The council’s first regular meeting in September was shifted from Monday to Tuesday in order to accommodate the Labor Day holiday.

The sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber includes Braille.

The Sept. 2 agenda is relatively light and is dominated by land use and development issues, several of them related to the Ann Arbor housing commission’s (AAHC) extensive plan to renovate many of its existing properties.

In other significant business, the council will consider giving direction to the city administrator to negotiate operating agreements with transportation networking companies like Uber and Lyft.

And the council will consider authorizing up to a 15-year extension of the local development finance authority (LDFA), based on collaborating with a satellite arrangement in Adrian and Tecumseh.

Separate from site plan and zoning issues associated with the AAHC’s renovations, the council will also consider transferring $729,879 from the affordable housing trust fund to the Ann Arbor housing commission. The fund transfer would support the “West Arbor” portion of the renovation plan. That would leave a $850,920 balance in the trust fund. The trust fund’s current balance stems largely from the council’s decision late last year – on Dec. 16, 2013 – to deposit into the trust fund the net proceeds of the sale of the former Y lot.

Two projects associated with the West Arbor part of the AAHC plan appear on the council’s Sept. 2 agenda. First, the council will consider initial approval of rezoning for the 3451 Platt Road property – from R1C (single-family dwelling district) and R2A (two-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). That was forwarded to the council with a recommendation of approval from the planning commission. However, commissioners postponed consideration of the site plan for the five-building, 32-unit project, amid concerns about the site’s location in the floodplain and stormwater management. The site plan may be able to “catch up” to the zoning approval – because the council will need to give the rezoning a second and final approval at a meeting following the Sept. 2 session.

Second, the North Maple Estates site plan, which requires just one council vote, will be considered on Sept. 2. The rezoning required for the AAHC project – a 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road – has already been given final approval by the city council, at its Aug. 18, 2014 meeting. The zoning was changed from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site plan, which was shifted to the Sept. 2 agenda, calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms.

A non-AAHC land development item on the council’s Sept. 2 agenda is final approval of the rezoning of property necessary for an expansion of the Gift of Life Michigan facility on Research Park Drive. The rezoning would change 6.55 acres from O (office district) and RE (research district) to ORL (office/research/limited industrial district). The site plan, which also appears on the Sept. 2 agenda, calls for building a three-story, 40,786-square-foot addition to connect two existing buildings at 3161 and 3169 Research Park Drive, which are owned and occupied by the nonprofit.

Even though the council rejected one proposed change to its taxicab ordinance at its Aug. 18 meeting – which would have regulated all drivers for hire in the city – initial approval was given to another change in the part of the ordinance that regulates rates. So the council will be giving final consideration to that change on Sept 2. The change would establish certain parameters to mitigate possible negative consequences to the setting of a very high maximum allowable taxicab rate, under which taxicab companies might eventually compete. Those parameters include a requirement that a taxicab company commit to a single rate annually and that the rate be advertised in a vehicle with signage in letters one-inch tall.

As an alternative to requiring all drivers for hire to be registered with the city and to affix commercial plates to their vehicles, the council will consider whether to establish operating agreements with companies like Uber and Lyft. The council’s Sept. 2 agenda includes a resolution that would direct the city administrator to negotiate operating agreements with transportation network companies (TNCs) in lieu of developing a local law. The resolution does not define in specific terms what a TNC is.

In other business on Sept. 2, the council will consider a large contract with Ultimate Software Group, worth $250,000 for payroll software to cover the period as the city transitions to NuView, a different software system. Another large contract to be considered by the council on Sept. 2 is with Northwest Consultants Inc. for $930,822 – to do design work for the Stadium Boulevard reconstruction project from Kipke Drive to Hutchins.

A smaller contract to be considered by the council, as part of the consent agenda, is with Hinshon Environmental Consulting Inc. for additional facilitation services for the technical oversight and advisory group (TOAG). That group is overseeing and coordinating multiple wet weather-related projects in the city. The $10,000 contract amendment would bring the total contract value to $35,000.

The council will also consider the confirmation of several nominations to boards and commissions, including a reappointment of John Splitt to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. It would be Splitt’s third four-year term on the board.

This article includes more detailed information about many of these agenda items. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Tuesday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network starting at 7 p.m.

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

Affordable Housing Fund Transfer

The council will be considering a $729,879 transfer from the affordable housing trust fund to the Ann Arbor housing commission to support the “West Arbor” portion of the AAHC’s renovation plan. That would leave a $850,920 balance in the trust fund. The trust fund’s current balance stems largely from the council’s decision late last year – on Dec. 16, 2013 – to deposit the net proceeds of the sale of the former Y lot into the trust fund.

By way of background, in 2012 the city was accepted into a new rental assistance demonstration program, known as RAD, offered by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The program allows residents in selected housing units to receive rental assistance through long-term Section 8 subsidy vouchers that are tied to the buildings, rather than individuals. The RAD program also enables entities like the AAHC to partner with private-sector developers on housing projects – something the AAHC couldn’t previously do. The Ann Arbor city council gave necessary approvals in connection with the RAD program at its June 3, 2013 meeting. Financing for the RAD program is primarily through low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC).

According to the memo accompanying this item, out of the $16,564,370 project budget for West Arbor, low-income housing tax credits and permanent debt are expected to cover $14,091,491. That leaves a gap of $1,472,879. The AAHC has secured $50,000 from Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) and $293,000 from a Community Challenge Planning Grant. So the AAHC has requested up to $729,879 in capital funding support from the Ann Arbor housing trust fund for the West Arbor portion of the RAD conversion.

A project included in West Arbor is the Lower Platt Road project, which will entail demolishing four 5-bedroom units – because of their current placement in the floodplain – and constructing 32 townhomes and a community center. A second project included in West Arbor is North Maple Estates, which currently offers 19 units. All those units would be demolished and replaced with 42 townhomes.

The final component of West Arbor is the renovation of the four 3-bedroom units known as the North Maple Duplexes.

AAHC: 3451 Platt Road Rezoning

The council will give initial consideration to the rezoning that’s necessary for the Lower Platt portion of West Arbor: from R1C (single-family dwelling district) and R2A (two-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district).

The planning commission sent the rezoning request for the 3451 Platt Road property to the city council with a recommendation of approval – in a vote taken at its Aug. 6, 2014 meeting. However, commissioners postponed consideration of the site plan for the five-building, 32-unit project, amid concerns about the site’s location in the floodplain and stormwater management. The postponement is supposed to allow time to address staff concerns regarding the impact on natural features.

Zoning and site plan approval must ultimately be given by the city council. However, the zoning approval will require two votes by the council at two separate meetings – because changes to the zoning code are actually changes to a city ordinance. So the site plan’s delay would not necessarily delay the project, as long as the site plan is put in front of the council for consideration by the time the council takes a second vote on the rezoning.

The site includes a property currently owned by AAHC, as well as an adjacent parcel that’s being purchased by the city on behalf of AAHC.

The project calls for demolishing four single-family homes and one two-family building, and constructing a 32-unit apartment complex with five buildings, 61 parking spaces, a playground, and a community building. The new apartments will include: 8 one-bedroom units; 12 two-bedroom units; 6 three-bedroom units; 2 four-bedroom units; and 4 five-bedroom units.

Two of the proposed buildings would be in the floodplain, which raised concerns from city staff. The AAHC is working to address those concerns – possibly by eliminating or reducing the number of buildings in the floodplain. It had been expected that the AAHC could address the issues raised by city staff so that the site plan could return to the planning commission at its Aug. 19 meeting – but that didn’t happen. Nor is it on the planning commission’s Sept. 3 agenda. [.pdf of planning staff report] [.pdf of June 28, 2014 citizen participation meeting report]

This project is part of major renovations and improvements the AAHC is making to its low-income housing inventory. For background on the AAHC process of renovating its properties, see Chronicle coverage: “Public Housing Conversion Takes Next Step.”

The AAHC Platt Road project is different from a Washtenaw County-owned property at 2260 and 2270 Platt Road, the former location of the county’s juvenile center. That site is also being considered for affordable housing.

North Maple Estates

The council will consider the site plan for North Maple Estates on Sept. 2. This Ann Arbor housing commission project calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms.

Aerial view of North Maple Estates site, outlined in green.

The rezoning of the 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road already has been given final approval by the city council at its Aug. 18, 2014 meeting. The zoning was changed from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district).

The Ann Arbor planning commission had recommended the zoning and site plan for approval at its meeting on June 17, 2014. The council gave initial approval of the rezoning at its July 7, 2014 meeting.

The project is another part of the major renovation effort being undertaken by AAHC on several of its properties. The site is on the west side of North Maple, between Dexter Avenue and Hollywood Drive. [.pdf of staff report]

The units in the eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex are proposed to have a total of 138 bedrooms. The units range in size from one bedroom to five bedrooms.

The project will include a playground, community building and 73 parking spaces. According to a staff memo, the buildings will be located along a T-shaped driveway that connects to North Maple Road and Dexter Avenue. The drive extends northward toward Vine Court but does not connect with that street. There would be a new connection to Dexter Avenue through the remaining, undeveloped length of Seybold Drive.

Gift of Life Expansion

At its Sept. 2 meeting, the council will consider giving final approval to the rezoning of property necessary for an expansion of the Gift of Life Michigan facility on Research Park Drive. The rezoning would change 6.55 acres from O (office district) and RE (research district) to ORL (office/research/limited industrial district). At the same meeting, the council will also consider the site plan for the project.

Aerial view of Gift of Life Michigan site.

The proposal calls for building a three-story, 40,786-square-foot addition to connect two existing buildings at 3161 and 3169 Research Park Drive, which are owned and occupied by the nonprofit. According to a staff report, the additional space will accommodate offices, a special events auditorium and “organ procurement suites.” The nonprofit’s website states that the Gift of Life is Michigan’s only federally designated organ and tissue recovery program. Cost of the expansion project will be $10.5 million.

The city planning commission recommended approval of the rezoning at its July 1, 2014 meeting. City council action to give initial approval of the site plan came at its meeting on Aug. 7.

The project would reduce the four existing curb cuts to Research Park Drive to three, connecting one of the loop driveways to an existing driveway at the east end of the site. A parking lot at the back of the site will be expanded by 38 parking spaces. Two alternate vehicle fueling stations are proposed in parking spaces near the main entry, with the driveway at the center of the site providing access for ambulances. A new shipping and receiving facility will be located on the northeast corner of the site.

Taxicab Meter Rates

Even though the council rejected one proposed change to its taxicab ordinance at its Aug. 18, 2014 meeting – which would have regulated all drivers for hire in the city – initial approval was given to another change in the part of the ordinance that regulates rates. So the council will be giving final consideration to that change on Sept 2.

The change would establish certain parameters to mitigate possible negative consequences to the setting of a very high maximum allowable taxicab rate, under which taxicab companies might eventually compete. Those parameters include a requirement that a taxicab company commit to a single rate annually and that the rate be advertised in a vehicle with signage in letters one-inch tall.

The vote by the taxicab board to recommend the ordinance change came at its July 24, 2014 meeting.

These issues were also discussed at three monthly meetings of the taxicab board prior to that, on April 23, 2014, May 22, 2014 and June 26, 2014. Representatives of the taxicab industry at those meetings advocated for the establishment of a very high maximum – not tied to gas and insurance prices. They feel it’s one mechanism that would allow them to compete with ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft.

The proposal to regulate all drivers for hire, which the council rejected, was also intended in part to allow taxicab companies to compete with Uber and Lyft on an even playing field. Taxicab drivers are already regulated by the city.

Regarding fare regulation, the city’s current structure already allows for establishing a maximum rate to be adopted by the city council. Currently the maximum rate in Ann Arbor is $3 to get in, $2.50 per mile, and 40 cents per minute waiting time. Those maximum rates were last adjusted upwards three years ago, on May 16, 2011, in response to gas prices that had nudged past $4 per gallon. At that time, the taxicab board indicated it did not anticipate considering another rate change until the gas prices were over $5 for at least two consecutive months.

So the taxicab board’s thinking is not being driven by gas prices, which are currently between $3.75 and $4 in the Ann Arbor area. Instead, a possible increase in allowable fares is based on concern that the taxicab industry in Ann Arbor might not be able to survive unless taxis are allowed to charge more.

At its Aug. 28, 2014 meeting, taxicab board members recommended the following maximum rate schedule for eventual consideration by the council, which could appear on the council’s agenda as soon as Sept. 15: $10 to get in, $5 per mile and 40 cents per minute waiting time. In addition, a $1 surcharge could be applied for each passenger over three passengers.

At the council’s Aug. 18 meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) – who also serves as the city council’s representative to the taxicab board – asked rhetorically if the taxicab board should be disbanded. At its Aug. 28 meeting, taxicab board chair Michael Benson announced that he’d received an email from board member Eric Sturgis, who indicated that he would be resigning from the board – because he’s moving to Jackson, Mich. It has historically been difficult to find residents willing to serve on the taxicab board.

Drivers for Hire: Uber/Lyft Operating Agreement

The ordinance change rejected by the council on Aug. 18, 2014 would have required all drivers for hire to be registered with the city, to have commercial plates on their vehicles, and to maintain insurance commensurate with commercial plates. And the absence of commercial plates on a vehicle that’s observed being used for picking up or dropping off passengers would have provided a reason for a traffic stop by Ann Arbor police. At the taxicab board meetings over the last few months, representatives of the taxicab industry argued that the state statute regulating limousines already gives the city the ability to enforce against Uber and Lyft drivers.

At the taxicab board’s Aug. 28 meeting, representatives of the taxicab industry lamented the fact that they had not attended the council’s Aug. 18 meeting to advocate for regulating all drivers for hire through a city ordinance. Representatives of Uber and Lyft numbered over 50 people at the council meeting, some of whom addressed the council during public commentary time.

Ward 3 city councilmember and taxicab board member Stephen Kunselman indicated at the board’s Aug. 28 meeting that there might be a possibility that one of the five councilmembers who voted against the ordinance at first reading on Aug. 18 might bring it back for reconsideration.

The 5-5 vote totaling 10 on the 11-member body stemmed from the absence of Margie Teall (Ward 4). Voting for the regulation of all drivers for hire were Kunselman, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Voting against the change were mayor John Hieftje, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

At the council’s Aug. 18 meeting, during deliberations on the rejected ordinance change, Briere indicated that she’d concluded as early as April of this year that an operating agreement – instead of a local ordinance – would be the right approach. Taylor indicated he had been working with Briere to come up with that kind of approach.

The resolution to be considered by the council on Sept. 2 would direct the city administrator to negotiate an operating agreement with established transportation network companies (TNCs) and to bring an agreement to the council for approval by the second council meeting in October, which is Oct. 20.

The elements to be included in the operating agreement are specified in an attachment to the resolution as follows:

Operating agreement principles include:

• Company will provide a minimum of $1M in liability insurance coverage for the driver, vehicle and passengers and any other injured parties, from the moment a driver is linked with a passenger to the moment the passenger releases the vehicle.
• Company will conduct the following at no cost to the city: background checks for each driver-applicant prior to allowing their participation. This background check will include a criminal background check, including a check for multiple relevant jurisdictions; a review of the applicant’s driving record; a mechanical inspection of the vehicle by a licensed inspector. The results of this data collection will be made available to the City for any driver / vehicle combination approved for participation in the company.
• Company will not allow participation by a driver / vehicle combination if the driver has any felony conviction; any conviction for DUI; more than 2 moving violations in any calendar year or more than 4 moving violations in a six-year period, with no more than 4 accumulated points in any calendar year.
• Company shall ensure that all driver vehicles pass an annual, mutually agreeable safety inspection conducted by a licensed mechanic.
• Prior to participation in the program, drivers shall go through a driver-education program that provides training in customer service and improves familiarity with local streets and local traffic conditions.
• Drivers shall not accept passengers except through the ride-sharing mechanism provided by the Company.
• Company will provide requested data to the City about accidents and incidents with passengers, as well as a report on customer satisfaction and safety ratings.

The resolution does not appear to define explicitly what a TNC is – and seems to allow for the possibility that an existing limo company could seek to operate under such an agreement without complying with the state statute on operation of limousines.

The resolution also leaves unspecified the intended term of the agreement – although deliberations at the council’s Aug. 18 meeting indicated that the intent of such operating agreements in other Michigan municipalities was to implement a temporary basis under which Uber and Lyft could operate, while the state legislature establishes a legislative framework under which such companies could operate.

The resolution does not direct the city administrator to provide for any explicit penalties that the city could impose on a TNC for failure to adhere to the operating agreement. The enforcement mechanism that the resolution seems to contemplate is for a TNC to provide certain kinds of data to the city upon request.

The resolution does not direct the city administrator to impose any requirements on the public accessibility of data provided by TNCs to the city. If a company were to come to an agreement with the city that data and information would be provided to the city, but only upon the condition that it not be disclosed to the public, then that data would be exempt from disclosure, even under a request made under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act.

Extension of LDFA

The council will consider a resolution on Sept. 2 that would move ahead with a 15-year extension of the local development finance authority (LDFA). The LDFA – branded as one of about a dozen LDFA SmartZones statewide – is funded through capture of public school operating millages within the geographic areas of the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti downtown development authority districts. In actual fact, however, no capture is made of the Ypsilanti school taxes.

The LDFA contracts with Ann Arbor SPARK to operate a business accelerator, which is meant to move start-up companies in the tech and biosciences sectors more quickly to a stage in their development when they are generating revenue from paying customers and adding jobs. Separate from the LDFA business acceleration contract with Ann Arbor SPARK, the city of Ann Arbor has historically engaged SPARK for business attraction and retention services. However, this year the $75,000 annual contract with SPARK was tabled by the council – in a vote taken at the council’s June 16, 2014 meeting. It’s expected at some point to be taken back up off the table for consideration. By council rule, it will be considered demised if it’s not considered before a lapse of six months.

The extension – which would still need approval from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation – depends on establishing a relationship between the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti SmartZone and some other “satellite” LDFA. So the Sept. 2 resolution designates Adrian/Tecumseh as that satellite. The council’s resolution specifies the following as findings:

1. That the selection of the Adrian/Tecumseh LDFA as a satellite provides unique characteristics and specialties through its public and private resources including the location of Adrian College, Siena Heights University and Jackson College within its TIF District and the opportunities for research partnerships and student/young entrepreneur involvement. In addition partnership with another multi-jurisdictional LDFA provides opportunities for shared experiences.
2. That the selection of the Adrian/Tecumseh LDFA as a satellite provides regional cooperation and collaboration benefits to the LDFA and the Cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti with joint focuses on technology (including expanding green technologies and agricultural technology) and entrepreneurial services.
3. That the selection of the Adrian/Tecumseh LDFA as a satellite provides value and support to the LDFA by strengthening existing collaboratives, making available a new/expanded technical assistance and support through its Innovation Center at Adrian College, and agricultural and manufacturing resources.

In connection with the extension, revisions to the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti SmartZone TIF (tax increment financing) plan and development plan are being undertaken. Drafts of revisions are attached to the council’s Sept. 2 agenda item. Revisions appear to address concerns that have been raised about the current arrangement – to some extent by Ann Arbor city councilmembers.

Those concerns include the fact that TIF is not currently allowed to be spent outside the TIF district in the city of Ann Arbor; further, no TIF funds can be expended in Ypsilanti – inside or outside its TIF district – because no actual tax capture revenue is generated for the LDFA in that area. The revisions would allow TIF revenue to be expended anywhere in the entire cities of Ann Arbor or Ypsilanti.

In addition, the revisions specify in greater detail that TIF revenue can be used to pay for high-speed communications infrastructure. Specifically mentioned as eligible expenditures is the “installation of technology related infrastructure assets, i.e. fiber lines, nodes, or work spaces.”

The LDFA extension comes in the context of lingering questions about the impact on school funding of the LDFA tax capture. In FY 2013, the total amount captured by the Ann Arbor SmartZone LDFA was $1,546,577, and the current fiscal year forecast is for $2,017,835. About the same amount is forecast for FY 2015.

The LDFA captures Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS) operating millage, but those captured taxes don’t directly diminish the local school’s budget. That’s because in Michigan, local schools levy a millage, but the proceeds are not used directly by local districts. Rather, proceeds are first forwarded to the state of Michigan’s School Aid Fund, for redistribution among school districts statewide. That redistribution is based on a per-pupil formula as determined on a specified “count day.” And the state is supposed to “reimburse” the School Aid Fund for the taxes captured by some SmartZones in the state.

Questions raised in the last few months have centered around whether the School Aid Fund is “reimbursed” by the state’s general fund for the taxes that are captured to fund the Ann Arbor SmartZone LDFA – because the wording of the state statute is based on the term “reimburse.”

It turns out that the school taxes captured by the Ann Arbor SmartZone are not required to be “reimbursed” to the state School Aid Fund – which diminishes the amount of funding for public schools statewide. That’s a conclusion based on a reading of the LDFA statute and confirmed to The Chronicle by communications staff in the Dept. of Treasury and the MEDC. However, it’s not clear that “reimbursement” is even a useful way of framing the question – notwithstanding the wording of the state statute. That’s partly because tax capture from those LDFAs to which the state statute does apply are not “reimbursed” in the sense that the word implies – with a specific calculation done and a transfer of money (or an adjustment to the legislature’s appropriation) made based on that calculation. From an Aug. 7, 2014 staff memo: “… the reimbursement language really only served as language of intent.”

Based on subsequent inquires made by city of Ann Arbor financial staff with state officials, it appears that the setting of the statewide per-pupil allowance each year proceeds along a separate track from replenishing the School Aid Fund – which receives significant revenue from sources other than local school operating millages. It appears it’s not possible to establish a 1-to-1 relationship between local school operating taxes that are captured by LDFAs and money that flows into the School Aid Fund from various other sources that might be analyzed as “compensating” for the capture.

In any case, city staff have concluded that LDFA tax capture has not had a negative impact on Ann Arbor’s local school funding.

Appointments to Boards and Commissions

Appointments to the city of Ann Arbor’s boards and commissions are typically handled in a two-step process: (1) the mayor announces the nominations at a council meeting; and (2) the council votes on the confirmation at the next meeting of the council. The procedure is grounded in the city charter.

At the council’s Aug. 21 meeting, Anna Ercoli-Schnitzer was nominated to fill a vacancy on the commission on disability issues. Tamara Burns and Dick Mitchell were nominated to be reappointed to the design review board. Sofia Franciscus was nominated to fill the vacancy on the planning commission due to Paras Parekh’s resignation. And John Splitt was nominated for reappointment to the Downtown Development Authority board.

3:05 p.m. The staff responses to councilmembers’ questions about agenda items are now available. [Sept. 2, 2014 staff responses to questions]

4:29 p.m. Tonight only five people appear to be signed up to talk in the 10 slots for public commentary that are available at the start of the meeting. Kai Petainen is signed up to talk about the LDFA extension. Alan Haber is signed up to talk about the park advisory commission’s recommendation for redevelopment of Liberty Plaza, which is an attachment to the clerk’s report. And three people are signed up to talk about the direction to the city administrator to negotiate operating agreements with transportation network companies like Uber and Lyft: John Heed, a representative of SelectRide; and Michael Benson and LuAnne Bullington, who serve on the city’s taxicab board. (Benson is chair of that group.)

6:52 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and mayor John Hieftje have arrived.

7:04 p.m. We’re still missing Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

7:07 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance.

7:07 p.m. Roll call of council. Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) are absent.

7:08 p.m. Approval of agenda.

7:09 p.m. Chuch Warpehoski (Ward 5) is adding an agenda item DS-4, which will take up the Ann Arbor SPARK contract off the table from a previous meeting. A separate vote will be taken at the time the council reaches that agenda point.

7:09 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the evening’s agenda as amended.

7:10 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. City administrator Steve Powers reminds the council of the Sept. 8 work session with the DDA on parking issues, starting at 7 p.m.

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

7:13 p.m. Kai Petainen is speaking about the LDFA extension. He is focusing on the jobs claims that have been made by Ann Arbor SPARK. He says that SPARK and LDFA are not telling a consistent story. He asks if it’s worth spending $58 million on 700 jobs. He asks if many of the jobs that have been created would have been created even without the existence of SPARK and the LDFA. [.pdf of Petainen's remarks]

7:14 p.m. Alan Haber is talking about the World Day of Peace. He’s talking about the importance of gathering the community. He’s supporting a proclamation later on the agenda that would recognize World Peace Day. [Teall and Taylor have now arrived at the meeting.]

7:17 p.m. John Heed is speaking against negotiating an operating agreement with Uber and Lyft, arguing that they operate in violation of state law. He gives insurance requirements as an example of the competitive playing field not being level. The operating agreements would simply shift responsibility, he says. Having a new business model does not make anybody above the law, he says.

7:21 p.m. Michael Benson is chair of the taxicab board and a resident of Ward 2. He was in Beijing during the last council meeting and couldn’t attend. He characterizes the transportation industry as in a state of flux due to a variety of factors. He’s speaking against establishing operating agreements with TNCs, arguing that they fall under the state’s limo statute. He says that the proposal that the taxicab board had made would be broad enough to cover the market, however it evolved. He points out that the city had issued a cease-and-desist order, which means that the city’s view is that Uber and Lyft are operating in violation of the law. He asks that the council reconsider the ordinance they rejected, and allow a public hearing on the question by allowing it to go to a second reading. [.pdf of Benson's remarks]

7:24 p.m. LuAnne Bullington says she’s not speaking as a member of the taxicab board, but as a citizen who knows something about transportation. A limo is licensed by the state, and a taxi is licensed by a local municipality. It’s not possible to regulate taxicabs outside of the city, she says. She says that Uber is really a $17 billion taxicab company that the state and the city of Ann Arbor can’t regulate. She notes that a court in Frankfurt, Germany had issued an order against Uber that Uber is simply ignoring.

7:24 p.m. Communications from the council. This is the first of two slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:24 p.m. Jack Eaton says that a meeting on the Packard Square development has been canceled and will be scheduled for a later time.

7:28 p.m. Mike Anglin is talking about the Sept. 21 World Peace Day proclamation. He says that it was added late, but he wanted it to appear on this council’s agenda. He also points to the F-3 communication from the park advisory commission, which is attached to the agenda. Anglin says that voters had overwhelmingly said they wanted additional parks in the downtown. Because the council had voted to designate part of the top of the Library Lane parking structure as a public park/plaza, it was important to start holding events there. The World Peace Day event is something that there can’t be any equivocation about, he says – as everyone agrees there should be peace in the world. It should be made possible without establishing barriers. He’s referring to the requirement that an insurance policy be in place. [The DDA's policy on use of public parking facilities for events includes an insurance requirement.]

7:30 p.m. Sumi Kailasapathy says that as she was walking in, Ray Detter had told her that there was a light agenda. She said that although the agenda is light, she had a heavy heart because it is the last day of The Ann Arbor Chronicle. She’s now talking about the beheading of journalists in the Middle East and relates her own experience growing up in a civil war in Sri Lanka. She’s talking about the importance of documenting history. She’s sending her salutations and thanks to The Chronicle.

7:32 p.m. Sabra Briere is talking about the design charrette on the Platt Road site. It was hosted by Washtenaw County, which owns the land. The county board of commissioners was interested in how the public wanted to see the site developed if it included housing. The results of the charrette are now up on the website, Briere says. If the county determines that affordable housing is appropriate, she hopes the city will be able to cooperate in that effort. She encourages people to look into that and to communicate to the county.

7:35 p.m. Jane Lumm is announcing the year-end dog swim at the Buhr Park pool on Sept. 3-4. Educational efforts will be made at the event about the dog licensing requirements. She’s thanking Kailasapathy for her comments about The Chronicle and wishes us a happy 25th wedding anniversary. She’s describing The Chronicle as public servants who have helped improve the community with an emphasis on open and transparent governance. She’s extending her sincere thanks and says The Chronicle will be missed.

7:36 p.m. Hieftje says there are some spectacular athletes at the dog swim. He tells late-arriving councilmembers that the SPARK contract has been added to the agenda to be taken up off the table.

