Mike Martin of First Martin Corp. answered questions from planning commissioners at their May 20, 2014 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Issues included blocked views, noise from rooftop mechanicals, and problems with egress from One North Main’s underground parking. But even people who raised these concerns applauded the project, saying a hotel there would help bring vitality to that part of town. The site on the northeast corner, owned by First Martin Corp., now includes a building that houses the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau and the bus depot for Greyhound, which will be relocating next month to the city’s Fourth & William parking structure.

First Martin’s proposal includes a six-floor, 88,570-square-foot building with a ground-floor restaurant or retail space facing Huron and an extended-stay hotel on the upper five levels, with an entrance off of Ashley. The hotel will be operated by Marriott. The bus depot facade – including an iconic art moderne sign – will remain in place.

The project will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Also heading to the council with a recommendation of approval is an expansion of the Bank of Ann Arbor’s downtown building at the northeast corner South Fifth and East Washington. The plan involves reorienting the main entrance – moving it from the center of the bank’s South Fifth Avenue side to the corner of Fifth and Washington. A 9,179-square-foot third-floor addition would be constructed over the rear of the building’s east side.

The bank has an existing drive-thru teller window on its north side, which will not be altered. The site’s D1 zoning requires a special exception use for drive-thrus, which the planning commission granted in a separate vote. Because the project is going through a site plan approval process, the requirement for a special exception use was triggered. Special exception uses do not require additional city council approval.

Commissioners amended the special exception use to limit the drive-thru to a financial institution, so that it can’t be used in the future for other businesses – like a pharmacy or fast food restaurant. That amendment, put forward by Sabra Briere, was approved on a 6-2 vote, over dissent from Wendy Woods and Eleanore Adenekan. Briere also proposed an amendment that would restrict the hours that the drive-thru could be open. The concern was that vehicles pulling out from the drive-thru onto Fifth Avenue could cause a threat to pedestrians and bicyclists in the evening. But after discussion – including some comments from Hans Maier, a senior executive for the bank – Briere withdrew that amendment.

Two other special exception use requests were granted during the May 20 meeting – from companies selling seasonal Class C fireworks for the July 4 holiday. Phantom Fireworks will be putting up a tent in the parking lot of the Maple Village Shopping Center, across from Veterans Memorial Park. In previous years the business operated in the parking lot of Colonial Lanes on South Industrial. Patriot Fireworks will be selling fireworks in the parking lot of the Twin Valley shopping center at 2750 Jackson Ave., west of the I-94 overpass. Both special exception uses were amended to limit the sales to fireworks only – not other seasonal items – and to put specific limits on the days of operation.

One item was postponed by commissioners on May 20 – a site plan for Mark Condominiums on West Liberty, brought forward by developer Alex de Parry. The postponement was based on a recommendation from the planning staff, to allow time for a public water system issue to be addressed. City staff determined that the six-inch water main along Liberty needs to be replaced with a 12-inch main. De Parry told commissioners that the development team had just recently been informed about this issue, and they are now analyzing the budget impact and alternatives they might pursue.

Downtown Hotel

The site plan and development agreement for a new downtown hotel at the northeast corner of North Ashley and West Huron were on the May 20 agenda.

Rendering of proposed hotel at the northeast corner of West Huron and Ashley. The One North Main building is visible to the east.

The proposal brought forward by First Martin Corp. calls for a six-floor, 88,570-square-foot building with a ground-floor restaurant or retail space and an extended-stay hotel on the upper five levels. The hotel will be operated by Marriott.

The current site at 116-120 W. Huron includes a Greyhound bus depot and a one-story building that houses the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau. Both of those buildings will be demolished. The bus depot facade will remain in place as part of the new building’s design. [.pdf of staff report]

The main hotel entrance is proposed for the building’s west side, facing North Ashley, while the main entrance for the restaurant or retail space is proposed to face West Huron, on the building’s south side. The site is zoned D1, which allows for the highest density development in the downtown. According to the staff memo, five off-street parking spaces are required. First Martin has secured a letter of commitment from Zipcar, a car-sharing service, for two vehicles. Parking spaces for those cars are proposed at the northeast corner of the site. For purposes of the city’s parking requirement, the two Zipcars would count as eight off-street parking spaces, and would satisfy the requirement.

The two existing curbcuts – on North Ashley and West Huron – will be closed, and access to the two parking spaces, loading dock and trash/recycling would be from the mid-block alley to the north. The alley is currently one-way, and will be converted to a two-way alley and repaved.

The current site at 116-120 W. Huron, looking north. One North Main is the building on the right. The city’s Ann Ashley parking structure is visible in the background.

Streetscape changes will include curb bump-outs on North Ashley, on the north and south ends of the site for passenger drop-off.

Nine bicycle parking spaces are required for the project, and would include two bike hoops in the North Ashley right-of-way and two in the West Huron right-of-way, for a total of eight bike spaces. Three more hoops are proposed for the Ann Ashley parking structure, with First Martin paying for labor and materials. The city of Ann Arbor and Downtown Development Authority would assume responsibility for maintenance of those hoops. The installation of hoops in the city’s right-of-way will require city council approval. The planning commission was asked to make a recommendation on that as well.

Construction is estimated to cost $13 million.

In giving the staff report, city planner Alexis DiLeo noted that the Greyhound bus depot has been at that location since 1940, and the site has been a transportation hub since 1898.

Downtown Hotel: Public Hearing

Four people spoke during the public hearing about this project. Changmin Fan told commissioners that Ann Arbor is expanding, and he was impressed by the proposed hotel. But there are also challenges. The city needs to consider how to maintain a dynamic downtown, he said.

This hand-drawn alternative site plan proposed by Todd Sachse representing One North Main was passed out at the May 20 planning commission meeting.

Todd Sachse represented One North Main, the office and residential building east of the hotel site, on the northwest corner of Main and Huron. They were happy to see a development on that site and the hotel will be a great contribution to downtown, he said. However, the current design will block about half of the windows on the west side for the commercial condominiums. So he proposed an alternative plan that would shift the building about 12-15 feet to the west, and extend the building to the north. To do this, it would require cooperation from the city and from First Martin. The alternative plan would result in the same amount of square footage and rooms, Sachse said. He thought that if the city cooperated quickly, it could be accomplished in a way that would be a win-win-win for the new development, the city, and One North Main.

Stephen Ranzini introduced himself as a resident of One North Main and president of University Bank. He thanked First Martin for proposing a hotel on this site, saying it’s an excellent building. He cautioned against doing anything that would damage the value of the adjacent property, however.

In addition to the issues Sachse had mentioned, Ranzini warned against noise generated by mechanical systems on top of the hotel. There needs to be baffling of air-conditioning systems and elevators, he said. Residents on the upper floors of One North Main, on the west side, enjoy the amenity of their outdoor balconies, he noted. If the noise from the hotel is loud, that would be damaging. Ranzini criticized the city for ignoring noise coming from the top of the nearby KeyBank building. “This is a good example of bad planning leading to persistent bad results, right?”

Todd Sachse.

Another issue is the exit from the underground parking at One North Main, Ranzini said. It’s very valuable to have parking underneath your downtown building, he noted – each resident has two spaces. But people illegally block egress, he said, and there’s concern that the hotel will exacerbate that situation. It’s important to preserve the value of existing investments, he said, while new investments come in. He also complained about the signs on the Ann Ashley public parking structure, saying that they’re inadequate to indicate entry and egress.

Richard Broder spoke on behalf of the One North Main condominium association, which includes both residential and commercial condos. He thought the hotel proposal was right for the community, but he shared concerns of previous speakers. He hoped planning commissioners would consider issues related to the back alley and the separation of the buildings.

Downtown Hotel: Commission Discussion

Sabra Briere asked First Martin Corp. representatives – Mike Martin and Darren McKinnon – to answer some questions about the concerns raised during public commentary by residents of One North Main. What’s been done in the design phase to address those concerns?

Martin replied that the design team has met with representatives of both the residential and commercial condo associations. Prior to submitting the hotel proposal, Martin said they worked with the city to make two-way access and egress off of the Ann Street alley. Having more ways to get into and out of that area is important, he said. One problem in the past has been dumpsters, he noted. They’ve worked with city staff and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development to potentially designate some parking spaces for delivery vehicles. Martin said they share concerns about having a functional alley, so they’re working to improve the circulation and plan to enforce “good parking behavior.”

Briere was also interested in the issue of noise from rooftop mechanicals. What has the hotel design done to baffle sound?

McKinnon replied, saying they’d talked to Ranzini about this issue. They brought an acoustic consultant on board as part of the design team, and there will be screening on the roof for both visuals and sound, he said. They’re making every effort to limit the impact, he said. Martin added that each hotel room has VTAC (vertical terminal air conditioning) units. Because there’s not a central system, the amount of equipment on the roof will be greatly reduced, he said.

Briere asked the staff if the city has looked into dedicating two of the metered spaces in the city-owned Ann Ashley parking lot for delivery. Not yet, Alexis DiLeo replied, but that’s something that could be explored. Responding to another query from Briere, DiLeo indicated that other issues related to the midblock alleys, including better directional signs from the parking area, could be discussed. Martin noted that First Martin has contributed to the cost of installing a security camera so that Republic Parking, which manages the city’s parking system on behalf of the DDA, can monitor the area.

Alexis DiLeo of the city’s planning staff.

These issues are moving in a positive direction, Briere said. Her biggest concern is that as new buildings are added, there are all these other “moving pieces” that need to be considered. She referred to additional issues raised in an email from Kathy and Angelos Constantinides, who are One North Main residents. [.pdf of Constantinides email]

Kirk Westphal asked staff to describe what’s allowed, in terms of noise and air rights. He also asked for an explanation about the building separation issue, noting that sometimes people wonder why some projects have a blank wall with no windows – it’s because another building could be constructed right next to it, he said.

Regarding building separation, DiLeo explained that the One North Main project was a planned unit development (PUD). When it was built, it received a variance from the city’s building board of appeals to have windows on its west facade at the property line. Normally, windows are either prohibited or the size is greatly reduced because of issues like fire penetration and the fact that an adjacent building could also be built up to the property line. DiLeo was under the impression that the variance indicated the windows would need to be closed if another building was constructed adjacent to it. “So they enjoyed 30 or 40 years of windows,” she said.

Regarding noise, the city code is a bit antiquated in terms of noise decibel level, DiLeo said. It worked well when there were no residents downtown, but now it doesn’t seem to adequately address noise for residents. The staff has worked with the developer to voluntarily include noise buffers and other design aspects that minimize noise, she said.

Diane Giannola asked where the mechanicals would be located, in relation to One North Main residents. McKinnon replied that air-conditioning compressors are notoriously the loudest mechanical systems. “There’s none of that on the roof whatsoever,” he said. Most of the rooftop equipment will be for ventilation of the hotel’s public corridors.

Diane Giannola.

Martin added that there are two floors of vertical separation between the hotel rooftop and the residential floors of One North Main. The hotel is six stories, and residential units of One North Main begin on the eighth floor. From the audience, Ranzini said: “The noise goes up.” That’s a valid point, Martin replied, but it’s a couple of floors down and also offset from the property line. Martin hoped that the design and less noisy new equipment “would win the day” in terms of reducing noise.

Giannola asked if the window units would make noise. McKinnon replied that when the units are on, it makes about as much noise as the compressor of a home air-conditioning unit. They don’t run all at once, he noted.

Ken Clein pointed to a relevant section in the development agreement, which states: “(P-11) To design, construct, repair and maintain this development in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 119 (Noise Control) to ensure that any noise emanating from said development will not impact nearby residents or businesses. In addition, PROPRIETOR shall review existing noise sources surrounding said development and incorporate necessary design and construction techniques to ensure that future tenants will not be exposed to noise sources in violation of Chapter 119.”

Westphal asked staff to explain who residents can contact if construction noise becomes a problem. DiLeo said she can give contact info to the One North Main condo associations. Typically, the responsibility for enforcing issues related to construction fall to the city’s building department or the police department’s community standards unit.

Clein asked about the at-grade pedestrian passageway between One North Main and the hotel site, leading back to the parking area. He knew it wasn’t First Martin’s responsibility, but wondered if they planned to enhance it in any way. Martin replied that there will be some lighting and landscaping, to give it a “softer edge.” He also thought that having more people in that area would help that entire corridor.

Responding to another query from Clein, Martin said they don’t yet have a tenant identified for the retail/restaurant space.

Wendy Woods asked about the car-sharing service. Martin explained that the Zipcars would be available to anyone who had a membership with that company – it wasn’t just limited to hotel guests. The hope would be that someone could take the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority’s AirRide from the Detroit Metro airport to Ann Arbor, then use Zipcar to get around town.

Eleanore Adenekan.

Westphal asked how comfortable Martin was that the space fronting Huron would be leased to a retailer or restaurant. He was very confident, Martin replied. They’ve had some conversations with local restauranteurs, and have signed up with a commercial brokerage to show it. Early indications are very positive, he said, but they haven’t signed anyone up yet. Martin said he expected they’d end up with a restaurant there that would complement the hotel.

Westphal asked if that’s something that First Martin would be willing to include in the development agreement – a commitment to restaurant or retail uses? Martin indicated they’d be willing to talk about that. The ground floor of the hotel will be an extremely active use, he noted. However, he’d like to have as much flexibility as possible in the development agreement. Twenty years ago, no one would have said that a brokerage firm would be an active retail use, he noted, but now it is.

Westphal clarified that he didn’t want to see office or any kind of financial use there, which elicited a laugh from other commissioners. [Westphal has been vocal about how banks and other financial institutions with storefronts create dead space along a street.]

Jeremy Peters asked whether the hotel would have valet service, to help some of the issues related to drop-offs, traffic and parking. Martin replied that they’d talked with Art Low of Republic Parking, with the intent of working out an agreement for valet service to use some of the nearby public parking spaces.

Briere noted that the draft development agreement mentions footing drain disconnects. She was under the impression that First Martin was working on an alternative to footing drain disconnects. McKinnon said he’s met with city staff on this issue, and is planning to take some ideas to the citizens advisory committee for the sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study. He hopes to participate as the committee develops recommendations for city council.

Ken Clein.

Martin added that they’re certainly willing to mitigate, but they’d like to have language in the development agreement that would provide for some flexibility, if the footing drain disconnect program changes.

There was some back-and-forth between Briere, Martin and McKinnon about the two different types of city programs – a residential footing drain disconnection program, and a developer offset mitigation program. McKinnon noted that the two programs are different, but related.

Woods referenced the hand-drawn alternative design that Todd Sachse had distributed during his public commentary. She urged Sachse to discuss it with the First Martin team. Kirk Westphal asked Martin about that alternative design in relation to the city’s mandated citizen participation meeting.

Martin replied that the One North Main representatives were having “off-line” conversations with First Martin about this alternative design. “We evaluated it,” he said. “We came up with a number of reasons why it did not work for us in our development.” The primary reason is that the alternative design would require getting easements from the city, he added. It’s uncertain that the city would grant the easements, and unclear how long the process might take.

One other problem is that if the hotel is taller than six floors, it would require compliance with the city’s high-rise code and also affect First Martin’s agreement with Marriott. “We’ve been on record with [Sachse] telling them it’s just not something we can do,” Martin said.

Briere asked for clarification about where hotel patrons will be dropped off. Martin replied that the drop-off, loading and unloading will be along North Ashley. There might be some sort of outdoor cafe space in front of the hotel, and a couple of on-street parking spaces. He confirmed for Briere that the hotel will include front-desk concierge service to contact taxis for customers.

Planning commissioners Paras Parekh and Sabra Briere.

Clein noted that the commission’s packet on this project includes comments from the city’s design review board. He wondered which suggestions were incorporated into the hotel design. Martin indicated that there hadn’t been unanimity of opinion among design review board members. The main takeaway was that the style of the bus depot was art moderne, not art deco, he said, “so our wrists were slapped.” He also said that board members suggested the design should be simplified a bit.

Martin noted that the site is located on the first block created within the city of Ann Arbor, so they’ve encountered a lot of “fun” issues dealing with easements and title searches for the back alley area, he said. Related to the site’s historic nature, the design review board thought it would be good for the Huron Street facade to tie into the cadence of an original city block, which was 66-feet wide. The board also wanted to carry the horizontal element of the art moderne style from Huron Street and wrap it around to the Ashley side too. It was difficult to balance all the comments, Martin said.

Clein thought the revised design was an improvement. He noted that it wasn’t the planning commission’s purview, but he thought the light-colored materials proposed for the top of the building felt a little heavy. He suggested having the brick continue up to the cornice, which he thought would make the cornice stand out more.

Regarding the bus depot facade, Clein noted that some preservationists would want to save more of the building behind it, “but in reality, there’s not a lot of integrity behind the facade.” He thought First Martin’s approach of protecting it in place during construction is preferable to dismantling it then reinstalling the facade later. He clarified with staff that this preservation qualifies the project to get premiums (a 50% floor area “bonus” of an additional 4,352 square feet) for historic preservation. “Where do we draw the line to say that allows you to qualify for premiums?” Clein asked.

Kirk Westphal.

DiLeo replied that premiums are awarded for historic preservation when a project preserves something that’s eligible to be on the National Register of Historic Places. The bus depot facade is eligible, she said, but she’d have to consult with the city’s historic district coordinator for more details about the building behind the facade. At one point, the Ann Arbor historic district commission approved a “facade-ectomy,” DiLeo said, adding that “if it’s good enough for the HDC, it’s good enough for the premium.” She clarified that getting a premium for historic preservation doesn’t require review or approval of the HDC.

Woods indicated that requiring HDC review or approval is something the planning commission might consider in the future. She also thought it might be an opportunity for Ray Detter to install an historic street plaque.

Woods also asked about whether the Greyhound bus services would be relocated to the Blake Transit Center. DiLeo replied that apparently it would be easy to relocate the passenger service to BTC, located on South Fourth Avenue north of William Street. However, Greyhound handles a significant amount of freight, and that’s becoming difficult to coordinate. The Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, which operates the transit center, is working with Greyhound on that, she said.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, reported that the Ann Arbor DDA has approved a plan to accommodate Greyhound at the Fourth & William parking structure, at least in the short-term. [At its May 7, 2014 meeting, the DDA board authorized its executive director to come to terms with Greyhound on a two-year lease that would cost Greyhound $1,525 a month, which works out to $36,600 for the two-year period. Buses would not pull into the structure, but would stage on Fourth Avenue. The lease would include about 400 square feet of office space in the structure, which would be finished out by the DDA for Greyhound. The lease rate works out to about $40 per square foot.]

Woods wondered when Greyhound would move. Martin indicated that the move would probably occur in mid-June. Woods noted that Greyhound is used by University of Michigan students, and she hoped the relocation would be widely publicized. Martin said it would be a more convenient location for students. [The Fourth & William structure is closer to UM's central campus, and across the street from BTC.]

Joe Fitzsimmons, a resident of One North Main, attended the May 20 meeting but did not formally address the planning commission.

Giannola asked why First Martin decided to build an extended-stay hotel, rather than a traditional hotel. Martin said the decision was based on business and market reasons. They did a market study, and one thing missing from this community is hotels with larger rooms and flexibility for longer-term stays. With the university and other organizations in town, an extended-stay hotel seemed to make the most sense. People who have family members in the hospital also need extended-stay facilities, he noted.

Martin explained that each room has a small kitchenette. The hotel won’t provide room service, but breakfast will be provided. If the retail space becomes a restaurant, there might be an opportunity there, he noted.

Clein noted that this project epitomizes the challenges of downtown development. The project is doing some great things, like bringing more activity to an area that needs it, he said. The building is handsome and the preservation of the bus depot facade is good. But there are issues with the neighboring building, so it’s a balancing act, he added. Similar issues will arise as the city gets more downtown development, Clein noted.

Clein said he was empathetic with the neighbors’ concerns, and he hoped First Martin would be proactive in trying to address them. He was supportive of the project, however.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the site plan and development agreement, as well as for the plan to install required bicycle parking within the North Ashley and West Huron rights-of-way and the Ann Ashley parking structure.

Downtown Hotel: Public Commentary

During the time for general public commentary at the end of the meeting, around 10:45 p.m., Stephen Ranzini spoke again.

Stephen Ranzini.

He told commissioners that he’s been a resident at One North Main for 14 years, and has observations about things “that clearly some of you are not aware of.” He thought development agreements were really important, and should be carefully negotiated. The problem in Ann Arbor, he said, is that after a development agreement is reviewed and approved by planning commissioners and the city council, “the city staff has – and often do – change it completely at will.” Projects change radically, he said.

Ranzini said he has suggested to the city attorney, mayor and councilmembers that any material changes to development agreements should require a new approval process. “You’re giving city staff way too much authority to change at-will things,” he said. As an example, he said changes were made for the Ashley Terrace project that related to parking and the number of bedrooms in units. He said the staff will make changes “when the developer cries poverty or economics, which downsize and dumb down the project.” Many projects in the city look awful because of that, he said.

He then brought up issues related to enforcement of existing regulations. He talked about calls he’s made to city police regarding decibel-level violations. Construction repeatedly begins at 5 a.m. when the law requires a 6 a.m. start. He said the police never respond to complaints. Road cleaning occurs at 1 a.m. or 2 a.m., with the noise coming into his windows at more than 120 decibels. “The police response time? Never.” He cited a Huey chopper on Sunday morning – without a permit – generating 200 decibels in his home, as it installed air conditioner units on top of an adjacent building. It was so loud “that my teeth were literally vibrating so much that I was afraid my teeth would come out of my mouth, ok?” Still, the police didn’t respond, he said. Other examples Ranzini cited were bagpipes and city garbage trucks.

Mark Condominiums on Liberty

A site plan for new condominiums at 318 W. Liberty was on the May 20 agenda. Planning staff recommended postponement, however, to allow time for a public water main issue to be addressed.

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

The proposal from developer Alex de Parry of Ann Arbor Builders Inc. is to demolish an existing car wash and build an 11,910-square-foot structure with seven residential condominiums – five two-bedroom and two three-bedroom units. One unit would face West Liberty, with the others facing east.

Each condo would have its own two-car tandem garage for a total of 14 parking spaces, although no parking is required.

The lot, on the north side of Liberty, is east of the historic Peter Brehme house at 326 W. Liberty and located in the Old West Side historic district. The historic district commission issued a certificate of appropriateness for the project on March 13, 2014. The property is also within the boundaries of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district. It backs up to the surface parking lot at the city-owned 415 W. Washington.

The property is zoned D2 (downtown interface).

The project would require two footing drain disconnects, according to a staff memo. In addition, the existing six-inch water main in West Liberty Street would need to be upsized to a 12-inch water main. The six-inch main wouldn’t have the capacity to handle the additional development, particularly the building’s fire-suppression system. That was the reason for postponement. [.pdf of staff memo]

The project is expected to cost $2.7 million.

No one spoke during the public hearing for this item.

Mark Condominiums on Liberty: Commission Discussion

Paras Parekh asked staff to elaborate on the water capacity issue. Planning manager Wendy Rampson explained that for every proposed project, the city’s systems planning unit does modeling of its impact on the city’s infrastructure for sewer and water. Typically, the only problems that are encountered are with sewer capacity. But in this case, because this part of the city had been developed with a more residential character, the water main is currently six inches in diameter.

Developer Alex de Parry.

The developer must provide fire suppression for the new building, which would require upsizing to an eight-inch water main. However, the city doesn’t upsize in two-inch increments, Rampson said. So the city is requiring that the water main be upsized to 12 inches. The developer can take on that cost if they want to move quickly, she added, or they can wait until it’s incorporated into the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP).

The upsizing needs to run from Third Street to First Street. The city’s project management staff has said that the developer’s responsibility would be to pay for the upsizing from Third Street to the front of 318 W. Liberty. This requirement emerged just a few days prior to the planning commission meeting, and the developer is now exploring the cost implications of that effort, Rampson said.

Jeremy Peters asked to hear from a representative of the project. Alex de Parry replied that they’re analyzing how to possibly change some construction methods and exploring other options. “We’ve only known about this for about two days,” he noted.

Steve Rojeck of Perimeter LLC, who is also working on this project, added that they’re also evaluating the cost of the upsizing. It could be a substantial impact on the project’s budget, he said.

Sabra Briere asked if the project will include any streetscape improvements. She noted that the site is located within the DDA district, and that the DDA is working on a streetscape project. De Parry replied that they’d received some feedback from residents who attended the project’s citizens participation meeting about adding trees in front of the property. He said they’re working with the owners of the adjacent property to the west – where Moveable Feast restaurant was formerly located – to make sure the grading of the two properties is smooth in front.

Rampson reported that the DDA has asked the developer to coordinate the construction to minimize impact on the parking patrons at 415 W. Washington. The DDA manages the lot as part of its agreement with the city to oversee the public parking system. Rampson added that as far as she knew, there are no streetscape improvements proposed as part of this project.

Kirk Westphal noted that the proposed condominiums will be about half of the proposed density that would be allowed under D2 zoning on that site. De Parry replied that D2 zoning would technically allow for a project that’s up to 60 feet high, but since the site is also in an historic district, there are limitations on height and setbacks.

A car wash is currently located at 318 W. Liberty.

Rampson explained that the historic district commission has purview to limit the size of the building. The project went before the HDC two times, she said, and as a result it had been scaled back.

De Parry said it’s not a high-density development, with just seven units. So doing a major water main replacement for that is “problematic,” he told commissioners.

Westphal observed that in some cases, the planning commission moves projects along with the stipulation that certain issues must be addressed before going to the city council for approval. De Parry supported that approach, but Rampson noted that this was a big issue and the kind of thing that the planning commission typically addressed before recommending a project. It would likely change some aspects of the development agreement, she added, including a potential cost-sharing arrangement.

Wendy Woods was in favor of postponing, with the hope that it could be brought back to the commission as soon as possible. She said it seemed like the developer was almost in shock, “and understandably so.” Other commissioners agreed regarding postponement.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone action on the project.

After the vote, de Parry asked whether it was a two-week postponement. Rampson replied that it will come back to the commission as soon as the issues are worked out. It could be two weeks, but it could be longer. The commission’s next meeting is June 3.

Bank of Ann Arbor Expansion

An expansion of the Bank of Ann Arbor headquarters in downtown Ann Arbor was on the May 20 planning commission agenda.

Architect Scott Bowers with a rendering of the expanded downtown Bank of Ann Arbor building and reconfigured entrance, at the northeast corner of Fifth and Washington.

Commissioners were asked to recommend approval of a site plan that involves reorienting the main entrance – moving it from the center of its South Fifth Avenue side to the southeast corner of South Fifth and East Washington. Existing doors will be replaced with windows. A 9,179-square-foot third-floor addition would be constructed over the rear of the building’s east side. In total, the building would be 32,651 square feet after construction. The project is estimated to cost $4.2 million. [.pdf of staff memo]

One outstanding issue relates to a tree that’s needed in one of the landscape islands in the parking lot.

According to the staff memo, the design “seeks to transform the current style from contemporary to traditional by replacing the yellow brick façade with brown and red-colored bricks and limestone-colored stone accents and trim and creating a brick and glass tower at the street corner to create a prominent entry.” The original two-story building was constructed in 1965, which included the drive-thru window. An addition was completed in 1999.

The project was evaluated by the city’s design review board on Jan. 14. The board suggested making the entry structure taller and more closely aligning the bank’s design features with those of the adjacent Ameritech building to the east.

The site is zoned D1, which allows for the highest level of density in the downtown area.

D1 zoning requires a special exception use for drive-thrus, which the planning commission considered on May 20 in a separate vote. Because the project is going through a site plan approval process, the requirement for a special exception use was triggered. Special exception uses do not require additional city council approval. The bank has an existing drive-thru teller window on its north side. No changes are planned to that configuration, however.

In giving the staff report, city planner Alexis DiLeo said if the drive-thru were used more frequently, staff might suggest additional design features, like a more clearly marked crossing or differentiated surface materials. But because there are only 20-25 transactions per day at the drive-thru, and given the “successful history” of the existing drive-thru, staff is comfortable with it remaining as is, DiLeo said.

Modifications to drive-thru regulations are in the works, but not yet enacted. The planning commission approved new drive-thru regulations earlier this year. Amendments to Ann Arbor’s zoning ordinance related to drive-thrus received initial approval at the council’s May 5, 2014 meeting, and will appear on the council’s June 2 agenda for final approval.

Bank of Ann Arbor Expansion: Public Hearing

Scott Bowers, an Ann Arbor architect, introduced his partner, Susan Bowers – both are working on this project. He reviewed details of the project and showed renderings of the proposed building. A tower will be added to the northeast corner entrance, giving it more excitement and movement, he said. The use of glass on the tower will allow pedestrians to see into the lobby. He noted that the issue of the tree in the parking lot landscape island will be addressed.

Bank of Ann Arbor Expansion: Commission Discussion – Site Plan

Sabra Briere noted that there’s a lot of construction underway downtown. Residents have complained, she said, especially about the fact that they can’t walk past projects. She wondered if there was any way for the bank to allow pedestrians to walk on sidewalks while construction takes place.

Bank of Ann Arbor building at the northeast corner of South Fifth and East Washington. The proposed renovations will create a “tower” entrance into the building at this corner.

Scott Bowers said they’d have to see if it could be worked out with the contractor. It probably couldn’t happen during heavy construction periods, he added, but perhaps at other times.

Ken Clein asked whether infiltration would be possible for the stormwater system. Bowers replied that there is infiltration, as part of a water charging system.

Clein clarified that the windows would allow people to see inside the building. He said that’s a benefit, both for the business and for pedestrians. He also confirmed with Bowers that the building’s mechanical systems would be located on top of the new addition. There will be screening around that equipment, Bowers said.

Kirk Westphal asked if the rebricking will look like full-depth brick. Bowers explained that actual brick will be used, after the old yellow brick is stripped off. There will also be stone accents around the windows. Westphal noted that even though it’s not in the planning commission’s purview, it’s nice to see how the architect responded to feedback from the design review board. That information is included in the planning commission’s meeting packet.

Wendy Woods noted that the project is located in the Midtown Character District, and she asked the staff to explain what that means. Alexis DiLeo explained that there are eight character districts. The Midtown Character District is a bit of mishmash now and needs to be more defined, she added. Now, it’s “mostly a government and utility-type feel” with several vacant parcels.

DiLeo also read excerpts from the written staff report:

Midtown Character District – Architectural styles in Midtown include some 19th century wood-framed residential (mostly converted to office use), by stylistically, the district is dominated by an a range of late 20th century mid-rise office and governmental facilities.

The primary north-to-south street in Midtown is Fifth Avenue. It can be considered Ann Arbor’s “civic corridor,” anchored to the south by the Ann Arbor District Library’s Main Branch, the Blake Transit Center and the Federal Building. To the north, directly across E. Huron Street from Midtown, are the Ann Arbor municipal Center and the old and new fire stations and Hands-On Museum.

With the exception of the Library, the buildings in Midtown have limited hours and are used primarily during the business day. Since Midtown is surrounded by character districts with evening-use venues, it often serves as a passage, in particular the west-to-east blocks between Main Street and State Street. Pedestrians seem to be focused on getting from point A to point B and would benefit from more opportunities to linger.

Future development should find opportunities to establish an identity for Midtown, increasing its vitality and expanding its offerings. Primary pedestrian access to buildings along the civic corridor should be from the corridor street.

Jeremy Peters wondered if this expansion would change the hours that the bank would be open. Not at this time, Bowers replied.

Outcome on the site plan resolution: It was approved unanimously. The recommendation will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Bank of Ann Arbor Expansion: Commission Discussion – Special Exception Use

Diane Giannola confirmed with planning staff that the drive-thru isn’t new, and that the only reason a special exception use is now required is that it’s not automatically grandfathered in, and the need for approval is triggered by the site plan process. Alexis DiLeo explained that the city began requiring special exception uses for drive-thrus in 2009, as part of a broader zoning overhaul known as A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown).

