In one Oct. 7 action, the council voted to direct the city attorney to draft an opinion on the Sept. 16 confirmation vote and to file it with the city clerk’s office. In another action, taken after midnight, the council voted to reopen the agenda to add a motion to reconsider the Al McWilliams confirmation, which was then immediately postponed by a unanimous vote – until the council’s Oct. 21 meeting.

The city attorney’s opinion is supposed to answer questions that were raised about the procedure used to appoint Al McWilliams to the board of the Ann Arbor DDA at the council’s Sept. 16 meeting.

On Sept. 16, mayor John Hieftje asked the council to vote on McWilliams’ appointment after saying at a previous meeting, on Sept. 3, that he was withdrawing the nomination. Under the council’s rules, an 8-vote majority is required for confirmation of an appointment when the nomination is made at the same meeting when the confirmation vote is taken. McWilliams was confirmed on a 6-5 vote.

A “whereas” clause in the opinion resolution states that “the public good will be best served by releasing this advice to the public.” The key resolved clause, which was revised from the version initially placed on the council’s agenda, stated: “That City Council requests that the City Attorney draft an opinion by October 16, 2013 for the benefit of the public that answers whether the September 16, 2013 vote to appoint Al McWilliams to the DDA can be challenged on the grounds that the confirmation motion should have required 8 votes…”

The opinion will likely establish that it’s doubtful a successful court challenge could be brought in connection with McWilliams’ appointment – partly because it’s not clear who might have standing to bring such a suit. It will likely also simply state that a key point is that no objection was raised at the time about the validity of the vote.

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

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

The Oct. 7, 2013 agenda item on the attorney’s opinion was sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5). The vote on the resolution received support from all councilmembers in attendance except for Mike Anglin (Ward 5), who had wanted councilmembers on the prevailing side to bring back the resolution for reconsideration.

Warpehoski, who was on the prevailing side, indicated at the meeting during deliberations that he had been thinking of bringing back the resolution for reconsideration. But Warpehoski did not think it was possible under Robert’s Rules – because the appointment had already been at least partly implemented. Another concern was that a vote to reconsider, if it were to result in a failed confirmation, then might be construed as a removal of a member of the DDA board, which has a procedure outlined in the state statute. And that procedure includes the requirement of the removed member to be heard, with the removal subject to review by the circuit court.

After all the other business of the council had been transacted, after midnight, Warpehoski asked his colleagues to vote to reopen the agenda for a motion to reconsider McWilliams’ appointment. Once the motion had been made, Warpehoski indicated that he wanted some assurance on three points: (1) that there’d be support for a postponement until Oct. 21, and the council wouldn’t vote on the question that evening; (2) the vote required for confirmation at a later meeting would require  a six-vote tally, not eight – because the nomination would be considered to already be before the council; and (3) if the six councilmembers who supported the confirmation previously aren’t in attendance on Oct. 21, then there’d be support for postponement until the Nov. 7 meeting, which will be the last one for this set of councilmembers.

Warpehoski’s request for those assurances got a positive response from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who’d opposed McWilliams’ appointment to the DDA board. Kunselman thanked Warpehoski for his leadership in bringing the question forward. The desire for the assurances was motivated in part by the fact that the council was absent three of its members on Oct. 7 – Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Higgins and Taylor had supported McWilliams’ appointment at the Sept. 16 vote.

The vote to postpone the reconsideration of McWilliams’ appointment until Oct. 21 was unanimous.

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

Fact: 6 is not actually greater than or equal to 8.

But in this column I’d like to leave aside the controversies that led to such a narrow split. Instead, I’d like to review the history of the legislative actions that led up to the 6-5 vote at the council’s Sept. 16, 2013 meeting. That review leads me to conclude that eight votes should have been required for approval.

A quick narrative summary goes like this: McWilliams was set to be nominated, then not actually nominated, but then nominated after all, then had his nomination “withdrawn,” and then finally had his nomination voted on by the council. But in the end, the six-vote majority was declared enough to confirm his membership on the DDA board, replacing Newcombe Clark, who made an employment-related move to Chicago after serving one four-year term.

Choice of the phrase “was declared enough to confirm” is not accidental. Even though the tally of six votes was deemed sufficient by the city clerk and mayor John Hieftje for approval of the motion, I think the vote actually required eight votes to pass.

Under the council’s rules, a nomination to a board or commission can’t be confirmed or approved before the next regular meeting of the council – unless eight members of the council vote for the confirmation. So the typical pattern is that a nomination is put forward at one meeting and the vote on confirmation is taken at the next regular meeting.

Hieftje explicitly stated at the council’s Sept. 3 meeting – during deliberations – that he was withdrawing the nomination of McWilliams. The matter was not “postponed” – as Hieftje described it at the Sept. 16 meeting – because the council did not vote on the McWilliams nomination at all, much less vote in a way that postponed consideration. It certainly would have been an option for the council to have entertained a motion to postpone. But councilmembers did not wind up voting on it at all, and Hieftje stated: “Okay, so I will withdraw it [McWilliams' nomination] tonight.”

Under any rational understanding of the nomination and confirmation procedure, Hieftje needed to take some affirmative action to put the nomination before the council again, which could have been done at the Sept. 16 meeting. Early in that meeting, during communications time, Hieftje indicated to the council he’d be bringing McWilliams’ nomination forward toward the end of the meeting, when nominations and confirmations are handled. The nomination was not on the council’s agenda as of 4 p.m. that day and came as a surprise to some councilmembers.

But instead of just placing the nomination of McWilliams before the council, Hieftje also asked the council on Sept. 16 to vote on confirmation, which it did – with the 6-5 outcome.

It’s puzzling that the online Legistar file for Sept. 16 containing the McWilliams nomination states that the nomination was “placed on the table for [the council's] consideration at the Sept. 3, 2013 Regular Session.” Reviewing my own notes, The Chronicle’s reporting and the CTN video, I can’t discern anything that happened at the Sept. 3 council meeting that could reasonably be described as placing McWilliams’ nomination on the table for consideration. Certainly councilmembers were asked to vote on Sept. 3 on a nomination that had been put before them on Aug. 19. But at the Sept. 3 meeting, the nomination was withdrawn by Hieftje for consideration by the council. And the Legistar record from Sept. 3 accurately reflects that: “Appointment taken off the table on 9/3/13.”

It’s certainly contemplated by the council’s rules that a nomination and confirmation vote can take place at the same meeting. So asking for the vote on Sept. 16 did not violate the council’s rules. It’s just that the 6-5 outcome on that vote should have been judged as not confirming the appointment of Al McWilliams to the DDA board – because it needed eight votes.

The problem here is not just a technical one. What’s the rationale for a higher voting threshold when a confirmation vote comes at the same meeting as the nomination? Granted, I think part of the rationale is to ensure enough time for an adequate review and vetting of a candidate – which arguably took place in the case of McWilliams’ nomination. But part of the rationale is not peculiar to appointments to boards and commissions. At least part of that general parliamentary principle is this: A higher standard is imposed when less notification has been given to the members of the council (and to the public).

When Hieftje withdrew McWilliams’ nomination at the Sept. 3 meeting, I think councilmembers and the public could have had a reasonable expectation that they’d be notified of an upcoming vote on his confirmation at least one meeting before a confirmation vote was taken. Absent that notification, the threshold for a successful vote should rise – to eight.

In this column, I’ll lay out some of the documentation in the online Legistar files that makes clear that the Sept. 16 nomination really was considered a new, fresh nomination that should have required either an eight-vote majority or a delay on voting until the following meeting.

I also have a suggestion for a remedy that does not involve Miley Cyrus.

Legistar Files

In the city’s online Legistar system for management of meeting agendas, mayoral nominations and their associated confirmation votes – which are typically taken at a subsequent meeting – are handled with the same file. That’s accomplished by using the “version” feature of files. For example, a file gets set up with a number in the format 13-xyzw. In Version 1, the nominations are listed out, usually with some text at the top like, “I would like to recommend the following nominations for your consideration.”

On the subsequent meeting agenda when the vote is taken, the same 13-xyzw file is used, but the version is updated so that in Version 2 we see the same list of people with something like “I would like to request confirmation of the following appointments that were placed on the floor for your consideration at the [date] regular session.” Legistar lets a user toggle easily between versions of the same file, so it’s easy to see the history.

Typically it’s easy to establish a connection in Legistar between a nomination and the subsequent confirmation – because it’s the same file number with a different “version.” Sometimes a name appears in the nomination version of a file, but does not appear in the confirmation version. Or sometimes the name appears in the nomination version of a file, but the name is simply not read aloud by the mayor at the meeting.

Timeline for McWilliams Nomination

With that background, here’s how the nomination of McWilliams unfolded:

• 08.08.2013 Legistar 13-0959 version 1 McWilliams’ name was not put forward verbally at the meeting. The address listed in that file is the same as his company Quack!Media, 320 S. Main St.
• 08.19.2013 Legistar 13-1001 version 1 McWilliams’ name was put forward verbally at the meeting. The address listed in that file is 551 S. Fourth Ave., and his Facebook page includes one entry describing a move.
• 09.03.2013 Legistar 13-1001 version 3 A vote was requested by mayor John Hieftje on three nominations as a group – two besides that of McWilliams. The question was moved by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and seconded by Sabra Briere (Ward 1). Mid-deliberation, the confirmation votes were separated out. And later during deliberations just on McWilliams’ appointment, Hieftje asked that he be able to withdraw the nomination:
  

  If it is friendly I would ask the mover and the seconder to allow me to withdraw this nomination tonight to explore some of these issues and come back with answers. But. Is that friendly? Okay, so I will withdraw it tonight.

The parliamentary step to achieve that outcome was not implemented in strict fashion – something Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) pointed out to me in a phone interview. Once a question has been moved and seconded and put before the council, then the question belongs to the council, not the mover and the seconder. It’s an option for the mover of the motion to request permission to withdraw it – but can do so only with the permission of the council.

One proper approach would have been for Taylor to have asked permission to withdraw his motion to consider the question of McWilliams’ confirmation, and for Hieftje, after checking that there was no objection by the council, to have declared that motion withdrawn. If Hieftje had said nothing else, that would have left McWilliams’ nomination in place before the council.

But that’s not the way events unfolded. The problem with the way events actually unfolded was not the failure to conform with strict parliamentary procedure. The rights of the majority and the minority on the council weren’t interfered with as near as I can tell, and the will of the council was that they were content not to vote on the nomination that night. The problem is that the casual mechanism used to effectuate the will of the council gave rise to possibly different expectations for the future status of the nomination.

Warpehoski, for example, told me that based on Hieftje’s Sept. 3 indications about the nomination, he expected that he’d be asked to vote on McWilliams at a future meeting, likely the next one on Sept. 16. Further, he had processed Hieftje’s remarks as meaning that when the question came back, it would be on the same nomination that had been previously made. When the item did not appear on the agenda by the day of the Sept. 16 meeting, however, he did not think the council would be asked to vote on the question that night. So Warpehoski allowed that he was surprised when Hieftje announced at the Sept. 16 meeting that he was bringing back the nomination of McWilliams.

For my part, Hieftje’s choice to state that he was withdrawing the nomination meant that if McWilliams’ name were to come forward again, then it would be as a fresh nomination – distinct from the one placed before the council on Aug. 19, because that one had been withdrawn. I think the withdrawal of the nomination on Sept. 3 as noted in the Legistar file is accurately described – with a strikethrough of McWilliams’ name and the notation: “Appointment taken off the table on 9/3/13″

• 09.16.2013 Legistar File 13-1139 version 1 Early in the meeting Hieftje states (incorrectly) that [emphasis added]:
  

  I would note one thing that I didn’t see on the agenda that uh, the nomination of Al McWilliams was postponed and I will be bringing that forward when it comes time for the mayor’s communications.

  When the meeting reaches that point, Hieftje says:

  And I would also like to request confirmation of the following nomination that was placed on the table for your consideration, and then it was uh, two meetings ago, and then it was um withdrawn so that we could do some exploration on some issues that were brought up. And that is the nomination of Al McWilliams to the Downtown Development Authority.

The Legistar file states (erroneously) that [emphasis added] “I would like to request confirmation of the following nomination that was placed on the table for your consideration at the September 3, 2013 Regular Session.”

Analysis

What’s key here technically, I think, is the fact that a new file (13-1139) on McWilliams was established for the Sept. 16 meeting. That disconnects the council’s consideration on Sept. 16 of his appointment from the previous nomination on Aug. 19 – for which a different Legistar file was used (13-1001).

Given the oral descriptions at the meetings (that the nomination had been withdrawn), and the legislative documentation in Legistar, I don’t think it’s possible to maintain rationally that any nomination of McWilliams prior to Sept. 16 was still technically or procedurally in front of the council.

Because Hieftje, in practical effect, nominated McWilliams on Sept. 16 and asked for a confirmation vote at the same meeting, the tally should have been required to be eight votes for approval. The council rule is as follows:

RULE 6 – Nominations or Appointments to Boards, Commissions or Committees Nominations or appointments to boards, commissions, or committees, which require the confirmation or approval of Council, shall not be confirmed or approved before the next regular meeting of the Council except with the consent of 8 of the members of the Council.

So the problem is not that the vote was taken on Sept. 16. The problem is that the outcome of the vote was analyzed incorrectly as approving the appointment.

How to Fix It

It would have been ideal if the ruling – that the 6-5 vote was sufficient for the McWilliams appointment – had immediately been challenged at the Sept. 16 meeting. But no councilmember objected at the time. And frankly, that has to count in favor of the idea that the minority didn’t perceive that its rights were being violated at the time.

But I don’t think that insisting on strict application of the eight-vote standard is a case of over-enthusiastic following of rules just to make a technical point. That is, this is not the kind of situation Henry Robert meant when he wrote:

It is usually a mistake to insist upon technical points, so long as no one is being defrauded of his rights and the will of the majority is being carried out. The rules and customs are designed to help and not to hinder business.

One natural upcoming occasion to address the point might be the approval of the Sept. 16 meeting minutes, which will be handled at the Oct. 7 council meeting. The result of the vote on the Al McWilliams confirmation is part of the minutes, and it’s the result that was judged incorrectly.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) has indicated to the city clerk that he plans to vote no on the approval of the minutes for that reason. City attorney Stephen Postema is currently reviewing the matter.

But the minutes of the meeting are supposed to be an accurate reflection of what happened at the meeting. And what happened at the meeting was that the nomination was declared approved. So it would do a certain violence to the historical record if that were simply changed. Still, it might be worth considering an annotation to the minutes to the effect that the result was judged incorrectly and that the minutes as adopted by the council reflect a failed motion to confirm the McWilliams nomination.

That approach would not prevent Hieftje from putting forward a fresh nomination of McWilliams on Oct. 7. The council could then vote 6-5 (or even by some different tally) on Oct. 21 to put Al McWilliams on the DDA board, or not. That is, there’s still plenty of time before the new post-election composition of the council is installed to put McWilliams on the board – in a way that comports with the council’s own rules.

In sum, there’s still an opportunity to establish a clean, accurate, uncontroversial legislative record, which would attest that the procedure for putting McWilliams on the DDA board didn’t violate the city council’s own rules.

Coda

Updated Sept. 19, 2013.

Earlier I’d inquired on this topic with professional parliamentarian Coco Siewart, who provides consulting services to municipalities as well as the Michigan Municipal League on issues of procedure. She appeared before the Ann Arbor city council earlier this year during a work session to give advice on rules, speaking time limits and working collegially as a group.

I did not ask Siewart to weigh in on the question of whether of an 8-vote majority was required in the case of the McWilliams confirmation vote. I inquired with her as to the options that were available, on the assumption that an 8-vote majority was required and that the result had been misstated. Here’s the query about a hypothetical:

Question: A vote is taken that needs an 8-vote super-majority (on an 11-member body) to pass under the council’s internal rules. The presiding officer of the meeting asks for a roll call vote. The outcome of that roll call is uncontroversially 6-5. The presiding officer declares the motion passed. No one objects (because no one realizes that the 8-vote majority is required.) What options are available after that meeting is over? Someone on the prevailing side could bring the vote back for reconsideration. But are there any options available to someone on the losing side? Are there any options available to the presiding officer?

So in Siewart’s response, which arrived today, she’s commenting only on the options available under a scenario when the result of the vote was incorrectly stated at a meeting. She’s not commenting on the question of whether the eight-vote requirement applied to the Sept. 16 Ann Arbor city council vote. Here’s Siewart:

… it appears that in this instance, the vote is not in question but the chair’s statement of the outcome. If action was not taken in response to the motion, the issue could be placed on the agenda for the next meeting and the chair could explain that the result of the vote was incorrectly stated and he/she should have stated the motion lost. If action was taken as a result of the motion, the Council should decide if it is an action that could/should be halted.

(Another note: The word super majority is an invention of the media. A vote is by majority or by 2/3 or by 3/4 etc.)

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. We sit on the hard bench so that you don’t have to. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) share a light moment before the Aug. 8 meeting started. They had both contested Democratic primaries two days earlier. Kunselman prevailed in a narrow race against Julie Grand. Jack Eaton won the Ward 4 race. (Photos by the writer.)

An hour of the meeting was taken up with a discussion of street closures around Michigan Stadium on football game days. The street closures are part of an effort to increase safety by creating a vehicle-free zone around the stadium. It involves a cooperative effort with the University of Michigan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the city of Ann Arbor police department.

Those deliberations ultimately resulted in a modification of the original plan, so that the southbound lane of Main Street would not be closed until an hour before the start of the game.

Other parts of the plan were approved as originally proposed, starting three hours before kickoff: E. Keech Street between S. Main and Greene streets will be closed, and access to Greene Street from E. Hoover to E. Keech streets will be limited to parking permit holders; the westbound lane on E. Stadium Blvd. turning right onto S. Main Street (just south of the Michigan Stadium) will be closed; and S. Main Street except for the southbound lanes will be closed from Stadium Boulevard to Pauline.

The council also amended the plan to require a report by its Oct. 7 meeting on how well the procedures are working. Even with the modification to the plan and the requirement to brief the council on Oct. 7, the proposal to close streets on football Saturdays was approved on just a 7-4 vote, with dissent from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). That neighborhood is located in Ward 4.

Also during the meeting, the council denied a requested street closure for a non-university event on South University Avenue. The requested closing was for “Beats, Eats, and Cleats,” sponsored by The Landmark apartment building. It was planned for the evening before a football game between the University of Michigan and the University of Notre Dame. Councilmembers expressed concerns about the probability of alcohol consumption.

Another 40 minutes of the meeting was taken up with discussion of a bike share program, which did have a direct connection to the University of Michigan. The council was asked to contribute $150,000 from the city’s alternative transportation fund. That money provided a 20% local match on a $600,000 Federal Highway Administration Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant that the Clean Energy Coalition (CEC) has received. The CMAQ funds have to be spent on capital, such as bikes and stations. Operations will be supported in the first three years of the program by UM at a level of $200,000 annually for a total of $600,000. The program will be operated by the CEC using B-Cycle as a vendor. The council’s vote on the bike share program was 9-2, with dissent from Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Higgins also dissented on a council resolution that called upon the state legislature to repeal Michigan’s version of a “stand your ground” law, as well as to repeal legislation that prevents local municipalities from regulating the sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of firearms and ammunition. That resolution came after public commentary on the verdict in the Trayvon Martin case at the council’s previous meeting. Higgins agreed with the sentiments in the resolution, but said she thought it would have a greater impact if people spoke as individuals. Other councilmembers expressed some skepticism that the resolution would have much impact, but it received their support.

The Kerrytown Place project – an 18-unit townhouse development planned for the location of the former Orthodox Greek church on North Main Street – was subjected to only brief remarks. The council unanimously approved its requested rezoning and site plans.

In other business, the council approved a $10,000 design budget for a sidewalk on Waldenwood near King Elementary School. Construction of the sidewalk would allow a mid-block crosswalk to be moved to a four-way stop intersection.

The council also agreed to accept $202,370 from the Federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP) to help the city purchase development rights on land in Lodi Township, southwest of the city.

Over dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), the council approved $18,500 to pay for public art administrator Aaron Seagraves’ contract through the end of 2013.

Among the nominations to boards and commissions announced at the meeting, two were significant: Rishi Narayan, founder and managing member of Underground Printing, to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority; and Jack Bernard, chair of the University of Michigan’s council for disability concerns, to the board of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.

Street Closures

The council was asked to approve street closures for all University of Michigan home football games. The council was also asked to approve a street closure for a one-off, non-university sponsored event – but timed for the evening before a home football game.

