David Nacht, chair of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board.

City Council Meeting (Jan. 20, 2009): Ann Arbor city council gave final approval to the anti-graffiti ordinance on its agenda, though with some revisions that lighten its impact on property owners – compared to the version that was moved along in the process at its last meeting. And after long discussion of the somewhat complex fund transfers involved in funding the Farmers Market improvements project, council postponed the vote for two weeks.

But some of the more animated discussion came during the annual update provided by board chair of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, David Nacht, when councilmembers Stephen Rapundalo and Marcia Higgins pressed Nacht to explain the recently proposed fare increases and to clarify what the regionalization of the AATA might mean for Ann Arbor taxpayers.

AATA Basics, Fare Increases, Regionalization: “We should be more than what we are”

As AATA chair, David Nacht gives an annual update to city council. Last year, one issue he talked about was the strategy the board had identified to hire a new executive director – which was first to chart a course for the agency, then hire someone to move it along that course, as opposed to hiring someone to chart the course. The process of that hire is ongoing, with an application deadline for candidates of Feb. 6. Nacht didn’t discuss that hire in his talk, focusing his remarks instead on the basics of what the AATA does currently, and the kind of course the AATA has charted – which represents a change.

He underscored the transformative vision of the AATA by beginning his remarks with a quote from Barack Obama’s inaugural address: “Our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions, that time has surely passed!”

Nacht gave a primer on AATA financing: funds come from federal and state grants, city of Ann Arbor taxes (about 40% of operating expenses), fares, and contracts for service (from UM and surrounding municipalities). He divided the ridership of AATA’s buses into two categories: (i) those who choose to ride, and (ii) those who have no choice but to ride – seniors who have lost driving privileges and the disabled, among others. Some of the services for this second category are expensive, said Nacht, and the AATA therefore subsidizes them. [One example is SelectRide, which offers taxi service for $2.]

As part of the expanded mission of AATA, Nacht cited commuter express buses, giving the Ann Arbor-Chelsea express bus pilot as an example. He cautioned that “it’s too soon to say whether we’re any good at this … we’re learning how to do it.” But the AATA was learning, Nacht stressed, using federal grant dollars.

As another part of the expanded mission, Nacht described the proposed north-south commuter rail project, WALLY, as a “terrific initiative.” The project needed a “transit home,” said Nacht, and he credited Congressman John Dingell with demanding that the community identify an entity to take responsibility for it. The AATA has taken on that role. They have a staff member [Tom Cornillie] who is knowledgeable about trains and is putting time into the project analyzing a consulting study. It’s going to take $30-35 million to make it work, Nacht said, and that cost stemmed in large part from changing the tracks so that the trains can run fast enough to attract ridership, as well as from the need to acquire train cars that are ADA-accessible, which is a requirement.

“Is WALLY the best use of $30-35 million?” asked Nacht. His answer was that it’s a broad policy issue that the city and and the community need to have a conversation about. “I’m not yet prepared to tell you that this is our first priorty,” said Nacht.

Whereas AATA has taken a leadership role for the north-south focused WALLY, Nacht described the possibility of east-west rail as being handled by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG)and the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), with support at the county and city levels.

Besides buses and trains, Nacht said, there existed the possibility of light rail along the Plymouth Road corridor.

Nacht credited AATA board member Ted Annis – who he described as sometimes publicly critical, “pushy and persuasive” – for reducing the dollar cost per service hour. With help from Sue McCormick, public services area director for the city of Ann Arbor, who also sits on the AATA board, Nacht said that Annis had helped to change the culture of the organization to save a nickel here and there.

Nacht credited Mayor John Hieftje, Terri Blackmore of WATS, and county commissioner Jeff Irwin with helping to give transit a kind of conversational buzz in the community, which was remarkable because, he said, “transit is kind of boring!”

In describing the transformation to a more regional authority, Nacht began by saying, “We should be more than what we are.” That means in part the expansion of the size of the board to include members of the broader community. The county commission, for example, would add some members. But Nacht stressed that unless other communities besides Ann Arbor “ponied up some dollars,” they would not be represented on the expanded board like Ann Arbor would. It would require “a lot of frank conversation” with those other communities, said Nacht, but they were conversations for elected officials [e.g., city councilmembers], not appointed ones [e.g., AATA board members].

With that Nacht declared: “I’d love to take questions!” Councilmembers had plenty.

Skepticism from Council on Fare Increases and Regionalization

Councilmember Stephen Rapundalo led things off by saying that he was glad to hear about the changes in AATA culture, but was troubled by the appearance that little had actually changed, citing the proposed fare increases. Rapundalo said he was a little puzzled that fare increases would be contemplated in the current economic climate. He asked if a comparative analysis with similar communities had been undertaken. He suggested that it was possible in other communities to get a bus ride for a lot cheaper than a buck [current AATA base fare] let alone a buck-fifty [proposed fare in 2010]. Further, said Rapundalo, it takes people an hour to get where they need to go. How could increased fares be justified in that context?

Nacht responded by saying that he appreciated tough questions, and offered: “You’re talking to the guy who killed the fare increase in 2006.” [AATA staff had proposed to increase fares.] Nacht cited fuel prices as one factor in the decision to contemplate fare increases, as well as the fact that state support through the Comprehensive Transportation Fund (CTF) had remained at the same level for the last 10 years. It was a fund, said Nacht, that the state “raided” in order to balance its budget.

Further, said Nacht, the proposed new fare structure benefited riders who have no choice [some of their rides would be free] as well as regular commuters. It was the occasional bus rider, said Nacht, who would be paying the greatest increase. He noted that AATA’s planning and development committee, led by Annis, had approached the fare increase with great skepticism, but had wound up supporting it.

Rapundalo seemed to take little solace in Nacht’s explanation, and asked about plans to bring details to the public. He also noted that Nacht had not responded to the question of a comparative analysis, and asked that the information eventually be provided to council in summary form. “I must say I certainly am skeptical,” said Rapundalo. To ask for a  fare increase on top of a millage increase [the idea has been floated to increase the transportation millage] would mean “treading on very dangerous ground,” said Rapundalo.

Nacht was cheerful in reply, saying to Rapundalo: “I know your neighborhood well – it’s one of the best trick-or-treating neighborhoods in the entire city!” But Nacht’s real point about the neighborhood was that the No. 2 bus down Plymouth Road provided an efficient commute morning or evening, saying, “Your constituents get fantastic bus service.” He added that fare increases are not a done deal. There would be public hearings on them before any decision would be taken.

Rapundalo then asked a specific question about technology deployed by AATA for tracking real-time location of buses on any route, which has been down for more than six weeks. “I would appreciate knowing,” said Rapundalo, “when that will be back online.” If we can dial up to find out how many parking spaces are available, it should be possible to get the information about bus locations, said Rapundalo.  Nacht’s reply: “I’ll make sure you get an answer.”

Councilmember Margie Teall said she had several specific questions from constituents, some of them fairly detailed: requests for information on revenues on a per route basis, for example. She asked Nacht if she could email them, which Nacht indicated would be fine.

Nacht was also asked how much money the fare increase would generate. Nacht said that in light of elasticity of demand, they don’t completely know the answer.

As a way of addressing the broader issue of regionalization, Councilmember Carsten Hohnke gave a specific example supporting Rapundalo’s remark about people needing more than an hour to get to where they were going: Getting from the west side of Ann Abor to Lakewood Mall east of Ypsilanti. To do that, Hohnke said, you needed to take the No. 9 from Jackson Road to Blake Transit Center downtown, transfer to the No. 4 to Ypsilanti, then transfer to the No. 20, a trip that took 1 hour and 49 minutes. Based on that, Hohnke concluded, the AATA is already a regional service. But, Hohnke asked, in thinking about transit in a regional way, and the added service that might come from all of us working together, is it okay that a trip like that takes almost two hours?

Nacht’s reply: “I don’t want to live in a community where it takes more than an hour to get from one side of Washentaw County to the other.” But Nacht cautioned that we can’t literally say “from any one place to any other place” and that we had to think about where the vast majority of people need to go. He used the example as a chance to talk about the rationale for the hub-and-spoke route system used by the AATA.  It’s a strategy that all transit systems seem to use to some extent, but not completely. There are routes, Nacht said, that don’t fit that perfectly. He allowed that maybe the AATA should run more of those routes that don’t fit the hub-and-spoke model perfectly.

Councilmember Marcia Higgins put her concern about raising rates in the historical context of the six years since she’d first seen the question asked: Why can’t we get from the north side of Ann Arbor to the south side in under 1 hour and 15 minutes?  Why haven’t we made any further headway? asked Higgins. Six years is a long time to wait, she said. Higgins said she was not convinced that the millage should increase, and asked what the AATA board had done to date as far as the transformation of its organization to a regional authority.

