hieftje also noted that the percentage of property that is abated in the city is minuscule.

…

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) observed that 415 jobs is a lot of jobs. The fact that there’d been only a 13% drop he characterized as a “great feat.” If it were a new company, he said, they would all be out helping to cut the ribbon.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) expressed his support for the abatement.

Bank of Ann Arbor Loan

An agreement to sell the old Y lot on William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues downtown – to hotelier Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million – was approved by the council at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of rider] [.pdf of sales agreement]

But it’s possible that not all the due diligence will be completed before Dec. 16, when the city owes the $3.5 million principal it used to purchase the property. As a hedge against that possibility, the council will be asked on Dec. 2 to approve a six-month extension on the installment purchase agreement with Bank of Ann Arbor for the $3.5 million. The interest rate would be the same as the interest rate at which the city is currently borrowing the money – 3.89% with no penalty for pre-payment.

If additional interest is owed due to the extension of the loan, presumably the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority would also continue with its share of the payments. That was an arrangement agreed to in 2003 through action by the DDA’s executive committee, not the full DDA board. The DDA’s portion of the interest payments could factor into the calculation of the net proceeds from the former Y lot sale. A year ago at the council’s Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, the council adopted a resolution that indicated the proceeds of the sale would:

“… first be utilized to repay the various funds that expended resources on the property, including but not limited to due diligence, closing of the site and relocation and support of its previous tenants, after which any remaining proceeds be allocated and distributed to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund …

However, two days after the council meets on Dec. 2, the board of the Ann Arbor DDA will be considering a resolution that would waive any need to repay the DDA for those interest payments or for the expenditures by the DDA to demolish the old Y building in 2008. [.pdf of Dec. 4, 2013 draft DDA resolution on Y lot proceeds]

Possibly relevant to the question of whether the DDA can simply waive any required repayment by the city to the DDA is the source of funds used by the DDA to make those payments. In recent years, the DDA has used parking funds to make the interest payments. To the extent that in earlier years, funds captured under the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) may have been used to make interest payments, it’s not clear if the DDA could simply allow the city to retain those funds as part of the proceeds of the Y lot sale.

Traverwood Apartments

On the council’s Dec. 2 agenda is a project proposed by First Martin Corp. that would construct a complex of 16 two-story buildings on the west side of Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road. The development is called Traverwood Apartments.

Aerial view of proposed Traverwood Apartments at 2225 Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road.

Only the initial vote on the zoning is being considered on Dec. 2. The final vote on the zoning and the site plan will appear on a future council agenda.

The project, estimated to cost $30 million, would include 16 two-story buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. Eight of the buildings would each have 15 units and 11 single-car garages. An additional eight buildings would each have 12 units and 8 single-car garages.

The city’s planning commission recommended approval of the site plan and the required rezoning at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. The site is made up of two parcels: a nearly 16-acre lot that’s zoned R4D (multi-family residential), and an adjacent 3.88-acre lot to the south that’s currently zoned ORL (office, research and light industrial). It’s the smaller lot that needs to be rezoned R4D.

Land to be donated by Bill Martin to the city of Ann Arbor indicated in red outline.

The Dec. 2 agenda includes the council’s consideration of a donation of 2.2 acres to the city from Bill Martin just north of the project site. The donated acreage is next to the Stapp Nature Area and the Leslie Park golf course.

Running Fit Addition

At its Dec. 2 meeting, the council will be asked to approve the site plan for a three-story addition to the Running Fit store at the northwest corner of Fourth Avenue and Liberty Street in downtown Ann Arbor.

Aerial view of the Running Fit building, at the northwest corner of East Liberty and South Fourth.

The first floor will be retained as retail space, but six residential units would be built on the upper three floors – one two-bedroom and five one-bedroom units.

The city planning commission recommended approval of the site plan at its Oct. 15, 2013 meeting.

The location in Ward 1 is zoned D1, which allows for the highest density development in the city. It’s also located in the Main Street Historic District.

The city’s historic district commission issued a certificate of appropriateness on Aug. 15, 2013.

The project is expected to cost about $900,000.

Cost of In-Street Parking Spaces

The city council will also be asked to place a value on portions of the public right-of-way currently used as on-street parking spaces – $45,000 per space. By formally adopting that figure, any future development that causes the removal of on-street parking spaces could be charged that amount.

In this matter, the council would be acting on a four-year-old recommendation approved by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority in 2009:

Thus it is recommended that when developments lead to the removal of on-street parking meter spaces, a cost of $45,000/parking meter space (with annual CPI increases) be assessed and provided to the DDA to set aside in a special fund that will be used to construct future parking spaces or other means to meet the goals above. [.pdf of meeting minutes with complete text of March 4, 2009 DDA resolution]

The contract under which the DDA manages the public parking system for the city was revised to restructure the financial arrangement (which now pays the city 17% of the gross revenues), but also included a clause meant to prompt the city to act on the on-street space cost recommendation. From the May 2011 parking agreement:

The City shall work collaboratively with the DDA to develop and present for adoption by City Council a City policy regarding the permanent removal of on-street metered parking spaces. The purpose of this policy will be to identify whether a community benefit to the elimination of one or more metered parking spaces specific area(s) of the City exists, and the basis for such a determination. If no community benefit can be identified, it is understood and agreed by the parties that a replacement cost allocation methodology will need to be adopted concurrent with the approval of the City policy; which shall be used to make improvements to the public parking or transportation system.

Subject to administrative approval by the city, it’s the DDA that has sole authority to determine the addition or removal of meters, loading zones, or other curbside parking uses.

The $45,000 figure is based on an average construction cost to build a new parking space in a structure, either above ground or below ground – as estimated in 2009. It’s not clear what the specific impetus is to act on the issue now, other than the fact that action is simply long overdue. In 2011, the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social research expansion was expected to result in the net removal of one on-street parking space. [For more background, see: "Column: Ann Arbor's Monroe (Street) Doctrine."]

The resolution on the council’s Dec. 2 agenda is sponsored by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Taylor participated in recent meetings of a joint council and DDA board committee that negotiated a resolution to the question about how the DDA’s TIF revenue is regulated. In that context, Taylor had argued adamantly that any cap on the DDA’s TIF should be escalated by a construction industry CPI, or roughly 5%. Taylor’s reasoning was that the DDA’s mission is to undertake capital projects and therefore should have revenue that escalates in accordance with increases in the costs to undertake capital projects. Based on that reasoning, and the explicit 2009 recommendation by the DDA to increase the estimated $45,000 figure in that year by an inflationary index, the recommended amount now, four years later, could be closer to $55,000, assuming a 5% figure for construction cost inflation.

The actual cost of building an underground space in the recently completed (2012) underground Library Lane parking structure could provide a more current estimate, but the DDA has not made public a breakdown of how that project’s actual costs lined up with its project budget.

The last two month’s minutes from the DDA’s committee meetings don’t reflect any discussion of the on-street parking space replacement cost. Nor has the issue been discussed at any recent DDA board meeting.

Audit, Firefighters, Other Stats

In non-land issues, the council will be introduced to newly hired firefighters at its Dec. 2 meeting.

The statistical section from the city’s most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) shows a budgeted staffing level for the fire department of 82, in fiscal year 2013. But the council approved the hiring of additional firefighters after the fiscal year began, bringing the total to 85.

The CAFR is indirectly included in the council’s agenda – as part of a presentation that will be given by chief financial officer Tom Crawford on the result of this year’s audit. It was a clean audit that showed the general fund doing about $2.4 million better than budgeted.

Highlights from that FY 2013 audit report, which has now been issued in final form to the city, include an increase to the general fund balance from about $15.4 million to about $16.2 million. The $800,000 increase contrasts to the planned use of roughly $1.6 million from the general fund balance in the FY 2013 budget. About $200,000 of the increase was in the “unassigned” fund balance.

The result of the audit, in the new GASB terminology, was an “unmodified” opinion – which corresponds to the older “unqualified” opinion. In sum, that means it was a “clean” audit. The concerns identified last year had been addressed to the auditor’s satisfaction.

Members of the council’s audit committee, which met on Oct. 24. 2013 to review the draft audit report, were enthusiastic about the $2.4 million better-than-budget performance for the city’s general fund, which had expenditures budgeted for $74,548,522 in FY 2013.

Challenges facing the city this coming year include the implementation of the new GASB 68 accounting standard starting in FY 2015, which begins July 1, 2014. That standard requires that most changes to the net pension liability will be included immediately on the balance sheet – instead of being amortized over a long time period. The GASB 68 standard must be implemented for an organization’s financial statements for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2014.

Two of the city’s funds were highlighted by Crawford at the Oct. 24 meeting as having potential difficulties associated with the GASB 68 standard – solid waste and the public market (farmers market). For the public market fund, Crawford floated the idea to the audit committee that it could be folded back into the city’s general fund, on analogy with the golf fund. Starting this year (FY 2014), the golf fund has been returned to general fund accounting.

Among the other myriad statistics in the CAFR are the number of parking violations recorded by the city – which are again down in the range of 90,000 as they’ve been for the last three years. That’s about half what they were in 2006 and 2007. Those numbers in the CAFR don’t include University of Michigan parking tickets – although the city and the UM have an agreement under which the city processes tickets and hears appeals for the university. A renewal of that agreement is on the council’s agenda for Dec. 2.

Here’s a sampling of the kind of data available in the statistical section of the FY 2013 CAFR, which includes data from previous CAFRs as well. [.pdf of final audit report released on Nov. 15, 2013]

Ann Arbor parking violations. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor traffic violations. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor physical arrests. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor police services data. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor fires extinguished. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor fire inspections. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor emergency responses by fire department. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor fire services data. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor police department staff strength. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor total city employees. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor water main breaks. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor taxable value. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Internal Council Business

On its Dec. 2 meeting agenda, the council also has a fair amount of its own internal business to wrap up, associated with the seating of the new council, which took place at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting.

That internal business includes adopting the council rules. Based on a less than 10-minute meeting of the council’s rules committee on Nov. 29, no changes to the rules were planned to be put forward at this time. The council’s rules committee – established by last year’s council – currently consists of Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and mayor John Hieftje.

However, the .pdf file attached to the council’s online agenda – which reflects the council’s rules to be considered for adoption – includes a revision that was explicitly discussed and, for the time being, rejected at the committee’s Nov. 29 meeting. [.pdf of city council rules]

That change replaces “personality” (an archaic usage meaning a disparaging remark about a person) with “personal attack” in the following rule: “The member shall confine comments to the question at hand and avoid personality.” At the council’s Nov. 18 regular meeting, when the council voted to delay adoption of the rules pending a review of the rules, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) had asked that the rules committee look at the rule requiring that councilmembers “avoid personality” during deliberations.

At the Nov. 29 committee meeting, Stephen Kunselman weighed in specifically for retaining the more archaic wording as reflective of history and tradition. The outcome of that committee discussion was that no changes would be recommended at this time, as any changes should be reviewed by the rules committee with its new membership. But based on the inclusion of the change in the Legistar document, it’s not clear what the status of that proposed change is meant to be.

A consensus on the committee at the Nov. 29 meeting seemed to be that the new membership of the rules committee should include Sally Petersen (Ward 2) in place of Kunselman, as Kunselman did not wish to continue on the rules committee. In addition, Petersen’s ethics initiative, which was approved at the council’s Nov. 18, 2013 meeting, tasks the rules committee with a certain amount of work – so the rules committee consensus on Nov. 29 appeared to be that the committee would be well-served by her membership.

The rest of the new council committee assignments are also supposed to be made at the Dec. 2 meeting.

The council’s calendar of regular meetings and work sessions will also be adopted at the Dec. 2 meeting. The basic pattern is first and third Mondays for regular meetings, except when there’s a holiday or an election during the week of the meeting.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. We sit on the hard bench so that you don’t have to. 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!

A final “resolved” clause of the resolution would direct the council’s rules committee to draft standards of conduct for local officials based on Public Act 196 of 1973, which applies to state employees of the executive branch and appointees of the governor.

The final resolved clause – if it’s approved, and if the council adopts a standard for itself (the legislative branch) that’s recommended by the council rules committee, and it’s strictly followed – could lead to an end to any unauthorized leaks of information from the city government. That’s based on the statutory language: “A public officer or employee shall not divulge to an unauthorized person, confidential information acquired in the course of employment in advance of the time prescribed for its authorized release to the public.”

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

The memo responds to questions that were raised about the procedure used to appoint Al McWilliams to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority at the council’s Sept. 16, 2013 meeting. Mayor John Hieftje asked the council to vote on McWilliams’ appointment after saying at a previous meeting that he was withdrawing the nomination. Under the council’s rules, an 8-vote majority is required for confirmation of an appointment when the nomination is made at the same meeting when the confirmation vote is taken. McWilliams was confirmed on a 6-5 vote.

The advice memo likely establishes that it’s doubtful a successful court challenge could be brought – partly because it’s not clear who might have standing to bring such a suit.

A “whereas” clause in the waiver resolution states that “the public good will be best served by releasing this advice to the public.”

The first of two “resolved” clauses makes clear that the waiver of the attorney-client privilege is confined to a narrow circumstance: “The Council waives privilege in this specific circumstance, as the waiver of privilege does not expose the City to material legal risk and disclosure of the legal issues raised in this memo would not unduly constrain future Council actions.”

Under the Ann Arbor city charter, written opinions of the city attorney are to be filed with the city clerk’s office. City attorney Stephen Postema has contended in the past that his advice memos are not written opinions under the city charter and has declined to file them with the clerk’s office.

In the past, the council has voted on a resolution that would have made an attorney opinion public – on the legal basis for the Percent for Art program. That vote, taken on April 2, 2012, failed with support only from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

The Oct. 7, 2013 agenda item is sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

From left: city administrator Steve Powers and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). (Photos by the writer.)