Street Closures: 2013 UM Football Games

This is the first year that the council has been asked to approve street closings around Michigan Stadium on all football game days. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, it’s part of an effort to increase safety by creating a vehicle-free zone around the stadium, and involves a cooperative effort with the University of Michigan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the city of Ann Arbor police department.

Street Closures: UM Football Games – Council Deliberations

On hand to answer questions were AAPD police chief John Seto, UM Dept. of Public Safety deputy chief Melissa Overton, and an official from U.S. Homeland Security.

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

Seto led off by providing background on the issue. He described the street closures as a request that came from the University of Michigan public safety department, working in conjunction with U.S. Homeland Security. Seto described how he had asked for some modifications before he was comfortable with the request. He described a community meeting on July 24, saying that many comments and suggestions had been received. One modification Seto described coming out of that meeting was that southbound lanes of Main Street would be open until one hour before the game start.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she hadn’t seen the modified proposal, pointing out that the resolution on the agenda did not include the modifications. Higgins noted that she attended the community meeting. On football Saturdays, she said, the city does a great job for people going south, but not west.

Higgins made clear that she would not support the street closing, saying that the security issue was brought up at the time that the university renovated the stadium. The university had decided to build out as close to the street as possible, Higgins said. She wasn’t opposed to closing the right-turn lane on Stadium Boulevard, she said, but for the rest of the closures, she’d respect her constituents. As an argument against the proposal, she noted that the exact game start times aren’t necessarily known months in advance. She thanked Seto for attending the neighborhood meeting. But she contended that there should have been a meeting held earlier than two weeks before the council needed to vote.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) had questions for UM representatives. Briere noted that Ann Arbor is not unique as a city in hosting football games. Do other cities close streets near their stadiums? Ohio State University and University of Wisconsin close streets, Overton explained. Seto then gave more detail on game-day operations in other cities. Briere confirmed with Seto that the street closures in other cities are due to security concerns.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) asked how closing the street helps to prevent terrorism. Seto explained it’s part of what can be done as a “reasonable” approach. A Homeland Security official was invited to the podium, and he described how blast modeling of a small truck laden with explosives showed that considerable damage could be done. The recommended street closures were based on that blast modeling, he explained. Kailasapathy ventured that the same truck could come at the end of the game. Why is there a higher threat before the game? she asked. Overton explained that just before the game is when the heaviest pedestrian traffic occurs and when the most people are inside the stadium.

Seto added that the idea is to open things up in order to dissipate the crowd as quickly as possible. For some games, he noted, the crowd starts to leave early.

Responding to the 2010 date given for the Homeland Security recommendations, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) wondered why it’s taken three years to implement those recommendations. Higgins pointed out that East Stadium bridges were closed at the time for reconstruction. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated that for her it was significant that few complaints were received – based on Seto’s report – when street closures were implemented for a nighttime Notre Dame game in 2011.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) ventured that the main threat that is supposed to be mitigated is a potential truck bomb. Seto indicated that it’s one part of the motivation. Taylor inquired about the possible one-hour/three-hour mix of lane closures. Seto explained the balance between asset protection and the interest in getting the crowd to dissipate. The representative from Homeland Security explained that the proposed street closure plan around Michigan Stadium meets the national standards for security for major sporting events.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked who would pay for the extra security measures. Overton explained that the UM athletic department would pay the costs. Anglin asked how much the city contributes to the provision of security for football games.

Higgins responded to Anglin’s question by explaining that signs and signals work required in connection with football games is now paid for by the university. Higgins then asked who owns the barricades. Overton explained that the university owns the portable vehicle barriers (PVBs), which were purchased with Homeland Security funds, and described how they could be moved by two people.

Seto recalled how difficult it was to determine the end of the 2011 Notre Dame game, which included overtime periods, he contended. That description was corrected later in the meeting, when Petersen reported that she’d received a communication from a family member during the meeting saying that there were not any overtime periods but that the game had been decided on a play late in the fourth quarter.

Higgins challenged Seto’s characterization of the 2011 UM-Notre Dame game day logistics, saying that there were many issues associated with the 2011 street closures that perhaps Seto wasn’t aware of. She stressed that after the first three games this year, the residents want a review of how well things are working. Seto assured Higgins that review would be done.

Higgins asked what will happen if it turns out that the logistics aren’t working out. She ventured that the resolution should be modified to reflect that possibility.

Briere asked public services area administrator Craig Hupy to come to the podium. She asked about increased traffic flow in neighborhood streets, citing the possibility of increased deterioration of streets due to added traffic. Hupy indicated that would be minimal compared to the amount of traffic volume over the entire life of the street. Hupy explained that the concern is actually about diminished traffic, which could have a negative impact on the lawn parking that residents enjoy.

Lumm then moved to amend the resolution to make the closure of the southbound lane on South Main restricted to just one hour before the game start.

Outcome on Lumm’s amendment: The amendment passed unanimously.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) explained that he was living in Washington D.C. on 9/11. Many people had mourned the increased “locked down” status of the city following that attack, and he’d shared that view. Now, however, he weighs the question of “What if I’m wrong?”

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) followed up on the issue of reimbursement by UM for the signs and signals work. Hupy reported that when the city has billed the UM recently, the invoices have been paid. Kunselman then said as everyone knows, he works at the university. [Kunselman is a Planet Blue energy conservation liaison.] He called the street closures a public safety issue. He recalled being able to sneak in through a hole in the fence as a youngster. But it’s a changing world and we have to accommodate the change, Kunselman said. So he’d support the resolution.

From left: Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Briere wanted to make sure the street closing procedures were reviewed soon enough for the council to take action to revise them at the Oct. 7 council meeting. Higgins followed up by saying she wanted to add a resolved clause stipulating that following the first three football games, the AAPD would meet with the neighborhood and bring recommendations to the Oct. 7 city council meeting. Briere said she’d support such a resolved clause.

Lumm asked Seto to come back to the podium. Seto said what’s being asked in terms of reporting is doable. He could hear concerns and make suggestions, he continued, but there would probably be certain things he couldn’t fix.

Mayor John Hieftje asked Seto how easily things could be changed in the middle of the season. Seto expressed confidence that AAPD could be flexible. He gave the Ann Arbor marathon as an example of that. He described how AAPD often modifies its logistical operations on the fly. Hieftje expressed some concern that the plan called for taking down the barriers too soon – at the conclusion of the game. Seto described the balance that is to be struck on that issue.

Outcome: The amendment to include a report to the council by its Oct. 7 meeting was unanimously approved.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she still could not support the resolution, based on what she’d heard from the neighbors. She’d heard a lot of complaints about the 2011 Notre Dame game.

Petersen countered by calling the street closures “common sense,” saying it’s a public safety issue. She pointed out that the council had heard many voices calling on the council to ensure that public safety meets national standards – and she cited the Homeland Security official’s point that this street closure plan met national standards for football games in large stadiums. She could think of 114,000 good reasons to support this resolution [the population of the city], plus another 107,000 reasons [the capacity of the stadium], though she allowed there could be some overlap in those two figures.

Lumm said she appreciated the modification of the closure of southbound Main to be just one hour before the game started. Higgins responded to comments by Lumm and Petersen about meeting national standards for security, by saying UM needed to think about meeting those standards as it builds out its campus. Higgins somewhat wistfully said that in the future that will be the rest of the council’s problem – an apparent reference to her loss in Tuesday’s primary election.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the street closures around the Michigan football stadium on game days. Dissent came from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Street Closures: “Beats, Eats, and Cleats”

Appearing on the consent agenda was a resolution approving a street closure on South University Avenue between Washtenaw and Forest, for “Beats, Eats, and Cleats” – an event sponsored by The Landmark apartment building. The event was scheduled for Friday, Sept. 6, 2013, the evening before the football game between the University of Michigan and the University of Notre Dame.

Consent agenda items are voted on as a block, but councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked for separate consideration of the Beats, Eats and Cleats street closure. Briere said that although the event is advertised as non-alcoholic, she was aware of how many bars are located in the vicinity. She was also concerned that the street closure would be taking place on the evening before a football game.

The event was described as follows in the staff memo accompanying the item:

This event is a welcome to new and returning students and will have a pep rally, live music, food trucks, inflatable boxing, and other entertainment. Alcohol will not be served.

Briere asked if a representative from The Landmark was present to answer questions – but no one was there.

Briere ventured that except in unusual circumstances, the city did not typically agree to close streets on the evening before a home football game. City administrator Steve Powers said he wasn’t aware of that as a general policy. Mayor John Hieftje indicated that he believed that former police chief Barnett Jones had been inclined to be cautious about allowing street closures on the night before football games, and indicated that he shared Briere’s concern.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) ventured that there’d been a precedent for a June event hosted by the Neutral Zone teen center, called “Live on Washington.” That event also catered to young people and there are a number of bars and restaurants in the vicinity, so she wanted to know if there were any incidents related to alcohol for that event. Police chief John Seto responded to Petersen by saying he wasn’t aware of any incidents that had occurred. Seto said he wasn’t aware of a general policy on when street closures are approved or not, saying that they’re considered on a case-by-case basis. He noted that it’s the night before the UM-Notre Dame football game. He allowed he had some concerns – after weighing the things he knows against the things that he doesn’t know.

Petersen wondered if World of Beer, located at 1300 S. University Ave., would be serving alcohol during the event. Seto didn’t know. Petersen allowed that even if there was no beer tent on the street, World of Beer would be serving. Hieftje said he didn’t see much difference between having a beer tent and serving alcohol at a bar where people could take a few steps to the street. Hieftje reiterated that he had some concerns.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked if there’d be a difference in the police presence, if the event were to take place. Would there be an expectation that The Landmark building would provide security? Seto explained that the sponsor of the event intended to provide private security, but that the event could still require some additional police presence – because they’d be enforcing open intoxicants and minor-in-possession ordinances. Kunselman asked how this proposed event might compare to the Mud Bowl. Seto indicated that the Mud Bowl is a morning event and historically no street closures are associated with it. Kunselman said he couldn’t support the street closure for “Beats, Eats, and Cleats.”

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she appreciated everyone’s comments. She asked what “inflatable boxing” is. Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith, who was filling in for community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl, fielded the question, saying he was not certain what inflatable boxing is.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) indicated that she also would not support the street closing. Teall argued against the street closure based on the liability it seemed to introduce. Hieftje ventured that a Tuesday night would be better for such an event. Teall agreed that a different time would be better.

Outcome: The street closing for “Beats, Eats, and Cleats” was unanimously denied by the council.

Bike Share Program

The council was asked to approve a $150,000 expenditure from the alternative transportation fund in support of a bike share initiative. The project, spearheaded by the University of Michigan and the Clean Energy Coalition (CEC), is to establish a bike share program on the university campus and an area west of campus in downtown Ann Arbor. The selected vendor is B-Cycle. In a bike share program, users get access to bicycles parked at a station by swiping their credit card or membership card. Users can then return the bicycle to another station near their destination.

Potential specific and general bike share station locations in Ann Arbor, redrawn by The Chronicle from the council’s information packet. The program would include 12-14 bike share stations with an anticipated total of 120-140 bicycles. The contract to provide the service was won by B-Cycle.

Map provided by CEC subsequent to the council’s meeting.

The city’s $150,000 would provide the necessary local match for a $600,000 Federal Highway Administration Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant that the CEC has received. The CMAQ funds have to be spent on capital, such as bikes and stations. Operations will be supported in the first three years of the program by UM at a level of $200,000 annually for a total of $600,000.

Bike Share Program: Public Commentary

Jeff Hayner introduced himself as a resident of Ward 1. He told councilmembers he was there to speak in support of the bike sharing program. He described his participation in the first attempt at a bike sharing program about 25 years ago, when a small group of cyclists and bike mechanics had provided the community at large a fleet of free bicycles, with what he called the “unreasonable expectation” that they be shared freely and left available for the next person. It didn’t work out so great, he said, but then he ventured that “you gotta try.” Bike sharing has come a long way since then, Hayner said, and the bikes are used in a way that’s secured with a credit card.

Jeff Hayner (standing) talked with city administrator Steve Powers (seated) before the meeting started.

The bike sharing program that the council was being asked to support was a “winner in many ways,” he contended. The cost to the taxpayers is relatively small, he said, compared to the grant money that it would leverage – citing the 20:80 ratio of local to federal support. The city’s non-motorized plan and the climate action plan both call for programs like the bike sharing system, he said, with goals of mitigating congestion, improving air quality, and encouraging alternative means of transportation. He described the program as providing 125 bikes in 14 locations.

Hayner allowed that the locations in the university campus area and downtown don’t really serve the outlying neighborhoods. But he argued that the University of Michigan is also bearing the lion’s share of the costs, the UM deserved to receive the most benefit. He calculated the city’s cost at about $300 per bike per year, and characterized that as fair in light of the societal benefits. He concluded by saying he hoped that if the bike sharing program were successful, it could be held out as an example of a new, cooperative spirit between the University of Michigan and the city of Ann Arbor.

Bike Share Program: Council Deliberations

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) led off by saying that she had mixed feelings about the plan. She said she’s disappointed that there’s not a communications plan for safety in the city’s parks – saying she’d like more signs on mixed-use paths. She didn’t feel like the city has the safety infrastructure and adequate bike lanes to support a bike share program. Her vote, she said, was “not yet.”

Responding to Petersen’s remarks about the adequacy of bicycling safety infrastructure, mayor John Hieftje said that the plan was never to put bike lanes on every downtown street, because the traffic moves slow enough in some places that bicycles can keep up with cars. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) agreed with Petersen about the need for more education. Briere said that signage is great, but she didn’t think that signage replaces “people paying attention.” Briere was encouraged that UM is a strong financial supporter. She noted that that bike share program is not about commuting, but rather about moving from places like State and Liberty to the corner of Huron and Main (the Washtenaw County building).

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) shared a laugh before the meeting started.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) recalled the bike share program that Jeff Hayner had described during public commentary. The bicycles were painted green and were made available, and they disappeared to the far reaches of the city, never to return to the downtown, Kunselman said. He described the number of abandoned bikes downtown and on the campus that clutter the streets. He ventured that the bike share program might help to “clean up our streets.”

Kunselman talked about the “carrying capacity” of the environment. He was concerned about the fact that the money is coming from the alternative transportation fund, and might be taking away from other needs. Transportation program manager Eli Cooper described the intended use of the fund as making improvements as well as maintaining non-motorized infrastructure. Kunselman asked for examples of maintenance activities. Cooper explained that if anything were to be deferred, then it would be a half-mile of bike lane, including signs. That project would be postponed for about a year, he said.

Kunselman clarified that this is “seed money.” That’s right, Cooper replied, saying that it’s for capital needs. The University of Michigan is contributing operating money and the CEC is working on sponsorship revenue and handling fare revenue, Cooper explained. Cooper sketched a vision of public/private cooperation.

Kunselman asked about the clutter on downtown sidewalks. He wanted to know if the specific locations for bike share stations will require council approval. Cooper indicated that the right-of-way permitting program is authorized by the council, but the individual locations wouldn’t need approval.

Cooper responded to Petersen’s concern about adequate signs in the park system, by indicating it’s on the work plan. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reported she’d heard about mishaps in the parks – pedestrians being “slammed into” by bicyclists. She felts that bicyclists are now more inclined to commute by bicycle on paths in the parks. She brought up the issue of bells. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, told Lumm he has a bell on his bike and he’s one of those people who commutes through parks.

Lumm observed that obviously a lot of effort has gone into the bike share initiative. She appreciated the responses she’d received to questions about its impact on the alternative transportation program. She said the bike share program is appropriate to Ann Arbor. But she also expressed skepticism, saying that the city doesn’t prioritize its transportation programs. She objected to the fact that there’s not a long-term plan for the operating expenses – saying that UM’s commitment ends after three years. Still, she said she’d support the resolution.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked Cooper about the CMAQ grant deadline. Cooper indicated that there’s a deadline at the end of the federal fiscal year – Sept. 30.

Briere ventured that the council will hear that some of the bicycle lanes are in bad shape and that the city should spend the money on maintenance of bike lanes and not a bike share program. What’s being done to maintain bike lanes? Cooper replied to Briere by explaining he conducts an annual visual inspection of the entire bike lane system. An inventory of the bike lane inspections is available online, he said – saying it’s part of the city’s Bicycling in A2 website. He described the citizens request system for repairing potholes.

Petersen asked how long it would take before signs will show up in the parks. City administrator Steve Powers indicated he can provide an answer the following day. Petersen asked how to obtain a specific piece of educational literature about what every motorist should know about bike lanes. Cooper listed off various locations where it’s available and ways it’s distributed.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she doesn’t think the city has done a good job of educating cyclists. She described bicyclists who go through red lights. But she also described encountering a cyclist who was using proper hand signals and discovered that it was her council colleague, Chuck Warpehoski. She oftentimes sees cyclists go up on the sidewalk and use the crosswalk, she said. Higgins expressed concern that the city would be suddenly adding a lot of additional cyclists. About the city’s readiness for a bike share system, “I don’t think we’re there, yet,” Higgins said. Cooper ventured that the bike share program is another point of contact for additional educational efforts.

Higgins responded to Cooper by saying that handing someone a pamphlet doesn’t educate them about what they need to do. She thought users of the bike share system should have to pass a test. Petersen indicated she’s not concerned about educating cyclists, because they know their risks. Instead, Petersen said she’s concerned about the education of motorists.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) stated that he thinks it’s a good program. Matt Sandstrom from the CEC fielded some questions. Anglin asked if helmets are required to use the bike share system. That’s a tricky question, Sandstrom replied. He pointed out that helmets are not required by law in Michigan. Education about helmets could be placed on the bike station kiosks, he suggested. CEC would be pro-helmet, Sandstrom said.

Anglin asked if most of the users are anticipated to be younger. Not necessarily, Sandstrom replied.

Kunselman picked up the idea of education, saying that education needs to be taking place in schools. He asked if anyone remembered the rule about bicycles needing to give an audible signal before overtaking a pedestrian. He also pointed out that pedestrians don’t follow the rules of the road, either. This isn’t about education, but rather about bike sharing, Kunselman said. It’ll be the first in the state, he said.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the $150,000 allocation over two years to support the bike sharing program. Dissenting were Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Repeal of “Stand Your Ground”

A resolution added to the agenda on Tuesday before the Thursday meeting called upon the state legislature to repeal Michigan’s version of a “stand your ground” law, as well as to repeal legislation that prevents local municipalities from regulating the sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of firearms and ammunition. [.pdf of Self Defense Act 309 of 2006] [Firearms and Ammunition Act 319 of 1990]

The resolution cited an “outpouring of local voices calling for the repeal of Michigan’s Stand Your Ground Law,” that were heard following the mid-July verdict in the Trayvon Martin case. That included public commentary at the council’s July 15, 2013 meeting as well as subsequent public demonstrations.

The Trayvon Martin case involved an African American youth, Martin, who was shot and killed by George Zimmerman. Zimmerman was found not guilty of the crime, based on Florida’s “stand your ground” law.

Repeal of “Stand Your Ground”: Public Commentary

Lefiest Galimore led off public commentary at the start of the meeting with remarks on the topic of the resolution about the “stand your ground” legislation. He offered his greeting so the mayor, the council, and other Ann Arbor citizens. He mentioned that he’d addressed the council at its previous meeting on this issue, as something they should take seriously. He noted that the meeting had just begun with a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the phrase, “And justice for all.” Galimore contended that “stand your ground” laws allow individuals to interpret for themselves what justice means. As a citizen in the community, Galimore said, he felt he deserved the council’s support. He said he could be subjected to someone’s interpretation of what the “stand your ground” law means. He felt that if the council would support the resolution, it could be added to the support of other local units of government and be presented to state legislators. He urged councilmembers to support the resolution. Galimore’s remarks generated applause from the roughly two dozen people standing in support of his comments.

Blaine Coleman characterized “stand your ground” laws as licenses to hunt black men and black boys. It’s a sad thing, he said, that in 2013 black people have to come to a city council and ask: “Please don’t shoot us.” That’s an elementary demand that should have been fulfilled several hundred years ago, he said. Speaking only for himself, he said, he felt that the city council should go further, by passing a resolution urging $1 trillion to be spent on Detroit and every inner city. It’s easy for the U.S. Congress to cut a check for $1 trillion for a war in Iraq or Afghanistan, he said. And it’s easy to cut a check to bail out “Wall Street gamblers.” It should be equally easy to cut a check to rebuild Detroit and every inner city. It’s an elementary thing that should not require hand-wringing or complex decision making. Detroit was robbed over a period of a half century, he said, along with other inner cities. So they need to be rebuilt, Coleman concluded.