Hans Maier, Bank of Ann Arbor’s senior vice president of specialty banking, and architect Susan Bowers.

The drive-thru now is considered a “legal non-conforming use.” It had been legally established initially, but the zoning code changed, she said. If the bank wasn’t seeking site plan approval, there would be no need for a special exception use.

Responding to a query from Wendy Woods, DiLeo said that if the city council approves amendments to Ann Arbor’s zoning ordinance related to drive-thrus – which were recommended by the planning commission – then any new drive-thru could not be located between the building and the street. Because the bank’s drive-thru is located on the side of the building, it would conform with that future code, she said.

Ken Clein was concerned because it’s an area of “reasonably high” foot traffic. He wondered if the drive-thru would be open beyond normal banking hours. Hans Maier, the bank’s senior vice president of specialty banking, replied that it’s open during regular banking hours on weekdays, and from 9 a.m. until noon on Saturdays. Maier joked that the traffic downtown in the evening isn’t coming to do banking.

Kirk Westphal said this isn’t the kind of use that the city wants to encourage downtown, so he shared Clein’s concern. He wondered if there was an intention to expand the drive-thru hours in the future. Maier indicated that he didn’t think so.

Westphal asked if the special exception use can apply to a different tenant at that location. DiLeo said it could be used as a drive-thru for other types of businesses, not just banking, unless a condition is put on the special exception use. Restrictions could include hours of operation and type of business. Westphal wondered if the condition could restrict the number of people who use the drive-thru daily. DiLeo replied that it would be difficult to enforce that kind of restriction.

Jeremy Peters.

Westphal said he wouldn’t be comfortable for this drive-thru being used for another purpose, which might mean longer hours or more traffic.

Sabra Briere proposed an amendment to limit the drive-thru to use by a financial institution. She also asked about time restrictions: Would 7 p.m. be a reasonable time to limit drive-thru operations? Maier told commissioners that the banking business changes, and he indicated that it’s difficult to anticipate what might happen in the future. The bank has been at that location for 18 years, he noted, and hasn’t yet used extended hours. Maier added that given the angle of the curbcuts, it’s not possible to move straight forward from the drive-thru window to the street – there’s a slight curve. Briere said she worried about drivers who aren’t paying attention on Fifth Avenue.

Briere proposed limiting the hours from 8 a.m. until 7 p.m., saying it struck her as “perfectly generous.” She expected in the future, there won’t be a “human attendant” at the drive-thru, so the customers could get out of their car and walk over to the building.

Jeremy Peters asked that Briere separate those two issues – use and hours of operation – so that the amendments could be voted on separately. Briere agreed.

Outcome on limiting the use to financial institutions: The amendment passed on a 6-2 vote, over dissent from Wendy Woods and Eleanore Adenekan. Bonnie Bona was absent.

The commission next considered restricting the hours of operation to between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m.

Paras Parekh wondered if the drive-thru hours would be limited even if it was an automated teller. Sabra Briere said her big concern is the exit onto Fifth Avenue at night.

Jeremy Peters was concerned that if the drive-thru becomes an ATM and there are restricted hours, it would force the bank to turn off the ATM. He thought it would also be hard to regulate, and he hesitated to regulate the hours that a business can be open.

Kirk Westphal asked if a walk-up ATM would be accessible. Hans Maier replied that a walk-up ATM already exists on the same side of the building, near the corner. He noted that the bank’s competitors – including the nearby Comerica and KeyBank branches – wouldn’t have these same restrictions.

Looking east across Fifth Avenue at the Bank of Ann Arbor building. Toward the corner is the green awning of the walk-up ATM. Further east is the awning for the drive-thru teller window.

Diane Giannola said to her, limiting hours of operation seemed like overkill. Cars that parked and used the walk-up ATM would also be driving out that same exit, she noted. Eleanore Adenekan agreed, saying there shouldn’t be restrictions on hours.

Westphal replied that he didn’t want it to be perceived that the planning commission was picking on this bank. He said the same concerns would exist for drive-thrus anywhere in town.

Ken Clein said that trying to legislate the hours of operation might have unintended consequences. He’s comfortable with the amended language that restricts the special exception use to financial institutions. With that, the amount of traffic in the evenings would be much less than if it were a fast food restaurant or pharmacy.

Wendy Woods said she’d vote against regulating hours. She voted against the previous amendment because she wouldn’t have a problem with another drive-thru use at that location – like a pharmacy. “Indeed, it might be an attraction for some people,” she said. She was concerned about restricting the use.

At this point, Briere withdrew her motion, saying “I’m disinclined to vote in favor of the motion myself.” She thought it had been worth the discussion.

Outcome on main motion for granting the special exception use, as amended to limit it to financial institutions: The resolution passed unanimously. It does not require additional approval from the city council.

Fireworks

There were two requests for special exception use related to the sale of Class C fireworks. This is a standard request for this time of year, when temporary sales of fireworks take place. The special exception use can be granted by planning commissioners and doesn’t require additional approval from the city council.

According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Class C fireworks include “shells and mortars, multiple tube devices, Roman candles, rockets, sparklers, firecrackers with no more than 50 milligrams of powder, and novelty items such as snakes, airplanes, ground spinners, helicopters, fountains, and party poppers.”

Fireworks: Phantom

Phantom Fireworks was requesting a special exception use to put up a temporary 40×40-foot tent and an 8×40-foot storage container in the parking lot of the Maple Village Shopping Center at 205 N. Maple, across from Veterans Memorial Park. The purpose would be for the temporary outdoor sales of fireworks, for 10 days around the July 4 holiday – from June 26 to July 5.

Rick Tapper, regional manager of Phantom Fireworks.

The shopping center is in Ward 5.

The tent and container would be set back 44 feet from North Maple Road, and traffic to businesses wouldn’t be impacted, according to city planner Alexis DiLeo, who gave the staff report. The location would be open from about 10 a.m. to 10 p.m., with extended hours depending on sales and demand.

The tent would occupy about 21 of the shopping center’s 1,500 parking spaces. Generally, there’s a lot of available parking there, DiLeo said.

A special exception use is required because this vendor isn’t a permanent tenant of the shopping center, and isn’t being sponsored by any of the tenants.

Approval of the special exception use would allow the sale of fireworks and seasonal products at this location annually, as long as the owner obtains a permit and inspection from the city’s fire marshal each time the tent is put up.

No one spoke during the public hearing for this item. DiLeo reported that no concerns about this proposal have been received. [.pdf of staff report]

Fireworks: Phantom – Commission Discussion

Eleanore Adenekan asked if there’d be extra lighting in that area. Alexis DiLeo replied that the tent will rely on parking lot lighting for the site.

Rick Tapper, regional manager for Phantom Fireworks, came to the podium to answer additional questions. He noted that the company has operated in Ann Arbor for the past two years, but previously were located in the parking lot of Colonial Lanes on South Industrial.

There’s a minimum of two employees in the tent at all times, Tapper said, and at night there are a minimum of three employees. There will be lights inside the tent, run by a generator. The products will be stored at night in the storage unit next to the tent, which is fireproof.

Planning commissioners Wendy Woods and Jeremy Peters

Jeremy Peters asked about the duration of sales: Was that Phantom’s choice? Yes, Tapper replied. He noted that 80% of sales take place during the last three days of business.

Wendy Woods asked about the permanent nature of this special exception use. DiLeo clarified that it would also allow for the sale of “seasonal items” at other times of the year, though that hasn’t been proposed by Phantom Fireworks. Other examples might be gear for Red Wings or University of Michigan sold during football and hockey seasons, respectively. She noted that if the operation is discontinued for three years, the special exception use would be voided.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, said that if planning commissioners have concerns about the operation, they should state those issues in the conditions of the special exception use.

Tapper stressed that Phantom Fireworks doesn’t intend to operate at any other time than the 10 days indicated around the July 4 holiday. He was open to the commission striking the phrase “seasonal items” from the special exception use.

Woods moved an amendment to strike the phrase “seasonal items.”

Outcome on amendment: It passed unanimously.

Woods then suggested inserting language to refer to sales during specific dates. Tapper asked that the reference to dates be somewhat general, because the timing of the sales depends on when the weekends fall around July 4.

Peters proposed adding “for a period of up to 15 days total in the months of June and July.”

Outcome on amendment: It passed unanimously.

Kirk Westphal said he assumed this special exception use couldn’t be transferred. DiLeo clarified that it actually could be transferred to another Class C fireworks vendor.

Woods noted that a new skatepark is opening across the street from this shopping center, at Veterans Memorial Park. So she thought it was important to have a few extra conditions on the special exception use.

Outcome on granting the special exception use, as amended: It passed unanimously.

Fireworks: Patriot

The second special exception use request came from Patriot Fireworks, to put up an 8×40-foot temporary unit and 20×20-foot tent in the parking lot of the Twin Valley shopping center at 2750 Jackson Ave., west of the I-94 overpass. It would be set back 45 feet from Jackson and use 5 of the 75 parking spaces.

Robert Horvath represented Patriot Fireworks.

The business would operate from the Memorial Day weekend through the July 4th holiday, from about noon to 7 p.m., with possible extended hours.

Staff received one call from a resident in the Lakewood neighborhood, located southwest of the shopping center. The resident was concerned that children would cross Jackson Avenue at unsafe locations to get to the fireworks.

Alexis DiLeo of the city’s planning staff reported that staff looked at the site with regard to that concern. She noted that state law restricts fireworks sales to anyone under age 18, so unaccompanied minors wouldn’t likely be crossing Jackson Avenue, she said. “It would be a fruitless cause for them.”

The site is located in Ward 5.

Fireworks: Patriot – Public Hearing

Only one person spoke during the public hearing. Robert Horvath told commissioners that Patriot Fireworks was a local business, with a warehouse on Jackson Road in Scio Township. They sell fireworks at about 40 locations. They’ve been selling fireworks for over a quarter-century, he said. Horvath noted that he’s a “fireworks attorney,” and had sat on the committee that developed the state’s fireworks safety act. “So I’m involved both on a business level, but also on a legal level,” he said.

Fireworks: Patriot – Commission Discussion

Ken Clein asked about plans for signs at this location. Alexis DiLeo replied that businesses are allowed two square feet of signage for every foot of frontage. Since the tent is 20 feet, Patriot would be allowed 40 square feet of signs attached to the tent. They would need a separate city permit for the signs.

Eleanore Adenekan asked how many employees would be on site. Robert Horvath said there would be at least one employee. He described it as more of a “modified store” than a tent, with doors, shelving, lighting and a more controlled environment. It’s also a relatively small area, he noted. They carry about 300 different items.

Jeremy Peters clarified with Horvath that only fireworks would be sold. Horvath didn’t object to striking the term “seasonal items” – as commissioners had done with Phantom Fireworks. But Patriot planned to be open for a longer time than Phantom, he noted.

As she had for the previous special exception use request, Woods moved an amendment to strike the phrase “seasonal items.”

Outcome on amendment: It passed unanimously.

Peters moved an amendment regarding the time of operation, to add the phrase “for a period from three days in advance of Memorial Day, to three days after the July 4th holiday.” Sabra Briere proposed changing “three days after the July 4th holiday” to “July 7.”

Further wordsmithing ensued. Diane Giannola proposed “for a period beginning four days before the Memorial Day holiday and ending four days after the Fourth of July holiday.” Kirk Westphal suggested from May 20 to July 10.

Paras Parekh then proposed “the Thursday before Memorial Day to July 7.” Peters accepted Parekh’s amendment as friendly.

Outcome on amendment: It passed unanimously.

Outcome on granting the special exception use, as amended: It passed unanimously.

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

Absent: Bonnie Bona.

Next meeting: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 at 7 p.m. in council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

From left: 15th District Court judge Christopher Easthope – a former Ann Arbor city councilmember – and 15th District Court administrator Keith Zeisloft at the council’s June 17 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

The main court-related item was part of an annual adjustment to the current fiscal year’s budget (FY 2013), which ends on June 30. The adjustment is made on a routine basis in order to bring the budget in line with actual expenditures. The general fund budget adjustment that was eventually approved by the council increased it by $567,000.

And of that amount, a significant part was attributable to the 15th District Court – including $112,000 in salary increases based on an interest in retaining employees, $203,000 due to a “catch up” payment to the law firm that provides indigent representation, and a back-bill for security from Washtenaw County for two fiscal years for $110,000. None of the salary increases went to judges, whose compensation is set through state statute.

The council was essentially being asked to approve the accounting adjustment for money that had already been spent this year.

The city’s budget for the next fiscal year – approved by the council last month, on May 20, 2013 – already incorporated the court workers’ salary increases going forward, and councilmembers had been apprised of the raises before their budget deliberations in May. The council’s deliberations on May 20 had not focused on those raises, but rather on the possibility of reducing the court’s budget in order to fund additional police officers for the city.

At the June 17 meeting, all three judges of the court plus the court administrator were on hand – as some councilmembers drew out a disagreement regarding how the wage increases should have been approached. At least some councilmembers felt the court should have asked the council before awarding wage increases to its workers.

Tom Crawford, the city’s chief financial officer, indicated at the meeting that if the council had not approved the budget adjustment for the court, it would likely have generated a note in next year’s audit.

Other court-related items on the council’s agenda included a new $240,000 annual flat-fee contract with Nassif and Reiser – the firm that provides indigent representation for the court. The council also approved a $160,000 contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office for weapons screening at the Justice Center, the building next to city hall that houses the 15th District Court.

The council approved two items related to the court’s special Sobriety Court, one of which was a $65,000 grant program contract with the nonprofit Dawn Farm to provide in-patient and out-patient drug abuse counseling to 15th District Court defendants. It was approved over the dissent of Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who objected to the accompanying provision that waived a requirement that Dawn Farm adhere to the city’s living wage ordinance.

The wind generator item was originally on the consent agenda, but was pulled out for separate consideration. The council had previously voted unanimously at its Jan. 7, 2013 meeting to accept a roughly $950,000 U.S. Department of Energy grant for installation of the wind generator. The council was asked on June 17 to spend about $50,000 of the grant proceeds on an initial environmental assessment, required before the project can move forward. Three councilmembers balked at the request, but the resolution was ultimately approved.

In business related to revisions of local laws, the council gave final approval to an ordinance change that limits use of fireworks to between the hours of 8 a.m. and midnight. And the council gave final approval to the city’s outdoor sign ordinance that limits the incorporation of digital technology into outdoor signs – in a way that prohibits such use for billboards. However, the council again delayed taking an initial vote on an ordinance that would regulate how local law enforcement officials can use public surveillance cameras. The council did give initial approval to adopt the new fire code into the city’s ordinances.

In land use and development business, the council approved a revised development agreement for The Varsity. The agreement now incorporates a total of seven monthly parking permits that will be purchased at a premium cost under the city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) program. The council also gave approval to site plans for two projects: the State Street Center and 544 Detroit St. The 544 Detroit St. project included a brownfield plan, which was also approved. Another brownfield plan was on the council’s agenda – related to the Packard Square development on the site of the former Georgetown Mall. That plan had previously been approved, but an additional council vote was needed to change the set of activities that are eligible for reimbursement.

In connection with government-controlled land, the council approved $382,000 in additional operating support for the Ann Arbor Housing Commission. The council also passed a resolution committing up to $750,000 in general fund money to convert city-owned property at 721 N. Main to a greenway park. However, if the grants that the city expects to be awarded are actually received, none of that $750,000 would need to be spent on the project.

The council again heard public commentary about a homelessness outreach ministry in one of the city’s established parks – Liberty Plaza in downtown Ann Arbor, at Division and Liberty streets.

The council also approved revisions to collective bargaining agreements with the six unions in the police department, which gave members a 2% wage increase.

In a symbolic effort, the council voted to oppose expansion of I-94 in Detroit and I-75 in Oakland County – a proposal that’s part of SEMCOG’s 2040 Regional Transportation Plan with an estimated cost of $4 billion. SEMCOG subsequently adopted the plan.

The council put off voting on proposed changes to its internal rules, which could result in adding public commentary time at the council’s work sessions, but reducing the time allowed per turn from three minutes to two minutes. The council is expected to vote on the full set of rule changes at its July 1 meeting.

The proposed changes to the rules would move nominations and confirmation of appointments to a slot near the start of the meeting, instead of its current position near the end. For the June 17 meeting, the council’s confirmations came after midnight – and included reappointment of Bonnie Bona to the planning commission, and LuAnne Bullington to the taxicab board.

15th District Court

A number of items on the June 17 agenda related to the 15th District Court – either directly or indirectly.

15th District Court: City FY 2013 Budget Adjustment

The council was asked to make changes to the FY 2013 budget – which ends on June 30 – totaling $567,000 for the general fund. Much of that stemmed from additional expenses incurred by the 15th District Court. [.pdf of proposed amendments]

The 15th District Court’s portion of that adjustment stemmed from $112,000 in salary increases based on an interest in retaining employees, $203,000 due to a “catch up” payment to the law firm that provides indigent representation, and a back-bill for security from Washtenaw County for two fiscal years for $110,000.

General information about the court’s wage increases – authorized by chief judge Libby Hines in October 2012 and the focus of council inquiry at the council’s June 17 meeting – was known to the council before its May 20, 2013 meeting, when councilmembers voted to approve next year’s FY 2014 budget. [.pdf of May 13, 2013 memo on 15th District Court expenses] That FY 2014 budget incorporated the wage increases going forward.

As it related to the court, the council’s May 20, 2013 deliberations on the FY 2014 budget were in the context of reducing the court’s budget in order to fund three police officer positions – a proposal put forward by Jane Lumm (Ward 2). 15th District Court administrator Keith Zeisloft was present at that meeting and took questions about the salary increases at that time. However, Lumm’s FY 2014 budget amendment failed on a 5-6 vote.

15th District Court administrator Keith Zeisloft and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) before the June 17 meeting started.

Subsequently, Zeisloft provided a memo to the council in advance of its June 17 meeting, giving a more detailed explanation of the salary increases. The judges, magistrate and Zeisloft were excluded from the increases. The majority of other staff received a 0-3% increase. Administrative staff received an average 4.85% increase based on the conclusion that they were under-compensated compared to their peers in other courts.

The case management staff received an average of 4.22% raises based on increased supervisory responsibilities. Judicial staff averaged a 4.76% increase based on increased specialty court responsibilities. The highest increases, averaging 18.15%, were given to probation officers who were found to be significantly under-compensated compared to their peers, and who had increased multi-jurisdictional, specialty court responsibilities. [.pdf of responses from 15th District Court to councilmember inquiries]

The block of items related to the 15th District Court were moved up on the agenda at the start of the meeting, in deference to the fact that three judges and the court administrator were in attendance.

15th District Court: City FY 2013 Budget Adjustment – Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off the discussion by proposing an amendment that eliminated the $112,000 budget adjustment for the 15th District Court salary increases – which had been approved by chief Judge Libby Hines in late 2012. Briere contended that the regular processes weren’t followed for the wage increases, venturing that the chief judge had overstepped her bounds. Briere was not satisfied with the mechanism by which the wage increases were approved, saying they were “not properly done.”

The overall tone of the ensuing interaction between the three judges and the council was consistent with the language Zeisloft had provided in his memo. Responding to a question about the ability of the city council to control the court’s spending decisions, the memo states:

Although City Council has authority to establish a total annual budget for the Court, and with all respect due to Council, the Court declines to accept that City Council has authority to direct, control, approve or disapprove specific expenditures, including but not limited to compensation of judicial employees. However, legalities aside, the Court has always sought a respectful and cordial relationship with Council and City Administration, and the Court’s budget history demonstrates that the Court has been a prudent and careful custodian of public funds, at times even to the disadvantage of the Court’s own interests.

At the meeting, Zeisloft generally deferred questions to the judges of the court, who were all in attendance: Judges Chris Easthope, Libby Hines and Joe Burke are all standing at the podium. However, Zeisloft also responded to particular items.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) followed up on the salary increases – which were implemented in October 2012 – asking for a breakdown of the $112,000. Relying on figures from the city’s finance department, Zeisloft gave the breakdown as follows: compensation ($115,000), overtime ($10,000), temporary pay ($19,000) and vacancies (-$32,000) for a total of $112,000. The annual cost going forward was calculated at $193,000. Zeisloft had prefaced his remarks by saying that the information hadn’t been distributed to councilmembers because he didn’t have the information earlier. Lumm asked for the information to be provided in writing.

Hines told the council she respects the separation of powers, but she asserted the authority of the chief judge to increase salaries. The court has never asked the city for permission to do that in her 22 years on the bench. She pointed out the money that the court has managed to return to the city in past years when it has come in under budget. Zeisloft’s memo put the figures as follows: for FY 2002 through FY 2012, the council had budgeted a total of $41,865,240 from the general fund for court operations. Over that period, the court spent only $40,435,613, for a net return to the city budget of $1,429,627.

Hines put the salary increases in the context of retaining employees. She described past pay cuts and freezes. She also described a gross disparity in pay between the probation officers in the 15th District Court compared to other courts. And she added that while the court had worked with the city’s HR department, the court had not asked permission to implement the raises. The court is not overpaying its employees by any means, she said, concluding that she felt the pay raises were only reasonable.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) disagreed with the narrative of the “honorable judges,” citing the decrease in cases handled by the court. The workload has come down, Kailasapathy contended. She was relying on the data that the court had provided to the council earlier in the year:

By way of background, Ann Arbor’s caseload downward trends are in line with the overall trend for other comparable courts [.pdf of caseload trends for 15th District Court]:

               Misdem       Civil Inf    Gen Civil
D15 Ann Arbor  3,109 ‐31%   13,894 ‐49%  1,742 ‐16%

-

Easthope said the 15th District Court was trying to be in the lead in reducing its costs. He allowed that the caseload had gone down, but the number of employees had also gone down, he contended.

The city’s comprehensive financial reports show 41 FTEs (full-time equivalents) for the court in 2007 compared to 36 in 2012:

15th District Court historical FTE count. (Data from city records, chart by The Chronicle)

Hines said that the kind of cases that had gone down – civil infractions – were not the kind that reduce judge and staff time. Hines returned to her earlier point about the basis for the salary increases – the challenge of retaining employees.

Briere said she’s not unsympathetic to the situation. But she felt the salary increases should have been considered as part of the standard budgeting process. The money should have been built into the FY 2013 budget, Briere contended. She agreed with the need to compensate the court staff – but a standard increase in salary should have been included in previous year’s budget.

Burke offered his perspective of the newest judge of the court, telling the council that when he became a judge, Hines and Easthope had sat him down and talked to him about the employees and the need for retention. He said that in making the salary increases, they had followed the normal procedures that anyone would in determining the amounts of the increases – gathering comparative data and the like. The one thing that they had not done was ask the city council. Responding to Briere’s point about budgeting, Burke said the court had calculated that the salary increases would come in within the court’s FY 2013 budget – but they had been wrong. It was a point to which Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) returned later in the deliberations, telling Burke that he appreciated the fact the court had acknowledged that its math was off.

Kailasapathy then cited a Michigan Supreme Court administrative order. It appears to say that if the court uses a line item budget, there are restrictions on what the court can do.

From Administrative Order No. 1998-5, which applies to district courts, among others.

II. COURT BUDGETING If the local funding unit requests that a proposed court budget be submitted in line-item detail, the chief judge must comply with the request. If a court budget has been appropriated in line-item detail, without prior approval of the funding unit, a court may not transfer between line-item accounts to: (a) create new personnel positions or to supplement existing wage scales or benefits, except to implement across the board increases that were granted to employees of the funding unit after the adoption of the court’s budget at the same rate, or (b) reclassify an employee to a higher level of an existing category. A chief judge may not enter into a multiple-year commitment concerning any personnel economic issue unless: (1) the funding unit agrees, or (2) the agreement does not exceed the percentage increase or the duration of a multiple-year contract that the funding unit has negotiated for its employees. Courts must notify the funding unit or a local court management council of transfers between lines within 10 business days of the transfer. The requirements shall not be construed to restrict implementation of collective bargaining agreements.

Zeisloft responded to Kailasapathy by saying that the court submits a budget in a line item form only as a courtesy. It’s a function of the city’s financial software. Tom Crawford, the city’s CFO, followed up with the additional explanation that the city requires all the component units to submit line item budgets, but the city council authorizes the budgets by fund. Kailasapathy returned to her question about the administrative order.

Easthope, a former city councilmember, stated that the council has the authority to set a lump sum budget for the court. But the council doesn’t have the ability to change line items, he said. Easthope reiterated the description of the court as a separate branch of government. There was some unclarity expressed about where the comparative salary data had come from and who had gathered it. About the comparative salary data and its source, Easthope stated that the Supreme Court administrative office had provided all the comparative data. Hines had not simply said, “You get a raise and you get a raise …”

Considerable back-and-forth ensued between Kailasapathy and Zeisloft on the way the HR department of the city had been involved in the compensation adjustment amount. No formal report had been requested from HR, Zeisloft confirmed.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked for clarification of the administrative order on line item budgeting. and what happens if the council doesn’t approve the adjustment. That is, what happens if Briere’s amendment passes? Crawford indicated that the city would probably receive a formal note from the city’s auditor next year. The money has already been spent, Warpehoski ventured. Crawford indicated agreement that it would be difficult to stop the expenditures before the fiscal year ends on June 30.

Lumm then confirmed with Crawford that court employee checks are processed through the city. In describing the fact that the court had exceeded its budget this year (FY 2013), Lumm said that the court’s budget seems to be “optional.” But picking up on Warpehoski’s point – that the council essentially needs to approve the budget adjustment or accept a negative note on the audit of its financial statements next year – Lumm ventured that there doesn’t seem to be an option not to make the adjustment. Easthope contended that the court was actually under the budget by $99,000. Lumm wanted to follow up later on that, indicating that Easthope’s remarks weren’t consistent with the information the council had received.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Kunselman asked what Burke thought the consequence should be: Should the council just cover the amount of the salary increases? In the short term, Burke replied, yes. He said the court doesn’t spend money like drunken sailors. Burke indicated that there is a clear understanding on the court’s part that the council would not want to hear next year at this time that the court had the same issue.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) ventured that the council had engaged in a full conversation, but it’s a simple question. The court had diligently determined that their line workers’ wages were below market, Taylor concluded. And the council has already approved the increases going forward, he noted, when it approved the FY 2014 budget. So Taylor indicated he’d vote against Briere’s amendment. Mayor John Hieftje confirmed with Crawford that the budget resolution basically recognizes reality.

Briere indicated that her intent was not to force the court into a deficit. The court’s staff should not be penalized for the actions of their supervisors. So she’d withdraw her amendment. But she said the court should have done a better job of communicating, and she stated she would remember the situation without fondness. Kailasapathy, who seconded the amendment, hesitated for several seconds before agreeing with Briere to withdraw it.

With that amendment withdrawn, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) moved on to the indigent representation and the security services issue. Zeisloft characterized those as an unusual circumstance, that should not arise again in the future. Easthope noted that the special docket courts are operated at no cost to the city.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) returned to the issue of the salary increases, picking up on the historical pattern that Hines had cited of the court coming in under budget and returning money to the city. Why were salary increases not undertaken during the period when the court was returning money to the city? If the court had the ability to give raises without asking permission from the city, why didn’t the court give the raises at that time – when the court had the money?

As far as the idea that the court was trying to mirror the city organization’s approach of not giving raises during the period of the economic downturn, Higgins pointed out that the city had not given its employees the kind of raises the court had implemented over the last year. So she didn’t see the mirroring play out.

Burke ventured that unfortunately the court did not get the opportunity to come before the council to say that it was returning money to the city. It was only when more money was needed that court officials came to the council. Higgins complained that she felt blindsided, because the court did not come to the council and communicate that to the council about a major increase.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Briere ventured that it’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission. Burke responded by saying he felt Briere’s remark was “[holding his fingers apart to indicate an increment] this much of a cheap shot.” Briere told Burke it was OK that he felt that way, because she felt the other way – that in years past when the court knew it had outstanding debts to the county for security services, for example, but had returned money to the city, to her that was a problem. Briere also alluded to the issue with the court’s math, which Kunselman had also noted. Briere indicated that she had great respect for the court and the work that it did. But it was a “big chunk” to come to the council with at the last meeting in June.

Burke said that if his mathematical competence was being questioned, then he could live with that. But if Briere was saying that the court didn’t come to the council even though it knew that it should have, then “I’m sorry, but you’re just wrong about that. We are separate branches of government and what you’re talking about is an integrity issue.”

City administrator Steve Powers shared his perspective as a former county administrator working three different courts. Prior to his taking the city administrator position in September 2011, he felt there hadn’t been enough consultation and communication between the city and the 15th District Court. So he’d met with the chief judge and the court administrator. He accepted responsibility for not bringing the communication back from the court and not updating the council. Going forward, the consultation with the court would be important so that these issues don’t arise in the future, Powers said. He stressed the importance of the two branches of government doing things in consultation, not confrontation.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the FY 2013 budget adjustments, over the lone dissent of Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

15th District Court: Indigent Representation

Two agenda items related to the law firm that provides indigent representation for defendants in the 15th District Court.

Nader Nassif with Nassif and Reiser, P.L.L.C., which does business as Model Cities Legal Services. Nassif also serves on the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. In the foreground is 15th District Court judge Chris Easthope.

The 15th District Court is required to provide representation to those who cannot afford an attorney, if a conviction would result in jail time.

The council was asked to approve a $240,000 flat-fee contract for representation of indigent defendants – with Nassif and Reiser, P.L.L.C. (f/k/a Funkhouser and Nassif, P.L.L.C.), d/b/a Model Cities Legal Services (“MCLS”). The contract covers FY 2014, which begins July 1.

The reason the contract was structured as a flat fee is that MCLS had customarily delayed billing for services until a defendant’s case was completely closed or additional court action was deemed unlikely.

Even after a guilty verdict, defendants remain under court supervision and can be subject to other court orders.

Delayed billing resulted in another agenda item requesting that the council cover $203,000 of fees to “catch up” the billing.

15th District Court: Indigent Representation – Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated that the contracting party is a client of his law firm. He asked the council to vote to excuse him from voting.

They did so, and Taylor took a seat in the audience.

Lumm asked Zeisloft if the court had considered issuing an RFP (request for proposals) for the service. Zeisloft described the negotiation between the court and the law firm. He indicated that the court had not considered issuing an RFP, but it would be possible. Model Cities, however, provides the service at a very competitive cost, he said.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) sat in the audience as the contracts for indigent representation were discussed.

Easthope explained that Model Cities doesn’t just stand in court – they provide far more than that. There’s a value that’s hard to represent, and it doesn’t have to do with just the lowest price. Model Cities has a personal connection to all the social services agencies, Easthope explained.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the two resolutions related to Model Cities for legal services.

15th District Court: Security Billing

In addition to an FY 2013 budget adjustment that included back-billing for security services, the council was asked to approve next year’s $160,000 contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office for weapons screening at the Justice Center, which houses the 15th District Court. The estimated annual cost is based on $25.25 per hour per court security officer. The estimated maximum annual cost of $160,000 is $27,000 less than last year. The money comes from the 15th District Court’s budget.

During deliberations, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) got clarification on the way the cost of the contract was estimated. Zeisloft explained that it’s based on a wage rate of $25.25 per hour. The reduction from the $187,000 for the previous year was due to a reduction in the projected number of hours that would be worked, he said, not a reduction in the wage rate.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the weapons screening contract.

15th District Court: Specialized Courts

Two other items related to the 15th District Court appeared initially on the council’s consent agenda, a group of items considered routine and voted on as a group. The council was asked to approve $30,000 for a Sobriety Court grant program contract with the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO) to provide mental health treatment to 15th District Court defendants. And the council was asked to approve $65,000 for a Sobriety Court grant program contract with Dawn Farm for in-patient and out-patient drug abuse counseling to 15th District Court defendants.