One of those late agenda additions was a confirmation vote of Al McWilliams’ appointment to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority (DDA) board. The vote tally was 6-5, which was declared sufficient for confirmation. However, the city attorney is still reviewing the possibility that the confirmation required an eight-vote majority, under the council’s rules.

The debate on that item came late in the meeting, because that’s where nominations and appointments are slotted on the agenda template, based on the council’s current rules. But that will change in the future – due to a change in the council’s rules that was also on the Sept. 16 agenda. The council adopted some revisions to the rules that were three months in the works. Those included: adding an opportunity for public commentary to work sessions; changing the order of the agenda to move nominations and appointments for boards and commissions to a slot toward the start in the meeting; and prohibiting the use of personal electronic communications devices while at the council table.

Also related to the DDA on the Sept. 16 council agenda was the final approval of revisions to the city ordinance regulating the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) capture. The council again put off a vote on the question, which was given initial approval five and a half months ago – on April 1. The question was put off this time until Oct. 21.

The initially-approved amendments to Chapter 7 of the city code include various changes to governance, including term limits for board members, as well as clarifications to the existing language on TIF capture. The initially-approved amendments would enforce the existing language of the ordinance in a manner that would impact the DDA’s TIF revenue in a way roughly matching the DDA’s projected revenues in its 10-year planning document.

At the council’s Sept. 16 meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) sketched out a different conceptual approach to the way the TIF capture is constrained. It’s an approach being developed by a joint committee of councilmembers and DDA board members as a “dual track” to the ordinance revisions currently under consideration.

Under the existing ordinance language, the amount of DDA TIF capture is calibrated to projections in the DDA TIF plan, which is a foundational document for the DDA. The different conceptual approach would establish a basis level for the maximum captured taxable value in the DDA district – a “cap” on TIF revenue – and then set some clearly defined annual increase, keyed to a specific percentage or some variant of a consumer price index (CPI).

A working document used by the joint committee at its Sept. 10 meeting showed two basic scenarios, one of which could roughly mimic the TIF revenue levels that would be provided under the current proposal, while the other might not provide any practical cap.

The second item added to the Sept. 16 agenda on the same day as the meeting was reconsideration of a vote on fossil fuel divestment taken by the council at its previous meeting, on Sept. 3. At that meeting, the council had voted 5-4 on a resolution calling on its employee retirement system to divest from fossil fuel companies. That tally defeated the resolution because it failed to achieve the necessary six votes on the 11-member council.

However, Margie Teall (Ward 4) voted with the prevailing side – one of the votes against it – giving her the right to bring a motion for reconsideration, which the council passed at its Sept. 16 meeting. But on the fossil fuel divestment resolution itself, after about 45 minutes of debate, the council voted to postpone the matter – until its Oct. 21 meeting.

In other business, the council approved the site plan for an expansion of a Honda testing facility, north of Ellsworth on Research Park Drive. The council also approved the rental of 8 extra trucks to supplement the city’s fleet during fall leaf collection season, at a cost of $117,200. It’s an annual expenditure.

Also on Sept. 16, the council formally accepted the final report of the North Main Huron River corridor task force.

The council also heard an update from Ann Arbor police chief John Seto on the preliminary assessment of newly implemented street closures for University of Michigan home football games. That preliminary assessment did not include any major problems, but Seto indicated that he wouldn’t draw conclusions until after a community meeting that’s being held to get additional feedback. That meeting takes place on Tuesday, Sept. 24 at 6 p.m. at Pioneer High School.

DDA Board Nomination: Al McWilliams

The council was asked to vote on the confirmation of Al McWilliams to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board. Although the item was not included on the agenda until the evening of the meeting, mayor John Hieftje told the council early in the meeting on Sept. 16 that he’d be asking for a vote on McWilliams’ appointment that night.

The action came after McWilliams’ nomination had been withdrawn by Hieftje in the middle of deliberations at the council’s previous meeting, on Sept 3, 2013. At that meeting, a positive outcome on the vote appeared to be in doubt, as two councilmembers were absent – Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

At that Sept. 3 session, councilmembers who were opposed to the nomination expressed a concern about a potential conflict of interest for McWilliams in votes he might take on DDA funding for the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority’s getDowntown program. His firm, Quack!Media, is an ad agency located in downtown Ann Arbor. Quack!Media lists the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority on its website as one of its clients.

DDA Board Nomination: Al McWilliams – Council Deliberations

Hieftje led off deliberations by saying that younger professionals are under-represented on city boards and commissions. He noted that McWilliams is supported by the director of the Main Street Area Association [Maura Thomson]. He wanted someone to replace Newcombe Clark in representing the Main Street area of downtown.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he wouldn’t be voting for McWilliams. He reported that he’d met with McWilliams and described him as “not ready for prime time.” Kunselman said he wouldn’t belabor the insults that McWilliams uses in Tweets, and the foul language in his blog posts. But you wouldn’t want your mother reading those posts, he said. Kunselman contended that McWilliams is not mature enough to serve on the DDA board – and what’s needed is someone who can show some tact. Kunselman allowed that McWilliams in his online work was coming at it as “joking” and that’s all well and good. But as a public official, that doesn’t work, he said.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) agreed with Kunselman. She said she was looking at McWilliams’ website, and that there was a “very curious picture of Miley Cyrus’ rear end.” She reported that she’d had a conversation with him about his website, because she’d found some of the images somewhat offensive. She also cited McWilliams’ use of profanity as one objection, characterizing it as not professional. She held the DDA board to higher standards than that, she said. He belongs to the category of a “young, techie entrepreneurial person,” she said, but there are a lot of them out there and the city could do better in selecting them. She didn’t think McWilliams was the right person for the DDA.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) said that as a woman, having come up with the feminist movement, her political engagement had begun with women’s rights. She found his position on women “absolutely degrading,” and concluded that there’s “no way I could support him.” Hieftje asked if Kailasapathy had met with McWilliams and discussed his views on women, or if she was basing her opinion on his online work. Kailasapathy indicated that she’d emailed back and forth with him.

Hieftje responded to the commentary up to that point with sarcasm by saying, “The fact that somebody used profanity on the Internet, I am shocked that this occurred. It’s almost unbelievable that there would be profanity used on the Internet.”

Mayor John Hieftje.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she was extremely uncomfortable assuming that someone who takes on a persona on the Internet would necessarily behave that way at the DDA or in a governmental position. She couldn’t understand why that assumption would be made. Almost off mic, Kunselman responded to Teall by saying that recently a DDA member had resigned [an allusion to the resignation of Nader Nassif from the board after being arrested for sexual assault]. Teall said she’d met with McWilliams, calling him a delightful person. Teall felt he’d be someone who could add energy to the DDA and add a unique and youthful perspective, concluding that that’s a good thing.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he’d support McWilliams. If the city is interested in having young entrepreneurs participate in the governmental process and to invest in the downtown and to become a part of civic life, then the door shouldn’t be shut on someone for exhibiting some of the characteristics of that generation. Those characteristics include an “ironic irreverence” to things, he said. Taylor described McWilliams as a valued member of the Ann Arbor business community who has the full support of the Main Street Area Association. Taylor felt he’d serve with “temperance, smarts, and distinction.”

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) offered by way of analogy Al Franken. He’d support Franken for the U.S. Senate if he lived in Minnesota, even if he thought that Franken’s book – “Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot” – was inappropriate for attacking someone for their weight. During the Bush years, if Warpehoski had been a member of the Republican Party, he would have supported the re-election of vice president Dick Cheney, even though Cheney told a member of the Senate to “go eff himself,” and that’s not decorum worthy of the office. Warpehoski indicated that he didn’t think that profanity and saying inappropriate things disqualifies someone from public service.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported that she did not find herself offended by what McWilliams had written on the Internet. But it had been pointed out to her that this behavior could be considered immature and so she had talked with him on the phone. Her impression was that he felt comfortable talking to someone of her generation: “We did not exchange expletives, mine or his.”

She’d asked him about what he wanted to accomplish on the board of the DDA. She said she didn’t find anything to worry about – except that he wanted to dig into the mission of the DDA and what it was supposed to be accomplishing. She was impressed that he’d chosen Ann Arbor, when he had other different opportunities. He saw himself as an independent player and had not taken a subservient role, she said. For councilmembers who were concerned that some DDA board members didn’t know when to say no to the council, she thought that could be a benefit. She’d enjoyed talking to him.

Outcome: Al McWilliams was judged confirmed to the DDA board on a 6-5 vote. Voting against the appointment were Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

For a Chronicle op-ed on the procedural issues in connection with the McWilliams appointment, see: “Column: On Counting to 8, Stopping at 6.”

New Council Rules

The council considered approval of a new set of council rules, three months after they were first presented for consideration. Among the substantive changes that survived that three-month delay included the following: adding an opportunity for public commentary to work sessions; changing the order of the agenda to move nominations and appointments for boards and commissions to a slot earlier in the meeting; and prohibiting the use of personal electronic communications devices while at the council table.

A revision to the rules was first presented to the council on June 17, 2013. However, a vote was postponed at that meeting. The revisions were prompted by a desire to allow for public commentary at council work sessions – to eliminate any question about whether councilmembers were engaged in deliberative interactions at those sessions. By allowing for public commentary at work sessions, the council would ensure compliance with Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.

The council’s rules committee also recommended additional changes, including a shortening of the individual speaking turns for public comment as well as shortening of time for councilmembers. Those additional changes were included in the June 17 version of the rules. After again postponing a vote at its July 1, 2013 meeting, the council used its following meeting, on July 15, to eliminate one of the proposed rule changes – the shortening of public speaking turns. But the council postponed further revisions and a vote until Sept. 3. The council again postponed a vote on Sept. 3, 2013 because the council’s rules committee had not met in the interim.

On Sept. 10, the rules committee did meet, and the consensus appeared to be that no shortening of speaking turns for the public or for councilmembers should be undertaken and that the procedure for reserving public commentary time at the start of the meeting should not be altered.

New Council Rules: Public Commentary

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Thomas Partridge stated that he’s a write-in candidate for Ward 5 city council. He called for reform of the council rules to expand opportunities for public participation. He called for an unlimited number of public speakers at the start of the meeting. He noted that the Washtenaw County board of commissioners manages its meetings in that manner.

New Council Rules: Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), chair of the rules committee, deferred to committee member Sabra Briere (Ward 1) to introduce the item to the council, because she’d been unable to attend the last committee meeting due to an ankle injury. Briere reviewed the history of the proposed revisions. Councilmembers at the last committee meeting had come up with a fresh proposal, which was being considered by the council that night. She reviewed each change, saying that she hoped councilmembers had reviewed the set of changes themselves.

The council first accepted the substitute, fresh version of the rules. [.pdf of council rules as adopted]

Higgins thanked the committee for doing a great job while she wasn’t there. She called the new draft a great piece of work. Mayor John Hieftje said one thing stuck out for him. He noted that the public commentary time for work sessions required to begin no later than 8:45 p.m. Hieftje wondered if that’s feasible.

City administrator Steve Powers indicated that some flexibility might be required to be able to continue the discussion. But he suggested it would be useful to indicate in the rules some guidance on the council’s expectations about how long the working sessions will last.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that working sessions have not always started at 7 p.m. So he suggested that the beginning of public commentary time could be specified to be 105 minutes after the posted start time. City attorney Stephen Postema indicated that the council could vote to suspend that rule and change the procedure. Hieftje said he would feel more comfortable if the time indicated were 9:15 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) suggested that perhaps no time needs to be specified.

Higgins allowed the changes won’t affect her [because she's leaving council after the Nov. 5 election]. She noted that the council for some time has been working with the city administrator on the structure of work sessions. She ventured that the rule could simply be suspended and she didn’t think that it would happen very often. Lumm thanked the committee for its work. She said the initial proposal to shorten speaking turns was an overreaction to a couple of very long meetings. She felt it was a good move to abandon that approach.

Lumm ventured that the addition of public commentary during work sessions would add an opportunity for additional public dialogue. She was happy to support the rules changes. Hieftje said he appreciated Lumm’s comments. The committee had wanted to get the whole council’s feedback on the proposed changes, he said.

Warpehoski then moved to strike the language setting the time when public comment at work sessions would start. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he didn’t think it was that big a deal. He’d concluded from Powers’ remark on the subject that Powers meant the staff would find some mention of a time as helpful discipline.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he’d follow Taylor’s lead on this, agreeing that the time should be left in. Briere noted that because the rules can be amended and there’s no limit on the number of speakers, it gives members of the public a clear indication of when they need to appear at the meeting in order to speak. It gives a firm commitment to the public, Briere said. She observed that Monday night is a school night.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she’d support Warpehoski’s amendment. She didn’t think 15-20 minutes one way or another would make a big difference.

Outcome on Warpehoski’s amendment: The amendment failed on a 5-6 vote. Voting against it were Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). So the “no later than 8:45 p.m.” start time stayed in the public commentary for work sessions.

Without significant further deliberations, the council voted on the rules as a whole.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve changes to its internal rules, with all councilmembers present by that time in the meeting.

Ann Arbor DDA Ordinance

On the Sept. 16 agenda was a final vote on revisions to a city ordinance regulating the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority tax increment finance (TIF) capture.

The city council and the DDA board have a joint committee that is working out details of an alternative, “dual track” to the ordinance amendments that have already been given initial approval by the council.

The initial DDA ordinance revisions that appeared on the council’s Sept. 16 agenda were awaiting a second and final vote by the council. The amendments to Chapter 7 included various changes to governance, including term limits for board members, as well as clarifications to the existing language on TIF capture.