Mozhgan Savabieasfahani offered her perspective on racism in America – as someone from the Middle East, who had watched that area of the world be “plundered” with U.S. invasion and occupation. She characterized Trayvon Martin’s death as a lynching on the streets of America. The laws of this country don’t protect people of color, she said. That tells everyone in the world that racism is alive and well in the United States, and that racists will not see justice, she said. She described a protest during the Ann Arbor art fairs by some African American University of Michigan students. They had chanted, “Racism killed Trayvon,” and people of color had responded with cheers, but many white observers responded, “No, it didn’t.” She said that we’d do well do look inside ourselves and see how our laws promote racism, and then to change those laws.

Lucia Heinold also spoke in favor of the resolution on repealing “stand your ground” in Michigan. She introduced herself as a voter in Ward 5, so she thanked Chuck Warpehoski and Mike Anglin for sponsoring the resolution. She was impressed by the hard work that went into writing the resolution. It’s so easy to possess a gun that when you stand your ground, it’s quite possible that the person standing their ground will have a gun, she said. She said that Michigan’s law threw out centuries of common law that held that if people could not agree, then they should retreat. Heinold also contended that the evidence is that these types of laws are enforced in a disparate way, with people of color convicted disproportionately. She called Michigan’s “stand your ground” law the latest version of Jim Crow laws.

Repeal of “Stand Your Ground”: Council Deliberations

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) led off deliberations by thanking Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) for his hard work getting the resolution ready. She referred to the public commentary at the previous council meeting. She said she was aware that the council would face criticism for bringing a national issue to the city council agenda. So she wanted to make sure residents understood why the resolution is relevant. Part of her remarks included the statement that we don’t live in a post-racial society. There are groups that are still profiled, stalked and killed because they belong to a stigmatized minority group, she said. The 911 call transcripts, she said, clearly showed that the police did not want George Zimmerman to follow Trayvon Martin. But people like Zimmerman felt that the “stand your ground” law empowers them to take the law into their own hands, she noted.

A so-called self-defense law, Kailasapathy continued, turns into a “license to kill” in the hands of vigilantes. The reason the Trayvon Martin case had drawn national attention, Kailasapathy said, is that it showed the consequence of racial profiling and stereotyping and the inability of the courts to provide justice. Michigan’s version of the “stand your ground” law is flawed in a similar way to Florida’s law, she said – in that it condones the use of deadly violence, even when there’s an opportunity to retreat. By nullifying the common law duty to retreat, she said, it effectively removes any reasonable constraint on self-defense. Kailasapathy concluded: “Historically, African Americans have been oppressed – economically, culturally, socially, legally. We need to put a stop to this history of oppression now, and we as a city council should pass this resolution.”

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) thanked Kailasapathy and Warpehoski for the work they’d done to produce the language of the resolution. She described herself as someone who’s “not big on guns.” The idea that guns could be used in the way that Michigan’s “stand your ground” law allows had not occurred to her and was “news to her.” She said that someone who’s in fear for their life has a right to defend themselves, but someone who simply feels intimidated in a public place still has the ability to walk away. And that ability to walk away is something that should be encouraged, Briere said.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5). In the background is Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Warpehoski thanked Kailasapathy and Briere. The more he’d looked into “stand your ground” laws, the more disturbed he’d become, he said. Such laws do not reduce property crime rates, but rather increase murder rates, he said. The application of the laws has a disparate impact. He characterized the burden on prosecutors in connection with such laws as unreasonably high. He hoped the resolution would be heard by legislators in Lansing as more than just an editorial comment.

Mayor John Hieftje thanked the sponsors of the resolution for their work. He allowed that it might not sway a lot of people in the state capitol. He supported especially the second resolved clause on gun laws.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) told her colleagues that she’d be consistent as she has been for 14 years in opposing this kind of resolution. She contended that it’s a much more powerful message for individuals to send the message, instead of the city council. The legislature isn’t really listening to the Ann Arbor city council, she said. So individuals would have the potential to have a stronger impact. While she shared the sentiments in the resolution, she did not know that everyone in the city feels the same way about the resolution.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) would support the resolution, but cautioned that there’s a lot more going on in the world than we realize. He’d visited the Washtenaw County clerk’s office a few times in the last few months, he said, [submitting campaign finance reports, for example] and remarked on the lines of people coming in to get concealed weapons permits, saying it was “breathtaking.”

Continuing on that theme, Kunselman said: “It’s disturbing. It makes me wonder: Why don’t we all just get them? … I’m sure we all know somebody who has a concealed weapons permit. I think we should be talking to them: Why do they have them? I know that I’ve thought about getting one, just for sitting here, because of the concerns that I have – but I haven’t.” Some kidding from other councilmembers ensued, as they told him that now he would need one. He responded by saying, “I’ll walk away.”

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) acknowledged Higgins’ point of view, but said the resolved clause about gun laws moved her. She called it a public safety issue, and noted that public safety was a priority that the council had adopted as a budget priority. Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she appreciated everyone’s work on the resolution and said it’s the kind of issue that had prompted her to get involved in politics 13 years ago. She expressed some skepticism, however, that it would have any effect.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) appreciated Higgins’ point of view. She said the council needs to be cautious about venturing down this path – sending messages on issues that the council was not elected to address. However, she felt differently about this one. She agreed with Petersen that the resolution speaks to the issue of public safety. She said that local control over firearms is a good thing. So she was comfortable sending this message to the state legislature.

Outcome: The council voted to pass the resolution calling on the repeal of Michigan’s “stand your ground” law, with dissent from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Kerrytown Place: Rezoning, Site Plans

The council was asked to give final approval for two rezoning requests in connection with Kerrytown Place development. The council had given initial approval to the requests at its July 1, 2013 meeting. The two parts of the project – one fronting Main Street and the other Fourth Avenue – were treated separately for the purposes of the rezoning request. In both cases, the requested rezoning is from PUD (planned unit development district) to D2 (downtown interface base district).

3D rendering from site plan submitted for Kerrytown Place – the view from Main Street.

The 18-unit townhouse project that developer Tom Fitzsimmons is planning to build is much smaller than The Gallery, for which the PUD zoning had originally been approved at the request of a different owner. The city planning commission gave Kerrytown Place a unanimous recommendation of approval at its May 21, 2013 meeting. On the North Main Street side, the project would include a 16-unit townhouse building with an underground parking garage, 12 carport parking spaces and 24 surface parking spaces. On the North Fourth site – now a surface parking lot – the plan calls for constructing a duplex with a 2-car garage for each unit and a 21-space parking lot. Each unit of the duplex would face North Fourth Avenue.

The corresponding site plans for each part of the project had corresponding agenda items. As part of the development agreement, the project must achieve the disconnection of five footing drains from the sanitary sewer system elsewhere in the city. The city has temporarily suspended part of footing drain disconnection program, but the developer mitigation offset portion of that program remains in place.

No one spoke at any of the four public hearings related to this project.

Kerrytown Place: Council Deliberations

The agenda was altered to group the rezoning items with their corresponding site plan approvals. Deliberations were scant. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) called the development an appropriate scale for the neighborhood.

Tom Fitzsimmons, developer of the Kerrytown Place project.

She encouraged support for the “downzoning.” Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked planning manager Wendy Rampson how much it’s costing the petitioner to go through the process of rezoning.

The background to Kunselman’s question was that he’d put forward a resolution for a council-initiated rezoning of the parcel, which was voted down by other councilmembers a year earlier on Aug. 20, 2012. At that time, the parcel was in the hands of the Washtenaw County treasurer, as a result of a foreclosure proceeding.

Rampson responded to Kunselman’s question by venturing that it might be costing developer Tom Fitzsimmons around $20,000.

About the site plans, Briere characterized it as an opportunity for the council to approve a site plan that’s completely supported by the people who live in the area.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the rezoning for the Kerrytown Place project, as well as the site plans – on four separate votes.

Waldenwood Sidewalk Design Budget

The council was asked to approve a $10,000 design budget for a sidewalk to fill in a gap from the northeast corner of Penberton Ct. and Waldenwood northward to connect to the path leading the rest of the way to the King Elementary School.

In its form, the resolution was similar to other sidewalk design budgets the council has been asked to approve in recent months. [For example, the council has approved similar design budgets for a sidewalk on Barton Drive at its July 15, 2013, a sidewalk on Newport Road at its Jan. 22, 2013 meeting, and for a sidewalk on Scio Church Road at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting.]

Waldenwood sidewalk gap. Green indicates existing sidewalks. Red indicates a sidewalk gap. Blue stars indicate signers of a petition in support of the sidewalk.

However, the sidewalk gap near King Elementary School includes a history of advocacy by nearby resident and former Ann Arbor Public Schools board member Kathy Griswold dating back to 2009.

For students crossing Waldenwood from the west to attend school, the segment of sidewalk would allow them to make the crossing at the intersection, where there is a four-way stop – instead of crossing the street using a mid-block crosswalk. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, “The Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS) Transportation Safety Committee has agreed the use of a new crosswalk at this stop controlled location would be preferable over the existing mid-block crossing at the school entrance.”

From the fall of 2009 through the spring of 2010, Griswold addressed the council on at least nine occasions on the topic of the King school crosswalk and the related sidewalk gap. The construction of a sidewalk had been met with opposition by the immediately adjoining property owners. The funding of new sidewalks – as contrasted with repair of existing sidewalks – is typically achieved at least partly through a special assessment on adjoining property owners. Sidewalk repair – but not new construction – can be paid for with the city’s sidewalk repair millage.

Waldenwood Sidewalk: Council Deliberations

The proposed sidewalk location is in Ward 2. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) led off deliberations by saying she was happy to see this come to the council in a formal process, noting that it has been debated since 2009. Petersen stated that the AAPS safety committee minutes from that era don’t indicate clearly that the group endorsed moving the crosswalk from mid-block to the four-way stop. City traffic engineer Pat Cawley stepped to the podium to offer his recollection of the meeting.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) asked public services area administrator Craig Hupy to the podium. She asked if the project would come to a halt if the property owners objected. Hupy indicated that if the council approves the resolution on its agenda, then the city staff would meet with the community and then come back for the second resolution in the special assessment process. Kailasapathy confirmed with Hupy that it’s a council decision, not one made by the adjoining property owners. Hupy indicated there are three chances to kill the project along the way in the special assessment process. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) got additional confirmation that the property owner can’t kill the project.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked staff for their work. She asked how residents would be notified for the next step. Hupy explained that they’d be mailed a meeting notice. He ventured that there could be more than one meeting. Lumm noted that it would have made sense to undertake the sidewalk construction when Waldenwood was recently repaved. She indicated that she was glad that this is going through a formal process.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked for the approximate timeline for the project. Hupy couldn’t speak to exact details, but characterized it as a relatively simple project from an engineering and design perspective. The time-consuming part for this project would be the public engagement portion of the project, Hupy said. He thought it might come back to the council by late winter or spring of 2014.

Briere ventured that the sidewalk could be constructed by the start of school in the fall of 2014. Hupy allowed that might be possible.

Petersen said she thought the property owners wouldn’t be special-assessed because it’s on their rear lot lines. Hupy indicated that Petersen had picked up on the fact that there’s likely not anything that will be special-assessable in the project.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the design budget for the Waldenwood sidewalk.

Greenbelt

Two items appeared on the council’s agenda in connection with the city’s greenbelt: acceptance of a federal grant, and the appointment of a new member to the greenbelt advisory commission.

Greenbelt: $202,370 from FRPP

At its Feb. 19, 2013 meeting, the council had approved an application to the Federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP) for the purchase of development rights on two properties in Lodi Township – the 78-acre Donald Drake Farm on Waters Road in Lodi Township, and for a 90-acre property owned by Carol Schumacher on Pleasant Lake Road in Lodi Township.

Properties currently protected through the Ann Arbor greenbelt program (smaller green areas) in the context of the greenbelt boundary (larger squarish region). (Data from the city of Ann Arbor mapped by The Chronicle on Aug. 3, 2013 with geocommons.com)

The city of Ann Arbor was notified recently that for the two properties, a total of $202,370 in matching dollars had been approved to fund the purchase of development rights – $50,960 for the Drake property and $151,410 for the Schumacher land. The council was asked to authorize the receipt of the federal matching funds.

The award of FRPP money comes in the context of the city’s greenbelt program, supported by a 0.5 mill tax approved by voters to acquire development rights on land to preserve open space.

Lodi Township covers the southwest corner of the greenbelt boundary area.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) got confirmation that the issue would come back before the council for approval of the actual purchase of development rights, when all the funding sources are identified. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, responded to Lumm’s questions by saying that in the past, Lodi Township has contributed to the acquisition of development rights. Smith was filling in for community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl. Lumm said she looked forward to possible participation from Lodi.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to authorize the receipt of the federal farmland protection money.

Greenbelt: Appointment to GAC

The appointment of John Ramsburgh to the greenbelt advisory commission had been postponed from the council’s July 15 meeting, which is customary for appointments to GAC. It’s one of the few boards or commissions whose members are nominated by the city council, not the mayor. The usual two-step process associated with appointments – nomination at one council meeting followed by confirmation at the subsequent meeting – is mirrored for GAC appointments by postponing action on a resolution appointing a representative until the following meeting.

Ramsburgh is a development officer with the University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science & the Arts. He also is the son of Ellen Ramsburgh, a long-time member of the Ann Arbor historic district commission, and its former chair. He is filling a position previously held by Dan Ezekiel, who was term limited.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously, without discussion, to appoint John Ramsburgh to GAC. Appointments to GAC are for three years.

Public Art Administrator Contract

The council was asked to appropriate funds to pay for public art administrator Aaron Seagraves’ contract through the end of 2013. The amendment brings his total compensation for the period from June 11, 2011 through Dec. 31, 2013 to $48,900. The specific projects mentioned in the resolution, which require administrative work, are artwork in the Kingsley rain garden, Argo Cascades, and the East Stadium Blvd. bridges.

From left: Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off deliberations by saying she could imagine people asking why the city has a public art administrator, if the city doesn’t have a Percent for Art program any longer. She explained the need for a public art administrator by pointing out there’s old and new business to address. There’s the old business of artwork at the Kingsley rain garden, Argo Cascades, and East Stadium bridges. There’s also a need to address the new business of integrating the new public art program – which is not based on a 1% allocation from every capital improvement project – into the capital improvements program.

Public services area administrator Craig Hupy, who supervises Seagraves, explained to Briere that the reason that the contract extension goes through the end of the year is to allow for a bridge between the old Percent for Art program and the new program.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) noted that an issue had come up when she and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) had attempted an amendment to the new public art ordinance that would have allowed money set aside for public art in previous years to be returned to its funds of origin. Kailasapathy said she really had a problem with the resolution, so she wouldn’t support it.

Lumm also said she had a problem with the resolution. She said she’d tried at every point to discontinue the Percent for Art program. Instead of returning the $800,000 in unspent funds, the council had decided to maintain a public art “slush fund,” she contended. She didn’t think that the council should continue to “throw good money after bad.” She would not support the continued spending on Percent for Art projects.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked why $18,500 was being appropriated for the public art administrator’s compensation, but $20,500 is the amount in the resolution. Hupy described miscellaneous supplies as accounting for the $2,000. Hupy pointed out that the information was provided in answers to the council’s caucus questions.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) indicated she’d support the resolution – because she wants the area around the Dreiseitl sculpture outside city hall to become ADA compliant. Kailasapathy asked why a public art administrator would be handling ADA compliance. City administrator Steve Powers responded by saying that hasn’t been decided yet.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) calculated that the public art administrator is being paid only $20/hour. He called that a bargain. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated he’d support the allocation, because it’s a small amount. But he cautioned that he might not vote to support spending the money on the remaining Percent for Art projects in the pipeline. He said the pressure is on the public art commission to bring forward a high quality piece of art. Kunselman could say right then that he’s not going to vote to spend money on “anything that’s hanging from a light pole.” That was a reference to the recommended project for the East Stadium bridges location, proposed by artist Catherine Widgery and recommended by a task force.

Briere asked what would happen if the council voted not to spend the money on the East Stadium bridges location. Would the money revert to the public art fund? Powers responded to Briere’s question by saying that’s for the council to decide. The council could say to the public art commission, “Try again,” Powers said. Briere pointed out that the council would still need to amend the city’s public art ordinance in order to return public art funds to their funds of origin.

Mayor John Hieftje supported the resolution, saying that it’s necessary to have administrative support for the art program. Margie Teall (Ward 4) reiterated that point – that a successful art program requires an administrator. Teall said that residents do see the value of public art, and having an administrator is vital.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) stated that there was a common understanding, if not a unanimous one, that a transition from the old program to the new program would need to be funded. He called for honoring the effort that had gone into this.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the contract extension for the public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, over dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Appointments, Nominations

Pending a possible council rule change that would slot mayoral appointments and nominations to boards and commissions earlier in the meeting, those items still come near the end of the meeting. The council will vote on the rule change at its Sept. 3, 2013 meeting.

Appointments

The council was asked to confirm mayoral nominations made at the previous council meeting on July 15: Sue Perry to the Elizabeth Dean Fund committee; and Evan Nichols to the zoning board of appeals.

Outcome: The council voted to confirm Perry and Nichols.

Nominations

Highlights from nominations for boards and commissions added on Aug. 6 include Rishi Narayan to replace Leah Gunn on the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Narayan is founder and managing member of Underground Printing, which offers screenprinting of apparel in more than a dozen cities nationwide. Narayan made the Crain’s Detroit Business “Twenty in their 20s” list in 2010 as a 28-year-old.

Mayor John Hieftje before the start of the Aug. 8 meeting. Nominations are printed out on pink sheets for councilmembers.

Jack Bernard is being nominated to the board of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. When the AAATA articles of incorporation were changed recently to add the city of Ypsilanti as a member, the board was expanded from seven to nine members. One of the two additional seats is appointed by the city of Ypsilanti. Gillian Ream was appointed to that spot. Bernard’s appointment would fill the additional slot appointed by the city of Ann Arbor.

Bernard is a lecturer in the University of Michigan law school and an attorney with UM’s office of the vice president and general counsel. He is also currently chair of the university’s council for disability concerns. Given the nature of wrangling over Eric Mahler’s recent appointment to the AAATA board, Bernard’s chairship of that group could be a key qualification. Some councilmembers objected to Mahler’s appointment, arguing that someone who could represent the disability community should be appointed instead.

Mayor John Hieftje did not offer explanations for any of the nominations he put forward at the Aug. 8 meeting.

Originally slated on the agenda to replace Newcombe Clark on the board of the Ann Arbor DDA was Al McWilliams. However, the final version of the agenda did not include his name. Al McWilliams is founder of Quack!Media, an ad agency located in downtown Ann Arbor. Quack!Media lists the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority on its website as one of its clients. McWilliams has written advocacy pieces for bicycling on his blog.

Originally slated for nomination to serve on the public art commission was Jeff Hayner. But the final version of the nomination list did not include his name. He has filed petitions to run for the Ward 1 city council seat. The Ward 1 city council ballot for November will include incumbent Democrat Sabra Briere, and independents Hayner and Jaclyn Vresics.

The nominations put forward on Aug. 8 will be put before the council for a confirmation vote on Aug. 19.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Video Privacy, Surveillance

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Meghan Clark introduced herself as a resident of Ward 1. She’s also a PhD student in computer science at the University of Michigan, she said. She addressed the video privacy ordinance, which the council had voted down at a recent meeting. She characterized the rejected law as requiring a democratic process to be followed before long-term video surveillance cameras could be installed. Technology is advancing faster than the law, she said. She held up a small device in her hand, explaining that it was a camera capable of high resolution, equivalent to HD video.

Clark also held up a Raspberry Pi, which is a computer capable of running advanced computer vision libraries. And the whole system could be powered with a cell phone charger. The components she had described, she continued, could be purchased online for about $60. A friend of hers in Washington D.C. runs a user group on drones, which has 471 active members. Police departments in 13 states have applied for, and in some cases received, FAA licenses to use drones for police work.

“Surveillance technology is here,” Clark said, but the legal predisposition to protect privacy is not. Privacy means having input into what happens to your personal information, Clark said. She was disappointed that the council rejected the video privacy ordinance. As a computer scientist and a citizen, she said, she was frightened. So she encouraged the council to pursue the suggestion that Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had made at the July 1 meeting, to at least develop policy guidelines for the future.

Comm/Comm: North Main Huron River Task Force

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported on the North Main Huron River task force. The due date of July 31 for a final report hadn’t been met, she said. She conveyed an apology from the task force. She expected the report will be completed by the end of August.