Nacht identified three questions in Higgins remarks. The first: How come you guys haven’t done anything? “I’m just a small town lawyer,” said Nacht, but he went on to explain that there’s a process of studies that are required in order to qualify for federal dollars, which meant that it took considerable time. “I share your frustration,” he said. The second question (after some momentary confusion in Nacht’s handwriting in the notes he’d been taking for himself – “millage” versus “mileage”): What about the millage? We’re not proposing a millage, he said. The AATA was not pushing for a millage, but rather for a community conversation. “Your comments right now are a part of that community conversation,” Nacht said. They’d voted on the need for a conversation, he said.

The third question Nacht identified was: What about the expanded board? Nacht explained that the AATA had hired a lawyer who has expanded boards in other communities. In legislative terms, it amounts to reforming the AATA under Act 196 instead of under Act 55. It’s a separate decision, Nacht said, about whether to levy taxes. Before contemplating a decision about taxes, we need to “cohere as a community” about what transit should look like.

Rapundalo questioned Nacht’s depiction, saying that in all the conversations that he’d had, “that’s not how things have been portrayed to us.”  What had been conveyed, said Rapundalo, is a particular approach that would raise the millage on the backs of Ann Arbor taxpayers. And that was something Rapundalo said he didn’t have the appetite to engage in.

Nacht was unambiguous in his reply: “Let me make this perfectly clear; there is one person who can speak for the AATA, and you are looking at him right now.”

Higgins then sought some clarity on what the board had voted on to move forward.

Nacht said they’d voted to have a conversation about how to provide service more broadly through the county. To that end, they’d engaged a lawyer to allow the AATA as an organization to change its structure. We’re talking about creating an entity, said Nacht, that would realize a coherent vision among Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, and other parties, so that we can agree how to fund transit efficiently. Higgins: “Now you have told me we’re talking about funding!”

Mayor John Hieftje pointed out that the AATA cannot itself put a millage on the ballot. In response to a query from Higgins, Hieftje said that changing the board structure would require a change in the city charter, which would require the consent of the citizens of Ann Arbor. In that context, said Hieftje, it was appropriate for the AATA to engage in the kinds of conversations it had been having.

Anti-Graffiti Ordinance

The version of the ordinance given a final vote by council differed from that which was approved on first reading – mainly in that property owners would not be fined if they failed to remove graffiti within a particular time frame. (See previous Chronicle coverage of the proposed graffiti ordinance.)

Three people spoke at the public hearing on the ordinance.

Newcombe Clark, president of the Main Street Area Association, speaks in favor of the anti-graffiti ordinance.

Newcombe Clark: Clark is president of the Main Street Area Association. He stressed that the impetus behind the ordinance was not city council, but rather had emerged from discussions that had begun 18 months ago on the downtown marketing task force, and was supported by merchant associations, neighborhoods, and property owners. An uptick in graffiti had been noticed, Clark said, and a deficiency in Ann Arbor’s ordinances had been identified compared against the benchmark of comparable cities. The presence of graffiti, when unchecked, said Clark, begets more graffiti. The best way to address the problem, Clark contended, was not increased enforcement of existing ordinances, but rather by taking the same community standards approach that the city took when lawns are not mowed and trash is not picked up: after giving notice, the city does the work and bills the property owner.

Glenn Thompson: Thompson urged council to vote against the ordinance, because it assumes that the city is better at making business decisions than business owners. First, Thompson said, by setting a time frame for removal, council was saying that graffiti demanded priority, when that might not be the priority that a business owner would choose. Second, Thompson said, as far as the ordinance is concerned, it doesn’t matter what the image is. But a property owner might choose to retain an image that might be put on his property. Why would someone want to retain it? It’s a subjective matter, said Thompson, and gave the example of an Ypsilanti businessman who would have preferred to retain an image applied to his property, against the requirement of Ypsilanti’s anti-graffiti ordinance that it be removed. The ordinance does not distinguish between crude tags and more refined art, which is a subjective assessment, and therefore one that should be left to the property owner, concluded Thompson.

Karen Sidney: Sidney urged council to vote no. She said she worked downtown and was surprised at the claim that graffiti is a problem. Where is it? she asked. Her answer: It’s in the alleys. This reflected the fact that business owners had made a business decision that it’s not cost-effective to remove graffiti in alleys. “This is not a safety issue,” she said, “People are not harmed by looking at graffiti.” If it’s a priority for the city, then artists could be paid to paint murals. She alluded to the remarks made at council’s recent budget retreat from chief of police Barnett Jones, who talked about increased crime from recently released inmates. Hire them to paint murals, she suggested. Don’t beat up on the victims.

Councilmember Margie Teall, one of the sponsors of the ordinance, thanked everyone who put hours of work into it.

There was much procedural confusion over the moving of the various amendments that were required to make the changes from the version of the ordinance that council had approved previously on first reading. Eventually, it was councilmember Leigh Greden who summarized the key points: (i) the fine on property owners had been eliminated, (ii) the time frame given for property owners to remove graffiti had been increased, and (iii) covering up the graffiti (with paint or similar substance – not a piece of paper) would suffice.

Greden said he supported the ordinance and characterized it as a classic case of collaboration between city council, staff, downtown merchants, and the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce. He said that it recognizes that graffiti is a problem, but had eliminated a system of levying fines that was not in anybody’s interest.

Councilmember Sandi Smith, who had voted against the ordinance on first reading, said that she appreciated the work people had done to improve the ordinance, noting that she had not participated except to “stir the pot.” She said that she would like to see information go out to owners of properties on how they can remove graffiti or cover it up. Several people chimed in with the suggestion of Elephant Snot.

Responding to Smith’s concern about the need for dissemination of information on removal techniques, Teall noted that the ordinance would not go into effect until 90 days after council passed it. The rationale for that was in part to allow time for education.

Councilmember Margie Teall clarified the amendments to the anti-graffiti ordinance.

Mike Bergren, assistant field operations manager with the city of Ann Arbor, stepped to the podium to offer his assistance and expertise in sharing information and knowledge with property owners. Bergren’s department will be tapped to do graffiti removal, if property owners don’t comply after receiving notice.

In his remarks, councilmember Christopher Taylor responded to the view that even as amended [with the elimination of fines and the increase in time frame for compliance], the ordinance still requires something of the victim. Taylor said he didn’t view it that way. The property owner who chooses not to clean up graffiti is imposing both tangible and intangible costs on the community: tangible costs in contributing to the increased probability of graffiti applied to surrounding properties; and intangible costs in reducing cleanliness and safety of neighborhoods. It’s not just a business issue, Taylor said, it’s a neighborhood issue. An example he cited was the AT&T boxes that have been installed on neighborhood lawn extensions. AT&T’s property is subject to this ordinance, he said, so it does not  just affect urban neighborhoods, but also the streetscapes where AT&T boxes have appeared.

After passing the amendments, there was additional brief discussion of the main motion, with support reiterated from Greden, Hohnke and Mike Anglin. Teall asked city administrator Roger Fraser to have it reviewed in six months – the requirement of review was not written into the ordinance itself.

Outcome: passed unanimously.

Farmers Market Improvements

The resolution DS-9 on council’s agenda was a complex set of fund transfers and appropriations, and that complexity ultimately led to its postponement. The resolution:

Resolution to Approve Amendment No. 1 to Existing Professional Services Contract with Beckett & Raeder, Inc. to Increase the Contract Budget by $122,862.62 for a Total Contract Amount of $232,246.62, Accept and Appropriate $13,538.67 Grant from the DDA, Appropriate $30,661.97 from the Market Fund Fund Balance, Transfer $48,000.00 from the Stormwater Fund FY09 Operations and Maintenance Budget, Appropriate $30,661.98 from the Parks Rehabilitation and Development Millage Fund Balance, and Appropriate $122,862.62 from the Parks Rehabilitation and Development Millage to the Farmers Market Master Plan Construction Design Project Budget to Create a Total Project Budget of $2,056,900.00 (8 Votes Required)

During public commentary reserved time, Glenn Thompson had spoken to the issue of the resolution.

Glenn Thompson: Thompson traced the history of the project from 2002, saying it began as simple maintenance project and had been expanded along the way to include various improvements including lighting, and ultimately storm water treatment, to the point where it had ballooned into a $2 million project. The new project called for more money to be spent on design than the initial repairs would have cost, said Thompson, all while not increasing the amount of retail space. The cost of treating storm water [measured in dollars per pound of phosphorous removed] at the Farmers Market is 10 times the cost at other locations where storm water treatment projects had been proposed. Noting that the benefit of the Farmers Market storm water treatment project had been touted not for the volume of storm water treated, but rather for the educational benefit, Thompson said that the educational benefit would be: helping citizens understand why the city can’t afford to plow snow or plant trees but instead squanders millions on pet projects.

Councilmember Hohnke began the discussion in a way that could be seen to respond partly to Thompson’s concerns. Hohnke asked Jayne Miller, director of community services for the city of Ann Arbor, how the project grew from $950,000 to the current project of $2 million.