The amendments would enforce the existing language of the ordinance in a manner that would impact the DDA’s TIF revenue in a way roughly matching the DDA’s projected revenues in its 10-year planning document. However, since that 10-year document was last updated, the amount of new construction in the DDA district has resulted in significant increases in the taxable value on which TIF is computed. So about $1 million a year is at stake – which could be distributed to the other jurisdictions whose taxes the DDA captures, instead of being collected by the DDA.

Under the existing ordinance language, the amount of DDA TIF capture is calibrated to projections in the DDA TIF plan, which is a foundational document for the DDA. The different conceptual approach – the “dual track” – would establish a basis level for the maximum captured taxable value in the DDA district and then set some clearly defined annual increase, keyed to a specific percentage or some variant of a consumer price index (CPI).

For example, the current taxable value on which the DDA captures taxes is roughly $137,000,000. That yielded about $3.76 million in TIF revenue to the DDA in fiscal year 2013, which ended on June 30. If that $137,000,000 were used as a basis for the cap, then a 3% increase applied annually would give the DDA a maximum of $5.063 million in 2023. In any given year, the DDA would receive the lesser of two values: (i) the unconstrained TIF captured on the taxable value; or (ii) the value of the cap.

A working document used by the joint committee at its Sept. 10 meeting showed two basic scenarios, one with a basis of $137,000,000 in taxable value for FY 2013, and a second one starting with a basis of $167,000,000 for the following year, in FY 2014. The second one received more interest from the committee.

The council had postponed a final vote on the changes most recently at its Sept. 3, 2013 meeting. Four months earlier, on May 6, 2013, the council had voted to postpone the final vote until Sept. 3, after giving the changes initial approval at its April 1, 2013 meeting.

Two meetings of the joint committee of DDA board members and city councilmembers have taken place about the ordinance changes – one on Aug. 26, 2013, eight weeks after the committee was appointed, and another one on Sept. 10, 2013.

At the Sept. 10 meeting, the group appeared to be ready to recommend that the council table the initially-approved ordinance changes and start from scratch with a new conceptual approach, likely shedding the proposed changes to governance with the fresh start.

DDA Ordinance: Public Commentary

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the Sept. 16 meeting, Thomas Partridge called for reform of the relationship between the city and the Ann Arbor DDA. He wanted the DDA district to expand to include all the commercial areas of the city. He ventured that perhaps mayor John Hieftje did not want to do that because Hieftje, as a former real estate agent, might have a financial interest in maintaining the DDA boundaries “contracted” as they are.

David Blanchard introduced himself as chair of the city’s housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB), and spoke on the issue of the DDA ordinance revisions. He noted that the HHSAB board has passed a resolution on this issue. A lot in the revisions goes beyond the HHSAB’s purview. But HHSAB is committed to affordable housing in this community, he says. [HHSAB wants the ordinance to require that the DDA set aside $300,000 annually for affordable housing, which is the amount set aside this year. And HHSAB wants that amount to increase each year.]

DDA Ordinance: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) reported on the second joint committee meeting. He said he wanted to give the DDA some time to review the numbers. He described the dual track. He wanted a postponement until Oct. 21.

Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) wanted clarification on the “dual track” that Kunselman mentioned. She didn’t have a clear understand if the joint committee recommendation would supersede the existing revisions, which the council has already given initial approval. She said there’s a lot of confusion. The joint committee, she said, seemed to be totally rewriting the revisions that the council had already approved. She was not comfortable with that, because there are other taxing jurisdictions involved. She was not very happy with the way things were turning out. Will the existing revisions be replaced by the version recommended by the committee? she asked.

Kunselman responded to Kailasapathy that after the first reading of the revisions was approved by the council, there was a lot of angst about the idea that the DDA would first collect and then return tax money to the other taxing authorities. [The current ordinance is conceived as involving a receipt of TIF revenue and then a return of that revenue to the other taxing jurisdictions.] So the joint committee is looking at a TIF cap, as a conceptual alternative. Kunselman read aloud the draft language from the working document. He said the idea is to make it as clear as possible. There’s no money to be returned because the amount the DDA gets in the first place is subject to the cap. A cap takes away the need to enforce anything, Kunselman said.

But Kunselman didn’t want to take the initially-approved revision off the table, because it allows the council to make that decision whenever the council chooses. He said he’s been trying to work cooperatively with the DDA, but allowed that DDA board members might not necessarily agree that he’d been doing that. The TIF cap approach would allow the DDA to set its budget more easily, he said.

At the Oct. 21 meeting, the council will likely have the committee’s proposal ready for consideration, Kunselman ventured. He’s focused on the TIF capture methodology, not the governance issue – which involves term limits, among other things. Those governance elements are included in the ordinance revisions that were approved at first reading. Amendments on the governance issue could come from the floor on Oct. 21, he said.

Kunselman told councilmembers that he doesn’t have all the answers and there’s more than one way to approach the issue. He called the changes to the language about TIF revenue the most important of the reforms.

Kailasapathy asked city attorney Stephen Postema if it’s possible for the council to just act unilaterally. Postema declined to give an analysis at the meeting, but said the council would receive advice on the ordinance changes as a whole. [More coverage from The Chronicle on the issue: "Library View on TIF Capture: Unchanged."]

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) tried to get some clarity on what’s going to happen next. She highlighted the clause in the ordinance that says the other taxing jurisdictions need to approve the removal of the restrictions.

From left: During the recess, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) examine the draft language and escalator definitions for a fixed cap on DDA TIF revenue.

Mayor John Hieftje made a gambit to discuss the issue further, suggesting that city administrator Steve Powers and DDA executive director Susan Pollay could provide some discussion of the TIF cap issue. Hieftje convinced Kunselman to withdraw his motion to postpone.

Powers explained that in cooperation with DDA staff, the draft language was prepared as an alternative. The draft proposal sets a basis for the taxable value and caps the amount of TIF with yearly increases, he explained. The amounts were chosen to recognize the growth that was currently occurring and to allow the DDA to retain that growth. The percentage increases could range from 3% to 10%. Pollay described how the DDA would be assisted by city CFO Tom Crawford in modeling the impact of different percentages in the escalator.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked that the draft language be provided to the council as a whole. The council then took a recess to allow the city clerk to make some copies and distribute them.

When the council returned from recess, Lumm wanted to know the rationale for establishing the baseline value at $167 million. Powers replied that it would allow some future growth. Lumm pointed out that this would mean $700,000 in additional revenue to the DDA. Powers noted that the idea is to provide enough revenue so that the DDA can accomplish the projects in its draft five-year plan. [For coverage of the DDA board meeting when the five-year plan was reviewed, but not voted on by the DDA board, see "DDA Kicks Off Fall with $300K Grant."] Powers noted that the whole council had been provided with the draft five-year plan.

Lumm asked why there was not a lot of enthusiasm from the committee for a CPI index. Taylor explained that the regular CPI is not related to the kind of construction projects the DDA undertakes. So that’s not a neat fit for the kind of cost increases the DDA will have to contend with. It’s key that the escalator be reasonable, but Lumm called 10% – which is one of the options indicated in the draft “dual track” language – “off the charts.”

Kunselman indicated that will be the topic of the next committee meeting. The joint committee is scheduled to meet on Oct. 16 at 4 p.m. in the council workroom on the second floor of the Ann Arbor city hall, 301 E. Huron. The meeting is open to the public, and based on the first two committee meetings, an opportunity for public comment will be provided.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone the DDA ordinance revisions until Oct. 21, 2013.

Fossil Fuel Divestment

A resolution on fossil fuel divestment – which was defeated at the council’s previous meeting on Sept. 3, 2013 – was brought back for a re-vote on Sept. 16. The resolution calls on the city’s employee retirement system board to stop investing in fossil fuel companies. The retirement system board is not required to follow the council’s encouragement.

Voting against the resolution on its initial consideration on Sept. 3 were Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). So at that meeting, the resolution fell short of the six-vote majority it needed on the 11-member council. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) were absent on Sept. 3.

During their Sept. 3, 2013 meeting, councilmembers asked Nancy Walker, executive director of the city’s employee retirement system, about implications for the retirement fund. Walker had told the council that moving to separately managed accounts from the system’s preferred strategy – of using co-mingled funds, mutual funds, and particularly indexed funds – would cost 30-40 basis points more in fees, independent of any difference in the return on investment.

In more detail, an energy commission resolution passed on July 9, 2013 recommended that the city council urge the city’s employee retirement system board to cease new investments in fossil fuel companies and to divest current investments in fossil fuel companies within five years. The resolution defined a “fossil fuel company” to be any of the top 100 coal companies or top 100 gas and oil extraction companies. The top three coal companies on the list are: Severstal JSC; Anglo American PLC; and BHP Billiton. The top three gas and oil companies on the list are: Lukoil Holdings; Exxon Mobil Corp.; and BP PLC. The basic consideration of the resolution is the importance of the role that greenhouse gas emissions play in global warming.

The resolution cited the city of Ann Arbor’s Climate Action Plan, which has a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2025 and 90% by 2050. The resolution warned that fossil fuel companies have enough fossil fuel reserves that, if burned, would release about 2,795 gigatons of CO2. That’s five times the amount that can be released without causing more than 2°C global warming, according to the resolution.

By council rule, a councilmember voting with the prevailing side can bring back a question for reconsideration at the same meeting or the immediately subsequent meeting. On Sept. 16, that councilmember was Margie Teall (Ward 4).

Fossil Fuel Divestment: Public Commentary

Mike Shriberg spoke on behalf of the city’s energy commission. He told the council he had also served on the city’s climate action plan task force. He teaches energy policy at the University of Michigan, he said.

From left: Kirk Westphal, chair of the Ann Arbor city planning commission, and city energy commissioner Mike Shriberg .

He was surprised that the resolution at the last meeting was not approved, given the recommendation of the energy commission. He thought it was the first time a recommended resolution from the energy commission had failed to win approval. He called the resolution a first step in the implementation of the city’s climate action plan. So he felt that the two votes by the council – to approve the climate action plan but to reject the fossil fuel divestment resolution – were inconsistent. Shriberg noted there wasn’t a lot of debate on the resolution at the previous council meeting.

Shriberg addressed some of the objections given by councilmembers for voting against it: Was it wise financially? He allowed out that fossil fuel companies have done well in the last several years, but noted that past performance may not be indicative of future results. But if you go back the last 50 years, fossil fuel companies show no better performance than other companies. He ventured that currently we could be in the middle of a bubble and that investments in fossil fuel companies could be at risk. He contended that there’s little or no risk from pulling back from investments in fossil fuel holding companies. Examples in 15 other cities have not shown any negative effects of divesting, he said.

Shriberg also addressed the argument that it’s arbitrary to pull investments out of the 200 targeted companies. The selection of those companies, he said, is based on fossil fuel reserves. If the fossil fuel reserves of those companies were burned, he explained, it would generate five times the “safe limit” of carbon emissions for climate change. So he did not think there’s anything arbitrary about it. He contended that divestment has massive citizen support and noted the council has received the supporting petitions of hundreds of citizens.

The final objection Shriberg addressed related to the question: Does the fossil fuels divestment resolution tie our hands? He noted that the resolution in no way takes away fiduciary responsibility. That responsibility will always come first. It would open up the possibility for a category of investment that would benefit the local and global community, he said. The energy commission had really done its homework, he said. Shriberg felt it’s time to align the city’s commitments [the climate action plan] with potential actions [fossil fuel divestment].

Wayne Appleyard addressed the council as current chair of the energy commission. He wanted to impress on the council the importance of passing the fossil fuel divestment resolution. He pointed out that it got a majority of votes at the previous meeting, just not enough to pass. He stressed that the retirement board is an independent body, so the resolution is only a recommendation and is not binding. Because it’s only symbolic, there’s no important reason not to vote for it, he said.

Divestment resolutions in the past have been helpful in effecting social change on important issues, he said, including apartheid in South Africa and the effects of tobacco. Climate change, which is mostly the result of burning fossil fuels, he said, is the most important to ever face humankind. This resolution will send a message to fossil fuel companies and others that the city wants the world to reduce dependency on fossil fuels, he said. Appleyard contended that fossil fuel investments will become increasingly riskier. This resolution will help create the market for non-fossil fuel funds, he concluded.

Dina Kurz also addressed the council as a member of the energy commission. She’s a longtime resident of Ann Arbor. She talked about the urgency behind the request to pass the resolution. The politics are hard to change, but the laws of physics are immutable, she said. It’s not a question of technology, she told the council, but a question about the political will that’s necessary. The companies cited in the resolution were chosen for the amount of their carbon reserves. By burning those reserves, those companies could raise the global temperature beyond the “safe level.” It’s a quality of life issue that affects the city’s retirees, she said. It’s a question of social responsibility, she adds. Kurz compared potential action on the fossil fuel issue to past public action against the health effects of tobacco and South Africa apartheid.

Dave Marvin introduced himself as a University of Michigan doctoral student in the department of ecology. He told the council he spends 10 months of the year in the forests of Panama – as his research focuses on the effects of climate change on tropical forests. He’s seeing the impact of climate change in the forest. Before starting graduate school, he’d also worked for two years in Washington D.C. on climate change legislation. Divestment will align the city’s investments with its climate action plan, he said. It’s logically inconsistent to provide financial support to the industry that is responsible for climate change, Marvin said.

Laura Hobbs introduced herself as an undergraduate at the University of Michigan. She was born and raised in San Francisco, she told the council, but she’d decided to attend UM because she thought of Ann Arbor as a socially conscious community. Students like her would like to live and study in an environment of environmental justice, she said. She’s participating in a divestment campaign at UM. As students, they look to Ann Arbor as a leader for progressive change, she said. Hobbs wants Ann Arbor to be a role model for UM. She asked councilmembers to pass the resolution on divestment from fossil fuels.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) talks with Kai Petainen about the fossil fuel divestment resolution.