Comm/Comm: Planning Commission Update

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who represents the city council on the planning commission, announced a meeting of the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC) the following Tuesday, Aug. 13. A planning commission work session to start at 7 p.m. would be followed by an ORC meeting – to discuss the review of D1 (downtown core) zoning – at 8 p.m. The ORC meeting would run concurrently with a planning commission committee meeting on the non-motorized plan revision.

Comm/Comm: Disabilities Survey

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) called attention to a survey on disabilities being conducted by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR).

Comm/Comm: Housing Commission Update

Margie Teall (Ward 4), who serves as liaison from the council to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, gave an update on the AAHC. The weatherization at Hikone is done, she reported, and the window replacements for tenants are done at Baker Commons. A non-smoking policy will be implemented at all the housing commission properties, she said.

Comm/Comm: Argo Cascades

City administrator Steve Powers reported that usage at Argo Cascades is up over 50% for July compared to July last year.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, Aug. 19, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. We sit on the hard bench so that you don’t have to. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Rishi Narayan was nominated to replace Leah Gunn on the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Narayan is founder and managing member of Underground Printing, which offers screenprinting of apparel in more than a dozen cities nationwide. Narayan made the Crain’s Detroit Business “Twenty in their 20s” list in 2010 as a 28-year-old.

Jack Bernard was nominated to the board of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. When the AAATA articles of incorporation were changed recently to add the city of Ypsilanti as a member, the board was expanded from seven to nine members. One of the two additional seats is appointed by the city of Ypsilanti. Gillian Ream was appointed to that spot.

Bernard’s appointment would fill the additional slot appointed by the city of Ann Arbor. Bernard is a lecturer in the University of Michigan law school and an attorney with UM’s office of the vice president and general counsel. He is also currently chair of the university’s council for disability concerns. Given the nature of wrangling over Eric Mahler’s recent appointment to the AAATA board, Bernard’s chairship of that group could be a key qualification. Some councilmembers objected to Mahler’s appointment, arguing that someone who could represent the disability community should be appointed instead.

Also originally slated on the agenda to replace Newcombe Clark on the board of the Ann Arbor DDA was Al McWilliams. However, the most-recently updated version of the agenda did not include his name. Al McWilliams is founder of Quack!Media, an ad agency located in downtown Ann Arbor. Quack!Media lists the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority on its website as one of its clients. McWilliams has written advocacy pieces for bicycling on his blog.

Originally slated for nomination to serve on the public art commission was Jeff Hayner. But the most-recently updated version of the nomination list did not include his name. He has filed petitions to run for the Ward 1 city council seat. The Ward 1 city council ballot for November will include incumbent Democrat Sabra Briere, and independents Hayner and Jaclyn Vresics. According to Hayner, mayor John Hieftje had explained to him that he had a policy against appointing people to boards and commissions if they were candidates for the city council.

Votes on confirmation of mayoral nominations are taken at the following meeting.

On Aug. 8, the council confirmed mayoral nominations made at the previous council meeting on July 15: Sue Perry to the Elizabeth Dean Fund committee; and Evan Nichols to the zoning board of appeals.

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

Margie Teall (Ward 4) peruses a map showing forecasted congestion on Ann Arbor roads under a “do nothing” scenario. Transportation program manager Eli Cooper had distributed the map to councilmembers at their Oct. 15 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

A study that’s required as part of Ann Arbor’s approach to building a new train station will move forward with a $550,000 funding resolution approved by the council. The same resolution also includes a clause stating that construction of a new train station would be put to a popular referendum before proceeding.

The budget amendment, which passed with exactly the eight votes it needed on the 11-member council, allocated the $550,000 to provide new matching funds for a federal grant. The grant had been awarded through the Federal Railroad Administration’s High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program. Dissenting on the vote were Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) was absent. Recent feedback from the FRA indicated that the city of Ann Arbor could not use previously expended funds to count as the local match – which had been the city’s original understanding.

The council also approved $30,000 for the continued study of a transportation connector between the northeast and south sides of Ann Arbor. The corridor runs from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street and farther south to I-94.

The council actually voted twice on that issue at the same meeting. On the first vote, the resolution failed. But a few minutes later, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) – who had initially voted against it – asked for reconsideration of the vote, and changed her vote to support it, as did Mike Anglin (Ward 5). The council had previously considered and rejected funding for the study at its Sept. 4, 2012 meeting. But councilmembers reconsidered that vote two weeks later on Sept. 17, 2012, which resulted in a postponement until Oct. 15. The second reconsideration by the council during the Oct. 15 meeting required a suspension of the council’s rules, which don’t permit a question to be reconsidered more than once.

Wrapping up the transportation themes of the evening was a public call for volunteers to serve on the new 15-member transit authority board, recently incorporated under Act 196 of 1986. While it had been previously assumed that the seven Ann Arbor appointments to the new authority’s board would serve simultaneously on Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s board, legal questions about simultaneous service on the two boards led to mayor John Hieftje’s announcement to recruit other volunteers.

The first two of the seven Ann Arbor nominations needed for the new transit authority board were made at the Oct. 15 meeting: Susan Baskett, who currently serves as a trustee on the Ann Arbor Public Schools board; and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who currently serves on the city council. Derezinski will be leaving the council in mid-November, because he did not prevail in his August Democratic primary race. His last city council meeting will be Nov. 8.

Nov. 8 would also mark the last council meeting for Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who did not seek re-election. However, Smith announced on Oct. 15 that she would not be able to attend the Nov. 8 meeting, which meant that the Oct. 15 meeting was her last. She bid her colleagues farewell, and kind words were offered around the table.

It was a resolution from Smith that prompted the main non-transportation topic of the evening – an attempt to establish a formal policy to use the net proceeds of city-owned land sales to support affordable housing. The council approved a version of the policy, but it was far more restricted than Smith’s original proposal, which the council had considered but postponed on Sept. 17.

Smith’s initial proposal would have directed 85% of the net proceeds from the sale of any city-owned land in the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district to be deposited in the city’s affordable housing trust fund. During the month-long postponement, the council’s budget committee discussed the proposal and made a recommendation that for only one city property – the Fifth & William lot, where the former YMCA building previously stood – the net proceeds from any future sale would be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund. The budget committee also recommended that any other properties be considered on a case-by-case basis, considering all needs of the city. And that’s essentially the recommendation that the council adopted.

In other business, councilmembers authorized an extension to a third year for the city’s coordinated approach to funding for human services. And the council took the first step toward dissolving the sign board of appeals and transferring its responsibility to the zoning board of appeals. The council also accepted a total of $1 million in grants for city parks, and added about 125 acres to the city’s greenbelt program. And a $200,000 study was authorized to prevent flooding in the southwest part of the city.

A symbolic vote – calling for the U.S. Congress to send a constitutional amendment to the states to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission decision – resulted in passage, over dissent from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). 

Ann Arbor Rail Station

The council considered a $550,000 funding resolution for the study of a transportation connector. The same resolution also includes a clause stating that the construction of a new train station would be put to a popular referendum before proceeding.

The $550,000 provides new local matching funds for a federal grant. The grant had been awarded through the Federal Railroad Administration’s High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program.

The Ann Arbor city council had previously voted 9-2 to accept the federal money at its June 4, 2012 meeting. That acceptance was based on the understanding that around $701,600 in already-expended city funds could count toward a required 20% match on up to $2.8 million in federal funds.

But the FRA subsequently informed the city that none of its previously incurred expenses are eligible to count toward the match on the grant, which would fund completion of a preliminary engineering and environmental assessment for a new rail station in Ann Arbor. The lower amount of $550,000 is based on 20% of a now lower-estimated cost for the study, which had originally been estimated to cost $3.5 million.

The Oct. 15 resolution directed the city administrator to seek as much as $300,000 in contributions from “other eligible local partners” to offset the cost of the local match. If the full $300,000 could be identified – from sources like the University of Michigan, the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority – that would leave the city’s eventual share at $250,000.

As part of the city’s FY 2013 budget, $307,781 had already been allocated for the rail station study – as a contingency if the University of Michigan did not pay invoices associated with some already-completed work. The contingency became a reality in August when the city and the university agreed that the money was not actually owed under a memorandum of understanding between the two bodies.

Those already-expended funds had been used in connection with work associated with the Fuller Road Station – for conceptual planning, environmental documentation efforts and some preliminary engineering. At the time, the Fuller Road Station project envisioned a 1,000-space parking structure for the university. The university withdrew from the partnership early this year. The city paid for that work from its major street fund, alternative transportation fund, and previously existing economic development funds over the past three years.

As a result of the recent FRA determination, none of that previously expended money can be counted as the local match on the federal grant. City of Ann Arbor transportation program manager Eli Cooper described the work as “stale,” because too much time has elapsed since it was done.

Fuller Road Station was a conceptual pre-cursor to what is now called the Ann Arbor Rail Passenger Station. In partnership with the University of Michigan, the proposed Fuller Road Station included a 1,000-space parking structure to be built in conjunction with a new rail station on an identified site nestled between Fuller Road and East Medical Center Drive, adjacent to the UM medical campus. The location is controversial because it’s on city parkland. However, UM withdrew from that project earlier this year, on Feb. 10. The university decided instead to revisit its earlier plans to build additional parking on Wall Street.

A resolved clause in the Oct. 15 resolution stipulates that the council will submit the construction of a new rail station as a ballot question to Ann Arbor voters: “RESOLVED, That at or before the completion of a final design for the Ann Arbor Station project, City Council will set a date by which the City will submit the question of moving forward with construction to a vote of the citizens of Ann Arbor; …”

The political strategy of offering a vote to reduce opposition to the project resulted in previously withheld support from the Ecology Center, an Ann Arbor nonprofit. In an email sent on Oct. 15 to all members of the city council, executive director Mike Garfield wrote about the possible plan for a rail station to be located at the Fuller Road site: “Before tonight … we were unable to support the plan,” he wrote, citing the change in the long-term use of city parkland. “It may be legal to build a parking structure or multimodal station on city parkland, but it was not what voters thought they were approving when they voted – overwhelmingly, each time – for parkland acquisition millages. If the City wants to build a nonpark facility, like a train station or multimodal station, no matter how great the public benefits, then the City owes it to voters to seek their approval first.”

Garfield’s email concludes: “Tonight’s resolution ensures that the City will maintain its commitment to parks, and potentially removes the conflict between two of our community’s great key values. We urge you to support the resolution.” [.pdf of Ecology Center email text]

At the council’s Oct. 15 meeting, mayor John Hieftje used Garfield’s letter as a key element in his argument for the resolution.

Ann Arbor Rail Station: Public Commentary

Several people spoke on the matching funds at public commentary, some for and some against.

Rita Mitchell began by saying she likes trains, and that she likes parks. She said she supports improved train service for Ann Arbor, and noted that train travel is an alternative that reduces the use of cars and its attendant pollution. She described the current station’s site, owned by Amtrak, as a “great location for a train station,” having served the community well for over 170 years. The Depot Street location is within a short walk of local businesses and other properties that could support development, she said. In contrast, she said, the Fuller Park location is surrounded by city parks and land held by the university. She felt that a serious look should be given to some creative use of the Depot Street location.

From left: Nancy Shiffler, Rita Mitchell and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Mitchell opposed using parkland for a train station, contending that it puts all parkland at risk for repurposing. She described the referendum in the council’s resolution as “vague,” saying it wasn’t clear whether the vote would be about a train station or the use of a park. She asked the council not to be so shortsighted as to turn a park into a train station, describing the Fuller Road site as part of a green necklace of parks that run through Ann Arbor. She noted that the environmental assessment would need to support the Section 4(f) requirement in federal legislation – that a transportation project constructed on parkland will be approved for federal funding only if there is no prudent and feasible alternative.

Mitchell characterized the late addition of the item to the meeting agenda as a political ploy to approve the use of general fund dollars before the swearing in of newly elected councilmembers. She contended there’s no need to rush to approve the funds and maintained that a ballot referendum is not needed at this point, if the site has not been selected.

Kim Easter described herself as a lifelong Ann Arbor resident. For the last 15 years, she’s lived half a block away from the train station, she said. She’s seen firsthand the number of cars backed up along Depot Street every morning and evening – and knows that they’re on the way to good jobs at the UM hospital. “The jobs are good and the people are good, but their cars are not,” she said. It would be great if we could get those folks into town without having to deal with the fuel they’re burning and without needing to provide parking for them. She applauded the council for considering multiple options. If Ann Arbor could become a meaningful and viable transit hub, she applauded the council for considering that. She felt like the station needs to be located where people are headed, and she would welcome a train station in whatever place makes the most sense for the city. If Ann Arbor could be made the transit hub that it could be, it would be a huge gift to the people of Ann Arbor and would leave a real legacy for the community. It would be a benefit to the city and to the region, she said.

Nancy Shiffler spoke on behalf of the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club. She reminded the council that the grant requires an analysis of alternative sites for the environmental assessment and the preliminary engineering study. A decision to use parkland must demonstrate that there’s no prudent or feasible alternative to using parkland. She applauded the intent to include a thorough public participation process for the project. She felt that a start to that process should include a solicitation of comments on the work plan for the grant. She called the resolution’s description of a proposed public vote “unclear.” If the Fuller Road site is selected, then the vote should include a determination on whether to repurpose existing parkland, she said. If the Amtrak site is selected for an upgraded, renovated station, then the need for the vote is less clear, she said. She contended that the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club is not opposed to trains or train stations. But they did question the appropriateness of putting those facilities in a city park.

Gwen Nystuen observed that the resolution asks for a half million dollars of general fund money. She complained that the current expenses to date have not been provided to the public. She said the project had morphed from a combined parking garage and rail station to just a rail station with unknown specifications. She contended that there’s yet to be a single public hearing before the city council on the subject. She said she’s asked questions for three years about the project. In 2009 and 2010, the community had been assured that no general funds would be required. The newest version of the station had been presented when the FRA application was made. And without public discussion, she contended, the Fuller Road site was designated as the preferred alternative.

Nystuen noted that selection of the Fuller Road site would require that no reasonable alternative exists other than the use of that city parkland. She contended that the city had not included in its previous study what she called “the most obvious alternative,” the current Amtrak station. On Aug. 22, she had asked once again what the status was of the environmental assessment and the funding of the rail station. Councilmember Christopher Taylor had answered her query immediately on Aug. 23, she reported: “Thanks for writing. I hope all is well with you. I’m afraid I don’t have any of that information. I’m sure staff can track down to-date spending, but as for the future, proposals for design, spending and funding are all still inchoate.” So far she’s heard nothing else. If parkland is considered, it should come “way early” to a vote of the people, she concluded.

Larry Deck spoke on behalf of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition. The WBWC supports multimodal connections that integrate biking and walking seamlessly into the transportation system.

From left: Larry Deck of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition and Eli Cooper, the city of Ann Arbor’s transportation program manager.

Transportation is a core function of government, just like public safety is, he said. As an individual, he offered his perspective on the two sites: the Fuller Park site and the current Amtrak site. The current site has a couple of advantages, he said. First, it already exists, and second, it’s closer to downtown. But a disadvantage to the current site is that it’s difficult to provide access to it with public transit. An effort to make improvements to the site to accommodate future needs might have an impact on the possible future of the MichCon/DTE site across the tracks. That site has the potential for becoming a high-value park, he said.

The Fuller Road site has a number of advantages, he observed, including that there’s room for a proper station. It’s close to the hospital, which is a major employer for the city and the region. It’s located on a major transit corridor, so it’s easier to provide good public transit access to the station. It would also be easy to provide good bicycling and walking access, by improving the trail system in the area, he said. The loss of parkland could be looked at as a trade for the parkland the city might obtain, once the environmental cleanup is done. The main disadvantage is the cost, he said, but it takes investment if we want to improve things. He said that rail travel – both high-speed and commuter rail – is crucial to the future economy of the region. If we want to create a better future, we have to invest in a better future, he concluded.

Christine Green introduced herself as a resident of Washtenaw County, as well as a staff member of the Michigan League of Conservation Voters who also works with the Michigan Environmental Council. From her role with those two organizations, she said, she’d learned that improved rail transportation will create jobs and improve commuting and travel options for Michigan residents, as well as attracting tourists. Increased rail will make for cleaner cities, she said, and reduce carbon emissions. The Ann Arbor Amtrak station is already one of the busiest train stations in the state. The Detroit-to-Chicago route is of primary importance at the state and the national level, she said. The problem is that already 65,000 people are driving to work in Ann Arbor every day.

Green indicated that about $400 million is being spent to repair tracks, purchase new railroad cars and to expand service. Amtrak, she’s been told, is planning to add two more trains per day, and MDOT is planning to run a commuter service between Ann Arbor and Detroit. The Amtrak ridership could possibly double, she said, and the current station is not large enough to handle the increased capacity. The location and layout of the current station won’t accommodate commuter traffic, she contended, because it’s hard to get public transit into the location and it’s already congested. With 20,000 people – counting workers and patients – coming to the University of Michigan hospital every day, it makes sense, Green said, to locate a new station where they could walk to the hospital or take a bus to some other location in the city. Building a new rail station is good for economic development, she said. The increased service could take as many as 2,000-3,000 cars out of the commuter traffic volume every day, she said.

Vivienne Armentrout began by saying that the item before the council was not about whether they loved rail. The agenda item asked the council to make a specific financial decision, for a specific decision – to provide matching funds for a federal grant. She recalled that for months if not years, mayor John Hieftje had given assurances that no more general fund money would be spent on the Fuller Road Station.

By way of background, that kind of assurance was given at the council’s March 1, 2010 meeting:

Mayor John Hieftje used his time for communications to respond to criticism of the Fuller Road Station that the council had heard during public commentary.

He prompted city administrator Roger Fraser to speak to the issue of how the city’s portion of the project would be funded, by asking Fraser if it was the plan to use money from the general fund. Fraser’s answer: “No, sir.” Hieftje allowed, however, that the financing plan had not yet been formulated.

Armentrout continued with her remarks by adding up costs. The council had allocated over $300,000 from the general fund [as part of the FY 2013 budget adopted in May 2012] for expenses that turned out not to count as matching funds for the FRA grant, she noted. Now the council is being asked to spend $550,000 more. That brings the total to about $850,000. She noted that providing only $550,000 in matching funds [instead of $700,000] would leave $600,000 in federal money “on the table.” [The FRA grant is for up to $2.8 million, with a 20% match requirement – that is, a match of 4 federal dollars for every local dollar. The arithmetic for $600,000 is (700,000 – 550,000)* 4]

Implying that she felt the city would eventually spend the additional $150,000, she asked rhetorically: “Do you believe in your heart of hearts that money will be left lying on the table?” Adding that $150,000 to the $850,000 from her previous arithmetic, she ventured that the council will be spending a total of $1 million just this year. An investment, she said, comes with a reasonable expectation of return. If there’s not a reasonable expectation of return, then it becomes a gamble, not an investment. Because there’s currently no federal program that will grant funds for construction of the station, she concluding that spending the money on the study is a gamble.

Ann Arbor Rail Station: Council Prelims

The council’s deliberations on the issue began in effect long before the agenda item was reached.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) used the council communications time toward the beginning of the meeting in effect to begin deliberations on the local match for the rail station study. He thanked all those who’d addressed the council that night and previously. He characterized the process as like a river that has been continually changing its course. The Fuller Road Station was prompted by the University of Michigan’s need for additional parking, but that deal is now dead, he said. He characterized the process as a “labyrinth,” and said he was glad that the Sierra Club has remained strong and protective of the community. He called the Sierra Club as ultimately “good stewards” of transportation for the city. In an apparent allusion to Christine Green’s public commentary, Anglin said, “To those from outside who are urging us to build, thank you! Please come up with the money.” Lots of people are saying that the council should proceed, but Ann Arbor taxpayers are those who are paying the bill, he contended.

Responding to the public commentary from Nystuen and Armentrout, mayor John Hieftje said during communications time that he thought previously a train station would be built without general fund money. But the Fuller Road Station deal fell apart, he said. At the time he believed that to be true, and the city was counting on the University of Michigan to provide the local match.

Also during communications time, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) took the opportunity to commend a position paper written by a parks advocacy group. She described it as a helpful educational piece. [.pdf of "Fuller Park Is Not the Right Place for a Train Station"]

Hieftje responded to Lumm by saying he felt there was a lot of misinformation in the document.

Ann Arbor Rail Station: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) began the formal deliberations by stating his belief that there was widespread agreement that expanded rail service in the city of Ann Arbor would be a “public good.” The next step to achieve that service would be improvements to the rail station – either at the existing location or at the Fuller Park location, which he made a point to describe as “a parking lot for the university since early in the first Clinton administration.” [Taylor had used a similar description at the council's June 4, 2012 meeting when the council voted to accept the FRA grant.] We can’t make progress without investment, Taylor said. And that would require a local match of the FRA grant. He stated that the city has the means to make the match and urged support of the resolution.