At Sabra Briere’s (Ward 1) request, the Dawn Farm item was pulled out for separate consideration, because the item included a request for a waiver of the city’s living wage ordinance. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, Dawn Farm employs 70 people, including 15 employees who are paid less than $12.52 per hour with health care coverage, and 18 people who are compensated at rates less than $13.96 per hour without health care coverage. Those are the rates specified in the city’s living wage ordinance.

Last fall the council engaged in a vigorous discussion of a living wage ordinance waiver for Community Action Network (CAN), which ultimately resulted in the granting of a waiver for that nonprofit at the council’s Nov. 8, 2012 meeting.

From left: Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

Briere led off the discussion saying she wasn’t satisfied with the answers she’s received to questions she had asked about the living wage ordinance exemption that had been requested by Dawn Farm. She wanted to know if the item could be postponed so that adequate answers could be given.

Judge Joe Burke, who runs the Sobriety Court, explained to Briere that the court’s application for a grant was due on Friday, June 21 – so postponement would be difficult. Burke indicated that he was the one who’d asked for the living wage ordinance exemption – and that was based on communication from Jim Balmer, executive director of Dawn Farm, who’d reported that Dawn Farm can’t comply with the living wage.

Burke said he couldn’t speak for Dawn Farm but could speak about Dawn Farm. Briere interrupted Burke, apologizing for doing so, but stressed that her concern was not with Dawn Farm but rather with the living wage compliance: “I just don’t want you to spend too much time telling us what we all agree are the virtues of Dawn Farm as an entity and the work they do for the Sobriety Court.” Burke stressed that Balmer agreed with the city’s living wage ordinance, but was not in a financial position to comply, and Balmer had wanted to be honest about that. Burke then went on to explain the importance of the work that Dawn Farm does in support of the Sobriety Court.

Briere indicated that she didn’t see a process in the application for the living wage exemption that would eventually lead to compliance. Just as working toward sobriety has steps, Briere said, working toward financial solvency also has steps. Her problem was with the exemption, not the contract.

By way of background, the point Briere was raising related to conditions on the exemption that the council can grant under the ordinance. The Ann Arbor’s living wage ordinance reads in relevant part [emphasis added]:

… provided further that the otherwise covered non-profit employer shall provide a written plan to fully comply with this Chapter within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed three years, and the City Council then agrees that granting a partial or complete exemption is necessary to ameliorate the harm and permit the non-profit organization sufficient time to reach full compliance with this Chapter.

Briere wanted that process to be included in the application for the exemption.

Outcome: The Dawn Farm contract, with the three-year exemption from the city’s living wage ordinance, was granted by the council over dissent from Sabra Briere (Ward 1). She did not insist on a roll call vote.

Wind Energy

The council had previously voted unanimously at its Jan. 7, 2013 meeting to approve the acceptance of a roughly $950,000 U.S. Department of Energy grant for installation of a wind generator project. On June 17, the council was asked to spend about $50,000 of the proceeds of that grant on the initial environmental assessment, required before the project can proceed. The specific item on which the council was asked to vote was a contract with CDM Smith to perform an environmental analysis (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which includes public engagement.

The wind generator item was on the consent agenda, but was pulled out for separate consideration.

Wind Energy: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) led off discussion by saying that she’d learned that day that the proposal is to place a wind turbine at Pioneer High School. She felt it was unfortunate that an initial decision had been made to place the generator on the high school property, without more community outreach – but she allowed that part of CDM Smith’s scope of work would include public engagement.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) followed up on Lumm’s remarks by reporting that she’d received a letter from a University of Michigan physics professor – Gregory Tarlè – on the topic of the wind generator. She read aloud some concerns outlined by him in his message:

I am currently teaching a class “Energy for our Future” at the University of Michigan. One of the first things we learn when studying wind power is that the power you can get from a wind turbine goes as the cube of the wind velocity. Effective wind turbines must be sited in places where the wind velocity is high and steady or where there are frequent high velocity gusts. Attached is a map of US Wind Resources from the Department of Energy. As you can see, wind resources are marginal at best in Ann Arbor but are excellent offshore in the Great Lakes. Winds increase with altitude (because of wind shear) and that is why large towers are needed. It is not educational to site wind turbines at sites selected for non scientific reasons.

Kailasapathy summarized Tarlè’s remarks by saying that the only thing this turbine would teach students is that if you place a windmill where there’s no wind, then it won’t move. She didn’t think that’s worth $1 million. She regretted voting for the project earlier, but it’s not too late, she said. She allowed that it was federal dollars, but that’s still taxpayer money and it’s the council’s duty to be a good steward, she said.

City utilities engineer Brian Steglitz, who’s managing the wind generator project, and public services area administrator Craig Hupy were on hand to answer questions. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Steglitz to explain why it’s a good project. He characterized it as a demonstration program for wind energy in an urban environment. The city went through a competitive process with the Department of Energy to obtain the grant, he said. The partnership the city is working on with Wind Products – the company that will install the wind generator – would include a guarantee that the turbine will produce a minimum amount of energy. Wind Products had also looked at wind maps, Steglitz said, and looked at the cut-in speeds for the turbines to evaluate how much of the time the windmills would actually be spinning. Based on that analysis, Wind Products was willing to guarantee a minimum amount of power. The project is also part of the city’s goal to generate alternative energy, Steglitz said.

Briere indicated she’d heard from others that there’s no way the wind generator could produce enough electricity to pay for itself. Steglitz noted that the data provided by Wind Products indicated that the 60kW turbine would not generate a tremendous amount of power, but it would offset some of the power needs of the high school. Wind Products would subsidize any possible shortfall in power generation. The power that the school would purchase from the developer will cost less than conventional power, Steglitz said, which is part of the school district’s incentive to participate in the program – to realize a few thousand dollars worth of electricity savings per year. The city’s role is more like a broker between Wind Products and the school district.

Later in the meeting, Kailasapathy asked if the estimates for energy production were independently verified by a third party. Hupy explained that they had not been verified, but that the estimates would be tied to a financial commitment from Wind Products – that it would subsidize any shortfall in power production.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked for more information about the Ann Arbor Public Schools participation in the project. Once the generator is installed, who takes over from there? If AAPS cuts its budget, will it possibly cut support for the turbine? Steglitz indicated that the AAPS will lease the space for the turbine and purchase the power. That’s the extent of AAPS participation. Wind Products would maintain and operate the generator, he explained. Later in the council’s deliberations, information in the staff memo accompanying the resolution was drawn out – that the city would eventually own the generator:

It is anticipated that the wind turbine(s) will be located on AAPS property, that the wind turbine(s) will be owned or purchased by the City, that the developer will construct the wind turbine(s), and that the AAPS will purchase the power from the wind turbine(s) under a power purchase agreement. While the City, AAPS and Wind Products have been meeting and continue to work to come to terms on the several agreements so that they can be ready to be brought forward for review and approval once the NEPA EA and public engagement process are completed and accepted by the DOE.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

Petersen ventured that AAPS will have a financial upside, which Steglitz confirmed.

Hupy explained that the item the council was being asked to approve provided funding to look at the environmental impact of the turbine. In arguing against the approval, Lumm cited the same letter from Tarlè that Kailasapathy had mentioned.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked how the public would be notified about the public engagement process. Steglitz explained that the intent would be to broaden the scope beyond the standard requirement that residents within 500 feet be notified. He described how the process would include the city’s public engagement “toolbox.” The intent, Steglitz said, was to conduct public engagement and environmental review over the next six months, and to have the review and assessment finished by the end of the 2013 calendar year.

Higgins ventured that it’ll be a lively debate about whether a wind turbine should be placed at Pioneer High School. Responding to a question from Higgins about the city’s financial commitment, Steglitz described it as around $18,000 worth of staff time. Higgins said she was willing to let the debate unfold and not get in the way of it. She confirmed with Hupy that before any further city commitment is made, the council would have to approve it.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked for a refresher on the height of the pole where the wind-turbine would be mounted. Steglitz explained that it’d be about 120 feet tall with a 60-foot diameter blade. Kunselman concluded it’s not really a “turbine” but rather just a “generator.” [Kunselman's day job at UM is as energy liaison with Planet Blue.] He felt that the generator will actually be generating a decent amount of electricity given its educational, demonstration purpose. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) also expressed his support for the project based on its educational impact.

Lumm allowed that she had voted to accept the federal grant back in January. But she’d learned a lot since that vote was taken, she said. She wouldn’t support taking the next step based on the idea that it would be sited in a location that doesn’t have much wind.

As a partial counter to Lumm’s complaint that there had not been community outreach on the siting of the generator, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) ventured that public outreach wouldn’t happen unless the city hired CDM Smith to do the public outreach, which the council was being asked to approve. That process would help determine whether this is an appropriate site, she ventured. Steglitz confirmed that’s correct. Briere wondered what the alternative locations are. Steglitz indicated that there aren’t really any alternative sites. Hupy confirmed that the city has looked extensively, even as far north as East Lansing – where it might be sited with a maize-and-blue pole, he quipped. City administrator Steve Powers subsequently assured the council that Hupy was not joking about the idea of trying to find a location in East Lansing.

Petersen wanted to know if anyone from AAPS was at the council meeting to talk about the educational component – no one was. Kailasapathy questioned the idea that there could be an educational benefit, if the generator were to be located in East Lansing. Hupy explained how utility regulations require that the power be consumed on the site where it’s generated. Transmission over lines to be used in other locations isn’t allowed except with permission of the electric utility.

Kailasapathy raised a question about noise created by the generator. Steglitz explained that the noise issue would be part of the environmental assessment.

From left: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

In the course of the council’s discussion, the email from Tarlè had been sent to all councilmembers, and Kunselman took the opportunity to comment on it in more detail. He stressed that Tarlè seemed to be talking about wind-farm sized turbines – not the size of the generator that the city is considering. What the city is considering, he said, is a 60 kW wind generator that will be running about 30% of the time. And part of that time, students would have the opportunity to look at a data center that shows all the data. That’s the educational component of the project, he said. And the money is Dept. of Energy grant money, not city money, Kunselman added. He concluded that the city should move forward with the project.

Mayor John Hieftje weighed in for the resolution, saying it’s worth exploring the next stage of the project. Hieftje said he wants to follow the lead of the DoE. Lumm responded to Hieftje’s argument based on the DoE, by questioning whether the DoE is aware of the power generation estimates. Hieftje ventured that DoE is aware of the educational nature of the project.

Outcome: The contract with CDM Smith to conduct an environmental assessment for the wind generator project was approved over dissent from Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Video Privacy Ordinance

The council was asked to give initial approval to an ordinance regulating the use of public surveillance cameras in the city.

The council had previously postponed the item at its May 20, 2013 meeting. Before that, the council had postponed the item at its April 15 meeting – due to the length of that meeting – and again on May 6. [.pdf of ordinance as presented to the council on April 15, 2013]

The new ordinance would apply only to a limited range of cameras – those used by the city of Ann Arbor “to monitor human activity without the physical presence of an operator, including cameras on remotely operated aerial vehicles.”

The ordinance would not apply to a range of city of Ann Arbor cameras, for example: cameras used to improve traffic design, security cameras operating in jails, prisons, water treatment facilities, public housing facilities, or the Ann Arbor Airport and other governmental facilities.

The new ordinance would allow for public surveillance cameras to be installed for 15 days or less at the discretion of the city administrator if the purpose is to address a specific criminal problem.

The council’s consideration of the topic dates back a few years. Former Ward 1 councilmember Sandi Smith had announced at a council meeting on Aug. 4, 2011 that she’d be bringing a video surveillance ordinance for consideration at the council’s Sept. 6, 2011 meeting. And a year before that she’d indicated the city’s human rights commission would be working on the issue.

Video Privacy Ordinance: Council Deliberations

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) introduced the ordinance. He noted that while Chief John Seto was out of town and not available to answer questions about the potential impact of the ordinance on law enforcement activity. Still, Warpehoski asked his colleagues to move the change forward to a second reading. He characterized the ordinance as striking a balance between the right to privacy and the interests of law enforcement. In light of the full agenda that night, Warpehoski suggested a more in-depth discussion when it came back for second and final reading.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked for a clarification of some of the changes that had been made to the proposed ordinance. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) thanked Warpehoski for his work, but said that this ordinance was not her favorite idea.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated she was hoping it would be postponed, citing Seto’s absence. She also noted that new revisions had been given to the council only last night. She didn’t think the council should pass ordinances at the first reading just to get them to the second reading. So she said she wouldn’t be supporting it.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) appreciated Warpehoski’s work to bring the ordinance forward. But he felt it’s a solution in search of a problem. He knew he wouldn’t support it when it came to the second reading – because he felt it tied the city administrator’s hands. Privacy is already protected, he contended. And surveillance cameras do work, he said, giving the West Willow neighborhood as an example. He asked: Where’s the budget for this? Asking the city administrator to run around getting permissions from residents didn’t seem sensible, Kunselman said.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) indicated support for postponement and made a motion to postpone. Warpehoski seconded that motion. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated support for the postponement, but said he’d have probably been inclined to support it at first reading.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone the video privacy ordinance until July 1, when police chief John Seto will be available.

Fire Code

The council was asked to give initial approval to an amendment to Chapter 111 (Fire Prevention) of the city code so that it refers to the 2009 International Fire Code instead of the 2003 version.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) indicated that he’d support the ordinance at first reading, but he had some concerns about the inspection of certain areas. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked fire chief Chuck Hubbard about the frequency and cost of fire inspections. Hubbard contrasted inspections with re-inspections. If there are violations found, then an inspector will return to confirm that the violation has been corrected – and that’s a re-inspection. Hubbard allowed that inspections have been stepped up. It’s being done for the benefit to the property owners, he said.

Ann Arbor fire inspections: 2006-2012. (Data is from city financial records. Chart by The Chronicle.)

City administrator Steve Powers indicated that the performance of the fire inspection program is being reviewed. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that the building department is already using the 2009 code, but the fire department is using the 2003 code. What are the differences? Kunselman got confirmation that the council’s approval is more or less a formality. It’s like “housekeeping.”

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked how many staff are allocated to fire inspections. Hubbard told Anglin it’s been increased from three people to seven. Anglin felt the overall safety of the community was being improved through that effort.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he’s delighted that the city is conducting more fire inspections.

Outcome: The council voted to give initial approval to the adoption of the 2009 fire code.

Billboard Ordinance

The council was asked to give final approval to an ordinance change that would restrict the way that digital technology could be incorporated into outdoor signs. It would also prevent any digital technology retrofitting of existing billboards, and prohibit billboards generally – although the 28 existing billboards citywide would be allowed to continue as non-conforming structures. The change had been given initial approval by the council and had been up for final action twice before – most recently, on May 6, 2013. Action on May 6 was to postpone a final decision – until the council’s June 17 meeting. [.pdf file of map showing billboard locations in the city]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) introduced the agenda item, describing it as enforcing the status quo. He described some changes that had been made to the proposed ordinance revisions, compared to those already given initial approval by the council. One is an exception for churches and schools. The definition of “changeable” copy had also been revised. Taylor said it’s important that billboards not expand beyond their current status.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) reported that he’s heard close to zero support for expanding billboards to use digital technology – other than from those in the outdoor sign industry. He’d heard no support for digital signs to the point where he felt there was a clear consensus for that point of view.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) argued that if Ann Arbor wants to be a tech town, then preserving the status quo is too conservative. She cited the possible negative impact on economic development. The ordinance changes promote blight by not allowing existing billboards to be removed and replaced with new ones, she contended. So she’d oppose the ordinance change. She pointed out that the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) relies on digital technology to convey messages along the highways. She called for a more comprehensive look at the ordinance. It’s way too conservative for a town that wants to move forward with technology, she said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) ventured that the Ann Arbor Public Schools district is unlikely to go ahead with a proposal to contract with Adams Outdoor Advertising on school property. She said that two of the digital signs proposed by Adams Outdoor Advertising were in Ward 1 – which she represents. The idea of having digital signs there didn’t make her happy, but she conceded she was perhaps an old fogey.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked the city staff for all their research and their work on the ordinance. She thought the proposed changes were reasonable, so she’d be supporting the ordinance change.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) thanked the staff for their work. He said it’s clear that the community doesn’t want any more visual intrusion. He characterized the ordinance change as not an anti-business proposal, but rather a pro-community move.

Outcome: The council voted to give final approval to the billboard ordinance, over dissent from Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Fireworks Ordinance

The council was asked to consider a revision to the city ordinance on fireworks. The impact on the upcoming July 4 holiday would be that fireworks use would be limited in Ann Arbor to the time between 8 a.m. and midnight. A necessary revision to state law, in order to make the city’s action legal, had already been passed by the Michigan House and Senate when the council met. It awaited only signature by the governor’s office, which it subsequently received two days later on June 19.

The revision to the city’s fireworks ordinance was given initial approval at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting. The impact of the ordinance change is to restrict the use of fireworks on July 3-5 to the period between 8 a.m. and midnight on those days. The ordinance change applies to other national holidays as well. On New Year’s Day, however, the time extends to 1 a.m.

The local ordinance change is made possible by the change to state law, which previously did not allow local governments to regulate fireworks for a continuous 72-hour period – for the day preceding a national holiday, the national holiday, and the day following the national holiday. The statutory change makes it possible for a local government to regulate the time of fireworks use around the time of national holidays.

Fireworks Ordinance: Public Hearing

Two people spoke at the public hearing on the fireworks ordinance change. Thomas Partridge said that July 4 should be a celebration of civil rights and human rights. He objected to celebrating the holiday with fireworks. Michael Benson asked the council to consider allowing people to apply for a permit to use fireworks on other days. He wondered what other costs could be imposed by the ordinance language “plus costs” that are mentioned in connection to a $500 fine.

Outcome: After a brief introduction by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), the council voted to give final approval to the fireworks ordinance.

CIL Parking for The Varsity

The council was asked to approve a change to the development agreement between the city and The Varsity – a 13-story, 177,180-square-foot apartment building containing 181 dwelling units (415 bedrooms). The council’s requested action was essentially a confirmation of an Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority decision to award the right to purchase a total of seven monthly permits, at a 20% premium cost.

The Varsity is located at 425 E. Washington St. in downtown Ann Arbor. Based on zoning requirements, 76 off-street parking spaces are required. Only 69 were provided on site. The others were provided through the contribution in lieu (CIL) program. The seven spaces were approved by the Ann Arbor DDA at its June 5, 2013 meeting. It falls to the DDA to make a decision on the CIL spaces, because the DDA administers the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city.

Outcome: After a recitation of the situation’s background by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), the council voted to approve the revision to the development agreement.

Site Plans, Brownfield Plans

At its June 17 meeting, the city council was asked to give approvals in connection with three developments.

Site Plan: State Street Center

One request was a site plan approval for the State Street Center, near the intersection of South State and Ellsworth. The project calls for demolishing a vacant 840-square-foot house on this site. In its place, the developer plans a one-story, 1,700-square-foot drive-thru Jimmy John’s restaurant facing South State Street. A one-story, 6,790-square-foot retail building will be built behind the restaurant. The rezoning of the parcel for this site plan was given final approval at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to approve the State Street Center site plan.

Site Plan, Brownfield Plan: 544 Detroit St.

The council was also asked to approve the site plan for 544 Detroit St. – a three-story building with offices on the first floor and residences on the upper two floors. It’s a “planned project” to allow an additional 3.5 feet of building height for a “decorative parapet” on the building’s north end and a stair enclosure to access a roof deck.

A rendering that shows the proposed design for 544 Detroit St., at the corner of Detroit and North Division.

For the 544 Detroit St. project, the council was also asked to approve a brownfield plan. According to a staff memo, the brownfield component – which allows tax increment financing (TIF) to reimburse the developer for eligible costs – includes a total of $698,773 in eligible activities. Some of those eligible activities include soil remediation ($174,620), infrastructure improvements ($70,350), and vapor mitigation ($32,000).

The planning commission gave the 544 Detroit St. project a recommendation of approval at its Dec. 18, 2012 meeting.

Site Plan, Brownfield Plan: 544 Detroit St. – Public Hearing

Jeff Crockett spoke in favor of the 544 Detroit St. project. He called it a responsive development. The site plan demonstrates serious consideration of citizen input, he said – and he knew of no one who opposed this project. He called for zoning laws that are not driven just by statistics, but rather are value-driven. Thomas Partridge also spoke on the 544 Detroit St. project, criticizing the fact that there was no attached requirement that the site provide affordable housing or access to public transportation.

Site Plan, Brownfield Plan: 544 Detroit St. – Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) mentioned briefly that this was one of the better brownfield projects the committee had seen. She serves on the city’s brownfield committee.

Outcome: The council voted to approve both the site plan and the brownfield plan for 544 Detroit.

Brownfield Plan: Packard Square

Finally, the council was asked to approve an amendment to a previously-approved brownfield plan for Packard Square, at the former site of the Georgetown Mall. The amendment adds to the list of eligible activities – including underground parking and urban stormwater management. The total cost of eligible activities is not changed. Demolition at the site began a few weeks ago.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked about payment of back taxes – the project is located in Ward 4. Nathan Voght of the Washtenaw County office of community and economic development, which manages the county’s brownfield redevelopment program, fielded Higgins’ questions. The indication was that the back taxes would be paid.

Higgins noted that the demolition is in progress, so Voght gave an update. May 28 was the start of demolition. The Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) indicated that additional asbestos mitigation was needed. Soil excavation to remove contamination is ongoing and a vapor barrier will probably need to be installed, Voght said. He thought by mid-July the demolition will be done. The developer indicated that construction would begin as soon as possible after that.

Higgins said that residents are pleased to see the project going forward. Mayor John Hieftje thanked Higgins for her efforts.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the Packard Square brownfield amendment.

$382K for Housing Commission

The council was asked to provide $382,000 of operational support to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

The resolution was held over from the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting. That’s when the council took several steps to move the Ann Arbor Housing Commission forward along a path to converting the properties it manages to project-based vouchers. A similar operations funding resolution had appeared on that meeting’s agenda, but was withdrawn.

The additional funding, according to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, is needed to mitigate against the impact of federal sequestration. The memo puts that impact at about $300,000 less for public housing and $50,000-$75,000 less for capital funding.

Of the total amount, $159,000 is appropriated from the city of Ann Arbor’s affordable housing trust fund, and $223,000 would be appropriated from the general fund. The city’s housing and human services advisory board had voted to recommend the $159,000 be appropriated from the affordable housing trust fund.

$382K for Housing Commission: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) introduced the resolution, noting that it will empty the affordable housing trust fund – but that fund will receive $100,000 on July 1, because of the budget allocation the council passed as part of the FY 2014 budget. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked city CFO Tom Crawford if there were sufficient funds in the general fund reserve to cover the allocation. Crawford projected a fund balance of $13.9 million at the end of the fiscal year. That’s about 17% of operating expenses. But he did have some concerns, Crawford said. At the end of FY 2015, based on the council’s recent action, the fund balance would be around 13%. In general, he has some concerns about how the fund balance is being used.

City administrator Steve Powers noted that the current council policy is to maintain 8-12% of operating expenses in the fund balance.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked Jennifer Hall, executive director of the AAHC, for her work.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the AAHC allocation.

Commitment of $750,000 for 721 N. Main

The council was asked to make a commitment of up to $750,000 from the city’s general fund – to undertake planned improvements to the city-owned property at 721 N. Main. The commitment is a requirement for a grant application that the city is making to the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund for $300,000.

If the city’s plan unfolds as it expects, then none of the $750,000 in general fund money would be needed.

The improvements to 721 N. Main have resulted from work done by a North Main Huron River corridor task force that has been working at the direction of the city council since the summer of 2012 to make recommendations for the corridor.

Of the $1.2 million estimated cost for the planned trail and stormwater improvements to the site, the city plans to use $150,000 from the city’s stormwater fund. To cover part of the remaining $1.05 million, the city hopes to use $600,000 from a grant it has applied for from the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) and the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) – through SEMCOG’s transportation alternatives program (TAP).

The council approved the application for the SEMCOG grant at its April 15, 2013 meeting. To cover the remaining $450,000, the city hopes to use $150,000 from a Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation Connecting Communities grant and $300,000 from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) grant. The council approved the application for those last two grants at its Dec. 17, 2012 meeting.

The council’s resolution considered on June 17 came in response to an MNRTF grant requirement that the council commit the city to funding the other grants itself – from general fund money – if those grants fail to materialize. The $750,000 figure comes from adding the $600,000 SEMCOG grant to the $150,000 Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation grant.

Commitment of $750,000 for 721 N. Main: Public Commentary

During public commentary time at the start of the meeting, Bob Galardi addressed the council on the MDNR grant application in connection with the city-owned property at 721 N. Main. He’s a member of the city’s park advisory commission, but spoke on behalf of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy. He’s president of the conservancy’s board. Galardi asked the council for their support of the resolution that commits the city to as much as $750,000 of general fund money for the project. The conservancy, he said, is confident that the grant funding for which the city has applied will materialize. [That would mean that the city wouldn't need to spend that money.]

Commitment of $750,000 for 721 N. Main: Council Deliberations

When she introduced the item, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) stressed that the commitment the council was being asked to make is not an expenditure.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked Briere for her service on the North Main Huron River task force. Lumm indicated support for the resolution. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wondered if any park millage dollars would be spent on this project. Briere noted that the property is not yet a park. When will it be a park? asked Kunselman. That’s a decision for the park advisory commission (PAC), not for her, Briere responded.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who serves as an ex officio member of PAC, noted that park staff are sensitive to the funding requirements of maintaining existing parks. Mayor John Hieftje described the general context of two city-owned properties – 415 W. Washington and 721 N. Main – and how those properties fit into the context of greenway planning. Hieftje talked about the need to focus on the provision for long-term maintenance.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said it’s important that this resolution commits money. Anglin said a chain of parks through the city – like the greenway – would have a positive economic impact.

Outcome: The council voted to commit the funds for the 721 N. Main site.

Pizza in the Park

Several speakers addressed the council in connection with a petition they delivered to the city – a copy of which was attached to the council’s electronic agenda. The petition asked the council to take action to ensure that no fees are required to be paid by organizations that are providing humanitarian aid in the city’s parks.

The general petition stemmed from concerns about protecting a specific event – Pizza in the Park, a homelessness ministry of the Vineyard Church that includes distribution of food and other aid at Liberty Plaza, located at Liberty and Division streets in downtown Ann Arbor. A few months ago, the parking of a vehicle in a private driveway and the subsequent application of a park shelter rental fee by the city led to protests raised during public commentary at the council’s May 20, 2013 meeting. Assurance was given at that meeting that the Pizza in the Park event could continue. That was affirmed when speakers again addressed the issue at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting.

Speakers on those occasions – many who are affiliated with Camp Take Notice, a self-governed homeless community – asked for a written assurance of the city’s commitment. During council communications time on June 17, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who serves as one of two city council ex officio representatives to the city’s park advisory commission (PAC), announced that PAC would be considering a related resolution at its meeting the next day. And on June 18, 2013 PAC considered and passed a resolution recommending the waiver of rental fees associated with Liberty Plaza – a waiver that would apply to any group. That recommendation will need the approval of the city council.

First to address the council on the topic during June 17 public commentary was Peggy Lynch, who took the podium to applause. She described an unmet and tragic humanitarian need in Ann Arbor. She thanked the council for the eliminating the fee that was being applied to Pizza in the Park at Liberty Plaza. But she was hopeful that the gentleman’s agreement could be replaced with something in writing. David Williams echoed the request for a written commitment.

Thomas Partridge assured the council that if he were elected mayor or councilmember, he would be giving voice to the concerns of the residents of Camp Take Notice. He called for the advancement of Dr. Martin Luther King’s civil rights agenda. He recalled King’s “I have a Dream” speech.

Jose Galofre addressed the council through a sign language interpreter, calling for the passage of an ordinance – put down in writing for the future to ensure that fees would not be applied to Pizza in the Park. Michael Ramirez told the council he has medical issues that require him to go to the University of Michigan health system, and he spoke in support of Pizza in the Park ministry. Christine Kern told the council she lives on the street with her boyfriend. They’d be sleeping outside that night. She recited a definition of basic human rights, and asked the council to enact an ordinance that protects the right to distribute humanitarian aid on public land.

At the end of the meeting during public commentary time, Seth Best and Peggy Lynch again addressed the council on the idea of the fee waiver for Liberty Plaza. They wanted something in writing – and they wanted it to be possible for humanitarian aid to be distributed in any park.

Caleb Poirer quipped that it felt wonderful staying up late with the council. [By that point, it was about 12:30 a.m.] It reminded him of staying up late as a kid, but with adults – just without “the blankets and the socks with the bottoms.” He allowed that there was a concern that someone could drive a semi-trailer truck through the loophole of the phrase “humanitarian aid.” But he asked the council to wrestle with the language that would make an ordinance work to allow humanitarian aid to be distributed. There are a lot of people who want to do kind things, he said, and urged the council not to let fees get in the way.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Millage Rate Correction

The council was asked to correct a .0031 error in the specification of the rate of the FY 2014 tax levy for the city’s park maintenance and capital improvements millage. The FY 2014 fiscal year begins on July 1.

The millage rate that was listed in the FY 2014 budget resolution – approved by the council at its May 20, 2013 meeting – was 1.0969 mills. The park maintenance and capital improvements millage should have been listed as 1.10 mills. The corresponding correction from the total millage rate was from 16.4470 to 16.4501 mills. Measured in dollars, the correction is estimated to bring in an additional $14,460 in revenue.

Outcome: After a brief introduction from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), the council approved the correction to the millage rate.

Police Unions Wage Bump

The council was asked to approve contracts with city police unions that award 2% and 1% wage increases.

Re-openers for the final year of their contracts resulted in new contracts with six police department unions: Teamster Civilian Supervisors, Teamsters Local 214; Police Professional Assistants, Teamsters Local 214; Ann Arbor Police Officers Association – Police Service Specialists; Command Officers Association of Michigan; Ann Arbor Police Officers Association; and Deputy Chiefs, Teamsters Local 214.

Membership in these unions breaks down as follows: Deputy Chiefs (2); Teamster Civilian Supervisors (35); Teamster Police Professionals (5); AAPOA (90); COAM (22); and Police Service Specialists (5).

Common to all the contracts is a 2% wage increase starting July 1, 2013 and a 1% increase starting Jan. 1, 2014.

Also common to the contracts is the acceptance of the change in pension board composition, which was approved by voters on Nov. 8, 2011 with a 68% majority. The change retained the body as a nine-member group but distributed the membership differently, as follows: (1) the city controller; (2) five citizens; (3) one from the general city employees; and (4) one each from police and fire employees. Eliminated from the mix was the city administrator.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) thanked the staff for their work. It’s the first time since she’s been on council that all the contracts have been resolved before expiration, she said. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked the staff and recited the nature of the agreements.

For the AAPOA an administrative correction was made to the phone allowance – $600, instead of $550.

The council voted to approve all the police department union contracts.

Resolution on SEMCOG Highway Plan

The council considered a resolution opposing the proposed expansion of I-94 in Detroit and I-75 in Oakland County.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

The Washtenaw County board of commissioners had passed a similar resolution at its June 5, 2013 meeting. The interstate highway expansion is a part of SEMCOG’s 2040 Regional Transportation Plan with an estimated cost of $4 billion.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) stated that there are a lot of good elements in the SEMCOG plan. But there are not forecasts for additional traffic and population, so it didn’t make sense to expand the highways instead of maintaining them.

Warpehoski then quoted Picasso in explaining where the text for the resolution had come from: “Good artists copy, great artists steal.” He’d copied much of the resolution from resolutions that have been passed by other municipalities.

Outcome: The council voted to pass the resolution opposing SEMCOG’s 2040 plan. SEMCOG’s general assembly subsequently voted to adopt the plan.

Annual Contracts: SPARK, Lobbyist

As part of its consent agenda, the council was asked to approve two annual contracts for services at its June 17 meeting. One was a $48,000 contract with Governmental Consultant Services Inc. (GCSI) for lobbying services with the state legislature. The council also approved a $75,000 contract with Ann Arbor SPARK for business support services.