Larry Junck spoke in favor of the resolution on divestment from fossil fuels. He’s a professor of neurology at the University of Michigan. He made three points. First, it’s a sound investment decision, he said. Second, divestment is consistent with the city’s climate action plan. Third, it’s effective local action – because it’s not about getting people in far-away cities to take action. In sum, he said, the council has the opportunity to do Ann Arbor’s part to keep the world a livable place for our children and grandchildren.

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, after the vote on the fossil fuels divestment resolution had been taken, Kai Petainen addressed the council. [Petainen writes for Forbes on the topic of investing.] He talked about shareholder activism. Sometimes the best strategy is to buy shares and show up to shareholder meetings, he suggested. It’s also possible to take a stand about individual companies, he said. If you exclude an entire sector of the economy, no one will care, he cautioned. If you avoid the energy sector, Petainen told the council, no one will care, because someone else will buy those shares.

Fossil Fuel Divestment: Council Deliberations

The first step in the process was to vote on the question of reconsideration.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to reconsider the resolution on fossil fuel divestment.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) indicated that she had felt she needed to vote against the resolution the first time around, but that she’s learned a lot more about the issue since the first time the council considered it. So she would now like to see the resolution passed.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) recalled the remarks that Nancy Walker had made at the previous meeting about moving money out of indexed funds having an inherent cost associated with it.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) noted that there are significant costs associated with the divestment, according to Walker. Petersen pointed out that fiscal responsibility is one of the council’s stated goals and priorities. She reported that she’d done additional research herself, and she pegged the costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. She ticked through the five council priorities identified in December 2012. She suggested a different approach for such a resolution. Instead of divesting, she suggested that a call for investment in clean energy would be more proactive.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) called divestment from fossil fuels an important issue. He noted that the council doesn’t control the pension board. He proposed an amendment that replaced the next-to-last resolved clause on the timeline – that the city council acknowledges that compliance with the requests has to be consistent with the pension board’s fiduciary responsibility. The exact wording of Taylor’s amendment was:

RESOLVED, That the City Council acknowledges that compliance, if any, with the requests above must be consistent with the Retirement Board’s fiduciary duties; and …

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he didn’t want his name in the newspaper five years from now, associated with council action that had caused underfunding of pensions. So he felt that Taylor’s amendment helped address that concern. Kunselman cautioned against meddling in other organizations.

Outcome: Taylor’s amendment was approved over dissent from Petersen.

Nancy Walker, executive director of the city of Ann Arbor’s employee retirement system.

Nancy Walker was asked to come to the podium. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said based on the council’s previous meeting, her understanding was that there were no funds in which the pension board could invest that didn’t include fossil fuels. Walker responded by indicating that on initial review, there were not any indexed funds that specifically screened out fossil fuels, but there were some “socially responsible” funds. Briere ventured that there are perhaps no such funds because there’s no demand for them. By asking the board to look at divesting, that might help to generate demand for such funds. “If it’s never asked for, it’s never going to be given,” said Briere.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) recalled that at the last meeting, Walker had said the costs would be 30-40 basis points to move the money out of indexed funds. That would apply to as much as half of the total investments of the fund, Walker confirmed.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) felt like the council was going off on a tangent by not asking the pension board what it could do with such a resolution. She didn’t feel like there was “enough meat” in the resolution. Higgins wouldn’t support the resolution, but suggested postponing it until the pension board could meet to discuss the issue.

Walker indicated that the trustees on the pension board are eager for dialogue, but this could require a substantial amount of research. Higgins said she wanted a dialogue with the pension board. Kunselman added that he wanted a public hearing on this topic. He agreed with the idea of postponing a vote, however. He said that the state of California’s pension board had adopted a policy to be socially responsible. Does the city’s pension board have such a policy? Kunselman asked? No, replied Walker.

Kunselman said he really wants to be able to vote for the fossil fuel divestment resolution, but struggled with the obligation to taxpayers. He noted that none of the large universities have gotten on board with the idea of divesting from fossil fuels. He added that he works with energy issues at the University of Michigan. Kunselman concluded that he would support a postponement.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) followed up with more questions for Walker. She said she had to scramble to educate herself, because she missed the last meeting, and the item was added to this meeting’s agenda just that day. Lumm and Walker discussed basis points for fees for a bit. Lumm recalled that back in the 1990s, there was a “socially responsible” investment policy, which was then abandoned because the returns were significantly lower.

Briere moved for postponement until Oct. 7 to give time for the pension board to meet and review the issue. Taylor suggested that the timeframe be extended. Conversation on the topic of the postponement date resulted in a consensus around Oct. 21.

Kunselman wanted to add a public hearing for Oct. 21. But Higgins cautioned that the public hearing comments wouldn’t be informed by the pension board’s communications. So Kunselman withdrew his request that a public hearing be added.

Mayor John Hieftje indicated he didn’t see any need to postpone, saying there’s no reason to delay. He argued that no harm would be done to the pension fund. He characterized the resolution as just a request that the pension board take a look at something.

Anglin indicated he’d support the postponement, given that a lot had been heard on both sides of the issue. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) said he’d support the postponement too, because he feels that the longer it stays in the news, that fits into the campaign for putting pressure on fossil fuels companies. For now, he said, he wanted to keep the conversation going, because “What else do we have to do on a Monday night?”

Petersen focused on the “resolved” clause specifying a five-year timeframe within which divestment was supposed to be accomplished. She called the timeframe of five years very significant. She wanted to vote on the resolution that night because she felt so strongly. But she felt that it’s the council that needs to do some work on the issue. She wanted the energy commission to consider a more proactive resolution on investing in clean energies, instead of divesting from fossil fuels.

Briere allowed there’s a difference between fossil fuels and apartheid, but they both are social issues, she said. It’s about money, but it’s also about people and the future. She was content to let the energy commission take a look at it and to have the pension board look at it. The postponement is not meant to bury the resolution, she noted, adding that if the council is not ready to vote in a month from now, it probably never will be.

Lumm said she was ready to vote that night. She did not support the resolution, saying her opposition has everything to do with being a good steward of taxpayer money. It would mean divesting from an entire sector of the economy, she said. She was torn on the postponement, she said. There’s an opportunity to understand the issue more thoroughly. Lumm noted that the city has a defined benefit plan, and she’s been pushing the city to convert it to a defined contribution plan.

Hieftje said he’d been persuaded to support a postponement.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the fossil fuel divestment resolution until Oct. 21.

Honda Testing Facility Site Plan

The council was asked to approve the site plan for the expansion of Honda’s testing facility, located north of Ellsworth on Research Park Drive in Ann Arbor.

Honda testing facility site.

The project will more than double the size of the existing facility and increase the number of American Honda Motor Co. employees who work at the site from 6 to 10, according to the city planning staff. The existing 19,357-square-foot building, built in 1975 and used for vehicle testing, is located at 3947 Research Park Drive on a 2.72-acre site. The proposal calls for building a two-story, 24,116-square-foot addition. Part of that square footage includes a basement level.

According to Honda, the expansion will include a state-of-the-art environmental testing chamber, to help Honda develop vehicles with cleaner fuel emissions. Two of the site’s seven landmark trees would be removed, and mitigated by planting six new trees. In addition, 32 shrubs will be planted in front of the new addition. A 5-foot public sidewalk will also be built along Research Park Drive. A variance related to the size of the existing curbcut was needed from the city’s zoning board of appeals.

The site is zoned RE (research district) and no rezoning was requested.

The project is being managed by Poggemeyer Design Group in Bowling Green, Ohio. The estimated construction cost is $4.3 million.

One person spoke during the public hearing on the site plan. Thomas Partridge wanted the chair of the planning commission to attend every council meeting when there’s a site plan – to explain the planning commission’s recommendation to approve the site plan. He said that a representative of Honda should be present. He called for more accessibility of agenda information on the Internet. He asked where the stormwater on the site would go.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously without discussion to approve the Honda testing facility site plan.

Leaf Truck Rental

The council considered approval for the rental of eight rear-loading trucks from Premier Truck Sales & Rental Inc. for the fall leaf collection season.

A leaf truck rented from Premier Truck Sales & Rental in action back in 2011 on the Old West Side in Ann Arbor.

The truck rental is an annual approval. The trucks are being rented in order to handle the increased volume of yard waste during the fall season. Based on the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the city has a fleet of three side-load compost trucks, which have smaller “hoppers” designed for routine collection of a couple of compost carts per stop. The frequency of “packing” required for the truck – during which no waste can be added – depends on the hopper size. The rental trucks have much larger hoppers so “packing” is less frequent.

Overall, the city of Ann Arbor says it saves money with its current “containerized” leaf collection approach – which allows residents to use paper bags or composting carts – compared to its previous practice of inviting residents to sweep their leaves into the street for mass collection with front loaders and dump trucks.

The bid from Premier Truck Sales & Rental Inc. was just under that of Bell Equipment company – $11,880 compared to $11,920 per truck.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) had a question about how many employees are used for the fall yard waste collection – how many hours and the cost. She was content to have that information forwarded later. [Lumm has argued unsuccessfully the last two years during the adoption of the budget in the spring for the restoration of the approach in which the city invites residents to sweep their leaves into the street for mass collection.]

Outcome: The council voted to approve the rental of additional trucks for use in fall leaf collection.

North Main Huron River Task Force Report

The council considered formally accepting the final report of the North Main Huron River Corridor task force, which was established at the council’s May 7, 2012 meeting. Its report had been due at the end of July 2013. However, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who served on the task force, had apprised the council during communications time at previous council meetings to expect a slight delay.

The resolution formally accepts the group’s final report and directs the city administrator to plan for the recommendations “as feasible within the constraints of available resources and other priorities.” The report includes some before-after photos depicting possible improvements, like a pedestrian bridge across the Huron River connecting the Argo berm to the DTE/MichCon property, as well as recommendations on the use of city-owned property at 721 N. Main.

David Santacroce, who chaired the task force, appeared at the council’s Sept. 16 meeting to present the report. He ticked through the main elements of the report, saying: “This is what you asked us to do.”

He highlighted the fact that there were 19 public meetings of the committee, and reviewed the public engagement process.

Not a lot had happened as a result of the two previous studies, he says. But the little secret of the Huron River is out, he noted, and the area is now “packed.” Residents come from all corners of town, he said. “We’ve got a river in the middle of town.” The public wants and expects improvements, he said.

He noted that the recommendation of the task force for the two buildings on 721 N. Main not in the floodway is to demolish them. That’s based on a $6 million estimated cost to restore them to a “white box” type state.

Santacroce also talked about idea of asking the planning commission to explore the concept of “riverside zoning” for North Main Street. He described how many people cross the railroad tracks illegally to gain access to the river – including himself. It’s dangerous, illegal, but highly used, he said.

Santacroce summed up by saying that it’s hard to imagine a more thoroughly vetted proposal by the public. He calls many of the recommendations “soft,” which means that they are recommendations to study this or look at that.

Mayor John Hieftje praised the work of the committee.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked about the concept of riverside zoning. Santacroce explained that it’s prime real estate. The idea is that the proper city commission with the proper expertise – the planning commission – should take a look at the concept.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) applauded the effort of the committee. The report has lots of important suggestions for an important gateway into the city, Lumm said. She had served on the council back in the mid-1990s when the two previous studies were done and they pretty much sat on a shelf, she said.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) called the concept of riverfront zoning an excellent idea. She reminded the council that M1 zoning – which riverfront zoning might replace – is being reduced throughout the city, and pointed out that a place for that type of light industrial use (M1) will need to be found.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to accept the North Main Huron River corridor task force report.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: UM Football Street Closures.

As part of the council’s resolution approving street closures around the University of Michigan’s football stadium on home game days – which passed on a 7-4 vote taken on Aug. 8, 2013 – the council asked that a preliminary assessment of the traffic control measures be given at its Sept. 16 meeting by AAPD chief John Seto. An additional report from Seto – after meeting with neighborhood groups – is to be given to the council on Oct. 7.

UM football game day street closures (pink) with detour route (purple).

The first three games were considered to offer a reasonable chance to assess initially how the street closures are working out – because they all started at different times: noon (Akron); 3:30 p.m. (Central Michigan University); and 8 p.m. (Notre Dame).

Most of the traffic controls were approved to be in place for the period starting three hours before a game until the end of the game. However, the closure of the southbound lane on Main Street was restricted to just one hour before the game start. Traffic controls include the following: E. Keech Street between S. Main and Greene streets are closed. Access to Greene Street from E. Hoover to E. Keech streets is limited to parking permit holders. The westbound lane on E. Stadium Blvd. turning right onto S. Main Street (just south of the Michigan Stadium) is closed. And S. Main Street would be closed from Stadium Blvd. to Pauline.

At the Sept. 16 meeting, Seto took the podium to address the council with the preliminary report. He noted that a community meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, Sept. 24 at 6 p.m. at Pioneer High School to gather additional feedback. So Seto stressed that his remarks that evening were his own observations and comments he’s heard, and he’d reserve conclusions until the community has had an opportunity to make comments, which will be reflected in his final report on Oct. 7.

Seto reported that he’d walked the area and talked to some of the residents who might be most impacted by the street closures – in the neighborhoods just west of Main Street. For the first game he’d talked to three people who felt that the street closures had an impact on the number of people who were able to park. Some residents and visitors reported that there had not been a negative impact on the number of people who were able to park in the neighborhoods. For the Notre Dame game, Seto said, he walked the same neighborhoods, and spoke to the same three people who’d expressed concerns. This time, they’d reported negligible impact for that game – as far as the number of people who were able to park on the lawns.