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

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) was concerned about the nature of the proposed referendum specified in the resolution. She described it as vital to the community’s sense of involvement in the process. The resolution doesn’t make it clear if the popular referendum is binding or advisory, she said. She allowed that it’s not possible to put language into the resolution about the exact nature of project on which the public would vote, how much it would cost, or the date of the vote. But she felt it would be possible to add one more resolved clause: “RESOLVED, That no such construction shall proceed unless approved by a majority vote;…”

When there was no objection to that addition from the city attorney, Stephen Postema, Taylor indicated he also had no objection.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) appreciated Briere’s amendment, which made clear that the intent of the resolution would be to have a binding referendum. But she noted that the council could change its mind. Lumm asked if the vote was proposed to be on a specific project on a specific site. Taylor indicated he thought the vote would require a high level of clarity – including a specific design, a specific site and how it would be paid for.

Briere indicated that it’s not possible to say now what would be in the ballot language. She allowed that the result of the FRA study could conclude that the current Amtrak station is the preferred local alternative, and in that case she felt that a rail station project would still warrant a vote of the people. But Briere indicated she would prefer the ballot question include a location and a funding mechanism and that everyone be aware of the schematic design. That would be her personal goal, but she allowed that she might not be on the city council at that point, so she wouldn’t guess what the council would put in the ballot question.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) felt the resolution had addressed a number of concerns that had been heard over time. For example, she’d heard some residents say that if people want a vote, “Go ahead and put it on the ballot, and I’ll vote for it.” She said she would delightfully support the resolution.

Briere said she didn’t have a deep commitment about the location, but she did have a deep commitment that the project requires community support. If the FRA tells the city that Fuller Road is the best site, then the vote would have to deal with the repurposing of parkland.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) felt that the resolution was making an assumption that the outcome of the study would be Fuller Park as the preferred local alternative. He felt like a vote could be held now, on the basic issue of whether to proceed at all.

Briere responded to Anglin by saying she’d heard exactly the opposite message as an argument for why we should not be voting to build a new library. That argument had been made, she reported, the previous Saturday at a meeting of the Ann Arbor Democratic Party. The argument against the library bond proposal had been: There is no design or concept, and it’s “buying a pig in a poke.” If the council put a question on the ballot about a rail station, then any rational person would come back with questions like: How big and how much?

Lumm said first we need to be crystal clear about what the purpose of the resolution is – to provide a $550,000 match using general fund money. That’s in addition to $300,000, she said, which the council had allocated as a part of the FY 2013 budget. In June the council had been assured in no uncertain terms that no additional city money would be used, she said. Reading from a prepared statement, she noted that the already-expended funds the city was counting on using to provide the local match don’t qualify. She didn’t know what the hurry is, she said, noting that the resolution had been added to the agenda on Friday before the Monday meeting. At some point, the council needs to stop throwing good money after bad or at least “hit pause,” Lumm said. She felt the city was well past that point. She calculated $2.7 million that had been spent so far – including $1.4 million in water and sewer improvements at the Fuller Road site, and the rest in consultants and studies. She called it a huge amount of money on a project for which the basic need has not been established, she contended.

In subsequent deliberations, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) took issue with Lumm’s characterization of the water and sewer improvements as part of the cost of the rail station, saying that had been communicated clearly by city staff as part of the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP), independent of any rail station.

Lumm went on to describe the costs of the construction itself, as estimated to be more than $60 million, with no indication of how that would be paid for.

By way of more specific background, the cost estimate of more than $60 million includes a bit less than $10 million for the train station building itself, $5 million for a platform north of the track, $11 million for a new set of south rails and a south platform, and $13 million for parking facilities. [For a detailed breakdown of the balance of costs: .pdf of conceptual construction costs]

We have to make choices and establish priorities, Lumm said. Proponents of the resolution have said this will go to the voters. “That’s awfully convenient … It’s interesting that in June, when the council first approved accepting this grant, no one said ‘boo’ about going to the voters.” In August, she noted the council had objected to the idea of asking voters for a city charter amendment that would have protected parks. It’s time to “hit pause” and not “sign a blank check on three days’ notice,” she said.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) noted that one of the “whereas” clauses in the resolution indicated the city was told by the FRA that the previously expended funds could not count as a local match. He asked to get a copy of any letter that the FRA sent, and wanted to know if it would be possible to delay action on the matching funds until the city has a statement from the federal government about what happened. He didn’t want to continue down a path where it wasn’t clear where the city’s money is going. He ventured that everyone at the council table supports trains. But he said it seemed to him that the study had already “launched itself.”

Eli Cooper, the city of Ann Arbor transportation program manager, responded to Anglin’s question about the notification from the FRA, which had been referred to in the resolution’s whereas clause. Cooper said the notification came in a face-to-face meeting in a conference room with officials from the FRA and from MDOT. Cooper said it was not cold and callous. FRA officials described how supportive FRA continues to be of the project. That’s the basis for bringing forward the resolution, Cooper said.

Anglin pointed to the same U.S. Department of Transportation Act (DOT Act) of 1966 Section 4(f) requirement that some of the speakers during public commentary had cited. Among other things, the section includes a requirement that development of a transportation project on publicly-owned parks show that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to using the parkland.

Anglin told Cooper that the burden of showing there’s no feasible and prudent alternative is “an abundant task.” Cooper indicated that the project team is well aware of the Section 4(f) requirements. Assuming the council acted favorably on the resolution, Cooper said, the alternatives analysis would provide rationale for the choice of the preferred alternative over any other sites. Something like 14 other potential sites had been identified in work done years ago, and all that information will be pulled together, he said. Cooper noted that the NEPA process for the environmental assessment requires public engagement, and he indicated that in the case of Ann Arbor, that would mean consideration by the park advisory commission, as well as public workshops.

Cooper stressed that federal grant funds are still available, and said he looked forward to drawing down the grant funds as the project is advanced.

Ann Arbor Rail Station: Interlude on Section 4(f)

The Section 4(f) requirement mentioned at the city council meeting refers to part of the 1966 U.S. Department of Transportation Act. That federal act became ensconced in part as Section 138 of Title 23 of the United States Code. It includes the stipulation that publicly-owned park and recreational lands – as well as wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites – cannot be used for transportation project development unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative.

However, in August 2005, Section 6009(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) revised Section 138 of Title 23. It simplified the process and approval of projects that are deemed to have only de minimis impacts on Section 4(f) lands. Specifically, even if the U.S. Dept. of Transportation determines that a transportation use of Section 4(f) property results in a de minimis impact, an analysis of avoidance alternatives isn’t required.

The definition of “de minimis impact” in SAFETEA-LU is as follows [emphasis added in italics]:

With respect to parks, recreation areas, or wildlife or waterfowl refuges, the Secretary may make a finding of de minimis impact only if the Secretary has determined, after public notice and opportunity for public review and comment, that the transportation program or project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of the park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge eligible for protection under this section;

The Fuller Road Park site that’s been under discussion includes a 250-space surface parking lot. The previous Fuller Road Station collaboration with the University of Michigan was planned to be confined to the footprint of that currently paved surface, and not to extend farther towards the Huron River, where a soccer practice field is situated.

Given a configuration with a rail station building, platforms and an appurtenant parking facility – all of which is still confined to the footprint of the current parking lot – it’s conceivable that an argument could be made for meeting the SAFETEA-LU “de minimis” standard. The argument would depend on a claim that the two activities currently undertaken on the parkland site – parking and soccer practice – would not be adversely affected.

In subsequent back-and-forth between transportation program manager Eli Cooper and Mike Anglin, Cooper indicated that the intent is to locate the infrastructure of the rail station on the smallest footprint possible.

Ann Arbor Rail Station: Continued Deliberations

Briere ventured that her understanding of an environmental assessment is not just that it looks at grass and trees, but everything in the surroundings – including road infrastructure and the impact of proposed construction on neighboring properties. Cooper told Briere that it includes even more than that. But he said that the amount of rigor attached to an environmental assessment is less than that associated with an environmental impact statement. The Section 4(f) issue was characterized by Cooper as a separate discussion. That issue is prepared for review by the FRA, and the FRA makes the determination as to whether the Section 4(f) standard is met.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

Anglin wanted data that would apply to development around that particular site. Cooper told him the analysis would extend to a quarter mile around the proposed site. As an example, he gave Lowertown, saying that for either of the sites – Fuller Park or the current Amtrak station site – rail station improvements would have a positive effect on economic development of Lowertown.

Hohnke noted he’d received many emails from people supporting the resolution, and some communication from the Ecology Center and the Clean Air Coalition supporting it. To him, it appeared the only local organization that has significant concerns with this is the Sierra Club’s Huron Valley Group. Even the national Sierra Club urges communities to invest in transportation alternatives such as high-speed rail. He felt that the significant consensus in the community is that moving forward with investments in high-speed rail is the right thing to do.

Responding to Vivienne Armentrout’s characterization – made during public commentary – of the expenditure as a “gamble,” not an investment, Hohnke said he had a different view. If you look back to 1991, the Chicago-to-Detroit route was one of the first five national rail networks identified in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act as having one of the most significant opportunities in the country for yielding benefit to the community. Over $400 million has been made through ARRA [federal stimulus] funds to build out the Chicago-to-Detroit high-speed rail network, he said.

An additional $300 million has been invested in rail stock, Hohnke said. MDOT reports a 115% increase in automobile traffic on I-94 between Detroit and Chicago since 1991 and sees significant increases going forward, he said. So MDOT is supportive of the high-speed rail initiatives. And that’s why MDOT has recently purchased the east-west tracks from Norfolk-Southern. He described all this as “a national commitment” to improving rail transportation that goes back 30 years. He added that for every dollar Ann Arbor puts in, under the terms of the grant, the city gets four dollars back from the federal government. He was supporting the resolution because it increases environmental stewardship and economic development and access to mobility, he concluded.

Mayor John Hieftje drew out from Cooper that Amtrak was talking about the possibility of doubling train frequency through Ann Arbor. Hieftje argued for the resolution by saying that we shouldn’t build for our current needs, but for “way down the road.” He asked Cooper to talk about the longer-term projections for ridership. Cooper described how ridership forecasting would be done by a consultant engaged for that purpose. He reported that a number of communities are doing station planning. He said that MDOT and Amtrak indicate the six trains a day would probably increase to 10 – which would be for intercity passenger trips.

Cooper continued by saying that MDOT is quietly developing a commuter rail program, in the guise of a demonstration, and has already refurbished passenger coaches. About a month ago, he said, MDOT had acquired a locomotive. So at this point, MDOT is “cobbling together” a set of rail cars that can run, once the track improvements are done. The intent for the demonstration is for 4-6 commuter trips a day. But from experience living in other parts of the country, he said, with trains running on 20-minute frequency from 6-9 a.m. and also in the afternoon, put together with the intercity service, that could result within 25 years in as many as 50 trains a day coming to Ann Arbor station. Later in deliberations, Lumm objected to using the other places Cooper has lived, like Philadelphia, as a benchmark.

Responding to a later question from Sandi Smith (Ward 1) Cooper indicated that the economic benefit to an area is part of the environmental assessment and the impact would be positive.

Briere recalled how she’s been listening to people talk about building a new train station since she’s been in Ann Arbor. When the current Amtrak station was built, she said, no one was excited because people wanted to stick with the Gandy Dancer, even though it had already become a restaurant. The current building is amazingly unimaginative and unattractive, she said, but it’s functional now. The question is whether it will be functional in the future. Since 2000, the community has been struggling with conflicting viewpoints, she said – one being that there will be increased rail service and the other being that it won’t ever happen.

Briere said she believes that increased rail transportation is extraordinarily desirable. But if we increase rail service, where then do people go, and how do we get them there? She characterized the current Amtrak station as in a residential neighborhood with “its feet in the water.” Parking is insufficient, she said. Parking on the opposite side of the tracks from the station and taking luggage across the Broadway bridges in January is hard, she said. There’s nothing convenient about the current station location, except that you could walk uphill and get to the center of town. But she maintained that the conversation should not currently be about where the station will be located. Rather, the question is: Is it our goal to build a new train station? Arguing about the right location is not her goal, Briere said.

If you don’t have a plan in hand, you’re not prepared when opportunity strikes, Briere said. Whether funds are currently available for construction of the project, she said, is “not in our hands.” But it’s in the city’s hands to say it has accepted a grant from the federal government. She’s committed to the idea that we need to plan, so she supported the resolution. It’s not her call to identify the location, but “it’s my call to fund the work to come up with the plan,” she concluded.

Hieftje followed Briere’s comments by reading a substantial portion of a letter of support that had been received from the Ecology Center. He contrasted the Ecology Center’s support with the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club’s position, which he contended seemed to be saying: If you don’t want to build the rail station where we say, then we don’t want it. Referring to the Fuller Road Station project, Hieftje said it didn’t work out and it was costly. Now we have a new path and a clean slate, he said.

Outcome: On an 8-2 vote, the council approved the $550,000 allocation of general fund dollars for the federal grant’s local match, over the dissent of Mike Anglin and Jane Lumm. Stephen Kunselman was absent. The resolution achieved the eight-vote majority that it needed to pass.

Transit Connector Study

On Oct. 15, the council considered a funding request for additional study of a transportation connector between the northeast and south sides of Ann Arbor. On the agenda was a request for $60,000, but that amount was reduced to $30,000 at the start of deliberations – in the context of a recent vote by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to contribute $30,000 from the public parking fund to the effort. The DDA vote came at the DDA board’s Oct. 3, 2012 meeting.

The corridor runs from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street and farther south to I-94. The funding would support an alternatives analysis phase of the study, which will result in identifying a preferred mode (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and the location of stations and stops. The timeline for completion of the study would be about 18 months.

A feasibility study for the corridor costing $640,000 has already been completed. That initial study concluded that some type of improved high-capacity transit system would be feasible – which could take the form of bus rapid transit, light rail transit, or elevated automated guideway transit.

The $30,000 discussed by the council on Oct. 15 was part of $300,000 in local funding sources for a $1.5 million study: $150,000 from the University of Michigan; $90,000 from the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority; $30,000 from the Ann Arbor DDA; and $30,000 from the city of Ann Arbor. The $300,000 satisfies a 20% matching requirement for a $1.2 million federal grant the AATA has received to complete the $1.5 million project.

The AATA has already given approval of a contract with URS Corp. to start the work, contingent on lining up the remaining $60,000 in local matching funds.

The city council had initially been asked to contribute $60,000. But the council voted on Sept. 4, 2012 to reject that request. Then the council reconsidered that vote two weeks later on Sept. 17, 2012. But on reconsideration of the vote, the council decided to postpone a decision until Oct. 15.

Transit Connector Study: Deliberations – Part 1

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) led off deliberations by asking for an adjustment down to $30,000 in light of the DDA’s resolution. Mayor John Hieftje confirmed with Smith that the council’s resolution could follow the DDA’s grant by allocating $15,000 in each of two years. The council revised the amount without substantive comment.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) recalled that when the council had considered the question the first time [and she'd voted against it], she had asked transportation program manager Eli Cooper how the connector could impact the lives of Ann Arbor residents. To Briere it was clear why it impacted the University of Michigan. She wondered if Cooper had ideas that evening that he hadn’t addressed on the previous occasion.

Cooper responded by providing a map depicting forecasts for congestion in Ann Arbor. In 2005, 28% of miles vehicle miles traveled were under congested conditions. That would increase to 50% by 2030, Cooper said.

Forecasted traffic congestion in Ann Arbor: 2005 compared to 2030.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she wouldn’t support the resolution. She objected to the fact that there were multiple city transportation initiatives. She wanted to establish priorities among the initiatives and then pursue them.

Responding to another question from Briere about what entity would operate the connector if it’s built – University of Michigan, AATA or AATA’s successor – Cooper indicated that can only be answered after the technology is identified and the location of routes had been settled. Then it would be possible to determine which entity is best positioned to operate the service, he said.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated that in his view, the $30,000 is a deeply prudent use of resources. Everyone believes that Ann Arbor will grow, he said, whether with residents or businesses. The goal of the connector study is to get additional data.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked for deletion of a “whereas” clause mentioning the city’s proceeds of the sale of a six-foot wide strip of land to the AATA – $90,000. She called that inappropriate. [During the council's first consideration of the question, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had objected to the same clause.]

Higgins drew out from Cooper that the precise starting point of the corridor could be considered to be east of US-23 and Plymouth Road, and that specific routing and alignment will be clarified in the course of the study.

The council’s subsequent discussion touched on Jackson Road and the North Main corridor before winding down to a vote.

Outcome: On its initial vote, the council rejected the $30,000 for the connector study, with the votes against it provided by Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) was absent. The 7-3 vote was one vote short of the eight votes it needed to pass.

Transit Connector Study: Deliberations – Part 2

Near the end of the meeting, just after Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted that she would not be able to attend the Nov. 8 meeting – her last as a councilmember – Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) told her colleagues that she wanted to reconsider the connector study vote. [Because she was on the prevailing side, it was her right to do so. However, a reconsideration of the council's vote that evening would mean that the question was being reconsidered for a second time – because that night's vote itself had been a reconsideration of the question. And the council rules prohibit a second reconsideration of a question. But the council rules do allow for the suspension of council rules.]

Higgins began by asking councilmembers to suspend the council rule on reconsidering a question twice. Her colleagues indulged her. She then moved for reconsideration of the question. She said that in light of the fact that the $30,000 could be allocated across two years, $15,000 per year, she felt that she’d voted incorrectly.

Responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle, Higgins elaborated:

After the first vote, I had some time to evaluate the reduced cost of $15,000 per year to the city to leverage $1.2 M in federal grant money that may not be available in the future. This is a reasonable cost to get to the heart of the matter regarding how we move people in this city.

Outcome: On reconsideration, the council approved the $30,000 for the connector study on a 9-1 vote, with the sole vote of dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Transit Board Membership

At the Oct. 15 meeting, mayor John Hieftje made a public call for volunteers to serve on the new 15-member transit authority board, recently incorporated under Act 196 of 1986. That call came during the council communications slot at the start of the meeting.

From left: Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and AATA legal counsel Jerry Lax. Other senior staff of the AATA attended the meeting in case there were questions from councilmembers, but there were none.

Also placed before the council for their consideration were two of the seven Ann Arbor nominations needed for the new Act 196 transit board: Susan Baskett, who currently serves as a trustee on the Ann Arbor Public Schools board; and Tony Derezinski, who currently serves on the city council representing Ward 2. Derezinski will be leaving the council in mid-November, because he did not prevail in his August Democratic primary race. His last city council meeting will be Nov. 8. [Hieftje also announced that it would be his intent to nominate Derezinski to take the place, as a citizen appointee, of an anticipated resignee from the city planning commission. After Nov. 8, Derezinski will no longer be able to serve on that body as the council's representative, as he currently does. The planning commission resignation has not been announced, but it's likely to be Evan Pratt, a Democrat running for the job of Washtenaw County water resources commissioner.]

While it had been previously assumed that the seven Ann Arbor appointments to the new transit authority’s 15-member board would serve simultaneously on Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s board, legal questions about simultaneous service on the two boards led to Hieftje’s announcement.

An application for all city boards and commissions is available on the city clerk’s website.

Ann Arbor’s seven representatives to the new authority’s board first need to be nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the city council – under terms of a four-party agreement ratified between the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the AATA. Under terms of that agreement, the AATA’s assets would not be transferred to the new authority, to be called The Washtenaw Ride, until voters approve a funding source for the expanded service to be offered.

The composition of the Ann Arbor contingent on the new authority’s board, as well as Ann Arbor’s eventual participation in the new Act 196 authority, could potentially be impacted by the delay in decision-making past the November election. Three new members will be joining the Ann Arbor city council. For more details and analysis, see previous Chronicle reporting: “Positions Open: New Transit Authority Board.”

Proceeds of Land Sales

Two items on the council’s agenda related to the topic of how to use the proceeds from the sale of city-owned land.

The first item was a proposal by Sandi Smith (Ward 1) to establish a formal policy that would direct 85% of the net proceeds from the sale of any city-owned land in the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district to be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund. Smith’s resolution had been considered previously on Sept. 17, 2012, but postponed until the Oct. 15 meeting with a referral to the council’s budget committee. Councilmembers Christopher Taylor, Sabra Briere, Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin and Marcia Higgins serve on that committee.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1).