7:37 p.m. MC-1 Confirmations. At the council’s Aug. 21 meeting, Anna Ercoli-Schnitzer was nominated to fill a vacancy on the commission on disability issues. Tamara Burns and Dick Mitchell were nominated to be reappointed to the design review board. Sofia Franciscus was nominated to fill the vacancy on the planning commission due to Paras Parekh’s resignation. And John Splitt was nominated for reappointment to the Downtown Development Authority board.

7:37 p.m. Eaton is asking that John Splitt’s nomination to be separated out from the others.

7:38 p.m. The council has confirmed all the nominations except for that of Splitt, which is being considered separately.

7:39 p.m. Stephen Kunselman says he won’t support Splitt to a third term. Eaton also says he won’t support it, and he wants to explain why. He says that The Chronicle has consistently reported on various problems with the Open Meetings Act and a compliant development plan, and he thinks that those problems stem from confirming the same people over and over again.

7:40 p.m. Kailasapathy also says she won’t support Splitt’s confirmation. She wants people who will take TIF (tax increment finance) spending seriously, and not treat it like “Halloween candy.” New people will look at things with fresh eyes, she says. She says it’s not personal.

7:42 p.m. Petersen says she’ll support Splitt and says she knows him to be an independent thinker. When she traveled with the DDA to New York City, he’d made an extra effort to get to know her. She says that Splitt represents the State Street area of the downtown.

7:44 p.m. DDA board chair John Mouat is asked to the podium by Margie Teall (Ward 4). She asks him if the DDA board members are “slackers.” Mouat is saying there is a steep learning curve on the DDA. Teall asks if there is any review of the OMA on staff. He allows that it’s been brought up as a point of discussion. It’s probably something that the DDA should look at, he says.

7:48 p.m. Kunselman is asking Mouat about the raises that Susan Pollay received as executive director. Mouat says he doesn’t feel comfortable answering that question. Kunselman says he wasn’t planning to go into detail. He’s reviewing The Chronicle’s reporting about those raises. Kunselman is now talking about the requirements of the DDA statute. He says he’s looking for new DDA members who will each year work on the TIF plan. Mouat points to the joint working session on Sept. 8, which would be a better occasion for this discussion, he says.

7:49 p.m. Anglin is comparing the compensation of DDA staff to city staff. Anglin says he’s voting against Splitt’s reappointment because he wants to see the DDA step up and provide police in the downtown.

7:51 p.m. Kailasapathy responds to Mouat’s remarks about the learning curve. The DDA’s institutional memory is not as good as it should be, she says. Kailasapathy is talking about Kunselman and The Chronicle’s retrieval of some DDA records from the Bentley Library. She wondered why long-term members of the DDA had not remembered these things.

7:53 p.m. Lumm thanks those who have said they will vote against Splitt’s appointment. She says that city administrator Steve Powers had demonstrated a courageous vote when he voted against Susan Pollay’s raise this year. However, Splitt was entitled to another term, Lumm says. Splitt has worked hard, she adds, so she will support his appointment.

7:55 p.m. Hieftje says there are membership criteria for members of the DDA. Splitt is a downtown business owner and lives in the DDA district, he says. He gives a breakdown of the mix of the DDA board in terms of thirds, based on their length of service.

7:55 p.m. The council has confirmed the nominations of John Splitt to a third term on the DDA board on a 7-4 vote. Dissenting were Kailasapathy, Kunselman, Eaton and Anglin

7:55 p.m. MC-2 Nominations. Tonight Sam Callan is being nominated to the building board of appeals. The vote on his confirmation will come at the council’s next meeting.

7:55 p.m. Public Hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Four public hearings are scheduled tonight: one on the Ann Arbor Housing Commission’s North Maple Estates site plan; two on the Gift of Life project (one for the rezoning and the other on the site plan); and one on the changes to the taxicab rate ordinance.

7:55 p.m. PH-1 AAHC North Maple Road site plan

7:57 p.m. Thomas Partridge is speaking in support of this item, with the proviso that it should have adequate handicapped parking.

7:59 p.m. Ed Vielmetti is speaking in support of the site plan. He’s objecting to the copyright notices that are included on the various maps. Because they are planning documents that people might want to review, it’s important that the city include copyright notices that are appropriate for archival distribution.

8:02 p.m. Scott Betzoldt with Midwestern Consulting, Jennifer Hall of the AAHC and architect John Mouat are at the podium. They represent the project. Betzoldt is going first. He says that all the underground utilities will be replaced, and stormwater detention will be provided. Mouat says that his firm has worked with AAHC for over 20 years. He stresses three points. The buildings have been designed to be simple to maximize floor area. The mix of bedrooms is 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom, 3-bedroom and 4-bedroom units. He also notes that the units will be barrier-free. The building will also be certified as environmental friendly, he says, including 4×6 stud construction, which will allow for additional insulation.

8:04 p.m. Hall says that this is the first site to which the AAHC has been able to add units in over 20 years. She’s talking about the relocation plan for the current tenants. They’ll be able to move back to the site when construction is complete.

8:04 p.m. That’s it for PH-1.

8:04 p.m. PH-2 Gift of Life rezoning

8:06 p.m. Thomas Partridge expresses concern that there should be a requirement that the property be made accessible to public transportation as well as paratransit. All similar rezoning should have such a requirement.

8:07 p.m. That’s it for PH-2.

8:07 p.m. PH-3 Gift of Life site plan

8:08 p.m. Thomas Partridge reiterates the importance of making site plan approval contingent on adequate access to handicapped parking and public transportation.

8:09 p.m. That’s it for PH-3.

8:09 p.m. PH-4 Taxicab ordinance

8:12 p.m. Mark LaSarge of SelectRide is addressing the council. He’s arguing against pricing restrictions generally. He’s ticking through the costs of the taxicab industry. The city doesn’t determine prices for milk, he notes, and should not determine prices for taxicabs. He’s also arguing against the direction to the city administrator to negotiate operating agreements that the council will consider tonight.

8:16 p.m. John Heed says this should be passed, even though it will not solve all the problems. It will help the taxicab industry absorb “price shocks,” he says.

8:16 p.m. A woman introduces herself as a taxicab driver. She disagrees with the taxicab owners on the fare issue. But she agrees with them on the question of operating agreements with Uber and Lyft. Hieftje encourages her to relate her remarks to the ordinance on the agenda. She invites councilmembers to do a ride-along with her as she drives her taxi.

8:18 p.m. LuAnne Bullington is reviewing how the price structure would work. She asks councilmembers to support this ordinance change, because it gives taxicab companies flexibility. The taxicabs would simply have to post the rates, she concludes.

8:20 p.m. Rick Clark, of Amazing Blue Taxi, tells the council that he’d received a sad phone call from a customer, who would no longer be using his cab service – because she’s moving to California. She thanked him for the service. “An app is not going to care about people,” he concludes.

8:22 p.m. Thomas Partridge wants the maximum rates extended to cab-like services like Uber and Lyft. He calls for keeping Ann Arbor an affordable city.

8:23 p.m. Michael White, general manager for Uber in Michigan, speaks in support of the “deregulation” of taxicab rates. He says that the council’s focus should be on providing choice and safety. Uber provides choice and safety, he says. He’s available, if councilmembers have questions, he says.

8:26 p.m. Michael Benson, chair of the taxicab board, says that this ordinance addresses two problems – variable insurance and gas rates. The cost of doing business has to be weighed against the cost to the public. The ordinance requires posting the rates and allows a taxicab company to change its rates once during the year. This does not mean the taxicab board is in favor of complete deregulation, he says. The taxicab industry is different from others in that it operates solely in the public right of way. He encourages the council to approve the ordinance.

8:27 p.m. That’s it for PH-4.

8:27 p.m. Council minutes.

8:27 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the minutes of the previous meeting.

8:27 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes:

• CA-1 Street Closing: Oktoberfest Oct. 3-4, 2014 (W. Washington) requested by Arbor Brewing Company.
• CA-2 Street Closing: Oktoberfest Oct. 3-4, 2014, (W. Washington) requested by Grizzly Peak Brewing Company and the Blue Tractor.
• CA-3 Street Closing: Reception for UM President Sept. 5, 2014 (E. Washington btw. Thayer and Fletcher).
• CA-4 Contract Amendment with Hinshon Environmental ($10,000).
• CA-5 Approve a purchase order with Staples FY 2015 ($92,499).
• CA-6 PILOT for Avalon Housing 1010-1030 Arbordale Street.
• CA-7 Amend contract with Green Vision Lawn and Landscaping ($2,556).
• CA-8 Authorize contract with OPUS International Consultants, Inc. ($58,724) for Nixon/Green/Dhu Varren Intersection Improvement Study.

8:28 p.m. Councilmembers can pull items off the consent agenda for separate consideration. Tonight Briere has asked CA-6 and CA-8 to be pulled out for separate consideration. Taylor wants CA-2 pulled out.

8:28 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the consent agenda except for the three items to be considered separately

8:28 p.m. CA-2 Street Closing: Oktoberfest Oct. 3-4, 2014 (W. Washington) requested by Grizzly Peak Brewing Company and the Blue Tractor.

8:29 p.m. This was considered separately to allow for recusal of Taylor because his firm represents the requestor of the street closing.

8:29 p.m. Outcome: The council has now approved CA-2 on the consent agenda.

8:30 p.m. CA-6 PILOT for Avalon Housing 1010-1030 Arbordale Street. Briere makes some remarks in favor of this item.

8:31 p.m. Outcome: The council has now approved CA-6 on the consent agenda.

8:31 p.m. CA-8 Authorize contract with OPUS International Consultants Inc. ($58,724) for Nixon/Green/Dhu Varren Intersection Improvement Study. Briere says that Ward 1 and Ward 2 councilmembers are delighted to see this item. She reminds city administrator Steve Powers that she’s grateful for the public participation component of the contract. Kailasapathy says that residents will definitely have a lot to say.

8:33 p.m. Lumm says, “Hear, hear,” to the comments that Briere and Kailasapathy have made. The “intersection” is problematic, she says.

8:34 p.m. Outcome: The council has now approved CA-8 on the consent agenda.

8:34 p.m. B-1 Gift of Life Rezoning. This is final approval of the rezoning of property necessary for an expansion of the Gift of Life Michigan facility on Research Park Drive. The rezoning would change 6.55 acres from O (office district) and RE (research district) to ORL (office/research/limited industrial district). The site plan, which also appears on the Sept. 2 agenda, calls for building a three-story, 40,786-square-foot addition to connect two existing buildings at 3161 and 3169 Research Park Drive, which are owned and occupied by the nonprofit. [For additional background, see Gift of Life Expansion above.]

8:35 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to give final approval to the Gift of Life rezoning.

8:35 p.m. B-2 Taxicab Rate Ordinance. The council gave initial approval at its Aug. 18 meeting to a change in the part of the taxicab ordinance that regulates rates. This is the final consideration of that change. The change would establish certain parameters to mitigate possible negative consequences to the setting of a very high maximum allowable taxicab rate, under which taxicab companies might eventually compete. Those parameters include a requirement that a taxicab company commit to a single rate annually and that the rate be advertised in a vehicle with signage in letters one-inch tall. [For additional background, see Taxicab Meter Rates above.]

8:37 p.m. Kunselman says that staff has asked him to add an amendment – to set the date of enactment to be Oct. 14. He says he won’t bore everyone by repeating the sentiments expressed during the public hearing. He reviews how the ordinance would work, saying that it allows for the setting of a very high maximum. It would allow taxicab companies to start to compete with companies like Uber and Lyft that are competing unfairly. Lumm indicates her support for the change to the ordinance.

8:41 p.m. Hieftje says that he served on the taxicab board from November 1999 to November 2000. At that time, nobody heard much from the taxicab board, he notes. Kunselman says that he very rarely uses livery services. He said that the camaraderie among the livery service community should be taken note of. They’ve been around for a long time, he says. He’s known a number of taxicab drivers and talks about the stories they tell. He jokes that someone else on the council might want to serve as the council’s representative starting in November, when the council reassigns its board and commission appointments.

8:41 p.m. Anglin echoes Kunselman’s appreciation of the taxicab industry.

8:42 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval to the revision to the taxicab ordinance, regarding the setting of rates.

8:42 p.m. Recess. We’re now in recess.

8:53 p.m. We’re back.

8:53 p.m. C-1 AAHC Platt Road rezoning. This is the initial rezoning approval for the AAHC’s Lower Platt Road project, which will entail demolishing four 5-bedroom units – because of their current placement in the floodplain – and constructing 32 townhomes and a community center. The zoning change would be from R1C (single-family dwelling district) and R2A (two-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). [For additional background, see AAHC: 3451 Platt Road Rezoning above.]

8:54 p.m. Lumm asks if planning manager Wendy Rampson is available. She is. Lumm asks about the delay in the site plan at the planning commission. Rampson explains to Lumm that a reconfiguration is being sought for some of the buildings.

8:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to the rezoning of 3451 Platt Road.

8:54 p.m. DC-1 SmartZone satellite agreement. This resolution would move ahead with a 15-year extension of the local development finance authority (LDFA). The LDFA  – branded as one of about a dozen LDFA SmartZones statewide –  is funded through capture of public school operating millages within the geographic areas of the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti downtown development authority districts. The extension requires an agreement with a satellite LDFA, which the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti SmartZone is making with Adrian/Tecumseh. [For additional background, see Extension of LDFA above.]

8:58 p.m. Petersen is reviewing the purpose of the resolution. [She's the council's representative to the LDFA board.] Petersen is reading aloud a statement in support of economic development generally. She’s addressing the possible objection that some councilmembers might have, given the mechanism for funding the LDFA – which is through tax increment financing. She’s inviting Eric Jacobsen, board treasurer of the LDFA, to the podium.

9:00 p.m. Jacobsen notes that the recruitment of a satellite LDFA is a state mandate as a condition of the extension. He’s reviewing the reasons for choosing Adrian/Tecumseh over Brighton/Howell. He says that no Ann Arbor tax dollars would be going to Adrian/Tecumseh.

9:03 p.m. Jacobsen notes that this is just the next step in a multi-step process. One of the next steps is to define a new TIF agreement. The LDFA is in the business of economic growth – helping start-up companies, not trying to get other companies to relocate here. It’s an ecosystem for entrepreneurs, he says. Ann Arbor can compete with Palo Alto and Austin, he says. He stresses that Ann Arbor SPARK is the LDFA’s contractor – and that SPARK executes on the directive that LDFA gives.

9:04 p.m. Jacobsen reports that the Ypsilanti city council has approved the agreement earlier tonight. Five other cities are applying for two possible extensions statewide, he says.

9:08 p.m. Kailasapathy notes that the revenue estimates for the 15-year period total about $58 million. She calls that a estimate conservative. She says her understanding is that something like $3-6 million will be spent in Ypsilanti, even though there is no TIF capture in Ypsilanti. CFO Tom Crawford says that there have been informal discussions with the MEDC, and there’s an interest by MEDC in seeing the money spent in Ypsilanti as well. Ann Arbor still comes out ahead, Crawford says. Kailasapathy says $58 million is a lot of money.

9:11 p.m. Kailasapathy is confronting the contention that the ecosystem will “wither away” without the extension. She notes the increase from $200,000 in the early years of the LDFA to $2 million now. She points out that the University of Michigan has a new entrepreneurial effort. Jacobsen says that he expects all the partners will work together.

9:12 p.m. Kailasapathy is now addressing the focus on job creation. How many jobs will be created in the next 15 years? she asks.

9:14 p.m. Crawford points to the draft amended TIF plan. After getting approval from the MEDC, the city would then need to enter into negotiations on the TIF plan with the MEDC. After it get passed, the city would be jumping into that feet first, he says. Kailasapathy calculates that it would be $80,000 per job created.

9:15 p.m. Jacobsen is saying for every job created in the tech field, another five jobs are created. So if it’s $80,000 per job, the return to the community is still very impressive, he says.

9:16 p.m. Lumm says she understands that the final TIF and development plans aren’t required until next year, but she’s happy the council has been provided with draft versions. Jacobsen reiterates that goals on job creation would come after the TIF and development plans are finalized.

9:19 p.m. Briere asks Jacobsen if he were to design the agreement, whether job creation would be a “decent” metric. Yes, he says. She asks him to explain how it’s a good metric. Stephen Rapundalo, an LDFA board member and former Ward 2 city councilmember, takes the podium. Growing businesses is the goal, Rapundalo says, and the jobs come as a result of that.

9:21 p.m. Briere says that it feels good to say that we’ll project a certain number of jobs created and then go back and check to see if that’s what happened. But that “recipe” makes her nervous, she says. How many dollars we spend to get how many jobs is not a good way to think about it, she adds. So she wonders what other metrics can be offered? Rapundalo says that the number of companies that are starting is one measure, as well as the amount of funding that they are receiving. Briere says she wishes the discussion was less focused on the specific number of jobs.

9:28 p.m. Eaton asks if we acknowledge that if the $58 million is captured, that the state does not reimburse the state’s School Aid Fund. Crawford explains that the foundation grant is determined by two components: the local millage funding and the state contribution. Local schools are not harmed through the tax capture, he says. Eaton asks if the state treasurer is making up the fact that the School Aid Fund is not reimbursed. Crawford explains the complexity of the School Aid Fund mechanism. Eaton is reiterating his concern about the impact on school funding. He also talks about the “fuzzy” job creation number. He wonders if the jobs that are created are really attributable to the activities of the LDFA. Crawford compares $4 million to $10 billion that the state contributes, so he says that tax capture has a negligible impact on school funding.

9:30 p.m. Kunselman wants to know what five cities are in the running for the two slots for the 15-year extension. Automation Alley, Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo are named. Kunselman wants to know how unemployment rates in the cities compare. Ann Arbor has the lowest unemployment in the state, Kunselman is told. Now Kunselman wants to know what the options are for a five-year extension, if Ann Arbor is not selected for the 15-year extension.

9:36 p.m. Kailasapathy wants to see some of the taxes eliminated from capture – the school operating millage, because that’s the amount that is distributed from the state treasurer directly back to the school districts. Lumm expresses skepticism that Kailasapathy has characterized that accurately. Crawford confirms that’s right.

9:40 p.m. Briere ventures that the foundation grant level is set, and after that the state looks for where the money comes from to fund that grant level. Crawford is explaining that there are numerous factors. He is arguing that there is some return on the investment of the captured taxes, which generates greater revenue to the state and the local communities.

9:42 p.m. Anglin is now asking about the possibility of imposing hold-harmless requirements.

9:45 p.m. Kunselman says he appreciates all the commentary. He says that the LDFA is showing a lot of care and consideration in its willingness to work with the council – something he can’t say about every authority the council deals with. He still has a problem with the fact that the money is taken from schools. When he hears about the other communities that are in the running, because they have real need for job creation. Ann Arbor already enjoys the benefits of the economic engine that the University of Michigan provides. He wants to see Detroit and Kalamazoo get this benefit. So he won’t support the 15-year extension. He calls this greedy on Ann Arbor’s part. “We are in this as a state,” he says. “If Detroit doesn’t get better, we don’t get better.”

9:46 p.m. Teall agrees with Kunselman that everyone needs this. But Ypsilanti and Adrian/Tecumseh need this too, she says. The stronger this local region is, the stronger the state can become, she says.

9:48 p.m. Petersen is asking for clarification about who is still in the running. Houghton/Marquette already have the extension, she ventures. That’s right, confirms Crawford.

9:50 p.m. Lumm is explaining her reasons for supporting this. She hopes that LDFA and SPARK will listen to the concerns about the need for greater transparency. She remarks on the funding of fiber networks in the next 15 years as a positive. She says she does not believe that the capture of the school taxes has a negative impact on school funding.

9:53 p.m. Anglin says the council has not talked about the five-year option. Why is the 15-year plan preferable? he asks. He points to the rationale for excluding the Washtenaw Intermediate School District’s tax from capture and wonders why that exemption doesn’t apply to the AAPS operating millage. Good schools lead to good jobs, he says. He’s saying that local officials need to tell the state that they need to do better in their overall approach to funding state education.

9:54 p.m. Anglin says he’d like to see a smaller step taken – a five-year extension.

9:59 p.m. Crawford clarifies that the WISD millage is not captured. Briere ventures that the rationale for not capturing WISD’s millage is that WISD doesn’t receive per-pupil reimbursements from the state. Briere also says that the reason the council is considering the 15-year extension first is that Ann Arbor is in competition with other cities – and if Ann Arbor does not win, then the five-year extension is the fall-back position.

9:59 p.m. Anglin says he will vote against this, because he wants the state legislature to do a better job funding schools.

10:00 p.m. Eaton is noting that the 15-year extension goes out 18 years from now, because there’s three years left on the current authorization. To date, the council has only seen “fuzzy” justification for the results, he says. Eaton would support a five-year extension but says that planning for 15 years in the future at this price tag is pretty speculative.

10:02 p.m. Petersen clarifies that the council is not voting on the 15-year extension – as that’s the purview of MEDC and the state treasurer – but rather on the inclusion of Adrian/Tecumseh in the application.

10:02 p.m. Lumm returns to the school funding question.

10:04 p.m. Kunselman is asking what the TIF capture would be in other cities that are competing for the 15-year extension.

10:06 p.m. Anglin is reading aloud the parts of the resolution that address the 15-year extension and asks: “Are we reading the same document?” Hieftje thanks Crawford for all the work he’s done and also the LDFA board. The LDFA has responded to questions from the council, he says. He’s convinced that local schools are not hurt by the LDFA – as the state will fund public schools the way it wants to.

10:08 p.m. Hieftje says that he disputes the idea that job creation would happen without the efforts of the LDFA. Ann Arbor might be the only city in the state of Michigan that can compete with Palo Alto, Hieftje says. So it’s important that Ann Arbor continue to do that. He says that it would be good for some of the LDFA money to be spent in Ypsilanti. This will “lift all boats,” he says.

10:10 p.m. Warpehoski is responding to the question Kunselman asked about the TIF capture of other cities, with data he Googled.

10:13 p.m. Warpehoski notes Pfizer’s departure and says that Ann Arbor’s economy is not bulletproof. He points to SPARK’s bootcamp and a resident who went through it, who has now started a business: 1000 Tools. Warpehoski is glad that kind of innovation is happening, he says. Even if after five years there are no jobs associated with that company, he thinks the impact is positive.

10:14 p.m. Taylor says it’s all pretty simple. There’s an opportunity to obtain a few million dollars for the benefit of Ann Arbor’s economy.

10:15 p.m. Taylor notes that 2,400 were lost when Pfizer left. That was not the only negative impact. Conversely, he says, adding jobs has additional positive impact beyond just those job numbers.

10:18 p.m. Briere says she likes to look at the resolution in front of her but she’d had to look at a lot more than that with this resolution. Briere says that the state does not attach as much importance to infrastructure and schools as it once did. But now it’s willing to invest in economic development, which might indirectly help revenues to fund infrastructure and schools.

10:19 p.m. Briere says there are three things that are important: (1) money will be spent in Ypsilanti; (2) it allows investment in Adrian/Tecumseh; and (3) spending on fiber networks.

10:20 p.m. Anti-Israel activists have arrived with signs. They attended the Ypsilanti city council meeting earlier.

10:20 p.m. Briere will support the resolution.

10:22 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 7-4 to approve the agreements with Adrian/Tecumseh regarding the extension of the LDFA, over dissent from Kailasapathy, Kunselman, Eaton and Anglin.

10:22 p.m. DC-2 Transportation Network Companies (Uber/Lyft). Direct the city administrator to negotiate operating agreements. This resolution would direct the city administrator to negotiate operating agreements with transportation network companies like Uber and Lyft. This is being considered as an alternative to the ordinance considered, but rejected at the council’s Aug. 18, 2014 meeting, which would have required all drivers for hire to be registered with the city, to have commercial plates on their vehicles, and to maintain insurance commensurate with commercial plates. And the absence of commercial plates on a vehicle that is observed being used for picking up or dropping off passengers would have provided a reason for a traffic stop by Ann Arbor police.

10:24 p.m. Briere says that the resolution was the result of electronic collaboration among herself, Taylor and Petersen. The language had been run past city staff to make sure the principles in the resolution were principles from which the staff could negotiate. Public safety was one of the concerns she’d tried to address. This is an effort to regulate companies like Uber and Lyft, she says.

10:27 p.m. Kunselman wants to know if the insurance referred to is primary or secondary. Briere invites Kunselman to make an amendment to clarify. Kunselman declines, saying he plans to vote against this resolution.

10:30 p.m. Kunselman asks assistant city attorney Abigail Elias if the cease-and-desist order is still in effect. She states that she is not familiar with the order. Kunselman ventures that the direction to the city administrator undercuts the city attorney’s authority.

10:30 p.m. Kunselman reiterates that he won’t support this resolution.

10:32 p.m. Warpehoski asks what the goal is of having a company provide customer satisfaction data. Briere indicates that it’s kind of a proxy for safety data.

10:35 p.m. Warpehoski says his concern with this provision is twofold. Are we holding TNCs to an appropriate standard for public safety? Does that compromise proprietary information? he wonders. He asks that Powers interpret this flexibly so that private information is not compromised.

10:36 p.m. Petersen says that this is data that TNCs already collect. There should be a plan to use it, if the city is going to ask for it, she says. The operating agreement should include a plan to use the data once the city has it.

10:40 p.m. Petersen ventures that once an operating agreement is in place, the cease-and-desist orders would be rescinded. Hieftje appreciates the work that Briere, Taylor and Petersen have put into it and indicates he’ll support it. Warpehoski said that if the city hears complaints about racial profiling or access of helper dogs, that should be referred to relevant boards and commissions. He also says that a blanket ban on drivers with felony convictions is an overly broad requirement to place on TNCs. Someone who is convicted of embezzlement should not be precluded as a driver. So he wants to amend the principles to indicate that only relevant felony convictions would be considered.

10:40 p.m. Lumm wants to know what other cities are doing. Briere says it varies from community to community.

10:45 p.m. Lumm says she doesn’t have enough information to evaluate Warpehoski’s amendment. She wants the city attorney’s office to address these questions. Taylor says this issue can be evaluated when the council is presented with an actual operating agreement. Teall wants to know the difference between UberX and UberBlack. Kunselman is explaining the difference. UberX is the service where drivers use their personal vehicles, he says. Uber’s Michael White has again been invited to the podium. Limo companies offer rides through UberBlack to help fill their downtime, he explains. He is now explaining how UberX works.

10:46 p.m. White says that the insurance provided by Uber for UberX is for primary, commercial insurance.

10:49 p.m. Kunselman questions whether the cease-and-desist order can be rescinded unless the operating agreement results in compliance by UberX with the state limo act. He is worried about councilmembers’ liability for direction to rescind the cease-and-desist order. He says that he’ll vote against it.

10:50 p.m. The rest of the world is moving forward with regulation, Kunselman says. Those councilmembers who are going to “dance around the law, have at it, please!”

10:52 p.m. Lumm wants to know if there will be some kind of limit on the life of the operating agreement. Briere ventures that it will be limited in time.

10:54 p.m. Lumm asks for thoughts on the term of the agreement. Taylor says that he thinks something like two years, with a provision that material changes in state law could result in earlier termination.

10:55 p.m. Lumm asks for an amendment clarifying that inspection would be done by a state licensed mechanic.

10:57 p.m. Eaton is taking Kunselman’s question to heart about the potential conflict between the city attorney’s cease-and-desist order and this resolution. Eaton says that he thinks the city attorney should review this question. Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias notes that all contracts entered into by the city are reviewed by the city attorney’s office.

10:59 p.m. Elias explains to Kunselman her view that a request for a public opinion must be made by the council. Petersen wants to know what will happen to the cease-and-desist order. Hieftje indicates that will be decided in the future. Lumm quips that the cease-and-desist order is not causing Uber and Lyft to cease and desist.

11:01 p.m. Lumm is reading aloud her prepared statement in support of this direction to the city administrator to negotiate an operating agreement. She calls the principles robust and says they provide a good framework.

11:03 p.m. Warpehoski says that he’s forwarded the text of the city’s taxicab ordinance so that Lumm can compare the current resolution on felony convictions to requirements on taxicab drivers.