Miller first established that the initial actual cost was $1.3 million as determined by consultant Beckett & Raeder. The cost for the storm water improvement was $600,000, she said. In the exchange between Hohnke and Miller, it was established that the storm water improvements were being funding through a low interest loan through the county water resources commissioner’s office [formerly called "drain commissioner"]. The loan would be paid back from the storm water fund.

Rapundalo said that it was important to track the fund transfers and asked for greater clarity on how exactly the project was getting funding. Miller broke it down this way: $728,000 would come from the rehabilitation side of the parks millage; $110,000 would come from the capital side of the parks millage; just under $300,000 would come from DDA; $306,000 would come from the Farmers Market fund balance; $600,000 would come from the loan through the water resources commissioner’s office; and $50,000 would come from the storm water fund.

Rapundalo wanted to know if the city’s Park Advisory Commission (PAC) had a view on the parks millage spending. Miller said that PAC had looked at it. Taylor said that in light of his attendance at the PAC meeting that day, that their recollection may not be as fresh as hers on the issue. Miller said that it was four years ago when it was looked at by PAC. That, said Taylor, could explain the lack of recollection on PAC’s part.

For his part, Greden said that what gave him comfort was that the vast majority is grant money: someone else “higher up” had determined that it was worth it.

In a comment apparently meant to correct Greden’s characterization of the $600,000 as a grant, Hohnke established through querying Craig Hupy, head of systems planning for the city, that it’s actually a loan to be paid back over 20 years. Hohnke also asked what current city requirements were with respect to storm water improvements on new construction in general. Hieftje chimed in: “We’re just doing what we require everyone else to do.”

Taylor elicited from Hupy confirmation that the educational component had a reasonable expectation that some of the cost would be recaptured through increased sensitivity to storm water in the populace.

Anglin cautioned that council should be careful about how the city taps the storm water fund. He said he didn’t see enough happening  in terms of efforts of ordinary citizens, like the creation of rain gardens.

The impetus to postpone came from Higgins. She said that some of the questions asked had given her pause. It was important, she said, to understand the difference between grants and loans. There seemed to be a consensus that councilmembers wanted a clearer picture of all the fund transfers involved.

Jeff Dehring, who is the city’s project manager on this project, was called to the podium to assess the implications of a delay with regard to loan applications. Dehring said that it was preferable to get a decision that night. In the end, it was agreed that city staff could proceed with their work, and that if the resolution were approved at council’s next meeting, the window of opportunity would not be lost.

Outcome: postponed

Three Site Plans Approved

Only Michael T. VanGoor, the architect on three projects (1012 Hill St., 833 E. University, and 808 Tappan St.) spoke at the three public hearings on the projects. In each case he simply stated that he was available to answer any questions. By the third hearing, it had a somewhat comedic effect on those assembled. The three sites involve alteration of an existing structure that does not currently conform to zoning.

Outcome: unanimously approved with no discussion

Leftover from Last Council Meeting: Art Commission Appointment and Utilities Easement

At the Jan. 5 council meeting, the nomination to appoint Cheryl Zuellig to the public art commission was withdrawn, prompted by a query from Higgins about Zuellig’s Ypsilanti address. In the interim, it had been clarified, said Hieftje, that the area of special expertise qualifying Zuellig for the commission was the installation of large-scale projects. Zuellig is a landscape architect, said Hieftje.

Outcome: unanimously approved with no further discussion

The resolution to accept an easement for public utilities from the Ann Arbor public schools for the Miller-Maple transmission water main project – located at Forsythe and Wines schools, had been postponed from the Jan. 5 council meeting at Hieftje’s request. He wanted to get a clearer understanding of what he understood to be an objection by the public schools to having an electrical conduit in the easement that would service a windmill. There was no discussion during the meeting on the issue, but after the meeting Hieftje said that he’d been unable to get definitive information on it.

Outcome: approved with no discussion

Airport Improvements

A raft of resolutions regarding improvements at the airport (DS-6 through DS-8) were postponed at the request of Higgins, who said that the city was still working with Pittsfield Township, a neighborhood that would be affected by the runway work.

Resolution to Approve FY2010-2015 Capital Improvements Plan

The public hearing drew one speaker.

Karen Sidney: Sidney said she’d just paid her utility bill, and noted the increased storm water rate. The extra money, she said, should be used to address storm water issues, not tree replanting, which should be paid for from a maintenance fund. She characterized the storm water rate increase as a “back door tax” to do maintenance. She said that the city spent double in 2003 on trees compared to 2008.

There was no discussion on the resolution by council.

Outcome: passed, with Higgins dissenting.

Tree Inventory

The following resolution required eight votes for approval.

Resolution to Accept and Appropriate Grant Funding from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources ($20,000.00) and for Approval of Professional Services Agreement with Davey Resource Group, a Division of Davey Tree Expert Company, ($243,500.00) for the GIS based inventory of City owned Street and Park Trees

There was no discussion, but with Higgins dissenting, Hieftje elected to have a roll-call vote in light of having only nine councilmembers in attendance.

Outcome: passed, with Higgins dissenting.

Comcast, Parking Agreement, Solid Waste

There were three  items on the agenda (DC-2, DC-3, DC-4) added too late to appear on the printed copy distributed at the meeting and which still did not appear on the electronic version as of 1 p.m. the day after the meeting. The first involved the relocation of Comcast Internet lines in preparation for construction on the Larcom building site. It was approved.

A second item involved a call for the DDA to begin discussions of the parking agreement on metered parking between the DDA and the city. The word “discussions” was a replacement for “negotiations” in the original wording. It was approved.

The third item was the appointment of the solid waste rate schedule oversight committee, which at the last meeting of council was decided would be the responsibility of city council as opposed to the environmental commission. It was approved.

Council Communications

Higgins conveyed the complaint of a resident on Stadium Boulevard, who’d put out compost bags back in the fall and still hadn’t had them picked up. Fraser asked for the street address so that service could be provided.

Anglin said he’d received a lot of feedback on snow removal. He suggested offering some kind of opt-in service for those who were not able to clear the snow out from in front of their driveways.

Teall reported that Festifools “is back” and they’re having a pancake breakfast on Saturday, Jan. 24.

Public Commentary

Elaine Rumman: Rumman spoke to the topic of the situation in Gaza, as a Palestinian-American on the occasion of the celebration of Barack Obama’s inauguration. She said that she was opposed to killing of Israelis as well as Palestinians. She criticized the use by Israeli military of white phosphorous, banned by UN convention. Gaza, she said, had been under siege for 18 months, was running out of food, water, and medicine. She listed out the Palestinian casualties in the recent fighting: 1,320 killed, 5,500 injured; of these, 425 children, 100 women. Israel claims it has a right to defend itself, she said, but Palestinians have a right to resist. She wondered how American Jews, who have suffered injustice, are not demanding justice for Palestinian people. She concluded by asking city council to support, on this historic day [Obama's inauguration] freedom for all people, including Palestinians.

Alex Levine makes a pitch for recycling No. 6 plastics.

Alex Levine: Levine is an undergrad at the University of Michigan and pitched an idea that he said would be beneficial to UM and Ann Arbor: recycling No. 6 plastic cups. He’d identified two companies that re-processed that kind of plastic, and suggested that from tailgating [at football games] there would be a supply of cups. He said he would be delighted to work with council to make No. 6 plastic recycling a reality [Editor's note: After his comments, Levine told The Chronicle that he had won the Green Campus category of the 1000 Pitches competition with a similar idea, but that this time around it wasn't about winning a contest, it was about making something happen. Links: Chronicle coverage of the 1000 Pitches 1000 Pitches website]

Tom Partridge: Partridge spoke during public commentary reserved time at the beginning of the meeting, as well as during a public hearing on the rezoning of some parcels to public land, and at the conclusion of the meeting during public commentary general time. Partridge said he was proud to be a citizen of the United States on the day of Obama’s inauguration – the most historic act in American history. When Obama took the oath of office, Partridge said, he had called on the nation to take cognizance of the serious economic and social problems confronting the nation: affordable transportation, housing, health care, and education.

Partridge weighed in against the permanent conversion of land to parks, saying that it meant that it could not be used for affordable housing or transit stations in a public transportation system.

In his later remarks, responding to some of the previous council deliberations the same night as well as in April 2008, he said that he was there to address issues of greater importance than graffiti and backyard chicken farming. He recommended that city council, the county board, and all the government entities in the region pass resolutions honoring and congratulating Obama on his inauguration. Further, said Partridge, Obama should be invited to Ann Arbor to speak about his proposals and plans to bring the country out of the recession that it’s mired in.