Listed a few items later on the Oct. 15 agenda was a different resolution on the same topic, which came as a recommendation from the budget committee. During the month-long postponement of Smith’s resolution, the council’s budget committee discussed the proposal and made a recommendation that for only one city property – the Fifth & William lot, where the former YMCA building previously stood – the net proceeds from any future sale would be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

The budget committee also recommended that any other properties be considered on a case-by-case basis, considering all the needs of the city.

The wording of the budget committee’s resolution stipulated that for the Fifth & William site, the net proceeds of any sale “first be utilized to repay the various funds that expended resources on the property, including but not limited to due diligence, closing of the site and relocation and support of its previous tenants, after which any remaining proceeds be allocated and distributed to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund … ”

The relocation costs for previous Y tenants are estimated at around $1.3 million. The property’s purchase price in 2003 was $3.5 million. The council voted in 2008 to extend its five-year loan with the Bank of Ann Arbor for another five years, through the end of 2013. The interest rate is 3.89%. The interest-only payments work out to roughly $140,000 a year, of which the city has paid half. The Ann Arbor DDA has paid the other half of the interest payments. And when the YMCA building was condemned, the DDA also paid for the cost of demolishing it and abating asbestos – around $1.5 million. The total amount of local governmental costs associated with the property since 2003 is $7.7 million.

The kind of city policy considered by the council on Oct. 15 has a long history, dating back to 1996. And a previous policy of directing proceeds of city-owned land sales to the affordable housing trust fund was rescinded by the council in 2007. More detailed background is provided in previous Chronicle coverage: “City Council to Focus on Land Sale Policy.”

Resolutions urging the city council to adopt Smith’s proposed policy were approved by the board of the Ann Arbor DDA at its Sept. 5, 2012 and by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners later that same day. Leah Gunn, who chairs the DDA board, also serves on the county board of commissioners.

During initial deliberations at the council’s Sept. 17 meeting, Smith’s resolution appeared to have only mixed support on the council. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated he would only support the resolution if the proceeds from land sales were put toward the Ann Arbor Housing Commission specifically. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she could not support a percentage as high as 85%. Other councilmembers expressed skepticism at the value of a non-binding council resolution that future councils would not need to honor.

Another concern heard at the council’s budget committee meeting was that groups with other interests besides affordable housing – like greenway advocates – were also interested in “getting a bite at the apple” of city-owned land sale proceeds.

There are no imminent sales of city-owned land, but a current planning process could eventually result in one or more such sales. The DDA has undertaken a study at the previous direction of the city council, under the moniker of Connecting William Street. That process focuses on five city-owned parcels in the area bounded by Ashley, Liberty, Division and William streets. For Chronicle coverage of an earlier presentation on the project to the city’s planning commission, see “Planning Group Briefed on William Street Project.”

Proceeds of Land Sales: Public Commentary

During the first opportunity for public commentary, Thomas Partridge called on everyone of goodwill to join to build more affordable housing, give importance to accessibility and affordable housing, human rights and disability rights. He called on the council to direct all proceeds from the sale of city land to support of public housing.

Proceeds of Land Sales: Smith – Prelims

When the council came to Smith’s proposal on the agenda, which had been postponed from the council’s Sept. 17 meeting, Smith noted that the council’s budget committee had made a different recommendation. The committee’s recommendation had been added to the agenda as a separate item. She wanted the council to discuss her proposal and ultimately vote it up or down. She felt that she’d given a strong rationale at the previous meeting, and pointed to the documentation attached to the agenda item. It’s something we talk about a lot, she said – providing a lot of housing options and a diversity of housing. “We continue to talk about it and we continue to be unable to fund this change that we want to see.” The resolution is an attempt to find a mechanism to fund affordable housing in Ann Arbor, she concluded.

Mayor John Hieftje indicated he would save his deliberations for the budget committee’s agenda item.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) was supportive of Smith’s proposal in concept. [Teall serves as council liaison to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.] She wants to see the city make a commitment to the affordable housing trust fund. She thought it’s a great idea to use a portion of proceeds from land sales to do that. Smith’s resolution doesn’t give the entire amount to the affordable housing trust fund, she noted, because it subtracts expenses associated with the property. She wanted to see where this would go, if the percentage could be reduced to something like 60% instead of 85%.

In light of Teall’s suggestion, Smith indicated that she had some proposed language to revise the resolved clause.

Proceeds of Land Sales: Smith – Amendment

But the amendment wound up being proposed by Teall – changing the percentage from 85% to 60% of land sale proceeds to be deposited into the affordable housing trust fund. It also restricted the focus of the resolution to the geographic area of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) contended that the change made the resolved clause dramatically different, while Smith maintained that the two resolved clauses were only slightly different.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) thanked Smith for her work on the proposal, saying she has always been an energetic advocate for affordable housing. Hohnke was supportive of the objective, but had some concerns about the proposed means to achieve that objective. His preference was for a proposal that would not bind future city councils, and would encourage each council in the future to look at the needs of the city as a whole and where the funds need to be used. So he wouldn’t support the proposal.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) indicated that he agreed with Hohnke. He questioned whether it was good government for the council to bind itself to a percentage. Even if the council was free to change the percentage, it would create a momentum, he contended. He felt that such decisions should be made every year in the context of the overall budget.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated she appreciated Smith’s effort. Lumm’s objection was to the prescriptive aspect of the proposal. She ventured that she might support something in the 20% range. There’s no question that the needs for affordable housing are great, she said.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) characterized a recent presentation from the Ann Arbor Housing Commission as difficult to listen to. But he felt the solution to the problem of providing affordable housing “will come from outside of us,” from a federal mandate, he said.

Smith responded to Anglin’s mention of federal funding by noting that the city has been receiving less money from the federal government. So she was not as hopeful as Anglin that something on the federal level is actually going to happen. She wanted to have something in place that has to be undone, if it’s to be made different. She wanted a mechanism that forces the discussion to take place each and every time.

Outcome on the amendment changing the percentage to 60%: The amendment failed, with support only from Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Proceeds of Land Sales: Smith – Main Motion

After the council rejected the amendment lowering the percentage to 60%, Smith recognized that the resolution would fail as she quipped, “If you loved it at 60 you’re going to love it at 85!”

Lumm indicated again that she understood the motivation but would instead support the budget committee’s recommendation. [Lumm serves on the budget committee.]

Hieftje indicated that he had no confidence in future federal support for affordable housing. But he didn’t know if Smith’s approach is the right solution. The current council can’t tell a future city council what to do, he said.

Outcome: Smith’s resolution failed, with support only from Smith and Teall.

Proceeds of Land Sales: Budget Committee – Amendments

When the council arrived at the budget committee’s agenda item, Sandi Smith said she was glad to see there’s an acknowledgement in the resolution that the former YMCA property was acquired for a purpose – to preserve affordable housing units. After the costs associated with the site were deducted, however, she was not sure there’d be a significant enough investment left to make an impact.

So Smith offered an amendment to the effect that also for other properties, no less than 10% of any city-owned land sale should be distributed to the affordable housing trust fund.

Marcia Higgins ventured that land is so seldom sold by the city that such sales couldn’t be relied on. She stated that the council needs to have a conversation about how to deposit money into the affordable housing trust fund on a yearly basis.

Sabra Briere essentially supported Higgins’ perspective on the yearly, or routine, aspect of funding needs. The council really needs to identify recurring funds, Briere said. Previously, the city had made deposits into the affordable housing trust fund as the byproduct of the planned unit development (PUD) process. [Developers had the option of paying into the affordable housing trust fund instead of providing affordable housing units onsite].

Briere didn’t think that mechanism should be restored – because she’d always felt that making affordable housing dependent on bending the zoning rules put an uncomfortable incentive in place. She felt the same way about making the adequate funding of affordable housing dependent on the sale of public land. If the council did not want to sell the land, that shouldn’t mean there’s no money going into the affordable housing trust fund. Briere said she’d rather the council did something honest than doing something “to make us feel good.” She ventured that the council’s upcoming budget retreat would be a good occasion on which to discuss the topic.

Margie Teall felt that the rarity of property sales is a red herring. The idea is to take the opportunity when it’s there to shore up the affordable housing trust fund. A commitment is needed to indicate the community’s values, she said. Given that Smith was asking only for 10%, she couldn’t imagine that there’d be a higher need that would preclude allocating 10% to help people who are homeless.

Smith encouraged other councilmembers to support the amendment, saying that the city needs to find a way to get ahead of the game, instead of always being behind.

John Hieftje said, “I’m wrestling with this.” He appreciated what the budget committee had proposed – because the resolution stressed consideration of all the needs of the city. He didn’t want to mislead people into thinking the council would be bound by the 10% figure. He suggested that instead of naming a percentage, that the phrasing in the resolution about the needs of the city could be modified to say: “including affordable housing.”

Briere suggested that Hieftje’s amendment to Smith’s amendment could be strengthened to read: “especially the need for affordable housing.”

During deliberations on the amendment to the amendment, Teall said she was happy to support what Smith brought forward – because it’s more of a commitment.

Lumm indicated she could live with 10%.

Outcome on amendment to Smith’s amendment: The council voted to consider an amendment that would include the phrase “especially the need for affordable housing,” instead of Smith’s amendment, which explicitly stated allocating 10% for affordable housing. Voting for the elimination of the explicit percentage were Sabra Briere, Tony Derezinski, Margie Teall, Marcia Higgins, Carsten Hohnke and John Hieftje.

Some confusion ensued, because some councilmembers understood the vote on the amendment to Smith’s amendment to bring the discussion back to the main motion, which it did not. So Christopher Taylor pointed out the parliamentary gaffe and the council took a voice vote on the amendment. It passed unanimously, which brought the council back to the main motion.

Smith was content that the conversation has started again about this issue and that the council had spent time at two meetings to discuss the funding of affordable housing. It had fallen off the radar, she said, even though it’s a community value.

Teall added that she’d just then received an email from Nicole Adleman, executive director of the Interfaith Hospitality Network, urging support of funding for affordable housing.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the budget committee’s recommended land sale policy as amended to include the phrase, “especially the need for affordable housing.”

Human Services Coordinated Funding

The council considered a resolution that would continue a coordinated approach to human services for a third year.

The “coordination” referenced in the approach takes place among five local funders in the private and public sectors: Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, United Way of Washtenaw County, the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, and the Washtenaw Urban County.

During a presentation at the city council’s Sept. 17, 2012 meeting, Mary Jo Callan – head of the city/county office of community and economic development – described the purpose of coordinated funding as creating a public/private partnership to focus on key areas and to create increased coherence in investing in nonprofits.

The process has three parts: planning/coordination, program operations, and capacity-building. The city has historically funded program operations – shelters, after-school programs, counseling programs and the like.

The six priority areas targeted by the coordinated funding process, with the lead agencies, are: (1) housing and homelessness – Washtenaw Housing Alliance; (2) aging – Blueprint for Aging; (3) school-aged youth – Washtenaw Alliance for Children and Youth; (4) children birth to six – Success by Six; (5) health – Washtenaw Health Plan; and (6) hunger relief – Food Gatherers.

The total process puts $4.935 million into local human services nonprofits.

The extension of the coordinated funding approach for a third year means that nonprofits receiving funding currently would not need to reapply for support. The item on the council’s Oct. 15 agenda was not a resolution on funding allocation, but rather one that commits to using the same process for distributing funds, once funding decisions are made.

The extension by one year would allow for the evaluation process for the pilot period to finish – which Callan thinks will be done by January and would be available in January and February. It would also allow a better opportunity to provide the outcome data on the program so far.

At her Sept. 17 presentation, Callan counted a number of goals that had been achieved through the coordinated approach: identification of agency capacity concerns; single program description and program budget; reduced number of contracts; no required board resolution; single reporting procedure and timeline; auto-disbursement of payments regardless of funder; grantee feedback mechanism; volunteer reviewer feedback mechanism; and enhanced communication between funders and increased understanding of needs.

At that meeting, she also revealed that a private family foundation donor had expressed interest in making a significant contribution to the program, pending the outcome of a thorough evaluation of the coordinated funding approach. So the extension of the pilot program would allow for the delivery of a report on that evaluation.

Human Services Coordinated Funding: Council Discussion

At the council’s Oct. 15 meeting, Callan reviewed the coordinated funding approach.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) wanted to know what the funding commitments are. Callan explained that the council’s resolution that evening would not be a funding action. It would simply mean that the same process would be used to distribute funds for an additional year. It would essentially mean that no new RFP (request for proposals) will be issued, Callan said.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the extension of the coordinated funding approach to a third year.

Parks Grants

Acceptance of a total of $1 million in parks grant funding was considered by the council. Of that amount, $700,000 was for a skatepark, to be located in the northeast corner of Veterans Memorial Park. The other $300,000 was for renovations to the Gallup Park livery. The grant awards had been previously known.

Sources for the skatepark funding included $400,000 in matching funds from Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation and a $300,000 grant from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund. The city council authorized the application for the MNRTF grant at its March 21, 2011 meeting.

At that same March 2011 meeting, the council authorized applying for $300,000 of MNRTF grant funding for improvements to the city’s Gallup Park livery and entry area. The improvements include: barrier-free parking and docks for kayaks and fishing, trail renovations, livery building upgrades, patio renovations, landscaping, and wayfinding signage.

Outcome: Without significant deliberations, the council approved the receipt of the grants on three separate unanimous votes.

Ann Arbor Greenbelt Acquisitions

The council considered adding two properties totaling 125 acres to Ann Arbor’s greenbelt – land protected by acquisitions through the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage.

The council considered purchase of a vacant parcel adjacent to the Kuebler Langford Nature Area with about 0.91 acres. The fair market value of the land was determined to be $110,000, with the additional $13,000 accounted for through closing costs and due diligence. An environmental site assessment will be completed before closing. [.jpg image of parcel map]

From left: city administrator Steve Powers and Dan Ezekiel, chair of the city’s greenbelt advisory commission.

A second, much larger property totaling around 124 acres was also considered as a greenbelt acquisition through a purchase of development rights – the Donald Drake farm in Lodi Township. The requested expenditure from millage funds amounted to $483,450. Of that amount, $23,867 will go to cover costs related to closing, due diligence and a contribution to the greenbelt endowment. The total purchase price of the land is $549,478, with the city of Ann Arbor’s share supplemented by $109,895 from Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation and $1,000 from Lodi Township.

Part of the Drake property is currently being farmed. The city applied for USDA Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) grant funds in March 2012 to acquire development rights, but did not receive funds for this property. The strategy recommended by the city’s greenbelt advisory commission is to consider the farm as two parts – a northern and southern part. The GAC recommendation was to acquire development rights on the southern portion of the farm now, but to re-apply for FRPP funds in 2013 for the northern part of the farm.

The city’s 30-year 0.5 mill greenbelt tax was established by a voter referendum in 2003 for the purpose of “funding the acquisition of land for parks and the acquisition and management of land and land rights in undeveloped and developed land both within and outside the City of Ann Arbor for the purpose of preserving and protecting open space, natural habitats and the City’s Source-waters.”

Greenbelt: Public Comment

In the course of receiving a mayoral local food day proclamation, Dan Ezekiel – chair of the greenbelt advisory commission (GAC) – noted that the Drake farm is one of the few remaining operating dairies. The county had also come through, and will make a contribution on the purchase, he noted. GAC is doing its best to promote local agriculture, he said.

Greenbelt: Council Deliberations

Regarding the vacant parcel, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) observed that it’s an area adjacent to an interesting park, and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) characterized it as essentially an expansion of a park inside the city.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the acquisition of the parcel next to the Kuebler Langford Nature Area.

About the Drake farm, Lumm complained that while the guidelines for selecting land to protect are based on the leverage of taxpayer dollars, the county’s participation is only 20%. She characterized the county’s contribution as only “token.”

She didn’t think it was an effective leveraging of taxpayer dollars, contending that it’s nowhere near the target of 33%. She contended a higher standard should be applied, to ensure that taxpayer dollars are leveraged effectively.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who serves as the council’s representative to the greenbelt advisory commission, called the Drake farm a “particularly valuable purchase of development rights.” The parcel has unique woodlands, he said, and is one of the few remaining dairy farms. GAC pays attention to the guidelines mentioned by Lumm, he said, and he suggested that it’s useful to look at the program as a whole. Sometimes opportunities come up where there’s a greater amount of leverage, but sometimes it’s not possible.

After some back and forth between mayor John Hieftje, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl, it emerged that the property is split into two halves. The northern half will be targeted for acquisition of development rights next year. Hohnke felt that the leverage will be great on that one.

Lumm first declined Hieftje’s offer for a rollcall vote, but when Briere pointed out that the minutes would not reflect her dissent unless a rollcall were taken, she asked for the call of the roll on the vote.

Outcome: The council approved the acquisition of development rights on the Drake farm, over Lumm’s sole dissent.

Stormwater Study

The council considered a resolution that authorized an agreement with the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner’s office for infrastructure improvements to ameliorate flooding risk in the southwestern part of Ann Arbor. For the study, the resolution authorized the use of $200,000 in city funds already held by the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner’s office.

The area to be studied includes part of the Malletts Creek drainage district, bounded by Ann Arbor-Saline Road, I-94 and Scio Church Road. The area includes the Churchill Downs and Lansdowne sub-creekshed drainage areas. [.jpg of partial area map] Potential improvements include detention, pipe upsizing, and green infrastructure.

A staff memo accompanying the resolution mentions the heavy rains on March 15, 2012, which resulted in street flooding in that part of the city. The city council heard complaints from the public at its meetings after the flooding. A map of historical flooding in the city – obtained by The Chronicle through appeal of an initially denied request made under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act – shows that respondents to a survey conducted in the mid-1990s reported they’d experienced street flooding in the same areas that the flooding occurred earlier this year.

A resolution passed by the council at its Aug. 9, 2012 meeting had directed city staff to start negotiations with the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner to conduct the study.

Outcome: Without significant deliberations, the council unanimously approved the stormwater study.

Citizens United Resolution

The council took a symbolic vote on a call for the U.S. Congress to send a constitutional amendment to the states to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission decision. In broad terms, the court’s 2010 ruling prohibited the government from restricting political campaign spending by corporations and unions.

Citizens United Resolution: Public Comment

Stuart Dowty spoke on behalf of a group of concerned citizens who are worried about money in elections. He figured that most people were familiar with the Citizens United case. He was delighted to see that the item was on the agenda and he thanked the resolution’s sponsors. He anticipated some of the objections that some councilmembers eventually did express, namely that it’s not an issue on which a local city council needs to express a point of view. It’s a national issue and goes to the fundamental issue of democracy in our country, he said.

Is it appropriate for a local body to express a view on this? Dowty asked. Is it a local concern? The answer is a resounding yes, he contended. “It affects you,” Dowty told councilmembers. The ruling in Citizens United affects not just federal and state elections, but also local elections. This fact was made clear in a case that arose in Montana, he said. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned on a 5-4 vote a 100-year-old Montana statute that prohibited corporate contributions directly to candidates. The decision out of Montana made it clear that the Citizen United decision applies to local officers and local office holders, Dowty concluded.

Citizens United Resolution: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she didn’t agree with the Citizens United decision, but observed that it was a U.S. Supreme Court decision. Generally her policy is not to support messages to the U.S. Congress. She didn’t think the city council needs to articulate a position, she said. She felt that weighing in on the topic isn’t a part of her job and ventured that the resolution didn’t have any real impact. So she wouldn’t support it.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that although he would be happy to lend his name to a message of this kind, the resolution went beyond the local sphere.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she didn’t feel that such a resolution was a distraction from the council’s business. The council would stay at the table no matter how long it takes. She followed up with Dowty’s point during public commentary, saying that the Supreme Court decision affects local elections. She didn’t want corporate influence affecting who sits around the table. So she was in support of it.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) indicated he’d support it, though he said “it’s a close one.” As a “thinking community,” he said, he felt Ann Arbor could add a voice to an issue of national importance.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she’d asked herself if there was a local angle. She allowed she’d heard about influence of corporate money on national politics, saying that seemed quite distant from her life. Then she realized that it would be possible for someone with sufficient revenue to fund a PAC (political action committee) in Ann Arbor and attempt to influence the outcome of elections. To Briere, it’s a matter of local equity and national equity. She allowed that the council should talk about things that influence our local life – and she’s convinced the resolution does affect our local lives.

Mayor John Hieftje felt that the council should consider such issues only rarely. He recalled the vote the council took against the war in Iraq, which he felt had an influence on Michigan’s congressional delegation. It behooves the council to take action on this, he said, and it’s not something that can be left to our children.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) agreed that it’s an important issue, but felt that councilmembers have a stronger voice as individuals. She contended that hundreds of emails and phone calls would be more effective. As an individual she does support the resolution, she said.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) assured Higgins that she could still vote for the resolution and support it individually. Teall felt it’s part of her job to take the issue to a broader audience.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) felt that if cities unite, the people will understand what’s at stake.