11:04 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 8-3 to direct the city administrator to negotiate operating agreements with transportation network companies like Uber and Lyft, over dissent from Kailasapathy, Kunselman and Anglin

11:04 p.m. DC-3 Accept and allocate Michigan Supreme Court State Court Administrative Office Michigan Veterans Treatment Court Program Grant ($173,911). The grant would fund the veterans treatment court.

11:04 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the Supreme Court grant.

11:04 p.m. DC-4 Community Events Funding Disbursements. The bulk of the community events disbursements were made at the council’s previous meeting. This one is an add-on for Community Works Plus ($1,000) to cover city costs for the African-American Festival Event scheduled on June 6, 2015.

11:04 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the community events fund disbursements.

11:04 p.m. DC-5 Resolution in Support of World Peace day on Sept. 21, 2014.

11:05 p.m. Anglin says that the only objection he’s heard so far is about insurance, but he ventures that no one would object to the overall intent of the resolution.

11:07 p.m. Warpehoski says this is an important commemoration worldwide. There will also be an event on the Diag, he says, and a demonstration on climate action. He says that he doesn’t see the resolution as a promise that the insurance question will be solved. He’s concerned about the appearance of a precedent.

11:08 p.m. Petersen asks city administrator Steve Powers about how a July 2012 event was handled. Powers doesn’t recall. For two more recent events, the city has required insurance: Dancing in the Streets, and the Barracuda street closure. That’s an existing city requirement, he says.

11:09 p.m. Hieftje appreciates Warpehoski raising the question.

11:09 p.m. Kunselman asks if Pizza in the Park carries insurance. Powers indicates that he’d have to check into that. Hieftje ventures that this issue will be figured out.

11:10 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the resolution calling for celebration of World Peace Day on Sept. 21, 2014.

11:10 p.m. DB-1 AAHC North Maple Estates. This vote is on the North Maple Estates site plan, which requires just one council vote. The rezoning required for the AAHC project – a 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road – has already been given final approval by the city council, at its Aug. 18, 2014 meeting. The zoning was changed from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site plan calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms. [For additional background, see North Maple Estates above.]

11:10 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the site plan for North Maple Estates.

11:10 p.m. DB-2 Gift of Life site plan. This is the site plan that required the council to approve rezoning, which was completed earlier in the meeting. [For additional background, see Gift of Life Expansion above.]

11:10 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Gift of Life site plan.

11:10 p.m. DB-3 AAHC Funding Request ($729,879) from the affordable housing trust fund. This resolution would transfer $729,879 from the affordable housing trust fund to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission. The fund transfer would support the “West Arbor” portion of the AAHC’s renovation plan. That would leave a $850,920 balance in the trust fund. The trust fund’s current balance stems largely from the council’s decision late last year – on Dec. 16, 2013 – to deposit into the trust fund the net proceeds of the sale of the former Y lot. [For additional background, see Affordable Housing Fund Transfer above.]

11:11 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the transfer from the affordable housing trust fund to the AAHC.

11:11 p.m. DS-1 Approve purchase order for Ultimate Software Group ($250,000).  This is the city’s payroll software. The amount will cover a transition period as the city moves to NuView, a different software system.

11:11 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the purchase order with Ultimate Software Group.

11:11 p.m. DS-2 Approve a contract with Northwest Consultants Inc. for the Stadium Boulevard Reconstruction Project ($930,822). This is for the design work for the Stadium Boulevard reconstruction project from Kipke Drive to Hutchins.

11:14 p.m. Teall says this is really exciting. Councilmembers are reviewing the history of this project. Kunselman asks if the city is asking for an easement from the Ann Arbor Golf & Outing Club. Michael Nearing is explaining that there is a robust public participation component of the project. It will be discussed with the public and Ann Arbor Golf & Outing.

11:16 p.m. Nearing tells Lumm the staff will keep the council apprised of the project.

11:16 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Northwest Consultants for the Stadium Boulevard design work.

11:16 p.m. Recess. We’re now in recess.

11:28 p.m. We’re back.

11:28 p.m. DS-3 Accept easement for sidewalk at 3947 Research Park Drive from American Honda Motor Co. Inc. This is a standard easement.

11:28 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the easement.

11:28 p.m. DS-4 Ann Arbor SPARK contract ($75,000). This is the item that the council had tabled back on June 16, 2014 meeting. The first vote will be on the question of taking the item up off the table.

11:29 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to take the item up off the table.

11:29 p.m. The question of the SPARK contract is now in front of the council.

11:31 p.m. Warpehoski proposes an amendment to include a clause on the scope of the contract to include additional metrics and direction for collaboration with Washtenaw County’s Act 88 committee. [.pdf of Warphehoski's amendment, as forwarded to the city clerk, who then forwarded it to media]

11:33 p.m. Warpehoski is now arguing for the contract.

11:33 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved amendment.

11:36 p.m. Kunselman proposes an amendment to adjust the amount down to $65,000. Teall asks why he’s proposing that number. Kunselman recalls the amount was $50,000 back in 2007. And other general fund needs have arisen, he says – like the need for a warming shelter. But he says that he’ll support the contract, even if the amendment doesn’t succeed.

11:37 p.m. Hieftje says that he wants to see the $10,000 stay in SPARK’s contract because that will make the “pie” bigger. Kunselman cites the Headlee Amendment as a reason that increased property values will not create the money that will be needed.

11:38 p.m. Kailasapathy recalls her question from earlier in the year about the contributions from other municipalities – less than Ann Arbor – so she’d be happy to see it reduced to $50,000.

11:40 p.m. Paul Krutko, CEO of Ann Arbor SPARK, indicates that this information is now available as a FAQ. The next-closest municipality in terms of contribution to SPARK is Pittsfield Township.

11:41 p.m. Kunselman ventures that when the county levies Act 88 money, it’s collecting Ann Arbor taxes, too. Krutko confirms that.

11:43 p.m. Eaton indicates that the county’s Act 88 collection provides $200,000 to SPARK. He asks how much of that is due to Ann Arbor taxpayers. Krutko said he’d have to get back to him about that.

11:43 p.m. Outcome on Kunselman’s amendment: The council has rejected the amendment reducing the amount to $65,000. It received support only from Kailasapathy, Kunselman, Eaton, and Anglin.

11:44 p.m. Lumm says the city of Ann Arbor is getting good return on its investment from the $75,000.

11:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the $75,000 SPARK contract over dissent from Kailasapathy, Eaton, and Anglin

11:46 p.m. Communications from council. Presentation to The Ann Arbor Chronicle.

11:47 p.m. Public comment. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

11:49 p.m. Kai Petainen is now addressing the council on SPARK. He says it was sneaky to add the item to the agenda late. He ventures that the state is playing favorites with Ann Arbor’s LDFA. He criticizes the fact that the assistant city attorney Abigail Elias had said she was not familiar with the cease-and-desist order.

11:52 p.m. Ed Vielmetti is addressing the council on several issues, including the topic of copyright notices that the city puts on maps. He says that Legistar makes it difficult to search for things. He says that given the fragile state of the press in this town, it would behoove the council to move toward closed captioning for meetings. The new website for the city is beautiful, he tells the council, but he notes that many of the links are now broken.

11:53 p.m. LuAnne Bullington expresses skepticism that the city administrator will be able to negotiate an operating agreement with Uber and Lyft in the short timeframe specified in the resolution.

11:57 p.m. Changming Fan says that thanks is not enough and action means the most. He is president of TiniLite, which he says is a small company based in Ann Arbor. He says that DDA board member John Splitt had spent two hours meeting with him, so Fan appreciated his support. “He is a good man,” even though he is older and is bald, he quips.

11:59 p.m. Alan Haber says he came back to give his appreciation. He hopes a creative approach can be found to deal with the insurance question for the World Peace Day event. He’s talking about a culture of peace and non-violence for the children of the world.

12:04 a.m. Michael Benson is addressing the councilmembers, thanking them for passing the taxicab ordinance on rates. He questions whether complaints about TNCs should be forwarded to the taxicab board – not the human rights commission or the commission on disability issues. He says he doesn’t appreciate the fact that the council killed the other ordinance proposal at first reading. The taxicab board had held off holding a public hearing, because it was felt that the council would be a better venue for that – which would have taken place at the second reading of the council.

12:04 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That is all from the hard benches.

This is the corner spot on the hard benches in the city council chambers where The Chronicle typically sat. It’s somebody else’s seat now!

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the Sept. 2, 2014 meeting agenda.

The Sept. 2 agenda is relatively light and is dominated by land use and development issues, many of them related to the Ann Arbor housing commission’s (AAHC) extensive plan to renovate many of its existing properties.

In other significant business, the council will be considering a direction to the city administrator to negotiate operating agreements with transportation networking companies like Uber and Lyft.

And the council will consider authorizing up to a 15-year extension of the local development finance authority (LDFA), based on a collaboration with a satellite arrangement in Adrian and Tecumseh.

Separate from site plan and zoning issues associated with the AAHC’s renovations, the council will also be considering transferring $729,879 from the affordable housing trust fund to the Ann Arbor housing commission. The fund transfer would support the “West Arbor” portion of the renovation plan. That would leave a $850,920 balance in the trust fund. The trust fund’s current balance stems largely from the council’s decision late last year – on Dec. 16, 2013 – to deposit into the trust fund the net proceeds of the sale of the former Y lot.

Two projects associated with the West Arbor part of the AAHC plan appear on the council’s Sept. 2 agenda. First, the council will consider initial approval of rezoning for the 3451 Platt Road property – from R1C (single-family dwelling district) and R2A (two-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). That was forwarded to the council with a recommendation of approval from the planning commission. However, commissioners postponed consideration of the site plan for the five-building, 32-unit project, amid concerns about the site’s location in the floodplain and stormwater management. The site plan may be able to “catch up” to the zoning approval – because the council will need to give the rezoning a second and final approval at a meeting following the Sept. 2 session.

Second, the North Maple Estates site plan, which requires just one council vote, will be considered on Sept. 2. The rezoning required for the AAHC project – a 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road – has already been given final approval by the city council, at its Aug. 18, 2014 meeting. The zoning was changed from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site plan, which was shifted to the Sept. 2 agenda, calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms.

A non-AAHC land development item on the council’s Sept. 2 agenda is final approval of the rezoning of property necessary for an expansion of the Gift of Life Michigan facility on Research Park Drive. The rezoning would change 6.55 acres from O (office district) and RE (research district) to ORL (office/research/limited industrial district). The site plan, which also appears on the Sept. 2 agenda, calls for building a three-story, 40,786-square-foot addition to connect two existing buildings at 3161 and 3169 Research Park Drive, which are owned and occupied by the nonprofit.

Even though the council rejected one proposed change to its taxicab ordinance at its Aug. 18 meeting – which would have regulated all drivers for hire in the city – initial approval was given to another change in the part of the ordinance that regulates rates. So the council will be giving final consideration to that change on Sept 2. The change would establish certain parameters to mitigate possible negative consequences to the setting of a very high maximum allowable taxicab rate, under which taxicab companies might eventually compete. Those parameters include a requirement that a taxicab company commit to a single rate annually and that the rate be advertised in a vehicle with signage in letters one-inch tall.

As an alternative to requiring all drivers for hire to be registered with the city and to affix commercial plates to their vehicles, the council will be considering whether to establish operating agreements with companies like Uber and Lyft. The council’s Sept. 2 agenda includes a resolution that would direct the city administrator to negotiate operating agreements with transportation network companies (TNCs) in lieu of developing a local law. The resolution does not define in specific terms what a TNC is.

In other business on Sept. 2, the council will be considering a large contract with Ultimate Software Group, worth $250,000 for payroll software to cover the period as the city transitions to NuView, a different software system. Another large contract to be considered by the council on Sept. 2 is with Northwest Consultants Inc. for $930,822  – to do the design work for the Stadium Boulevard reconstruction project from Kipke Drive to Hutchins.

A smaller contract to be considered by the council, as part of the consent agenda, is with Hinshon Environmental Consulting Inc. for additional facilitation services for the technical oversight and advisory group (TOAG). That group is overseeing and coordinating multiple wet weather-related projects in the city. The $10,000 contract amendment would bring the total contract value to $35,000.

The council will also consider the confirmation of several nominations to boards and commissions, including a reappointment of John Splitt to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. It would be Splitt’s third four-year term on the board.

This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Monday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network starting at 7 p.m.

Affordable Housing Fund Transfer

The council will be considering a $729,879 transfer from the affordable housing trust fund to the Ann Arbor housing commission to support the “West Arbor” portion of the AAHC’s renovation plan. That would leave a $850,920 balance in the trust fund. The trust fund’s current balance stems largely from the council’s decision late last year – on Dec. 16, 2013 – to deposit the net proceeds of the sale of the former Y lot into the trust fund.

By way of background, in 2012 the city was accepted into a new rental assistance demonstration program, known as RAD, offered by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The program allows residents in selected housing units to receive rental assistance through long-term Section 8 subsidy vouchers that are tied to the buildings, rather than individuals. The RAD program also enables entities like the AAHC to partner with private-sector developers on housing projects – something the AAHC couldn’t previously do. The Ann Arbor city council gave necessary approvals in connection with the RAD program at its June 3, 2013 meeting. Financing for the RAD program is primarily through low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC).

According to the memo accompanying this item, out of the $16,564,370 project budget for West Arbor, low-income housing tax credits and permanent debt are expected to cover $14,091,491. That leaves a gap of $1,472,879. The AAHC has secured $50,000 from Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) and $293,000 from a Community Challenge Planning Grant. So the AAHC has requested up to $729,879 in capital funding support from the Ann Arbor housing trust fund for the West Arbor portion of the RAD conversion.

A project included in West Arbor is the Lower Platt Road project, which will entail demolishing four 5-bedroom units – because of their current placement in the floodplain – and constructing 32 townhomes and a community center. A second project included in West Arbor is North Maple Estates, which currently offers 19 units. All those units would be demolished and replaced with 42 townhomes.

The final component of West Arbor is the renovation of the four 3-bedroom units known as the North Maple Duplexes.

AAHC: 3451 Platt Road Rezoning

The council will give initial consideration to the rezoning that’s necessary for the Lower Platt portion of West Arbor: from R1C (single-family dwelling district) and R2A (two-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district).

The planning commission sent the rezoning request for the 3451 Platt Road property to the city council with a recommendation of approval – in a vote taken at its Aug. 6, 2014 meeting. However, commissioners postponed consideration of the site plan for the five-building, 32-unit project, amid concerns about the site’s location in the floodplain and stormwater management. The postponement is supposed to allow time to address staff concerns regarding the impact on natural features.

Zoning and site plan approval must ultimately be given by the city council. However, the zoning approval will require two votes by the council at two separate meetings – because changes to the zoning code are actually changes to a city ordinance. So the site plan’s delay would not necessarily delay the project, as long as the site plan is put in front of the council for consideration by the time the council takes a second vote on the rezoning.

The site includes a property currently owned by AAHC, as well as an adjacent parcel that’s being purchased by the city on behalf of AAHC.

The project calls for demolishing four single-family homes and one two-family building, and constructing a 32-unit apartment complex with five buildings, 61 parking spaces, a playground, and a community building. The new apartments will include: 8 one-bedroom units; 12 two-bedroom units; 6 three-bedroom units; 2 four-bedroom units; and 4 five-bedroom units.

Two of the proposed buildings would be in the floodplain, which raised concerns from city staff. The AAHC is working to address those concerns – possibly by eliminating or reducing the number of buildings in the floodplain. It had been expected that the AAHC could address the issues raised by city staff so that the site plan could return to the planning commission at its Aug. 19 meeting – but that didn’t happen. [.pdf of planning staff report] [.pdf of June 28, 2014 citizen participation meeting report]

This project is part of major renovations and improvements the commission is making to its low-income housing inventory. For background on the AAHC process of renovating its properties, see Chronicle coverage: “Public Housing Conversion Takes Next Step.”

The AAHC Platt Road project is different from a Washtenaw County-owned property at 2260 and 2270 Platt Road, the former location of the county’s juvenile center. That site is also being considered for affordable housing.

North Maple Estates

The council will consider the site plan for North Maple Estates – an Ann Arbor housing commission project that calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms.

Aerial view of North Maple Estates site, outlined in green.

The rezoning of the 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road already has been given final approval by the city council at its Aug. 18, 2014 meeting. The zoning was changed from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district).

The Ann Arbor planning commission had recommended the zoning and site plan for approval at its meeting on June 17, 2014. The council gave initial approval of the rezoning at its July 7, 2014 meeting.

The project is another part of the major renovation effort being undertaken by AAHC on several of its properties. The site is on the west side of North Maple, between Dexter Avenue and Hollywood Drive. [.pdf of staff report]

The units in the eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex are proposed to have a total of 138 bedrooms. The units range in size from one bedroom to five bedrooms.

The project will include a playground, community building and 73 parking spaces. According to a staff memo, the buildings will be located along a T-shaped driveway that connects to North Maple Road and Dexter Avenue. The drive extends northward toward Vine Court but does not connect with that street. There would be a new connection to Dexter Avenue through the remaining, undeveloped length of Seybold Drive.

Gift of Life Expansion

At its Sept. 2 meeting, the council will consider giving final approval to the rezoning of property necessary for an expansion of the Gift of Life Michigan facility on Research Park Drive. The rezoning would change 6.55 acres from O (office district) and RE (research district) to ORL (office/research/limited industrial district). At the same meeting, the council will also consider the site plan for the project.

Aerial view of Gift of Life Michigan site.

The proposal calls for building a three-story, 40,786-square-foot addition to connect two existing buildings at 3161 and 3169 Research Park Drive, which are owned and occupied by the nonprofit. According to a staff report, the additional space will accommodate offices, a special events auditorium and “organ procurement suites.” The nonprofit’s website states that the Gift of Life is Michigan’s only federally designated organ and tissue recovery program. Cost of the expansion project will be $10.5 million.

The city planning commission recommended approval of the rezoning at its July 1, 2014 meeting. City council action to give initial approval of the site plan came at its meeting on Aug. 7.

The project would reduce the four existing curb cuts to Research Park Drive to three, connecting one of the loop driveways to an existing driveway at the east end of the site. A parking lot at the back of the site will be expanded by 38 parking spaces. Two alternate vehicle fueling stations are proposed in parking spaces near the main entry, with the driveway at the center of the site providing access for ambulances. A new shipping and receiving facility will be located on the northeast corner of the site.

Taxicab Meter Rates

Even though the council rejected one proposed change to its taxicab ordinance at its Aug. 18, 2014 meeting – which would have regulated all drivers for hire in the city – initial approval was given to another change in the part of the ordinance that regulates rates. So the council will be giving final consideration to that change on Sept 2.

The change would establish certain parameters to mitigate possible negative consequences to the setting of a very high maximum allowable taxicab rate, under which taxicab companies might eventually compete. Those parameters include a requirement that a taxicab company commit to a single rate annually and that the rate be advertised in a vehicle with signage in letters one-inch tall.

The vote by the taxicab board to recommend the ordinance change came at its July 24, 2014 meeting.

These issues were also discussed at three monthly meetings of the taxicab board prior to that, on April 23, 2014, May 22, 2014 and June 26, 2014. Representatives of the taxicab industry at those meetings advocated for the establishment of a very high maximum – not tied to gas and insurance prices. They feel it’s one mechanism that would allow them to compete with ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft.

The proposal to regulate all drivers for hire, which the council rejected, was also intended in part to allow taxicab companies to compete with Uber and Lyft on an even playing field. Taxicab drivers are already regulated by the city.

Regarding fare regulation, the city’s current structure already allows for the establishing of a maximum rate to be adopted by the city council. Currently the maximum rate in Ann Arbor is $3 to get in, $2.50 per mile, and 40 cents per minute waiting time. Those maximum rates were last adjusted upwards three years ago, on May 16, 2011, in response to gas prices that had nudged past $4 per gallon. At that time, the taxicab board indicated it did not anticipate considering another rate change until the gas prices were over $5 for at least two consecutive months.

So the taxicab board’s thinking is not being driven by gas prices, which are currently between $3.75 and $4 in the Ann Arbor area. Instead, a possible increase in allowable fares is based on concern that the taxicab industry in Ann Arbor might not be able to survive unless taxis are allowed to charge more.

At its Aug. 28, 2014 meeting, taxicab board members recommended the following maximum rate schedule for eventual consideration by the council, which could appear on the council’s agenda as soon as Sept. 15: $10 to get in, $5 per mile and 40 cents per minute waiting time. In addition, a $1 surcharge could be applied for each passenger over three passengers.

At the council’s Aug. 18 meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) – who also serves as the city council’s representative to the taxicab board – asked rhetorically if the taxicab board should be disbanded. At its Aug. 28 meeting, taxicab board chair Michael Benson announced that he’d received an email from board member Eric Sturgis, who indicated that he would be resigning from the board – because he’s moving to Jackson, Mich. It has historically been difficult to find residents willing to serve on the taxicab board.

Drivers for Hire: Uber/Lyft Operating Agreement

The ordinance change rejected by the council on Aug. 18, 2014 would have required all drivers for hire to be registered with the city, to have commercial plates on their vehicles, and to maintain insurance commensurate with commercial plates. And the absence of commercial plates on a vehicle that is observed being used for picking up or dropping off passengers would have provided a reason for a traffic stop by Ann Arbor police. At the taxicab board meetings over the last few months, representatives of the taxicab industry argued that the state statute regulating limousines already gives the city the ability to enforce against Uber and Lyft drivers.

At the taxicab board’s Aug. 28 meeting, representatives of the taxicab industry lamented the fact that they had not attended the council’s Aug. 18 meeting to advocate for regulating all drivers for hire through a city ordinance. Representatives of Uber and Lyft numbered over 50 people at the council meeting, some of whom addressed the council during public commentary time.

Ward 3 city councilmember and taxicab board member Stephen Kunselman indicated at the board’s Aug. 28 meeting that there might be a possibility that one of the five councilmembers who voted against the ordinance at first reading on Aug. 18 might bring it back for reconsideration.

The 5-5 vote totaling 10 on the 11-member body stemmed from the absence of Margie Teall (Ward 4). Voting for the regulation of all drivers for hire were Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Voting against the change were mayor John Hieftje, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

At the council’s Aug. 18 meeting, during deliberations on the rejected ordinance change, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that she’d concluded as early as April of this year that an operating agreement – instead of a local ordinance – would be the right approach. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated he had been working with Briere to come up with that kind of approach.

The resolution to be considered by the council on Sept. 2 would direct the city administrator to negotiate an operating agreement with established transportation network companies (TNCs) and to bring an agreement to the council for approval by the second council meeting in October, which is Oct. 20.

The elements to be included in the operating agreement are specified in an attachment to the resolution as follows:

Operating agreement principles include:

• Company will provide a minimum of $1M in liability insurance coverage for the driver, vehicle and passengers and any other injured parties, from the moment a driver is linked with a passenger to the moment the passenger releases the vehicle.
• Company will conduct the following at no cost to the city: background checks for each driver-applicant prior to allowing their participation. This background check will include a criminal background check, including a check for multiple relevant jurisdictions; a review of the applicant’s driving record; a mechanical inspection of the vehicle by a licensed inspector. The results of this data collection will be made available to the City for any driver / vehicle combination approved for participation in the company.
• Company will not allow participation by a driver / vehicle combination if the driver has any felony conviction; any conviction for DUI; more than 2 moving violations in any calendar year or more than 4 moving violations in a six-year period, with no more than 4 accumulated points in any calendar year.
• Company shall ensure that all driver vehicles pass an annual, mutually agreeable safety inspection conducted by a licensed mechanic.
• Prior to participation in the program, drivers shall go through a driver-education program that provides training in customer service and improves familiarity with local streets and local traffic conditions.
• Drivers shall not accept passengers except through the ride-sharing mechanism provided by the Company.
• Company will provide requested data to the City about accidents and incidents with passengers, as well as a report on customer satisfaction and safety ratings.

The resolution does not appear to define explicitly what a TNC is – and seems to allow for the possibility that an existing limo company could seek to operate under such an agreement without complying with the state statute on operation of limousines.

The resolution also leaves unspecified the intended term of the agreement – although deliberations at the council’s Aug. 18 meeting indicated that the intent of such operating agreements in other Michigan municipalities was to implement a temporary basis under which Uber and Lyft could operate, while the state legislature establishes a legislative framework under which such companies could operate.

The resolution does not direct the city administrator to provide for any explicit penalties that the city could impose on a TNC for failure to adhere to the operating agreement. The enforcement mechanism that the resolution seems to contemplate is for a TNC to provide certain kinds of data to the city upon request.

The resolution does not direct the city administrator to impose any requirements on the public accessibility of data provided by TNCs to the city. If a company were to come to an agreement with the city that data and information would be provided to the city, but only upon the condition that it not be disclosed to the public, then that data would be exempt from disclosure, even under a request made under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act.

Extension of LDFA

The council will consider a resolution on Sept. 2 that would move ahead with a 15-year extension of the local development finance authority (LDFA). The LDFA  – branded as one of about a dozen LDFA SmartZones statewide –  is funded through capture of public school operating millages within the geographic areas of the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti downtown development authority districts. In actual fact, however, no capture is made of the Ypsilanti school taxes.

The LDFA contracts with Ann Arbor SPARK to operate a business accelerator, which is meant to move start-up companies in the tech and biosciences sectors more quickly to a stage in their development when they are generating revenue from paying customers and adding jobs. Separate from the LDFA business acceleration contract with Ann Arbor SPARK, the city of Ann Arbor has historically engaged SPARK for business attraction and retention services. However, this year the $75,000 annual contract with SPARK was tabled by the council – in a vote taken at the council’s June 16, 2014 meeting. It’s expected at some point to be taken back up off the table for consideration. By council rule, it will be considered demised if it’s not considered before a lapse of six months.

The extension – which would still need approval from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation – depends on establishing a relationship between the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti SmartZone and some other “satellite” LDFA. So the Sept. 2 resolution designates Adrian/Tecumseh as that satellite. The council’s resolution specifies the following as findings:

1. That the selection of the Adrian/Tecumseh LDFA as a satellite provides unique characteristics and specialties through its public and private resources including the location of Adrian College, Siena Heights University and Jackson College within its TIF District and the opportunities for research partnerships and student/young entrepreneur involvement. In addition partnership with another multi-jurisdictional LDFA provides opportunities for shared experiences.
2. That the selection of the Adrian/Tecumseh LDFA as a satellite provides regional cooperation and collaboration benefits to the LDFA and the Cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti with joint focuses on technology (including expanding green technologies and agricultural technology) and entrepreneurial services.
3. That the selection of the Adrian/Tecumseh LDFA as a satellite provides value and support to the LDFA by strengthening existing collaboratives, making available a new/expanded technical assistance and support through its Innovation Center at Adrian College, and agricultural and manufacturing resources.

In connection with the extension, revisions to the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti SmartZone TIF (tax increment financing) plan and development plan are being undertaken. Drafts of revisions are attached to the council’s Sept. 2 agenda item. Revisions appear to address concerns that have been raised about the current arrangement – to some extent by Ann Arbor city councilmembers.

Those concerns include the fact that TIF is not currently allowed to be spent outside the TIF district in the city of Ann Arbor; further, no TIF funds can be expended in Ypsilanti – inside or outside its TIF district – because no actual tax capture revenue is generated for the LDFA in that area. The revisions would allow TIF revenue to be expended anywhere in the entire cities of Ann Arbor or Ypsilanti.

In addition, the revisions specify in greater detail that TIF revenue can be used to pay for high-speed communications infrastructure. Specifically mentioned as eligible expenditures is the “installation of technology related infrastructure assets, i.e. fiber lines, nodes, or work spaces.”

The LDFA extension comes in the context of lingering questions about the impact on school funding of the LDFA tax capture. In FY 2013, the total amount captured by the Ann Arbor SmartZone LDFA was $1,546,577, and the current fiscal year forecast is for $2,017,835. About the same amount is forecast for FY 2015.