Items on the consent agenda are considered routine, and include contracts for less than $100,000. They’re voted on as a group.

The contact with the economic development agency Ann Arbor SPARK is one that has been renewed annually since the Washtenaw Development Council and Ann Arbor SPARK merged in 2006. Previously, Ann Arbor had contracted with the WDC for the business support services for which it now contracts with SPARK. On June 20, 2005, the city council authorized that one-year contract with WDC for $40,000. The resolution authorizing the $75,000 contract with SPARK again this year describes the organization’s focus as “building our innovation-focused community through continual proactive support of entrepreneurs, regional businesses, university tech transfer offices, and networking organizations.”

Ann Arbor SPARK is also the contractor hired by the city’s local development finance authority (LDFA) to operate a business accelerator for the city’s SmartZone, one of 11 such districts established in the early 2000s by the Michigan Economic Development Corp. (MEDC). The SmartZone is funded by a tax increment finance (TIF) mechanism, for a TIF district consisting of the union of the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Downtown Development Authority districts.

Revenue is generated only in Ann Arbor’s district, and the LDFA is a component unit of the city’s budget. In the FY 2014 budget, the LDFA is expected to receive $1,655,647 in revenue. The specific taxes on which the increment since 2002 is captured are the school operating and state education taxes, which would otherwise be sent to the state and then redistributed back to local school districts.

GCSI’s Kirk Profit, an Ann Arbor area resident and former member of the state House of Representatives, typically makes an annual presentation to the council with an update on state-level legislative issues relevant to the city’s budget situation. Written updates to councilmembers on legislative activity are sent on a weekly or daily basis.

Outcome: As part of the consent agenda, councilmembers approved contracts with GCSI and Ann Arbor SPARK.

Council Rule Changes

The June 17 agenda included an item related to changes in the council rules. Possible changes include adding a period of public commentary to the council’s work sessions, but reducing public speaking time per turn from three minutes to two minutes. [.pdf of draft rules changes]

The procedure for reserving one of the 10 reserved speaking slots at the start of the meeting is also proposed to be revised. Only people who did not address the council at its immediately previous meeting would be eligible to reserve a slot. And of the 10 slots, eight would be designated for people who want to address the council on agenda action items. Two slots would be provided for those who want to address the council on any topic.

Councilmember speaking time is also proposed to be reduced. Councilmembers are allowed two speaking turns per agenda item. Under the current rules, time limits for those speaking turns are five minutes for the first turn and three minutes for the second turn. Under the proposal, those times would be reduced to three minutes and two minutes, respectively.

The proposed addition of an opportunity for public commentary at council work sessions would ensure that councilmembers could freely deliberate toward public policy decisions at those sessions and still conform to Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.

The proposed rules changes would move mayoral communications from the end of the meeting to a spot closer to the start of the meeting. That would give nominations to boards and commissions – which are a part of those communications – somewhat greater prominence.

[For previous Chronicle coverage, see: "Council Mulls Speaking Rule Changes."]

Council Rules Changes – Frequent Speakers

A consequence of reducing the speaking time limit from three minutes to two minutes is that the total speaking time a single speaker could take at a meeting would be reduced by one-third. It’s not unusual for a meeting to include a half dozen or more formal public hearings, in addition to the public commentary slots on the agenda. The June 17 meeting, for example, featured seven public hearings. With a three-minute time limit, it’s not uncommon that one person could have a total of about a half hour available to address the council.

Thomas Partridge typically reserves one of the 10 slots at the start of the meeting and speaks at most of the public hearings at any given meeting of the council – generally connecting his remarks to the topic of the hearing with general themes of affordable housing, transportation and education, as well as calls for social justice. Occasionally mayor John Hieftje, who presides over the council’s meetings, will deem Partridge’s remarks to be insufficiently related to the topic of the public hearing and admonish Partridge to stay on topic. The June 17 meeting featured one occasion when Hieftje offered that admonishment to Partridge.

And at the conclusion of the meeting’s seventh public hearing – on the brownfield plan for Packard Square – after  Partridge had held forth several times at previous hearings, Ann Arbor resident Todd McWilliams addressed the council, but not on the topic of the brownfield plan for Packard Square. He told the council he’d attended several of the council’s meetings over the last six months and wanted to address Partridge. McWilliams told Partridge that Partridge was doing an injustice to the public hearings, and was abusing the council’s time. At that point, McWilliams earned an admonishment from Hieftje to speak to the topic of the hearing.

Partridge responded to McWilliams from the audience by accusing McWilliams of abusing Partridge’s civil rights. McWilliams said: “There’s got to be another way of doing this; because this isn’t the right way to do it.” Partridge’s rejoinder was: “See you in court.”

Council Rules Change: Public Comment

During public commentary time at the conclusion of the meeting, two people addressed the council on the topic of the rules changes.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and resident Michael Benson. Benson serves on the city’s taxicab board.

Michael Benson thanked the council for staying late. He commended the rules committee, saying that the proposed rules represent a step forward. He suggested that reducing the speaking time from three minutes to two minutes might not be so bad, given that when people hand over written remarks to the clerk, those documents can eventually be added to the agenda. He told the council they should consider constraining their own question time during the meeting – as that was where the council spent the majority of its time. He also suggested that reserved time at the start of the meeting be confined to true action items.

Jeff Hayner thought it’s great that someone talked about the rules. He agreed with Benson’s point about the ability to submit written remarks. He suggested, however, that some of the time saved through a reduction in speaking time be re-allocated to council discussion of items that sometimes didn’t receive much discussion – like the appointments to boards and commissions.

Council Rules Changes: Deliberations

Council conversation was scant. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), chair of the council’s rules committee, said she’d like to see the item postponed. By way of background, the council’s current meta-rule on changing the rules requires that the council be notified of changes at the meeting prior to a vote on the changes – which had not happened yet. The proposed rules revisions include a change to that meta-rule.

Outcome: With no further discussion, the council voted to postpone the rules changes until July 1.

Appointments

The June 17 agenda included several items regarding appointments to city boards and commissions.

The council was asked to confirm the extension of Sabra Briere’s (Ward 1) appointment as the councilmember representative to the planning commission. She’s served in that capacity since November 2012. The council was asked to extend the term through Nov. 7, 2013. At that point the membership on the new, post-election city council will be settled. Briere is unopposed in the Democratic primary. An independent candidate, Jaclyn Vresics, has taken out petitions for that seat but has not yet filed them with the city clerk’s office. The deadline for independent candidates to submit petitions is Aug. 7.

Later, toward the end of the meeting, the council was asked to confirm Bonnie Bona’s reappointment to the planning commission.

Although Tony Derezinski had appeared on the list distributed to the council at its June 3 meeting as a nomination to the city planning commission – and was reported (mistakenly) by The Chronicle as having been nominated – Derezinski’s name was not actually read aloud that evening. The Chronicle learned that there was pushback on the council about Derezinski’s nomination for reappointment. He was filling out the remainder of Evan Pratt’s term – through June 30, 2013. Pratt was elected as Washtenaw County water resources commissioner in November 2012 and resigned from the planning commission at that time.

At the council’s Nov. 8, 2012 meeting, councilmembers had voted – over dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) – to appoint Derezinski to that partial planning commission term. Up to that point, he’d served as the city council’s representative to the planning commission. However, he did not prevail in the August 2012 Democratic primary in his Ward 2 race against Sally Petersen.

On June 17, Jeremy Peters was nominated to replace Derezinski on the planning commission. Peters works in creative licensing and business affairs with Ghostly Songs. A council vote to confirm his appointment will occur on July 1.

Other appointments the council was asked to confirm on June 17 included members of the downtown area citizens advisory council: John Chamberlin, Ray Detter, Joan French, Jim Kern, Sue Kern, Kathleen Nolan, Herbert Kaufer and Hugh Sonk. They had been re-nominated at the council’s June 3 meeting, having first appeared on the council’s May 13 meeting agenda for reappointment. The names had not been presented to the council for confirmation on May 20. The terms of all the members had expired.

Also at its June 17 meeting, the council was asked to confirm LuAnne Bullington’s nomination to the taxicab board, having been nominated on June 3. Bullington had submitted an application to serve on the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority earlier this year, which resulted in a divided vote by the council on the nomination that was put forward by mayor John Hieftje – Eric Mahler. Mahler was confirmed on a 7-4 vote as the AATA board appointment at the council’s May 13, 2013 meeting. He recently ended his service as a planning commissioner.

Other reappointments confirmed on June 17 were: Barbara Clark to the cable communications commission; Paul Fontaine and Chester Hill to the design review board; and Tom Stulberg to the historic district commission.

In the last few months, the council has taken an increased interest in mayoral appointments. That’s reflected in a change recommended by the council’s rules committee – to move the mayor’s communications time closer to the start of the meeting, instead of near the end. The mayor’s communications include nominations to boards and commissions and the council’s confirmation votes.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to confirm all the appointments.

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. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Public Safety

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) alerted her colleagues that a resolution regarding a public safety task force that she wants to form will be on the council’s July 1 agenda.

Comm/Comm: Stop Signs

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) called for a focus on safety as people move around the city during the summer. He called for the installation of stop signs to slow traffic on streets over which the city has control.

Comm/Comm: Affordable Housing

Thomas Partridge expressed disappointment with the council and the mayor for leaving the city without sufficient affordable housing. He said they lack the courage to stand up and bring the facts to the voters for support of tax increases to fund what’s needed.

Comm/Comm: AAHC Complaint

Diane Chapman introduced herself as a resident of Ann Arbor Housing Commission properties. She reported that she’s been physically attacked on the property and complained about the lack of response by AAHC staff.

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sumi Kailasapathy, Sally Petersen, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Chuck Warpehoski.

Next council meeting: Monday, July 1, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second floor council chambers at city hall, 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 revision to the city’s fireworks ordinance was given initial approval at the council’s June 3. 2013 meeting. The impact of the ordinance change is to restrict the use of fireworks on July 3-5 to the period between 8 a.m. and midnight on those days. The ordinance change applies to other national holidays as well.

The ordinance change is made possible by an anticipated change to state law, which previously did not allow local governments to regulate fireworks for the continuous 72-hour period for the day preceding a national holiday, the national holiday, and the day following the national holiday. The pending change to state law makes it possible for a local government to regulate the time of firework use around the time of national holidays. The bill has already been approved by the Michigan House and Senate, and is expected to be signed into law by July 4 this year.

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]

Door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber.

In addition to possible final votes on those two ordinance changes, several items related to the 15th District Court appear on the council’s agenda. The court handles all civil claims up to $25,000, including small claims, landlord-tenant disputes, land contract disputes, and civil infractions, as well as preliminary exams for felony cases. Salaries for judges are reimbursed by the state, but the court is funded by the city through its regular budgeting process, with other costs borne by the city or by grants.

The council will be asked to approve an adjustment to the city’s current fiscal year’s budget (FY 2013) to bring it in line with actual expenditures. The general fund total budget adjustment is to increase it by $567,000. And of that, a significant part is attributable to the 15th District Court – including $112,000 in salary increases based on an interest in retaining employees, $203,000 due to a “catch up” payment to the law firm that provides indigent representation, and a back-bill for security from Washtenaw County for two fiscal years for $110,000.

Also on the council’s agenda is the authorization of a contract revision for the current year with the law firm that provides indigent representation. The “catch up” payment stems from the firm’s practice of delaying billing until a defendant’s legal costs are thought to be complete – instead of billing along the way. Because that approach doesn’t give a clear picture of the actual current cost of indigent representation, a new contract with the firm for next year (FY 2014) will be based on a flat fee. That $240,000 annual flat-fee contract is with Nassif and Reiser, P.L.L.C. (f/k/a Funkhouser and Nassif, P.L.L.C.), d/b/a Model Cities Legal Services (“MCLS”). Nader Nassif is a board member of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

The council will also be asked to approve a $160,000 contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office for weapons screening at the Justice Center, the building next to city hall that houses the 15th District Court. The estimated annual cost is based on $25.25 per hour per court security officer.

On the consent agenda – a group of items that are considered routine and voted on as a group – are two other items related to the 15th District Court. One is approval of $30,000 for a Sobriety Court grant program contract with the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO) to provide mental health treatment to 15th District Court defendants. The second is approval of $65,000 for a Sobriety Court grant program contract with the nonprofit Dawn Farm to provide in-patient and out-patient drug abuse counseling to 15th District Court defendants.

The Dawn Farm item includes a provision that could cause it to be pulled out of the consent agenda for separate consideration. That possibly controversial provision is a waiver of the city’s living wage ordinance for Dawn Farm to provide its counseling services. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, Dawn Farm employs 70 people, including 15 employees who are paid less than $12.52 per hour with health care coverage, and 18 people who are compensated at rates less than $13.96 per hour without health care coverage. Those are the rates specified in the city’s living wage ordinance. Last fall the council engaged in a vigorous discussion of a living wage ordinance waiver for Community Action Network (CAN), which ultimately resulted in the granting of a waiver at the council’s Nov. 8, 2012 meeting.

Other agenda highlights include revisions to contracts for six unions in the police department, which include a 2% wage increase starting July 1, 2013 and another 1% starting Jan. 1, 2014.

At the June 17 meeting, the council may also vote to adopt revisions to its own internal rules. Among other changes, the revised rules would reduce speaking times for the public from three to two minutes per turn.

Some other agenda items relate to site plans and brownfield plans.

Details of the meeting agenda are 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.

6:39 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. A couple dozen people are already here who are affiliated with Camp Take Notice, to speak about Pizza in the Park.

6:52 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) was the first councilmember to arrive. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, is also here, setting up for the presentation of the Golden Paintbrush awards. Public art commission members John Kotarski and Bob Miller have now arrived. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), mayor John Hieftje, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) are also now here.

7:02 p.m. Former councilmember and now 15th District Court judge Christopher Easthope is here. He has sat down with Nader Nassif, who’s a partner in a law firm that provides indigent representation for the court. Several agenda items tonight are related to the 15th District Court, all involving money. Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Higgins are talking with Easthope.

7:07 p.m. Pledge of allegiance, moment of silence, the roll call of council, approval of the agenda. All councilmembers are present and correct. Note the agenda change made before the meeting started: The item proposing changes to the council rules has been moved out of the council communications slot to the council business section of the agenda. So the intent is for it to get a vote tonight, not just be a point of communication – although a vote to postpone is still a possibility.

7:09 p.m. Proclamations – Golden Paintbrush Awards. This is the 14th annual presentation of these awards, which are given out by the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission to people and organizations who contribute to public art works that “add interest to our cityscape, beautify the community and create a sense of place.”

One of this year’s awards is going to John Carver, who commissioned “Spirit of Ann Arbor” for the Carver-Gunn Building on Liberty Street. It’s 16 feet tall made from cut powder-coated aluminum – a work created by Detroit artist Charles McGee. The other award this year goes to Vic Strecher and Jeri Rosenberg, who are being recognized for their support of organizations that have organized events like Festifools and FoolMoon. Public art commission chair Bob Miller is giving the introduction of the awards.

7:15 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.]

A pending rule change to be considered at tonight’s meeting would limit speaking time to two minutes. Another pending rule change would address “frequent flyers,” by only allowing people to reserve time at the start of the meeting, if they did not speak during reserved time at the previous council meeting. Chronicle coverage of the possible rule changes can be found here: “Council Mulls Speaking Rule Changes.”

Eight of the 10 slots tonight are reserved for people to address the issue of Pizza in the Park. They’re speaking about a petition they delivered to the city, a copy of which is attached to the electronic agenda. Pizza in the Park is a homelessness ministry of the Vineyard Church that includes distribution of food and other aid at Liberty Plaza at Liberty and Division streets in downtown Ann Arbor. A few months ago, the parking of a vehicle in a private driveway and the subsequent application of a shelter rental fee by the city led to protests raised during public commentary at the council’s May 20, 2013 meeting. Assurance was given at that meeting that the Pizza in the Park event could continue. That was affirmed when speakers again addressed the issue at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting.

Speakers on those occasions, many who are affiliated with Camp Take Notice, a self-governed homeless community, asked for a written assurance of the city’s commitment. A proposal is currently on the city’s park advisory commission’s June 18, 2013 agenda to consider waiving all fees associated with Liberty Plaza. That would need city council approval. Those signed up to speak tonight on this issue are: Peggy Lynch, Mark Douglas, David Williams, Jose Galofre, Michael Ramirez, Christine Kern, Sheri Wander, and Gregory Kerrick.

Thomas Partridge is the second speaker, who’ll be calling for the advancement of a civil rights agenda. Bob Galardi, a member of the city’s park advisory commission, will be addressing the council’s agenda item that calls for it to pledge up to $750,000 of general fund money for the 721 N. Main project. The city believes that it will receive grants to cover that amount, but the pledge is necessary in order to secure a different grant, for $300,000 from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Trust Fund.

7:23 p.m. Peggy Lynch is first up. She takes the podium to applause. She describes the unmet and tragic humanitarian need in Ann Arbor. She thanked the council for the suspension of the fee at Liberty Plaza. But she’s hopeful that the gentleman’s agreement can be replaced with something in writing. David Williams echoes the request for a written commitment.

7:25 p.m. Thomas Partridge assures the council that if he were elected mayor or councilmember, he would be giving voice to the concerns of the residents of Camp Take Notice. He calls for the advancement of Dr. Martin Luther King’s civil rights agenda. He recalls the “I have a Dream” speech.

7:31 p.m. The next several speakers will be addressing the council on the topic of Pizza in the Park and humanitarian aid. Jose Galofre is addressing the council through a sign language interpreter. He calls for the passage of an ordinance – put down in writing for the future. Michael Ramirez tells the council he has medical issues that require him to go to the University of Michigan health system. Christine Kern tells the council she lives on the street with her boyfriend. They’ll be sleeping outside tonight. She recites a definition of basic human rights, and asks the council to enact an ordinance that protects the right to distribute humanitarian aid on public land.

7:39 p.m. Bob Galardi is addressing the council on the MDNR grant application in connection with the city-owned property at 721 N. Main. He’s speaking on behalf of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy – he’s president of the conservancy’s board. Galardi asks the council for their support of the resolution later on the agenda that commits the city to as much as $750,000 of general fund money for the project. The conservancy, he says, is confident that the grant funding for which the city has applied will materialize. [That would mean that the city wouldn't need to spend that money.]

7:39 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.

7:46 p.m. Christopher Taylor alerts the public to the fact that on the following day, June 18, the park advisory commission will be considering a resolution to waive fees for the use of Liberty Plaza. That would come back to the council for a final decision. Jane Lumm gives an update on opportunities for public input on the ReImagine Washtenaw project. Lumm also alerts her colleagues that a resolution on the public safety task force will be on the council’s July 1 agenda.

Mike Anglin calls for a focus on safety as people move around the city during the summer. He calls for the installation of stop signs to slow traffic on streets over which the city has control.

Sabra Briere tells the council she spent six hours today getting trained on “place making.” She learned a lot about certain types of zoning, she said. Ann Arbor is one of 14 major centers in the state. We shouldn’t think about ourselves in isolation, she said. We should think regionally and not try to mimic what others are doing, she said. John Hieftje refers to the book “The Economics of Place,” a publication of the Ann Arbor-based Michigan Municipal League.

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.

Tonight, seven public hearings appear on the agenda. Two are for rezoning of annexed property: McMullen property at 3100 Geddes Ave.; and the Max property at 2503 Victoria Ave. One hearing is for a revision to the fireworks ordinance – that would restrict the use of fireworks on July 3-5 to the period between 8 a.m. and midnight on those days. Three developments are the subject of public hearings.

The State Street Center site plan is getting a public hearing after getting the rezoning associated with that site plan approved at the council’s previous meeting. And two public hearings are associated with the 544 Detroit Street “planned project” – the site plan and the brownfield plan.

Finally, the brownfield plan for the Packard Square development – site of the former Georgetown Mall – is getting a public hearing, because of an amendment to a previously approved plan.

7:51 p.m. Thomas Partridge is holding forth on the first rezoning hearing. Hieftje is admonishing him to stay on the topic. Partridge wants an ordinance attached to the rezoning that would require it to be used for affordable housing and give access to affordable transportation.

7:58 p.m. Partridge is now speaking during the public hearing for the fireworks ordinance revision. July 4 should be a celebration of civil rights and human rights, he says. He objects to celebrating the holiday with fireworks. The next speaker is Michael Benson, also addressing the topic of the fireworks ordinance. He asks the council to consider allowing people to apply for a permit to use fireworks on other days. He wonders what the other costs are in addition to the $500 fine.

8:01 p.m. Partridge now rises to speak during the public hearing about the State Street Center site plan.

8:11 p.m. Jeff Crockett rises to speak in favor of the 544 Detroit St. project. He calls it a responsive development. The site plan demonstrates serious consideration of citizen input. He says he knows of no one who opposes this project. He calls for zoning laws that are not driven just by statistics, but rather are value-driven. Partridge also speaks on the 544 Detroit St. project. And with his remarks on the Packard Square brownfield plan, Partridge has now had his say – until the end of the meeting, when there’s another opportunity for public commentary.

8:13 p.m. Todd McWilliams addresses the council. He tells Partridge that he was abusing the public hearings. Partridge tells McWiliams he’s abusing his civil rights and ends with “See you in court.”

8:13 p.m. The council has voted to go into closed session to discuss labor negotiation strategy.

8:38 p.m. The council is emerging from the closed session.

8:43 p.m. Council communications. Briere is explaining that she is not the chair of the ACLU. She was proud to be the chair a decade ago, but she is no longer the chair.

8:43 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:

• Summer Fun: Street closing for Art Fairs 2013.
• Courts: $30,000 for Sobriety Court grant program contract with the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO) to provide mental health treatment to 15th District Court defendants.
• Courts: $65,000 for Sobriety Court grant program contract with Dawn Farm to provide in-patient and out-patient drug abuse counseling to 15th District Court Defendants.
• Energy: $59,386 for contract with DTE Energy for LED streetlight conversion and rebate participation.
• Energy: $49,883 for contract with CDM Smith for wind generator project.
• Streets: $40,960 for materials testing contract with Professional Service Industries in connection with the W. Madison Street improvement project.
• Buildings: $31,618 for a contract with E.T. MacKenzie Company to demolish two buildings at 721 N. Main St.
• Software: $70,000 for a contract with Cogsdale Corporation for annual software maintenance and support.
• Copier Services: $25,000 per year increase to contract with Hasselbring Clark Service to provide services and support for the city’s Canon multifunction copiers, of which there are 46.
• Lobbyist: $48,000 contract with Governmental Consultant Services Inc., a Lansing lobbying firm. This is an annual contract.
• Economic Development: $75,000 contract with Ann Arbor SPARK for business support services.
• Minutes: Insurance Board minutes are included in the consent agenda.

8:45 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. Lumm asks to pull out the wind energy item. Briere wants to pull out the Dawn Farm grant and the demolition contract at 721 N. Main.

8:50 p.m. The Dawn Farm grant is now under discussion. Briere says she’s not satisfied with the answers she’s received to questions she has asked about the living wage ordinance exemption that’s been requested by Dawn Farm. She wants to know if the item can be postponed. Judge Joe Burke, who runs the Sobriety Court, explains that the court’s application for a grant is due this Friday – so postponement would be difficult. Burke says he was the one who’d asked for the living wage ordinance exemption. Jim Balmer, executive director of Dawn Farm, had reported that Dawn Farm can’t comply with the living wage. Burke is explaining the importance of the work that Dawn Farm does in support of the Sobriety Court.

8:52 p.m. Briere says she doesn’t see a process in the application for the living wage exemption that would eventually lead to compliance. Just as working toward sobriety has steps, she says, working toward financial solvency also has steps. Her problem is with the exemption, not the contract. Briere votes against it as the sole vote of dissent. She says she doesn’t need a roll call vote.

8:56 p.m. We’re on to the wind generator project. Lumm reports that the proposal is to place a wind turbine at Pioneer High School. She complains about the lack of community outreach. Sumi Kailasapathy is now addressing the issue. She reports that she’s received a letter from a UM physics professor – Gregory Tarlè. She reads aloud some concerns outlined by him. Power grows as the cube of wind velocity, and turbines should be sited accordingly. The only thing this turbine will teach students is that if you place a windmill where there’s no wind, then it won’t move. She didn’t think that’s worth $1 million. It’s not too late, she said. She allows that it’ll be federal dollars, but that’s still taxpayer money and it’s the council’s duty to be a good steward, she says.

9:02 p.m. Briere asks for staff to come to the podium. Now at the podium are Brian Steglitz and Craig Hupy. Briere asks Steglitz to explain why it’s a good project. He characterizes it as a demonstration program. The city went through a competitive project to obtain the grant, he says. The partnership with Wind Products includes a guarantee that it’ll produce a minimum amount of energy. The project is also part of the city’s goal to generate alternative energy, Steglitz says. The power that the school will purchase from the developer will cost less than conventional power.

Petersen asks for more information about the Ann Arbor Public Schools participation in the project. If AAPS cuts its budget, will it possibly cut support for the turbine? Steglitz says that AAPS will lease the space for the turbine and purchase the power. That’s the extent of AAPS participation. Petersen ventures that AAPS will have a financial upside. Yes, says Steglitz.

9:14 p.m. Craig Hupy, public services area administrator, explains that the item approves funding to look at the environmental impact of the turbine. Lumm again cites the same letter from the UM physics professor that Kailasapathy had mentioned. Higgins asks how the public will be notified about the public engagement process. Steglitz says that the intent would be to broaden the scope beyond the 500 foot requirement. He describes the city’s public engagement “toolbox.” Higgins wants to know when. Steglitz explains it’d be in the next six months. The environmental review is expected to be done by the end of the year, Steglitz says.

Higgins ventures that it’ll be a lively debate about whether a wind turbine should go there. Steglitz describes the city commitment as around $18,000 of staff time. Higgins is willing to let that debate unfold and not get in the way of it. She confirms with Hupy that before any further city commitment is made, the council would have to approve it. Kunselman asks for a refresher on the height of the pole. Steglitz says it’d be about 120 feet with a 60-foot diameter blade. Kunselman says it’s not really a “turbine” but rather a generator. Kunselman’s day job at UM is as energy liaison with Planet Blue. He feels that the generator will actually be generating a decent amount of electricity given its educational, demonstration purpose. Anglin weighs in for the project based on its educational impact. Kailasapathy asks if the estimates for energy production were independently verified.

9:28 p.m. Lumm notes she voted for the acceptance of the federal grant. But she’s learned a lot since that vote was taken. She won’t support it. Briere ventures that public outreach won’t happen unless the city hires a public outreach firm. That process will help determine whether this is an appropriate site, she ventures. Steglitz confirms that’s correct. She wonders what the alternative locations are. Steglitz says there aren’t any. Hupy indicates the city has looked extensively, even as far north as East Lansing – with a maize-and-blue pole, he quips. City administrator Steve Powers assures the council that Hupy is not joking about the idea of trying to find a location in East Lansing.

Petersen wants to know if anyone from AAPS is here to talk about the educational component. Apparently there is not. Kailasapathy says that she doesn’t understand the educational benefit if it were located in East Lansing. Hupy says utility regulations require that the power is consumed on the site where it’s generated. Kailasapathy raises objections about noise. Steglitz explains that the noise issue will be part of the environmental assessment. Kunselman stresses that the UM professor’s letter is talking about wind-farm sized turbines, not the size of the generator that the city is considering. It’s a 60 kW wind generator that will be running about 30% of the time. And part of that time, students will have the opportunity to look at a data center that shows all the data. That’s the educational effort. And the money is Dept. of Energy grant money, not city money. Kunselman concludes that the city should move forward with it.

Hieftje weighs in for the resolution. He says it’s worth exploring the next stage. Hieftje says he wants to follow the lead of the DoE. Lumm responds to Hieftje’s argument. She questions whether the DoE is aware of the power generation estimates. Hieftje ventures that DoE is aware of the educational nature of the project.

Outcome: This item gets a roll call vote. No votes are Petersen, Lumm, Kailasapathy.

9:32 p.m. The council is now on to the 721 N. Main building demolition. Briere pulled it out for separate consideration just to highlight it, not because it was controversial. Anglin asks city floodplain manager Jerry Hancock to the podium. Anglin asks about other grant opportunities from FEMA, which is funding this demolition. Anglin asks for the floodway maps so that councilmembers know which houses are in the floodplain. Hancock explains that the new maps have been in place since last April. Hancock tells Anglin that he sent him the requested information last week.

9:32 p.m. The council has now passed all of the consent agenda items.

9:33 p.m. FY 2013 Budget: Year-end maintenance. This is a year-end budget adjustment to bring it into closer alignment with the actual expenditures. [.pdf of proposed amendments] The general fund total adjustment is to increase it by $567,000. Of that, a significant part is attributable to the 15th District Court – including $112,000 in salary increases based on an interest in retaining employees, $203,000 due to a “catch up” payment to the law firm that provides indigent representation, and a back-bill for security from Washtenaw County for two fiscal years for $110,000.

9:34 p.m. Briere proposes an amendment that eliminates the budget adjustment for the salary increases. She objects that regular processes weren’t followed. She ventures that the chief judge overstepped her bounds. Briere was not satisfied with the mechanism. She calls the wage increases “not properly done.”

9:34 p.m. Here’s a memo from 15th District Court administrator Keith Zeisloft. [.pdf of responses from 15th District Court to councilmember inquiries] Responding to a question about the ability of the city council to control the court’s spending decisions, the memo states:

Although City Council has authority to establish a total annual budget for the Court, and with all respect due to Council, the Court declines to accept that City Council has authority to direct, control, approve or disapprove specific expenditures, including but not limited to compensation of judicial employees. However, legalities aside, the Court has always sought a respectful and cordial relationship with Council and City Administration, and the Court’s budget history demonstrates that the Court has been a prudent and careful custodian of public funds, at times even to the disadvantage of the Court’s own interests.

9:38 p.m. Lumm asks Zeisloft to the podium. Zeisloft defers to the judges who are all here. Judges Christopher Easthope, Elizabeth Hines and Joe Burke are all standing at the podium. Lumm asks about the salary increases – which were implemented in October 2012. Lumm asks for a breakdown of the amount. Zeisloft breaks down the $112,000 adjustment. The annual impact is calculated at $193,000. Lumm asks for that information to be provided in writing.

Judge Hines is now addressing the council. She respects the separation of powers. But the chief judge has the authority to increase salaries, she says. The court has never asked the city for permission to do that in her 22 years on the bench. She points out the money that the court has managed to return to the city in past years when they’ve come in under budget.

9:46 p.m. Hines talks about the challenge of retaining employees. She describes past pay cuts. She describes a gross disparity in pay. She said the court had worked with the city’s HR department, but did not ask permission, she said. The court is not overpaying its employees by any means, she said. She felt the pay raises were only reasonable.

Kailasapathy disagrees with the narrative of the “honorable judges.” She cites the decrease in cases handled by the court. The workload has come down, Kailasapathy says. The cost savings of 3.4% that the court had achieved should be seen in that context, Burke says. Easthope says the court was trying to be in the lead in reducing its costs. The caseload went down, but the number of employees also went down, he said. Hines said that the kind of cases that went down were not the kind that reduce judge and staff time. Hines returned to the challenge of retaining employees as the basis for the salary increases.

Briere says she’s not unsympathetic to the situation. But she felt it should have been considered as part of the standard budgeting process. The money should have been built into the FY 2013 budget, Briere says. She agrees with the need to compensate the court staff. But a standard increase in salary should have been included in the budget.

9:52 p.m. Burke tells the council that when he became a judge, Hines and Easthope had sat him down and talked to him about the employees. He says that in making the salary increases, they had followed the normal procedures that anyone would in determining the amounts of the increases. The one thing that they had not done was ask the city council. Burke said they felt that the salary increases would come in within the court’s FY 2013 budget – but they were wrong.