Outcome: The council passed the Citizens United resolution on a 7-3 vote, over the dissent of Christopher Taylor, Marcia Higgins and Jane Lumm. Stephen Kunselman was absent.

Dissolution of Sign Board of Appeals

The council considered an initial approval for the transfer of responsibilities now performed by Ann Arbor’s sign board of appeals (SBA) to the zoning board of appeals (ZBA). Changes to ordinances, like the one considered in connection with the dissolution of the SBA, require an initial council approval followed by a second approval given at a subsequent meeting.

The move would eliminate the seven-member sign board of appeals, which currently has only three members, according to the city’s online Legistar system. According to a staff memo accompanying the agenda item, during the fiscal year 2012 the SBA heard six appeals and none the previous year. Appeals previously heard by the SBA would now be heard by the ZBA.

One of the advantages cited is that staff support time for the sign board would be eliminated. The dissolution of the SBA has been under discussion since 2008. The city’s planning commission discussed the issue on March 30, 2010, and more recently at its Sept. 6, 2012 meeting, when it recommended the change.

Dissolution of SBA: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked for an explanation of the change. Margie Teall (Ward 4) indicated that in her experience – involving a proposed billboard on Eisenhower – the SBA meets very rarely, so it was difficult to schedule a hearing. City administrator Steve Powers added that the change would streamline the appeal process, and would incorporate signage into the city’s uniform development code as a part of the ZORO (zoning ordinance reorganization) project. It would also make for more efficient use of time by the public and the staff.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) felt like signage issues would come up more frequently in the future. The signs that are allowed at the corner of Madison and South Main, and other areas are starting to look “a bit too ostentatious, to say the least,” he said. Anglin described it as living in “some sort of place where you’re going to maybe get on a ferris wheel.” Before shifting responsibility from the SBA to the ZBA, he felt the city needed to get a clearer idea of what kinds of signs should be allowed. Some communities have very severe restrictions on signage, he said. Advertising is getting more and more ubiquitous, he continued. The values the city holds will be reflected in the signs that are allowed, he said. In his neighborhood, Anglin said, the pizza parlor surprises him with the signs that they use. He didn’t want it to be the case that the city council was approving something just because the planning commission had looked at it and in general he seemed to question the idea that boards and commissions gave matters the kind of independent review they deserved.

Mayor John Hieftje encouraged Anglin to swing back his attention on the resolution. Anglin indicated he felt he was speaking to the fact that the proposal was about transferring decision-making authority from one body to another. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) spoke from her experience having served on the ZBA several years, saying that the ZBA takes cases very seriously. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) indicated that the planning commission’s discussion had been very thorough. The change simplifies government, he said. What Anglin was talking about was the underlying zoning ordinance, Derezinski ventured. He characterized the proposed shift from the SBA to the ZBA as more of an administrative change.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give the dissolution of the SBA its initial approval.

Airport Lease

The council considered a resolution to continue a lease with Solo Aviation Inc. – through at least June 30, 2015 – for office and terminal ramp space at the Ann Arbor municipal airport for aviation business operations. The lease provides for an additional three-year extension.

The terms of the lease stipulate $18.892 per square foot. According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, Solo Aviation is a fixed-based operator offering flight instruction, discovery flights, fueling, aircraft maintenance and service. Solo employs 30 people at the Ann Arbor municipal airport facility.

Outcome: Without discussion, the council unanimously approved the lease with Solo Aviation.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Sidewalk Gaps

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) recalled that there’d been no real consensus on a resolution the council had considered on Sept. 17, 2012 on the topic of filling sidewalk gaps. She’s subsequently heard a lot about people’s desire to come up with a mechanism – not necessarily the funds – to eliminate sidewalk gaps. She’s heard concerns about safety for kids walking to school, the nearest park or the store.

Comm/Comm: North Main Task Force

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) gave a brief report from the North Main corridor task force, which held a public meeting on Oct. 3. She characterized the meeting as well-attended with a nice variety of opinions aired. Another meeting public meeting will take place in November.

Mayor John Hieftje said at the meeting – in the context of Smith’s announcement that she would not be able to attend her final meeting as a councilmember on Nov. 8 – that he would be nominating her to be added to the task force as a citizen member. She currently serves as a representative of the city council.

Comm/Comm: Library Bond

Kathy Griswold, a former member of the Ann Arbor Public Schools board who serves as treasurer of a group called Protect Our Libraries, was there to talk about sustainability. The connection to the council’s agenda was a vote to distribute the city’s draft sustainability goals to surrounding municipalities. [State statute requires that when a city's master plan is revised – in this case to incorporate the sustainability goals – the changes must be distributed to adjoining jurisdictions before the master plan is changed.]

She showed the council a map of the district that the Ann Arbor District Library serves, which coincides nearly exactly with the Ann Arbor Public Schools district. She called the $65 million library bond proposal on Nov. 6 an attempt to bring lots of traffic downtown to park in the parking structure and eat on Main Street. [The 30-year bond would fund construction of a new downtown library at 343 S. Fifth, next to the city's new underground parking structure.] That’s not consistent with sustainability goals, she said. The downtown library building was built and renovated when it was part of the public school system, she said. AAPS had launched a major initiative to bring all its buildings into compliance with the Americans with Disability Act. The AADL could do the same thing without demolishing the downtown building. She questioned whether this is the right time to take on such an enormous financial debt. If AAPS still oversaw the AADL, we wouldn’t be asked to consider a bond to demolish a perfectly good building, Griswold said.

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Carsten Hohnke.

Absent: Stephen Kunselman.

Next council meeting: Thursday, Nov. 8, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. Council meetings are typically held on Mondays, but this meeting is pushed back due to the Nov. 6 general election. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]

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

This year’s DDA board officer elections, held  two months ago at the July 2, 2012 annual meeting, again featured abstention on some votes by board member Newcombe Clark – because the future composition of the board was not yet clear. Hieftje’s custom for many re-appointments to city boards and commissions has been to provide no public indication of his intentions on those nominations.

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

The “resolved” clause, as it currently appears on the agenda, simply records the view that those voting in the affirmative are opposed to such appointments: “RESOLVED, Those council members voting in the affirmative to this resolution oppose Mayoral nominations of City of Ann Arbor employees to office appointments.”

Update: As of Friday, Dec. 16, the resolved clause has been revised to read: “Therefore be it resolved, That Council opposes Mayoral nominations of City of Ann Arbor employees to office appointments.” Sabra Briere (Ward 1)  has also been added as a fourth sponsor.

Reasons cited in the “whereas” clauses include the possible appearance of conflicting interests and commitments, as well as a clause in the city charter that might be construed as limiting the rights of city employees who are appointed to boards or commissions: “The personnel of the City, other than the elective and appointive officers, shall be deemed City employees.” [.pdf of resolution on mayoral nominations of city employees to boards and commissions]

The resolution comes in the context of mayor John Hieftje’s nomination at the council’s last meeting (on Dec. 5, 2011) of a city employee to serve on a board. Hieftje nominated the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, to serve on the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. On confirmation by the city council, Cooper would fill the vacancy on the AATA board left by another city employee, Sue McCormick.

The council will be asked to vote to confirm Cooper’s nomination at its Dec. 19 meeting.

McCormick is leaving her post at the city of Ann Arbor as public services area administrator to take a job as head of the Detroit water and sewerage department. McCormick’s last day on the job is Dec. 16. City administrator Steve Powers announced at the Dec. 5 meeting that the city’s head of systems planning, Craig Hupy, will fill in for McCormick on an interim basis. Powers reported that Hupy had no interest in the permanent position.

Cooper’s city position as transportation program manager falls under the city’s systems planning unit. The council previously appointed Cooper to serve on the AATA board on June 20, 2005. He served through June 2008, and was replaced on the board by current board chair Jesse Bernstein.

When Cooper previously served on the AATA board, along with McCormick, their service prompted an op-ed in The Ann Arbor News criticizing the appointment of city employees to citizen boards. [.pdf of "Let's Stick With Autonomous Appointees for Citizen Boards"]

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who  serves as one of two council representatives to the commission – the other is Margie Teall (Ward 4) – had announced at the council’s previous meeting that he was nominating Hutton to fill Bean’s spot. Hutton is development director at Leslie Science and Nature Center. At that meeting, Hohnke had also announced that there would be another vacancy soon on the EC and that the council was actively soliciting applicants. [Anya Dale's term on the EC ended on Feb. 20, 2011.]

Whereas most nominations to boards and commissions are made by the mayor, then confirmed by the city council, positions on the EC are made by the city council.

This brief was filed from the boardroom in the Washtenaw County administration building, where the council is meeting due to renovations in the city hall building. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Jim Kosteva (left), University of Michigan's director of community relations, and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) peruse the University Record before the meeting. This week's edition of the Record includes an article on the founding of the Peace Corps. On Monday, the council approved a street closing on Oct. 14 in conjunction with the 50th anniversary of the Peace Corps founding. (Photos by the writer.)

First, the council voted to discontinue a pilot program to turn off selected streetlights. The program was designed to save $120,000 for the current fiscal year’s budget [FY 2011]. No additional streetlights will be turned off, and those that were switched off as part of the pilot program will be turned back on.

And the council voted to authorize the issuance of $9 million in general obligation bonds in connection with the parking deck to be built as part of Village Green’s City Apartments project at First and Washington. The bonds could take the form of conventional tax-exempt bonds, or other bonds, depending on which are legally available and most advantageous to the city when they’re issued. The bonds won’t be needed until the construction of Village Green’s project is completed.

In 2008 the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority passed a resolution authorizing that the bond payments be made from revenues generated by the city’s public parking system, which is managed by the DDA. The city council approved an extension to the purchase option agreement for the land at its Aug. 5 meeting.

Two expected votes did not take place. Revisions to the city’s zoning code that would change the specifications for area, height and placement in most zoning districts of the city outside the downtown were postponed at the request of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who said that she had questions she’d been unable to submit in time to get answers.

And in the absence of Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) – who arrived late to the meeting – Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) asked for postponement of a five-year extension of the 2007 consent judgment the city reached with Joseph Freed and Associates LLC, developer of the Glen Ann Place project.

Glen Ann Place was a planned unit development (PUD) approved by the council in July 2005, but that did not win subsequent approval from the city’s historic district commission. Freed then filed suit against the city, the outcome of which was a consent judgment. Per the consent judgment, the height of the building was reduced from 10 to 9 stories. Glen Ann Place is planned to include retail and office uses on its first two floors, with residential on upper stories.

In other business, the council approved a handful of recommendations for liquor licenses, approved a rezoning for the land where the University of Michigan’s new soccer facility has been built, and approved an overhauling of the ordinance that governs how false alarms to fire and police are penalized.

The council also received a variety of updates from staff, including one on the traffic control plan for the East Stadium bridges when they are reconstructed next year, as well as a response from the city’s CFO to recent community discussion of significant unpaid taxes that might be owed to the city.

The city council also accepted a gift on behalf of the city from the Ann Arbor Summer Festival – a giant print of a photograph by Myra Klarman.

Streetlights

Before the council was a resolution to reverse course on a previous decision council made when it approved the budget for the current fiscal year, FY 2011, at its May 17, 2010 meeting. As part of the city administrator’s budget proposal, the city was to begin turning off 17% of the city’s streetlights in areas that by lighting standards were “overlit.” The move was expected to save the city $120,000 a year.

During deliberations back in May on a revision to the budget – to allocate some of the $2 million paid by the DDA to the city to parks mowing – Sandi Smith (Ward 1) saw the issue as one of public safety versus parks maintenance. From The Chronicle’s May 17, 2010 meeting report:

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) was not convinced that mowing and trimming in parks was the best use of the money. She was looking ahead to another amendment that proposed to undo the proposed de-energizing of some streetlights. She said she saw it as a safety versus shagginess-in-the-parks issue.

After the parks mowing amendment was approved over Smith’s dissent, she later proposed an amendment of her own, that would keep all the streetlights on. She got support for the idea from her ward-mate, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), as well as Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2). From The Chronicle’s meeting report:

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) worried about the possibility of de-energizing streetlights. He thought it was perhaps a highway exception to general governmental immunity. Public services area administrator Sue McCormick noted that there was variability in lighting already – some residential areas have no lighting, some of them had lighting just at the street corners. She also noted that the areas where the de-energized lights were proposed were already lighted at twice the standard. Mayor John Hieftje asked if it was possible to get a demo.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he was apprehensive about the designation of certain areas as “overlit.” He indicated that there were certain areas of the city classified as overlit that he did not find to be overlit. Hieftje indicated he would not support the amendment but would support a demonstration. He said he was concerned about the $120,000 that would need to come out of the city’s reserve, if the city did not go through with turning off some of the streetlights.

Outcome: The amendment to keep all the streetlights on failed, with support only from Briere, Derezinski, Kunselman, and Smith.

On Monday night, the resolution to cease the demonstration/pilot program and to turn the lights back on was sponsored by mayor John Hieftje and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). The pilot program had been conducted in the general neighborhood where the two men live, and they’d made a nighttime field trip with neighbors, which Taylor had reported on at the council’s July 19, 2010 meeting:

Communication: Streetlights

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) reported on a field trip at night he’d made with neighbors of the Brockman area to assess the initial result of a city program to deenergize some streetlights in order to save money. The measure was approved as part of the city’s FY 2011 budget, adopted in May 2010, and is expected to save around $120,000. The reaction of neighbors, Taylor said, was uniform: “They did not care for it.”

On Monday night, it was Taylor who introduced the resolution. Kunselman indicated he supported it. He noted that in many neighborhoods, given the large setbacks from the street, and the tree canopy, the porch lights from houses were not adequate illumination for sidewalks. Regarding the residents who complained about the lights being turned off, he said, they had “every right to be discombobulated.”

Mike Anglin asked if it might not be possible to lower the height of the streetlights to gain better illumination under the tree canopy. Hieftje pointed out that many of the lights are owned by DTE and there was considerable expense associated with changing the height of the lights.

Kunselman inquired about a possible city council work session with DTE. In the course of the conversation, Sue McCormick and Andrew Brix, the city’s energy programs manager, clarified that DTE is regulated by the Public Service Commission (PSC) and that DTE proposes rates that must then be approved by the PSC.

By way of background, rates are particularly relevant to streetlights, because they are not metered for actual energy used. Rather, a rate is determined based on the number and kind of lights. With newer, more energy-efficient lighting technologies like LED bulbs, even though less electricity is used by them, there is no cost savings, unless there is a rate established for the bulbs.

Brix explained that in January of 2010, the PSC had required all utilities to file an LED streetlight rate with the commission. From The Chronicle’s background provided in one of the spring budget meeting reports ["Budget Round 4: Lights, Streets, Grass"]:

According to Michigan Public Service Commission spokeswoman Judy Palnau, the MPSC issued an order on Jan. 11, 2010 that required DTE to file an application with MPSC seeking approval of rates on un-metered streetlights that would accommodate newer lighting technologies. The deadline for submission was Feb. 10, 2010. However, the issue of these LED rates is still pending at the MPSC.

At Monday’s meeting, however, Brix said that DTE had not articulated a rate in terms of “here’s your equipment, here’s your cost” but rather had provided a paragraph indicating a willingness to work with customers on installation of alternative lighting technologies.

Brix then described a limited pilot program in which 58 lights had been converted to LED bulbs in cooperation with DTE, where half the cost had been shared by DTE – otherwise, the conversion would not have made sense to the city from the expense side. The area of that 58-light LED pilot, said Brix, was bounded roughly by Hill, Packard, and East University.

Related to a different streetlight project, Brix also confirmed that the city had initially had trouble getting credit for an agreed-upon reduced rate for LED streetlights installed in downtown Ann Arbor. However, he reported that communication was now better and that the city had been back-credited, so the city had been “made whole,” he said.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) noted that there is also an LED streetlight installation in the Glendale area, and that the residents are extremely satisfied. Prompted by Hohnke, Brix confirmed that with LED technology, there is considerable flexibility to choose the spectrum of lighting – the city opts for a rough equivalent of “moonlight” – as well as 0-100% dimming.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) got confirmation that the new streetlights being installed on Stadium Boulevard between Pauline and 7th are owned by the city. She noted that the residents along the corridor had voted for a different lighting intensity to distinguish the residential section from the commercial district.

Bonds for Village Green’s City Apartments

Before the council was a proposal to authorize issuance of $9 million in general obligation bonds in connection with the parking deck to be built as part of Village Green’s City Apartments project at First and Washington.

The bonds could take the form of conventional tax-exempt bonds, conventional taxable bonds, Build America Bonds, Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds and/or Recovery Zone Facility Bonds, depending on which are legally available and most advantageous to the city at the time they are issued.

In 2008 the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority passed a resolution authorizing that the bond payments be made from revenues generated by the city’s public parking system, which is managed by the DDA. The city council approved an extension to the purchase option agreement for the land at its Aug. 5, 2010 meeting.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off deliberations by expressing his concern about what happens to the bond if the deck does not get built. The city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, explained that the payment is not owed until there is a certificate of occupancy issued for the City Apartments project, and thus the bonds would not be issued until the project was substantively complete. Crawford allowed for some flexibility in that respect, if the city saw that it could get a better interest rate by issuing the bonds a few months before the project is actually complete.

Based on the timeline approved by the council in connection with the extension of the purchase option, Crawford said, the project is supposed to be built by around May 2012.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to authorize the issuance of $9 million in bonds.

Glen Ann Place

Before the council was a request to extend for five years the 2007 consent judgment it reached with Joseph Freed and Associates LLC, developer of the Glen Ann Place project. Glen Ann Place was a planned unit development (PUD) approved by the council in July 2005, but that did not win subsequent approval from the city’s historic district commission.

Rendering of Glen Ann Place. The view is from the northeast. The pedestrian bridges cross Glen Avenue. From this angle, Ann Street is on the far side of the building.

Freed then filed suit against the city, the outcome of which was a consent judgment. Per the consent judgment, the height of the building was reduced from 10 to 9 stories.

Glen Ann Place is planned to include retail and office uses on its first two floors, with residential on upper stories. The site plan approvals in the consent judgment are set to expire on Nov. 30, 2010.

Although Freed was requesting a five-year extension, the resolution the council considered was for a two-year extension. The lawsuit will remain settled regardless of what council action is taken. From the staff cover memo:

The consent judgment granted these approvals … with an expiration of November 30, 2010. The petitioner has requested a five year extension due to current economic conditions. Because the approval of this project was a consent judgment, it is within the City Council and HDC’s discretion to grant this approval if they would like to provide an opportunity for this development to be completed. Whether or not this extension is granted, the lawsuit between the two parties will remain settled. Staff supports an extension of two years, consistent with the City’s policy of extending site plans for two year periods.

The resolution considered by the council also explicitly conditioned any extension on approval by the city’s historic district commission.

The council’s deliberations were led off  by Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who had announced during his communications at the previous meeting that the issue would be coming before the council. Derezinski cited the absence of Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) in suggesting a postponement – there would still be time to act before the site plan approvals expired.

The council’s delay, Derezinksi noted, meant that the historic district commission would weigh in first on the extension, at their meeting later in the week.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone consideration of an extension for Glen Ann Place.

Area, Height, Placement (AHP)

The proposed revisions to area, height and placement provisions in the city’s zoning code for most zoning designations outside of the downtown area – a notable exception being the R4C area, which is being studied separately – has a history dating at least to September 2008. At that time, the city council asked the planning commission to seek additional public input before moving ahead with recommended changes.

The general spirit of the changes is intended to achieve a variety of goals consistent with best practice in land use, among them, as specified in the city’s planning staff report:

a) more compact use of land and infrastructure;

b) the preservation of natural systems,

c) accommodating new growth along transit corridors in existing urban areas which have existing infrastructure,

d) locating buildings closer to the right-of-way to promote non-motorized access, and

e) mixed land uses.