Present: Sandi Smith, Stephen Rapundalo, Leigh Greden, Christopher Taylor, Margie Teall, Marcia Higgins, Carsten Hohnke, Mike Anglin, John Hieftje

Absent: Sabra Briere, Tony Derezinski

Next Council Meeting: Monday, Feb. 2, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Graffiti stenciled in a downtown Ann Arbor alley. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Although the punishments for those who apply graffiti would remain intact, the impact of a proposed new anti-graffiti ordinance on property owners would be lessened under a revised version of the law. The original version of the proposed anti-graffiti ordinance was approved by council at its first reading at the Dec. 15 city council meeting, which advanced it along in the usual process to a public hearing and second reading, scheduled for council’s Jan. 20 meeting.

Since that December meeting, sponsors of the new ordinance (which include councilmembers Margie Teall, Carsten Hohnke, Leigh Greden, and Christopher Taylor) have met with various business owners, the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Development Authority, and city staff, which resulted  in changes to the proposed ordinance.

Whereas the version approved at first reading called for a fine on property owners who did not remove graffiti in a timely fashion, and categorized violation by property owners as a civil infraction, the revised version to be heard at second reading eliminates the fine and explicitly states that violation is not a civil infraction or a misdemeanor. Further, the time frame for required removal of graffiti has been extended from 2 days if notice is given to the property owner directly or 4 days if notice is mailed, to 7 days and 9 days, respectively.

Because the revision involves a loosening of the proposal rather than a tightening of it, according to the city attorney’s office the ordinance will not be required to repeat a first reading.

A response to the ubiquitous "duck." (Image links to higher resolution file.)

No sign of Pebbles, Bam Bam, Fred, or Wilma. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Who is supposed to be moderating this thread? (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Proposed Germantown Historic District Study Committee

Public Commentary – Germantown: Seven of 10 speakers during the reserved time for public commentary spoke to the issue of the proposed study committee for a new historic district. The proposed area of study is bounded by William Street on the north, Fourth Avenue on the west, Madison Street on the south, and Division Street on the east.

Alex de Parry: [De Parry is the developer of a project proposed along South Fifth Avenue, called City Place, which currently has a PUD application that has been advanced to a second reading before council.] De Parry said that he owned several of the properties within the area of proposed study, which includes 161 total properties. He noted that the eight property owners who supported appointment of a study committee were very vocal, but said that 10 times that number opposed the appointment of a committee. He characterized the proposal’s late addition to the agenda on the previous Friday as a “last-minute end-around” to prevent densification.

Scott Munzel: [Munzel is legal counsel for de Parry's City Place project.] Munzel identified himself as a resident of Ward 5 [He does not live within the area of proposed study.] He said that he supported the notion of historic districts in general. However, he said that in order to establish a new district, a high degree of consensus in the community is required, and that the time frame of Friday to Monday was not adequate to establish that consensus. He concluded that more community input is warranted.

Julie Stadelman: Stadelman said that she’d recently accepted an award for historic preservation of her home, but said that she was opposed to the establishment of a historic district in that area. She focused her remarks on the parcel where a project on Madison Street had been proposed and rejected by planning commission in late October 2008, called The Madison, which is proposed as a 12-story development aimed to provide work-force housing. She said that the houses on the proposed footprint of The Madison are not historic. She concluded that the historic district is requested by those who opposed development. In brief conversation with The Chronicle after she spoke, Stadelman said that her view that the properties on the proposed site of The Madison did not merit historic designation extended to the whole area of proposed study for the district.

Caudius Claudius Vincenz: Vincenz said he lived on South Fifth Avenue just up the hill from Fingerle Lumber, and that his choice to live in an area where there are older houses stemmed from an appreciation for historic houses that he traced to having grown up in a 500-year-old house in Switzerland. He stressed that he is not an architectural historian, but noted that his own home was an arts and crafts home. He suggested that with further study, “a lot of gems” would be found. What’s great about the houses in the area of proposed study, he said, is that each one has its own quirkiness, and that there is a diversity of houses. He suggested that the study committee not focus too much on window sills and the like, but rather consider the human diversity of the neighborhood. He noted that redevelopment in general was driven by the economics of scale and that this accounted for the massiveness of projects proposed in place of the older houses.

Beverly Strassmann: Strassmann stated that she supported the formation of a study committee. She related her experience living in a small village in Africa, where there was a strong sense of community. The older houses where the elders lived were revered, she said, and everyone looked out for everyone else. That, she said, was the kind of neighborhood the area of proposed study is. She noted that she’d invested in her house, as had others, and that level of investment ranged from $100,000 to $200,000. She said that those investments were not just investments in individual homes, but in the whole city, noting that a recent decision by a film production company to shoot on location in Ann Arbor was driven by the fact that in Ann Arbor there are a lot of “old houses that look like they could be in New England.” A neighborhood of attractive, well-maintained houses benefits the aesthetics and stability of the city, she said, characterizing such houses as “public works of art.”

Walter Spiller: Spiller said he owned five rentals across from his own house in the area of proposed study. He related how he had lived there his entire working life. [At council's caucus the previous evening, he described how part of that working life was as a mail carrier ... for the very neighborhood in which he lived.] Spiller focused his remarks on the notion of diversity. He noted that while the city was diverse when evaluated as a whole, generally that diversity did not extend to the level of neighborhoods. We know where the students live, we know where the rich people live, we know where the professionals live, he said. But he said what was different about the area of proposed study was the diversity that existed on the neighborhood level. In that area, he said, there are old people, really old people, babies, and students. He said that he’d just rented a unit to his barber. He described the neighborhood as housing the unemployed, minimum wage workers, as well as professionals. But he also characterized this diverse mix as a “fragile tapestry,” like tissue paper. He said that he was speaking from two different perspectives: that of an owner and taxpayer, and that of an investor in rental properties. He said that while his name had initially appeared five times on a petition circulated by Alex de Parry opposing the study committee, he said that it had been presented to him as something that the city was deciding to do without input. “I didn’t want something rammed down my throat,” he said. He said that he supported a study to explore whether a historic district was an appropriate mechanism for preserving the diversity of the neighborhood.

Deanna Relyea: Relyea said that she’d lived in her house for 20 years and that because they also owned the house next to it, they were developing “our own little dynasty.” She characterized the area of proposed study as a full-service neighborhood, which included a funeral parlor, a doctor’s office, a dentist’s office, and a church – the oldest German church in the state. She said that the neighborhood was diverse, and it was also fragile. She said she felt she had assurances from various planning documents that there was a commitment to preserve and protect historically significant areas that adjoin the DDA district and that this amounted to a pact between the city and its citizens. She therefore felt it was appropriate that citizens request staff time and resources to explore the question of a possible historic district. She said that the study would serve to determine if a historic district was the vehicle by which the stability of the neighborhood could be achieved.

Council Deliberations – Germantown

Councilmember Mike Anglin, co-sponsor of the resolution with Sabra Briere, led off council discussion by thanking the people who had stepped forward to speak. He noted that the proposal to appoint a study committee seemed quick, but that the idea went back years. He stressed that it was only a study committee. He said that his own familiarity with the neighborhood was his use of it as a cut-through on his way from home to the university. He said he wanted to see some parity for citizens as compared to developers who proposed projects. If developers have a claim on staff time, he said, then so do citizens.

Councilmember Sabra Briere listed out some reasons for authorizing the appointment of a study committee:

• appointing a committee doesn’t guarantee we’ll establish a historic district;
• research from the study committee will yield a greater understanding of our cultural heritage, even if no district is established;
• appointment of a committee does not in itself restrict development during the study period;
• the decision to establish a historic district or not rests with city council, not the study committee.

She said some questions that many of her colleagues on council might have were good ones: Why wait so long? Why now? She responded by reflecting on her own experience living in a neighborhood that was only recently established as a historic district (Lowertown). She enumerated some of the reasons people have waited until now:

• people trust that things won’t change – we don’t need a historic district to keep things the same;
• people see efforts to establish districts start and fail, and people don’t like failure;
• now is a time when they see change coming, and they want to control it.

Briere said she was pleased that people in the neighborhood had appeared to share with council why they liked living where they lived and had expressed a willingness to work for their neighborhood. She said she’d love to see a study committee given time to study, but “if change comes to this neighborhood during the study period, then change comes.”

When it appeared that the topic would receive no further discussion from council beyond the comments of the two sponsors of the resolution, Anglin remarked, “I thought we would have some discussion.” He then offered some prepared comments directed to the public as much as to his colleagues: “Listen carefully to council’s response to a citizen request.” He described the area of proposed study as a “remaining jewel in our crown” and said that good government consisted in part of responding positively to reasonable requests of citizens. He urged his fellow councilmembers to vote yes so that the question could be analyzed.

Councilmember Margie Teall expressed her agreement with the notion of parity for citizens when compared to developers’ claims on staff time and said that she thought they should give it a chance.