Kailasapathy is now citing a Michigan Supreme Court administrative order that appears to say that if the court uses a line item budget, there are restrictions on what the court can do.

From Administrative Order No. 1998-5, which applies to district courts, among others.

II. COURT BUDGETING If the local funding unit requests that a proposed court budget be submitted in lineitem detail, the chief judge must comply with the request. If a court budget has been appropriated in line-item detail, without prior approval of the funding unit, a court may not transfer between line-item accounts to: (a) create new personnel positions or to supplement existing wage scales or benefits, except to implement across the board increases that were granted to employees of the funding unit after the adoption of the court’s budget at the same rate, or (b) reclassify an employee to a higher level of an existing category. A chief judge may not enter into a multiple-year commitment concerning any personnel economic issue unless: (1) the funding unit agrees, or (2) the agreement does not exceed the percentage increase or the duration of a multipleyear contract that the funding unit has negotiated for its employees. Courts must notify the funding unit or a local court management council of transfers between lines within 10 business days of the transfer. The requirements shall not be construed to restrict implementation of collective bargaining agreements.

Zeisloft says that the court only submits a budget in a line item form as a courtesy. Tom Crawford, the city’s CFO, explains that the city requires all the units to submit line item budgets, but the city council authorizes the budgets by fund. Kailasapathy comes back to the administrative order.

10:07 p.m. Easthope says the council has the authority to set a lump sum budget for the court. But the council doesn’t have the ability to change line items, he says. Easthope describes the court as a separate branch of government. The Supreme Court administrative office had provided all the comparative data, he said. Hines had not simply said, “You get a raise and you get a raise …” Back-and-forth ensues between Kailasapathy and Zeisloft on how the HR department of the city had been involved in the compensation adjustment amount. No formal report had been requested from HR, Zeisloft says.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asks for clarification of the administrative order on line item budgeting. Warpehoski asks what happens if the council doesn’t approve the adjustment. That is, what happens if Briere’s amendment passes. Crawford indicates that the city would probably get a comment on that in the city’s audit. The money has already been spent, Warpehoski points out. Crawford indicates agreement that it would be difficult to stop the expenditures in the next two weeks, when the fiscal year ends.

Lumm confirms with Crawford that court employee checks are processed through the city. Lumm says that the court’s budget seems to be “optional.” But Lumm ventures that there doesn’t seem to be an option to not make the adjustment. Easthope says the court was actually under the budget by $99,000. Lumm says she wants to follow up later on that. She says that Easthope’s remarks aren’t consistent with the information the council has received.

Kunselman appreciates that Burke had conceded that the court’s math was off. He asked what Burke thought the consequence should be: Should the council just cover the amount? In the short term, Burke says, yes. He says the court doesn’t spend money like drunken sailors. Burke ventures that the council would not want to hear next year that the court has the same issue.

10:18 p.m. Taylor ventures that it’s been a full conversation. It’s a simple question. The court has diligently determined that their line workers’ wages were below market. The council has approved the increases going forward, he says, when it approved the FY 2014 budget. Taylor says he’ll vote against Briere’s amendment. Hieftje confirms with Crawford that the budget resolution basically recognizes reality.

Briere says her intent is not to force the court into a deficit. Staff should not be penalized for the actions of their supervisors. She says she’ll withdraw her amendment. She says the court should have done a better job of communicating. She says she will remember this situation without fondness. Kailasapathy, who seconded the amendment, hesitated for several seconds before agreeing with Briere to withdraw.

10:30 p.m. With that amendment withdrawn, Petersen has moved on to the indigent representation and the security services issue. Zeisloft characterizes it as an unusual circumstance, that should not arise again in the future. Easthope notes that the special docket courts are operated at no cost to the city. Higgins asks why the salary increases were not undertaken during the period when the court was returning money to the city. If the court had the ability to give raises without asking permission from the city, why didn’t the court give the raises at that time – when the court had the money? Higgins complains that she felt blindsided.

Briere ventures that it’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission. She appreciated that the court felt a little bit picked upon. Burke objects to any analysis that would say the court tried to sneak something past the city, saying that’s an integrity issue. City administrator Steve Powers shares his perspective as a former county administrator. He accepted responsibility for not bringing the communication back from the court and not updating the council. Going forward, the consultation with the court would be important so that these issues don’t arise in the future. He stresses the importance of the two branches doing things in consultation, not confrontation.

10:30 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the FY 2013 budget adjustments over the lone dissent of Kailasapathy.

10:30 p.m. 15th District Court: Weapons screening contract. This is for a $160,000 contract with Washtenaw County sheriff’s office for weapons screening at the Justice Center, which houses the 15th District Court. The estimated annual cost is based on $25.25 per hour per court security officer. The estimated maximum annual cost of $160,000 is $27,000 less than last year. The money comes from the 15th District Court’s budget.

10:32 p.m. Lumm is questioning Zeisloft about the contract and how the estimate was calculated.

Outcome: The council has voted to approve the weapons screening contract.

10:32 p.m. 15th District Court: Indigent representation. Two resolutions are on the agenda related to the law firm that provides indigent representation for 15th District Court defendants. The first is for a flat fee $240,000 contract for representation of indigent defendants – with Nassif and Reiser, P.L.L.C. (f/k/a Funkhouser and Nassif, P.L.L.C.), d/b/a Model Cities Legal Services (“MCLS”). That’s for FY 2014. For the previous year, the council is also being asked to cover $203,000 of fees that accrued due to the delayed billing practice used by MCLS.

10:33 p.m. Taylor says that the contracting party is a client of his. He asks the council to vote to excuse him from voting. They do and he takes a seat on the hard bench.

10:39 p.m. Lumm asks Zeisloft if the court had considered issuing an RFP (request for proposals) for the service. Zeisloft describes the negotiation between the court and the law firm. He says that the court has not considered issuing an RFP, but it would be possible. Model Cities, however, provides the service at a very competitive cost, he says. Easthope explains that Model Cities doesn’t just stand in court – they provide far more than that. There’s a value that’s hard to represent – that doesn’t have to do with just the lowest price. Model Cities has a personal connection to all the social services agencies, Easthope says.

10:39 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the two resolutions related to Model Cities for legal services.

10:39 p.m. Ordinance: Outdoor advertising – Billboards. The ordinance change would restrict the way that digital technology could be incorporated into any signs. It would also prevent any digital technology retrofitting of existing billboards, and prohibit billboards generally – although the 28 existing billboards citywide would be allowed to continue as non-conforming structures. This has been given initial approval by the council and was up for final action twice before – most recently, on May 6, 2013. Action on May 6 was to postpone a final decision – until tonight. [.pdf file of map showing billboard locations in the city]

10:49 p.m. Taylor is introducing the item. He describes it as enforcing the status quo. There are some changes compared to the first reading. One is an exception for churches and schools. The definition of “changeable” copy has also been revised. Taylor says it’s important that billboards not expand beyond their current status.

Warpehoski says he’s heard close to zero support for expanding billboards to use digital technology – other than from those in the outdoor sign industry. He’d heard no support for digital signs to the point where he felt there was consensus.

Petersen says Ann Arbor wants to be a tech town, and preserving the status quo is too conservative. She cites the possible negative impact on economic development. It promotes blight by not allowing existing billboards to be removed and replaced with new ones. She’s going to oppose this ordinance change. MDOT relies on digital technology to convey messages, she points out. She calls for a more comprehensive look at the ordinance. It’s way too conservative for a town that wants to move forward with technology, she says.

Briere says that she thinks AAPS is unlikely to go ahead with a proposal to contract with Adams Outdoor Advertising on school property. Two of the proposed digital signs were in Ward 1. They didn’t make her happy. She conceded she was perhaps an old fogey.

Lumm thanks staff for all their research and their work. She thinks the proposals are reasonable. She’ll be supporting the ordinance change.

10:53 p.m. Anglin thanks staff for their work. He says it’s clear that the community doesn’t want any more visual intrusion. It’s not an anti-business proposal, but rather a pro-community move, he says.

10:53 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval to the billboard ordinance, over dissent from Petersen and Higgins.

10:54 p.m. Ordinance: Rezoning – McMullen and Max properties. Both of these rezoning requests have already received initial approval. The zoning is from TWP (township) zoning to residential in both cases.

10:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the rezoning of these properties, which are being annexed into the city.

10:55 p.m. Ordinance: Fireworks time restrictions. The revision to the fireworks ordinance was given initial approval at the council’s June 3. 2013 meeting. The impact of the ordinance change would be to restrict the use of fireworks on July 3-5 to the period between 8 a.m. and midnight on those days. The ordinance change is made possible by a recent change to state law. Gov. Rick Snyder is expected to sign it into law before July 4.

10:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval to the fireworks ordinance.

10:59 p.m. The council is now in recess.

11:06 p.m. Ordinance: Video privacy. Now back from recess, the council is taking up a new ordinance that would regulate the way local law enforcement officials can deploy surveillance cameras. In some cases, resident approval would be required. The ordinance has appeared several times previously on the agenda, but has not yet received initial approval. Most recently it was postponed on May 6, 2013. (All ordinances, per the city charter, need an initial approval from the council, followed by a public hearing and a final vote taken at a subsequent meeting.)

11:20 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski is introducing the ordinance. Chief John Seto is out of town. Warpehoski is asking his colleagues to move the change forward to second reading. He characterizes it as a balance between the right to privacy and the interests of law enforcement. He ventures that there’s a lot on the agenda. So he suggests a more in-depth discussion when it comes back for second and final reading.

Petersen asks for clarification of some changes. Briere thanks Warpehoski for his work, but says that this ordinance is not her favorite idea. Lumm says she was hoping it would be postponed. She points to the fact that Seto is not here. She also notes that new revisions had been given to the council only last night. She doesn’t think the council should pass ordinances at the first reading just to get them to the second reading. Lumm won’t support it.

Kunselman appreciated Warpehoski’s work to bring the ordinance forward. But he feels it’s a solution in search of a problem. He knew he wouldn’t support it when it came to the second reading. He feels it tied the city administrator’s hands. Privacy is already protected, he says. Surveillance cameras do work, he says, giving the West Willow neighborhood as an example. He asks: Where’s the budget for this? Asking the city administrator to run around getting permissions from residents didn’t seem sensible, he said.

Kailasapathy indicates support for postponement. She moves for postponement. Warpehoski seconds that motion. Taylor indicates support for the postponement. He said he’d have probably been inclined to support it at first reading.

11:20 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the video privacy ordinance until July 1, when police chief John Seto will be available.

11:21 p.m. Ordinance: Fire code. This first reading of the ordinance would amend Chapter 111 (Fire Prevention) of the city code so that it refers to the 2009 International Fire Code instead of the 2003 version.

11:30 p.m. Warpehoski says that he’ll support the ordinance at first reading, but he has some concerns about the inspection of certain areas. Lumm asks fire chief Chuck Hubbard about frequency and cost of fire inspections. He contrasts inspections with re-inspections. If there are violations found, then an inspector will return to confirm that the violation has been corrected. Hubbard allows that inspections have been stepped up. It’s being done for the benefit to the property owners, he says.

Powers says that the performance of the fire inspection program is being reviewed. Kunselman notes that the building department is already using the 2009 code, but the fire department is using the 2003 code. What are the differences? Kunselman gets confirmation that the council’s approval is more or less a formality. It’s like “housekeeping.” Anglin asks how many staff are allocated. Hubbard says it’s been increased from three people to seven. Anglin feels the overall safety of the community is being improved.

11:31 p.m. Taylor says he’s delighted that the city is conducting more fire inspections.

Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to the adoption of the 2009 fire code.

11:31 p.m. CTN truck upgrade. The upgrade is for high-definition production equipment for the Community Television Network (CTN) truck. The $77,711 contract with VTP Inc. was included as part of the FY 2013 budget, according to a staff memo accompanying the resolution.

11:31 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to approve the CTN truck upgrade.

11:31 p.m. Resolution of commitment: 721 N. Main. This is a resolution of commitment from the council that it’s willing to spend up to $750,000 of city general fund money to undertake planned improvements to the city-owned property at 721 N. Main. If the city’s plan unfolds as it expects, then none of that general fund money would be needed. Of the $1.2 million estimated cost for the trail and stormwater improvements to the site, the city plans to use $150,000 from the city’s stormwater fund. To cover part of the remaining $1.05 million, the city hopes to use $600,000 from a grant it hopes to receive from the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) and the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) – through SEMCOG’s transportation alternatives program (TAP). The council approved the application for the SEMCOG grant at its April 15, 2013 meeting.

To cover the remaining $450,000, the city hopes to use $150,000 from a Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation Connecting Communities grant and $300,000 from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) grant. The council approved the application for those last two grants at its Dec. 17, 2012 meeting. Tonight’s resolution comes in response to an MNRTF grant requirement that the council commit the city to funding the other grants itself – from general fund money – if the grants fail to materialize. The $750,000 figure comes from adding the $600,000 SEMCOG grant to the $150,000 Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation grant.

11:42 p.m. Briere stresses that the commitment is not an expenditure. Lumm thanks Briere for her service on the North Main Huron River task force. She’ll support it. Kunselman wondered if any park millage dollars would be spent on this project. Briere notes that the property is not a park. When will it be a park? asks Kunselman. That’s a decision for park advisory commission (PAC), not for her, Briere responds.

Taylor, who serves as an ex officio member of PAC, notes that park staff is sensitive to the funding requirements of maintaining existing parks. Hieftje describes the general context of 415 W. Washington and 721 N. Main and how the two city-owned properties fit into the context of greenway planning. Hieftje is talking about the need to focus on the provision for long-term maintenance. Anglin says it’s important that this resolution commits money. He says a chain of parks through the city – like the greenway – would have a positive economic impact.

11:42 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to commit the funds for the 721 N. Main site.

11:43 p.m. Opposition: SEMCOG long-range plan. This is a symbolic resolution opposing expansion of I-94 in Detroit and I-75 in Oakland County. The Washtenaw County board of commissioners passed a similar resolution at its June 5, 2013 meeting. The interstate highway expansion is a part of SEMCOG’s 2040 Regional Transportation Plan with an estimated cost of $4 billion.

11:45 p.m. Warpehoski says there are a lot of good elements in the SEMCOG plan. But there are not forecasts for additional traffic and population, so it didn’t make sense to expand the highways instead of maintaining. Warpehoski quotes Picasso: “Good artists copy, great artists steal.” He’s copied much of the resolution from others that have been passed, he says.

11:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to pass the resolution opposing SEMCOG’s 2040 plan.

11:45 p.m. Ann Arbor Housing Commission operating support funding. The resolution, which provides $382,000 for operational support for the Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC), is held over from the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting, when the council took several steps to move the commission forward along a path to converting the properties it manages to project-based vouchers. A similar operations funding resolution had appeared on that meeting’s agenda, but was withdrawn. Of the total amount, $159,000 is appropriated from the city of Ann Arbor’s affordable housing trust fund, and $223,000 would be appropriated from the general fund. The housing and human services advisory board has voted to recommend the $159,000 be appropriated from the city’s trust fund.

11:54 p.m. Briere introduces the resolution, noting that this resolution will empty the affordable housing trust fund – but it will receive $100,000 on July 1, because of the budget allocation the council passed. Kunselman asks Crawford if there were sufficient funds in the general fund reserve. Crawford projects a fund balance of $13.9 million at the end of the fiscal year. That’s about 17%. He does have some concerns, he says. At the end of FY 2015, based on the council’s recent action, the fund balance would be around 13%. In general, he has some concerns about how the fund balance is being used.

Powers notes that the current council policy is 8-12%. Hieftje reads aloud from the staff memo. Lumm thanks executive director of the AAHC Jennifer Hall for her work.

11:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the AAHC allocation.

11:54 p.m. Appointment: City planning commission. One of the city planning commission members is drawn from the city council. Since November 2012, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) has served in this capacity. Terms for planning commission members are made through June 30. The resolution extends her term until Nov. 7, 2013 at which point the membership on the new city council will be settled. Briere is unopposed in the Democratic primary. An independent candidate, Jaclyn Vresics, has taken out petitions to run for that seat but has not yet filed them with the city clerk’s office. The deadline for independent candidates to submit petitions is Aug. 7.

11:55 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve Briere’s appointment to the planning commission.

11:55 p.m. FY 2014 Budget: Correction to park capital improvement millage rate. This resolution corrects the millage rate that was listed in the FY 2014 budget resolution that the council approved at its May 20, 2013 meeting. The park maintenance and capital improvements millage was listed at 1.0969 mills when it should have been listed as 1.10 mills– with the corresponding correction from the total millage rate from 16.4470 to 16.4501 mills. Measured in dollars, the correction is estimated to bring in an additional $14,460 in revenue.

11:56 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the correction to the millage rate.

11:56 p.m. Council rules changes. For Chronicle coverage on these changes, see “Council Mulls Speaking Rule Changes.” Highlights include adding public commentary to council work sessions, but reducing public speaking time to two-minute turns. A “frequent flyer” rule would prevent people from signing up for reserved time at the start of a meeting two meetings in a row.

11:56 p.m. Higgins is introducing the proposed rules. She says that she’d like to see it postponed.

11:57 p.m. Outcome: With no further discussion, the council has voted to postpone the rules changes until July 1.

11:57 p.m. Site plan: State Street Center. The rezoning of the parcel for this site plan was given final approval at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting. The project calls for demolishing a vacant 840-square-foot house on this site. In its place, the developer plans a one-story, 1,700-square-foot drive-thru Jimmy John’s restaurant facing South State Street.

11:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to approve the State Street Center site plan.

11:58 p.m. Site plan and brownfield plan: 544 Detroit Street. The planning commission gave the 544 Detroit St. project a recommendation of approval at its Dec. 18, 2012 meeting. It’s planned to be a three-story building at 544 Detroit St. with offices on the first floor and residences on the upper two floors. It’s a “planned project” to allow an additional 3.5 feet of building height for a “decorative parapet” on the building’s north end and a stair enclosure to access a roof deck. [.jpg image of proposed design]

The two items on the council’s agenda for this project are the site plan approval and the brownfield plan. The parcel is the site of a former gas station. According to a staff memo, the brownfield component – which allows tax increment financing (TIF) to reimburse the developer for eligible costs – includes a total of $698,773 in eligible activities. Some of those eligible activities include soil remediation ($174,620), infrastructure improvements ($70,350), and vapor mitigation ($32,000).

11:58 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve both the site plan and the brownfield plan for 544 Detroit.

11:58 p.m. Brownfield plan: Packard Square. This amends a previously approved brownfield plan for the former site of the Georgetown Mall. The amendment adds to the list of eligible activities – including underground parking and urban stormwater management. The total cost of eligible activities is not changed.

12:04 a.m. Higgins asks about payment of back taxes. Nathan Voght is fielding Higgins’ questions. Higgins notes that the demolition is in progress. Voght gives an update. May 28 was the start of demolition. MDEQ indicated that additional asbestos mitigation was needed. Soil excavation to remove contamination is ongoing. A vapor barrier will probably need to be installed. He thinks by mid-July the demolition will be done. The developer indicates that construction would begin as soon as possible after that. Higgins says that residents are pleased to see the project going forward. Hieftje thanks Higgins for her efforts.

12:04 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Packard Square brownfield amendment.

12:04 a.m. Street resurfacing: Packard from Anderson to Kimberly. This is a contract with MDOT that the city will act as project manager on the resurfacing project. Total cost for the work is $1,447,900, with the city’s share working out to $620,900. The rest will be paid with federal funds.

12:05 a.m. Kunselman says he’s excited to see the project. It shows that investment is taking place along Packard. He ventures that it starts on June 22. Hupy says he won’t swear to that date, but it will happen soon. The contract hasn’t been awarded yet, he cautions.

Outcome: The council has voted to approve the street resurfacing contract.

12:05 a.m. Drinking water system: Pump station electrical upgrade. The contract with Shaw Electric Company to upgrade electrical systems for the city’s drinking water system is worth $2,619,000. The work would cover replacement of the primary and secondary switchgear at Barton Pump Station and replacement of electrical controls and a check valve at South Industrial Pump Station.

12:06 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to approve the contract with Shaw Electric.

12:06 a.m. Development agreement: The Varsity. This resolution approves a revision to the development agreement for The Varsity, a 13-story, 177,180-square foot apartment building containing 181 dwelling units (415 bedrooms) and 78 off-street vehicle parking spaces. A minimum of 76 off-street parking spaces were required. Only 69 were provided onsite. The others were provided through the contribution in lieu (CIL) program. The seven spaces were approved by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority at its June 5, 2013 meeting. The Varsity is located at 425 E. Washington St. in downtown Ann Arbor.

12:07 a.m. Briere recites the background of the situation.

Outcome: The council has voted to approve the revision to the development agreement.

12:07 a.m. Labor contracts: Wage increases. Re-openers for the final year of their contracts resulted in new contracts with six police department unions, which the council is being asked to approve on separate votes: Teamster Civilian Supervisors, Teamsters Local 214; Police Professional Assistants, Teamsters Local 214; Ann Arbor Police Officers Association – Police Service Specialists; Command Officers Association of Michigan; Ann Arbor Police Officers Association; and Deputy Chiefs, Teamsters Local 214.

Common to all the contracts are a 2% wage increase starting July 1, 2013 and a 1% increase starting Jan. 1, 2014. Also common to the contracts is the acceptance of the change in pension board composition, which was approved by voters on Nov. 8, 2011 with a 68% majority. The change retained the body as a nine-member group but distributed them differently: (1) the city controller; (2) five citizens; (3) one from the general city employees; and (4) one each from police and fire employees. Eliminated from the mix was the city administrator.

Membership in these unions breaks down as follows: Deputy Chiefs (2); Teamster Civilian Supervisors (35); Teamster Police Professionals (5); AAPOA (90); COAM (22); and Police Service Specialists (5).

12:11 a.m. Higgins thanks staff. It’s the first time since she’s been on council that all the contracts have been resolved before expiration. Lumm thanks the staff and recites the nature of the agreements.

12:12 a.m. For the AAPOA an administrative correction was made to the phone allowance – $600, instead of $550.

12:13 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve all the police department union contracts.

12:13 a.m. Appointments: Among those to be confirmed tonight, having been nominated on June 3, are Bonnie Bona to the planning commission and LuAnne Bullington to the taxicab board.

Although Tony Derezinski’s name had appeared on the list distributed to the council at the June 3 meeting as a nomination to the city planning commission, and was reported (mistakenly) by The Chronicle as having been nominated, Derezinski’s name was not actually read aloud that evening. On the council’s agenda is a different nomination, who will replace Derezinski – Jeremy Peters. Peters works in creative licensing and business affairs, with Ghostly Songs.

Derezinski was filling out the remainder of Evan Pratt’s term – through June 30, 2013. Pratt was elected as Washtenaw County water resources commissioner in November 2012 and resigned from the planning commission. At its Nov. 8, 2012 meeting, the council had voted, over dissent from Lumm, to appoint Derezinski to that partial term. Up to that point, he’d served as the city council’s representative to the planning commission, but he did not prevail in the August 2012 Democratic primary in his Ward 2 race against Sally Petersen.

Also up for confirmation by the council are nominations to the downtown citizens advisory council.

12:14 a.m. Outcome: Without discussion, the council confirms all the appointments in one vote.

12:15 a.m. Public commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

12:31 a.m. Thomas Partridge takes the podium. He expresses disappointment with the council and the mayor for leaving the city without sufficient affordable housing. He says they lack the courage to stand up and bring the facts to the voters for support of tax increases to fund what’s needed.

Diane Chapman introduced herself as a resident of Ann Arbor Housing Commission properties. She reports that she’s been physically attacked and complains about the lack of response by AAHC.

Seth Best and Peggy Lynch address the council on the idea of the fee waiver for Liberty Plaza. They’d like something in writing and they’d like it to be possible for humanitarian aid to be distributed in any park. Caleb Poirer says it feels wonderful staying up late with the council. He asks the council to wrestle with the language that would make an ordinance work to allow humanitarian aid to be distributed. He thinks there’s a lot of people who want to do kind things, and not let fees get in the way.

Michael Benson thanks the council for staying late. He commends the rules committee, saying that the proposed rules represent a step forward. He suggests that when people hand over written remarks to the clerk, those documents should eventually be added to the agenda. He tells the council they should consider constraining their own question time during the meeting. He also suggests that reserved time be confined to true action items.

Jeff Hayner said he thought it’s great that someone talked about the rules. He agreed with Benson’s point about the ability to submit written remarks.

12:31 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.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Ann Arbor Housing Commission executive director Jennifer Hall. (Photos by the writer.)

On the housing side, a unanimous vote of the council approved the transfer of ownership for city properties managed by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC) to the commission itself – an arrangement that’s actually more common across housing commissions in other cities. That step will allow conversion of the AAHC’s 355 public housing units to a project-based voucher system under HUD’s Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program. AAHC will then be pursuing low-income housing tax credits through a ground lease of the properties to a private/public limited partnership. The tax credits are intended to fund several million dollars in needed capital improvements to the existing properties, as well as build 20-30 new units.

Other unanimous votes related to the AAHC’s plan included: a resolution to approve a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) for the properties now owned by AAHC – so that no property taxes will be owed; a resolution declaring that AAHC employees are and will remain city employees; and a $200,000 allocation from the city’s affordable housing trust fund to support improvements to Miller Manor.

On the transportation side, the council unanimously authorized membership of the city of Ypsilanti in the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, by approving changes to the articles of incorporation for the AATA. The number of board seats is expanded from seven to nine, with one of the seats to be appointed by the city of Ypsilanti. The transportation authority will go by the name Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. The board of the AATA and the city of Ypsilanti also will need to formally approve the new articles, but are expected to do that in a straightforward fashion.

While the amendment of the articles of incorporation changes only the governance of the AAATA, the intent is to provide the potential for increased transportation funding. The AAATA could, with voter approval, levy a uniform millage on all member jurisdictions of the authority – now the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. It’s a right the current AATA already has, but has never exercised. Each city itself already levies a transit millage, and transmits the proceeds of those taxes to the AATA. For Ypsilanti, the advantage of a transit authority millage is that it would not count against the state constitutional 20-mill cap that a city can levy – a cap that Ypsilanti has already reached.

Deliberations on those two agenda items – housing and transportation – did not begin until after 11 p.m.

Taking an hour of the council’s time before that was a debate on a change to the city’s public art ordinance. The council unanimously supported eliminating the requirement of an automatic 1% set-aside for public art in the budget for every capital project – known as Percent for Art. But lengthy deliberations unfolded about an additional change: A provision that would allow for the return of previous years’ public art allocations to their funds of origin.

The ordinance revision that had already been given initial approval by the council allowed for such a return just for the FY 2014 public art set-asides. In the end, the council opted for an ordinance change that did not provide for a return of previous years’ public art allocations. That leaves roughly $845,000 in funds that can be used for the public art program as defined in the revised ordinance – one that places the onus on city staff to identify capital improvement projects that might be suitable for incorporating public art.

Another significant item on the council’s June 3 agenda was a resolution encouraging the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to allocate funding for three police officers. That resolution passed on an 8-2 vote. The council also gave final approval to utility rate increases (an annual item) and a reduction in utility improvement charges imposed on first-time connections.

Other business included final approval of rezoning requests for Parkway Place and State Street Center. The Parkway Place rezoning – at 490 Huron Parkway – was from R3 (townhouse dwelling district) to R1B (single-family dwelling district). The State Street Center rezoning, near the intersection of South State and Ellsworth, was from O (office district) to C3 (fringe commercial district).

In anticipation of the upcoming July 4 holiday, the council took initial action on an ordinance that would restrict use of fireworks to the hours of 8 a.m. to midnight.

During public commentary, the topic of Pizza in the Park was reprised as a theme from the council’s previous meeting. Advocates for the homeless community lobbied for a written commitment from the city that a parks and recreation fee would not be imposed on a church that distributes food and other aid at Liberty Plaza, a downtown city park.

Public Housing Conversion

The council was asked to take significant steps to convert the city’s public housing stock to a public/private system in a effort to address a roughly $520,000 deficit in capital improvements funding each year for the next 15 years. Key among those steps was a transfer of ownership from the city of Ann Arbor to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, which currently manages but does not own the 355 units of public housing in the city.

AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall had briefed the council on the issue at a Feb. 11, 2013 work session.

A total of five resolutions affecting the AAHC originally appeared on the agenda. One of them was removed from the agenda before the meeting started. All were related to the proposed conversion of public housing managed by AAHC to a public/private partnership that would fund the units through project-based vouchers. The conversion would take place under HUD’s Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program. Several million dollars worth of capital improvements will be financed through low-income housing tax credits.

The first resolution was to transfer ownership of the city-owned properties, currently managed by the AAHC, to the AAHC itself. As a land transaction, it required eight votes to pass. Postponement wasn’t a feasible option, because the AAHC’s first grant application is due June 15 – and that grant application needs to demonstrate “site control.”

The AAHC’s original plan was eventually to transfer ownership to a public/private partnership to facilitate the low-income housing tax credit financing. The AAHC selected a co-developer earlier this year at its Jan. 10, 2013 meeting. However, the current plan is for the AAHC to own the land and the buildings, and to convey them through a ground lease to the limited partnership. That’s feasible because a long-term ground lease will satisfy the IRS’s requirement that the limited partnership have an ownership interest in the property.

After the land transfer, next on the council’s agenda was a resolution stating that the current employees of the housing commission are city employees and will continue to be city employees – after the conversion of AAHC properties to project-based vouchers. The third resolution considered by the council was a payment in lieu of taxes for properties in Phase 1 of the planned conversion: 106 Packard Road, 727 Miller, 1701-1747 Green Road, 2742 Packard, and 800-890 South Maple. That will exempt the AAHC from paying property taxes on the properties.

Ann Arbor Housing Commission properties. Color coding indicates phase: Phase 1 (red); Phase 2 (orange); Phase 3 (blue), Phase 4 (green). Image links to dynamic map.

The fourth resolution asked for a $200,000 appropriation from the city’s affordable housing trust fund to support a loan application for improvements at 727 Miller (Miller Manor) and 800-890 South Maple.

The final item was removed from the agenda before the meeting started, at the request of AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall. It had been a request from the city’s general fund to backstop anticipated deficits – even if the AAHC converted all its units to project-based vouchers. The resolution had asked for at least $124,000 – based on “Scenario 3″ described in the council’s information packet – or up to $461,000 if HUD did not allow AAHC to convert its units all in one go (before all financing is formally secured). The request to change the rules had been made by AAHC of HUD in order to lessen the impacts of federal sequestration. But according to Hall, HUD didn’t agree to AAHC’s request to do that. So it’s the $461,000 figure cited in the council’s resolution that would likely come out of the general fund reserve for the three fiscal years FY 2014-16. That item will likely come back to the council for consideration at a future meeting.

The need to rethink the funding and maintenance strategy for Ann Arbor public housing is based on a capital needs assessment conducted in 2009, which determined that AAHC had $40,337 per unit in capital needs over the next 15 years. But at current HUD funding rates, AAHC would receive only $18,000 per unit – which is a $22,000 per unit shortfall in capital repair funding. Without some other funding strategy for its 355 units, AAHC would face roughly $7.8 million or about $520,000 per year in unmet capital needs.

Public Housing Conversion: Public Commentary

Julie Steiner of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance addressed the council on the topic of the transfer of city-owned properties to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission. She pointed out that it’s unusual for a municipality to own the properties managed by the housing commission. More typically, a housing commission owns the properties it manages. So it’s a natural step for the city council to transfer the properties to the housing commission. She allowed that the proposed RAD conversion sounds complicated, but she called it a win-win for everybody. It would allow renovations that could not be done with just the regular federal HUD funding. She warned that the properties could fall into a disastrous state of affairs, if this option is not pursued. Even Albert Berriz has been taking this approach to capital improvements of low-income housing in Florida and Texas for a number of years, she said. [Berriz is CEO of McKinley Inc., a real estate management firm based in Ann Arbor.]