The LDFA captures Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS) operating millage, but those captured taxes don’t directly diminish the local school’s budget. That’s because in Michigan, local schools levy a millage, but the proceeds are not used directly by local districts. Rather, proceeds are first forwarded to the state of Michigan’s School Aid Fund, for redistribution among school districts statewide. That redistribution is based on a per-pupil formula as determined on a specified “count day.” And the state is supposed to “reimburse” the School Aid Fund for the taxes captured by some SmartZones in the state.

Questions raised in the last few months have centered around whether the School Aid Fund is “reimbursed” by the state’s general fund for the taxes that are captured to fund the Ann Arbor SmartZone LDFA – because the wording of the state statute is based on the term “reimburse.”

It turns out that the school taxes captured by the Ann Arbor SmartZone are not required to be “reimbursed” to the state School Aid Fund – which diminishes the amount of funding for public schools statewide. That’s a conclusion based on a reading of the LDFA statute and confirmed to The Chronicle by communications staff in the Dept. of Treasury and the MEDC. However, it’s not clear that “reimbursement” is even a useful way of framing the question – notwithstanding the wording of the state statute. That’s partly because tax capture from those LDFAs to which the state statute does apply are not “reimbursed” in the sense that the word implies – with a specific calculation done and a transfer of money (or an adjustment to the legislature’s appropriation) made based on that calculation. From an Aug. 7, 2014 staff memo: “… the reimbursement language really only served as language of intent.”

Based on subsequent inquires made by city of Ann Arbor financial staff with state officials, it appears that the setting of the statewide per-pupil allowance each year proceeds along a separate track from replenishing the School Aid Fund – which receives significant revenue from sources other than local school operating millages. It appears it’s not possible to establish a 1-to-1 relationship between local school operating taxes that are captured by LDFAs and money that flows into the School Aid Fund from various other sources that might be analyzed as “compensating” for the capture.

In any case, city staff have concluded that LDFA tax capture has not had a negative impact on Ann Arbor’s local school funding.

Appointments to Boards and Commissions

Appointments to the city of Ann Arbor’s boards and commissions are typically handled in a two-step process: (1) the mayor announces the nominations at a council meeting; (2) the council votes on the confirmation at the next meeting of the council. The procedure is grounded in the city charter.

At the council’s Aug. 21 meeting, Anna Ercoli-Schnitzer was nominated to fill a vacancy on the commission on disability issues. Tamara Burns and Dick Mitchell were nominated to be reappointed to the design review board. Sofia Franciscus was nominated to fill the vacancy on the planning commission due to Paras Parekh’s resignation. And John Splitt was nominated for reappointment to the Downtown Development Authority board.

Dan O’Brien of Woods Oviatt Gilman in Rochester, New York gave oral arguments for the plaintiffs in the Yu v. City of Ann Arbor case on Aug. 27, 2014. Here he was providing the court with supplemental documentation on proof of service for the three motions in front of judge Donald Shelton, on Shelton’s last motion day before retirement. The issue of proper service was not explicitly argued on Aug. 27 and appeared resolved in favor of the idea that service had been proper. (Photos by the writer.)

The case involves a claim of unconstitutional takings – inverse condemnation. Plaintiffs in the case, Yu v. City of Ann Arbor, are three Ann Arbor residents who had their footing drains disconnected under the city FDD program.

On his last motion day before retirement, Shelton chose to deny a motion to disqualify the city attorney’s office in its representation of the city. That motion was based on the plaintiffs’ contention that testimony on non-privileged matters would be required of assistant city attorney Abigail Elias.

Shelton’s ruling to deny the motion to disqualify Elias came only after Elias answered what Shelton portrayed as the key question: Would the city’s defense of the lawsuit depend on a contention that the ordinance was enacted based on the opinion of counsel? Elias indicated that she did not think it was relevant, but Shelton insisted on an answer, telling her that if the city wanted to use that as part of its defense, “you’re out of here.” So Elias told Shelton the city would not be using that as part of its defense. Shelton later made clear that such a defense would not be allowed.

In making his ruling on the disqualification issue, Shelton appeared to indicate that he did not think relevant factors in the case included the city’s stated rationale for enacting the FDD ordinance – on grounds of public safety health and welfare – or the efficacy of the ordinance in reducing sanitary sewer overflows and backups. The case was not about whether the FDD ordinance was a good idea, he said, but rather about whether it was a lawful idea.

Shelton also denied a motion to reassign the case away from judge Timothy Connors – who will be taking over all of Shelton’s civil cases after Shelton’s last day as judge on Aug. 29. On that motion, Shelton pointed out that he did not have the power to grant it. He declined to say anything about what he thought regarding the merits of the motion, and indicated that such a motion should go through the regular disqualification process. That entails making a motion in front of the judge to be disqualified – and if the judge declines to disqualify himself, possibly appealing to the chief judge of the circuit court, who is David Swartz.

However, Shelton delayed ruling on a third motion, on sanctions against the city’s attorneys – for making statements in a brief in support of summary disposition that plaintiffs contend did not have a basis well-grounded in fact. Shelton questioned assistant city attorney Abigail Elias closely on the matter, and appeared to indicate some agreement with plaintiffs’ contention that the city had, in its brief filed with the court, mischaracterized the plaintiffs’ position. And during back-and-forth with Shelton, Elias herself stopped just short of admitting that her choice of the word “concede” was a misrepresentation of the plaintiffs’ legal position – something she described as possibly an overstatement in the course of zealous representation of her client.

Shelton indicated that the motion on sanctions – in connection with the brief on summary disposition – should be heard at the same time the motion on summary disposition is heard. So Shelton indicated he would be adjourning that motion until Sept. 18. That hearing on summary disposition is scheduled before Connors.

No substantive matters have yet been decided in the case, which the city first removed to federal court. However, the plaintiffs moved for remand from the federal court back to the circuit court – a motion that was granted by judge Avern Cohn in late May. When the case returned to the circuit court, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which was heard and denied by Shelton in early July. The city had filed a motion for summary disposition on June 9, which was originally scheduled for July 30. It was subsequently rescheduled by the city for Aug. 13, and then shifted by the city again to Sept. 18 – which is after Shelton’s scheduled retirement.

When Shelton ruled on the motions after listening to each side, he prefaced the ruling with some general commentary reflecting his 24 years of experience as a judge, which were coming to an end. That commentary highlighted the idea of “winnowing” out the extraneous issues introduced by lawyers on both sides to focus on what a case was actually about.

For the disqualification issue, Shelton wanted to know two things: What specific non-privileged testimony, relevant to the central issue of the case, would be required from Elias? Would the city use as part of its defense the claim that the ordinance had been enacted based upon the opinion of legal counsel? For the judge reassignment issue, the question Shelton identified and answered himself was: Do I have the power to decide this motion? And for the motion on sanctions, Shelton indicated that the central question was: When and in what context should the motion be decided?

A more detailed report of the proceedings is provided below. Dan O’Brien of Woods Oviatt Gilman in Rochester, New York was asked by Shelton to argue all motions in one speaking turn, which he did in the following order: (1) motion to disqualify; (2) motion to reassign away from Connors; and (3) motion for sanctions.

Motion on Disqualification: Background

The motion filed by plaintiffs would disqualify assistant city attorney Abigail Elias, and thereby the city attorney’s office, from representing the city in this lawsuit. [Aug. 20, 2014 Yu v. City of Ann Arbor brief in support of disqualification]

The brief arguing for disqualification cites an email sent by plaintiffs’ counsel in early February notifying Elias that she would likely be called as a witness in the case:

I am advising that your non-privileged testimony and evidence will likely be required in connection with litigation over the FDDP, which is now in preparation for filing. The case will include a claim for inverse condemnation. You are a necessary witness on both liability and relief, which probably comes as no surprise.

The plaintiffs argued partly on grounds that they need to depose Elias as a reason to disqualify her as the city’s representation.

In its brief in opposition to the motion on disqualification, the city contends that there is no testimony that Elias is in a unique position to provide other than testimony that would be subject to the attorney-client privilege. [Aug. 22, 2014 Yu v. City of Ann Arbor brief opposing disqualification]

The city also contends that disqualification of its city attorneys would be prejudicial to the city, because “Ms. Elias has been involved with the FDD program since its inception 13 years ago. Her familiarity with and knowledge of the issues in this case from those years cannot be replicated easily or quickly.”

Motion on Disqualification: Oral Arguments

Dan O’Brien led off oral arguments by asking which of the three motions Shelton wanted to hear first. Shelton set the tone of the proceedings by saying: “You can pick any one you want, but you’re going to talk about all three, and I’m only going to listen to you once.”

Judge Donald Shelton.

O’Brien began with the motion to disqualify Elias as the city’s legal counsel. He rejected the idea – expressed in the city’s response brief – that the motion was a tactic or a strategic move to disqualify opposing counsel. O’Brien indicated there was no personal issue, saying he was from New York State, so he didn’t know the lawyers in Ann Arbor and had no personal opinion one way or another. The motion was based on a review of the situation and the “long and very intense involvement” by Elias in the issue.

At that point Shelton interrupted O’Brien: “Counsel, let me ask you … What specifically do you intend to use … in the way of testimony from Ms. Elias?” When O’Brien indicated he would provide some examples, Shelton’s rejoinder was sharp: “I don’t want examples; I want the whole litany.”

O’Brien started with the origins of the FDD ordinance. It was known that a consultant was hired by the city, and that the consultant’s recommendation that the most expedient and practical way to resolve the sanitary sewer overflows and backups was to disconnect the footing drains from target area houses. It was also known that the consultant had significant reservations about the legality of going onto private property and installing equipment and disconnecting the footing drains. In the consultant’s report there were several places where those caveats and concerns are addressed. O’Brien continued, saying that within 42 days of the report’s issuance, the ordinance was approved.

So O’Brien concluded it is a “fair topic” of examination: What did Elias do between delivery of that report and the passage of the ordinance – with respect to her contacts and discussions with representatives of the consultant or other third parties who were not employees of the city? Shelton’s one-word question: “Who?” O’Brien named the consultant, CDMI. Shelton followed up: “Who else? … What is the non-privileged relevance of her testimony?” O’Brien told Shelton that the non-privileged relevance was this: If the legality of going onto private property was a concern that had been raised, and it had not been ignored, then the city had possibly come up with some kind of a legal framework or opinion supporting the constitutionality and legality of the ordinance – but if that were available, plaintiffs had not seen it.

Shelton shot back: “So what? What if 10 lawyers said, ‘I think this may be unlawful.’” The issue, Shelton continued, is whether the ordinance is, in fact, unlawful or not. Shelton said he didn’t care what 10 lawyers thought about whether the ordinance was lawful or not – that was the issue to be decided in the lawsuit. It would not be decided by taking a poll, Shelton said.

O’Brien forged ahead, saying that based on the motions that the city has made thus far, it is defending the ordinance on the basis of its ability to serve a public need – to provide for public safety, health and welfare. So O’Brien believed that those issues were relevant in terms of the discussions that took place between the time the report was issued by the consultant and the enactment of the ordinance.

Shelton was skeptical: “Of what relevance can they be?” O’Brien noted that he hadn’t raised that issue, but rather the city had. Shelton dismissed that idea as “fishing.” In the course of the continued back-and-forth, Shelton said he did not understand what Elias had to do with anything other than the fact that she was the lawyer and she was advising the city and the city was paying her to do that.

O’Brien then brought up a memorandum Elias wrote earlier this year – not prepared for her colleagues at the city or as advice to the city council. Instead, Elias had prepared that and read it and distributed it to a citizens advisory committee. That was a group formed by the city to review the efficacy and acceptance in the community of the FDD program and to work in conjunction with the city to prepare a second report on the efficacy of the FDD program. Elias had gone to the citizens advisory committee voluntarily, O’Brien said, and she had extensive discussions with the committee about legal positions. But Shelton asked: “What does that have to do with the guts of this lawsuit?”

O’Brien argued that the city had raised the issue of how effective the ordinance has been. But Shelton responded by saying the city could maintain that was an issue, but he didn’t see it as a relevant issue in this case – no matter how the city characterizes it. “This is not a case about whether this is a good or bad idea. The issue is whether it is a lawful idea or not,” Shelton stated.

When O’Brien made a gambit to get the city to agree to some stipulations as to what the relevant issues would be, Shelton stated: “I’m not asking you or them to stipulate to a non-issue. The court will decide what they are, and I’m telling you that whether it’s a good idea or bad idea is not an issue in this case.”

O’Brien expressed some apparent frustration by saying he was simply trying to deal with issues the city had raised, adding that he appreciated Shelton’s “guidance” on what is relevant and what isn’t. Shelton replied: “I have a couple of more days to issue more than guidance!” Shelton emphasized the point that the court will decide the relevant issues: “Ultimately the court has to decide what the legal issue is and I am telling you … that whether this program was a good or bad idea is not a legal issue that is going to be decided by this court. The court is going to decide whether it is lawful or not.”

O’Brien asked if Shelton was saying that the plaintiffs could not take Elias’ deposition. But Shelton told O’Brien to go on to his next motion.

When Elias took her turn at the podium, she told Shelton that she would be happy to address the motion on her disqualification if he wanted her to do that. Shelton told her: “You probably need to do that!” Elias began by reviewing the arguments in the city’s brief, saying that the plaintiffs had not identified anything on which she would need to testify that is not privileged or a legal issue. She didn’t get very far before Shelton interrupted. He wanted to know: Is the city going to defend the case at all based on the idea that the city had enacted the ordinance in reliance upon advice of counsel?

Elias at first did not respond to the question, hazarding an attempt at humor by asking if Shelton meant legal counsel or the city council. When Shelton laughed and indicated he meant the non-elected, legal counsel, Elias began to advance an argument that she didn’t think reliance on advice of counsel was relevant. Shelton interrupted, saying he agreed it wasn’t relevant, but asked: “Are you going to defend on that basis?” When Elias responded, “I hadn’t gotten to that point …,” Shelton cut her off: “You’ve got to get there right now. Fish or cut bait. Because if you’re going to rely on it at all, you’re out of here.” Elias confirmed the city would not be relying on that.

Elias then addressed some of the characterizations by the plaintiffs of engineering reports. The engineers’ statements were basically that they were engineers and as such did not make legal decisions so it would need to go through the city attorney’s office. Shelton gave Elias treatment similar to what O’Brien had received on the question of what people thought about the legality of the ordinance: “… No denigration to the engineers, or your office, and I don’t think I have ever quoted George Bush, but you are not the ‘deciders’ here.” When Elias started to continue with her arguments, Shelton told her she’d answered the one question he’d had, and invited her to address the other motions.

Motion on Reassignment: Background

The motion to reassign was based on the fact that attorney Mark Koroi is co-counsel for the plaintiffs. According to the brief in support of the motion to reassign the case away from Connors, Koroi has filed four Judicial Tenure Commission grievances against Connors, two of which have been upheld. Koroi’s brief also notes that he has engaged in “vigorous public advocacy against political candidacies of both Timothy Connors and his wife.”

The plaintiff’s brief notes that Michigan court rules stipulate that it is the challenged judge who must make an initial ruling on a motion for disqualification, so the motion to reassign is a proactive measure to eliminate the need to file a motion in front of Connors, which would ask that Connors disqualify himself. [Aug. 20, 2014 Yu v. City of Ann Arbor brief on reassignment]

The city’s response brief argues that the motion is actually a motion for disqualification, and as such the motion is premature and should be heard by Connors. The city also argues explicitly against the idea that Connors should be disqualified, noting that if political speech critical of a judge were adequate grounds for disqualification, then an attorney could engage in such speech specifically so that the attorney would never have to appear in front of that judge.

The city also argues that the brief in support of the motion to reassign doesn’t provide any evidence that Connors is aware of Koroi’s political advocacy or that Connors is actually biased against Koroi. [Aug. 22, 2014 Yu v. City of Ann Arbor response brief on reassignment]

Motion on Reassignment: Oral Arguments

O’Brien led off by saying that the motion was to reassign rather than a motion to disqualify because there is an old law school proverb: A live person has no heirs. “You are still on the bench and you are still on this case,” O’Brien told Shelton. O’Brien indicated that he understood that typically the way cases are reassigned is by lot. Shelton then disabused O’Brien of that notion by explaining that when a judge leaves the bench – as Shelton will do on Aug. 29 – the cases are reassigned by the chief judge as a “bulk reassignment.”

Shelton continued by describing a situation in which assignment could be by lot: If the motion were for Shelton to disqualify himself, and he granted that motion, then it would be circulated to all the other civil judges to be drawn by lot. In that explanation, Shelton injected some humor based on wordplay with the phrase “civil judges,” saying that he meant civil judges “with a capital C” – that is, judges who hear civil cases, not judges who behave in a civil manner. For his criminal cases, a visiting judge is going to handle the criminal cases currently assigned to him, Shelton explained – until the newly elected judge takes office.

Judge Donald Shelton.

But the civil cases are going to be assigned to judge Timothy Connors, and Connors would be keeping them, because the newly elected judge [either Pat Conlin or Veronique Liem] won’t have a civil case load initially. O’Brien responded by saying that he had no personal issue or animus, and wouldn’t know Connors if he bumped into him in the hallway. But based on Koroi’s “previous entanglements” with Connors, O’Brien thought the situation warranted reassignment to some other judge instead of Connors.

Shelton responded by saying he was simply going to rule on the motion, adding that any motion to disqualify would have to be made after it was reassigned to Connors. Shelton described the motion in front of him as a way to “jump ahead” of that process and reassign it to someone else. “I have no power to do that,” Shelton said. That would qualify as “extraordinary relief,” he said, and only the chief judge could do that. If plaintiffs did file a motion with the chief judge, Shelton ventured that he [judge David Swartz] would probably tell the plaintiffs to go through the disqualification process. So Shelton told O’Brien to move on to the next motion.

When Elias’ turn came to make arguments, she ventured that she did not need to address the motion on reassignment, which Shelton confirmed.

Motion for Sanctions: Background

A third motion heard on Aug. 27 was for sanctions on the city attorney’s office for filing papers that are “neither well-grounded in fact nor warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law.” The papers in question were the city’s brief in support of its motion for summary disposition. [June 9, 2014 Yu v. City of Ann Arbor brief on summary disposition]

Included in the plaintiffs’ claims asking for sanctions to be imposed is the contention that some of the key arguments in the city’s motion for summary judgment are frivolous. Plaintiffs assert that the city’s argument that the plaintiffs’ complaint is time-barred is frivolous. The plaintiffs then argue that one of the city’s positions – that the plaintiffs’ federal claims should be dismissed – is crucially based on the city’s contention that the claims are time-barred.

The plaintiffs’ brief in support of sanctions also asserts that the city has mischaracterized the plaintiffs’ position, highlighting instances where the city states that the plaintiffs have “recognized” or “conceded” some key aspect of the city’s legal position. The plaintiffs argue that the plaintiffs have not recognized or conceded the things that the city claims in its brief. [Aug. 20, 2014 Yu v. City of Ann Arbor brief on sanctions]

For example, the city claims in its brief that [emphasis added]:

Plaintiffs recognize that they own the sump pumps they installed and that the sump pumps and footing drain system operate as an integral part of their houses; in other words that neither the city nor a third party owns anything located in their homes, occupies their properties, or has otherwise taken their properties.

The claim is presented in the “introduction” section of the city’s brief, a section of pleadings where recitations of uncontroversial fact are typically presented. The question of pump ownership and occupation of residents’ homes by the third party are central points of dispute in the case. The plaintiffs’ brief in support of sanctions argues that the citations by the city to the plaintiffs’ pleadings – in support of the claim of “recognition” – do not in fact support a claim of “recognition.”

Another claim by the city – presented in the “background facts” portion of its brief in support of summary disposition – is that [emphasis added]:

“Plaintiffs concede that Sec. 1.1 [the footing drain disconnection ordinance] was adopted by the City to address the public health, safety and welfare issues of sanitary sewer back-ups in basements and sanitary overflows.”

The portion of the plaintiffs’ brief cited by the city in making that characterization does not, according to the plaintiffs, provide any support for the city’s contention that a concession has been made. And elsewhere in the plaintiffs’ brief, they state [emphasis added]:

Upon information and belief, the Ordinance was not enacted in response to emergency conditions or some other imminent threat to public health, safety or welfare. Rather, the Ordinance was enacted by the City in order to facilitate a solution to long-standing and self-created conditions in the least expensive and/or most expedient way possible.

Based on the city’s descriptions of the plaintiffs’ statements, the plaintiffs contend that the city is distorting the record. From the plaintiffs’ brief in support of sanctions:

This level of mischaracterization goes beyond zealous advocacy: it is misleading and is unfair to both the Court and to the Plaintiffs, whose lawyers are forced to ferret out mischaracterizations and distortions of the record when they should be responding to a “fair presentation of the issues” by opposing counsel.

The city’s response to the plaintiffs’ brief in support of sanctions deals with the part involving plaintiffs’ frivolous legal arguments by arguing for the merit of those arguments.

In its brief opposing sanctions, the city responds to the plaintiffs’ contention that their statements have been misrepresented to the court by insisting that the city’s characterization is based on the plaintiffs’ recitation of facts – and an attachment to the complaint of the city’s written “homeowner’s package” for sump pump installees.

The city’s position appears to be that whatever factual claims and characterizations made in the “homeowner’s package” were recognized and represented to the court by the plaintiffs as true – by dint of the attachment of the “homeowner’s package” to the plaintiffs’ complaint as an exhibit. So the city is not analyzing the plaintiffs’ exhibit merely as a representation by the plaintiffs as to what the city itself claims to be true (via public documents produced by the city), but also what the plaintiffs are recognizing to be true. [Aug. 22, 2014 Yu v. City of Ann Arbor response brief on sanctions]

The city blames any misunderstanding on the plaintiffs, arguing that the plaintiffs wrote poorly worded filings. From the city’s response brief, opposing sanctions:

[T]he City has not mischaracterized Plaintiffs’ Complaint, but has simply analyzed it as written by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ dissatisfaction with the City’s reading of their Complaint arises from Plaintiffs’ own failure to draft a well-pleaded Complaint.

Motion for Sanctions: Oral Arguments

O’Brien began by saying that it was not something he was doing lightly: “I would not bring such a motion if I did not feel that a line had been crossed here.” Addressing an issue raised in the city’s response brief, O’Brien said the city contended the motion was premature, even while indicating that they could not find a case or a rule showing when such motions should be considered.

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Dan O’Brien.

O’Brien told Shelton that the plaintiffs’ brief had cited authority – a Michigan Supreme Court case – which makes clear that the rules governing the imposition of sanctions apply to all motions, affidavits and other papers filed with the court. As a result, there was no impediment to the court to consider the motion for sanctions and to impose them if it finds the court rule has been violated.

O’Brien identified three arguments that the plaintiffs have made. One was that there have been mischaracterizations in the papers filed by the city – “real mischaracterizations and distortions of the positions” that the plaintiffs had described in their complaint.

The city had contended in their brief in support of summary disposition that plaintiffs had “permitted” or “invited” the invasion or occupation complained about in their complaint. O’Brien said that all of the allegations in the plaintiffs’ complaint directly contradict the notion that they “invited” or “permitted” the agents of the city to come in and do work. The fact was that the activity was involuntary. For example, O’Brien said, the complaint talks about “enforced consent,” and “under threat of compulsion.” O’Brien told Shelton that with those kinds of phrases in their complaint, it’s not possible to characterize the pleading as one that “admits” or “acknowledges” the invasion or occupation as permitted or invited.

O’Brien pointed out that in the city’s brief in support of summary disposition, the city indicates it will accept the pleadings of the complaint as true – so the city was not offering any opposing affidavits or any admissible evidence. So for the purposes of their motion, they are acknowledging the allegations of the complaint are to be taken as true. If that is the case, O’Brien continued, then the city’s characterization of the plaintiffs’ argument is “wildly inaccurate.” The city’s characterization is misleading, he said, and it is a distortion of the complaint.

O’Brien also noted that the city had contended the plaintiffs “recognized that they own the sump pumps they installed and that the sump pumps and footing drain system operate as an integral part of their houses; in other words that neither the city nor a third party owns anything located in their homes, occupies their properties, or has otherwise taken their properties.” If you look at the complaint, O’Brien told Shelton, that is directly contrary to what the plaintiffs said in their complaint.

The city had cited as authority for that “admission” – that the plaintiffs had acknowledged there was no unconstitutional taking – the fact that plaintiffs attached the city’s homeowner packet as an exhibit to the complaint. And the city argued that because the plaintiffs attached the city’s own homeowner packet as an exhibit for the complaint, that somehow the plaintiffs had adopted everything the homeowner packet says. There is no way you can read that complaint and the references to the exhibit as the plaintiffs’ “concession” to the city’s position with respect to the FDD program, O’Brien said. “It’s completely uncalled for and is just untrue.”

In the city’s response brief, O’Brien said, the city cites authority for the fact that attached exhibits that contradicts allegations in the complaint trump those allegations. But what cases did the city cite? O’Brien asked. The city cited one case in which a complaint had attached to it promissory notes and guarantees signed by the plaintiff. And based on those promissory notes and guarantees, the court concluded that the allegations of the plaintiff were contradicted by the documentary evidence attached to the complaint – and obviously adopted by the plaintiff. The other case was one where letters by the lawyer were attached, which contradicted the assertions contained in the complaint. Those cases were inapposite, O’Brien said.

Allegations were made in the complaint that the plaintiffs were forced by the city to accept this FDD installation, and the plaintiffs attached the homeowner packet and quoted some of the language in it. To suggest that plaintiffs had adopted the city’s position – just because they’d merely attached that exhibit to the complaint – is fallacious, O’Brien said. “It’s sophistry,” he continued, and that’s the kind of thing that the plaintiffs and the judge should not be required to ferret out any time the city says something.

O’Brien continued by noting that the city had written that the plaintiffs “conceded” that the ordinance was adopted to address public health, safety and welfare. If you read the allegations in the complaint, he noted, you see that the plaintiffs, on the contrary, state that the city enacted the FDD program for expediency – because the city didn’t want to spend money to expand the sewer system or expand the sewage treatment plant. The city enacted the FDD because it was the cheapest way to do it. O’Brien told Shelton: “I don’t know how you can interpret – it’s not even an interpretation – how you can extract from our allegations the statements that they attribute to us.”

O’Brien then moved to the second prong of the plaintiffs’ motion on sanctions – which was the city’s continued assertions that the statute of limitations in this case is six years, when inverse condemnation cases in the state of Michigan have a statute of limitations of 15 years. The city argues frivolously, O’Brien said, that there is a six-year statute of limitations. The position of the city is not well-grounded in fact, O’Brien said.

Shelton did not interrupt O’Brien in his arguments on sanctions.

When Elias took the podium, she began by saying that the city is entitled to rely on and read the plaintiffs’ complaint taking the well-pleaded allegations that are actually supported in the complaint or in the attachments. Conclusory allegations don’t count, she said. The city’s characterizations were made based on the complaint, making the reasonable inferences that they could from the allegations that the plaintiffs had made.

The plaintiffs rely on the homeowner packet, Elias continued, but Shelton cut her off: “One statement that does bother me is your statement that they have ‘conceded’ that the ordinance was adopted in the interest of public health, safety and welfare. That is a stretch even for a lawyer. That’s obviously the whole point of the complaint.”

Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias.

Elias began to respond, saying that if you look at the paragraphs of the plaintiffs’ complaint that the city had cited, the plaintiffs do “recognize” – but she quickly allowed that “maybe ‘concede’ is a strong word there.” Shelton’s two-word commentary: “It is!”

Elias offered that the plaintiffs had acknowledged the sequence of events that led up to the adoption of the ordinance. Elias then told Shelton, “It was not intended – and my apologies to the court if that’s how it was read – to be an argument that …” but Shelton cut her off: “That is what the words say!” Shelton drove home the point: “And those are the words that you are responsible for.”

Elias contended that she was looking at it as a factual issue as opposed to legal issue – so “concession” was more a recognition of the facts, she said. She then stated: “I stand corrected on that if I overstated with some zealousness there.”

Elias then argued that the motion for sanctions was premature. She allowed there is no rule for when a motion for sanctions is decided or considered. But if it is addressed to a motion, those are best decided at the time that the motion has been decided, she said. That’s the same time the merits of the arguments are sorted out – and that’s the appropriate time to be making a ruling on whether or not a motion was frivolous or unsupported.