One piece of feedback he’d received from almost all the residents was that they were appreciative of the additional police presence in the neighborhood pre-game and during the game for the perceived curtailment of some disorderly conduct.

Seto reported that some positive feedback on the different treatment of the southbound lane of Main Street – leaving it open until just one hour before the game start. Some residents felt that it helped, and were appreciative of the council’s action to make that modification. And others felt that the closure of the northbound lane didn’t need to be closed as early as three hours before the game.

Seto reported that some of the signage was improved after the first game. The street closures were much smoother for the second and third games, he said, from AAPD’s perspective. The general message Seto gave was that he did not observe any significant issues with respect to traffic during the first three game days. Seto said for the third game, with its noon start time, there had been some congestion and backup of traffic. That feedback came from a resident on Pauline, he said. He said that traffic control at Main and Pauline would be done a bit earlier in the future, to see if those congestion issues could be relieved.

Public services area administrator Craig Hupy confirmed that the detours were tweaked in the course of the three games and he felt it was functioning better with each game. He said that during the pre-season meetings, the feedback staff had heard was that traffic flow on westbound Stadium Blvd. wasn’t working as well as it should. The bottleneck had been identified by staff as Jackson and Maple at Stadium Blvd. So they’d worked on timing the signals differently. He felt some improvement had been made. But he held off concluding that the problem had been solved, because each game is different, and has different fan dynamics.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) followed up with questions. She reported that for the Notre Dame game, she’d decided to drive down and see how things were going. She thought the situation was being managed very well. She was in the vicinity between 7:30 and 8 p.m., she said. It had taken her 20 minutes to get from 7th Street down to Main Street. She was concerned about the ability of police to control pedestrians at the street corners to keep them off the street. Cars were having a difficult time navigating around that, she said. Coming down Main Street toward Scio Church Road, by Pioneer High School, she also noticed a lot of open intoxicants, saying that she’d seen some people just sort of fall down from drinking.

Seto reported that for the Notre Dame game, there were a lot of pedestrians trying to get to the game. Something that helped was to get the pedestrians to a point north of Stadium Boulevard. Because Main Street was closed to vehicular traffic beyond that point, they were able to cross freely. He noted that south of Stadium Boulevard there’s no sidewalk opposite Pioneer High School on Main Street, which affects pedestrian behavior. He reported that there were a lot of citations for open intoxicants.

Higgins reported for the noon start game, around 11:30 a.m. traffic was backed up on Scio Church Road going toward Wagner Road. She felt the problem was the traffic signal at Maple and Scio Church roads. She wanted more traffic to be allowed to come into town.

Mayor John Hieftje put the number of open intoxicant citations at around 180. He noted that the city is not a big fan of night games, but said the AAPD did a good job of keeping the lid on everything.

Comm/Comm: City Crosswalk Ordinance

By way of background, the city released a memo on Sept. 9, 2013 with a review of the city’s crosswalk ordinance. The planning commission, at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting, approved the update to the city’s non-motorized plan, and recommended that the city council do the same.

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, independent Ward 1 city council candidate Jeff Hayner addressed the council on the topic of the city’s crosswalk ordinance. He cited two recent documents related to the issue – the non-motorized plan update and a Sept. 9 memo reviewing the crosswalk safety ordinance. The non-motorized plan calls for the addition of 24 additional flashing crosswalk indicators. And the memo indicates that compliance with the city’s ordinance has increased at those locations where such flashing indicators have been installed. He called that good news. The recommendations include measures to increase compliance with the crosswalk ordinance – like adding signs and pavement markings. But he said that there’s still a community perception and a “tragic reality” that the city’s crosswalks are unsafe.

From left: Mayor John Hieftje, Ward 1 independent candidate for city council Jeff Hayner.

Hayner noted that the non-motorized plan calls for five E’s for promoting bicycling culture, but contended that three are absent from work the city has done to implement connection with the crosswalk ordinance: engineering, education and enforcement. [The five E's are: engineering, education, encouragement, evaluation, and enforcement.] He called for the re-evaluation of the crosswalk ordinance by a professional traffic engineer. He also called for the adoption of crosswalk design guidelines that are consistent with best practices. Educational efforts need to be conducted in a way to make sure that each party is certain of the other’s rights and responsibilities, he said.

Hayner said it’s not enough to proclaim that “pedestrians rule.” He characterized the crosswalk ordinance as “barely” enforced. He added that the signs for crosswalk compliance are confusing and not consistent with the crosswalk ordinance. As an example, on westbound Miller, the signs say, “yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk” but the ordinance says that motorists must also yield to pedestrians stopped at the curb, curbline or ramp. Hayner said that police chief John Seto has said he doesn’t have enough officers for proactive policing, but the council has repeatedly voted against increasing the number of officers available. Hayner called on appropriate funding levels to support for the city’s crosswalk program and to repeal the city’s crosswalk ordinance to bring it in line with state law and “common expectations” of behavior. He called it poor public policy to create an environment where the pedestrian is empowered and the driver is confused.

Kathy Griswold also spoke on the topic of the pedestrian ordinance. She recalled her public commentary from 2009 and a quote she had read on that occasion about sight distance, and how overgrown vegetation can affect that. She mentioned that the Ann Arbor Public Schools has adopted the AAA school safety patrol program. Consistent uniform operating procedures are essential, according to AAA, Griswold said. That means it’s important to have the same crosswalk laws in the entire country or at least one school district, she said. [She had a map with her to highlight the fact that the AAPS district is much larger geographically than just the city of Ann Arbor, but did not display the map to the council.] She asked the council to rescind the crosswalk ordinance.

Comm/Comm: 1,4-Dioxane

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) recalled the resolution the council had passed on the 1,4-dioxane plume at the previous council meeting, on Sept. 3, 2013. [The Washtenaw County board of commissioners passed a similar resolution at its Sept. 18, 2013 meeting.] On Friday the Coalition for Action on Remediation of Dioxane (CARD) had met, Anglin said, and now CARD would like to increase public outreach. He suggested that the city should receive quarterly reports on the issue. Even if the city has been excluded from a court decision, the issue was still important, he said. Anglin said the city needs to get more serious about this issue. He called for the data from well monitoring from this year to be delivered.

Comm/Comm: D1 Zoning Review

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) gave an update on the downtown zoning review. She said the final public forum would be held on Sept. 19 at Workantile on Main Street.

Comm/Comm: Thomas Partridge

During public commentary time at the conclusion of the meeting, Thomas Partridge asked voters to write in his name for the upcoming November election to represent Ward 5 on the city council. He said the council and the clerk should be urging people to register to vote. The city should put information about how voters can write in their selection for city council. No one in Ward 5 is able to stand up to the mayor’s “surly” attitude toward a variety of different demographics, including women, children and people with disabilities, he contended.

After Partridge exceeded his time limit – as he frequently does – he berated Hieftje for a bit. Hieftje asked Partridge if he wanted to be removed. Partridge relented. [In an email to The Chronicle, Hieftje indicated that the reason he'd threatened Partridge with removal was due to exceeding the time limit, not because of Partridge's criticism of Hieftje.]

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sumi Kailasapathy, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Chuck Warpehoski, Sally Petersen (arrived during deliberations on council rules, because she was attending to her daughter in the emergency room with a suspected case of appendicitis).

Next council meeting: Monday, Oct. 7, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. We sit on the hard bench so that you don’t have to. 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 council’s adoption of the rules changes came at its Sept. 16, 2013 meeting.

A revision to the rules was first presented to the council on June 17, 2013. However, a vote was postponed at that meeting. The revisions were prompted by a desire to allow for public commentary at council work sessions – to eliminate any question about whether councilmembers were engaged in deliberative interactions at those sessions. By allowing for public commentary at work sessions, the council would ensure compliance with Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.

The council’s rules committee also recommended additional changes, including a shortening of the individual speaking turns for public comment as well as shortening of time for councilmembers. Those additional changes were included in the June 17 version of the rules. After again postponing a vote at its July 1, 2013 meeting, the council used its following meeting, on July 15, 2013, to eliminate one of the proposed rule changes – the shortening of public speaking turns. But the council postponed further revisions and a vote until Sept. 3. The council again postponed a vote on Sept. 3, 2013 because the council’s rules committee had not met in the interim.

On Sept. 10, the rules committee did meet, and the consensus appeared to be that no shortening of speaking turns for the public or for councilmembers should be undertaken and that the procedure for reserving public commentary time at the start of the meeting should not be altered.

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

This revision to the set of council rules was first presented to the council on June 17, 2013. However, a vote was postponed at that meeting.

The revisions were prompted by a desire to allow for public commentary at council work sessions – to eliminate any question about whether councilmembers were engaged in deliberative interactions at those sessions. By allowing for public commentary at work sessions, the council would ensure compliance with Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. The council’s rules committee also recommended additional changes, including a shortening of the individual speaking turns for public comment as well as shortening of time for councilmembers. Those additional changes were included in the June 17 version of the rules.

After again postponing a vote at its July 1, 2013 meeting, the council used its following meeting, on July 15, 2013, to eliminate one of the proposed rule changes – the shortening of public speaking turns. But the council postponed further revisions and a vote until Sept. 3. The council’s rules committee – consisting of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), and mayor John Hieftje – was supposed to meet before the Sept. 3 meeting to consolidate input from other councilmembers and perhaps present a clean slate of proposed revisions. However, in the interim, the rules committee did not meet.

Among the other changes that had been a part of the proposed revisions, but which were postponed until the Sept. 16 meeting, was the addition of a rule to disallow the use of mobile electronic communication devices at the council table. Another possible change would affect the council’s standard agenda template by moving nominations and appointments to boards and commissions to a slot earlier in the meeting, instead of near the end.

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

The sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber, installed in the summer of 2013, includes Braille.

For both agenda items, the expectation was that council committees would work during the interim period to hammer out a clarified proposal and recommendation for the full council to consider on Sept. 3. In neither case was that committee work accomplished.

After voting at its May 6, 2013 session to postpone a final vote on DDA ordinance revisions until Sept. 3, the council attempted to ensure that the deliberations at the first meeting of the fall would be productive. The council voted on July 1, 2013 to establish a joint council-DDA committee to work out a recommendation on possible legislation. The main point of controversy involves the definition of the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) capture.

Already given initial approval by the council is a proposal that would essentially enforce the existing ordinance language. The revision to the ordinance would have an arguably inconsequential impact on TIF revenue received by the DDA – when compared to its most recent 10-year planning document. What makes that comparison controversial, and unwelcome to the DDA staff and board, is the fact that its most recent planning document doesn’t include tax revenue from very recent new downtown construction. The revised ordinance would have a roughly $1 million per year negative impact on DDA TIF revenues – when compared to the amount the DDA would receive if the DDA were allowed to give the existing ordinance language its preferred interpretation.

The charge to the joint committee on July 1 was to begin meeting immediately, but the group did not convene until eight weeks later, on Aug. 26 – after the Aug. 6 Democratic primary election. The outcome of that election left a key vote in place for an ordinance revision that doesn’t favor the DDA – that of Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who defeated challenger Julie Grand. Still, DDA board members at the Aug. 26 meeting seemed keen to continue a delaying gambit. That’s because a failure by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) to win re-election in November could tip the balance in the DDA’s favor – even factoring in the addition of Jack Eaton in Ward 4. Eaton, who prevailed on Aug. 6 over incumbent Marcia Higgins, supports the idea of constraining the DDA’s TIF capture.

At the one committee meeting held so far, the only substantive concept that was batted around briefly was the idea of defining some kind of fixed cap on TIF revenue. This approach would replace the existing ordinance language, which calibrates the DDA’s TIF capture with the projections in the TIF plan. But the discussion never went as far as to include dollar amounts for the fixed cap. After about an hour and a half of political squabbling and sometimes inaccurate recitation of historical facts, the general mood among councilmembers seemed to be reflected in a remark by Sally Petersen (Ward 2): “I don’t think we can be there by next week.” So the item looks likely be postponed on Sept. 3. However, the council is free to vote the proposal up or down at this meeting.

The one session of the joint DDA-council committee still exceeded, by one meeting, the council rules committee’s effort over the summer. The rules committee did not meet at all between July 15, 2013 and Sept. 3. On July 15, the council had postponed a vote on new rules, but not before rejecting one of the proposed rule changes, which the committee had first presented on June 17, 2013. The council as a whole was not keen to shorten public commentary speaking turns. So the proposal currently in front of the council would maintain the existing three-minute time limit.

But as the council’s July 15 deliberations on other proposed rules changes threatened to bog down that meeting, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), chair of the rules committee, encouraged a postponement until Sept. 3. In the interim, the committee – consisting of Higgins, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), and mayor John Hieftje – was supposed to meet to consolidate input from other councilmembers and perhaps present a clean slate of proposed revisions.

Even though the rules committee didn’t meet, based on comments by Briere and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) at the Sunday night caucus on Sept. 1, they might push to eliminate all proposed revisions to the rules except for the one that had prompted the rules committee to consider some changes in the first place. The rules changes were prompted by a desire to allow for public commentary at council work sessions – to eliminate any question about whether councilmembers were engaged in deliberative interactions at those sessions. By allowing for public commentary at work sessions, the council would ensure compliance with Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. By enacting that rule change on Sept. 3, the council would be set for a fully deliberative work session on Sept. 9 – which is scheduled to be a joint session with the board of the DDA.

Three other significant items on the Sept. 3 agenda are tied together with an environmental thread. The council will be considering a resolution directing city staff to explore options with the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality and with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to help to set the clean-up requirements for 1,4-dioxane so that the Pall-Gelman plume is cleaned up to appropriate standards. The council will also be asked to act on a resolution urging the city’s employee retirement system to divest from fossil fuel companies. And finally, the council will consider a resolution directing staff to work with DTE on a pilot program for a “community solar” initiative.