Public Housing Conversion: Council Deliberations

Jennifer Hall, executive director of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, was asked to the podium by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) to give an overview.

From left: Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

Hall explained that many of the problems associated with the public housing stock are due to a lack of investment by the federal government. Tenant rent is a small part of the budget, she noted. What’s being proposed is a transition from supporting Ann Arbor’s low-income housing as public housing to a project-based vouchers approach. Both of the approaches to subsidizing low-income housing are provided through the U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development (HUD). Ann Arbor doesn’t have large, 500-600 unit housing projects, she pointed out. The RAD program allows for the transition from HUD’s public housing line item to its voucher program, which is projected to be better funded in the future. AAHC already administers vouchers – over 1,500 of them, Hall said.

The transition to a project-based voucher system also will allow AAHC to apply for other funding support. One of the biggest sources is low-income housing tax credits. AAHC has been approved by HUD for RAD, Hall noted. And for the last six months AAHC has been doing due diligence and a feasibility study – which includes inspection of buildings by contractors and architects.

The first grant application by AAHC, for $1 million, is due by June 15, 2013. It’s being made to a Federal Home Loan Bank for two properties. To be eligible for the grant, the AAHC must show site control of the properties. That’s why the city council was being asked to transfer ownership from the city of Ann Arbor to the AAHC.

Hall explained that there’s been a change from the original plan that was presented to the city council. That original plan would have transferred the properties again – from AAHC to a new public/private partnership. But the new plan is for the AAHC to retain ownership of the land and the buildings, and to lease the improvements (buildings) through a ground lease to the limited partnership. A long-term ground lease will satisfy the IRS requirement that the limited partnership have an ownership interest in the property.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) wanted to know if the city would still have any controls over the properties after the transfer of ownership. As one way to control what the AAHC does with the properties, Hall noted that the city council appoints the AAHC board. Kailasapathy wanted to have some clarity on issues like rights of first refusal. Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald explained that there’s a deed restriction that will provide an extra control. He reiterated Hall’s point that the city council still appoints the members of the AAHC board. The council has the ability to remove members of the AAHC board, and McDonald continued by noting that the council has exercised that option before. [Current AAHC board members are Leigh Greden, Christopher Geer, Marta Manildi, Gloria Black and Ronald Woods.]

McDonald also pointed out that HUD controls the properties. If the properties were being mismanaged, HUD could step in, he said.

From left: Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Rochelle Lento, a Dykema attorney who’s doing work for the Ann Arbor public housing commission in connection with the RAD conversion.

Kailasapathy asked about the change from the transfer to a public/private partnership to the idea of a ground lease. Hall explained that after 15 years, the properties come back to the AAHC. Kailasapathy raised the specter of an accident that results in a legal liability – venturing that governmental immunity might not apply to a public/private partnership.

Rochelle Lento, who is legal consultant for the AAHC on the RAD conversion, attempted to provide some assurance to Kailasapathy. She noted that HUD’s Hope 6 program uses ground leases as a mechanism. McDonald stated that nothing that’s being proposed is outside the scope of what housing commissions can do.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know why the city can’t just lease the properties to the AAHC with a sublease to the public/private partnership. Lento could not say that can’t be done, but told Kunselman she has never seen it done that way.

Kunselman ventured that there must be a valid reason why the city of Ann Arbor currently owns the properties. He thought it might be related to the reason that the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority doesn’t own properties – that it’s important to the community to have direct control by the elected body.

Kunselman felt that a five-member board of political appointees – the AAHC board – might not be the best property managers. Kunselman, who said he’d be voting no on the proposal when the council was briefed on it in February, engaged in extended back and forth with Hall, Lento, and McDonald. He asked which properties are proposed to be demolished and rebuilt. Hall told Kunselman that those properties include the North Maple site, four units on Platt, Broadway, and possibly the White/State/Henry location.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked for a description of the limited liability partners and wondered if AAHC has one lined up. Lento indicated that the Great Lakes Capital Fund is interested in AAHC. She described GLCF as an active player in Michigan. She felt the AAHC’s ability to acquire an equity partner is good.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) brought up the shortfall in needed capital improvements. Hall responded that it would be burying her head in the sand to think that there will be more funding for public housing at the federal level.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Taylor asked for the reasonable expectation of the available investment that this proposal would create. Hall described AAHC’s plan to package Miller Manor with South Maple – which will have a $13 million rehabilitation cost. The low-income housing tax credits will generate about $8-9 million for that particular project. She also described using the city’s PACE program to fund some of the cost. The operating pro forma also indicates that those properties should be able to carry $1.6 million in debt. Lento explained that other grant money might be available from the state of Michigan, and a Federal Home Loan Grant program. Sources of funding are often leveraged against each other, she explained.

Alluding to Hall’s previous remark, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked Hall for not sticking her head in the sand, characterizing the situation as complicated and difficult. Lumm acknowledged that something dramatic needs to be done, and the approach Hall was proposing made sense. She noted that federal sequestration complicates the issue. But Lumm called it a clear choice. It’s not consistent with Ann Arbor’s values to do nothing and let the properties continue to deteriorate and eventually disappear, Lumm said, along with the services the properties provide.

Briere observed that it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that there are people involved, who live in the properties – when all the discussion is about just the properties. Prompted by Briere, Hall described a situation at Broadway, involving a stormwater drain. Another building on Platt Road has continuing problems with water in the basement, because it was built in the floodplain. She described sewer backups at one property. Briere asked what happens to the people who live in the properties if some of them are demolished as planned by the AAHC. Hall explained that AAHC has to follow the HUD protocols as far as finding alternate locations for people to live.

Hall described how some of the AAHC properties could support more units than they currently have – with a possible net increase of 20-30 units citywide.

After some back-and-forth with Kunselman, McDonald suggested adding a resolved clause to the council resolution. The additional resolved clause would make the transfer of the city property conditional on review of the proposed ground lease to the public/private partnership. Kunselman asked if the deed restriction could include a requirement that the housing be accessible to those with incomes less than 30% AMI (area median income). McDonald wasn’t sure if HUD will accept the imposition of a more stringent requirement than HUD’s 50% AMI requirement. Hall described the advantage of setting the rents at 50% – because vouchers make up the difference between income and the rent. If rent is set lower, that makes the subsidy lower.

The council took a brief recess so that McDonald could finalize and transmit the wording of the additional resolved clause to councilmembers.

RESOLVED, That each transfer be contingent on the closing of all financing for each transaction in conjunction with the Housing Commission entering into a ground lease with its partners; and …

Outcome on amendment: The council voted unanimously to add the resolved clause.

Kunselman said he’s been “very, very hesitant to go this direction.” He feared unforeseen consequences. He feared it will push out the “poorest of the poor.” On the other hand, there’s a sense that there’s really no other option, he said. The council has spent the last 10 years talking about affordable housing without talking about the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, he said. The 350 units of public housing managed by the AAHC had not received the council’s attention. But Kunselman said he’d support the proposal because of the uncertain future.

Mayor John Hieftje allowed there are some unknowns. But he felt that federal funding is going to go down. If the council did nothing, he felt things would get worse.

Before it went to a vote, Taylor questioned the wording of the added resolution, wondering if the choice of “all” in “all financing” might be too strong. Lento confirmed for Taylor that she was confident “all” could be achieved.

Outcome: On a 10-0 vote, including Kunselman, the council voted to transfer the city-owned public housing properties to AAHC. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) was absent.

Public Housing Conversion: Ancillary Resolutions

Without deliberation, the council acted on the second and third resolutions associated with the RAD conversion.

Outcome: The council approved the confirmation of AAHC-assigned employees as city employees.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) for AAHC properties.

On the resolution about allocating $200,000 to the city’s affordable housing trust fund for Miller Manor improvements, councilmembers made some brief remarks. Briere mentioned that the $200,000 appropriation from the city’s affordable housing trust fund was recommended by the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB) some time ago. Lumm indicated support for the resolution, saying that’s what the money in the affordable housing trust fund is for.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the grant for improvements at Miller Manor.

Ypsilanti Membership in AATA

The council was asked to approve changes to Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s articles of incorporation in a way that would admit the city of Ypsilanti as a member of the AATA. The AATA board and the Ypsilanti city council will also need to approve the document. Given the unanimous vote of the Ypsilanti city council requesting membership – and the AATA board’s generally positive response to the request – it’s expected those two bodies will also vote to approve the revised articles of incorporation. [.pdf of proposed AAATA articles of incorporation][.pdf of existing AATA articles of incorporation]

Ypsilanti’s request for membership came in the context of a demised attempt in 2012 to expand the AATA to all of Washtenaw County. Since then, conversations have continued among a smaller cluster of communities geographically closer to Ann Arbor.

From left: AATA outside legal counsel Jerry Lax and AATA staff members Bill De Groot and Mary Stasiak.

In addition to admitting the city of Ypsilanti as a member, the revised articles expand the size of the board from seven to nine members. One of the new seats will be appointed by the city of Ypsilanti. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Ypsi Waits at Bus Stop, Other Riders Unclear."]

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

A millage proposal would require voter approval. There’s an outside chance for the AATA to place a millage on the November 2013 ballot – if the change to the articles of incorporation are also approved in straightforward fashion by the AATA board and the Ypsilanti city council. Any decision to place a millage request on the November ballot would need to be made by late August. [Ballot language needs to be certified to the county clerk by Aug. 27, 2013.] But the practicalities of mounting a successful millage campaign mean that a decision to make a millage request would likely need to come sooner than that.

The change in the articles of incorporation also calls for a name change – to the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority (AAATA). Customary pronunciation of the current name is to sound out each letter: A-A-T-A. One possibility that’s been suggested is to pronounce the new letter sequence Triple-A-T-A.

The council’s June 3 resolution on the AATA articles of incorporation was co-sponsored by mayor John Hieftje, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Along with Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), the three have participated in ongoing meetings among the “urban core” communities. The next such meeting is scheduled for June 27 at Pittsfield Township hall, starting at 4 p.m.

Ypsilanti Membership in AATA: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) introduced the proposal.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). In the background is his wardmate, Christopher Taylor.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) added his support to the proposal, but called it a small step. He wondered if it’s appropriate for the Ann Arbor city council to take action before the AATA board takes action. His concern was that to add other members – like Ypsilanti Township or Pittsfield Township – it might require amending the articles of incorporation again within a short time frame. There’s a strong connection of the communities to the east of Ann Arbor, so they need a voice at the table, Kunselman said, and this step that the council is being asked to take will help to do that.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked for someone from the AATA to explain the proposal to the public. Responding to Anglin’s request, Jerry Lax, AATA’s outside legal counsel, went to the podium. Joining Lax were Bill De Groot and Mary Stasiak, staff with the AATA. Lax explained that the city of Ypsilanti has explicitly requested membership. The document in front of the council resulted from a discussion between the city of Ann Arbor, AATA, and the city of Ypsilanti, Lax said. He noted that this step the council is being asked to take does not itself create new funding. But it creates a mechanism by which voters could approve new funding.

Responding to a question from Anglin, Lax described the benefit to residents of Ann Arbor as allowing for a more coherent approach to providing transportation. Mayor John Hieftje described the background of the “urban core” meetings. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) stated that her own notion of “urban core” is Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. She asked if that’s also the AATA’s view. Lax ventured that two townships – Pittsfield and Ypsilanti – might also be considered a rational part of the system.

Petersen expressed some concern about renaming the authority as the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. She suggested calling it the Ann Arbor Ypsilanti Transportation Authority. Lax told Petersen that some initial drafts did include AAYT as a possibility. But he didn’t feel that the name change was the major accomplishment – something that Petersen agreed with. Kunselman ventured that naming it as Petersen suggested would result in a shortening that he seemed to indicate wouldn’t be optimal: “Ypsi-Arbor Transportation Authority.”

In support of the addition of Ypsilanti to the AATA and the relationship of Ypsilanti to Ann Arbor, Hieftje suggested looking at where high school graduates are attending school. Many Ann Arbor high school grads attend Eastern Michigan University in Ypsilanti, he said.

Hieftje also noted that Ypsilanti has already set up a dedicated funding mechanism for transit with its voter-approved millage. He wanted the Ann Arbor city council to be able to affirm the action that the Ypsilanti city council had taken when it requested membership. He said he was impressed with the AATA’s ability to account for where the various millage dollars were going. Hieftje indicated that he wouldn’t have a problem in “bleed-over” from the city of Ann Arbor funding for Routes #4 and #5 between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked staff for providing answers to her questions earlier in the day. She recited much of the recent history of efforts to expand transportation in the county. She complained that information on Ypsilanti’s financial commitment was only provided in response to councilmembers who had requested it. She lamented the fact that there’s not a framework for adding additional members beyond Ypsilanti. But Lumm said that Ypsilanti is Ann Arbor’s most natural partner in transportation, so she’d support the proposal.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) drew out the fact that a new AAATA millage would be levied uniformly in the entire geographic area of the transportation authority. That is, if the combined votes in the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti were in favor of an additional transit millage, then that additional millage would apply at the same rate in both cities.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved adding the city of Ypsilanti to the AATA.

Future of Public Art Program

On the council’s agenda was the final vote on a change to the city’s public art ordinance, so that capital improvement projects are no longer required to set aside 1% of their budgets for public art – a funding mechanism known as the Percent for Art. The council had given initial approval to the ordinance change at its May 13, 2013 session.

The main change to the ordinance is to eliminate any reference to a specific percentage for art in a capital project budget. Also, art funds would not be pooled as they are now – which entails setting aside money from projects into which it would be difficult to incorporate public art. Under the amended approach, city staff will work to determine whether a specific capital improvement should have enhanced design features “baked in” to the project – either enhanced architectural work or specific public art. The funding for any of the enhanced features would be included in the project’s budget and incorporated into the RFP (request for proposals) process for the capital project.

At the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting, a vote was taken to extend a moratorium on spending of public art funds – through May 31. The council had originally enacted the moratorium on spending at its Dec. 3, 2012 meeting.

The action to impose a moratorium came in the context of a failed millage proposal in November 2012, which was meant to provide an alternative funding mechanism to the Percent for Art approach. The millage proposal was put forward in part in response to objections that voters had not explicitly approved the Percent for Art mechanism, which taps all capital funds – even those deriving from fees and millages designated for other purposes.

In two other separate agenda items on June 3, the council was asked to return to their funds of origin some of the money that had previously been set aside for public art.

Both proposals were to change the council’s budget, which under the city charter means that an eight-vote majority was required on the 11-member council.

The first resolution, sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), would have returned monies to their funds of origin that had been set aside for public art in previous years under the ordinance. It was limited to those funds that have not yet been allocated to specific art projects.

However, the changes to the public art ordinance, as proposed for a final vote on June 3, allowed the council to return only the FY 2014 set-asides to their funds of origin. So the deliberations on the return of set-asides from previous years were primed for inclusion in deliberations on the ordinance itself – because a further amendment was necessary in order to vote on the Lumm/Kailasapathy amendment later in the agenda.

Returning public art set-asides from previous years would have shifted the following amounts for a total of $845,029:

• 002-Energy: $3,112
• 0042-Water Supply System: $61,358
• 0043-Sewage Disposal System: $451,956
• 0048-Airport: $6,416
• 0069-Stormwater: $20,844
• 0062-Street Millage: $237,314
• 0071-Parks Millage: $28,492
• 0072-Solid Waste: $35,529

The second fund-return resolution – sponsored by members of the council’s public art task force, Margie Teall (Ward 4), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) – proposed to return just the money set aside in the FY 2014 budget, which was approved by the council on May 20, 2013. This second resolution proposed to return the following amounts to various funds, for a total of $326,464:

• 0042-Water Supply System: $113,500
• 0043-Sewage Disposal System $50,050
• 0069-Stormwater: $33,500
• 0062-Street Millage: $120,700
• 0071-Parks Millage: $8,714

The council had already included explicit language in the public art ordinance amendment allowing for the return of money to the funds of origin that had been set aside in the FY 2014 budget for public art.

Future of Public Art Program: Public Comment

The council heard support for public art during public commentary reserved time. Mark Tucker quipped that his name, spelled “Turner” on the agenda, “has been misspelled worse.” He spoke in support of public art. And he noted that the newly-proposed ordinance changes included language acknowledging the positive impact that government can have in supporting the arts. He spoke specifically in favor of episodic and temporary public art. [Tucker is co-founder of the annual FestiFools parade in downtown Ann Arbor.] Tucker hoped that the revised ordinance signals the beginning of a dialogue.

Bob Miller, chair of the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission, addressed the council speaking on behalf of himself. He suggested that the council add to the ordinance a requirement that private construction contribute to a public art fund.

Thomas Partridge spoke at several of the public hearings offered at the meeting, including the one on the public art ordinance change. He was generally critical of the public art program and in particular the Dreiseitl water sculpture in front of city hall – funded by the public art program.

Also speaking at the public hearing on the public art ordinance was John Kotarski. He disagreed with Partridge’s assessment on the merits of the Dreiseitl work. Kotarski – a member of the city’s public art commission – thought the proposed ordinance amendments will strengthen the public art program. He argued that the “baking in” of public art into capital projects would result in more public art. He told the council and the city administrator that he’s ready to help.

Future of Public Art Program: Council Deliberations

Margie Teall (Ward 4) led off deliberations by thanking everyone, highlighting the work of Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who did much of the work on the council’s task force. Teall didn’t think it’s now a perfect ordinance. She highlighted the portion of the ordinance that she’d added, which Mark Tucker had noted during public commentary – about the government playing a role in supporting art.

By way of specific background, the language cited by Teall and Tucker reflects a softening from the original ordinance, which indicated a responsibility of the government to foster the arts [added language in italics; deleted language in strike-through].

City Council recognizes the role that government can play and the support that government can offer to foster the development of culture and the arts.
City Council recognizes the responsibility of government to foster the development of culture and the arts.

Briere also thanked everyone, including the staff. She noted that the task force didn’t have solutions for some things. She gave an example of a problem that the council did not have a solution for: How to pay for public art administration, and what to do with currently pooled public art funds.

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, came to the podium, quipping that he’d give the council an engineer’s version of finance. Financing the administration of the public art program is a challenge, he said. Using the city’s municipal service charge wouldn’t be feasible, he said, because that charge is assessed “looking backwards.” Hupy indicated that it would be possible to craft a program supported by the general fund for an interim period, until the new program becomes fully functional.

CFO Tom Crawford came to the podium and explained that his recommendation for funding public art administration was for the council to use the existing pooled funds that are set aside for public art to get the program through the next two years. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) questioned the legal basis on which the pooled funds could be used for administration. The basis of her concern was the restriction on the use of public funds that requires a thematic link between the purpose of the fund (e.g., water fund) and the work of art.

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

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) ventured that what’s needed is not administrative support for specific projects, but for those that might be considered as a part of a specific capital improvements project. He gave the example of a parks capital improvements project, where the question might arise as to whether it would be appropriate to incorporate public art into the project. It might be the case that a determination is made that a particular parks project wasn’t suitable for incorporation, he said. But that would be part of the administrative cost of the public art program, and would be allowed to be funded out of the parks millage set-aside, under the same reasoning that planning for the parks project itself is fundable from the parks millage. And if no art were incorporated into that parks capital project, he continued, it would be the same as if the question had been weighed: Should another basketball court be added? Even if the answer were no, the administrative activity associated with the weighing of that question would be fundable from the parks capital improvement millage.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) noted that the total of uncommitted funds that have been set aside in the public art fund is around $845,000. She suggested that maybe 10% of it could be retained as transition money to the new program. Crawford indicated that if money were pulled from the pooled funds, it would be done proportionally from the respective funds of origin.

Future of Public Art: Council Deliberations – Additional Amendment

Lumm then proposed an additional amendment to the ordinance to allow the return of funds set aside in previous years to their funds of origin. This was an additional ordinance change that would be necessary in order to implement Lumm’s resolution later on the agenda, which actually returned the funds. Lumm’s proposed added language was as follows:

(8) City Council may, at its discretion, amend the Fiscal Year 2014 budget or any subsequent budget to return to their respective funds of origin some or all uncommitted funds allocated for art prior to Fiscal Year 2014 under the prior Section 1:833, including funds that have been pooled in accordance with Section 1:834.

Briere and Teall both weighed in against this amendment. The task force had considered this option but chose not to pursue it. Teall said that the public art program needs a full-time administrator. Based on that financial need, she argued, the money should stay in the public art fund.

Kunselman indicated he wouldn’t support Lumm’s further amendment to the ordinance. He worked on the council’s public art task force, he noted, and there was a lot of compromise involved. Lumm responded to Kunselman by saying that he could support her amendment but then keep some of the money as transition money. Lumm returned to the fact that there’s roughly $845,000 of uncommitted money in the art fund. She called for a “clean break” from the Percent for Art program. She wanted to know what specific art that uncommitted money would be used for – instead of sewer and street improvements, for example.

Kailasapathy indicated that she wouldn’t support using restricted funds for general art administration. Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias confirmed that this amendment of Lumm’s would be necessary for the Lumm-Kailasapathy resolution later in the meeting, which would actually return public art money from prior years to the funds of origin. Briere drew out the fact that the current amount in the art administration fund will be zero by the end of this fiscal year on June 30, 2013.

From left: Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Petersen ventured that even the administration costs have a “nexus” issue – which means that the money set-aside for public art must be spent in a way that is thematically linked to the fund from which the money was taken. Kailasapathy noted that the public art administration fund came from an 8% allocation initially. That initial 8% has now been spent down, so to take another 8% from the set-aside for additional administration would essentially be double-dipping, she said.

Hupy pointed out that to implement the recommendation for a full-time instead of a part-time administrator, it will cost more. [The current public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, serves in a part-time position.] Taylor described how the work of the public art administrator in the future will involve how to bake in art to various capital projects. If the administrator is thinking about incorporating art into streets, then that’s an adequate thematic link to streets to fund the art administrator’s work. As long as the administrator allocates time proportionally among the source funds, there shouldn’t be a problem, Taylor contended.

Briere asked what the “fall back position” is for the city – if all the money is returned to the funds of origin. Crawford explained that if all the pooled art money is returned to the funds of origin, then the only option he saw for funding the administration of the public art program was to use general fund reserve money.

Lumm returned to her idea simply to leave a small portion of the uncommitted art funds to pay for administration. She stressed that the sewer fund contributed the majority of the money that was currently in the public art fund. Petersen argued that if the amendment were approved, it gives the council some flexibility in the future. She was implying that the restoration of that money to its funds of origin need not be settled that night. The flexibility would help the council deal with some unknowns she identified, which included: (1) How much money is needed? (2) What’s the art administrator’s job description?

Hieftje indicated he wouldn’t support Lumm’s amendment. He contended that when the conversation about changing the public art program was started, many councilmembers had expressed their comfort with leaving the existing funds in the public art fund. He linked public art with economic development.

Outcome: The amendment proposed by Lumm failed, with support only from Kailasapathy, Petersen and Lumm.

Future of Public Art: Council Deliberations – Continued

When the council returned to the main question, Kunselman talked about working together and compromising. His concern had always been about the legality of the program, he said. The task force had done a lot compromise coming to an agreement. In that spirit, he said, he wouldn’t be asking for a state attorney general opinion on the legality of the program – which he’d previously said he would. He allowed that he’d voted for the program in 2007, unaware of the implications of the Percent for Art funding mechanism. And he hoped that the community could find funds for other kinds of art besides capital improvements. He indicated a preference for gatherings of people having a good time, rather than monumental art. He supported the ordinance change.

Lumm thanked the task force. She supported the part of the ordinance change that eliminates the automatic 1% set-aside. If any community could fund public art with private sources, it’s Ann Arbor, she contended.

But Lumm was still concerned that the structure of the program leaves in place a mechanism that takes money from capital improvement projects. She expressed disappointment that her amendment was not approved. She returned to the point of the $845,000 that remains uncommitted in the public art fund. She re-argued the case for her amendment that would have allowed the council to restore uncommitted public art money from all previous years to their funds of origin. She indicated a grudging support for the ordinance change.

Taylor said he was delighted and proud to have participated in the task force. He called the ordinance revision an improvement – but he felt there’s some uncertainty. Public art will compete with other priorities and find its proper level of support, he felt.

Briere summarized the task force work as the result of councilmembers approaching the topic from their individual peculiar attitudes toward public art. Thinking through all the implications had been hard, she said. She didn’t think everything has been solved. How it’ll play out in the next three years remains to be seen, she said. The council will be determining how much public art there is and where – based on advice from the staff about which projects should have art incorporated in them, she explained.

Kailasapathy indicated support for the ordinance revision, but still had reservations about leaving the money in the art fund balance. She allowed she’s not a legal expert, but felt it was on shaky legal grounds.

Responding to a question from Kunselman, Hupy allowed that he couldn’t imagine that $845,000 could be spent on public art administration in two years. Crawford indicated that that amount could be used for administration but also on art projects.

Kunselman urged councilmembers to stop looking back and to start looking forward. It was tough for him to disagree with Lumm and Kailasapathy, but he wanted to focus on looking forward.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked about the resolution later on the agenda that restored funding that had been set aside for public art in FY 2014 just recently: How was that different? Crawford explained that particular resolution applied just for FY 2014. There was a second resolution that would return money from previous years – which Lumm’s amendment to the ordinance was meant to facilitate.

Outcome: The council gave unanimous final approval to the changes to the public art ordinance.

Future of Public Art: Return of Funds Prior to FY 2014

Deliberations on the proposed return of public art money to its funds of origin for years prior to FY 2014 were scant. That’s because the ordinance amendment that would have facilitated the fund transfer earlier in the evening did not pass.

Outcome: Lumm withdrew the resolution, given that her attempt to amend the ordinance – in a way that was necessary for the resolution to be considered – failed earlier in the meeting.

Future of Public Art: Return of Funds Just for FY 2014

Briere introduced this resolution to return public art set-asides in FY 2014 to their funds of origin.

Lumm indicated she supported the resolution. But she again complained that the council didn’t act to amend the ordinance to allow the return of previous years’ allocations to their funds of origin.

Outcome: The council voted to return the FY 2014 public art set-asides to their funds of origin.

DDA Funding of Downtown Police

On the agenda was a formal resolution encouraging the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to consider paying for three police officers to be assigned to the downtown. The total annual cost would be about $270,000.

DDA Funding of Downtown Police: Background

The resolution came in the context of the council’s vote on May 20, 2013 that set the city’s FY 2014 budget – during a debate that ultimately rejected funding for three additional police officers. The proposed budget amendment, which failed on a 5-6 vote, had been brought forward by Jane Lumm (Ward 2). The amendment would have reduced the budget of the 15th District Court by $270,000.

The council’s June 3 resolution was brought forward by Lumm and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), who both supported the unsuccessful attempt to reduce the 15th District Court budget to fund police. The June 3 resolution came partly in response to sentiments expressed during the FY 2014 budget debate, when some councilmembers on the prevailing side had said they’d prefer for additional police to be paid for by the DDA.

The DDA itself has designated $300,000 in its parking fund budget for the next year as “discretionary” and has previously discussed allocating that money to a “clean and safe” initiative – which could include funding police officers. However, sentiments on the DDA board have been mixed about the exact nature of the staffing that the DDA would like to pay for. Some DDA board members have indicated a preference for hiring staff who would act as “ambassadors” – not police.

DDA Funding for Downtown Police: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) introduced the resolution, which she co-sponsored with Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated he would support the resolution. His understanding was that the DDA likes direction from the city council in the form of resolutions.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) allowed that it would not be irrational for the DDA to review this question. But he indicated that he didn’t think the resolution helped to rebuild a relationship of trust with the DDA. He pointed out that the DDA had already included an option in its budget to fund public safety. So he’d be voting against the resolution.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) alluded to the council’s December 2012 retreat priorities on public safety. She indicated that her support for the resolution was based on the fact that it’s advisory. But she noted that the work plan developed by the city administrator, Steve Powers – in response to the council’s priority on public safety – includes a lot of elements that don’t depend on a count of officers. [.pdf of draft work plans for FY 2014-15 for all service areas] But the resolution is only about a number of police officers, Briere said. She wanted to move the discussion beyond numbers, to talk about policy.

Kailasapathy stressed that the funds in the DDA’s budget are undesignated. That’s part of the basis on which she supported the resolution. Petersen described the perception of public safety as high until someone has a problem – and police downtown might be able to prevent problems before they happen. Her mention of the perception of safety was an allusion to the inclusion in the council’s definition of success of Ann Arbor being perceived as safe.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) indicated he’d support the resolution. He allowed that just having more police officers doesn’t automatically make a safer city, but more police officers means that the city is able to respond when someone calls for help.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) expressed appreciation for the fact that the resolution was brought forward. But she also expressed some reservations about specifying the exact number of officers. She raised the possibility of making an amendment to the resolution to make it nonspecific with respect to the number of officers. Lumm indicated a preference for her original version, specifying three officers.

Briere then asked police chief John Seto to come to the podium. She asked how many officers are dedicated to the DDA area. Seto says none are assigned to the DDA specifically. It’s part of the “Adam” district – bounded by Huron, Main, Stadium and Packard – and 12-14 officers are assigned to that area. Briere wanted to know if three officers were added, how the staffing would be adjusted. Seto answered that the additional three officers would be additional bodies that would be assigned to the “Adam” district. The officers assigned to other areas of the city would remain the same, he says.

Mayor John Hieftje stated that Ann Arbor is one of the safest cities in the nation. Most of the literature indicates that adding police doesn’t reduce crime, he said. His interest was in reducing nuisance issues. Hieftje noted that the DDA board [on which he sits] has discussed the possibility of funding ambassadors who would have direct communication with the police. Hieftje indicated agreement with Taylor’s remarks.

Hieftje felt the context of the council’s consideration of revising the ordinance governing DDA TIF (tax increment finance) capture was relevant. [The council is considering clarifying the existing language in the ordinance that describes a cap in TIF revenue to the DDA, calibrated to the amount of anticipated revenue in the TIF plan, a foundational document of the DDA.] Hieftje expressed concern that the funding for police staffing, if they’re to be added as staff, needs to be sustainable.

Hieftje said he couldn’t predict how the DDA would perceive the resolution. He wanted councilmembers to be prepared for a range of reactions from the DDA board. He felt it would be a worthy discussion at the DDA. [At the DDA's June 5, 2013 meeting, the council's resolution was referred to the operations committee.]

Outcome: The council voted 8-2 to encourage the DDA to consider funding three police officers to be deployed in the downtown. Dissent came from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4). For a Chronicle op-ed on this general topic, see: “Counting on the DDA to Fund Police?“

Sidewalk Definition Change

The council considered initial approval of a change to the definition of “sidewalk” in the city’s code.

The new definition of “sidewalk” would expand the existing definition to include non-motorized paths that are [emphasis added] “designed particularly for pedestrian, bicycle, or other nonmotorized travel and that is constructed (1) in the public right of way or (2) within or upon an easement or strip of land taken or accepted by the city or dedicated to and accepted by the city for public use by pedestrians, bicycles, or other nonmotorized travel, …”

When the ordinance change comes to the council for a second and final approval, an additional resolution will be voted on, which would accept certain sidewalks for public use.

Impacts from this change include funding for repair and maintenance of such facilities and responsibility for snow clearance. The changed definition will allow the city to use sidewalk millage money to repair and maintain the facilities. However, it will also place responsibility on the abutting property owner for snow clearance during the winter.

City staff have identified 33 cross-lot sidewalks that would be affected by the ordinance change. A notice is supposed to be sent to all property owners abutting those sidewalks, informing them that a formal resolution accepting those sidewalks for public use is pending. According to the staff memo accompanying the council’s agenda item, a question and answer session is scheduled for June 27 from 5-7 p.m. in the basement conference room at city hall.