For his part, councilmember Carsten Hohnke said that he loved the proposed name of a possible historic district (Germantown), because he grew up in a family of recent German emigrants. Whatever happened, he said, he hoped that the name would stick, and expressed some optimism that it would, based on conversations with the county clerk (Larry Kestenbaum, who served for a time on the city’s historic district commission, and who in August 2008, commenting on the blog ArborUpdate, had proposed a historic district with boundaries similar to the area of proposed study). Hohnke said he agreed with the desire to preserve the character of the neighborhood, and that the city’s central area plan reflects that concern. That is why, he continued, he had expressed strong reservations about the City Place project during the council meeting when that PUD application had been moved to a second reading and public hearing. Referring to the comments of Walter Spiller during public commentary, Hohnke said that we don’t know the best way to preserve the character of the neighborhood. He noted that appointment of a study committee is “not trivial,” but noted that while it represented demands on city staff, he didn’t have a problem with that. What concerned him was that it wasn’t clear to him what the rush was. He said it was important to do the “messy work” of getting more input, and suggested that the time be taken to have a larger discussion on the matter. He concluded that he felt the matter should be postponed, but stood ready to work together with neighbors to preserve the neighborhood.

Councilmember Marcia Higgins said that what struck her about the previous night’s caucus discussion was the sincerity of the neighbors who had spoken. However, she was not sure that they had a clear understanding of the ramifications of living in a historic district. She wondered if the investments that some neighbors had talked about making in their houses would have been approved by the historic district commission. She also noted that the supporters of the study committee came from a two-block square, much smaller than the area of proposed study. She said she would like to see a bigger dialogue.

Councilmember Tony Derezinski reiterated Higgins points. He also said that in his work as the council’s representative to the planning commission that there was a lot of comprehensive planning work going on citywide, and that this neighborhood needed to be considered in that context. He expressed concern about the short time frame from Friday to Monday that council had for consideration of the resolution. He also expressed concern about the possibility that the appointment of a study committee would result in a “self-fulfilling prophecy.”

Councilmember Sandi Smith echoed Derezinski’s thought on the need to consider the context of current rezoning work that is underway. She noted that the area of proposed study is a true interface zone (The narrow strip on the south side of William is proposed under the new downtown zoning to be D2). She said that she would like the A2D2 process to look closely at this fringe area.

Picking up on the A2D2 reference from Smith, Higgins – who serves on the A2D2 steering committee along with Evan Pratt of the planning commission and Roger Hewitt of the DDA – said that their recent evaluation of a recent round of public input solicited through multiple presentations to the community had made clear that the interface of downtown with neighborhoods was an important concern. Hearing from an additional 300 people through this most recent round of public input, she said, had been eye-opening.

Councilmember Stephen Rapundalo noted that a number of previous comments pointed to the fact that the balance between growth/development and preservation is not simple. He said he had many questions concerning the proposed study committee, including (i) the breadth of area included, (ii) the timing of the resolution – why has it taken seven years after removal of historic designations of individual properties in a court case, (iii) the timing of the resolution in the context of two recently proposed projects in the area of proposed study (City Place and The Madison, and (iv) the actual historical purity of the structures involved – acknowledging his layman’s point of view. Rapundalo said that he was concerned if this was a thinly-veiled attempt to put roadblocks where we need some re-development. But he concluded by noting that council as a body was not anti-historic-district, citing a recent decision by council to deny a property owner’s request to establish a study committee to exclude his property from an existing historic district.

Following up on Rapundalo’s point about council’s recent decision to affirm the existing boundaries of the Old Fourth Ward, councilmember Leigh Greden said that the reasoning he applied for that case applied here as well: if he was nearly certain that he was going to vote against the establishment of the district, then he was going to vote against the study committee. (In the case of the Old Fourth Ward, he’d said that he couldn’t imagine he would vote to reduce its size, whatever the result of the study committee was, so therefore voted against the study committee in the interest of preserving everyone’s time). Greden said that staff research had indicated that it was only 11 properties in the area of proposed study that had lost their historic designations as a result of a court case, and that the expansion to 166 properties for the area of proposed study was dramatic. Greden said that he felt that downzoning, as opposed to a historic district, was a better option for preventing undesirable development.

Because Anglin wished to speak again, having already exhausted his two speaking turns, council accommodated him by voting to suspend its rules on speaking turns. Anglin wanted to make clear that the boundary area of the study committee did not necessarily correspond to the boundary area of an eventually proposed historic district. He also addressed Higgins’ concern that residents didn’t fully understand the ramifications of living in a historic district, by saying that “these people know what they’re getting into.”

Following up on Anglin’s point about the geographic scope of the study, Briere noted that the area of study for the Lowertown Historic District was an extremely wide swath going from Barton Drive to Longshore to Maiden Lane to Broadway. She said that the area of proposed study for German town was actually not all that big at roughly six square blocks, and that when she formulated the resolution, she did not feel it was up to her to pre-determine where the structures of historical significance stood. She also addressed the issue of Friday-to-Monday timing, by pointing out that everyone on council had received the resolution in draft form last Monday, and that the delay in getting the resolution to the city clerk was something she took responsibility for. Alluding to Higgins’ point, she allowed that it was possible that residents were getting in over their heads, but said that education about what it means to live in a historic district was part of the function of study committee.

Councilmember Christopher Taylor said he felt that the creation of a study committee needed a larger pile of data to support it. He said he was not ready to support the issue with the kind of formalism and momentum that appointing a study committee would give it.

Teall reminded her colleagues that it was just a study committee.

In concluding council discussion the mayor of the city of Ann Arbor, John Hieftje, said that a study committee creates a momentum for the establishment of a historic district. He said he wished that it were possible to maintain the historic designations of individual properties that were lost as a result of an early 2000s court case. He said he was concerned that appointing a study committee took a large swath of area and “put the area in question.” He said that in his own observations, there were many properties in the area that he couldn’t figure out why anybody would want to preserve them. Referring to the fact that some of the houses’ historic significance had been attributed to the fact that former mayors of Ann Arbor had lived in them, he said that he himself had lived in six different houses in Ann Arbor. And mutliplying six times the 50 mayors in Ann Arbor’s history, Hieftje said that amounted to potentially 300 houses that could be considered historic, and therefore questioned its use as a criterion.

Outcome: The resolution failed, with votes for it from Anglin, Briere, and Teall.

Anti-Graffiti Ordinance

Councilmember Teall introduced discussion of the ordinance by giving some background. It evolved, she said, from discussions on the downtown marketing task force. Merchants had noticed a sharp uptick in graffiti, and the consensus was that a strategy for curbing it was to “nip it in the bud.” Acknowledging that there was a cost associated with cleanup (which is enforced by the proposed ordinance), Teall said she hoped it would not be as costly when incidence of graffiti starts to decline, which rapid removal is intended to achieve.

Councilmember Higgins asked city attorney Stephen Postema to look into the question of how this ordinance fit into the rest of the city code and to look at the wording of the ordinance in that light. Postema indicated that his office had looked at the ordinance already, and would look at it again between first and second readings with a special eye to the issue Higgins mentioned. Councilmember Taylor indicated that there would be technical revisions between first and second readings (due for the second council meeting in Janaury) but that the substance of the ordinance would remain.

Councilmember Smith said she understood the motivation behind the oridnance, but worried about imposing a fine on a small business owner ranging from $250 to $1,000. She thus encouraged council to find easy remedies for business owners for dealing with graffiti. She reminded her fellow councilmembers that business owners who were required to clean up graffiti were victims of a crime.

Councilmember Greden said that Smith brought the good perspective of a realtor and that the way she had phrased the issue was something he hadn’t previously considered. He noted there would be a public hearing on the ordinance, and encouraged the public to come speak or to send email on ideas of how to tweak the ordinance. But he said that he hoped that council would support the idea of getting rid of graffiti downtown.

Councilmember Derezinski asked if parental responsibility statutes could be brought to bear on the situation – if the graffiti offense were committed by a minor. He suggested that the parents could be found liable and that could be a resource for cleanup compensation.

Councilmember Hohnke thanked Smith for her comments and said that council should be sensitive to small businesses in considering what the ordinance should require. He also thanked Teall for shepherding the issue through the process. He said that there were tools available for graffiti removal that should be extended to businesses outside the DDA boundaries.

Teall added that the ordinance would be implemented 90 days after its second reading, which would give business owners a chance to address their properties before enforcement.

Councilmember Anglin said that he thought applying the standards of the proposed ordinance was good, but that he felt there were much more glaring situations involving entire buildings that were falling apart, which were much more disturbing to him than graffiti. Greden said that he shared Anglin’s concern, but noted that the city attorney’s office was enthusiastic about cleaning up any such situations and had a track record of doing so.

Outcome: The ordinance was passed on first reading. Smith demurred, but did not request a roll call vote.