Elias then advanced an argument that the plaintiffs were arguing that the city owned the sump pumps. But Shelton replied: “That is not the argument that they made. … Their argument simply is that it is a taking when you force them to install a pump on their property.”

Elias responded at moderate length, concluding that the plaintiffs had argued that the sump pump is a physical intrusion, not a regulatory requirement. Shelton’s summary of Elias’ remarks was not complimentary: “The problem here, Ms. Elias, is that you pick a word out and you build a straw man out of it and then burn him alive. I will leave that for the judge. That’s not a strong argument.”

Rulings

After hearing from both sides, Shelton began with some general ruminations on what it’s like to be a judge. It is as much a process of “winnowing” as it is anything else, he said. And that means winnowing through all the verbiage – to get down to what the issue is, and to make a decision on that issue based on the facts and the law.

Judge Donald Shelton exited the courtroom on his final motion day, Aug. 27, 2014. In his retirement, he’ll be teaching at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. In response to some of the well-wishes he received throughout the afternoon, he quipped: “I’ll have to learn to talk to people who don’t have to listen to me.”

Lawyers sometimes feel the need to confuse and obfuscate the issues as much as possible, Shelton ventured, possibly based on their assessment of the strength of their case. But for a judge in a case where there is a significant legal issue – like this one – there is a responsibility to “keep the herd moving west,” and to keep an eye on the crux of the issue.

He announced he was going to deny the motion to disqualify Elias. But Shelton noted that Elias had stated the city will not defend the case on the basis that the ordinance was adopted in reliance upon a legal opinion – so he was ruling that the city cannot defend this case on that basis.

Shelton observed that he’d already denied the motion to reassign the case away from Connors. He noted that plaintiffs could refile that motion with the chief judge, but he suggested waiting until the case is reassigned – and then going through an ordinary disqualification process. He stressed he was not ruling at all on the merits of the motion.

With regard to the motion for sanctions – based on statements by the city in the brief supporting its motion for summary disposition – Shelton had some concerns about a couple of the statements that were made. But he said that the pleadings have to be taken in the context of the entire issue. If he were deciding the motion for summary disposition, it would be appropriate for him to rule on the plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions. However, it would be inappropriate for him to rule on the motion without that motion for summary disposition in front of him.

So Shelton concluded that he would adjourn the motion for sanctions to the hearing on the city’s motion for summary disposition “before whomever it takes place,” he said. Whether the defendant’s statements are without any reasonable basis, or are frivolous, is “really for the judge who hears the motion for summary disposition,” he concluded.

Next Hearing

The next hearing in this case is currently scheduled for 9 a.m. on Sept. 18 in front of judge Timothy Connors at the 22nd circuit courthouse, 101 E. Huron in downtown Ann Arbor.

CEO Michael Ford listens to public commentary at the Aug. 21 meeting of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority board. (Photos by the writer.)

Two items on the board’s voting agenda related at least indirectly to the leadership transition that the AAATA will be making. First, the board approved a resolution authorizing board chair Charles Griffith to appoint an ad hoc subcommittee to conduct a search for Ford’s replacement. The resolution approved by the board at its Aug. 21 meeting also authorized $50,000 for consulting services to help with the search.

Griffith said he has asked board members Anya Dale, Gillian Ream Gainsley and Eric Mahler to serve with him on the search committee, citing a desire to have a mix of board experience and geographic diversity represented on that group.

Second, the board approved the AAATA’s FY 2015 work plan, which will provide the basis for the FY 2015 budget. The budget will appear on the board’s Sept. 25 agenda for approval. The AAATA’s fiscal year runs from October through September. At the Aug. 21 meeting, Sue Gott credited Ford with developing the work plan, saying it would be valuable as a blueprint for the transition in leadership.

A major decision on the choice of bus technology might be made after Ford departs the AAATA in mid-October. Although the board approved a 5-year bus procurement contract with Gillig, and authorized an order for the first 27 of up to 60 buses called for in the 5-year contract, the board left the choice of drive-train technology open – between hybrid electric technology and clean diesel. The upfront capital cost difference is $200,000 per bus more for the hybrid technology. That final choice of technology will need to be made by the November board meeting.

Also at its Aug. 21 meeting, the board amended its pension plan to recognize same-sex marriages, which stemmed from a Supreme Court decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act and the IRS ruling that resulted from that decision.

The board chose to delay approval of new service standards, which are a required element of AAATA’s Title VI compliance. The board can meet the Federal Transit Administration deadlines for submission of its Title VI materials if it approves the new service standards at its September board meeting.

Board members also received an update on the progress being made in a Michigan Dept. of Transportation environmental assessment of a project that could implement active traffic management (ATM) of the US-23 corridor. The project includes the idea of allowing vehicles to use the median shoulder during peak demand periods. The MDOT presentation included a visit from former AAATA board member Paul Ajegba, who is region engineer for MDOT’s University Region – a 10-county area that includes Livingston and Washtenaw counties. If The Chronicle publishes coverage of that presentation, it will be in a separate report.

The Aug. 21 meeting was held in the boardroom at the AAATA headquarters on South Industrial, instead of the usual location, which is the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The downtown library on South Fifth Avenue was closed in connection with the repair of its public elevator.

Transition

Much of the meeting reflected the theme of transition, as it had been known for several weeks that Ford was likely to take the job that had been offered to him by the southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority. Ford will depart the AAATA in mid-October to take the post as the first CEO of the RTA. Ford formally tendered his resignation on Aug. 21, 2014.

Ford was picked for the job as CEO of the RTA three months ago, on May 21, 2014. The RTA board approved Ford’s contract on Aug. 20, 2014. Ford’s announcement as a finalist and his selection for the RTA job came amid the AAATA’s successful campaign for a new millage to fund additional transportation services in the geographic area of the member jurisdictions of the AAATA – the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township. That millage was approved by voters on May 6, 2014.

The AAATA board had awarded Ford a raise at its June 10, 2014 meeting, based on a performance evaluation completed at its May 15, 2014 meeting, which came 11 days after the successful May 6 transit millage vote.

The RTA was established by the state legislature in late 2012, and includes Detroit and the four-county region of Washtenaw, Wayne, Macomb and Oakland.

Ford was hired by the AAATA in 2009.

Transition: Aug. 21 Opening Remarks

Board chair Charles Griffith led off the meeting with the “communications and announcements” agenda item asking, “Does anybody have anything to say?” Michael Ford’s response was “I do!” That drew some laughs from around the board table.

Ford stated: “It’s probably no secret by now, it’s kind of the moment everybody has been waiting for – I am going to be accepting a position with the RTA as the CEO there… I appreciated my time here. We have done a lot. And I’m really honored and privileged to be, and to have been the CEO here. It’s been a big deal to me. We have done a lot in the community. I want to thank my board – you guys have been tremendous, helping guide us and get us where we are. … I would also like to thank the staff, my senior staff and others, the operators, the facility folks, the mechanics who make everything go every single day, a very important part of this organization and the face of this organization.”

Ford singled out administrative assistant Karen Wheeler for special thanks, calling her “the glue, my rock.” Ford’s remarks elicited applause from the board and staff.

Griffith responded to Ford’s remarks by telling him, “We are going to miss you terribly. We didn’t want you to go but if you were to go anywhere, the RTA was our top pick. So you’ll still be working with us.” Ford replied to Griffith by saying that he would not forget where he came from.

Griffith told Ford that the board would have a couple of months to get some more work out of him related to the transition.

Transition: Public Commentary

During public commentary time at the start of the meeting, Thomas Partridge introduced himself as an advocate for all of those riders who need the representation of a strong CEO and strong leadership of the AAATA administration in order to ameliorate longstanding policies that are adverse to providing the best possible service to seniors and disabled persons. He was there to compliment CEO Michael Ford and the work that Ford had done to achieve greater recognition for seniors and disabled persons, but Partridge stated that there was much work left to be done. So he was calling on the board to redouble its efforts during the interim – to provide the leadership necessary to remove problems associated with the use of the system by seniors and disabled persons – whether it is using the A-Ride paratransit system, the Good as Gold system for seniors, or simply riding the buses.

Transition: LAC

Cheryl Webber gave the report from the local advisory council (LAC) for Rebecca Burke, who’d sent along her regrets that she was unable to attend the meeting. LAC is a body that advises the AAATA on issues related to the disability community as well as seniors. Webber thanked Michael Ford for his service and his ability to empower the AAATA staff to go forward with the visions that are going to build the agency’s future.

Transition: AAATA Search Committee

The board considered a resolution authorizing board chair Charles Griffith to appoint an ad hoc subcommittee to conduct a search for a replacement for outgoing CEO Michael Ford.

The resolution considered by the board at its Aug. 21 meeting also approved $50,000 for consulting services to help with the search.

When the board reached the voting item on the agenda, Charles Griffith noted that the item had been recommended by the AAATA’s governance committee. He allowed that the board had been aware for quite some time of the possibility that Ford would be taking the new position with the RTA. So the resolution would allow him to establish a search committee.

Griffith said the governance committee thinks it’s a good idea to hire a search firm to assist, saying that it worked pretty well with the selection of Ford about five years ago. [The governance committee, under the AAATA bylaws, consists of the board chair, the CEO and the chairs of the other standing committees of the board. Roger Kerson is chair of the performance monitoring and external relations committee; and Sue Gott is chair of the planning and development committee.] Griffith said the board wanted to do this expeditiously, venturing it would probably take longer than the 60 days that Ford had left working for the AAATA.

Gott thanked Griffith as chair for the amount of time that he put in to position the AAATA to make the transition. Susan Baskett asked if there was an estimated timeframe or desired timeframe for making an offer saying, “We’ve got to shoot for something.”

Griffith ventured that the search firm would help the AAATA figure that out. He said the board had taken more time with Ford’s selection than it had actually been comfortable with. That’s why they wanted to address this in as expedited a way as possible. The search firm needed to be brought on board in order to come up with a realistic timeframe. He hoped that it would not take longer than three months, but he was not yet confident that’s the answer that the board would get from the search firm.

Baskett asked if the specifications for a search firm had been prepared by the search committee. Griffith understood the question to be about the composition of the search committee – and said he was prepared to appoint members to the committee. He said he was looking for a balance of experience on the board and geographic diversity from the membership. Later in the meeting, Anya Dale, Eric Mahler and Gillian Ream Gainsley were named by Griffith as the other board members beside himself that he had asked to serve on the search committee.

When Baskett clarified her question, Griffith noted that the Federal Transit Administration had strict guidelines, and one of the first jobs that the committee would have with the search firm that’s selected would be to come up with the criteria for the new CEO. But he was not sure that there had been any specific criteria applied to the RFP (request for proposals) for the search firm – except that the firm needed to have experience with transit and experience specifically with executive management.

There had been a list with 17 different firms that the AAATA had use the last time it conducted this process, Griffith said. His recollection was that five or six bids come back from that RFP. The AAATA was pretty happy with the firm that it eventually selected.

Roger Kerson ventured that it’s important that the process be expeditious, but getting it right was also very important. It’s not something the board wanted to do every year, he quipped. He wanted the process to be speedy but also deliberate.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to authorize the board chair to form a search committee and hire a search firm.

Transition: FY 2015 Work Plan

Appearing on the board’s Aug. 21 agenda was approval of the 2015 work plan. [2015 AAATA work plan]

Highlights of new items include measurements of service performance – an initiative that comes in the context of additional transportation services to be offered starting Aug. 24. Those services will be funded with proceeds from a new millage that voters approved on May 6, 2014.

Another highlight is the construction of a walkway across the block between Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue – on the north side of the parcel where the new Blake Transit Center has been constructed. The reorientation of the new transit center to the south side of the parcel makes it possible to contemplate the walkway along the north side, which abuts the Federal Building. According to CEO Michael Ford’s regular written report to the board for August, he has made a funding request from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to pay for construction of the pedestrian walkway.

When the board reached the item on its voting agenda, Ford noted that the green-highlighted text reflected changes from the previous year’s work plan. He ventured that the plan had been dealt with fairly thoroughly. He told the board he could answer any questions, noting that the FY 2015 budget would need to support the work plan. [The FY 2015 budget will appear on the board's September agenda. The AAATA's fiscal year runs from October through September.]

Sue Gott asked Ford to give a one-minute set of highlights from the work plan. Putting the new service on the street now and for the rest of the year was really important, Ford replied. In connection with the board’s discussion about the choice of drive-train technology – clean diesel or hybrid electric – Ford noted that the work plan includes an item that would have the AAATA develop an environment policy. The AAATA had just constructed a new LEED-compliant transit center and has hybrids in its fleet, but did not have an overall environmental strategy, so the work plan was meant to address that.

Ford also highlighted in the work plan a possible redesign of the Ypsilanti Transit Center to increase lobby space and improve the bathrooms. Space needs were another highlight for the AAATA’s work plan. Ford noted that the AAATA was hiring additional drivers, and would need to have space for them. Some runs might need to be started out of Ypsilanti in the near future, he ventured.

Service performance standards were another item in the work plan highlighted by Ford. Following the work plan had been a good guide for the AAATA, Ford ventured. He credited the board and board member Sue Gott for helping the AAATA achieve the work plan.

Gott said she wanted to credit Ford with the work plan, and the reason she wanted to highlight it was this: Despite the transition in leadership, Ford was leaving the board with a very solid blueprint. The work plan was tremendous work that Ford and the staff had created, Gott said. It would be key to helping the board have a smooth transition.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the FY 2015 work plan.

Transition: Board Officers

Board chair Charles Griffith also noted that under the AAATA board bylaws, board officers needed to be voted on at the September board meeting. He indicated that he would be asking some board member or possibly board members to act as the nominating committee for board officers for this year. He invited board members to contact him if they had any interest in doing that. The other two current officers are: Eli Cooper (treasurer); and Anya Dale (secretary). Roger Kerson is chair of the performance monitoring and external relations committee; and Sue Gott is chair of the planning and development committee.

The AAATA’s typical pattern is to elect the same chair for at least two years and then rotate to a different board member. Griffith is winding up his second year as chair.

Bus Procurement

On the board’s agenda were two items related to procurement of up to 60 new buses – a 5-year contract for purchase of the buses from Gillig LLC, and an order for the first 27 buses. The total cost of each bus will be between $444,000 and $662,500, depending on the length, drive system and options. That puts the total value of the contract with Gillig at a figure between $26.6 million and $39.7 million.

Of the 60 buses, 20 would be new, additional buses that are needed for the expansion of services the AAATA is offering as of Aug. 24. Those services will be funded with proceeds from a new millage authorized by voters on May 6, 2014. The other buses will replace existing buses that are nearing the end of their useful life.

The large spread between the minimum and maximum cost per bus is due to the incremental price difference between a hybrid electric drive system and a conventional clean diesel drive, which is nearly $200,000. According to the minutes of the Aug. 12, 2014 meeting of the AAATA’s planning and development committee, the extra cost of a hybrid bus over the life of the bus is $138,604. That figure includes cost comparison data relating to the upfront capital and fuel costs of both technologies.

Of the AAATA’s existing 80 buses, 52 use hybrid technology. The ongoing debate among AAATA board members on the choice of technology is based in part on the AAATA’s own experience with hybrid buses. The 5-year warranty has expired on the AAATA’s oldest hybrids, which has required a contingency budget for their future repairs. And manufacturers have now shortened their warranty periods for new hybrid buses from five to two years. That shorter warranty period will translate into greater costs to the AAATA for repairs.

According to AAATA staff cited in the PDC meeting minutes, the hybrid buses’ lower emission levels are a benefit of hybrid technology. However, the Environmental Protection Agency’s ongoing emission reduction standards now ensure that all new transit buses – whether hybrid or conventional – have very low emissions. On average, hybrid buses run at a noise level of 72 dB(A) compared to 75 dB(A) for conventional buses.

So the AAATA board has not yet made a final decision on the choice between hybrid technology and conventional clean diesel. The order for the first 27 buses from Gillig – which was also given approval at the board’s Aug. 21 meeting – leaves open the decision on the choice of technology. Of the 27 that are being ordered, 14 are replacement buses and 13 are buses needed for the service expansion.

The board would need to act by November 2014 on choosing the technology for the bus order. The choice to order hybrid technology could be based on the identification of grants that might pay for the cost differential of that technology. Delivery of the buses is planned for October 2015.

Here’s how the bus acquisition schedule breaks down:

              OCT   FEB   JAN   JAN   OCT  
Purpose      2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  TOT
============================================== 
Rplcmt buses
(now elig)     4                             4                          
Rplcmt buses 
(elig 11/15)  10           5     4          19
Rplcmt buses
(elig 11/19)                           15   15 
5YTIP Svc Exp 
(8/2015)       4                             4
5YTIP Svc Exp        
(6/2016)             9                       9
5YTIP Svc Exp  
(8/2017)                   7                 7 
==============================================
TOTAL                                       58

-

Bus Procurement: Aug. 21 Meeting Discussion

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Jim Mogensen told the board he supported the staff analysis of the technology choice for the new buses – which was clean diesel.

Gillian Ream Gainsley gave the report from the planning and development committee. She described the meeting as “inspired.” The committee had discussed the clean diesel versus hybrid technology for the drivetrains for the new buses that are being ordered. She noted that of the 27 buses, 14 were replacing conventional diesel buses and the other 13 buses would be for the service expansion.

The committee had received a presentation from staff, she said. One thing the committee had learned was that the new lower-emission diesel buses are quite different from the conventional diesel buses that are currently in the AAATA’s fleet. Emissions are a lot lower than they used to be, and the noise levels are lower than they used to be, but they’re a bit higher than hybrid technology. The up-front purchase cost is roughly $200,000 greater, she noted, and that cost differential is not made up over the life of the bus in fuel savings. So the committee had a lengthy discussion about the pros and cons of those different options. She said the AAATA want to be environmentally responsible but they also want to be fiscally responsible.

The committee had asked staff in that discussion to come up with some projections about combinations of buses, possibly keeping a ratio of hybrid to conventional buses that is consistent with the ratio in the current fleet, Ream Gainsley said. The committee had put off a decision on technology, but she noted that the buses needed to be ordered. So the committee had approved an order to purchase buses, but had put off a decision on exactly what combination of hybrid and clean diesels.

There had been some discussion also about the bus procurement contract, Ream Gainsley said. The AAATA was limited by the fact that there are not many vendors in Michigan, so there was only one bid. She noted that there were two companies that were interested and one ended up declining to bid on the contract. As much as the AAATA would love to have more than one bid, when there are only two companies in the state that offer the product, that makes it difficult. So on that basis, the committee had recommended the procurement contract with Gillig.

In his report from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Roger Kerson said his take-away from the discussion of the bus technology was that the gap between performance for the clean diesel and the hybrid technology had diminished over the last few years. He identified as an issue the fact that other agencies are not buying many hybrids, so hybrids are not as prevalent in the industry – and that makes it harder to keep the hybrids in good repair.

CEO Michael Ford distributed a handout to board members on the topic of clean diesel and hybrid drivetrains. In the foreground is board member Susan Baskett.

Kerson noted that AAATA manager of maintenance Terry Black was focused on those maintenance issues, saying the AAATA needs to have service available out of every bus, every hour, every day, and every month. His understanding of the resolution was that it approved the purchase of the buses – and then in December a decision on the drivetrain would be provided to Gillig. That meant that the decision would need to be made by the board in November, he thought. The board did not want to be in a situation where Gillig was waiting for the AAATA board’s December meeting to take place in order to start manufacturing the buses.

So Kerson wanted the board to focus its efforts. As board members they need to focus on the question: What do we still need to know to make this decision? And how can we get these requests in a timely manner to the staff so that the board is not sitting there in October and November and wondering what kind of factors need to be weighed.

During question time, CEO Michael Ford allowed that there had been a lot of discussion about hybrids versus conventional buses. He wanted any other questions or concerns addressed – and he hoped to have any additional feedback from the board by Aug. 31 so that the staff could work on getting those questions answered. He provided board members with a handout of the steps that the staff were working on so that board members’ memories might be jogged for other considerations that board members want staff consider.

Bus Procurement: Five-Year Contract – Board Deliberations

When the board reached the voting item on its agenda, board chair Charles Griffith reviewed how this item was a contract for a five-year plan to acquire additional buses. It was separate from the following resolution that was an actual bus order. He allowed there been some concern about the lack of other bidders, but noted that the AAATA was limited by the number of providers. Gillian Ream Gainsley said she appreciated Michelle Barney’s comment during public commentary about the need for Sunday service and feeder routes.

She said that those routes would eventually be reconfigured, and everyone was eager to see those things happen. The challenge is that the AAATA is limited by how fast buses can be manufactured. This resolution addresses that, she said. It’s a huge contract, and it’s the largest purchase that the agency makes, she noted. She appreciated the fact that staff was ready to get moving on it very quickly after the millage had passed. The board had been asking for a lot of information, because it’s a really big decision. So she appreciated the staff effort to move the process forward as fast as possible, so that the new service can get moving.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the bus procurement contract with Gillig.

Bus Procurement: 27 Buses – Board Deliberations

When the board reached the voting item on the agenda, Charles Griffith noted that the order would be for 27 buses – part of them replacement buses and part of them expansion buses. Griffith allowed that there’d been quite a bit of discussion about which kind of technology to use for the drivetrain. Staff would be doing some additional analysis to help the board with that decision. He felt that the board was committed to making that decision in a timely fashion.

CEO Michael Ford commented that the decision would need to be made by the board’s November meeting.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the bus order for 27 buses.

Same-Sex Pension Benefits

The board considered an amendment to the pension plan of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority – to recognize same-sex marriages and for the terms “spouse,” “husband and wife,” “husband” and “wife” to include a same-sex spouse.

The amendment was to bring the AAATA’s pension policy into compliance with Internal Revenue Service Ruling 2013-17 and IRS Notice 2014-19. Those IRS rulings give guidance on how to implement the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor, which declared Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 to be unconstitutional.

Reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Roger Kerson described the same-sex pension benefit item as stemming from the fact that the Supreme Court had overthrown the Defense of Marriage Act. Based on that, the Internal Revenue Service had issued a ruling saying that pension plans must recognize any legal same-sex marriage. That meant that the AAATA needed to “true up” its pension plan – otherwise people’s pension contributions would no longer be tax-deductible. And that would be very bad news for everybody in the plan, he said. He was very supportive of the idea that the AAATA would recognize marriage of any employee who had a legal same-sex marriage. He called it pretty much a “no-brainer.”

When the board reached the voting item on its agenda, board chair Charles Griffith echoed Kerson’s sentiment that it was a no-brainer.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to adopt the pension plan amendment.

Title VI Service Standards

The board considered adoption of new service standards as part of the AAATA’s compliance with Title VI. The civil rights legislation – in the context of public transportation – requires, among other things, proof that a service change has no adverse effect on disadvantaged populations. [.pdf of AAATA Title VI Service Standards]

The AAATA’s standards include items like a once-per-hour minimum frequency of fixed-route service and 90% of trips completed within 5 minutes of the scheduled time. Policies include items like bus shelters at bus stops with 50 or more boardings per day where there is no other shelter available and where a shelter is physically and legally feasible.

The required types of standards include:

• Headway or frequency by mode. That is, either bus every x minutes or x buses/hour. There can be a minimum standard or different standards by time of day (peak vs. off-peak) or day of week.
• On-time performance by mode. Can be either for each trip (i.e. at route endpoint), or for each timepoint along the route.
• Service availability by mode. Can be either percent of population within a certain distance of service or maximum stop spacing. Can have different standards based on differences in population density.
• Vehicle load. Expressed as ratio of riders to seats. Can vary by time of day (peak vs. offpeak) or day of week.

Required service policies include those on:

• Distribution of bus stop amenities
  • Benches
  • Shelters
  • Customer information (printed and electronic)
  • Escalators/Elevators
  • Waste receptacles
• Vehicle assignment
  • Age
  • Type (e.g. hybrid)
  • Can be by mode

Title VI Service Standards: Public Comment

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Jim Mogensen told the board that when he was preparing his remarks that evening he was initially planning to address the bus procurement item – and he was planning to speak in favor of the staff analysis, which recommended clean diesel instead of hybrid technology. But with the addition of the Title VI issue, he felt that he needed to use his three minutes to speak on that particular issue. He did not believe that the standards were yet ready for adoption. He thought it was important for the board to keep in mind a couple of things.

First was the fact that the AAATA has been classified as a very large organization – and is therefore required to do a much more extensive analysis than a regular fixed-route provider on the Federal Transit Administration list. The AAATA was grouped with Flint, CATA and SMART, he said.

Mogensen’s second point was that when service changes are implemented, it assumes that everything is ok right now, which might not be the case. As an example, one of the standards is the headway (time between buses). The AAATA’s standard says that there will be a minimum headway of 60 minutes, he noted. But for a very long time that has been the minimum headway, he noted – for all of the bus routes. That doesn’t address the issue of differences between minority routes and non-minority routes with respect to that standard. Mogensen felt that those issues had not quite been addressed. He knew that the purchase of service agreement (POSA) had just recently been put in place for Superior Township, and he had not had a chance to examine that agreement. But from his point of view, AAATA’s service as a whole is all of the fixed-route service.

Mogensen did not believe that the board should approve the service standards that evening. He told the board they should wait until the next meeting in September – and he told them that he would try to do a more formal analysis before that meeting. He encouraged the board to ask staff about the need to have much more formal data collection.

Michelle Barney introduced herself as a member of Partners for Transit. She had done an awful lot of bus riding and talking to people about the transit millage earlier in the year – mostly in Ypsilanti. She’d also done some phone banking, she told the board. She wanted to talk to the board about how equity issues are seen by people on the street. She talked about racial justice on the north side and the south side of Ypsilanti. When she had talked to several members of the board on the phone in the last couple of weeks, they told her that the AAATA has to give more service to Ypsilanti Township – because the township is a new member of the AAATA. Further, Ypsilanti Township and the city of Ann Arbor were paying more money for the buses, she’d heard board members say, so Ypsilanti Township and the city of Ann Arbor are demanding more service – because they are paying more money for the buses.

But Barney noted that those jurisdictions are paying more money because their property values are higher. They do not pay a greater percent – pointing out that everyone pays the same percent under the AAATA’s new millage, which is 0.7 mills. The city of Ypsilanti is entitled to the same level of service, she said. The issue of Title VI and whether the AAATA will get money from the federal government is very important. She said she hated to use the word but she had decided to do it and that word was “Ferguson.” What does Ferguson have to do with it? she asked rhetorically. It is not a threat, she stated, but Ferguson has woken up the country to the fact that prejudiced behavior doesn’t just happen in New York, in Harlem – it also happens in the heartland of America. People are waking up, she said. Barney also commented on the new Route 46, indicating that the AAATA needed to have routes that fed people to the downtown where that route departed, otherwise that new route was useless.

Title VI Service Standards: Board Discussion

Roger Kerson quipped that the performance monitoring and external relations committee had also had an “inspired” meeting just like the planning and development committee – because he was the only board member in attendance. Reporting out from that committee, Kerson said that in examining the Title VI standards – perhaps because he’d met as a committee of one – he did not have the wisdom of his colleagues to which he could appeal. So he hadn’t considered some of the concerns that Jim Mogensen had raised during his public commentary.

Kerson ventured that those issues needed to be examined to determine whether the resolution was ripe for consideration or whether it perhaps needed another look. What Kerson had focused on was the question of whether it would change anything that the AAATA is doing now. And what he heard from staff was that they would be looking at things like maximum loads more closely. Based on the information the board had heard during public commentary, they might want to decide to delay, he said: “Let’s have more than just me think about it,” he said.

Board members engaged in a 20-minute back-and-forth on the topic and eventually concluded that they should postpone consideration until the next meeting in September. AAATA manager service development Chris White indicated that there was room in the timeline for the board to delay action until its next board meeting – but after that, paperwork was due to the FTA on Oct. 1, 2014.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to postpone consideration of the Title VI service standards until its September meeting.