More detail on other meeting agenda items is available on the city’s Legistar system. Readers can also follow the live meeting proceedings on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network. The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the meeting, published in this article “below the fold.” The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m.

6:54 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers is here. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and mayor John Hieftje are the only members of council who are here.

7:01 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) won’t be able to be here tonight. She’s looking after family in Pennsylvania. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) are now here. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) have now arrived.

7:03 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) have arrived, as has Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

7:07 p.m. And we’re off.

7:08 p.m. Pledge of allegiance, moment of silence and the roll call of council. Absent tonight are Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

7:08 p.m. Proclamations. Three proclamations are on tonight’s agenda. The first one honors disability community activist Lena Ricks. Her passing was highlighted at the last meeting of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority during public commentary. On that occasion, Carolyn Grawi, director of advocacy and education for the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living, described Ricks as a long-time local advisory council (LAC) member for the AAATA. The LAC is a group that provides input and feedback to AAATA on disability and senior issues. Grawi described Rick’s hard work and devotion to disability rights. She described Ricks as the “matriarch of the disability movement,” beginning with work almost 40 years ago.

The second proclamation recognizes Dawn Farm’s 40th anniversary. Dawn Farm is a nonprofit offering both residential and out-patient services supporting recovery for alcoholics and drug addicts. The organization was founded in 1973 by Gary Archie and Jack Scholtus in a rented old farmhouse on Stony Creek Road in Ypsilanti. The organization has grown to include facilities in downtown Ann Arbor.

The third proclamation honors Bill Kidd for volunteering in Ann Arbor’s parks and natural areas. The proclamation mentions pruning, weeding, monitoring street and park trees through the Citizen Pruner Program and removal of invasive species as activities Kidd has helped with.

7:11 p.m. The proclamation honoring Lena Ricks has been given. It’s met with a round of applause. A family member is expressing her appreciation, calling Lena Ricks a “very dear advocate” for those with disabilities.

7:12 p.m. Representatives of Dawn Farm are now at the podium to receive the proclamation. They include one of the founders – Jim Balmer, who serves as president – as well as Janis Bobrin, former water resources commissioner for Washtenaw County. Bobrin is on the nonprofit’s board of directors.

7:17 p.m. Now at the podium is Bill Kidd to receive his proclamation for volunteering in the city parks and natural areas preservation program.

7:17 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Signed up tonight, with topics in parens, are Thomas Partridge (Martin Luther King Jr. freedom march), Jim Mogensen (Downtown Development Authority ordinance) Roger Rayle (cleanup criteria for the Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane plume), Jeff Hayner (environmental issues), Mike Shriberg (fossil fuel company divestment), Monica Patel (fossil fuel company divestment), Mark Koroi (council rules revisions), and Henry Herskovitz (weekly demonstrations at Beth Israel).

7:21 p.m. Partridge introduces himself as a 2010 senate candidate and 2012 candidate for the Michigan house of representatives who’s now a write-in candidate for Ward 5 city council this year. He speaks as an advocate supporting Martin Luther King Jr.’s agenda. Partridge calls for emphasis on affordable housing, public transportation, and fair access to public meetings. He calls for 3- to 5-minute public participation time. There should be no reductions in the amount of time offered to the public, he says. A forward-looking city council would look for new ways to increase public participation time, he concludes.

7:25 p.m. After Partridge’s remarks, mayor John Hieftje tells those holding signs to move to the sides of the room in accordance with the council rules. Mogensen is categorizing Michigan cities, based on their challenges. Ann Arbor tries, as does the general public, to deny these challenges exist. Some people blame liberals for spending money. He alludes to the old quip about Ann Arbor during the football season: “Fake left, run right.” The basic idea is to make the city function well.

7:28 p.m. Rayle introduces himself as chair of Scio Residents for Safe Water. He speaks in support of the resolution on the agenda calling on the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality to tighten up the standards for the Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane cleanup. When the standards were loosened back in 1985, he says, it happened overnight. He notes that this doesn’t have to be the last resolution on this topic. He’s glad that the council’s attention is back on this topic. Ann Arbor’s water system could eventually be threatened, he says, and a “new hit” was recorded on a well where nobody expected it. He describes his work with GoogleEarth to show how the plume has spread. He calls on Gov. Rick Snyder to get involved and to get the MDEQ straightened out as well as the state attorney general’s office.

7:31 p.m. Hayner, who’s running as an independent for city council in Ward 1 against incumbent Democrat Sabra Briere, is now at the podium. He talks about the balance between vision and common sense. He speaks in support of the community solar resolution. He also speaks in support of the divestment of fossil fuels companies, but urges caution and warns of possible losses. Is social gain worth the risk? he asks. He thanks Rayle for speaking about the 1,4-dioxane resolution. It’s a complex problem that is not going away, he says.

7:34 p.m. Shriberg is speaking on behalf of the city’s energy commission. He asks the council to support the community solar resolution and the fossil fuel divestment resolution. He mentions Seattle, San Francisco, State College and Boulder as examples of cities that have divested. He describes the increased financial risk as minimal.

7:35 p.m. Patel is now supporting the resolutions on community solar and fossil fuel divestment on behalf of the Ecology Center. She gives the council petitions signed by Ann Arbor residents.

7:38 p.m. Koroi reminds councilmembers that he’d spoken to the council previously on the topic of public commentary at working sessions. He says he wants to see the issue taken care of. He notes that Higgins is not here and calls her “the invisible woman.” More public commentary means that the council will hear more from Partridge and Blaine Coleman, Koroi says, adding that the U.S. Constitution must be upheld. He says the Michigan Open Meetings Act should be upheld.

7:41 p.m. Herskovitz cites two news articles about the protests in front the Beth Israel Congregation on Washtenaw Avenue. He notes that at the previous council meeting, the council had been asked to express its displeasure about the protests. He objects to comments made by mayor John Hieftje and other councilmembers. Herskovitz reports that three days ago, someone had spat on a protestor. A police officer had come out to investigate and to view video of the incident, he says.

7:42 p.m. Council communications. This is the first of three slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:42 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) is giving an update on the work of the North Main Huron River Corridor task force’s work. Their final report has been submitted. The report includes some before-after photos depicting possible improvements, like a pedestrian bridge across the Huron River connecting the Argo berm to the MichCon property. The task force was established at the council’s May 7, 2012 meeting, and had been due at the end of July. But Briere had apprised the council at previous meetings of the slight delay.

7:43 p.m. Briere apologizes for the delay in the delivery of the report. She hopes there will be a presentation at the next council meeting on Sept. 16. Briere also reports that the D1 zoning review could be delayed. More public meetings have been added than were originally planned.

7:47 p.m. Petersen announces that on Sept. 15 at 1 p.m. a Sensory Garden will be dedicated at Liberty Plaza – the downtown park at Division and Liberty. It’s a project of the Ann Arbor commission on disability issues, in collaboration with the city’s adopt-a-park program and the University of Michigan Matthaei Botanical Gardens. A ceremony will be held to honor former commissioner Pamela Baker-Trostle.

7:47 p.m. Kailasapathy reports that she’s been working with staff on getting a report from a professional traffic engineer regarding the recommendation for the city’s crosswalk ordinance. She indicates that she might bring forward a resolution at the next meeting calling for an independent review of the crosswalk ordinance and the associated infrastructure.

7:48 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers indicates that he’ll be providing an update to the council on the review of the new crosswalk ordinance, and of the sanitary sewer overflow in the Arboretum at the start of the weekend. He describes some praise from a resident on Lincoln Street who was pleased with the performance of the Ann Arbor fire department earlier today.

7:49 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Only one public hearing appears on the agenda tonight. It’s a proposal to build a new Hampton Inn at 2910 Jackson Ave., across the street from Weber’s Inn. 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 stands on the same site, east of the proposed new hotel.

The planning commission gave this “planned project” a recommendation of approval at its July 2, 2013 meeting. Commissioners had discussed the proposal at length during their June 18, 2013 meeting. Ultimately, they unanimously voted to postpone action at that meeting, instead asking the developer to address concerns over pedestrian access within the site. The planned project status is being sought that the existing foundation can be used. In 2008, when an earlier site plan had been approved, but nothing beyond the foundation built, 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.

A drawing of the proposed Hampton Inn on Jackson Avenue – next to the larger existing Clarion Inn – was shown to commissioners at their July 2 meeting. The design includes improved pedestrian features.

7:51 p.m. Thomas Partridge is speaking on the Hampton Inn planned project site plan. He says he’s wary of the planning commission’s approval. We don’t want more pedestrian casualties or deaths, he says. Many people use this stretch of Jackson Road to deliberately speed, he contends.

7:54 p.m. Andy Wakeland with Giffels-Webster Engineers of Washington Township, Mich., – the civil engineer for the Hampton Inn project – is now addressing the council. He discusses the pedestrian issues. He calls it a pedestrian-friendly site and says, “We’re pretty proud of it.” The architect for the project is now addressing the council. He recalls how the project was started several years ago, and the foundations had been completed. In the interim, the city changed its zoning ordinance, and those concerns had to be addressed. He notes the planning commission voted 8-0 to recommend approval.

7:54 p.m. Minutes and consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes just one consent agenda item. It’s a resolution to accept the board of insurance administration minutes of Aug. 15, 2013, and to approve workers’ compensation coverage – through Accident Fund Insurance Company of America ($56,192) and an agreement with CompOne Administrators for third party administrative services ($28,000).

7:55 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. No one separates out the single item.

7:55 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the consent agenda.

7:55 p.m. DDA ordinance revision. The ordinance proposed to be changed is Chapter 7 of the city code, which regulates the way the tax increment finance (TIF) capture of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority is calculated. Up until two years ago, the existing limitation expressed in the ordinance had never been applied. But in May 2011, the city treasurer called the issue to the DDA’s attention, characterizing it as a roughly $2 million issue, dating back to 2003.

However, when the DDA retroactively calculated its revenue, as well as rebates to other taxing jurisdictions, it applied a methodology chosen to minimize the amount of “rebate” owed to other taxing jurisdictions, reducing the amount to roughly $1.1 million. When challenged on its method of calculation, the DDA subsequently reversed its position, claiming that the money it had already paid back to other taxing jurisdictions was a mistake. The DDA’s new position was to claim an interpretation of a clause in Chapter 7 as providing an override to limits on TIF revenue – if the DDA has debt obligations, which it does. So in 2012 and 2013 the DDA did not return any of its TIF capture to other taxing authorities.

The proposal to revise the ordinance, as approved at first reading by the council on April 1, 2013, would essentially enforce the language that’s already in the ordinance, but disallow the DDA’s interpretation of the “debt override” clause. Compared to the DDA’s own 10-year planning document, revenue to the DDA under the ordinance change would be roughly similar:

Ann Arbor DDA TIF revenue projections. The vertical line indicates the year when the clarified calculations would be implemented. The red line is the amount of TIF revenue assumed by the DDA in its FY 2014 and FY 2015 budgets, and in its 10-year planning document. The blue line is the estimated TIF revenue under the proposed clarified ordinance calculations. The yellow line is the estimated TIF revenue that the DDA would receive if the DDA continued to interpret the city’s ordinance in its own way. (Numbers from the city of Ann Arbor and DDA. Chart by The Chronicle.)

However, the 10-year planning document in question did not include a large amount of new construction in the downtown area, that has already generated higher TIF revenue than in the 10-year plan. The ordinance revision also includes term limits for DDA board members, and would make the appointment of the mayor to the board of the DDA contingent on a majority vote of the council. Without majority support, the mayor’s spot on the board would go to the city administrator.

The council voted at its May 6, 2013 session to postpone final consideration of the ordinance revision until Sept. 3. At its July 1, 2013 meeting, the council voted to establish a joint council-DDA committee to work out a recommendation on ordinance revisions. The charge to the committee was to begin meeting immediately, but the group did not convene a meeting until eight weeks later, on Aug. 26, leaving only one week before the meeting when the item was next scheduled to appear on the council’s agenda. The general mood at the committee meeting was that the vote should again be postponed.

7:57 p.m. Kunselman leads off, recalling the history of the proposal, mentioning the meeting of the committee on Aug. 26. Not enough information was available, he says. Staff has been directed to come up with draft language. He says he wants to postpone again, so the committee can meet again and bring it back with something that has more substance. The proposal is to postpone until Oct. 7.

8:00 p.m. Petersen says she might be out of town at that meeting. Kunselman asks Powers if draft language could be ready for the Sept. 16 meeting. Powers indicates that the upcoming work session will have the parking agreement as its topic. He ventures it could be a challenge to schedule that many people to meet. Hieftje suggests postponing until the next meeting and assessing how things stand then.

Kailasapathy says that she’d requested that Chapter 7 be included in the city audit and the answer that had come back was that the ordinance language was not clear. Briere asks if the DDA needed to be able to vote on something before the council acted. Hieftje says no.

8:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the DDA ordinance until its next meeting, on Sept. 16.

8:01 p.m. Shell/Tim Hortons revised PUD. The council is being asked to consider changes to the supplemental regulations for a PUD (planned unit development) for the Shell station and Tim Hortons at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline Road and Eisenhower Parkway. It’s a 1.44-acre site.

The changes to the PUD regulations would allow for a drive-thru restaurant within the existing convenience store, where a Tim Hortons is already located. The project includes constructing a 109-square-foot drive-thru window addition and access driveway on the north side of the building. Access to the drive-thru lane would be off of the site’s existing entrance from Ann Arbor-Saline Road. A PUD had previously been approved by the council at its July 2, 2012 meeting, but without plans for a drive-thru restaurant. The city planning commission had unanimously recommended approval of the request at its July 16, 2013 meeting.