The anticipated benefits of the changes include, from the city planning staff report:

1. Business and Job Retention and Expansion – The proposed amendments will allow the expansion of existing employment and retail uses that will encourage businesses to remain and expand in Ann Arbor.
2. Revitalization of older Retail and Employment Centers – Many retail and employment centers in Ann Arbor were built more than 30 years ago and have become dated and underutilized. These proposed amendments will encourage these sites to redevelop and be revitalized.
3. Environmental Benefits – Redeveloping sites will trigger a number of code requirements that will result in substantial environmental gains such as: a) storm water management (buildings constructed prior to 1978 typically do not detain storm water), b) landscaping, which will result in additional open space being provided as well as new trees and shrubs, and c) new energy efficiency standards for new buildings.
4. Improved Non-motorized Access – The revisions will result in new buildings being constructed closer to public streets and sidewalks which will improve access for transit riders, cyclists, and pedestrians, including those with limited access abilities.
5. Improved Efficiency of Land Use, Mass Transit and Infrastructure – The proposed revisions will allow existing non-residential zoning districts to be used more efficiently and compactly. This will better support transit service, encourage development in existing urban areas instead of greenfields (and other sites without access to transit), and use existing infrastructure more efficiently.
6. Enhanced Housing Diversity – By creating a new small lot single-family district (R1E) and encouraging parking to be located under new residential buildings, these proposed amendments will help expand the continuum of housing choices in Ann Arbor.

AHP: Public Hearing

Jim Mogensen recalled following the issue from the time it emerged from the planning commission’s ordinance review committee. The original proposal, he said, had included no height limits and the city council had caught that fact and sent it back for further public process.

Mogensen encouraged the council to reflect on situations – like the shopping center across from Arborland – that are planning a makeover, but not redevelopment with new construction. Would the new AHP provisions apply? he wondered. He observed that the basic challenge for that shopping center is that it’s “on the wrong side of the street.” In general, he cautioned, there could be cases where an owner had enough capital for a makeover, but not enough to redevelop. The council should think that through, he said.

AHP: Council Deliberations

The council deferred to a request from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) to postpone action for two weeks. She indicated that she had questions about the changes that she had not been able to submit to city staff.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the vote on AHP zoning changes.

Liquor

The council considered recommendations to the state to grant liquor licenses of two types: a micro brewer liquor license for Wolverine State Brewing Company at 2019 W. Stadium Blvd.; and a downtown development district liquor license to Mehak Indian Cuisine at 212 E. Washington.

Before the council were also two ownership transfers of liquor licenses – to Rush Street, at 314 S. Main St., and to Sava’s Cafe at 214 S. State St.

The limited deliberations came from two members of the liquor license review committee, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who noted that the downtown development district license recommended for Mehak was a good sign – investors see downtown Ann Arbor as an opportunity. Derezinski said it would add to the variety of food and social life downtown.

Outcome: The council supported the requests and applications for all four liquor-related agenda items.

Alarms

Before the council was a wholesale repeal and replacement of the ordinance that regulates how false alarms to police and fire are handled when those false alarms are caused by automatic alarm systems. The city itself is moving to an automated system for enforcement and billing of false alarm fees – EnablePoint, which is supposed to reduce city staff time required to track and prepare false alarm billings. The false alarm tracking software will integrate with the recently implemented New World Financial System.

Separately, the council considered a new fee structure for false alarms. Under the new ordinance and fee schedule, registration would be required for fire alarm systems, and the “free” first-time offense is to be eliminated. False alarms from non-registered locations are assessed the registration fee plus the standard fine.

False Alarms Response Fee Schedule (Police and Fire Alarms)

                                   Current     Proposed

POLICE
Annual Alarm System Registration    $37         $ 37
False Alarm Response                $82         $ 82
1st False Alarm Response for
Non-Registered Location             $82         $119

FIRE
Annual Alarm System Registration    none        $ 37
1st False Alarm Response            none        $250
2nd False Alarm Response            $120        $250
3rd and Subsequent Response         $360        $250
1st False Alarm Response for
Non-Registered Location             none        $287

as-

Alarms: Public Hearing

Jim Mogensen suggested that the council be aware that after-hours cleaning services can sometimes trip alarms and that they need to make sure this phenomenon is taken into account.

Alarms: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) expressed some concern on behalf of a resident who had contacted her about the ordinance change. He was worried that a false alarm triggered while he was out of town had previously cost him around $90, but the new arrangement seemed like it could cost him as much as $500.

City fire safety staff explained that there is an appeals process similar to the one used for traffic tickets. By way of background, the $500 figure is not related to the false alarm fee schedule, but rather to violations of the ordinance itself. For example, the new ordinance specifies that alarm companies cannot represent that their equipment has been tested or approved by the city of Ann Arbor:

3. No Person engaged in the business of installing, leasing, maintaining, repairing, replacing or servicing Alarm Systems shall: a. represent to anyone that any of the equipment they sell or service has been tested or in any way approved by the City of Ann Arbor. b. install an Alarm System unless a valid permit is in effect. c. obtain all permits, licenses and inspections required and comply with all applicable statutes, ordinances and regulations.

If an alarm company were to claim the city of Ann Arbor had approved their system, then that company would be guilty of an infraction that could be cited and fined for $500. The schedule of false alarm response fees will no longer be graduated. But for frequent false alarms from one location, the new ordinance provides a mechanism for the city to enforce disconnection of that alarm service.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the false alarm ordinance and fee schedule change.

UM Soccer Facility

On the council’s agenda was an item that dealt with annexation of property to the city of Ann Arbor from Pittsfield Township and the zoning of the parcel as public land (PL). The property, owned by the University of Michigan, is located on the east side of South Main Street, south of Ann Arbor Saline Road. The university uses the land for a soccer facility and recently completed the construction of a new soccer stadium. The point of the annexation is to allow the university to hook up water and sewer facilities for restrooms in the new stadium. Fees associated with the hookup include: $37,389 water improvement charge, $97,740 sewer improvement charge, and $14,000 local public improvement charge for storm sewer.

The city’s planning staff and planning commission recommended approval of the rezoning in December 2009, and in the interim, the university has completed construction of the facility.

Soccer: Public Hearing

During the public hearing on the rezoning of the land where the soccer stadium is located, only one person spoke – Jim Mogensen. He characterized it as a “missed opportunity” because the facility is already built. He noted that the planning commission had denied a special use exemption by Arbor Dog Daycare due to noise complaints, and suggested that the same principle could be applicable to the UM soccer stadium. [Chronicle coverage: "Expansion of Arbor Dog Daycare Denied"] The fact that UM was not applying for a special use exemption and was just now bringing the rezoning to the council after the facility was built was characterized by Mogensen as “institutional narcissism.”

Mogensen noted that there are more and more clear commercial enterprises on the university campus. As the university grows, he said, it puts more strain on infrastructure to support it, without a corresponding contribution in property taxes. He encouraged the council to think through what happens when commercial activities take place on public property. He encouraged the council to postpone the rezoning – the facility had already been built. It was worth taking the time to think through the issues, he said.

Soccer: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated her dismay that the facility had already been built before the council rezoned the property. She said that in the future, she hoped the university would “jump through the hoops in the right direction.”

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the rezoning of the university’s land to PL (public land), with the newly constructed soccer stadium, which has been annexed into the city.

Peace Corps

Before the council was a street closing – State Street, from South University to East William – in connection with the 50th anniversary celebration of the founding of the Peace Corps. There will be two events on Oct. 14, 2010, one of them in the wee hours of the morning, to mark the exact anniversary of the 2 a.m. speech by John F. Kennedy from the steps of the Michigan Union. The later event, at 11 a.m. will include as guest speakers  Sen. Harris Wofford, Jack Hood Vaughn, Aaron Williams, Julia Darlow, Mary Sue Coleman and Jennifer Granholm.

The University Record provides additional background: “The Peace Corps: It all started here.”

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the street closing.

Nominations

The council received several nominations for appointments to boards and commissions that will be voted on by the council at their Oct. 18 meeting. Two of note were Malverne Winborne, to fill a vacancy on the Ann Arbor public art commission (AAPAC), and Tim Hull to fill a spot on the taxicab board.

For background on AAPAC’s own efforts to identify a new member, see “Ann Arbor art commission also seeks two new members.”

Hull has addressed the council during public commentary in recent months on the topic of holding the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority more accountable, and he did that on Monday night as well. He also thanked the mayor for the nomination to the taxicab board.

Tax “Loophole”

Margie Teall (Ward 4), during her communications time, asked the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, about an issue that had been raised at a recent candidate forum by independent candidate Newcombe Clark, who along with Republican John Floyd is contesting the Ward 5 city council seat currently held by Democrat Carsten Hohnke.

Tax Issue: Background

The kind of “tax loophole” in question relates to real estate transactions involving companies that own companies, which in turn own real property – where the transaction itself is not directly about the real property, but which has the end effect of transferring the ownership of that property.

In a court case from 2006, Signature Villas v. City of Ann Arbor, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that in a transaction involving ownership of a company that, in turn, owns real property, the transaction meets the state statutes definition of a “transfer of ownership.”

From the court’s opinion [emphasis original]:

Petitioner asserts that § 27a(6)(h) only applies to the conveyance of ownership interests in legal entities that own property, and does not apply to the conveyance of the ownership of a company that owns a company that owns property. We disagree.

Whether a transfer of ownership has taken place is important, because when a transfer takes place, the effect of Proposal A [passed in 1994] – which limits the rate at which taxes on a property can increase – is undone. From previous Chronicle coverage on tax issues:

When a property is purchased, the taxable value is reset to be equal to assessed value. And the assessed value is an amount set at roughly 50% of market value. But in years subsequent to that purchase, the assessed value of the property will increase or decrease, depending on overall market conditions.

If the market goes up after the purchase, then the assessed value goes up, and intuitively, taxes paid on the property (that is, the taxable value) should increase, and they do. But Proposal A puts a cap on how fast the taxable value can increase. That cap is 5% or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower.

Suppose you buy a home for $200,000. If you’re paying the “right” price, based on the assessor’s assumptions, then the assessed value and the taxable value would be $100,000. Further, suppose that the following year, the properties in your neighborhood appreciate by 10%, putting the assessed value at $110,000. And suppose that inflation for that period is right at 5%. The difference between the 10% appreciation and the 5% overall inflation means that for that year the taxable value can’t increase to match the assessed value . Due to Proposal A, the maximum taxable value for the property would be $105,000. On that scenario, the property would have an assessed value of $110,000 and a taxable value of only $105,000.

If a property’s assessed value is currently greater than its taxable value, then a transaction involving that property will reset the taxable value at an amount greater than its current taxable value – so there’s an advantage to the purchaser if that transaction could be analyzed as not an actual transfer of ownership. That’s the kind of analysis the Court of Appeals ruled against in 2006.

For the city of Ann Arbor, then, the question is: How realistic is this idea that there could be $4.5 million in additional property taxes that are currently not being paid, because there were transactions since 2006 that were not property analyzed and reported as transfers of ownership?

Tax Issue: City Staff Response

In response to Teall, Crawford allowed that on occasion, that kind of transaction could take place, but that the city was not aware of any specific instances – the city would address any such cases, he said. He invited the city attorney to weigh in on the issue. City attorney Stephen Postema characterized the recent community conversation on the topic as treating the subject as if it were surprising or new. In fact, he said, it was the city of Ann Arbor that had established the legal precedent that governs such transactions, so of course the city is aware of the issue.

Teall asked if the city was on the lookout for subsequent transactions – Postema and Crawford confirmed that they were. Crawford noted that the issue applies statewide and that the city had a number of “clever ways” of monitoring all commercial real estate transactions – he expressed reluctance at revealing publicly what those ways are. However, he assured Teall that the city does ongoing due diligence on such transactions. Crawford noted that in cases where property owners are identified as being in violation, they must make historical repayment with interest and penalties.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) inquired whether the city might be able to encourage compliance by looking at the possibility of a “tax amnesty.” Crawford replied that this was not an option for a local municipality – the city could not waive the penalties or interest, either.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know if the Glen Ann Place property – considered but postponed that evening – had changed ownership and could possibly fit the category of properties that needed to have a transfer of ownership recorded. Crawford told Kunselman he would need to check.

Summer Festival Gift

Making a presentation to the city on behalf of the Ann Arbor Summer Festival were AASF board members Jim Kosteva and Jayne Miller, and festival director Robb Woulfe.

(From left to right): Robb Woulfe, director of the Ann Arbor Summer Festival; mayor John Hieftje; Jayne Miller and Jim Kosteva, members of the Summer Festival board.

Kosteva is the University of Michigan director of community relations, while Miller was, until earlier this year, community services area administrator for the city.

Their presentation to the city was a large print of a photograph taken by Myra Klarman, who is the festival’s photographer. Woulfe thanked the council for their past support, noting that typically the Summer Festival appeared before the council to ask for money or to relax wage requirements, but on this occasion they wanted to make a gift to the city.

He said he hoped the city would find a place to hang Klarman’s print. [For some background on Summer Festival funding and wages: "Living Wage: Insourcing City Temps"]

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: East Stadium Bridges Traffic Control

Sue McCormick, the city’s public services area administrator, briefed the council on the traffic control plan for the start of construction on the East Stadium bridge replacement, now scheduled to start in the summer of 2011. There will be an east-west detour for Stadium Boulevard traffic, she explained, that will route traffic via South Main, Eisenhower, and South Industrial. The north-south detour for State Street – which leads under the bridge – will take traffic via Packard and Stimpson. McCormick pointed out that this is effectively the same traffic control plan that the city had used in November 2009, when five beams of the bridge were removed. That plan had included input from the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority and the Ann Arbor Public Schools, she said.

McCormick advised the council that the city would approach the community again 4-5 months before the start of construction for additional input and education about the planned detours. She also noted that in November there would be a “traffic summit” with the Washtenaw County Road Commission and the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, which would be an opportunity to look at the range of other road construction projects planned for the same period. That would allow the city to coordinate and modify the East Stadium traffic control plan, she said. She noted that the plan could be different, depending on whether construction starts before or after schools end their spring session.

McCormick advised the council that based on the experience in November, there could be up to a 40% reduction in traffic volume along the corridor, which would mean that the detour routes would carry 60% of the traffic that would ordinarily travel unimpeded along Stadium and State streets. That’s because driver awareness of the situation would lead people to find other ways without using the detour.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked that the city take a look at pedestrian traffic and how people might get from Burns Park to Pioneer on foot during the construction period.

Comm/Comm: Commuter Rail Excursion Service

Mayor John Hieftje reported that he’d attended another meeting attended also by the mayor of Dearborn about the Ann Arbor to Detroit commuter rail project. Hieftje expressed his optimism about the project eventually becoming a reality, based on the amount of money the federal government is investing in rail transportation through the ARRA stimulus program. At SEMCOG’s Oct. 28 meeting – to be held at 4:30 p.m. at the Henry Ford, Hieftje announced, the refurbished railcars to be used for the service will be on display. They’re double-decker stainless steel cars.

An excursion service would be offered to Detroit’s Thanksgiving Day parade, as well as to the Big Chill, a hockey game at Michigan Stadium between the University of Michigan and Michigan State University, scheduled for Dec. 11. Hieftje also mentioned the possibility of excursion trains scheduled for the Ann Arbor art fairs. He cautioned, though, that there would not suddenly be commuter rail service – it would be built layer by layer.

Comm/Comm: Fuller Road Station

Two people addressed the city council during public commentary reserved time on the subject of Fuller Road Station, a proposed parking deck to be built in partnership with the University of Michigan on land designated as city parkland.

Nancy Shiffler noted that the city’s planning commission had recommended approval of the project’s site plan at its Sept. 21, 2010 meeting. She felt the commission had not considered the precedent it would set for use of park land without the consent of voters. She alluded to the history of the parcel in question, which she contended was purchased with taxpayer money and federal help and was designated as a wildlife habitat. She also characterized the project as bad transportation planning, saying that a parking deck is counter to a goal of mass transit. She also contended that the planning commission had not appropriately applied private development standards, and called the citizen input activities in connection with the project “bait and switch.”

Gwen Nystuen, who serves on the city’s park advisory commission, noted that the city council would likely be voting on the site plan at its next meeting. She said there are questions about used of dedicated park land for a transportation use. She urged the council to take additional time to consider the proposal, saying that Ann Arbor currently has more time than money, so it makes sense to spend some time. [Coverage of park advisory commission discussions on Fuller Road Station: "PAC Softens Stance on Fuller Road Station"]

Comm/Comm: City-DDA Parking Agreement

Fuller Road Station is a topic that has arisen as a tangential topic in the context of ongoing negotiations between the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the city of Ann Arbor on the parking agreement that governs how the DDA manages the city’s parking system. The question has arisen as to whether the Fuller Road deck would fall under any new re-negotiated agreement.

At Monday’s council meeting, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) who serves on the council’s committee that is engaged in the negotiations, gave an update on their status. He said the conversations have moved away from the idea of the DDA taking responsibility for enforcement of parking regulations to focus on reworking the language of the existing agreement and the idea that the DDA would become the implementation engine for development of city-owned surface parking lots in the downtown. He alerted his colleagues to the likelihood of a city council work session when the DDA would present their concept for implementation of DDA-led development.

Comm/Comm: Housing Commission

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who is the city council’s liaison to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, reported on a useful field trip the commission had made to Grand Rapids to look at the diversity of options that Grand Rapids had achieved.

Comm/Comm: Single-Stream Recycling

Two organizations, independently of each other, in their remarks before the council expressed appreciation to the city for implementation of the single-stream recycling system.

For the Inter-Cooperative Council, general manager Eric Lipson and president Jeremiah Devlin-Ruelle were on hand to receive a mayoral proclamation declaring October Co-op Month in Ann Arbor. Devlin-Ruelle cited the single-stream system as providing a way for the cooperative housing organization to do a lot more recycling. He also praised the council for passing the recent ban on porch couches, saying it would make Ann Arbor safer.

During public commentary, Ken Wilson, pastor of Vineyard Church, read forth a resolution, signed by 539 people from his congregation, that expressed appreciation for the council’s service to the community, and highlighted the city’s implementation of single-stream recycling as a specific example.

Comm/Comm: NAP Volunteer

Denise Held was honored for her work as a volunteer in the city’s adopt-a-park program. The city council recognizes the efforts of a park volunteer once a month, typically at the first of its two monthly meetings. Held expressed her thanks to Sue McCormick, the city’s public services area administrator, for creating Brookside Park in the first place.

Comm/Comm: Community Policing

Jim Mogensen addressed the council on the topic of community policing and the homeless population. The overall context for his remarks is a recently re-constituted task force to look at panhandling in the downtown area. The council approved on Monday night the appointment of two additional members to that task force – Peter Ludt to represent the State Street merchants, and Mary Campbell to represent the Kerrytown merchants.

Mogensen related two anecdotes based on his experience 20 years ago in Silver Springs, Maryland. One involved a building where people had been living as squatters. The building’s owner boarded up the building to prevent people from occupying it. When asked how the people had reacted to having access to their temporary quarters blocked, his response was “What people?” Several people were then discovered inside, still alive but hungry and dehydrated.

The second anecdote involved a woman who called police about people hanging out on the street corner in view of her apartment window – doing drugs, having sex and the like. On investigation, the police determined that the people in question were simply waiting for the bus. When the calls persisted from the woman, the solution that was found was to move the bus stop a few yards down the road, so that bus riders waiting for the bus were no longer in the woman’s view.

Mogensen offered those two anecdotes as illustrations that the solutions to problems don’t always recognize what the actual problem is. As the city considers how to deal with panhandlers, he cautioned, he asked councilmembers to reflect on the fact that we recognize the interest that food cart vendors have in having access to the pedestrian flow. In the same way, panhandlers have an interest and a stake in having access to the pedestrian flow – something we should be mindful of, he said.

Comm/Comm: Integrated Funding

Lily Au addressed the council on the topic of the coordination of nonprofit funding with the city, the county and the Urban County, which is now proposed to include United Way and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. [For Chronicle coverage of a recent meeting of the Urban County executive committee, which discussed the topic: "Coordinated Funding for Nonprofits Planned"] Votes by the Urban County, the county’s board of commissioners and the Ann Arbor city council will be coming up in late October and early November.

Lily Au makes her point with toy boats.

Using toy boats as props, Au warned that the consolidation meant that a big boat was being built. But the problem with a big boat is that it can’t reach a small stream.

She questioned whether the consolidation would actually save money, pointing to the administrative overhead cost that would be incurred – in addition to the administrative overhead of the United Way and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. Au also asked who would be responsible for overseeing how the money is spent in the consolidated approach, once the money is allocated.

Comm/Comm: Zoning Reform

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a Washtenaw County Democrat with Christian values. He called on the city council to unite the city, the county, and the state and give inspiration to the entire nation by establishing zoning regulations in support of affordable housing. He called for the election of Democrat Virg Bernero as Michigan’s next governor.

Present: Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Carsten Hohnke.

Absent: Stephen Rapundalo [arrived towards the end of the meeting], Sandi Smith.

Next council meeting: Oct. 18, 2010 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]