Title VI Service Standards: More Public Commentary

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Jim Mogensen thanked the board for delaying their vote on the service centers. He said he would do his best to provide as much input as he could under the deadlines. He noted that the regulations say that once you adopt standards for the three-year plan, you are not allowed to change them during those three years. He also mentioned that before he became disabled, in his professional life he did regulatory analysis in Washington DC for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the EPA, and for the Small Business Administration. So he had some understanding of how some of these things operate, he said, and he would try to help.

Mogensen has had an ongoing concern about the issue of AAATA’s commuter service versus mobility service in the middle of the day. When you look at the loading factors, most of that occurs during the commuter service and you can envision a situation where there is a very high peak time service and a much lower service in the middle of the day. And that causes difficulties for those like Mogensen, who primarily use the AAATA to get around during the day. Even though it makes sense why the AAATA would be doing that, there are some important issues related to how that dynamic plays out.

Also during public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Michelle Barney told the board that she not been there in a while because she’d had some health issues, but she told the board that she would now be there more often. Title VI was very complicated, she allowed. She had tried reading it and she tried printing it off the web, but she didn’t have enough money because it costs $.10 a page to print. But she had made requests of the area’s Washington DC legislators and of the NAACP in trying to reach a local ACLU attorney – to find out if there’s anything published that is a valid summary of Title VI. She wanted something she could read, maybe 30 pages instead of 130.

Title VI Service Standards: On-Time Performance

One of the Title VI service standards is on-time performance – which the AAATA establishes at 90% of trips being completed within five minutes of the scheduled time. During his report to the board, Michael Ford noted that on-time performance was currently suffering due to the widespread construction that’s being undertaken on various roads and streets in the area. AAATA is spending about $6,000 a week primarily on trying to back-fill to keep buses on schedule, he said.

Half of the $6,000 is being spent on the Pontiac Trail route. The other half of the $6,000 has gone into supporting Packard, Carpenter, Jackson Avenue and Ann Arbor-Saline Road. The AAATA was doing its best to keep this service on time, but was encountering some problems with that, he allowed. With the University of Michigan’s student move-in week coming up, traffic would increase and that would exacerbate the problem, he ventured.

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

At its Aug. 21 meeting, the board entertained various communications, including its usual reports from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the planning and development committee, as well as from CEO Michael Ford. The board also heard commentary from the public. In addition to the communications and commentary reported earlier in this article, here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Access, Website

During public commentary time at the start of the meeting, after making complimentary remarks about Michael Ford’s efforts to give greater recognition to seniors and those with disabilities, Thomas Partridge said there was more work that needed to be done. He called on the board to adopt new priorities to put the most vulnerable riders first, and remove discriminatory practices of the current system, including the contract with the SelectRide company. No one should call a cab in the A-Ride system and have a vehicle appear that has 450,000 miles on it, Partridge said. It’s not good practice to provide people rides in vehicles with that kind of high mileage, he said. There are also vehicles that are not kept in good repair, he contended.

During his report from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Roger Kerson noted that more of the AAATA’s website work was being taken in-house with the hire of someone to handle that work. [At the board's August meeting, it was announced that Preston Stewart had been hired for the position.] The board needs to continue to address the concerns of accessibility of the website, he said.

Reporting out from the local advisory council, Cheryl Webber said the longest discussion at the LAC meeting was about the AAATA website. They’d discussed the accessibility and user-friendliness to people who look there for information. She had not really thought about it before then, but her experiences were that the website was not useful enough to her to consult it. “And that’s really sad,” she said, because a lot of work went into it. It looked pretty, she allowed, but she found herself going to Google maps and choosing the bus routing option for directions from point A to point B. She said she was looking forward to improvements being made to the website.

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Partridge said it was important that throughout all of the proceedings of the AAATA, priority should be given to concerns of the most vulnerable ridership – which includes not only low-income ridership but also ridership that is handicapped or that has senior citizen status. Related to the selection process for the CEO, Partridge said it was very important that Ford leave the AAATA with a CEO selection process underway with criteria that would give emphasis to candidates that have quality experience with senior ride and handicapped ride programs.

Comm/Comm: Police on Buses

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Jim Mogensen responded to a comment in Michael Ford’s written report that mentioned a meeting he’d had with state representative David Rutledge and Washtenaw County sheriff Jerry Clayton in the context of the Eastern Washtenaw Safety Alliance. One of the potential suggestions was to have police officers or members of law enforcement ride the buses. Mogensen thought the AAATA board needed to give careful consideration to how that might be implemented and how that might be seen in terms of surveillance – as another way of going undercover to find out what’s going on in neighborhoods and monitoring people’s behavior.

Comm/Comm: Financial Reports

With respect to the financial reports that the performance monitoring and external relations committee had heard, Roger Kerson said that AAATA had received the first cut of the new millage money – which was about $4.5 million.

From left: AAATA board members Eric Mahler and Larry Krieg.

Of that, $3.8 million had been programmed for activities in the next year, including some capital expenditures and things that need to be done to get up and running. There is a $600,000 surplus in the budget, he said. As he understood it, that money is going to be used for service in the “out years.”

During question time, Larry Krieg said that in reading the budget reports, he was a little bit concerned about how much money was being saved by having people out on disability. He wondered if there was any particular reason why the AAATA had more people out on disability than usual.

AAATA head of human resources Ed Robertson told Krieg that the AAATA would prefer to have no people out on disability and currently he thought there were two. He thought there had been more people out on disability during the winter.

Comm/Comm: New Service

During communications time, Michael Ford noted that the new extended services to be provided by the AAATA – funded by the millage approved by voters on May 6, 2014 – would start the following Sunday, Aug. 24. He also noted that there would be a celebration held at the Ypsilanti Transit Center on August 25. It would include a media tour of Route 46 followed by a press conference at the Ypsilanti Transit Center, to be hosted by Partners for Transit, he said.

Comm/Comm: Response to Suggestions

Ford noted that the AAATA had responded to suggestions made at the previous month’s board meeting – to make information about the Aug. 24 service changes easier to find on the AAATA’s website – by placing a prominent link on the homepage. The board had also heard a suggestion to make clear to passengers how they can make compliments. That would be included in the RideGuide as well as on the website, Ford reported.

Present: Charles Griffith, Eric Mahler, Susan Baskett, Sue Gott, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale, Gillian Ream Gainsley, Larry Krieg.

Absent: Eli Cooper, Jack Bernard.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Sept. 25, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

From left: Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias, city attorney Stephen Postema and co-counsel for the plaintiffs Irvin Mermelstein. The photo is from the July 2, 2014 hearing on a preliminary injunction in the Yu v. Ann Arbor case, which judge Donald Shelton denied.

The latest procedural issues now appear set to be decided on Aug. 27, 2014 – judge Donald Shelton’s final motion day before his retirement.

The case involves a claim of unconstitutional takings – inverse condemnation. Plaintiffs in the case, Yu v. City of Ann Arbor, are three Ann Arbor residents who had their footing drains disconnected under the city FDD program.

The procedural issues that could be decided next week include a motion to disqualify the city attorney’s office from representing the city due to conflicts; a motion to sanction city attorneys for filing documents with statements that plaintiffs allege are not well-grounded in fact; and a motion to reassign the case to a judge other than Timothy Connors. All three motions were filed with the court on Wednesday, Aug. 20.

A dispute about whether those Aug. 20 filings were properly served upon the city is one of the issues Shelton could decide at the start of the hearing.

By way of background, the case was originally filed in the Washtenaw County 22nd circuit court and assigned to Shelton in late February. The city then removed the case to federal court. However, the plaintiffs moved for remand from the federal court back to the circuit court – a motion that was granted by judge Avern Cohn in late May.

When the case returned to the circuit court, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which was heard and denied by Shelton in early July. The city had filed a motion for summary disposition on June 9, which was originally scheduled for July 30. It was subsequently rescheduled by the city for Aug. 13, and then shifted by the city again to Sept. 18 – which is after Shelton’s scheduled retirement.

According to the court administrator’s office, the case will not officially be reassigned to a different judge until Sept. 2. However, when The Chronicle inquired with the 22nd circuit court’s central scheduling office, the staff indicated that the plan was to reassign all of Shelton’s civil cases to Connors. So the city’s paperwork scheduling of the Sept. 18 hearing specifies Connors as the judge.

Motion on Reassignment

The Sept. 18 hearing date on the city’s motion for summary disposition could change if Shelton grants the motion to reassign the case to a judge other than Connors.

The motion to reassign is based on the fact that attorney Mark Koroi is co-counsel for the plaintiffs. According to the brief in support of the motion to reassign the case away from Connors, Koroi has filed four Judicial Tenure Commission grievances against Connors, two of which have been upheld. Koroi’s brief also notes that he has engaged in “vigorous public advocacy against political candidacies of both Timothy Connors and his wife.”

The plaintiff’s brief notes that Michigan court rules stipulate that it is the challenged judge who must make an initial ruling on a motion for disqualification, so the motion to reassign is a proactive measure to eliminate the need to file a motion in front of Connors, which would asked that Connors disqualify himself. [Aug. 20, 2014 Yu v. City of Ann Arbor brief on reassignment]

The city’s response brief argues that the motion is actually a motion for disqualification, and as such the motion is premature and should be heard by Connors. The city also argues explicitly against the idea that Connors should be disqualified, noting that if political speech critical of a judge were adequate grounds for disqualification, then an attorney could engage in such speech specifically so that the attorney would never have to appear in front of that judge.

The city also argues that the brief in support of the motion to reassign doesn’t provide any evidence that Connors is aware of Koroi’s political advocacy or that Connors is actually biased against Koroi. [Aug. 22, 2014 Yu v. City of Ann Arbor response brief on reassignment]

Motion for Sanctions

A second motion filed on Aug. 20 for hearing on Aug. 27 is to sanction the city attorney’s office for filing papers that are “neither well-grounded in fact nor warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law.” The papers in question are the city’s brief in support of its motion for summary disposition. [June 9, 2014 Yu v. City of Ann Arbor brief on summary disposition]

Included in the plaintiffs’ claims asking for sanctions to be imposed are that some of the key arguments in the city’s motion for summary judgment are frivolous. Plaintiffs assert that the city’s argument that the plaintiffs’ complaint is time-barred is frivolous. The plaintiffs then argue that one of the city’s positions – that the plaintiffs’ federal claims should be dismissed – is crucially based on the city’s contention that the claims are time-barred.

The plaintiffs’ brief in support of sanctions also asserts that the city has mischaracterized the plaintiffs’ position, highlighting instances where the city states that the plaintiffs have “recognized” or “conceded” some key aspect of the city’s legal position. The plaintiffs argue that the plaintiffs have not recognized or conceded the things that the city claims in its brief. [Aug. 20, 2014 Yu v. City of Ann Arbor brief on sanctions]

For example, the city claims in its brief that [emphasis added]:

Plaintiffs recognize that they own the sump pumps they installed and that the sump pumps and footing drain system operate as an integral part of their houses; in other words that neither the city nor a third party owns anything located in their homes, occupies their properties, or has otherwise taken their properties.

The claim is presented in the “introduction” section of the city’s brief, a section of pleadings where recitations of uncontroversial fact are typically presented. The question of pump ownership and occupation of residents’ homes by the third party are central points of dispute in the case. The plaintiffs’ brief in support of sanctions argues that the citations by the city to the plaintiffs’ pleadings – in support of the claim of “recognition” – do not in fact support a claim of “recognition.”

Another claim by the city – presented in the “background facts” portion of its brief in support of summary disposition – is that [emphasis added]:

“Plaintiffs concede that Sec. 1.1 [the footing drain disconnection ordinance] was adopted by the City to address the public health, safety and welfare issues of sanitary sewer back-ups in basements and sanitary overflows.”

The portion of the plaintiffs’ brief cited by the city in making that characterization does not, according to the plaintiffs, provide any support for the city’s contention that a concession has been made. And elsewhere in the plaintiffs’ brief, they state [emphasis added]:

Upon information and belief, the Ordinance was not enacted in response to emergency conditions or some other imminent threat to public health, safety or welfare. Rather, the Ordinance was enacted by the City in order to facilitate a solution to long-standing and self-created conditions in the least expensive and/or most expedient way possible.

Based on the city’s descriptions of the plaintiffs’ statements, the plaintiffs contend that the city is distorting the record. From the plaintiffs’ brief in support of sanctions:

This level of mischaracterization goes beyond zealous advocacy: it is misleading and is unfair to both the Court and to the Plaintiffs, whose lawyers are forced to ferret out mischaracterizations and distortions of the record when they should be responding to a “fair presentation of the issues” by opposing counsel.

The city’s response to the plaintiffs’ brief in support of sanctions deals with the part involving plaintiffs’ frivolous legal arguments by arguing for the merit of those arguments.

In its brief opposing sanctions, the city responds to the plaintiffs’ contention that their statements have been misrepresented to the court by insisting that the city’s characterization is based on the plaintiffs’ recitation of facts – and an attachment to the complaint of the city’s written “homeowner’s package” for sump pump install-ees.

The city’s position appears to be that whatever factual claims and characterizations that are made in the “homeowner’s package” were recognized and represented to the court by the plaintiffs as true – by dint of the attachment of the “homeowner’s package” to the plaintiffs complaint as an exhibit. So the city is not analyzing the plaintiffs’ exhibit merely as a representation by the plaintiff as to what the city itself claims to be true (via public documents produced by the city), but also what the plaintiff is recognizing to be true. [Aug. 22, 2014 Yu v. City of Ann Arbor response brief on sanctions]

The city blames any misunderstanding on the plaintiffs, arguing that the plaintiffs wrote poorly worded filings. From the city’s response brief, opposing sanctions:

[T]he City has not mischaracterized Plaintiffs’ Complaint, but has simply analyzed it as written by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ dissatisfaction with the City’s reading of their Complaint arises from Plaintiffs’ own failure to draft a well-pleaded Complaint.

Motion on Disqualification

A third motion filed by the plaintiffs for hearing on Aug. 27 is one that would disqualify assistant city attorney Abigail Elias, and thereby the city attorney’s office, from representing the city in this lawsuit. [Aug. 20, 2014 Yu v. City of Ann Arbor brief in support of disqualification]

The brief arguing for disqualification cites an email sent by plaintiffs’ counsel in early February notifying Elias that she would likely be called as a witness in the case:

I am advising that your non-privileged testimony and evidence will likely be required in connection with litigation over the FDDP, which is now in preparation for filing. The case will include a claim for inverse condemnation. You are a necessary witness on both liability and relief, which probably comes as no surprise.

The plaintiffs argue partly on grounds that they need to depose Elias as a reason to disqualify her as the city’s representation.

In its brief in opposition to the motion on disqualification, the city contends that there is no testimony that Elias is in a unique position to provide other than testimony that would be subject to the attorney-client privilege. [Aug. 22, 2014 Yu v. City of Ann Arbor brief opposing disqualification]

The city also contends that disqualification of its city attorneys would be prejudicial to the city, because “Ms. Elias has been involved with the FDD program since its inception 13 years ago. Her familiarity with and knowledge of the issues in this case from those years cannot be replicated easily or quickly.”

Hearing

The next hearing is currently scheduled for Aug. 27 at 1:30 p.m. in front of judge Donald Shelton at the 22nd circuit courthouse, 101 E. Huron in downtown Ann Arbor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Person

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

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

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

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

The Corporation

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

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

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

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

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

People Versus Corporations

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

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

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

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

Political Football

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

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

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

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

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

Knowing the Rule Book

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

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

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

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

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

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

Knowingly Misapplying the Rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Constitution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: Simplify Access

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Land use and development is set up to be a dominant theme of tonight’s meeting, as it frequently is for many of the council’s meetings. An additional highlight will be initial consideration of a change to the city’s taxicab ordinance – in response to the entry of services like Uber and Lyft into the Ann Arbor market.

A report from the city administrator on options for deer management has led to a resolution on the Aug. 18 agenda appropriating $20,000 for the development of a deer management program.

The sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber includes Braille.

Among the land use items on the Aug. 18 agenda is one related to use of city-owned land – three parking lots at Fuller Park: (1) the parking lot south of Fuller Road, next to the railroad tracks; (2) the paved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park; and (3) the unpaved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park. The lots are used by the University of Michigan during restricted hours.

The council will be considering a two-year lease with one additional two-year option for renewal. Annual revenue from this lease will be $78,665, and will be included as part of the parks and recreation general fund budget. The item was forwarded to the city council from the park advisory commission with a recommendation of approval.

Private land development items on the Aug. 18 agenda include final approval of the rezoning of land for the State Street Village project at 2221-2223 S. State St. The 4.5-acre parcel is proposed to be rezoned from M1 (limited industrial district) to O (office district). Also on the council’s agenda is the site plan for the project that will be made possible by approval of the rezoning – a $10 million development by Ann Arbor-based McKinley Inc. The plan calls for constructing two 4-story apartment buildings at the rear of the site, totaling 112,262 square feet, with 38 units each. Another 2,027-square-foot building – for a leasing office with two apartments above it – would be built on the front of the parcel, on South State.

Also on the agenda for final approval is the rezoning required for an Ann Arbor Housing Commission project – a 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road. The zoning would change from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site plan, which is also on the council’s Aug. 18 agenda, calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms. A related item on the agenda is the vacation of a portion of the city’s right-of-way for Seybold Drive.

Rezoning for 121 W. Kingsley Street for a private development is getting initial consideration by the council on Aug. 18. The project calls for rezoning the site from a planned unit development (PUD) to D2 (downtown interface). The development would include renovating the existing two-story, 2,539-square-foot building, plus constructing two additional buildings: (1) a 3.5-story addition to the existing building; and (2) a 4.5-story structure at the southeast corner of West Kingsley and North Ashley. In total, the development would include 22 units and 40,689 square feet. The estimated cost is $6.5 million.

Getting initial consideration by the council at its Aug. 18 meeting are changes to the city’s taxicab ordinance that have been recommended by the city’s taxicab board. The recommendations come in the context of the entry of Uber and Lyft into the Ann Arbor market. The companies offer the arrangement of rides through mobile networks with drivers who operate their own vehicles. Both companies have ignored cease-and-desist orders from the city.

Uber has sent its Ann Arbor customers an email asking them to sign an online petition supporting Uber’s continued ability to operate here.

One ordinance change would establish certain parameters to mitigate possible negative consequences to the setting of a very high maximum allowable taxicab rate, under which taxicab companies might eventually compete. Those parameters include a requirement that a taxicab company commit to a single rate annually and that the rate be advertised in a vehicle with signage in letters one-inch tall. The other ordinance would require that all drivers for hire – whether they are taxicab drivers or drivers who work for Uber or Lyft – register with the city, maintain proper insurance for their vehicles and acquire commercial plates.

The Aug. 18 agenda also includes an item to confirm the re-appointment of Bob Guenzel to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Monday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network starting at 7 p.m.

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

Fuller Park Parking Lease

The council will be considering a possible four-year extension on a University of Michigan lease of three parking lots at Fuller Park. The lease comes to the council with a recommendation of approval from the park advisory commission. The commission gave that recommendation at its July 15, 2014 meeting.

Map of parking lots at Fuller Park that are leased to the University of Michigan.

The existing lease expires on Aug. 31, 2014. The three lots are: (1) the parking lot south of Fuller Road, next to the railroad tracks (Lot A); (2) the paved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park (Lot B); and (3) the unpaved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park (Lot C). The lots are used by UM during restricted hours.

The city has leased Lot A to UM since 1993. Lots B and C have been leased since 2009.

The proposal, which requires city council approval, is for a two-year lease with one additional two-year option for renewal. Annual revenue of this lease will be $78,665, and will be included as part of the parks and recreation general fund budget. [.pdf of proposed lease agreement] [.pdf of staff report]

The hours that UM can use these lots are stipulated in the agreement:

• Lot A: 4 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday.
• Lot B (paved lot): 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, beginning the day after Labor Day through the Friday before Memorial Day, excluding holidays.
• Lot C (unpaved lot): 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.

At the PAC meeting when the lease was recommended, parks and recreation manager Colin Smith noted that the revenue from these three lots is significant for the parks and recreation operating budget. The current agreement – which was approved by the council in 2009 and extended by two administrative renewals – is essentially the same as the agreement that will expire, Smith told PAC.

The main purpose of the lots is for the parks, Smith explained. That’s reflected in the hours when UM can use the lots – on weekdays, prior to 4-5 p.m. The outdoor pool and soccer fields don’t need the quantity of parking during the winter or off-season. “It’s an asset within the parks department that we can either have sit there, or we can lease it for a significant amount of revenue that obviously helps us provide other programs,” he said. If the city doesn’t lease those parking lots, “I am absolutely certain that people will park in it anyway,” Smith added.

State Street Village

On Aug. 18, the council will consider final approval of the rezoning of land for the State Street Village project at 2221-2223 S. State St. The 4.5-acre parcel is proposed to be rezoned from M1 (limited industrial district) to O (office district). Also on the council’s agenda for approval is the site plan for the project that will be made possible by approval of the rezoning – a $10 million development by Ann Arbor-based McKinley Inc. The plan calls for constructing two 4-story apartment buildings at the rear of the site, totaling 112,262 square feet, with 38 units each. Another 2,027 square foot building – for a leasing office with two apartments above it – would be built on the front of the parcel, on South State.

Aerial view of State Street Village site.

Action on the initial approval came at the city council’s July 21, 2014 meeting. A recommendation for the rezoning was given at the June 17, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

At that meeting, commissioners recommended approval of the site plan, development agreement and rezoning for the project.

The front part of the site is currently a surface parking lot, and is zoned O (office). The rear parcel – 4.5 acres – is vacant, and zoned M1 (limited industrial). Residential developments are permitted in office-zoned areas. [.pdf of staff report]

The development will include 114 parking spaces in the rear of the site and 13 spaces for the front. Another 22 spaces in the surface parking lot will be shared by the existing office building just south of the site.

In addition, 44 covered bicycle spaces and 8 enclosed bicycle spaces will be provided near the entrances of the apartment buildings and 2 hoops will be placed near the entrance of the rental office building.

Instead of making a $48,360 requested donation to the city for parks, McKinley has proposed two 8×10-foot grilling patios with picnic tables and grills.

According to the staff memo, the footing drains of 18 homes, or flow equivalent to 71.91 gallons per minute, will need to be disconnected from the city’s sanitary sewer system to mitigate flow from this proposed development.

North Maple Estates

To be considered for final approval by the council at its Aug. 18 meeting is the rezoning required for an Ann Arbor Housing Commission project – a 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road. The zoning would change from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site plan, which has been shifted to the Sept. 2 agenda, calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms. A related item on the agenda is the vacation of a portion of the city’s right-of-way for Seybold Drive.

The Ann Arbor planning commission recommended all three items for approval at its June 17, 2014 meeting. The council gave initial approval of the rezoning at its July 7, 2014 meeting.

Aerial view of North Maple Estates site, outlined in green.

The project is part of a major renovation effort by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission of several of its properties. The site is on the west side of North Maple, between Dexter Avenue and Hollywood Drive. [.pdf of staff report]

The units in the eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex are proposed to have a total of 138 bedrooms. The units range in size from one bedroom to five bedrooms.

The project would include a playground, community building and 73 parking spaces. According to a staff memo, the buildings would be located along a T-shaped driveway that connects to North Maple Road and Dexter Avenue. The drive extends northward toward Vine Court but does not connect with that street. There would be a new connection to Dexter Avenue through the remaining, undeveloped length of Seybold Drive.

The project also requires the city to vacate a portion of the right-of-way for Seybold Drive. The surrounding land is owned by the housing commission, so if the right-of-way vacation is approved, the land would become part of the housing commission property. In a separate vote, the planning commission also recommended approving that request.

When the project was in front of the planning commission, planning staff noted three issues that need to be resolved before the project gets approval from city council:

The parcel containing two duplex buildings also owned by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission in the northeast corner of the site must be combined with the subject site, forming a single parcel as a requirement for issuance of any permits.

The legal description and comparison chart data must be confirmed to include the duplex parcel.

The northern-most parking stall, nearest the connection to Vine Court, must be relocated outside of the minimum front setback area.

According to the staff memo, after June 3 the city’s traffic engineer reviewed the proposed new connection from Seybold Drive onto Dexter Avenue, and concluded that sight distances from all approaches are acceptable. He suggested that the pavement markings on Dexter should be refreshed.

The reconstruction of North Maple Estates is part of an ongoing effort by the housing commission to upgrade the city’s housing stock for low-income residents. At the planning commission’s May 6, 2014 meeting, AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall had made a presentation about the initiative, which includes seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits.

121 Kingsley West

Rezoning for 121 W. Kingsley Street for a proposed new development is getting initial consideration by the council on Aug. 18. The project calls for rezoning the site from a planned unit development (PUD) to D2 (downtown interface). The development would include renovating the existing two-story, 2,539-square-foot building, plus constructing two additional buildings: (1) a 3.5-story addition to the existing building; and (2) a 4.5-story structure at the southeast corner of West Kingsley and North Ashley. In total, the development would include 22 units and 40,689 square feet. The estimated cost is $6.5 million.

The rezoning is on the council’s agenda, but the site plan will not come before the council until the zoning is considered for a second and final vote. The Ann Arbor planning commission’s recommendation of approval for the site plan and the rezoning came at its July 15, 2014 meeting.

Rendering of 121 Kingsley West project, looking south from Kingsley. The existing building is in the left foreground.

Developers are Tom Fitzsimmons, Peter Allen and Mark Berg. The architect is Marc Rueter.

There would be 29 parking spaces below the buildings – though only two spaces are required, based on residential premiums that the project is seeking. The premiums give the project additional floor area, compare to what’s allowed by right. An elevator for each building will be accessible from the parking level. The parking level of the east building will include a bike room with 14 spaces.

According to a staff report, the project’s development agreement will address “easements for encroachments onto the City right of way by the existing building, onsite stormwater management, verification of LEED points, six required footing drain disconnects, future façade alterations, and the contribution to Parks and Recreation Services.” [.pdf of staff report]

Planning commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning, site plan and development agreement. However, only five commissioners on the nine-member body were present, and the commission’s bylaws stipulate that approval requires six votes. So the project was forwarded to city council for consideration with a recommendation of denial from the commission. Wendy Woods, the commission’s chair, assured the developers that city council would be informed that the project secured unanimous support from all commissioners who were present.

The project is on the same site as a previously proposed project by Peter Allen called Kingsley Lane. That had been envisioned as a larger development with 46 units in a complex with two “towers” – at four and nine stories. According to a 2006 Ann Arbor News article, pre-sales of the units were slower than expected because of the struggling housing market, and ultimately financing fell through. At a July 9, 2013 planning commission work session, planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that the developers had lost the property to the bank, but subsequently secured the land and were expected to submit a new site plan.

Taxicab Ordinances

Getting initial consideration by the council on Aug. 18 are two changes to the city’s taxicab ordinance that have been recommended by the city’s taxicab board. The recommendations come in the context of the entry of Uber and Lyft into the Ann Arbor market. The companies offer the arrangement of rides through mobile networks with drivers who operate their own vehicles. Both companies have continued to operate in Ann Arbor, despite cease-and-desist orders from the city. [.pdf of cease-and-desist sent to Lyft] [.pdf of cease-and-desist sent to Uber]

The vote to recommend the ordinance changes came at the July 24, 2014 meeting of the taxicab board.

These issues were also discussed at three monthly meetings of the taxicab board prior to that, on April 23, 2014, May 22, 2014 and June 26, 2014.

One ordinance change would establish certain parameters to mitigate possible negative consequences to the setting of a very high maximum allowable taxicab rate, under which taxicab companies might eventually compete. Those parameters include a requirement that a taxicab company commit to a single rate annually and that the rate be advertised in a vehicle with signage in letters one-inch tall.

The current structure for fare regulation already allows for the adoption of a maximum rate to be adopted by the city council. Currently the maximum rate in Ann Arbor is $3 to get in, $2.50 per mile, and 40 cents per minute waiting time. Those maximum rates were last adjusted upwards three years ago, on May 16, 2011, in response to gas prices that had nudged past $4 per gallon. At that time, the taxicab board indicated it did not anticipate considering another rate change until the gas prices were over $5 for at least two consecutive months.