8:04 p.m. Warpehoski asks for a representative of the project to come forward. He says that the area plan doesn’t support a car wash. That possible use was left in, and Warpehoski would like it removed. The developer’s representative doesn’t have any objection. Warpehoski also wants to strike the language that describes the ability for someone to get food and beverage without leaving their vehicle as a public benefit. He describes going through the drive-thru as getting a “salt-sugar-fat fix.” He also doesn’t like the idea of describing the drive-thru as a “gateway.”

8:09 p.m. Teall is now asking questions of the developer’s representative. All he’s asking for is a small drive-thru window, he says. Teall wants to make sure the design of the window fits the architecture. The developer is proud of what the building looks like.

Briere recalls the planning commission discussion. [She serves as the council's representative on the commission.] She asks for an explanation of why the seating area is an appropriate place for such an area. He says the location can be a welcoming symbol, a gateway, so to speak. At the citizens participation meeting, they were told there was quite a bit of pedestrian and bicycle traffic, so the seating area was thought to be a good amenity. Briere asks city planning manager Wendy Rampson to come to the podium. She asks Rampson to comment on the number of residents in the area. Rampson indicates that there are a lot of people who cross through the area. So there’s a lot of pedestrian travel, in addition to the auto travel, Rampson says.

8:11 p.m. Briere says that the confusion is resulting from the fact that there’s a list of eight items and it’s not clear if each item is a discrete benefit. So she had no problem removing an item from the list. Briere asks Rampson to explain how it’s determined what counts as a public benefit for the purpose of evaluating a PUD.

8:14 p.m. “It’s fairly unusual to have a gas station PUD,” Rampson says. The property was originally owned by the school district, she reports. She said that the planning commission felt that as a whole, the items were felt to be a benefit. Kunselman asks about the iterations of the PUD. Did more public benefits get added to the list each time? Kunselman questions whether an amendment to a PUD really requires an additional benefit above and beyond the original public benefit.

8:17 p.m. Kunselman says if the word “gateway” were removed, he’d be fine with everything else. Rampson reports that the owners have expressed concern about making a substantive change, which would require additional readings. City attorney Stephen Postema ventures that the proposed change by Warpehoski isn’t substantial.

Briere says that the advantage of putting items in the PUD language is that the developer can be held accountable for those items.

8:18 p.m. Teall appreciates Briere’s remarks about accountability. She doesn’t have a problem with stating more benefits or with the word “gateway.” She appreciates the attention to detail the developer is giving the project. She won’t support Warpehoski’s amendment to the language. The property is located in Ward 4, which Teall represents.

8:21 p.m. Hieftje says he doesn’t think the change is substantial. Petersen says that she thinks it’s important to consider the gas station as a gateway. She says that Tim Hortons has healthy choices on its menu. Anything that helps beautify the corridor should be supported, Petersen says.

Warpehoski suggests separating the amendment into the part about the car wash and the part about the benefits.

8:23 p.m. Outcome on the benefits language: The council has approved that amendment over dissent from Teall, Anglin, and Petersen.

8:24 p.m. Outcome on “car wash”: The council has approved the elimination of the word “car wash.”

8:24 p.m. Outcome on changes in the Tim Hortons/Shell PUD: The council has voted to give initial approval to the PUD changes. The council will need to vote again at a subsequent meeting, after a public hearing, to give the changes final approval.

8:25 p.m. Resolution to approve the 2013 city council rules. This revision to the set of council rules was first presented to the council on June 17, 2013. A vote was postponed at that meeting. The revisions were prompted by a desire to allow for public commentary at council work sessions – to eliminate any question about whether councilmembers were engaged in deliberative interactions at their work sessions. By allowing for public commentary at work sessions, the council would ensure compliance with Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.

However, the council’s rules committee recommended additional changes, including a shortening of the individual speaking turns for public comment as well as for councilmembers. And those additional changes were included in the June 17 version of the rules. After again postponing a vote at its July 1, 2013 meeting, the council used its following meeting, on July 15, 2013, to eliminate one of the proposed rule changes – the shortening of public speaking turns. But the council postponed further revisions and a vote until Sept. 3.

The council’s rules committee – consisting of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), and mayor John Hieftje – was supposed to meet before the Sept. 3 meeting to consolidate input from other councilmembers and perhaps present a clean slate of proposed revisions. However, in the interim, the rules committee did not meet. It’s possible that at tonight’s meeting the council will reduce its focus to the original issue – public commentary at work sessions – and leave any further revisions to the newly composed council in November.

8:28 p.m. Taylor suggests postponement. Warpehoski asks if postponement would preclude allowing public commentary at the Sept. 9 meeting. City attorney Stephen Postema indicates that it wouldn’t be precluded. Warpehoski asks that a postponement include direction to notice the public that public commentary will be provided and that it be added to the work session agenda.

Kailasapathy asks if signing up will be required. Postema indicates that he imagines it will simply be general time. Without the rule change, Postema claims there’s nothing in the council rules about the agenda for work sessions.

8:29 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the change to council rules, but will allow public commentary at its next work session.

8:29 p.m. Resolution on cleanup criteria for 1,4 dioxane plume. This resolution would direct the city administrator and city staff to explore actions available to the city, including meeting with the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality and petitioning the U.S. EPA to help set cleanup criteria for the carcinogen 1,4-dioxane in Michigan, including the Pall-Gelman plume and without site specific criteria for the Pall-Gelman plume.

The history of Gelman Sciences, which caused the 1,4 dioxane contamination, goes back 40 years. The MDEQ’s current 1,4-dioxane generic residential drinking water cleanup criterion was set at 85 parts per billion (ppb). But the EPA’s criterion set in 2010 was for 3.5 ppb. The MDEQ was supposed to re-evaluate its own standards by December 2012, based on the EPA’s 2010 toxicological review. It missed that deadline, and according to the council’s resolution, is anticipated to miss a new deadline set for a year later in December 2013.

Here’s a map of the plume. The yellow region is estimated plume area where the 1,4-dioxane concentration is greater than 1 ppb. That area encroaches well into the city of Ann Arbor and extends outside the well prohibition zone (red border).

Map of Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane plume. Map by Washtenaw County. Back arrow added to indicate baseball field at West Park.

8:33 p.m. Briere is describing the chemical properties of 1,4-dioxane. She describes the long history of the problem. Some people have voiced concern that the people who have been involved in advocacy should have been involved in the drafting of the resolution – specifically, the Coalition for Action on Remediation of Dioxane (CARD). She agrees. She says she has a substitute resolution she wants the council to consider. She describes the changes as minor. There’s an added “whereas” clause. Briere says that MDEQ is eager to talk to the city about the issue and welcomes the resolution.

8:40 p.m. Hieftje indicates that the city’s lobbyist, Kirk Profit, has been working hard to keep the issue in front of the state. Teall thanks Briere and Warpehoski for their work on the resolution. She’s glad there might be movement on the part of the MDEQ.

Petersen complains that the resolution came to the council just late last week. The resolved clauses don’t “have enough teeth,” she says. The language could be strengthened by defining specific criteria and to define the goals and consulting the expertise of CARD members. She wants the resolution postponed.

Briere asks assistant city attorney Abigail Elias to explain the “teeth.” Elias describes the settlement between the city and Pall-Gelman related to the northwest supply well. She’s not sure what might be added. Kailasapathy says she didn’t want to bring up the issue, but as long as Petersen has done so, she’s going to pursue it. She describes herself as a social scientist turned CPA and values the input of more people. She has mixed feelings about the process. Petersen indicates she wants to move to postpone. Hieftje asks city environmental coordinator Matt Naud to the podium.

8:41 p.m. Hieftje ventures that the resolution is about as strong as it can be made at this time. Naud says the Pall situation is very complicated. CARD has worked hard on the issue and there’s a long list of things they’d like done. What’s clear in this resolution, he says, is that the federal government now thinks 1,4-dioxane is more cancer-causing than the EPA previously thought. The state’s job is to take that and promulgate it under the Clean Water Act, but that hasn’t been done.

8:47 p.m. Naud said that the resolution is a message to the MDEQ. Changing the standard would radically change the attention being paid to the Pall-Gelman site. Michigan has had an 85 ppb standard for a very long time, when everyone else has had a much lower standard, Naud says.

Petersen asks what the risk is in identifying a specific standard. Naud says that he’s not sure what number would come out of Michigan’s algorithm. Naud says that Rayle’s work has in part included hand-entering data from paper copies. Petersen wants to postpone in order to add CARD’s “wish list” to the resolution.

8:50 p.m. Kunselman asks Naud why the state is dragging its feet. Naud says that it’s broader than the 1,4-dioxane issue. He doesn’t really know more than that, he says.

Kunselman asks what the city is doing in the way of contingency planning in the event that a 1,4-dioxane plume reaches Barton Pond. That’s the question that needs to be addressed, he says. “What would we do?” Would we have to filter out the 1,4-dioxane before pumping drinking water to residents? He has no problem postponing or voting on it tonight. But he wants the city to think about what it’s doing itself, as opposed to asking others to do something.

9:02 p.m. Anglin says that the problem is that the courts are generally going to find in favor of Pall-Gelman. He says that when he started serving on the council, he attended some CARD meetings and it was very confusing. Anglin wants to hold a work session on the topic. He points out that the question was asked in connection with the City Apartments project: Who would be responsible if the contamination were to penetrate to that site? Anglin says he’s in favor of postponement because of the magnitude of the issue. But he thanks Briere and Warpehoski for their effort.

Briere says that the odd thing is that it’s not a new emergency. Rather, it’s an ongoing problem. The first step seems to be to get MDEQ to act, Briere ventures. Naud indicates some agreement with that idea. The change at the federal level should have trickled through to the state level, Naud says. Pall-Gelman says that currently they don’t have to worry about areas that have concentrations below 85 ppb.

Briere says she assumed that other councilmembers were already up to speed on the issue. She thought that the opportunity to achieve something should be seized. Naud says that there’s no question that the state should have acted in some way, and that’s why the resolution focuses on that. Petersen asks if the purpose of the resolution is just to put MDEQ on notice. Naud indicates basic agreement. Petersen says that two more weeks shouldn’t be a problem, saying she wants to hear from CARD on this, to see if the language can be strengthened. She moves for postponement.

9:08 p.m. Hieftje says he doesn’t think that the resolution can be strengthened and says that the resolution can provide a start to a conversation. It would give the city’s lobbyist something to work with, Hieftje says. He was impressed that Rayle had been consulted and had spoken in favor of it. Hieftje says he’ll vote against postponement.

Kunselman expresses concern that the city is “going it alone.” Briere says she’s talked to other elected representatives – county commissioners, Scio Township representatives, and members of the state legislature. She says that it’s not Ann Arbor going it alone, but rather Ann Arbor taking the first step. Taking that first step, she says, seems to be vital. She’d attended a briefing with Evan Pratt, Washtenaw County water resources commissioner, and the message at that briefing was that the first step is for MDEQ to change the 85 ppb number.

Taylor asks how things stand in the city. Naud indicates that when 1,4-dioxane was detected in the northwest supply well in 2003, the city stopped using that well.

9:20 p.m. Naud describes various locations where the city tests for 1,4-dioxane. Taylor says that he’s delighted the proposers have brought it forward, saying that the revised version would be a “scootch” more detailed. He says he doesn’t think that a delay of two weeks would matter.

Teall asks about testing locations. There’s a couple hundred monitoring wells, Naud says. Anglin asks about the city’s conversations with the EPA. Anglin asks about the Armen Cleaners site.

Warpehoski says he’s going to violate the council rules by sending the media revisions to the resolution via email. Warpehoski supports the approach that Briere has taken as “more surgical” than to try to hang a bunch of wish list items as if the resolution were a Christmas tree. He summarizes the intent of the resolution as saying, “Do your job!” Warpehoski says that Briere has done a lot of heavy lifting.

9:20 p.m. Outcome on postponement: On a 4-5 vote, the motion to postpone fails. Voting against postponement were Teall, Warpehoski, Anglin, Hieftje and Briere. Lumm and Higgins are absent.

9:26 p.m. Kunselman says he’ll support the motion. He indicates that if the city’s water system were compromised, then Ann Arbor would connect to the Detroit system. Responding to a question from Briere, Naud indicates that he’s not sure that would be the first place the city would go. Kunselman says that it’s important to hear what the contingency plan is.

Kunselman asks what the criteria would be for shutting down Barton Pond as a water source. Powers indicates he’ll follow up on that. Hieftje says that shutting down Barton Pond is not imminent. Briere asks Naud if there’s any imminent risk. Naud replies that the geology is complicated because of the glaciers. There’s a lot of science and research that would need to be done to determine if the plume could get to Barton and if so, how fast. He allows that 1,4-dioxane has shown up in places where it was not expected.

9:26 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to direct city staff action related to helping to set cleanup standards for 1,4-dioxane.

9:29 p.m. Street closing for ESPN Game Day. This was added late to the agenda. The request is to close Washington Street between Thayer and Fletcher streets from Thursday, Sept. 5 at 3 a.m. until 9 p.m. on Saturday, Sept. 7.

9:29 p.m. Outcome: The ESPN Game Day street closing was unanimously approved.

9:30 p.m. Disbursements from the Community Events Fund. This was also added late to the agenda. It includes 18 disbursements to nonprofits, mostly in the $1,000 to $3,500 range. The largest one is $25,000 to the Ann Arbor Summer Festival to cover city costs for the Top of the Park event beginning on June 13, 2014.

9:30 p.m. Outcome: The disbursements from the Community Events Fund were unanimously approved.

9:30 p.m. Recess. The council is now in recess.

9:43 p.m. The council has returned from recess.