[Editor's note: Of possible additional graffiti-related interest are the following two Stopped. Watched. items: Obama for Truth 1 and Obama for Truth 2. The case of an Ypsilanti businessman who considered some stenciled graffiti on his place of business to be art and left it in place also bears some relevance to the topic: graffiti or art]

Bonds for Parking Structure Component of City Apartments

Jon Frank, vice president of development for Village Green, the developer of the residential project to be built at the First and Washington site, was in attendance at the council meeting, as was Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA. The DDA and Village Green are working together on the parking structure component of the development.

Council considered two separate resolutions on the issuance of $9 million in bonds to fund the parking structure portion of the City Apartments project. There was no council discussion of them, but councilmember Greden clarified the purpose of each resolution. The first one gave a 45-day notice of intent to issue the bonds, while the second one authorized the issuance of the bonds. Greden explained that by having authorization to issue bonds immediately upon expiration of the 45-day period gave staff maximum flexibility to issue bonds (or not) based on market conditions.

Human Services Funding Priorities

Several members of the public spoke during the public hearing on spending priorities for fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

Ellen Schulmeister (Shelter Association of Washtenaw County): Schulmeister asked council to approve the priorities. She also thanked council for pursuing the replacement of the 100-units of affordable housing lost at the site of the old YMCA. She said that the day’s weather was a mirror of the economy: temperatures had gone from 50 F to 26 F and were forecast to hit 16 F overnight. From July 1 through the end of November this year, Schulmeister said, demand for services at the Delonis Center was up 20%. She concluded that people who need our help need our help now more than ever.

Joan Doughty (Community Action Network): Doughty said that she was pleased to see that Youth at Risk was included in the priorities.

Jim Mogensen: Mogensen said that the “conventional thinking” was that people in Ann Arbor spend all kinds of money on human services, but that to his unconventional way of thinking, it didn’t amount to a great amount of money. He described a presentation he sometimes gave involving a physical red ribbon representing all of the other spending besides human services, which would stretch across the room to the corner where the city attorney sat. Mogensen said that in establishing priorities, it amounted to studying how the pie should be sliced, when the pie was too small in the first place.

Tom Partridge: Partridge called for uniting the city, the county, southeast Michigan, and the rest of the state in providing needed services. He said such services should be a part of an integrated program of transportation, housing, health, and education.

Councilmember Rapundalo led off council deliberations by explaining one difference in this year’s package of priorities as compared to previous years. Rather than try to allocate in advance the percentages of spending on particular areas, the idea was simply to fund the best programs, whatever area they might address. The thinking behind this strategy was that all of the various categories were so interconnected that it was difficult to tease them apart in any meaningful sense. Councilmember Teall invited community development director Mary Jo Callan to the podium to comment. She echoed what Rapundalo had said, saying that arbitrary designation of dollars before applications had been submitted didn’t result in the strongest programs getting funded. Councilmember Greden, responding to Mogensen’s suggestion that the city was not spending enough on human services, noted that Ann Arbor as a community was very generous with general fund dollars and elicited from Callan the view that yes, we can be proud of our spending on a per capita basis.

Outcome: The spending priorities were passed unanimously.

Additional Public Comment – Reserved and General Time

Alan Haber (Human Rights): [Haber had a chance to speak because one of the people who had signed up for public commentary reserved time to speak to the issue of the Germantown study committee did not appear. A maximum of 10 speakers can reserve a three-minute speaking slot, with first preference given to those who wish to address an item on that night's agenda.] Haber gave a nod to previous speakers who had talked about Germantown. He said that he didn’t know it was called Germantown, but loved the idea of preserving the area. He was there, however, to report back on the candlelight vigil he’d announced at a previous council meeting, which commemorated the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He said that for the vigil they had “33 bright lights.” Haber indicated that they would be continuing the endeavor to bring human rights to the forefront. As a part of that continuing effort, he said that there would be a follow-up meeting at Wed., Dec. 17, at 210 S. 4th Ave. from 6-9 p.m. to which everyone was invited.

Tom Partridge (Affordable Services): Partridge began by criticizing the three-minute time limit for public commentary, as it was uniformly applied across age and or disability. He also criticized the requirement that one’s name, address, phone number and topic be given in advance, as an infringement on freedom of expression. He called on the council to pass a resolution that addressed provision of affordable transportation, housing, and health care and to back that resolution with definite goals and plans. During general time afforded to citizens at the end of the meeting, Partridge noted that he’d run as a write-in candidate for county commission on a platform of protecting our most vulnerable residents. To date, he said, these goals had not been addressed by council. He singled out the reduction in scope of para-transit services provided by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to his own housing development as one example that should be addressed.

Scott Rosencrans (Liaison to Council from PAC): Rosencrans introduced himself as liaison to council from the park advisory commission and asked council to let him know if they thought it would be useful for him to be at any particular council meeting.

Jim Mogensen (Replacement of Affordable Housing Units): Mogensen said that while doing other research he’d come across information that put the current effort to replace the affordable housing units lost at the old YMCA site in at least a 25-year historical context. That context dates back to an effort to create “minimum wage housing,” and included the co-signing of a loan by the city for the YMCA. The urgency on the part of the YMCA to sell the old building was driven, he said, by the need for cash in order to construct their new building. He characterized much of the past history of affordable housing as “the folly continues,” but said that the currently analyzed three sites represented a step in the right direction, concluding by saying, “Please don’t give up!”

Present: Sandi Smith, Sabra Briere, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Rapundalo, Leigh Greden, Christopher Taylor, Margie Teall, Marcia Higgins, Carsten Hohnke, Mike Anglin, John Hieftje.

Absent: None

Next meeting: Monday, Jan. 5 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave.

• Historic District Study Committee – a resolution to appoint a study committee to determine the suitability of establishing a historic district called Germantown, which would include roughly the area bounded on the north by William Street, on the west by Fourth Avenue, on the south by Madison Street and on the east by Division Street.
• Graffiti Ordinance – a resolution to amend the city’s code to set forth punishments for graffiti, both for applying it and for allowing it to remain in place.

Discussion of the historic district study committee was driven by attendance at caucus of interested parties to the decision. Those parties included several residents of the neighborhood as well as a developer who has a project located inside the district of the proposed study. That project (City Place) is currently being considered by council.

William Street and Fourth Avenue looking southeast. The view takes in a large part of the area for which a historic district study committee is proposed. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Historic District Study Committee for Germantown

By way of background, in order to establish or modify a historic district, a study committee must first be appointed, with the scope and nature of that committee’s work strictly defined by code. Council recently considered and rejected the request from a property owner on Huron Street, who sought to have a study committee appointed. The property owner wanted to see the Old Fourth Ward Historic District modified to exclude his property. The issue before council for Monday’s Dec. 15 meeting is whether to appoint such a committee to study an area south of William Street between Fourth Avenue and Division Street for the purpose of establishing a new historic district there with the provisional name Germantown. The city’s Historic District Commission requested the appointment of the committee in a letter to council dated Sept. 11, 2008, a week after the city’s planning commission had voted against recommending approval of a PUD (City Place) located in the area of proposed study.

Around a half dozen residents who live within the area of proposed study for a historic district attended caucus, some expressing mild surprise that council was having such a meeting. [Editor's note: Sunday night caucus preceding Monday council meetings is a regular event. In the 8 months The Chronicle has attended caucus, which are entirely optional for councilmembers, Sabra Briere has been present for all of them, and has each time offered around homemade chocolates to her colleagues and to the public. Out of the selection this past Sunday, The Chronicle enjoyed a piece of English toffee.]

Residents who spoke at the caucus cited their choice to live in the neighborhood and talked about what made it enjoyable to live there. Some of that included the range of different people who lived there, from very young people to very old people, and the sense of neighborhood and place. One gentleman noted that his accent revealed him to not have grown up in the proposed Germantown, but rather in Switzerland. And he said that having grown up in a 500-year old house, where his parents still lived, he knew that if a house is properly maintained, it can last a really long time. Most of the residents who spoke cited their own investments in their homes to keep them properly maintained.

In making the case for the authorization from council to appoint a study committee, residents cited the stability that a historic district would bring to this area immediately adjacent to downtown and pointed to the economic benefit both to themselves as homeowners, but also to the city as a whole. Part of that benefit, they said, was related to the potential appeal of Ann Arbor as a location for shooting movies. [Editor's note: The point has some merit based on two movies shot partly in the area in the summer of 2008, with news of another film starring Hilary Swank to be shot here in the near future.]

As for the potential burden on city staff time that such a study committee might impose, they made the point that as taxpayers, they deserved at least equal parity with developers, who were afforded staff time and resources in connection with any proposed project.

Developers were also represented at caucus in the form of Alex de Parry, whose City Place PUD application will at some time in the near future be heard in a second reading by council. The City Place project along South Fifth Avenue sits squarely in the middle of the area of proposed study. Scott Munzel, legal counsel on the project, addressed caucus not on the historic district study committee per se, but rather on the merits of the City Place PUD as it relates to various planning documents and reports.