So the taxicab board’s thinking is not being driven by gas prices, which are currently between $3.75 and $4 in the Ann Arbor area. Instead, a possible increase in allowable fares is based on concern that the taxicab industry in Ann Arbor might not be able to survive unless taxis are allowed to charge more.

At its July 24 meeting, taxicab board members discussed the possibility of delaying their recommendation on the ordinance changes until the board could also make a specific recommendation on the price point for a very high maximum rate. But ultimately board members felt that a recommendation on a price point for a new maximum rate could come later – especially because ordinance changes require a first and second reading in front of the council. There would be a window of opportunity between those readings to make a recommendation on the higher maximum. The taxicab board’s next meeting is scheduled for Aug. 28 at 8:30 a.m. at city hall.

The other ordinance change to be given initial consideration would require that all drivers for hire – whether they are taxicab drivers or drivers who work for Uber or Lyft – register with the city, maintain proper insurance for their vehicles and acquire commercial plates. Commercial plates would require that the commensurate commercial insurance is carried.

And the absence of commercial plates on a vehicle that is observed to be used for picking up or dropping off passengers would provide a primary reason for a traffic stop by Ann Arbor police. At the taxicab board meetings over the last few months, representatives of the taxicab industry argued that the state statute regulating limousines already gives the city the ability to enforce against Uber and Lyft drivers.

Deer Management

Attached to the Aug. 18 city council agenda is a report from the city administrator outlining issues and options for management of the urban deer herd in Ann Arbor. Based on that report is a resolution, sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2), that would accept the report and appropriate $20,000 from the general fund for development of a “community endorsed deer management plan.” [.pdf of Aug. 14, 2014 deer management options report]

The council had directed the preparation of the report on various options in a resolution approved at its May 5, 2014 meeting. The report was to have been delivered to the council by July 31.

Fall 2015 is the earliest date identified in the report as a possible timeframe for a culling of the herd.

Before developing a specific plan – that could involve killing deer or not – input from Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation and the University of Michigan would be sought. And the Michigan Department of Natural Resources would need to approve any plan for deer management. The Aug. 14 report includes descriptions of deer management plans in other Michigan cities that range from ordinances prohibiting the feeding of deer to culling programs that shut down city parks and prescribe shooting lanes for archers.

City of Ann Arbor staff estimate that six months would be needed for public engagement. That public engagement could start within 45 days of city council approval to proceed.

Estimated staff time to develop the specific plan is 160 hours, according to the Aug. 14 report. Contractual public engagement and support to develop a management plan are estimated at $20,000.

Other facts included in the plan are the fact that neither city parks nor golf courses have had vegetation damage by deer. The cost to the city for disposing of deer carcasses in fiscal year 2014 was $5,850.

Estimated cost to kill 40-50 deer in the city of Ann Arbor is $25,000-$27,000 per year. That amount includes city staff administration cost in the amount of $14,000.

All deer-car accidents in Washtenaw County from 2004 through 2013 are plotted in the dynamic map below. Map is by The Chronicle with data from michigantrafficcrashfacts.org.

3:50 p.m. Agenda questions. Now available are the city staff’s written responses to questions about agenda items submitted by councilmembers. [.pdf of Aug. 18, 2014 agenda responses]

3:59 p.m. Public speaker lineup. Two speakers and one alternate are signed up to talk about the Fuller Park lease agreement: Rita Mitchell, George Gaston and Larry Baird (alternate). Two speakers and one alternate are signed up to talk about the taxicab ordinance changes: Anne Choike, Scott Sanders and Michael White (alternate). Five speakers are signed up to talk about deer management: Maurita Holland, Mary Avrakotos, Trocy Grogan, Judy Cohen and Nicholas Avrakotos. Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about electing Mark Schauer and affordable housing.

6:33 p.m. Two large groups are congregating – one outside city hall by the Dreiseitl fountain and one inside the lobby. They’re drivers for Uber and Lyft, respectively.

6:36 p.m. Two people are here in chambers so far. Both are here because they’re interested in the new taxicab ordinance revisions. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) has already arrived and is sitting at the council table.

6:44 p.m. Color coding for the TV viewing audience: Pink T-shirts are for Lyft; blue is for Uber. About 40 people total so far. Two AAPD officers are also here. One of them talks with Mozhgan Savabieasfahani and Blaine Coleman about the seating.

6:53 p.m. City attorney Stephen Postema and city administrator Steve Powers are here. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) has arrived.

6:53 p.m. Chief of police John Seto and deputy chief Greg Bazick were in the hallway on the second floor, outside council chambers. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) arrived earlier.

6:57 p.m. One guy in the back row has both pink and blue T-shirts draped over his shoulders. He drives for both Uber and Lyft.

6:59 p.m. Savabieasfahani calls supporters of the “Boycott Israel” contingent to sit on the north side of the chambers. Thomas Partridge responds by saying, “This is a city council meeting, not a rally!”

7:01 p.m. Chants of “Boycott Israel” begin. The council meeting has not yet been convened.

7:01 p.m. And we’re off.

7:01 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance.

7:02 p.m. Roll call of council. Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Margie Teall (Ward 4), and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) are absent at the rollcall.

7:02 p.m. Approval of agenda.

7:03 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the evening’s agenda without amendment.

7:05 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. City administrator Steve Powers is talking about the closing of the Ann Arbor senior center for safety reasons. It will be open again in early September. Applications for the city fire chief position will be accepted through Sept. 15. The city’s bond rating has been confirmed as AA+.

Powers doesn’t mention the deer management report that has been submitted to the council. It’s attached to the council’s agenda as a communication. [.pdf of Aug. 18, 2014 deer management options report]

7:05 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Two speakers and one alternate are signed up to talk about the Fuller Park lease agreement: Rita Mitchell, George Gaston and Larry Baird (alternate). Two speakers and one alternate are signed up to talk about the taxicab ordinance changes: Anne Choike, Scott Sanders and Michael White (alternate). Five speakers are signed up to talk about deer management: Maurita Holland, Mary Avrakotos, Trocy Grogan, Judy Cohen and Nicholas Avrakotos. Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about electing Mark Schauer and affordable housing.

Mayor John Hieftje is reviewing the rules about how many people can speak at a time and where signs can be held.

7:05 p.m. Rita Mitchell tells Hieftje that she is electing not to speak.

7:08 p.m. George Gaston is addressing the council on the topic of the Fuller Park lot leases. In an email sent to council members over the weekend, he explained how he’s calculated revenue to the University of Michigan from the Yellow and Blue permits issued for the lots. Gaston’s calculations put the UM’s revenue at a total of $521,956 annually, compared to the $78,665 amount in the lease. [.pdf of Gaston's Aug. 15 and Aug. 17, 2014 emails]

He tells the council that he’d spoken to the park advisory commission [at its July 15, 2014 meeting]. He asks the council to delay approval of the lease until they’ve reviewed the figures. Lot A was supposed to be a temporary lot, 20 years ago, he says. The lots are Yellow and Blue lots in the UM parking system, he says. Yellow permits are much cheaper, he says. The council should insist on compensation from the UM based at least on the cost of Yellow Blue permits. Gaston is reciting the history of the leasing of the lots, which involved an interest in preserving bur oak trees. [Briere has now arrived at the table. So has Warpehoski.]

7:12 p.m. Anne Choike tells the council she recently moved to Ann Arbor to teach at the law school. She is speaking in her personal interest in support of Uber and Lyft. She’s arguing for the services based on an interest in less reliance on car ownership. She relies on the bus system, Uber and Lyft, and shared rides with friends. She recites reasons why taxicab service is inadequate. She describes how she is able to spend money on local businesses, instead of on car ownership.

7:16 p.m. Scott Sanders says he’s a homeowner, with two kids and the husband of a professor. Two kids means that it’s a challenge to find a way to earn extra money. Driving in a ride-sharing service is a way to do that. He describes this as an opportunity to grow the transportation business. Instead of fighting for a smaller piece of the pie, people should be thinking about growing the size of the pie: “Coopetition.” This makes transportation more efficient and more accessible, he says. Every time he picks up riders, they express the attitude that: What did we ever do before this? He asks the council not to use a heavy hand. His remarks conclude with applause from the audience, like the previous speaker did.

7:18 p.m. Maurita Holland is speaking for various plants that have been harmed by deer. She’s also speaking for the Washtenaw Citizens for Ecological Balance. She calls for immediate action because the problem is doubling every year, she contends. The deer population in Washtenaw County is 12.5 times the recommended density, she says. “We have to do something,” she says.

7:19 p.m. Mary Avrakotos is speaking as a homeowner on the problem of deer management. She calls deer an increasing menace. She wants the council to decide quickly on a deer management plan and to insist that the city administrator adhere to a timeline on implementation.

7:22 p.m. Tracy Grogan says that spending money on a deer management plan would be money well spent. He likes deer, but deer in urban areas are nervous and tentative, he says. The problem is complex and subject to debate. Ann Arborites are thoughtful, peaceful and caring, he says. But the deer situation is brutal and costly. He wants the discussion to be elevated aggressively. The resolution tonight is an important step forward, he says. He allows that the general fund balance is a precious resource, but we owe it to ourselves to develop a plan that reflects the values of the city. His remarks draw applause.

7:25 p.m. Judy Cohen is also here to talk about the deer issue. It’s not just a matter of whether the deer are eating lilies and decimating your garden. The dollar value of the damage is high, she says. She says that Matthaei Botanical Gardens has cages around the trees to protect them from the deer, but most people don’t want cages around their own trees. She’s describing her personal close calls with deer in her car and actual accidents in her car.

7:27 p.m. Nicholas Avrakotos tells the council that we do have a problem with deer. The most severe winter in many years has not diminished the deer population, he says. He’s describing overpopulation of rabbits on an island – which has become a refuge for rabbits. He says that’s what’s happening here with respect to deer. He wants the council to acknowledge there is a problem.

7:29 p.m. Thomas Partridge calls for the election of Mark Schauer as governor and Gary Peters as U.S. Senator. Hieftje tells Partridge that he had signed to talk about agenda item F-5 and wants him to do that. Peters would have a platform that would help eliminate homelessness and provide affordable housing, Partridge responds.

7:30 p.m. Hieftje disallows Baird as an alternate speaker, saying that Mitchell was here but chose not to speak.

7:30 p.m. Communications from council. This is the first of two slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:32 p.m. Taylor conveys regrets from Teall, who is caring for older family members. Eaton announces a neighborhood meeting for the Packard Square development on Sept. 4.

7:33 p.m. MC-1 Confirmations. The council is being asked tonight to confirm nominations made at the council’s Aug. 7, 2014 meeting: Bob Guenzel as a reappointment to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority; Stephen Raiman to the energy commission to replace Dina Kurz; and Nora Lee Wright to a vacancy on the housing and human services advisory board.

7:33 p.m. Outcome: All nominations have been confirmed without discussion.

7:33 p.m. MC-2 Nominations. Anna Ercoli-Schnitzer is being nominated to fill a vacancy on the Commission on Disability Issues. Tamara Burns and Dick Mitchell are being nominated to be reappointed to the design review board. Sofia Franciscus is being nominated to fill the vacancy on the planning commission due to Paras Parekh’s resignation. And John Splitt is being nominated for reappointment to the Downtown Development Authority board. Votes on their confirmation will take place at the council’s next meeting.

7:35 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Four public hearings are scheduled tonight. Two of them relate to an Ann Arbor Housing Commission project on North Maple that involves demolishing some units and re-building them. [For additional background see North Maple Estates above] The other two public hearings relate to the McKinley project on State Street called State Street Village. [For additional background see State Street Village above]

Hieftje tells the Boycott Israel contingent to hold their signs over to the sides. They respond by exiting. In leaving some make statements: “You care more about deer than people.”

7:35 p.m. PH-1 Ann Arbor Housing Commission North Maple Road.

7:37 p.m. Thomas Partridge calls for more affordable housing.

7:37 p.m. PH-2 Seybold Drive street vacation.

7:38 p.m. No one speaks on this public hearing.

7:38 p.m. PH-3 State Street Village rezoning.

7:40 p.m. Thomas Partridge calls for more consideration of the most vulnerable.

7:40 p.m. PH-4 State Street Village site plan.

7:42 p.m. Thomas Partridge calls for public access by everyone, including seniors and the disabled.

7:42 p.m. Approval of minutes. Outcome: The minutes of the council’s previous meeting have been approved.

7:42 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes:

• CA-1 Approve the member services agreement into the Keenan Pharmacy Purchasing Coalition ($60,000 for 2014 and $60,000 for 2015).
• CA-2 Approve July 24, 2014 recommendations of the Board of Insurance Administration.
• CA-3 Street Closure: Maynard Street on Wednesday, September 10, 2014 for the Barracuda Networks BBQ.
• CA-4 Approve agreement with the Washtenaw County Road Commission for the resurfacing of Newport Road (City Limits to Bird Road) ($90,000).

7:43 p.m. Councilmembers can pull out any item on the consent agenda for separate consideration. Briere pulls out CA-4.

7:43 p.m. Outcome: The consent agenda has been approved except for CA-4.

7:43 p.m. CA-4 Approve agreement with the Washtenaw County Road Commission for the resurfacing of Newport Road (City Limits to Bird Road) ($90,000).

7:44 p.m. Briere is thanking staff for working with the Washtenaw County Road Commission to make this happen.

7:44 p.m. Outcome: CA-4 has now been approved from the consent agenda.

7:44 p.m. B-1 Ann Arbor Housing Commission North Maple Road Rezoning. The council is considering for final approval the rezoning required for an Ann Arbor Housing Commission project – a 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road. The zoning would change from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site plan, which has been shifted to the Sept. 2 agenda, calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms. A related item on the agenda is the vacation of a portion of the city’s right-of-way for Seybold Drive. [For additional background see North Maple Estates above]

7:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval to the North Maple Estates rezoning.

7:45 p.m. B-2 State Street Village rezoning. The council is considering the rezoning of land for the State Street Village project at 2221-2223 S. State St. The 4.5-acre parcel is proposed to be rezoned from M1 (limited industrial district) to O (office district). Also on the council’s agenda for approval is the site plan for the project that will be made possible by approval of the rezoning – a $10 million development by Ann Arbor-based McKinley Inc. The plan calls for constructing two 4-story apartment buildings at the rear of the site, totaling 112,262 square feet, with 38 units each. Another 2,027 square foot building – for a leasing office with two apartments above it – would be built on the front of the parcel, on South State. [For additional background see State Street Village above]

7:45 p.m. Briere notes that office (O) zoning was the most flexible zoning for this site. She assures members of the public that every site plan is vetted for access to transit by all users.

7:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval to the State Street Village rezoning.

7:46 p.m. C-1 121 Kingsley West rezoning. This is the initial consideration of the 121 W. Kingsley Street project. The project calls for rezoning the site from a planned unit development (PUD) to D2 (downtown interface). The development would include renovating the existing two-story, 2,539-square-foot building, plus constructing two additional buildings: (1) a 3.5-story addition to the existing building; and (2) a 4.5-story structure at the southeast corner of West Kingsley and North Ashley. In total, the development would include 22 units and 40,689 square feet. The estimated cost is $6.5 million. The rezoning is on the council’s agenda, but the site plan will not come before the council until the zoning is considered for a second and final vote. [For additional background see 121 Kingsley West above]

7:46 p.m. Outcome: Without discussion, the council has voted to give initial approval to the rezoning for 121 Kingsley West.

7:46 p.m. C-2 Taxicab ordinance amendment: Rates. Getting initial consideration tonight are two changes to the city’s taxicab ordinance that have been recommended by the city’s taxicab board. The recommendations come in the context of the entry of Uber and Lyft into the Ann Arbor market. This ordinance change would establish certain parameters to mitigate possible negative consequences to the setting of a very high maximum allowable taxicab rate, under which taxicab companies might eventually compete. Those parameters include a requirement that a taxicab company commit to a single rate annually and that the rate be advertised in a vehicle with signage in letters one-inch tall. [For additional background see Taxicab Ordinances above]

7:47 p.m. Outcome: Without discussion, the council has voted to give initial approval of the taxicab ordinance change on the maximum rate.

7:47 p.m. C-3 Taxicab ordinance amendment: Register drivers for hire. This is the second item recommended by the taxicab board. It would require the registration with the city by all drivers for hire, including those who work for Uber and Lyft. Key requirements are the affixing of commercial license plates to a vehicle and maintaining commensurate insurance. [For additional background see Taxicab Ordinances above]

7:50 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) is noting that he sits on the taxicab board. The board has been working to bring up the city’s laws up to date with the changes to the marketplace. The speakers tonight have not addressed the issue of public safety, he says. This ordinance will require insurance of vehicles as commercial vehicles, he notes. This will make all drivers comply with the same rules, Kunselman says. He notes that this is the first reading of the ordinance. Some items might need to be removed, but he would like that to happen at the second reading.

7:51 p.m. Kunselman compares the issue to Selma Cafe. Everyone thought it was great, and then came the annoyances from all the neighbors because of the parking in the neighborhood. Relying on personal insurance won’t work, Kunselman says, because that puts the consumer at risk.

7:52 p.m. Hieftje is reviewing the two-step process for changes to ordinances – first reading, followed by second reading with a public hearing at a later date. Lumm is thanking the city attorney’s staff for their work.

7:54 p.m. Lumm asks about the division of responsibility between the state and local municipalities with respect to taxicabs and limos. Assistant city attorney Kristen Larcom tells Lumm that her understanding of the state of Michigan’s position is that Uber and Lyft services meet the definition of a limo. There’s movement among legislators to make amendments to the state limo act, she thinks.

7:57 p.m. City CFO Tom Crawford, who serves on the taxicab board in an ex officio capacity, responds to a question from Lumm about mechanics and inspections.

7:59 p.m. Briere wants to know what the financial impact will be on drivers for Uber and Lyft. Crawford says that there’s a distinction between a limo company, the drivers and the vehicle. He says that the drivers for Uber and Lyft are 1099 workers. Briere says that this is not what she’s concerned about. She wants to know who bears the cost. How does the proposed change share responsibility? she asks.

8:03 p.m. Kailasapathy ventures that answering the cost question is challenging, and Crawford agrees. Petersen says that the real hurdle is the insurance, not the chauffeur’s license.

8:06 p.m. Anglin agrees that it’s important to understand the cost. Kunselman responds by saying the reason that Lyft and Uber can make a profit is that they are “cheating” the law. What about the companies that are complying with the law? Kunselman asks – like Ann Arbor’s taxicab companies. The reason Uber and Lyft can charge less because they aren’t carrying the associated cost of business, he says. About the use of a family car for a ride-sharing business, Kunselman says: “Lord help us all if that family vehicle gets in a wreck,” and the family goes into bankruptcy.

8:07 p.m. Anglin doesn’t want to jump into anything rapidly.

8:10 p.m. Taylor says that the solution proposed is for a problem that does not exist. Uber and Lyft provide safe service, he says. They allow Ann Arborites to maintain a carless lifestyle. These business models provide for full insurance, he contends. Drivers are taken care of by the insurance of Uber and Lyft when they’re driving. He’ll vote against this, he says. Instead he’ll be working with Briere to bring forward a resolution directing the city administrator to develop an operating agreement with Uber and Lyft. His remarks are met with applause. Hieftje says “Applause is not appropriate during the body of the meeting.”

8:13 p.m. Eaton asks a question of the city attorney’s office. He asks if there’s anything about the state limo act that prevents the city from asserting control over the same subject matter. Warpehoski gets clarification that Ann Arbor does not limit the number of taxicab licenses. He’s comparing Ann Arbor to New York, and its taxicab “cartel.” He says it’s a matter of threading the needle, balancing the right amount of regulation.

8:15 p.m. Warpehoski says he’ll vote for this at first reading, but if the text is the same by the time the ordinance comes back for second reading, he’ll vote against it at that time.

8:15 p.m. Petersen says she’ll take Warpehoski’s advice from a couple of meetings ago: If you’re going to vote against it at second reading, vote against it at first reading. She wants to support Taylor’s efforts to develop an operating agreement.

8:19 p.m. Kunselman notes that the Detroit operating agreement is for a short time, while the law is worked out. All this ordinance does is make everyone follow the same laws, he says. If councilmembers think that Uber and Lyft can self-regulate public safety, then they should vote this down and let it be a free-for-all, he says. They’re making money because they’re not paying the full cost of the business model. They’re using public streets to make a buck, he says. With Selma Cafe, everyone was having a great time going to breakfast at someone’s house, he says, but then it had to be shut down.

8:19 p.m. Kunselman says he doesn’t use Lyft and Uber because he doesn’t feel they’re safe.

8:21 p.m. Briere is describing how many cities are developing operating agreements while the state laws are sorted out. The operating agreements can address who pays for what, she says. The agreement being considered in Lansing would define an amount for which the company is responsible for insuring, she says.

8:23 p.m. Briere ventures that such operating agreements could eventually be extended to standard limo companies. She doesn’t imagine ever needing to know who every driver is, but thinks it’s rational to expect that a list be maintained – so it’s fine if Lyft and Uber maintain that list.

8:26 p.m. Lumm says the ship has left the dock and there’s no stopping it now. Even though there’s a cease-and-desist order, Uber and Lyft are continuing to do business, she says. It’s about ensuring safety for passengers, she adds. Detroit had left undefined who the “third party” is who can inspect vehicles. Lumm is talking about the fact that Uber and Lyft drivers are rated by customers, but she wonders what happens if there’s a series of bad ratings. Lumm asks that Taylor and Briere work with the taxicab board, if the ordinance revision doesn’t pass at first reading. She notes that the chair of the taxicab board [Michael Benson] had sent the council an email asking the council to support the changes.

8:29 p.m. Crawford describes himself as conflicted about the ordinance. He says that he doesn’t see Uber and Lyft as competing with taxicabs so much as with limos. The Uber and Lyft business models are designed for those who have smartphones, he notes. They have ways to rate passengers and drivers, he says, so if you have give drivers a bad experience, you might not be able to get a ride.

8:32 p.m. Kailasapathy is drawing an analogy to renting a house. If a landlord was skirting requirements on fire inspections, would the city opt to come up with operating agreements with them? Is the city council there to revise ordinance that apply to everybody, or when people break the rules, do we scramble to create operating agreements to fit their business models? For her it’s a governance issue.

8:35 p.m. Eaton says he’ll support the ordinance change. He notes that Kunselman has stated he’s willing to compromise on some of the language. Eaton says that he is sensitive to the idea that a company will self-regulate for safety. He says that the same offer of an operating agreement would need to be offered to taxicab companies. Eaton can’t imagine letting an entire industry arise under the guise of self-regulation.

8:36 p.m. Petersen says she’s not opposed to ordinance amendments, but she doesn’t think that these are the right set of amendments. She says that Kunselman should go back to the drawing board. Public safety, health and welfare is paramount, but she doesn’t think that these are insurmountable barriers.

8:39 p.m. Anglin is talking about the transportation that the AAATA’s shared taxi service provides. Briere moves to waive the council’s rules on speaking times, which the council agrees to.

8:40 p.m. Kunselman is going through the requirements in the ordinance change and asks other councilmembers if they have objections to each of them. “Does anybody have a problem with that?” is the question he poses for each requirement.

8:42 p.m. Kunselman comes to “the one that probably scares Uber and Lyft the most,” which is that they would have to comply with state limo act. He asks if councilmembers are willing to allow a company to operate in violation of state law. If so, then “have at it,” he says.

8:44 p.m. Briere calls Kailasapathy’s comparison to renting a house interesting. She extends that to the hotel industry and bed and breakfasts, and is now talking about Airbnb-type models.

8:47 p.m. Briere says she wants the company to bear the burden. The city would be adding an incredible burden to something that is a casual relationship. She thinks the city can be more creative in regulating this issue. Since April, she’s been convinced that an operating agreement is the way to go.

8:49 p.m. Lumm thinks that the requirements in the ordinance are really basic. She asks for the representative from Uber, Michael White, to explain which elements of the ordinance he objects to.

8:52 p.m. White says that there’s no need for commercial insurance on a vehicle that’s being used for three hours a week for this service, he says. Uber’s insurance covers those vehicles when they’re being used to drive for Uber, he says. If there were a safety issue, he says, it wouldn’t be just a national issue, it would be an international issue, he says.

8:54 p.m. Eaton asks which requirements White objects to. He objects to each driver having to complete the requirements.

8:55 p.m. Kailasapathy is asking about the insurance policy. It’s a liability policy, White explains.

8:57 p.m. Briere asks if White can share data about safety. Not today, he says. Briere asks if he can get it. Complaints come in as a stream, he says. Briere wants to know about percentages – out of 20 vehicles, how many complaints are there?

9:00 p.m. White says that their drivers have an average star rating of 4.6 stars out of 5.0. Briere says she’s not asking about satisfaction, but about safety. Petersen wants to know how that data is used by Uber. White is providing the standard Uber marketing message to the council.

9:01 p.m. Petersen asks if Uber can suspend a driver before they discover that people aren’t requesting rides from them. Based on White’s response, it’s not clear.

9:02 p.m. Lumm is following up with questions about the rating system.

9:05 p.m. White is taking the opportunity to explain the various advantages that Uber offers to riders.

9:07 p.m. Lumm is going back and forth with White about what he’d be willing to put in an operating agreement. He’d be willing to put a requirement in an Ann Arbor operating agreement that required the vehicle inspection to be done by a licensed mechanic.

9:12 p.m. Warpehoski has some back-and-forth with White.

9:12 p.m. Kunselman asks White if Uber would be willing to accept six points as a maximum. White says that they evaluate the nature of the violations. He’d be happy to discuss various issues. Kunselman says White has been vague. Kunselman asks if Uber would allow a felon to be a driver. No, White says. The city council had recently approved a policy on that, Kunselman notes. [Earlier this year, the city eliminated the requirement that job applicants disclose past criminal records – except for police and fire department applicants.]

White says that an English requirement would effectively arise from having to be able to go through the application system. And if they did manage to be activated as a driver, their ability to deliver quality service would be hampered by a lack of English. And that would show up in the feedback the driver would get.

9:14 p.m. Kunselman asks about possible discrimination against riders with disabilities and about red-lining. White says that studies have been done that show in Chicago, undesirable and underserved areas are much better served by Uber than by existing transportation options. Kunselman asks: Do you think that we should disband the taxicab industry in Ann Arbor?

9:20 p.m. Hieftje says there have been a lot of good comments. He mentions pipelines as a self-regulated industry, in some ways. It’s long been a goal of his to make it possible for people to live without owning a car, he says. The bike lane system has been expanded, he says. The bus system has been expanded. Ride-sharing apps are a way to expand ride-share options. So he won’t support the ordinance change tonight. He doesn’t think there’s any reason to think that Uber and Lyft aren’t concerned with safety.

9:24 p.m. Outcome: The council has rejected the ordinance at first reading on a 5-5 vote. Voting against it were Hieftje, Briere, Petersen, Lumm and Taylor.

9:24 p.m. Recess. We’re now in recess.

9:37 p.m. We’re back.

9:37 p.m. DC-1 Appropriate $20,000 to develop a community-endorsed deer management plan. This item is based on the Aug. 14 report from the city administrator on options for managing the deer population. Before developing a specific plan – that could involve killing deer or not – input from Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation and the University of Michigan would be sought. And the Michigan Department of Natural Resources would need to approve any plan for deer management.

The Aug. 14 report includes descriptions of deer management plans in other Michigan cities that range from ordinances prohibiting the feeding of deer to culling programs that shut down city parks and prescribe shooting lanes for archers. City of Ann Arbor staff estimate that six months would be needed for public engagement. That public engagement could start within 45 days of city council approval to proceed. Estimated staff time to develop the specific plan is 160 hours, according to the Aug. 14 report. Contractual public engagement and support to develop a management plan are estimated at $20,000. The report indicates that to cull 40-50 deer per year, the cost to the city would be about $25,000. According to Michigan Department of Natural Resources records 6,608 deer were taken by hunters in Washtenaw County. [For additional background see Deer Management above]

9:39 p.m. Lumm is thanking city administrator Steve Powers and community services administrator Sumedh Bahl. Lumm is reading aloud a written statement. The plan to be developed is supposed to include metrics for success, she says. The MDNR is the critical partner, she says.