During the brief deliberations, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated she would support the ordinance to move it to a second reading, but she had some questions she’d want answered when it comes back to the council for final approval. Her concern stemmed from sidewalks in the city that don’t run along streets but rather between groups of houses to connect one area to another. She noted that the city’s recently approved sidewalk maintenance millage relieved property owners from having to maintain and repair the sidewalks that adjoined their property. But that meant that a different question became important: Who’s responsible for shoveling snow off the sidewalks during the winter? Depending on the neighborhood, this could be a burden, she said. Briere felt the council will want to look carefully at the definition change.

Outcome: The council gave unanimous initial approval to the change in the definition of “sidewalk.”

Mack Pool Roof Replacement

The council considered an item to approve replacement of the roof on Mack indoor pool, located within the Ann Arbor Open school near the corner of Miller and Brooks.

At its May 21, 2013 meeting, the Ann Arbor park advisory commission had recommended awarding a contract to Pranam GlobalTech Inc. for $193,000 to cover the roof replacement and painting refurbishment. A 10% construction contingency brings the project’s budget to $212,300.

Pranam provided the lowest of two bids. The other bidder was Wm. Molnar Roofing Co. Inc., which bid $271,319 for the work. Pranam was previously selected to replace the roof at Veterans Memorial Park Ice Arena. The contract for that project was approved by the city council at its May 20, 2013 meeting.

According to parks staff, the existing roof from the early 1990s was expected to last just 15 years. There are leaks and rusted steel lintels and joists, which need to be replaced. The project also includes removing rust and painting the pool ceiling and joists.

Funding for the project is available from two sources: (1) $186,088 from the fund balance of the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage; and (2) $26,212 from the Ann Arbor Public Schools, which pays annually into a capital facilities escrow account earmarked for Mack Pool.

The work will be done in June and July, while school is out of session. The pool is not open during the summer months.

Outcome: Without deliberation, the Mack Pool roof contract was unanimously approved.

Pension Ordinance Change

The council considered final approval of a change to the city’s pension ordinance. The change would potentially affect a single person – a former city dispatcher.

When dispatch operations for the city were contracted out to the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office, the pension benefit change was negotiated as part of the consolidation with the Ann Arbor Police Officers Association, which represented the city dispatchers. The amendment allows a former dispatcher to collect city pension benefits at the same time they would have if they’d remained employees with the city.

Outcome: Without discussion, the council gave unanimous final approval to the change to the pension ordinance.

Distribution of Non-Motorized Plan

The council was asked to take another step toward incorporating an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan into the city’s master plan.

The specific action requested of the council was to approve distribution of the plan to adjoining jurisdictions and stakeholders, including the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, DTE Energy, the University of Michigan, the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, and the Ann Arbor Public Schools. These entities will have 42 days to submit comments.

A recommendation to distribute the city of Ann Arbor’s draft non-motorized transportation plan update had been unanimously approved by the city’s planning commission at its April 16, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of staff report and draft non-motorized plan]

This is an update of a plan that was initially approved in 2007. It makes policy recommendations as well as specific project proposals, primarily related to pedestrian and bicycle travel. Planning commissioners had been briefed on the draft update by Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, at a March 12 working session.

Outcome: On a unanimous vote without deliberation, the council authorized the distribution of the draft non-motorized plan.

Appointments

Several issues involving appointments were on the council’s agenda.

Appointments: Greenbelt – Fike

The council was asked to confirm Jennifer Fike as a member of Ann Arbor’s greenbelt advisory commission. She had been nominated at the council’s meeting on May 20, 2013. Fike, who is finance director of the Huron River Watershed Council, is replacing Laura Rubin, HRWC’s executive director. Rubin’s term on the commission ends in June.

Fike had attended the April 4, 2013 meeting of the commission to introduce herself and express her interest in serving.

By way of background, nominations for GAC are made by the city council, not by the mayor. The procedure followed by the council is to place on the agenda a resolution making the appointment at one council meeting, but to postpone it until the following meeting. For mayoral nominations, the names are placed before the council at a meeting as a communications item – on which no council vote is required. The confirmation vote takes place at a subsequent meeting.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who serves as the city council appointee to the greenbelt advisory commission, briefly described Fike’s background and thanked Rubin for her service on GAC.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to confirm Fike’s appointment to GAC.

Appointments – Misc.

The one mayoral nomination from the previous meeting was Lloyd E. Shelton for the city’s commission on disability issues.

Outcome: Shelton’s appointment to the city’s commission on disability issues was unanimously confirmed.

Nominations put before the council for consideration at its next meeting included the re-appointments to the planning commission of Bonnie Bona and Tony Derezinski. Also among the nominations was LuAnne Bullington to the taxicab board.

In addition, members of the downtown area citizens advisory council were re-nominated at the June 3 meeting, having first appeared on the council’s May 13, 2013 meeting agenda for re-appointment. The names had not been presented to the council for confirmation on May 20. The terms of all the members had expired. The council will need to vote to confirm these re-appointments at a future meeting.

Street Improvements

The council was asked to approve a couple of items related to street improvements.

Street Improvements: West Madison

One street-related item was a $2,283,524 contract with Pamar Enterprises Inc. for work on West Madison Street – from South Seventh Street to South Main Street. The total cost of the project is $3,162,000. It’s being paid for with a combination of street funds, water funds and stormwater funds. It includes water main replacement and stormwater improvements.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) recalled when that section of Madison was repaved years ago and it had been in pretty good shape for a short period of time. He felt that the buses seemed to impact the pavement and it kept sloughing down the hill. He wondered if the base of the road would be beefed up to prevent the sloughing of the pavement. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy introduced project manager Igor Kotlyar at the podium.

Left to right: Public services area administrator Craig Hupy and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Kotlyar assured Kunselman that the project would entail a full reconstruction of the street, including stormwater improvements with proper cross section and thickness of pavement for buses. Responding to a question from Kunselman, Kotlyar indicated that the construction would last, saying he didn’t want to come back to do repairs.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked for an explanation of the stormwater features. Kotlyar described how the project would use a range of techniques, based on the soil composition along different sections of the road – including rain gardens and plans for infiltration on the uphill portions of the street. And in lower parts of the project, where soils aren’t suitable for infiltration, oversized piping would serve as a temporary detention system, he explained.

Outcome: The West Madison Street improvements contract was unanimously approved.

Street Improvements: Stone School Road Design

Also related to street improvements was a request for approval of a $101,140 contract for design work with Northwest Consultants Inc. (NCI) for the Stone School Road reconstruction between I-94 and Ellsworth Road. The staff memo explained why a stormwater engineer was being consulted on the project:

A portion of the project includes alternatives for addressing the existing, failed, Mallett’s Creek culvert located under Old Stone School Road near the I-94 pedestrian overpass, as well as stream bank stability issues associated with the existing culvert located under Stone School Road and other storm water quality and quantity issues associated with Stone School Road itself.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he’s looking forward to this project. He’s personally seen the failed culvert, but added, “don’t ask why.” He reported that a former city employee – who owns property adjacent to the site – had pointed out the failed culvert. Responding to a question from Kunselman, city engineer Nick Hutchinson told Kunselman that construction is expected in 2014.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said that as a member of the Malletts Creek coordinating committee, she was grateful that the project would be addressing Malletts Creek issues.

Outcome: The Stone School Road design work contract was unanimously approved by the council.

Time Limitation on Fireworks

The council was asked to take initial action to revise the city’s local ordinance on the use of fireworks.

The change would mean that it wouldn’t be possible to explode fireworks for the continuous 72-hour period from July 3-5. Instead, people would have to confine their use of fireworks to the period between 8 a.m. and midnight on those days.

The local ordinance change depends on state legislation that’s yet to be enacted. But a bill already approved by the Michigan House, and expected to be ratified by the Senate and signed into law by July 4 this year, would give local municipalities the ability to regulate the hours during which fireworks can be exploded.

State law currently prohibits local municipalities from regulating the use of fireworks on the day preceding, the day of, and the day after a national holiday. The bill that’s working its way through the state legislature would allow local municipalities to impose restrictions on those days – but only by regulating the hours – to 8 a.m. through midnight. For New Year’s Day, local municipalities could regulate the use of fireworks by allowing them from 8 a.m. through 1 a.m., which would allow for midnight fireworks celebrations.

Briere recalled the loud July 4 last year and the complaints about fireworks that had come on July 5. She described rockets found in yards the next day. While the number of complaints might not have been great, those that were heard were dramatic, she said. That resulted from a change in state law that allows residents to use “more exciting” fireworks.

Briere said the state legislature had received a lot of complaints. She gave an update on the legislative activity in the House. She noted it lacked Senate approval and hadn’t been signed into law. But the initial approval by the council that night would set up the council to give final approval of the local ordinance before July 4, if “with any luck” the state law as actually changed, she said. If the legislature did not act, Briere noted that Ann Arbor’s local law needed to be revised in any case to update some obsolete references.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked for clarification about the impact of the local ordinance change. Briere assured Lumm that it was only display fireworks that required a permit, but that consumer fireworks did not.

Outcome: The council gave unanimous initial approval to the change in the fireworks ordinance. The second reading will come before the council on June 17.

Utility Improvement Charges

The council was asked to give final approval to changes in the way utility improvement charges are calculated.

The initial approval was given on May 13, 2013 at a meeting that had started on May 6. The improvement charges will be calculated in a way that significantly reduces the rates for the next two years. That would give the city time to hire a consultant to give a more comprehensive review to the charges.

The charges are due when a single- or two-family property connects to water and sewer for the first time. The charges are paid by either the contractor/developer or the property owner, depending on who makes the request for a connection. [.pdf of connection charge comparison]

The action on improvement charges came after the council had debated proposed increases to the charges at its Jan. 22, 2013 meeting, and ultimately rejected the increase for this year.

The charges, which could be as high as $40,000, were seen as an obstacle to in-fill development of vacant lots in the city.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off deliberations by announcing that the city attorney’s office had recommended a change to the amendment. She read aloud the change and allowed that “it’s not entirely enlightening.” The change related to property outside a development, adding the following language:

(13) For a residential property outside a benefited development that connects during the period July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2015, to a water main or sanitary sewer improvement or identified portion thereof that was built as provided in this section 1:277, including water main or sanitary sewer improvements constructed both before and after January 20, 2004, the improvement charge that is imposed at the time of connection shall be:

Improvement Charge = (N)(4)(Y)(CC)

For purposes of this calculation, “N,” “Y” and “CC” shall have the same meaning as in subsections 1:277(3) and (5), and the value of Y shall be 19.

The change was accepted in a friendly way, which meant that the council did not vote on the added language. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked sponsors of the ordinance – Briere, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). She also thanked the staff for their work and expressed her support for the ordinance change.

Outcome: The council gave unanimous final approval to the change in the utility improvement charges.

Ann Arbor Utility Rate Increases

The council was asked to give final approval to water, sewer and stormwater rate increases.

In terms of revenue generated to the city, the rate increases are expected to generate 3.55% more for drinking water ($739,244), 4.25% more for the sanitary sewer ($955,531), and 4% more for stormwater ($233,811). [.pdf of complete utility rate changes as proposed]

According to the city, the rate increases are needed to maintain debt service coverage and to maintain funding for required capital improvements. The city estimates that the impact on an average customer will be a $20.66 per year increase in total utility charges.

The city’s drinking water charges are based on a “unit” of 100 cubic feet – 748 gallons. Charges for residential customers are divided into tiers, based on usage. For example, the first seven units of water for residential customers have been charged at a rate of $1.31 per unit and will now be increased to $1.35 per unit. Since 2004 the city has used four tiers of rates, based on usage. For this year, however, the amount charged for the top tier – for usage over 45 units – is proposed to be identical with the next lower tier. Currently the top tier is charged at $6.78, but is proposed to drop to the third tier rate of $4.88.

Sewer rates are charged as a function of water usage. The commodity rate is proposed to increase from $3.48 to $3.65.

The city’s stormwater rates are based on the amount of impervious area on a parcel and are billed quarterly. For example, the lowest tier – for impervious area less than 2,187 square feet – has been $13.68 per quarter. Under the new rate structure, that increases to $14.20.

Water usage for Ann Arbor city residents is available on the city’s website. [You'll need your account number to access information.]

The council had given initial approval to the utility rate changes at its May 20, 2013 meeting.

Outcome: Without further deliberation, the council gave unanimous final approval to the utility rate increases.

State Street Center Rezoning

The council was asked to give final approval to a rezoning request for State Street Center, near the intersection of State and Ellsworth. The rezoning had been given initial approval by the council at its May 13, 2013 meeting. A site plan for the project has not yet received council action.

The rezoning request – from O (office) to C3 (fringe commercial) – stems from an incorrectly recording of the zoning designation in the city’s documents. The development is located adjacent to a new Tim Hortons restaurant, which opened last year.

The project calls for demolishing a vacant 840-square-foot house on this site. In its place, the developer plans a one-story, 1,700-square-foot drive-thru Jimmy John’s restaurant facing South State Street. A one-story, 6,790-square-foot retail building will be built behind the restaurant. The driveway off South State Street would be relocated and widened. The site would include 39 parking spaces, as well as covered bicycle parking between the buildings.

The project is estimated to cost $900,000. The property, which is located in Ward 4, is owned by Jack Schwarcz of Oak Park, Mich.

The site plan approval would be contingent on dedicating a 50-foot South State Street right-of-way to the city prior to any permits being issued.

The project was approved by the city planning commission at its April 2, 2013 meeting. It had originally been on the commission’s March 19, 2013 agenda. At that time, the city’s planning staff recommended postponement after discovering that the city’s official zoning map had been incorrectly labeled. It showed the site as zoned C3 (fringe commercial). The developer had made plans based on that erroneous labeling. But during background research for this proposal, planning staff discovered that the site actually had been zoned as O (office) in 2003.

Outcome: Without discussion, the council unanimously approved the State Street Center rezoning.

490 Huron Parkway Rezoning: Final OK

The council was asked to give final approval to a rezoning request for 490 Huron Parkway, from R3 (townhouse district) to R1B (single-family dwelling). Initial approval had been given at the council’s May 13, 2013 meeting.

The Parkway Place proposal had not won approval from the city planning commission at its Dec. 18, 2012 meeting. At that meeting, planning commissioner Bonnie Bona said she couldn’t support the rezoning. With 70,000 people commuting into Ann Arbor each day, it didn’t make sense to build single-family homes in that area, she said. The 5-1 planning commission vote meant that the project did not get the six votes it needed for a recommendation of approval.

The rezoning will allow the currently vacant 1.22-acre site, located north of Ruthven Park, to be divided into three separate lots. City planning staff had recommended the rezoning, and noted that the adjacent parcel at 500 Huron Parkway is also zoned R1B.

During the brief deliberations, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked staff for their response to a question about unstable soils. Staff had inspected the site and confirmed that the soils were stable, she said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who serves as the city council appointee to the planning commission, explained that the recommendation of denial from the planning commission resulted from the attendance of only six of nine commissioners. The objection was based on the contention that the project, however worthy, didn’t fit the master plan for the area. She noted the rationale for those commissioners voting for it: They thought it would be an improvement to the area.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the 490 Huron Parkway rezoning.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: D1 Zoning Review

During public commentary reserved time, councilmembers heard from residents disappointed with the council’s May 13, 2013 decision to approve the 413 E. Huron development. The planning commission is now supposed to implement the direction given by the council, at its April 1, 2013 meeting, to review the D1 (downtown core) zoning by Oct. 1. Speakers encouraged the council to look at specific issues related to that zoning review.

Jeffrey Crockett congratulated the winners of the historic district commission awards that were announced at the start of the meeting. He thanked city planner Jill Thacher for her staff support of the historic district commission. He criticized the provision for “mitigation” of landmark trees in the zoning code. He concluded there is no meaningful protection for landmark trees in the D1 zoning code. The 413 E. Huron project involved mitigation of landmark trees.

Peter Nagourney also commented on the 413 E. Huron project. He criticized the council’s decision to approve the project, based on the threat of a lawsuit.

Steve Kaplan called the 413 E. Huron project emblematic of problems to come. He focused on the possible traffic issues that the project could cause.

Comm/Comm: Sophistication of DDA

During communications time, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) referred to a 2008 email cited at the council’s previous meeting in which Ann Arbor Downtown Development executive director Susan Pollay described the financing of the Library Lane underground parking structure. She indicated in that email that tax dollars would not be used to finance it, but rather parking system revenue would fund that project. That approach proved not to be the one that the DDA took, using tax increment finance (TIF) funds to pay for part of the cost. Taylor portrayed Pollay’s statement not as reflecting a lack of competence on the DDA’s part, but rather of changing plans when reality changes. The part that had changed, according to Taylor, was the DDA’s willingness to change the terms of the contract under which the DDA operates the public parking system.

Comm/Comm: Pizza in the Park

At a previous council meeting – on May 20, 2013 – several people had spoken in opposition to the imposition of a fee that was apparently charged to the Vineyard Church of Ann Arbor as part of its Friday evening homelessness ministry, which the church conducts at Liberty Plaza. The plaza at the southwest corner of Division and Liberty is part of the city’s parks & recreation system.

At the June 3 meeting, there was some follow-up during public commentary reserved time, as there was an interest in thanking city officials for their efforts to ensure the event could continue, as well as an interest in getting some kind of written commitment from the city.

Seth Best asked everyone in the audience to stand who was attending the council meeting to support Pizza in the Park, and a couple dozen people stood up. He thanked the mayor and staff for their efforts to ensure that the program, sponsored by the Vineyard Church, can continue. The program distributes food and other aid to the homeless community in Liberty Plaza. He hoped for something in writing. Nicholas Goodman described an increased police presence deployed in the city, which he perceived as designed to break up tent communities.

Antonio Benton also thanked the mayor and the council for agreeing to allow the Pizza in the Park to continue. He described himself as a full-time student, but also homeless. Pizza in the Park is the one meal that many in the homeless community get, he said.

After public comment, mayor John Hieftje explained what happened to cause a misunderstanding concerning Pizza in the Park. It involved a vehicle being parked in a private driveway. He gave an assurance that Pizza in the Park will be allowed to continue. From the audience, Caleb Poirer asked Hieftje if some kind of written commitment could be provided affirming that. Hieftje indicated he didn’t think there was a legal basis for not being able to continue that event.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Poirer addressed the council asking for a binding, written agreement indicating that humanitarian aid providers will not be charged a parks and recreation fee. And Best echoed Poirer’s sentiments. He was concerned that a policy might be applied that requires a permit if you advertise a gathering in a public space that could draw more than 50 people.

Comm/Comm: Thomas Partridge

During public commentary reserved time and during several of the nine public hearings held on various topics, Thomas Partridge addressed the council – to advance the cause of human rights and civil rights, affordable housing, and public transportation for all residents, especially those with disabilities and seniors.

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sumi Kailasapathy, Sally Petersen, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor.

Absent: Chuck Warpehoski.

Next council meeting: Monday, June 17, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at city hall, 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. 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!

If the council gives the ordinance change final approval on June 17 after a public hearing, it would not be possible to explode fireworks for the continuous 72-hour period from July 3-5. Instead, people would have to confine their use of fireworks to the period between 8 a.m. and midnight on those days.

The local ordinance change depends on state legislation that’s yet to be enacted. But a bill already approved by the Michigan House, and expected to be ratified by the Senate and signed into law by July 4 this year, would give local municipalities the ability to regulate the hours during which fireworks can be exploded.

State law currently prohibits local municipalities from regulating the use of fireworks on the day preceding, the day of, and the day after a national holiday. The bill that’s working its way through the state legislature would allow local municipalities to impose restrictions on those days – but only by regulating the hours – to 8 a.m. through midnight. For New Year’s Day, local municipalities could regulate the use of fireworks by allowing them from 8 a.m. through 1 a.m., which would allow for midnight fireworks celebrations.

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]

Sherry Knight Bedolla speaks to the Ann Arbor planning commission at its May 15, 2012 meeting. Her father, Ray Knight, bought the former Ty's Market on the corner of Spring and Miller in 1952. Knight's Market is seeking to expand and add a bakery in the current single-family house. They are asking the city to rezone the property from residential to C1 commercial. (Photos by the writer.)

The city’s fiscal year ends June 30. Year to date, 10 zoning or planned unit development (PUD) applications have been received, compared to one in fiscal year 2011. Twenty-one site plans have been submitted this year, compared to 13 in FY 2011. And 494 zoning compliance reviews have been completed this year for building permits, up from 215 in FY 2011 – a 129% increase.

At the commission’s May 15 meeting, five projects were considered. The one drawing most interest from residents was a proposed expansion of Knight’s Market at the corner of Spring and Miller. The plan calls for an addition on the current market building, which has been run by the Knight family since 1952. Three parcels would be combined into one that would be rezoned as C1 (local business), allowing the Knights to turn one of two single-family homes next to the market into a bakery. The bakery wouldn’t have a retail space – it would be used to make products for the market and the family’s restaurants in Ann Arbor and Jackson.

Ten people spoke during a public hearing on the project,  mostly residents of the neighborhood. They expressed support and gratitude for the Knights and their business, but raised concerns about increased truck traffic and “commercial creep.” Residents were also cautious about the future of the site, if ownership changes hands after the property is rezoned for commercial uses.

Speaking on behalf of the family, Sherry Knight Bedolla assured commissioners that there are no plans to sell to a developer – the family simply needs to meet demand for its baked goods, she said. The bakery would also be used to repackage food from the restaurant into ready-to-eat meals that would be sold in the market. At the planning staff’s request, commissioners ultimately voted to postpone action on the project to allow time for additional review.

Also postponed was action on the site plan for DTE Energy’s Buckler electrical substation at 984 Broadway near Canal Street. DTE hopes to build the substation in the utility company’s Ann Arbor service center to provide an increase in electrical power to the downtown area, due to increased demand for electricity. The project is expected to be back on the planning commission’s June 5 agenda. A companion project – a site plan for remediation of the nearby MichCon property on Broadway – was unanimously approved, assuming that a list of contingencies are met.

Two other projects were also unanimously approved: (1) an expansion of parking for the Wintermeyer office complex on South State; and (2) a temporary retail sales special exception use for Phantom Fireworks, to sell fireworks in the parking lot of Colonial Lanes at 1950 South Industrial Highway.

Knight’s Market Expansion

Ann Arbor planning commissioners were asked to consider a request from Knight’s Market – a rezoning and site plan proposal to allow the neighborhood market to expand and add a bakery. City planner Alexis DiLeo gave the staff report.

Knight’s Market is located at the northeast corner of Spring and Miller. The market’s owner, Ray Knight, also owns two separate, adjacent parcels. (Knight is perhaps best known for his family’s restaurant, Knight’s Steakhouse, located at 2324 Dexter Ave.) The grocery store is on land zoned zoned C1 (local business) and M1 (light industrial). Another parcel at 306-308 Spring St. has two zoning designations – R2A (two-family dwelling) and M1 – and contains two single-family homes and part of a parking lot. The third parcel at 310 Spring St. is also zoned R2A and M1 and contains the other half of the store’s parking lot. All three parcels are currently non-conforming in some way, according to a staff report, and are located in the 100-year Allen Creek floodplain.

The proposal from Knight’s involves several steps. The request calls for 306, 308 and 310 Spring to be rezoned to C1. That rezoning would allow the building at 306 Spring to be converted into a bakery, although the intent is to leave the exterior of the house intact. The rezoning would also allow for approval to build a 1,200-square-foot addition to the existing grocery store and to expand, reconfigure, and improve the existing parking lot. In addition, the plan requests that 418 Miller Ave. – the site of the existing grocery – also be rezoned to C1.

The proposed work to the parking lot includes providing three additional spaces (for a total of 17 parking spaces), a designated snow pile storage area, solid waste and recycling container storage enclosure, right-of-way screening, conflicting land use buffer, and rain gardens for storm water management. An unused curbcut on Miller Avenue would be removed and the curb and lawn extension would be restored there. A temporary storage building at 418 Miller would be removed. The house at 310 Spring would remain a single-family dwelling.

The staff report notes that a neighborhood meeting in September 2011 drew about 10 people, who raised concerns about the proposed bakery at 306 Spring, as well as possible future uses for adjacent land also owned by Knight at 314 and 422 Spring, which are not part of the current proposal.

Knight’s Market Expansion: Public Hearing

Ten people spoke during the project’s public hearing. Architect Dick Fry described more details of the project. The site will be “cleaned up,” he said, including removal of a trailer that’s been illegally located there for years. No changes to the footprints of the two houses are planned, and the parking is being expanded. He noted that members of the Knight family were attending the meeting – they had been raised on this property. Fry noted that he’s heard speculation about the rezoning being requested in order to sell out to a big developer. That’s not their intention, he said. The Knights need more room to prepare food that will be sold at the grocery.

Dick Fry, the architect for the Knight's Market expansion.

He said the Knights have agreed to accept the floodplain lines, rather than taking a stand and showing documents that indicate the floodplain had been drawn in a different location when the project first started. They’ll be floodproofing the building – pulling off the siding and putting up brick, which will also make the building look nicer, he said. Fry also told commissioners that there are plans to put up signs – many people don’t know it’s a market. [The building is marked only by black knight chess icons on the sides facing Miller and Spring. The door into the building is off of the parking lot – there is a relatively new sign on that side of the structure, next to the door.]

Sherry Knight Bedolla spoke on behalf of the Knight family. Ray Knight is her father, she said, and two of her four brothers – Jeff and Don – were at the meeting, along with her brother-in-law, Vernon Bedolla. They all work or have worked in the store or at Knight’s restaurant, and want to keep those businesses going. She gave a bit of history about the store, explaining how the small local market became known for its quality meat. She said she was amazed that it’s still in business, after big supermarkets became popular. Yes, the store’s prices are a bit more expensive than larger groceries, she said, but not overly priced. It serves the neighborhood and community. She said she grew up in the house next to the market, and some family members still live in the neighborhood. They don’t plan on going anywhere or selling out.

They aren’t looking to make huge changes, Bedolla said, but she noted that it’s been about 50 years since they’ve made major improvements. They want to make the outside look nicer. If rezoning for the bakery is approved, they’ll be able to do more baking for the restaurants and market, she said. Right now, she can’t satisfy customer demand. They also plan to bring food from the restaurant and package it for ready-to-eat meals that they’ll sell at the store. The changes will also provide jobs for their growing family and others, Bedolla said.

Tim Athan lives on Spring Street, and noted that the project would bring food manufacturing to the neighborhood, with trucks and increased energy use. He said he realized that mixed-use is a tenet of New Urbanism, but this project works against that because it might put the existing bakery – Big City Small World Bakery – out of business. He said he does like mixed-use development, and would like to see the city encourage restoration of older neighborhood stores that already exist.

Athan said it’s a nice neighborhood being encroached on by creeping urban growth. He used to live on Ashley and saw the same thing happen there. He doesn’t want it to happen on “good old Spring Street,” just for the convenience of the Knights. The street already suffers from high traffic, he noted – it’s a well-known cut-through to avoid the stoplights on Main Street. The city’s master plan mandates for reduced neighborhood intrusions, he said, but the city hasn’t helped with that. Each step isn’t bad, but the cumulative effect is negative and transforms the neighborhood. He asked whether anyone would look at the existing Knight’s Market and say that the design they’ve had for decades is big on charm. The proposed plan to use brick is great, but there’s still a long way to go, he said, and past performance should count for something. A sweet neighborhood is being whittled away unnecessarily, he said.

Steve Schewe began by joking that his wife Nancy had told him to speak up. They also live on Spring, and he wanted to read a letter that had been submitted to commissioners earlier. [.pdf of Schewe's letter] He said he’s known the Knights since 1973, and called them ”a classic, hard-working Midwestern family. They are wonderful neighbors and we have complete confidence that they will make improvements in their family-owned and family-operated market that will improve the quality of life in our shared neighborhood.”

Schewe talked about the family’s history and how they help out neighbors by clearing snow or letting people run tabs at the market during tough times. Bob Knight even escorted Nancy Schewe home one night when a murderer had escaped, Schewe said – armed with a baseball bat, Bob Knight had checked to make sure the house was safe for her. Schewe noted that the Knights sell products from local businesses like Mighty Good Coffee, Metzger’s, Ann Arbor Tortilla Factory and Dry Bucket Farms. “The Knights don’t make reckless moves,” Schewe said. “They are slow and cautious, and that is why we trust that they will not abuse this request for rezoning.”

Kathleen Canning, another Spring Street resident, said she’s shopped there since she finally figured out it was a market. Along with Big City bakery, it makes the neighborhood wonderful, she said, and she hopes that the Knights will stay and thrive. However, she also expressed concern about encroaching commercial zoning in an area that’s already seeing urban encroachment. The neighborhood is at its limit. She and Nancy Schewe had organized to get a residential parking program in the neighborhood, which had caused quite a bit of friendly disagreement among neighbors, she said. That program has improved conditions, but there’s still a lot of truck traffic.

Trucks don’t have an easy way out of Spring after they deliver to Knight’s Market, she noted. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that truck traffic will increase with this project, she said. The Knights are asking the neighborhood to bear more traffic, Canning said – that needs to be recognized, and solutions need to be pursued. There are increasing numbers of small children in the neighborhood, and traffic is a concern. The second concern is about the permanence of commercial zoning. She said it’s obviously not possible for zoning to revert to residential, if the property is sold, so she’s very nervous about the potential for commercial buildings that might get built where the houses are now.

Laurie Feldt has lived on the corner of Spring and Cherry since 1992, and said she definitely supported the project. The Knights have traditionally hired from the neighborhood, so it’s an opportunity for more jobs that residents can walk to, she said. The Knights are fair employers – they pay well and treat you well. The amount of truck traffic isn’t a big concern for her – there are already a lot of trucks on Spring, including city trucks and tow trucks. It would be nice for traffic to be mitigated, but she didn’t see how that would happen. Neighbors tolerate parking regulations and home construction projects because properties should work for the owner’s needs.

Feldt said she has a cottage industry baking business in her home, yet she welcomes the Knight’s new bakery. And it would make life easier to have prepared meals available in the market. She said her father is an emeritus professor of urban planning, and he affirmed her guess that the Knight’s project would increase property values and that mixed-use is the way to go. It’s an urban neighborhood, and having these gems gives the neighborhood more value and meaning, she concluded.

The white building, marked only by the black knight chess icons, houses Knight's Market on the northeast corner of Miller and Spring. Across Spring Street in the bright yellow/orange building is Big City Small World Bakery.

Sandra Levitsky also lives on Spring, and echoed her neighbors’ comments both for and against the project. She said she’s an enormous fan of the market and the family. But she’s lived in two neighborhoods in Los Angeles and Minneapolis that suffered from “commercial creep” into a residential neighborhood. In both cases, a benign and seemingly good plan turned bad when the property changed hands. In both LA and Minneapolis, it resulted in fairly ugly fights between residents and commercial owners, she said. She wished for some guarantee to be built into the zoning. ”I trust the Knight family, but who knows what will happen in the future?” As the mother of a 1-year-old, Levitsky also was concerned about traffic and especially increased truck traffic, and hoped the city could address it.

Virginia Gordan lives on Cherry, and said she didn’t mean any disrespect to the Knights or the market by her comments. She agreed with all of the positive attributes that had been cited. But she wanted to highlight a couple of things. Increased traffic is a concern, but the biggest issue is rezoning from residential to C1. What might change in the family’s current plans, or what happens if they sell? Commercial creep is a concern. Now, you can see the market on the corner but you can see houses immediately north of the store. If those are rezoned for commercial use, that’s scary, she said. After the property is rezoned, it seems there’s very little the city can do – South Fifth is an example, she said. [Gordan was alluding to the controversial City Place apartment project on South Fifth, between William and Packard. That property was not rezoned. But Gordan's point was that City Place was seen as an undesirable project that the city council could not reject because it met the conditions of zoning and could thus be built "by right."]