Munzel began by citing his credentials as a friend of historic preservation in the form of his own home in Ward 5, which he had chosen to renovate as opposed to knock down and rebuild from scratch, which would have been cheaper.

He noted that the city’s Central Area Plan [.pdf] has six major themes and noted that no project could meet the goals specified in all of the thematic areas. Those major themes are the following:

• Housing and Neighborhoods
• Circulation and Parking
• Development/Redevelopment
• Downtown
• Parks, Open Spaces and Public Area
• Historic Preservation

On the first of these themes, having to do with housing and neighborhoods, Munzel said that the point was to protect residential uses against commercial encroachment, which City Place did. Munzel cited the diversity of incomes for which the units had been designed. On the circulation element, Munzel said that the inclusion of underground parking onsite, plus proximity to downtown for the downtown workers for which the units of City Place were targeted, meant that it met the goals of reducing commuter traffic into downtown and reducing the burden on downtown parking structures. On the development/redevelopment element, Munzel said the project met the goal of increasing density both in and near the core of downtown, and that there was no requirement that all new development be of the same form as the existing neighborhood. On the downtown component, Munzel said that although the proposed project was 50 feet outside the DDA boundary, it supported the central area plan goal of supporting and promoting pedestrian activity downtown. With respect to land use, Muzel said that the multi-family dwelling unit was appropriate for the edge of downtown.

Munzel said that his concern was that the planning staff’s report, on which planning commission had partly based its recommendation against approval of the City Place PUD, focused on the form of the building to the exclusion of how the project met the goals of the central area plan. But the form, Munzel said, was also an appropriate urban form (brownstone style), even if it was different from the house-driveway-house-driveway pattern along South Fifth Avenue. Asked to wrap things up by John Hieftje, the city’s mayor, Munzel ticked through the ways that City Place supported the goals of the greenbelt program and met the city’s environmental goals through the building itself as well as its proximity to the likely work locations of its residents.

Councilmembers’ discussion included continued back-and-forth between them and residents, and at one point prompted developer Alex de Parry to shed his jacket and ask, “Can I talk?” De Parry had not signed in on the list and council had moved to its own discussion, but Briere replied cheerily, “You certainly can!” What had moved him to participate resulted from councilmember Carsten Hohnke’s query about possible opposition to the appointment of a study committee. From residents came a description of some of the petitions signed by those who objected as containing duplicated signatures. De Parry confirmed the duplication of names, but clarified that they corresponded to different properties. That is, if a single person owned three properties, their name appeared three times on the list. Briere noted that this was a point that she was just about to make.

Residents wanted to know if they needed to submit their own list of supporters, to which Briere replied that a list would be appropriate at a later time.

The question of the individual designation of many of the homes arose during discussion. Some of those homes still bear plaques attesting to their historic significance. Briere wanted to know how many of the homes in the proposed district formerly enjoyed status as individually protected structures and lost that status along with many others in the early 2000s. Although no one had an answer to that question, it gave an opportunity to Hieftje to note that it was an Ann Arbor court case that determined that individual buildings designated as a historic district in the way, many of them in Ann Arbor, did not meet the standard of a district. The Chronicle believes the relevant case to which Hieftje alluded was Draprop v. City of Ann Arbor [.pdf], in which the State of Michigan Court of Appeals ruled:

Because we conclude that defendant was without authority under the LHDA to establish the Individual Historic Properties Historic District, we need not reach the merits of plaintiff’s constitutional claims. The ordinance creating the district is invalid. Defendant’s historic preservation ordinance, specifically § 8:406, provides that the designation of an historic district is by local ordinance pursuant to the LHDA. Plaintiff’s properties are not part of a legally recognizable historic district. Defendant did not act within the ambit of the LHDA and its own historic preservation ordinance in designating plaintiff’s buildings as historic properties, and thus the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant was improper.

Councilmember Marcia Higgins asked the residents to explain the urgency they felt now, given that some of them had indicated they had lived in their homes for several years. Part of the urgency was accounted for when it emerged that they understood this to be their only shot. That is, they believed that if council rejected the authorization to appoint the committee, then the opportunity would be lost forever. Hohnke wondered if that was really the case, something that Briere clarified: it could be brought back again, even if it failed this time around. Hohnke then asked the residents if they would be comfortable with postponement to give them a bit more time to organize. Residents said that they couldn’t say definitively yes, because they were not sure of the ramifications.

One resident in particular said that really what concerned him was that he just wanted to know when a definitive decision was being made about the neighborhood in which he lived. He noted that he’d heard about the possibility of a historic district being established around a year ago, not from the city … but from Alex de Parry. De Parry acknowledged that he and the resident had known each other for over thirty years.

Higgins had a question on the timing between the authorization by council to appoint a study committee and the actual appointment of the committee that would specify its members. Briere weighed in based on her experience serving on two such study committees, saying that these were separate events. There was a time gap between authorization and actual appointment, she said.

Councilmember Margie Teall raised a question of great practical interest: Is there a moratorium on demolition in the area to be studied, if a committee is authorized to be formed? Hohnke said that that was a separate action. Briere said that a study committee, after it was formed, could request a moratorium, and that Kevin McDonald, with the city attorney’s office, had written an opinion on that.

Graffiti Ordinance

Germantown, graffiti-style.

Councilmember Sandi Smith expressed concerns about the position that the proposed ordinance put property owners: it made the victim of a crime subject to a fine. Smith noted that at her own place of business, the remedy for graffiti removal was sandblasting, which was required around six times a year at a cost of $500 per blast. She said that especially in the current economic climate she did not want to put business owners in the situation of having to choose between removing graffiti or making payroll.

In a relevant part to council’s caucus discussion, the proposed ordinance reads:

(2) No person shall apply graffiti to any surface or structure.

A violation of this subsection shall be a misdemeanor punishable by one or more of the following:

(a) Community service that is as relevant and appropriate to the violation as possible;

(b) Restitution;

(c) A fine of not more than $500.00 plus costs.

No person who owns or otherwise controls or manages any property shall permit or allow any graffiti to be or remain on any surface or structure on the property beyond the time indicated in a notice, which shall be no less than two (2) days after the notice is posted on the property or delivered to the property owner and no less than four (4) days if the notice is mailed. If removal of the graffiti by the date set in the notice is not possible due to weather or other reasonable cause, then on or before the date set in the notice the person to whom the notice is issued or his or her agent shall contact the City as indicated in the notice to request an extension.

A violation of this subsection shall be a civil infraction punishable by a fine of not more than $500.00 plus costs, and/or equitable relief, and/or any other penalty available under the law, including but not limited to a court order requiring the defendant to remove the graffiti. Each day upon which graffiti is present upon a property constitutes a separate violation of this section. For a first offense, the fine shall be $100.00, plus costs and all other remedies available by statute. For each additional or subsequent offense within a 2-year time period the fine shall be not less than $250.00 and up to $500.00, plus costs and all other remedies available by statute.

Councilmember Teall, who is co-sponsoring the ordinance along with councilmembers Leigh Greden, Carsten Hohnke and Christopher Taylor, clarified that the spirit of the ordinance was more along the lines of a notification to property owners, and that it was consistent with the current clean communities program that recognized the importance of timely cleanup to prevent further proliferation. She referenced the work that had been done on development of the ordinance with Susan Pollay, executive director of the Downtown Development Authority. Hohnke noted that he brought the perspective of a business owner to the issue and represented the point of view that it was important that there be adequate enforcement against graffiti in the first place, if a business owner faces a potential fine for leaving it in place. But he said that he felt this had been addressed by the police department. He echoed the view that grafitti – if left in place – has a negative impact.

Acknowledging the potential negative impact, Smith said she wanted to make sure there was information on removal techniques made available, because the ordinance made it a real possibility that the victim of a crime could be fined as harshly as the perpetrator. Hieftje stated that if graffiti stays, the effect is to invite someone else to graffiti nearby properties.

Teall expressed some surprise that sandblasting was required as a technique. In light of her conversations with staff at the city and at the university, she said, it seemed to be a seldom-used technique. Smith noted that this was “what I need to know,” alluding to her earlier comment on the need to have information available on removal techniques.

Councilmember Higgins saw this ordinance in the context of the new zoning currently under development by the city, and said that at the following evening at council’s meeting she’d ask that Kevin McDonald in the city attorney’s office be looped into the discussion.

Councilmember Briere brought the perspective of the nonprofit she works for, which had repainted its building only to find that two months later someone came along and spray-painted the whole side of the building. The remedy – which was to repaint as opposed to clean it – represented a considerable expense, because the paint was special historic paint consistent with the location of the building in a historic district. “This is not cheap!” Briere wondered if there was any kind of emergency fund that could be tapped for business owners who don’t have ready cash to deal with graffiti, and stressed the need to address the funding issue.