9:43 p.m. Hampton Inn planned project. 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.

9:47 p.m. Warpehoski asks city planning manager Wendy Rampson to answer questions. He asks if there’s any plan to install signalization of crosswalks like HAWK or rapid flashing beacons. No, she says. He asks for some explanation of the traffic analysis. Rampson reports that city planner Jill Thacher and traffic engineer Pat Cawley had visited the site. The location of the crossing was the best one available, Rampson says. Warpehoski ventures that of the bad options, he can see how this could be the best one. But as consultations with MDOT and as the project goes through the building permit phase, he’d like attention paid to the issue and urges that every appropriate analysis and protection is put in.

9:49 p.m. Briere says that the planning commission held up the project asking for additional pedestrian amenities within the site. However, the crosswalk had been a part of the initial proposal, she says.

9:55 p.m. Anglin suggests that he and Warpehoski could meet with AAATA staff about the bus stop.

Kunselman asks about the stormwater detention pond. He ventures that the overflow discharge goes to the expressway. Yes, and that will need to be approved by MDOT, says a representative of the developer. Kunselman asks if MDOT will dictate the signage on the crosswalk. Rampson is not sure if the signs would be different from the other signs in the city next to crosswalks.

Hieftje notes that Ann Arbor has the highest hotel occupancy rate in the state.

9:55 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Hampton Inn planned project.

9:55 p.m. Resolution to divest from fossil fuel companies. This council resolution is based on an energy commission resolution passed on July 9, 2013. The energy commission recommended that the city council urge the city’s employee retirement system board to cease new investments in fossil fuel companies and to divest current investments in fossil fuel companies within five years.

The resolution defines a “fossil fuel company” to be any of the top 100 coal companies or top 100 gas and oil extraction companies. The top three coal companies on the list are: Severstal JSC; Anglo American PLC; and BHP Billiton. The top three gas and oil companies on the list are: Lukoil Holdings; Exxon Mobil Corp.; and BP PLC.

The basic consideration of the resolution is the importance of the role that greenhouse gas emissions play in global warming. The resolution cites the city of Ann Arbor’s Climate Action Plan, which has a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2025 and 90% by 2050. The resolution warns that fossil fuel companies have enough fossil fuel reserves that, if burned, would release about 2,795 gigatons of CO2. That’s five times the amount that can be released without causing more than 2°C global warming, according to the resolution.

9:58 p.m. Hieftje says that as a member of the energy commission, he could say that the issue had been thoroughly reviewed and researched. Briere refers to Jeff Hayner’s public commentary, which indicated that there could be a financial impact. Have there been any other examples of divestment? Briere asks.

City administrator Steve Powers indicates that the last time it came up was in connection with South Africa. So it was a long time ago. Briere asks Nancy Walker, executive director of the retirement system, to come to the podium. Walker says there would be some financial implications.

10:04 p.m. Outcome: The council vote to urge the city’s retirement system to divest from fossil fuel companies has failed on a 5-4 vote, falling short of the six-vote majority it needed. Voting against it were Kunselman, Teall, Anglin and Petersen. Lumm and Higgins are absent.

10:04 p.m. Resolution to encourage community solar development. This council resolution also stems from an energy commission recommendation – that the council direct city staff to work with DTE to develop a “community solar” pilot program, which would allow people to invest in a solar energy system, even if the energy that’s generated would be located off-site from their own electric meter.

The goal is to create a program that would assist the work of the Great Lakes Renewable Energy Association (GLREA), which has a grant to work statewide, investigating the feasibility of and constraints facing this collective approach to alternative energy generation. As an example of this approach, the resolution cites the Cherryland Electric Cooperative in Traverse City. The council’s resolution asks that details of a pilot program be ready for consideration by the Michigan Public Service Commission by March 31, 2014.

The goal of community solar is to allow people who don’t own the property where they live, or whose own property is shaded or poorly oriented for solar energy production, to support the production of solar energy.

10:04 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to direct staff to work with DTE to develop a community solar pilot program.

10:04 p.m. Resolution to approve the purchase of development rights: Sheldon and Wolf property. This resolution would add land to the city’s greenbelt program, which is funded by a voter-approved millage. The 20-acre property is located in Webster Township. It’s further described in the staff memo accompanying the resolution as located on Zeeb Road, next to active farmland and other property that has already been protected by the city’s greenbelt program.

The purchase price, after deducting a $6,500 landowner donation, is $47,500. Webster Township is contributing $2,000 and Cherry Republic is contributing another $2,300, leaving the city’s share of the purchase price at $43,200. Due diligence, closing costs and a contribution to the endowment brings the city’s total contribution to $82,067.

The Sheldon and Wolf property is indicated in red. The green highlighted area denotes area already protected as a part of Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program. The heavy green line is the boundary encompassing eligible properties. This is the northwest corner of the boundary area.

10:04 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the acquisition of development rights on the Sheldon and Wolf property.

10:04 p.m. Resolution to approve participation agreement with Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation. This resolution would authorize the city to participate in the acquisition of two pieces of land owned by DF (Domino’s Farms) Land Development LLC. The appraised value of the land is $322,000, of which the city would contribute up to $32,200. The lead agency on the deal is the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission, which voted to approve the purchase of the two parcels at its Aug. 13, 2013 meeting. And the city’s greenbelt advisory commission recommended the city’s participation at its July 11, 2013 meeting.

10:04 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to authorize the city’s participation in the acquisition of the Domino’s Farms land.

10:04 p.m. Resolution to approve Suntel Services agreement. The agreement would be for three years for telecommunications maintenance and support at an annual cost of $189,491. The memo accompanying the resolution describes the telecom systems covered by the agreement as “mission critical.” That includes the five phone servers, which process all incoming and outgoing city phone calls. It’s the same system shared by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority – so the AAATA will be billed $7,238 annually for its share of the contract.

10:04 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Suntel agreement.

10:04 p.m. Resolution to award purchase orders for utility infrastructure components. The two purchase orders would go to ETNA Supply ($167,883) and HD Supply ($163,913). According to the staff memo, the kind of parts included are “valves, brass saddles, various sizes of replacement pipe, fire hydrants, hydrant repair parts, service line connectors, main line connectors and accessories required to repair and maintain the water delivery system.”

10:05 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the purchase orders for utility system parts.

10:05 p.m. Confirmation of appointments. The council was originally going to be asked to confirm four nominations made at the council’s previous meeting on Aug. 19, 2013: Leigh Greden’s reappointment to the Ann Arbor housing commission; Al McWilliams’ appointment to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority; Devon Akmon’s appointment to fill a vacancy on the public art commission; and Logan Casey to fill a vacancy on the human rights commission.

However, the list was updated around 2:30 p.m. today, omitting Greden’s name. The outcome of a possible vote on Greden’s confirmation was dubious. Both Greden’s and McWilliams’ nominations had come forward from mayor John Hieftje with some wrinkles. On April 1, Nickolas Buonodono had been nominated to replace Leigh Greden on the Ann Arbor housing commission (AAHC) board, after Greden had reached the end of a term. Buonodono is an attorney, and member of the Washtenaw County Democratic Party executive committee. However, that nomination was not on the council’s April 15 meeting agenda for confirmation.

According to AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall, who spoke to The Chronicle in a telephone interview in mid-April, Greden was going to seek reappointment for a second term if he could accommodate his schedule to the meeting times. So Greden’s nomination on Aug. 19 appeared to indicate that scheduling issues had been resolved. The housing commission is poised to undergo a major transition to a project-based voucher system, which the council authorized at its June 3, 2013 meeting, on a unanimous vote. An argument for Greden’s continued service on the board could have been made based on the importance of continuity among board members familiar with the intricacies of the transition.

Before McWilliams was nominated at the council’s Aug. 19 meeting, his name had appeared on an early version of the list of nominees for the council’s Aug. 8 meeting. The final version of the list for that meeting, however, did not include his name. McWilliams is founder of Quack!Media, an ad agency located in downtown Ann Arbor. Quack!Media lists the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority on its website as one of its clients. McWilliams has written advocacy pieces for bicycling on his blog.

Akmon is an Ann Arbor resident and the new director of the Arab American National Museum in Dearborn. Casey is a graduate student at the University of Michigan.

10:07 p.m. Hieftje says that there are some openings on the DDA. He asks for the council’s support on tonight’s nomination. He wanted to find someone representing the Main Street business district and the entrepreneurial community.

10:13 p.m. Kailaspathy is speaking to McWilliams’ nomination. She’d asked for a list of those who’d applied for the appointment to the DDA. She’d been told that the person in charge of the list was on vacation but the list would be provided next week.

The second issue, she continues, is that McWilliams’ company is a vendor for the AAATA. The DDA grants money to the AAATA, she says, calling that a conflict of interest.

Hieftje says that his assistant is in fact out of town, and he had not had time to “rustle up those files.” Hieftje says that the process is that the mayor makes nominations. He’d wanted to nominate McWilliams after reviewing the applications on file. Hieftje noted that there is another seat open on the DDA board and that he’d be looking forward to bringing a nomination to the council’s next meeting.

Briere reports that she’s asked the city attorney about the conflict-of-interest question. It’s less clear that there’s actually a conflict, Briere says. She asks city attorney Stephen Postema to comment on the question. Postema essentially indicates that he doesn’t think there’s an inherent conflict, but if an issue arose that could be dealt with when it came up.

10:18 p.m. Postema stresses that if there are two public entities involved, it’s not considered to be a conflict under the statute. Petersen says that even though the state doesn’t define it as a conflict, the council has rules on the question. She doesn’t think the state law is stringent enough. She ventures that McWilliams would need to recuse himself quite frequently, possibly including votes on the DDA budget.

Postema stressed again that the state statue is not as stringent as many people would like it to be. Postema says Petersen might perceive a conflict but that he’s looking at it as a matter of state law.

Taylor argues that there’s no conflict here at all. He gives employees of the University of Michigan on the council as an example. Using the same standard would require the recusal of councilmembers on any UM-related matter, Taylor says. If there’s an actual conflict on a particular occasion, then it’s well established that someone can simply stand down for a particular vote, Taylor continues.

10:24 p.m. Kunselman asks if the other nominations can be separated out. Hieftje proposes voting on confirmations of Akmon and Casey.

10:25 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm Akmon to the public art commission and Casey to the human rights commission.

10:30 p.m. Kunselman says he appreciates the issue being raised of the appearance of conflict, even if there’s not a legal conflict. He asserts that he has the prerogative to vote as he likes. So Kunselman is interested in a candidate who might be able to accept some reform. He doesn’t think that McWilliams, as a DDA supporter, will be open-minded with respect to following city ordinances. So Kunselman says he will vote against the appointment of McWilliams.

Hieftje asks Kunselman if he’s met with McWilliams. No, Kunselman says, but he’s read McWilliams’ public statements.

Briere says she has not met with McWilliams, but she’d talked with Maura Thomson, director of the Main Street Area Association, who was very enthusiastic about McWilliams being appointed. Briere is now talking about the issue of perceived conflict of interest. Briere says she’s heard that she could have a conflict due to her spousal relationship. She’d heard that she’d had a conflict when she worked for a nonprofit that received city funding. If the council gets interested in the question of whether someone is even just “dimly friendly” with someone, then that will shrink the pool of those who are eligible to serve, Briere says.

10:38 p.m. Briere says that there were two former mayors who were UM faculty. She was surprised that people are considering this kind of thing to be a conflict. If a councilmember feels a nominee falls short of the mark, then they should be voted against based on the merits, she said.

Taylor adds that if one of the goals is to have people who are involved in local business to be involved in civic life, then this level of relationship can’t be a prohibitive factor. The council’s conversation tonight is already doing damage to the possibility that others will want to step forward, he said.

Warpehoski says there are three questions: qualifications, perspective, and conflict. He’s not upset that the council is discussing any of them. Warpehoski says that he’s met McWilliams only once. He says McWilliams has a sharp mind. So Warpehoski says McWilliams is qualified. Warpehoski isn’t sure of the perspective, except what Kunselman has reported. On the question of conflict, Warpehoski says that McWilliams should not vote on contracts that his company would serve. He doesn’t think there would be that many votes that fit that description. He thinks that the question of conflict is still a fair one to ask.

10:44 p.m. Teall says that she’s supportive of McWilliams’ nomination. Responding to Kunselman’s point about McWilliams’ attitude towards the DDA, Teall says that it’s natural that someone who wants to serve on the DDA would be supportive of the DDA. Kailasapathy is skeptical that there would be only a few votes that McWilliams would need to refrain from. She says she thinks there’s a direct conflict of interest.

Hieftje asks for the ability to withdraw the nomination, so that some of the issues that have been raised can be explored.

10:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has not voted on McWilliams’ nomination because Hieftje has withdrawn it. The council’s vote looked like it would have risked failing on a 5-4 vote with Kunselman, Petersen, Kailasapathy, and Anglin possibly voting against it.

10:47 p.m. Council communications. Hieftje says that an October work session will include representatives from the southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA).

Kunselman says he’ll be bringing forward a resolution that rescinds the memorandum of understanding between the city and the University of Michigan in connection with the Fuller Road Station.

10:47 p.m. Public commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

10:55 p.m. Kai Petainen thanks the council for the Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane resolution. But he calls it insulting that some councilmembers weren’t aware of the issue, asking them where they’ve been. He compliments the city for its disclosure of the raw sewage spill recently. He says it doesn’t make sense to divest from an entire sector of the economy – a reference to the fossil fuel divestment resolution.

Thomas Partridge calls on the council to be aware of the need for greater public participation. He complains that there’s been scant information on a recent murder of a UM student.

10:55 p.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

A sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chambers gives instructions for post-meeting clean-up.

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. 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.