Karen Garrison, who also lives on Spring, began by saying that the character of the Knight family isn’t on trial. She likes the market and family, and appreciates what they’ve done. But what is on trial is the character of the neighborhood, she said. It’s a very special place, and has recently developed into the Water Hill neighborhood, which makes her proud. Garrison said she sees this projects as a conflict with the character of a residential area with community spirit. Ashley doesn’t have that same community feeling – that’s the reason why there’s not a music festival on Ashley, she said.

Scott Newell told commissioners that he owned Big City Small World Bakery at the northwest corner of Miller and Spring. He said he was very conflicted, “but these guys are great,” referring to the Knights. He agreed with the pros and cons he’d heard from previous speakers. If the city does approve the project, he hoped that a real streetlight could be installed on that corner, like one at First and Ashley. Pedestrian traffic is heavy, especially during rush hour, he said, and there are a lot of young families. Newell wrapped up by saying, ”These guys are great and I love ‘em.”

Knight’s Market Expansion: Commission Discussion

Tony Derezinski began the discussion by noting that a range of commentary had been heard but the one constant was a high respect for the Knight family and what they’ve done. People are also concerned about the future, he said, which is natural. It reminded Derezinski about the expansion of Zingerman’s Deli, and how people in the neighborhood praised Zingerman’s but were concerned about delivery trucks and other issues. [The planning commission recommended approval of the Zingerman's expansion at their May 18, 2010 meeting. The project was later approved by the city council and construction is well underway.]

Part of the situation is inevitable, he said. Trucks are already there – it’s a matter of degree as to what might happen in the future, and that’s impossible to predict. People are also worried about the rezoning, Derezinski said, but he felt that the issue was addressed in the staff report. There are natural boundaries to delineate the residential from the commercial. Is it enough to prevent leapfrogging up the street? On these decisions, you do the best you can, he said. Encroachment does happen, but on the other hand it’s good to have neighborhood stores. ”I guess I’m about as conflicted as you are,” he told the residents. It comes down to whether the city is willing to take a chance on the Knights, he said.

The rest of the commissioners’ comments are organized here by topic.

Knight’s Market Expansion: Commission Discussion – Traffic, Parking

Eleanore Adenekan had questions about the truck traffic, and asked for the market’s hours of operation.  Sherry Knight Bedolla said it’s open 8 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, and 8-5 on Saturday. The market is closed on Sundays.

Aerial view of Knight's property – the three parcels that are part of the project are outlined in black. Spring Street is the north-south street on the west side of the property. Miller Avenue runs east-west along the market's southern edge.

Adenekan then wanted to know how many trucks come through. Bedolla noted that part of the truck traffic is unrelated to Knight’s – the truck drivers coming down eastbound Miller see the railroad bridge ahead and if they don’t think the truck will fit under it, they cut up Spring Street. As for trucks coming to Knight’s, she estimated there are about a dozen per week, and she didn’t think it would increase very much. Products for the bakery will be delivered on trucks that already make stops at the market, and there are already delivery trucks that go back and forth between the market and restaurant.

Bonnie Bona said the parking expansion made her a little uncomfortable. How much does the market need and use? When she thinks of neighborhood stores – like the Big City bakery or Jefferson Market – she doesn’t think about parking. Neither of those stores have parking. She said she realized that the city has a 14-space minimum requirement, but the site plan calls for 17.

Bedolla reported that there are about six employee cars on the lot each day, with the rest for customers. They’re trying not to use spaces in the neighborhood, she said. Usually four or five customer vehicles are in the lot, though sometimes during rush hour it’s full, she said.

Bona clarified with Dick Fry that two bike hoops are planned, but more could be added.

Evan Pratt said he used to live in that area, on Chapin. It’s true that Spring Street is a cut-through, but most of that traffic is related to the railroad bridge, he said. And he didn’t think it was unreasonable to get two or three deliveries a day.

Pratt also noted that the city has a traffic-calming program, which requires a certain percentage of residents to petition for changes. He said he now lives off of Broadway, and the traffic calming there has been a benefit – maybe not with the amount of traffic, he said, but to reduce speeds.

Kirk Westphal said he didn’t know if a traffic study was warranted, but he noted that traffic creep can also be an issue. Alexis DiLeo replied that the site plan didn’t trigger a traffic study. Typically the trigger is if there’s more than 50 vehicles in the peak hour, but that threshold didn’t speak to deliveries, she noted – it looked at employees and customers. She said she hadn’t previously been aware of the concerns about truck traffic, however, so she could see what the options are for further study.

Knight’s Market Expansion: Commission Discussion – Zoning

Bonnie Bona said she had a couple of concerns about the project. The bakery will be a production facility, not retail – that’s a fact, she said. Her conflict is with the lack of retail. On the other hand, rezoning away from residential in a floodplain makes sense. Hundreds of homes are located in the floodplain, and usually the residents are the most financially challenged, she said. That’s not where people should be living.

Bona asked the planning staff if contract zoning might be an option to add restrictions on what would be allowed on the site. She also wondered about lot size. Currently, C1 has a minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet, she noted. At what point does a national chain become interested in a site – 20,000 square feet? 50,000 square feet? Bona said she’d be more comfortable knowing about that.

The entrance to Knight's Market off of Spring Street is between the market building and a single-family house, which would be converted to a bakery if rezoning is approved.

Diane Giannola also expressed concern about commercial creep. After the rezoning, would there still be three separate parcels? Alexis DiLeo said the site plan is contingent on combining the lots. Giannola wondered if it’s big enough that a national chain might want to locate there.

Giannola’s other concern is that there’s no retail in the bakery. Was any kind of store planned inside the bakery? Sherry Knight Bedolla replied that the intent is to make baked goods to sell in the market and restaurants. They didn’t want to encroach on the neighborhood by having another store. The outside of the house will look as it does now, she said – the exterior won’t change.

Giannola thought it didn’t really fit in C1 zoning if there’s no retail. Dick Fry clarified that the retail sales must be on the site, but not necessarily in the same building. It would be easy to have a walk-in room and counter sales, he said, but that would complicate the site and the traffic.

Kirk Westphal observed that it was great to hear the rich input from the community – it helps flesh out the commission’s discussion to picture what the worst case scenario could be, he said. He was struggling with the project as well, and asked planning staff to give examples about what kinds of businesses can operate in C1 districts, and at what scale.

DiLeo said that C1 allows for general retail sales, restaurants, and service businesses like dry cleaners and nail salons. There’s a limit of 8,000 square feet per use, she said, but that’s not a building size limitation. So there could be a strip mall, and each business could have up to 8,000 square feet of space. The limiting factor for building size would be the floor-area ratio (FAR), based on the lot size. Residential use would not be prohibited, but it would be discouraged because of the floodplain, DiLeo said.

Evan Pratt asked if staff had considered other zoning districts. DiLeo replied that C1 is the least intense of the commercial zones. It’s the only zoning district with a size limitation for use, for example.

Pratt commented that the current zoning is “pretty arcane.” What are the uses for M1 – the strip that goes along the railroad tracks? That’s for transportation and railroad uses, DiLeo said, and light manufacturing – something like a small machine shop. M1 allows for items to be assembled, but not created from raw materials. Pratt ventured that cleaning up the M1 zoning is a good thing.

Wendy Woods said she appreciated the concern about commercial creep, but that’s a balancing act that no one can predict. In the past, the Knights have attempted to keep their business going, she said, and it’s their intent to stay. She asked for clarification about whether anything can be done regarding a change of ownership. DiLeo replied that the zoning is tied to the land, not the land’s use or owners. Conditional or contract zoning is something that the property owners could offer to do, but the owners can’t stipulate that the zoning will automatically revert to its previous zoning. That would be in conflict with due process and public noticing, she said. If it’s rezoned from commercial back to residential or to some other kind of district, it would need to go through the rezoning process.

Westphal asked whether contract or conditional zoning could stipulate the size of a building’s footprint or area, for example. DiLeo said she’d need to check with the city attorney’s office on what kind of conditions could be stipulated. Westphal asked about a PUD (planned unit development) – might that type of zoning be useful in this situation? DiLeo said that typically, conditional zoning is a good tool to use when you want to limit what’s allowed, while a PUD is a useful tool when you want to expand what’s allowed from the base zoning.

Knight’s Market Expansion: Commission Discussion – Design

Bonnie Bona noted that she lives in the “upper Water Hill” neighborhood, north of the Spring/Miller area, and she frequents Big City bakery and the Kerrytown shops. But she hasn’t been to Knight’s Market in 25 years, she said, because it’s not welcoming. What are the owners trying to do to make it more welcoming? Windows would be good, to help keep an eye on the street, she said. [The current building has one small window facing Miller, and a few small windows facing Spring.] Bona also noted that Big City bakery has a residence above its shop. Why doesn’t the Knight’s plan have the same?

Dick Fry said they haven’t gotten into details about the building design, and the things that Bona mentioned would help. The entrance will likely stay on the side of the building where it’s currently located, facing north onto the parking lot, but the owners are open to other ideas, he said. Bona encouraged him to invite input from the neighbors – ultimately, she said, they’re the ones who have to live with it.

Kirk Westphal said he echoed Bona’s sentiments regarding the building facade for the sides facing Miller and Spring.

Knight’s Market Expansion: Commission Discussion – Wrapping Up

Eric Mahler asked Alexis DiLeo how much time it would take to address the outstanding issues. Would it be back for review at the planning commission’s June 5 meeting? Planning manager Wendy Rampson said that depends on whether the owners are interested in doing something different with the zoning. If the zoning approach changes, it would take longer. [Rampson subsequently confirmed that the project will not be on the June 5 agenda.]

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone action on the Knight’s Market expansion.

DTE Buckler Substation

Planning commissioners were asked to consider a site plan for a new DTE Buckler electrical substation at 984 Broadway near Canal Street.

Site plan for DTE Buckler substation. (Links to larger image.)

City planner Jeff Kahan gave the staff report. DTE is building the new Buckler substation in the utility company’s Ann Arbor service center to provide an increase in electrical power to the downtown area due to increased demand for electricity.

According to a staff memo, the project will include two 15.5-foot tall electrical transformers and related electrical equipment on raised concrete pads, and a new power delivery center (PDC) – a 630-square-foot, 12.5-foot tall steel structure. The project also will include a new six-foot tall perimeter chain link fence with one foot of barb wire and a concrete block retaining wall. The source of power will be transmitted through underground sub-transmission cables in an existing manhole and conduit system.

Because of floodplain issues, DTE has proposed to build raised transformer pads by bringing in 800 cubic yards of fill. To mitigate that impact to the floodplain, DTE plans to remove 1,155 cubic yards of earth on the MichCon site at 841 Broadway. [MichCon is a DTE subsidiary.] The proposal also calls for removing a building on the MichCon site, which will give the company an additional 55 cubic yards of ”floodplain mitigation credit.” The proposal for this MichCon portion of the project was presented in a separate agenda item (see below).

City planning staff had recommended postponement of the Buckler substation site plan to allow more time to review several outstanding issues. For example, staff has recommended that DTE seek a variance from the city’s zoning board of appeals for a 100-year detention requirement – the proposed site plan would require such a variance. The site is located within the Huron River’s 100-year floodplain.

The project also needs a variance to the 15-foot conflicting land use buffer requirements along the east side property line, adjacent to Riverside Park. DTE is requesting a variance that would allow 33 trees and 38 shrubs to be planted along the far western side of Riverside Park instead of on DTE property. The city’s park advisory commission recommended approval of that variance at its Feb. 28, 2012 meeting.

DTE Buckler Substation: Public Hearing

The only person to speak during the public hearing was Mike Witkowski, DTE planning engineer for Washtenaw County. He thanked Kahan and other city planning staff for their help in working through a number of issues. He noted that DTE’s current infrastructure can’t support demand for electricity in that part of the city. Within a mile radius of the current Argo substation on Broadway, peak loads were 17% higher in 2011 compared to 2009. That’s what happens when you knock down a building and put up a high rise, he said – a probable allusion to the University of Michigan’s Kellogg Eye Center on Wall Street, near the proposed substation site.

Without this project, he said, DTE has limited or no ability to serve new businesses, and there would be increased risk of brownouts or blackouts to do equipment overloads. He said the utility has plans to address those concerns in the interim, but they need a long-term solution.

The location is critical because the substation needs to be near the center of the load, he said. The Buckler location would also be near existing infrastructure for DTE’s system. If the project is approved, Witkowski said the first circuits likely would be energized in May of 2013. A lot needs to happen before then, he added – it’s a long design and construction process. But once energized, the new circuits will support new customers.

Witkowski described the Buckler substation project as a $10 million investment in the city. DTE wants to foster a favorable environment for economic development, he said, and this substation should provide the ability to sustain growth for years to come.

DTE Buckler Substation: Commission Discussion

Wendy Woods asked whether the city council would need to vote on this item. Eric Mahler, the planning commission’s chair, replied that only planning commission approval is needed.

Woods highlighted Witkowski’s comments about the growth in demand and DTE’s ability to provide electricity to additional customers. She noted that the city has a focus on sustainability, and those numbers grabbed her attention. She asked for more details about the future ability to serve new customers.

It’s hard to make specific projections, Witkowski said. He noted that the last Ann Arbor substation was built in the 1960s, but Ann Arbor is a hot spot in the state for growth, unlike other areas. Electric vehicles might also increase demand in the future, he said. But if he had to give a ballpark estimate, Witkowski said the new substation would likely meet demand for at least 20 years.

Kirk Westphal’s initial line of questioning focused on the fence, and he wondered whether it could be a solid wall, rather than chain link and barbed wire – that’s the least desirable alternative, he said. Mark Fairless, a civil engineer with DTE, said the design, including the use of chain link and barbed wire, meets the national electrical safety code for substation protection. It’s a standard design, he said, and provides the most protection both for DTE’s assets and the public.

When Westphal pressed about other options that might be available, Fairless repeated that the proposed design is DTE’s standard one – they haven’t looked at other options. The retaining wall is required because of the substation’s location in the floodplain, he said, and the fence construction is standard. Westphal encouraged the designers to consider different materials.

DTE's Argo substation on the northwest corner of Broadway and Swift, looking west over the Broadway bridge.

Westphal then turned to the topic of the Argo substation on Broadway, saying he rides past it every day and “it’s not the best feature of the neighborhood.” Is there any opportunity to consolidate the two sites – to upgrade the new Buckler substation so that the one on Argo wouldn’t be needed?

Witkowski clarified that the Buckler substation isn’t planned to be a replacement for Argo. The two sites would work in tandem, he said. He noted that the Argo substation serves a wide area, including city hall, that couldn’t be picked up by the new substation. It wouldn’t be economically feasible for DTE to decommission it, he said.

Evan Pratt wanted to know what the bigger picture plans are for Buckler and Argo. It would be nice if DTE’s long-range plan were to move Argo off of this major city corridor. What’s the expected life for the Argo substation? he asked.

That’s hard to say, Witkowski replied. When the project began in 2008, the original idea was to do upgrades at the Argo substation, he said. But that was before Ann Arbor started seeing accelerated growth. Because of the type of equipment at Argo, DTE couldn’t do the upgrade until some of the load was taken off of that substation. Now, he said, there’s a strong possibility that they’ll clean up the Argo site and make it less congested. However, essential equipment is there that can’t be moved at this point, and it will remain there for the foreseeable future, he said.

Bonnie Bona said she agreed with Pratt – there’s a bigger aesthetic consideration at Argo. She also pointed out that Michigan Stadium was previously surrounded by a chain link fence, too. Now, the fence is wrought iron and painted blue, with brick pilasters. Bona joked that as long as commissioners were redesigning DTE’s substations, she wanted to bring up the fact that the Buckler substation would be located near the Huron River. In the long term, she said, it would be nice to think that the area could be a more active, integrated part of the community. Is there anything about the substation that makes it integral to that site, or could it stand alone if other parts of the site were used for other purposes, like a park?

Witkowski said the site is perfect for the substation, and he explained how the location would allow the substation’s equipment to feed into DTE’s existing infrastructure.

Bona then asked a question about landscaping – she assumed that no trees would be removed? Fairless replied that six of the 13 trees would be taken down, because they are on the property line, growing into the existing fence. Landscaping plans call for DTE to add 23 trees, however, and to donate another 10 trees to be planted in Riverside Park.

Eric Mahler asked whether the $10 million investment is contingent on making a rate increase request to the Michigan Public Service Commission, which regulates utilities in the state. No, Witkowski replied. This project has already been approved by DTE’s executive management, and doesn’t require asking for rate adjustments from the MPSC.

Mahler wondered what information the planning staff needed. Jeff Kahan indicated that they had been awaiting several items, and that DTE had recently turned in a revised site plan that the staff hadn’t yet had the opportunity to review. Kahan expected the project would be ready for the planning commission’s meeting on June 5. [Planning staff later confirmed that the project will be on the June 5 agenda.]

After discussion ended, Bona made a motion to postpone, which was seconded by Westphal.

Before the vote, Tony Derezinski asked if DTE was working under any sort of critical timeframe. Scott Trowbridge, DTE’s project manager for the Buckler substation, said the company can move ahead and start making decisions about the project, but there’s some risk involved since it hasn’t yet been approved by the city. He said they’d likely do some work around the existing service center, to accommodate the eventual substation construction. At some point, though, the timing of approval will affect how well DTE can be prepared for electricity demands in the summer of 2013.

Derezinski said it will likely be just a short postponement, and it seemed like “you wouldn’t go bankrupt on that.” Trowbridge indicated that Derezinski was correct – DTE would not go bankrupt.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to postpone action on the Buckler substation project. It will return to the planning commission at its next meeting on June 5.

MichCon Site Remediation

A site plan for remediation of the MichCon property at 841 Broadway was another DTE-related item on the May 21 agenda. The proposal was made in conjunction with the site plan for the new DTE Buckler electrical substation on the opposite side of Broadway. MichCon is a subsidiary of DTE.

The MichCon site plan approval is contingent on three things: (1) obtaining variances from the city’s zoning board of appeals (ZBA) to exempt MichCon from providing a new stormwater management system; (2) obtaining a Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) permit for work within the floodplain and Huron River; and (3) indicating water main and storm sewer easements on the site plan and providing the city with legal descriptions for those easements prior to the city issuing grading permits.

From left: Planning commissioners Bonnie Bona, Wendy Woods and Diane Giannola.

The remediation site plan entails removing 1,155 cubic yards of earth on the MichCon property, including the site’s most heavily contaminated soil. The company would get another 55 cubic yards of “floodplain mitigation credit” as a result of removing a building on the site. The remediation is intended to offset impact on the Huron River floodplain that’s expected when DTE brings in 800 cubic yards of soil to build raised transformer pads at the new Buckler substation.

According to a staff memo, a ZBA variance is needed to exempt the company from building new stormwater detention systems. Because contaminated soil will remain on the site after remediation, the company has indicated that installing new detention systems would be harmful to groundwater and the Huron River. Detention systems would not be required if impervious surfaces were removed on the site. However, removing impervious surfaces would allow contaminants in the soil to leach into the Huron River and groundwater. The proposal calls for leaving the existing impervious surfaces in place to provide a cap on contaminated soils.

[DTE officials had previously briefed the city's park advisory commission about this project at PAC's March 20, 2012 meeting, and had made a presentation at a March 12, 2012 city council working session. An extensive report on that presentation is included in The Chronicle’s coverage of a recent master plan committee meeting: “Planning Group Revisits Huron River Report.”]

The MichCon remediation requires approval only from the planning commission, and does not require action by the city council.

MichCon Site Remediation: Public Hearing

Two people spoke during the public hearing for this project. Paul Machiele of Ann Arbor told commissioners that he’s overjoyed by many aspects of this project, but also has some concerns. He said he’s a recreational kayaker on the Huron River. Last summer, he visited the city of Bend, Oregon, and was amazed by the transformation of the riverfront there, with pathways, canoe/kayak launch sites and other features. When he returned here and kayaked along the Huron River starting near Argo Pond, he wondered ”why is Ann Arbor wasting our river?” He keeps driving past the MichCon site and wonders why it’s not possible to get access to the river from that site. It’s a flowing stretch of river in the downtown area, and a wonderful opportunity to encourage more people to go to the river, as well as for more businesses to grow in that area. He advocated for opening up both sides of the river along that stretch, including pathways for people to jog or walk. Machiele said he didn’t know what the restrictions would be, but it’s a wonderful opportunity and shouldn’t be wasted.

Shayne Wiesemann, a senior environmental engineer with DTE and project manager for the remediation, said that the request in front of the planning commission is just one piece of a broader effort. The remediation allows DTE to start listening to input from community stakeholders, he said – the Huron River Watershed Council, National Wildlife Federation, and the city, among others. He noted that DTE has entered into a partnership with the city regarding the whitewater feature that DTE will now be building along that stretch of the river. The company will be looking at future uses for the property – there’s been a lot of talk in the community about it becoming a park, or a place for mixed-use development, he said. But for now, DTE’s focus is on remediation, Wiesemann said. It’s an important step in making the site available for other uses. The site has been described as a jewel in the Border-to-Border trail, he noted, and DTE executives see the property as being an economic catalyst for the community. The request at this meeting is just a part of that process, he concluded.

MichCon Site Remediation: Commission Discussion

Tony Derezinski began the discussion by talking about how the project fits into the overall improvement in that area, including the new Argo Cascades bypass. The hard and gritty truth is that the MichCon property needs to be cleaned up, he said. He’s very much in favor of this remediation.

Bonnie Bona asked about the fence on the property. Jeff Kahan replied that the existing fence prevents access from Broadway, but the entire site isn’t enclosed. Shayne Wiesemann of DTE noted that the property’s west side isn’t fenced, and the idea is eventually to take down the fence on the east side, along the river, after remediation is completed.

Evan Pratt asked where he could find a copy of the environmental report for the site. He said he understood that the planning commission couldn’t have much input on that. Wiesemann said the results are posted on the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality’s website.  [The MDEQ keeps a list of contaminated sites in the state, including those in Ann Arbor, with a list of the contaminants at those sites. The contaminants at the MichCon Broadway site include heavy metals (lead, nickel, zinc, etc.) and phthalates.] He noted that the report had been available at a public forum in April, and at the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library.

Pratt said it was great that DTE is cleaning up the site, but it gave him pause to hear that asphalt would be left on part of the site because of concerns over what might be underneath it. He understood that it’s complicated, but asked for the simple version – anything that’s left on the site would be authorized by the DEQ? Is it developable in general? he asked.

Wiesemann replied that the cleanup would be amenable for industrial uses. DTE is stopping there until it knows what the future uses for the site will be, he said. They are eliminating risks along the river bank, and remediating some of the bad “hot spots” in the upland area. Beyond that, they don’t want to do too much or too little at this point, he said. When DTE figures out the final use of the property, they’ll submit another plan to the DEQ to fulfill requirements for that end use, and whatever project is proposed would also go through the city’s full site plan process.

Pratt said it sounds like recreational options are still on the table. Wiesemann’s reply was non-committal, saying that DTE was working with Laura Rubin, executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council, and Andy Buchsbaum, regional executive director of the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes Natural Resources Center – both organizations are based in Ann Arbor. Everything’s on the table, Wiesemann said, and DTE wants to see this site fully enjoyed by the community.

Wendy Woods asked where the contaminated soils are transported. Wiesemann said the soil will be taken to a landfill with a Type II license. In the past, they’ve used the landfill in Northville, he said [the Arbor Hills landfill, operated by Veolia ES Arbor Hills Landfill Inc.]. But it might be taken to other appropriately licensed facilities in southeast Michigan, he said.

Woods clarified that this is a different process than a brownfield redevelopment project. That’s right, Wiesemann replied. MichCon/DTE is liable because the company purchased the site as part of a merger. DTE will be paying for it out of the company’s environmental reserve, he said, which is rate recoverable. [That means that DTE could ask the MPSC for an increase in rates to cover the costs.]

Kirk Westphal followed up on the public commentary, and asked about access to the river. Can a boat be launched from this site? No, Kahan replied. Wiesemann said people will be able to access the planned whitewater features from the opposite side of the river, from the pathway running next to Argo Cascades. Wiesemann said the pathways – and a boardwalk that will be built over wetlands in that area – are subject to DEQ approval, as part of the overall whitewater project.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the site plan for remediation of the MichCon property, assuming that the stated contingencies are addressed.

Wintermeyer Parking Expansion

The planning commission was asked to approve an expansion to the Wintermeyer office parking lot at 2144 and 2178 S. State St., south of Stimson and east of the University of Michigan golf course. A landscape modification on the 1.8-acre site also was requested.

A map showing the location of the Wintermeyer office buildings on the west side of South State Street.

Alexis DiLeo gave the staff report. Two two-story office buildings are currently located on the site, along with an 85-space parking lot. The parcel is zoned O (office). After the expansion, there will be a total of 101 parking spaces on the site. A maximum of 111 parking spaces are allowed for the existing office development.

City staff have notified the property owner, Tracy Wintermeyer, that eight slabs of sidewalk in front of the site are need replacement. He has agreed to do that, DiLeo noted.

Modifications to the landscaping requirements include: (1) allowing the existing landscaping islands in the parking lot to remain in their current locations; and (2) allowing existing runs of 21 and 28 continuous spaces to remain in place. Landscaping regulations limit the number of continuous parking spaces to 15.

Wintermeyer Parking Expansion: Public Hearing

One person – David Diephuis, whose home is located directly north of the site – spoke during the project’s public hearing. He and his wife aren’t enthusiastic about additional parking, he said, but they understand the need for it as well as the owner’s right to build it, based on the property’s zoning. They also support the proposed underground water detention.

They initially had three concerns, Diephuis said, but two of those concerns have been resolved after talking with the owner and city staff. The unresolved issue relates to the buffer between his home and the parking lot retaining wall. The site plan calls for shrubs to be planted between the lot and the wall. Diephuis proposed planting fewer shrubs there, in exchange for larger shrubs between the wall and his property, to soften the sterile look of the wall. He said he hoped the issue could be handled administratively.

Turning to the other two concerns, Diephuis pointed to questions about whether the rain garden/landscaping could handle the water during a heavy rainstorm. The drainage ditch between his property and the Wintermeyer offices is already stressed because of the heavy runoff from the UM golf course – erosion to that ditch is already substantial, he said, especially as it nears State Street. He said city staff have assured him that remediation would be possible if the rain garden doesn’t work as planned. “I’ll cling to the hope that the engineers that reviewed the data and analyzed the risk are better at their jobs than some of today’s Wall Street bankers,” he quipped.

Finally, Diephuis noted that the project will impact the root zone of some landmark trees on his property. City staff have informed him that state law allows this, even if it kills the tree. He suggested that the city consider creating some kind of tree escrow account, to mitigate damage that might occur not just on a developer’s land, but for adjacent neighbors too.

Wintermeyer Parking Expansion: Commission Discussion

Evan Pratt asked about the landmark trees – are those scheduled for removal? Alexis DiLeo indicated that while the trees won’t be removed, the project will create a disturbance in the critical root zones of the trees.

Wendy Woods asked about the landscaping issue that had been raised during the public hearing. Is it staff’s intention to work on this, or is there something that the planning commission should do? she asked. DiLeo replied that it seemed Diephuis was asking the commission to give conditional approval of the project, and that staff would work on changes to the landscaping plan.

The property’s owner, Tracy Wintermeyer, stepped forward and told commissioners that he has a good relationship with Diephuis and is happy to put plantings on the north side of the retaining wall. He said he’d be amenable to making the project contingent on that, if necessary. “I want to keep Dave as a good neighbor,” he said.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson suggested making a formal amendment “just to be safe.”

Outcome on amendment: Commissioners unanimously approved an amendment making the project contingent on administrative approval of changes to the landscaping plan.

There was little additional discussion. Pratt said that in general, when infiltration is proposed as a way to handle stormwater runoff, it would be helpful for staff reports to include the soil type for that area.

Outcome: In two separate votes, commissioners unanimously approved the landscaping modifications, as amended, and site plan for expanding the Wintermeyer office parking lot.

Phantom Fireworks Permit

Planning commissioners were asked to grant a temporary retail sales special exception use for Phantom Fireworks, a firm based in Youngstown, Ohio.

City planner Alexis DiLeo gave the staff report. The business is proposing to put up a 40×40-foot tent and an 8×40-foot storage pod in the parking lot of Colonial Lanes at 1950 South Industrial Highway. The tent would be set back 25 feet from South Industrial and take up 24 parking spaces on 2.96-acre site, leaving 203 parking spaces for the bowling alley and Cubs A.C. restaurant.

The northeast, two-way traffic entrance would be temporarily closed by placing four orange traffic cones and yellow tape in the parking lot. The remaining four entrances to the site would remain open. The sales tent would operate from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. every day of the week, with sales hours extended to midnight depending upon sales demand leading up to July 4, according to the staff report.

The site is zoned C3 (fringe commercial district), which allows certain types of temporary outdoor sales. A special exception use is needed because the proposed sales are different from items sold at the property’s permanent business.

Phantom Fireworks Permit: Public Hearing

Rick Tapper introduced himself as the Michigan representative for Phantom Fireworks. He noted that although they’ve signed a lease for 30 days, they only plan to have the tent up for 10 days. On July 5, he said, the tent – which is fire resistant, he noted – comes down. They’ll be selling Class C fireworks, and using employees from Colonial Lanes who would have otherwise been laid off during this slow period for the bowling alley, Tapper said. The operation is insured, and he hoped that commissioners would approve the permit.

Phantom Fireworks Permit: Commission Discussion

Wendy Woods asked for a clarification regarding Class C fireworks – does the buyer have to be over age 18? Yes, Tapper replied, and the staff are trained to check everyone’s ID.

Rick Tapper of Phantom Fireworks.

Woods then noted that people tend to “get happy” on July 4th while using fireworks. She asked Tapper about how the staff would identify people who are intoxicated. Tapper assured her that training is provided to staff about how to recognize if someone is drunk or high.

Responding to additional queries from Woods, Tapper described how the tent and storage unit will be inspected by the city’s fire marshal, and how a lock on the storage unit will provide security when the business is closed.

Woods ventured that the hours of operation – until midnight – seem late. Tapper replied that about 70% of their business happens in three days, from July 2-4. That’s likely the only time they would sell past the normal closing of 10 p.m.

In response to a question from Tony Derezinski, DiLeo said that notices about the special exception use for Phantom Fireworks had been mailed out to neighbors in that area, but the planning staff had heard no questions or concerns about it.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the temporary retail sales special exception use for Phantom Fireworks. Special exception use is granted by the planning commission and does not require additional approval by the city council. 

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Bonnie Bona, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Evan Pratt, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods.

Absent: Erica Briggs.

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, June 5, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the city planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to plan on doing the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

According to a staff report, the business is proposing to put up a 40×40-foot tent and an 8×40-foot storage pod in the parking lot of Colonial Lanes at 1950 South Industrial Highway. The tent would be set back 25 feet from South Industrial and take up 24 parking spaces on 2.96-acre site, leaving 203 parking spaces for the bowling alley and Cubs A.C. restaurant.

The northeast, two-way traffic entrance would be temporarily closed by placing four orange traffic cones and yellow tape in the parking lot. The remaining four entrances to the site would remain open. The sales tent would operate from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. every day of the week, with sales hours extended to midnight depending upon sales demand leading up to July 4, according to the staff report. At the planning commission’s May 15 meeting, a representative for Phantom indicated to commissioners that the intent was to sell fireworks just for the 10 days leading up to and including July 4. On July 5, the tent would come down, he said.

The site is zoned C3 (fringe commercial district), which allows certain types of temporary outdoor sales. A special exception use is needed because the proposed sales are different from items sold at the property’s permanent business. Special exception use is granted by the planning commission and does not require additional approval by the city council.

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

Local artist Alvey Jones is a partner in the WSG Gallery, at 306 S. Main in downtown Ann Arbor. Check out more of his work – 26 mixed-media assemblages – currently on display in the gallery.

Purely a plug: The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our occasional features like Bezonki, which in turn helps support a local artist. 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!