Present: Sandi Smith, Sabra Briere, Tony Derezinski, Margie Teall, Marcia Higgins, Carsten Hohnke, Mike Anglin, John Hieftje

Work by Ann Arbor artist Janice Milhem, on exhibit at Cafe Verde.

When a Chronicle reader saw our article on graffiti art, she shot us an email saying we should check out Janice Milhem’s work, too.

Milhem isn’t a graffiti artist, but she documents urban landscapes – in Detroit, Berlin, New York, Marrakech and Ann Arbor, among other locales – through photographs that reflect both the grit and gravitas of life on the streets.

Her work is on exhibit this month at Cafe Verde in a show called “Shout” – a name Milhem said she chose because her pieces give expression to those who often don’t have a voice in society. The graffiti that Milhem documents is one way that people with few educational or economic opportunities express themselves, she says, and despite the bad rap it often gets, “it’s really quite beautiful.” Going into an abandoned factory that’s been adorned with graffiti “is almost like being in a cathedral.”

Janice Milhem

In addition to images of graffiti, Milhem captures other types of “social chaos,” such as protests, as well as architecture throughout the world as she travels. “It’s a way for people to see things and how other people live,” she says. Getting away from your accustomed world view “really opens up a lot of ideas.” She hopes her upcoming trip to Nepal with the Foundation for Global Leadership will provide even more fuel for her creative work.

Meanwhile, check out Milhem’s efforts closer to home. Cafe Verde isn’t officially part of the Oct. 17-18 Art Walk, but it could be – it’s just down the street from the Gallery Project, on your way to Kerrytown Market & Shops.

This is Milhem’s first solo show, though she’s been exhibiting for the past few years. Her work is for sale, and ranges from about $85 to $175. The exhibit runs through Oct. 26. You can also check out her work online.

Cafe Verde is located next to People’s Food Co-op at 214 N. Fourth Ave. The cafe is open from 7 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Sunday.

Customers at Cafe Verde mingle with those attending the opening reception for Janice Milhem's "Shout" exhibit.

A piece in Janice Wilhem's "Shout" exhibit.

Graffiti in the alley next to Michigan Theater.

The alley next to Michigan Theater transformed pretty quickly over the summer from a colorful, artistically-coherent mural to a colorful collage of random graffiti – prompting Mr. Limpet to ask, “Where’s the Art?”

In early July, someone painted a swath of white over part of the mural called “Infinite Possibilities,” which had been created there in 1999. The Ann Arbor News ran an article about the incident, interviewing the artist, Katherine Tombeau Cost, who now lives in New Orleans. She said it had taken her five months to complete, but she wasn’t ticked off by the graffiti: “The thing about public art it is an exercise in letting go. You put it out there and you know it is not forever. I have to remind myself this isn’t my family room. That is the element of public art. It will be great and it will be gone.”

And now it’s really gone.

White paint covers most of the brick walls toward the front of the alley’s entrance, and those in turn are plastered with pictures, tags, scrawlings, the occasional expletive and what might pass for deep thoughts if you’re eight years old.

View of the alley next to Michigan Theater.

The Chronicle wondered what was in store for this space – were plans in the works to commission a new mural? As we were waiting to hear back from Russ Collins, executive director of the Michigan Theater, we came across a recent post on Jafabrit’s Art blog, which describes this very alley: “Spent a few days in Ann Arbor Michigan and found this wonderful graffiti alley off E. Liberty Street. I saw this pole in the side alley with the same colours as my knit tag and camo doll ( I named her ‘alley cat’) and it was just meant to be.” Photos ensue.

There’s much talk these days about public art – earlier this year, for example, the Ann Arbor city council approved permanent funding for the Commission on Art in Public Places. And you can certainly find officially sanctioned murals throughout the area – an underwater seascape on the alley next to the Huron Avenue Tios, a student-designed homage to the arts on the back of the Ann Arbor Art Center building, and the recently unveiled mural at the Corner Health Center in Ypsilanti. Michigan Peaceworks wants a public mural, too, and is looking for a good spot to put it.

But you can’t get more public (or collaborative, in an intentional/unintentional way) than the organic, visual cacaphony in that Michigan Theater alley. It isn’t so much each individual tag or image, but the cumulative layers of color and words and shapes that create this urban landscape.

Is it art? The Chronicle doesn’t have the critical chops to say. Is it provocative? Absolutely.

And, like other public art, it too will someday be gone. Take your photos while you can.

More alley graffiti next to Michigan Theater.

Farewell, 408 – The Link diesels on down Church Street.

I’ll admit – I’m not a regular rider of those purple buses that circle downtown Ann Arbor. In fact, this summer when I thought, “Hey – I’ll ride The Link!” I was revealed to be an idiot, unaware that the fleet went on haitus as soon as UM students dispersed. (Even though AATA posted signs to that effect at each stop. When you aren’t looking, you don’t see.)

Now, like the students, The Link is back. So when I set off for a chat with Ken Nisbet of UM’s Office of Technology Transfer, which sits above the Starbucks on South University, I decided to grab a free ride.

Free is nice. Waiting, not so much – or so I thought. The closest stop to my home was on Ashley near Washington, right next to Sweetwaters. I’d looked online before leaving, but the schedule (oriented sideways, as though someone just scanned in a brochure) didn’t give specific times for that spot, so I guessed.

It turns out that part of the beauty of waiting for a bus is that you’re stationary, and have nothing to do but look and see what’s happening around you. It gives you an excuse to stop, stand, and watch, without passersby thinking, “Uh oh – I spot a crazy lady.”

Not that anything momentous happened. Students working on their laptops at Sweetwaters. A woman pushing a stroller cradling a sleeping baby, slowing down to peer in the window of the Mitchell Gold furniture store. A couple of suits striding on their way to Somewhere Important, Bluetooth enabled.

And a mailman! My stop was a few feet from one of those army-green mailboxes that serve as drop stations for carriers, and the guy who does that route – let’s call him Frank – was picking up another batch of letters to deliver.

Retro mailman graffiti on the drop box at Ashley and Washington.

I made some inane comment about all the crap affixed, painted and scrawled (“NEATO”) on the rusted metal. “Yeah, they used to paint them every once in a while,” Frank said, referring to higher-ups at USPS. “I think they finally threw in towel.”

Then he smiled. “They did leave me a nice mailman, though.” The “they” in this case meant a graffiti artist, and when he closed the door to the mailbox, indeed, there was a lovely retro image of a mail carrier, sharply dressed, even wearing an official-looking cap. True, someone had scratched “GAY” on the cap, but that just added to the whole weird-yet-fitting incongruity.

And then my bus arrived.

I was the only passenger. The driver attributed this to the time of day. “Right now, in the middle of the day, people are mostly at lunch,” she said.

Still, it’s like sitting in an empty movie theatre – you really would like some company. And you’d like to refute the fairly common anecdotal claim that the city is blowing money driving around empty buses all day.

So I was glad to see two more people at the next stop, the Ann Ashley parking structure, and from there riders got on and off at almost every stop. Everyone was engrossed in their own thing – iPod plugs in their ears, books to read, companions to chat with. I watched out the window: Construction workers milling around in the closed-off section of Liberty; a banner hung over the door of the soon-to-open Chipotle Mexican Grill at State, “Burrito-fication In Progress”; several near-misses as cars squirted past oblivious pedestrians.

I’d worried about the time, but it was a quick ride, despite the frequent stops. And it’s not that far – a longish walk. At stop J on Church Street, just north of South U, I said good-bye to the driver and disembarked.

I don’t ride the bus often enough. When I do, I’m reminded of why I should. It’s easy to talk about the abstract concept of community, but what does that mean? In part, it means building a set of shared experiences. I see you dropping your kid off at school, then again at the grocery, then again on the bus – and from that, we form a relationship of sorts. We might get to know each other better, or not. But we’ve forged one link among many that, in aggregate, make this our community.

It’s those links – those shared observations, like noticing stencil art on a mailbox, or griping about how not enough people ride the bus, or whatever – that form the foundation from which we can do great things. Because for all the talk about alt-transit projects, density, bike lanes, gas prices, blah-de-blah – it’s really these little things, these discrete links and relationships, that have the power to change our culture.

Riding the bus doesn’t seem like a big deal. But it could be.

But you’ll prove you really know the city if you can identify the locale of this work:

Close-up of a large work of stencil art.

It’s part of a much larger work on the south side of Catherine Street, on a concrete retaining wall across from the loading dock for UM’s 300 North Ingalls Building. The stenciling alone is interesting, but even more intriguing is the commentary – “IT’S ALL BEEN DONE BEFORE” – written beneath it.

A larger view of an adorned retaining wall on Catherine Street.

What you can do now, or what The Chronicle will do when we have time, is help answer these questions:

• How long has this stencil work been in place?
• Did the artist who put up the stencils also write the philosophical commentary?
• Who’s better looking – the Mona Lisa or Marilyn Monroe?