9:42 p.m. Lumm allows that the problem might be concentrated in Ward 1 and Ward 2, but she hopes that the council will support it. Briere says that the problem is growing in Ward 5 as well. Briere says she doesn’t have an interest in seeing the deer slaughtered, but there are few ways to control the deer population. The problem might not be only the overpopulation of deer, she allows. She supports moving the process forward.

9:44 p.m. Hieftje says his central concern is that it be a comprehensive solution. He reports that he saw a buck walk past his front porch, even though there are no natural areas in the area.

9:47 p.m. Lumm asks Bahl to come to the podium. Powers responds first. He notes that the partners involved “aren’t quite there yet,” and the DNR has recommended that there be a community process. That comment comes in response to some public input to the effect that the city was not moving fast enough.

9:50 p.m. Lumm asks if there will be more data collected on environmental data. That will take some time, Bahl says.

9:51 p.m. Lumm is now reading aloud an email from a NAP volunteer. Young oak trees don’t survive unless the volunteer fences the trees, the email states.

9:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to appropriate $20,000 to develop a deer management plan.

9:52 p.m. DC-2 Community Events Fund Disbursements. This item was added late to the agenda by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5). The council rule on the subject reads as follows: “Council members may add items to the agenda at any time, but will use best efforts to do so prior to 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the next Council meeting.” The two constitute the council committee for distribution of community events funding. They met at 10 a.m. today (Monday) for a meeting that was announced through the city’s notification system at 4:06 p.m. last Friday.

About half of the events to receive funding this year have already taken place. The disbursements are for a total of $55,000, including $10,000 for the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair and $25,000 for the Summer Festival.

9:54 p.m. Warpehoski apologizes for the late addition to the agenda. Some of the events that been allocated funding turned out not to be happening and so adjustments needed to be made late. The full amount is not being allocated, he says, so that late applications might be accommodated.

9:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the disbursements from the community events fund.

9:54 p.m. DB-1 Seybold Drive vacation. This item is related to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission’s North Maple Estates project the zoning for which the council voted on earlier in the meeting. [For additional background see North Maple Estates above]

9:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the vacation of Seybold Drive.

9:54 p.m. DB-2 State Street Village site plan. The council voted on the rezoning for the project earlier in the meeting. [For additional background see State Street Village above]

9:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the State Street Village site plan.

9:54 p.m. DS-1 Approve extended policy with EyeMed Vision Care ($305,828). The policy period is four years. The policy requires the city to pay a set monthly premium. The monthly premiums are $4.53 for single, $8.61 for two people, and $12.64 for a family from July 1, 2014 through Dec. 31, 2014. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, due to the fees imposed onto insurers under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the premiums will be adjusted upward on January 1, 2015. The new monthly premiums will be $4.67 for single, $8.87, for two people, and $13.02 for a family from Jan. 1, 2015 through Dec. 31, 2018.

9:55 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the extension with EyeMed.

9:55 p.m. DS-2 Approve Fuller Lot lease with University of Michigan. This item would extend the lease by the city to the University of Michigan for three parking lots at Fuller Park: (1) the parking lot south of Fuller Road, next to the railroad tracks; (2) the paved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park; and (3) the unpaved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park. The lots are used by the University of Michigan during restricted hours. Annual revenue from this lease will be $78,665, and will be included as part of the parks and recreation general fund budget. The item was forwarded to the city council from the park advisory commission with a recommendation of approval. [For additional background see Fuller Park Parking Lease above.]

9:57 p.m. Hieftje says that he thinks it would be useful to postpone the question.

9:58 p.m. Eaton asks that if this is sent back to the park advisory commission (PAC), then he wants the commission to review the relevant planning documents.

10:00 p.m. Briere moves to postpone until October. Lumm asks what happens, given the expiration of the current lease. Hieftje ventures that this is coming to the council later than it should have.

10:01 p.m. Anglin is concerned about the inclusion of a mention of future uses of the property.

10:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the Fuller Park lot lease with the University of Michigan until the first meeting in October.

10:01 p.m. DS-3 Appropriate emergency management performance ($42,582) This item will accept $42,582 in grant funding from the state for emergency management. It will pay for part of the salary for the city’s emergency manager.

10:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the acceptance of the emergency program grant funds.

10:02 p.m. Communications from the council.

10:05 p.m. Kailasapathy is pointing out that the council rule regarding public commentary is that if someone vacates their reserved time, it shall be assigned to the alternate speakers. Larry Baird was the alternate who was denied an opportunity to speak. Hieftje says that he will take a look at that. But he says that the rules are under a great deal of scrutiny to make sure that the rules are followed. “Maybe I was too careful.” He was concerned that someone might bring that up to the council. Kailasapathy reiterates the point of the rule. Hieftje says he’ll look into that. Warpehoski notes that everyone has a responsibility to note the error at the time it’s made.

10:06 p.m. Clerk’s Report. Warpehoski says he’s happy to see the inclusion of accessory dwelling units in the planning commission’s work plan, which is part of the clerk’s report of communications.

10:08 p.m. Warpehoski says that if the council wants to see things move forward, they need to make the necessary resources available.

10:08 p.m. Outcome: The council has now accepted the clerk’s report.

10:08 p.m. Public comment. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

10:10 p.m. Thomas Partridge says that despite the council’s vote on the taxicab ordinance, the city still needs assurances that transportation will be safety. He says the city is not making the kind of progress it needs to on affordable housing.

10:13 p.m. Kai Petainen is addressing the council on the topic of Ann Arbor SPARK. Here’s a .pdf of his remarks: [.pdf of Petainen Aug. 18, 2014]

10:16 p.m. A Lyft driver is addressing the council. He says he’s been living here for 14 years. He says that the council makes the city better and better every day. He wants them to continue to make Ann Arbor’s transportation system better.

10:18 p.m. A second Lyft driver, who’s been working with that service since May 8, is now addressing the council. Ann Arbor deserves ride-sharing in the city, he says. About 80% of riders he picks up are college students. When he picks up students who are drunk, he knows that he is saving their lives. It takes 45 minutes to an hour for other services, he says. Lyft covers him with a $1 million policy, he says.

10:21 p.m. Ed Vielmetti is addressing the council. He’s a Ward 4 resident. Two years ago, The Chronicle’s Stopped.Watched feature recorded a vehicle in storage by the city of Ann Arbor – it’s a Washtenaw County APC with a battering ram. He alludes to events in Ferguson. He hopes and prays that if something happens in this city and county, their public officials will support them in cases where injustices have been done.

10:23 p.m. Rita Mitchell says that she is choosing to speak now, although she chose not to speak earlier. She appreciates the rule that calls for speakers to speak on agenda items at the start of the meeting. She thanks the council for their action to postpone the item on leasing Fuller Park lots to UM. She hopes that the parks can be funded without leasing parkland for non-park uses. She also objects to inclusion of language in the lease about possible future use of the area as a train station. She wants the city to check into the condition of the trees that were supposed to be saved through the lease so many years ago.

10:25 p.m. Jeff Hayner says he hopes the city can get a better deal from the University of Michigan. He delivers a theatrical reading with a deer skull.

10:26 p.m. An Uber driver is now addressing the council in support of Uber and other ride-sharing services.

10:27 p.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

A report from the city administrator on options for deer management has led to a resolution on the Aug. 18 agenda appropriating $20,000 for the development of a deer management program.

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the Aug. 18, 2014 meeting agenda.

Among the land use items on the Aug. 18 agenda is one related to use of city-owned land – three parking lots at Fuller Park: (1) the parking lot south of Fuller Road, next to the railroad tracks; (2) the paved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park; and (3) the unpaved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park. The lots are used by the University of Michigan during restricted hours.

The council will be considering a two-year lease with one additional two-year option for renewal. Annual revenue from this lease will be $78,665, and will be included as part of the parks and recreation general fund budget. The item was forwarded to the city council from the park advisory commission with a recommendation of approval.

Private land development items on the Aug. 18 agenda include final approval of the rezoning of land for the State Street Village project at 2221-2223 S. State St. The 4.5-acre parcel is proposed to be rezoned from M1 (limited industrial district) to O (office district). Also on the council’s agenda for approval is the site plan for the project that will be made possible by approval of the rezoning – a $10 million development by Ann Arbor-based McKinley Inc. The plan calls for constructing two 4-story apartment buildings at the rear of the site, totaling 112,262 square feet, with 38 units each. Another 2,027-square-foot building – for a leasing office with two apartments above it – would be built on the front of the parcel, on South State.

Also on the agenda for final approval is the rezoning required for an Ann Arbor Housing Commission project – a 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road. The zoning would change from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site plan, which is also on the council’s Aug. 18 agenda, calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms. A related item on the agenda is the vacation of a portion of the city’s right-of-way for Seybold Drive.

Rezoning for 121 W. Kingsley Street for a private development is getting initial consideration by the council on Aug. 18. The project calls for rezoning the site from a planned unit development (PUD) to D2 (downtown interface). The development would include renovating the existing two-story, 2,539-square-foot building, plus constructing two additional buildings: (1) a 3.5-story addition to the existing building; and (2) a 4.5-story structure at the southeast corner of West Kingsley and North Ashley. In total, the development would include 22 units and 40,689 square feet. The estimated cost is $6.5 million.

Getting initial consideration by the council at its Aug. 18 meeting are changes to the city’s taxicab ordinance that have been recommended by the city’s taxicab board. The recommendations come in the context of the entry of Uber and Lyft into the Ann Arbor market. The companies offer the arrangement of rides through mobile networks with drivers who operate their own vehicles. Both companies have ignored cease-and-desist orders from the city.

Uber has sent its Ann Arbor customers an email asking them to sign an online petition supporting Uber’s continued ability to operate here.

One ordinance change would establish certain parameters to mitigate possible negative consequences to the setting of a very high maximum allowable taxicab rate, under which taxicab companies might eventually compete. Those parameters include a requirement that a taxicab company commit to a single rate annually and that the rate be advertised in a vehicle with signage in letters one-inch tall. The other ordinance would require that all drivers for hire – whether they are taxicab drivers or drivers who work for Uber or Lyft – register with the city, maintain proper insurance for their vehicles and acquire commercial plates.

In other significant business at its Aug. 18 meeting, the council will also be asked to confirm the re-appointment of Bob Guenzel to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Monday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network starting at 7 p.m.

Fuller Park Parking Lease

The council will be considering a possible four-year extension on a University of Michigan lease of three parking lots at Fuller Park. The lease comes to the council with a recommendation of approval from the park advisory commission. The commission gave that recommendation at its July 15, 2014 meeting.

Map of parking lots at Fuller Park that are leased to the University of Michigan.

The existing lease expires on Aug. 31, 2014. The three lots are: (1) the parking lot south of Fuller Road, next to the railroad tracks (Lot A); (2) the paved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park (Lot B); and (3) the unpaved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park (Lot C). The lots are used by UM during restricted hours.

The city has leased Lot A to UM since 1993. Lots B and C have been leased since 2009.

The proposal, which requires city council approval, is for a two-year lease with one additional two-year option for renewal. Annual revenue of this lease will be $78,665, and will be included as part of the parks and recreation general fund budget. [.pdf of proposed lease agreement] [.pdf of staff report]

The hours that UM can use these lots are stipulated in the agreement:

• Lot A: 4 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday.
• Lot B (paved lot): 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, beginning the day after Labor Day through the Friday before Memorial Day, excluding holidays.
• Lot C (unpaved lot): 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.

At the PAC meeting when the lease was recommended, parks and recreation manager Colin Smith noted that the revenue from these three lots is significant for the parks and recreation operating budget. The current agreement – which was approved by the council in 2009 and extended by two administrative renewals – is essentially the same as the agreement that will expire, Smith told PAC.

The main purpose of the lots is for the parks, Smith explained. That’s reflected in the hours when UM can use the lots – on weekdays, prior to 4-5 p.m. The outdoor pool and soccer fields don’t need the quantity of parking during the winter or off-season. “It’s an asset within the parks department that we can either have sit there, or we can lease it for a significant amount of revenue that obviously helps us provide other programs,” he said. If the city doesn’t lease those parking lots, “I am absolutely certain that people will park in it anyway,” Smith added.

State Street Village

On Aug. 18, the council will consider final approval of the rezoning of land for the State Street Village project at 2221-2223 S. State St. The 4.5-acre parcel is proposed to be rezoned from M1 (limited industrial district) to O (office district). Also on the council’s agenda for approval is the site plan for the project that will be made possible by approval of the rezoning – a $10 million development by Ann Arbor-based McKinley Inc. The plan calls for constructing two 4-story apartment buildings at the rear of the site, totaling 112,262 square feet, with 38 units each. Another 2,027 square foot building – for a leasing office with two apartments above it – would be built on the front of the parcel, on South State.

Aerial view of State Street Village site.

Action on the initial approval came at the city council’s July 21, 2014 meeting. A recommendation for the rezoning was given at the June 17, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

At that meeting, commissioners recommended approval of the site plan, development agreement and rezoning for the project.

The front part of the site is currently a surface parking lot, and is zoned O (office). The rear parcel – 4.5 acres – is vacant, and zoned M1 (limited industrial). Residential developments are permitted in office-zoned areas. [.pdf of staff report]

The development will include 114 parking spaces in the rear of the site and 13 spaces for the front. Another 22 spaces in the surface parking lot will be shared by the existing office building just south of the site.

In addition, 44 covered bicycle spaces and 8 enclosed bicycle spaces will be provided near the entrances of the apartment buildings and 2 hoops will be placed near the entrance of the rental office building.

Instead of making a $48,360 requested donation to the city for parks, McKinley has proposed two 8×10-foot grilling patios with picnic tables and grills.

According to the staff memo, the footing drains of 18 homes, or flow equivalent to 71.91 gallons per minute, will need to be disconnected from the city’s sanitary sewer system to mitigate flow from this proposed development.

North Maple Road

To be considered for final approval by the council at its Aug. 18 meeting is the rezoning required for an Ann Arbor Housing Commission project – a 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road. The zoning would change from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site plan, which is also on the council’s Aug. 18 has been shifted to the Sept. 2 agenda, calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms. A related item on the agenda is the vacation of a portion of the city’s right-of-way for Seybold Drive.

The Ann Arbor planning commission recommended all three items for approval at its June 17, 2014 meeting. The council gave initial approval of the rezoning at its July 7, 2014 meeting.

Aerial view of North Maple Estates site, outlined in green.

The project is part of a major renovation effort by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission of several of its properties. The site is on the west side of North Maple, between Dexter Avenue and Hollywood Drive. [.pdf of staff report]

The units in the eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex are proposed to have a total of 138 bedrooms. The units range in size from one bedroom to five bedrooms.

The project would include a playground, community building and 73 parking spaces. According to a staff memo, the buildings would be located along a T-shaped driveway that connects to North Maple Road and Dexter Avenue. The drive extends northward toward Vine Court but does not connect with that street. There would be a new connection to Dexter Avenue through the remaining, undeveloped length of Seybold Drive.

The project also requires the city to vacate a portion of the right-of-way for Seybold Drive. The surrounding land is owned by the housing commission, so if the right-of-way vacation is approved, the land would become part of the housing commission property. In a separate vote, the planning commission also recommended approving that request.

When the project was in front of the planning commission, planning staff noted three issues that need to be resolved before the project gets approval from city council:

The parcel containing two duplex buildings also owned by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission in the northeast corner of the site must be combined with the subject site, forming a single parcel as a requirement for issuance of any permits.

The legal description and comparison chart data must be confirmed to include the duplex parcel.

The northern-most parking stall, nearest the connection to Vine Court, must be relocated outside of the minimum front setback area.

According to the staff memo, after June 3 the city’s traffic engineer reviewed the proposed new connection from Seybold Drive onto Dexter Avenue, and concluded that sight distances from all approaches are acceptable. He suggested that the pavement markings on Dexter should be refreshed.

The reconstruction of North Maple Estates is part of an ongoing effort by the housing commission to upgrade the city’s housing stock for low-income residents. At the planning commission’s May 6, 2014 meeting, AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall had made a presentation about the initiative, which includes seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits.

121 Kingsley West

Rezoning for 121 W. Kingsley Street for a proposed new development is getting initial consideration by the council on Aug. 18. The project calls for rezoning the site from a planned unit development (PUD) to D2 (downtown interface). The development would include renovating the existing two-story, 2,539-square-foot building, plus constructing two additional buildings: (1) a 3.5-story addition to the existing building; and (2) a 4.5-story structure at the southeast corner of West Kingsley and North Ashley. In total, the development would include 22 units and 40,689 square feet. The estimated cost is $6.5 million.

The rezoning will be on the council’s agenda, but the site plan will not come before the council until the zoning is considered for a second and final vote. The Ann Arbor planning commission’s recommendation of approval for the site plan and the rezoning came at its July 15, 2014 meeting.

Rendering of 121 Kingsley West project, looking south from Kingsley. The existing building is in the left foreground.

Developers are Tom Fitzsimmons, Peter Allen and Mark Berg. The architect is Marc Rueter.

There would be 29 parking spaces below the buildings – though only two spaces are required, based on residential premiums that the project is seeking. The premiums give the project additional floor area, compare to what’s allowed by right. An elevator for each building will be accessible from the parking level. The parking level of the east building will include a bike room with 14 spaces.

According to a staff report, the project’s development agreement will address “easements for encroachments onto the City right of way by the existing building, onsite stormwater management, verification of LEED points, six required footing drain disconnects, future façade alterations, and the contribution to Parks and Recreation Services.” [.pdf of staff report]

Planning commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning, site plan and development agreement. However, only five commissioners on the nine-member body were present, and the commission’s bylaws stipulate that approval requires six votes. So the project was forwarded to city council for consideration with a recommendation of denial from the commission. Wendy Woods, the commission’s chair, assured the developers that city council would be informed that the project secured unanimous support from all commissioners who were present.

The project is on the same site as a previously proposed project by Peter Allen called Kingsley Lane. That had been envisioned as a larger development with 46 units in a complex with two “towers” – at four and nine stories. According to a 2006 Ann Arbor News article, pre-sales of the units were slower than expected because of the struggling housing market, and ultimately financing fell through. At a July 9, 2013 planning commission work session, planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that the developers had lost the property to the bank, but subsequently secured the land and were expected to submit a new site plan.

Taxicab Ordinances

Getting initial consideration by the council on Aug. 18 are two changes to the city’s taxicab ordinance that have been recommended by the city’s taxicab board. The recommendations come in the context of the entry of Uber and Lyft into the Ann Arbor market. The companies offer the arrangement of rides through mobile networks with drivers who operate their own vehicles. Both companies have continued to operate in Ann Arbor, despite cease-and-desist orders from the city. [.pdf of cease-and-desist sent to Lyft] [.pdf of cease-and-desist sent to Uber]

The vote to recommend the ordinance changes came at the July 24, 2014 meeting of the taxicab board.

These issues were also discussed at three monthly meetings of the taxicab board prior to that, on April 23, 2014, May 22, 2014 and June 26, 2014.

One ordinance change would establish certain parameters to mitigate possible negative consequences to the setting of a very high maximum allowable taxicab rate, under which taxicab companies might eventually compete. Those parameters include a requirement that a taxicab company commit to a single rate annually and that the rate be advertised in a vehicle with signage in letters one-inch tall.

The current structure for fare regulation already allows for the adoption of a maximum rate to be adopted by the city council. Currently the maximum rate in Ann Arbor is $3 to get in, $2.50 per mile, and 40 cents per minute waiting time. Those maximum rates were last adjusted upwards three years ago, on May 16, 2011, in response to gas prices that had nudged past $4 per gallon. At that time, the taxicab board indicated it did not anticipate considering another rate change until the gas prices were over $5 for at least two consecutive months.

So the taxicab board’s thinking is not being driven by gas prices, which are currently between $3.75 and $4 in the Ann Arbor area. Instead, a possible increase in allowable fares is based on concern that the taxicab industry in Ann Arbor might not be able to survive unless taxis are allowed to charge more.

At its July 24 meeting, taxicab board members discussed the possibility of delaying their recommendation on the ordinance changes until the board could also make a specific recommendation on the price point for a very high maximum rate. But ultimately board members felt that a recommendation on a price point for a new maximum rate could come later – especially because ordinance changes require a first and second reading in front of the council. There would be a window of opportunity between those readings to make a recommendation on the higher maximum. The taxicab board’s next meeting is scheduled for Aug. 28 at 8:30 a.m. at city hall.

The other ordinance change to be given initial consideration would require that all drivers for hire – whether they are taxicab drivers or drivers who work for Uber or Lyft – register with the city, maintain proper insurance for their vehicles and acquire commercial plates. Commercial plates would require that the commensurate commercial insurance is carried.

And the absence of commercial plates on a vehicle that is observed to be used for picking up or dropping off passengers would provide a primary reason for a traffic stop by Ann Arbor police. At the taxicab board meetings over the last few months, representatives of the taxicab industry argued that the state statute regulating limousines already gives the city the ability to enforce against Uber and Lyft drivers.

Deer Management

Attached to the Aug. 18 city council agenda is a report from the city administrator outlining issues and options for management of the urban deer herd in Ann Arbor. Based on that report is a resolution, sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2), that would accept the report and appropriate $20,000 from the general fund for development of a “community endorsed deer management plan.” [.pdf of Aug. 14, 2014 deer management options report]

The council had directed the preparation of the report on various options in a resolution approved at its May 5, 2014 meeting. The report was to have been delivered to the council by July 31.

Fall 2015 is the earliest date identified in the report as a possible timeframe for a culling of the herd.

Before developing a specific plan – that could involve killing deer or not – input from Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation and the University of Michigan would be sought. And the Michigan Department of Natural Resources would need to approve any plan for deer management. The Aug. 14 report includes descriptions of deer management plans in other Michigan cities that range from ordinances prohibiting the feeding of deer to culling programs that shut down city parks and prescribe shooting lanes for archers.

City of Ann Arbor staff estimate that six months would be needed for public engagement. That public engagement could start within 45 days of city council approval to proceed.

Estimated staff time to develop the specific plan is 160 hours, according to the Aug. 14 report. Contractual public engagement and support to develop a management plan are estimated at $20,000.

Other facts included in the plan are the fact that neither city parks nor golf courses have had vegetation damage by deer. The cost to the city for disposing of deer carcasses in fiscal year 2014 was $5,850.

Estimated cost to kill 40-50 deer in the city of Ann Arbor is $25,000-$27,000 per year. That amount includes city staff administration cost in the amount of $14,000.

All deer-car accidents in Washtenaw County from 2004 through 2013 are plotted in the dynamic map below. Map is by The Chronicle with data from michigantrafficcrashfacts.org

Comparing the periods October 2012 through June 2012 to October 2013 through June 2014 – when rates have been constant – revenue has increased 1.20% to $14,647,274, while the number of hourly patrons has decreased by 1.65% to 1,661,256. (City of Ann Arbor public parking system data from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, charts by The Chronicle.)

What if on-street metered rates were raised a dime, and rates across other parts of the parking system were also raised by an equivalent percentage?

Although the DDA operates the parking system, that kind of 6.7% rate increase would directly benefit the city’s general fund. By how much?

First, any increase to the city’s general fund revenue is a function of the contract with the city of Ann Arbor, under which the DDA operates the roughly 8,000-space public parking system. The contract stipulates that the city receives 17% of gross parking system revenues.

Total parking system revenues are budgeted by the DDA for the 2015 fiscal year at about $19.3 million. So in ballpark numbers, the 17% equates to a roughly $3.2 million transfer to the city. Of that $3.2 million, about $2.3 million will go to the general fund, while the remaining amount will go to the fund the city uses to maintain downtown streets. That division of the transfer payment by the city has its historical roots in an arrangement between the city and the DDA that predated the existing contract.

So a 6.7% increase in rates across the parking system – assuming no decrease in the use of the system – works out to something like $150,000 more for the city of Ann Arbor’s general fund.

The city council’s role in setting parking rates is one of oversight, not decision-making. But even that oversight role is structurally somewhat weak – because decisions made by the DDA (to raise parking rates) can make the city council’s annual budget decisions somewhat easier.

The next scheduled opportunity for the Ann Arbor city council to exercise oversight of the DDA will be during a fall joint work session – which is stipulated to occur under terms of the city-DDA parking contract. That session is currently planned for Sept. 8.

The contractually stipulated work session would be a good opportunity for councilmembers to ask for metrics on Ann Arbor’s public parking system. Requested information should include stats that indicate how well Ann Arbor’s public parking system supports three different key user groups: (1) downtown employees; (2) retail/transactional customers and visitors; and (3) downtown residents.

Some data is collected routinely by the DDA from Republic Parking – its contractor for day-to-day operations – and shared publicly. That data is limited to revenue figures and numbers of hourly patrons. The routine data does not include hours parked by different categories of users – monthly permit holders and hourly patrons – which makes it difficult to evaluate the system’s support of different user groups.

Still, it’s possible to discern some patterns and to draw some conclusions about Ann Arbor’s parking system, based on the data the DDA does provide. Charts with commentary are presented below.

Overall Picture

The most recent rate increases in Ann Arbor’s public parking system were implemented in September 2012.

Rates for the roughly 2,000 on-street metered parking spaces are currently $1.50 an hour. Rates at surface lots straddle that $1.50 hourly rate – at $1.40 for the first three hours and $1.60 for the fourth hour and beyond. Hourly parking at parking structures costs $1.20 per hour. Monthly permits – which don’t guarantee a permit holder a specific space, but are tied to a particular structure – cost $145 a month at most structures.

Some, but not nearly all, of the monthly permits sold in the two-year-old underground parking garage at Library Lane were initially sold at a discounted $95 introductory rate, which reflects a $50 savings over most other structures. The discount was offered to employees of “new-to-downtown businesses” and to permit holders in the Maynard or Liberty Square parking structures who were willing to transfer their permit to Library Lane. The pricing is good through August 2014. Assuming all those discounted Library Lane permit holders retain them after August 2014, revenue per space at Library Lane should show a slight increase.

The most recent revenue data from the Ann Arbor DDA on Ann Arbor’s parking system is through June 30, or the end of the fiscal year 2014. The most recent three fiscal quarters provide the most meaningful year-over-year comparison – because of the rate increase that was implemented in September 2012.

The most recent data is consistent with the parking reports over the last several years, when interpreting the data has required accommodation of rate increases: Revenue has increased even while the number of patrons who pay the hourly rate in structures or on surface lots has decreased. Hourly patrons don’t include those who park at on-street meters. Specifically, comparing the last three quarters of the most recent fiscal year to the last three quarters of the previous fiscal year, revenue has increased 1.20% to $14,647,274, while the number of hourly patrons has decreased by 1.65% to 1,661,256.

In Chart 1 and Chart 2 below, the recently concluded fiscal year 2014 is indicated in dark purple.

Chart 1: Total System Revenue. (City of Ann Arbor public parking system data from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, charts by The Chronicle.)

Chart 2: Total Count of Hourly Patrons. (City of Ann Arbor public parking system data from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, charts by The Chronicle.)

Monthly Permits: Are Fewer Hourly Patrons Staying Longer?

The consistent narrative offered by the DDA to account for the increase in revenues – despite a decreased number of hourly patrons – has been told along the following lines: Even though fewer hourly patrons are visiting downtown, they are parking for a longer time.

It’s possible to ask two basic questions about that narrative: (1) Is it meaningful? and (2) Is it accurate?

In order for the narrative to be meaningful, it’s important to understand how hourly patrons are using the parking system. If hourly patrons are exclusively retail shoppers of some stripe, then the fact that retail shoppers are staying in the downtown longer now than they were in the past could be analyzed as good news for downtown retail establishments. On the other hand, if hourly patrons include a significant number of downtown employees – people who would prefer to hold a monthly permit, but who have been languishing on the wait list – then this might indicate that employees are crowding out retail shoppers.

In order test the narrative for accuracy, it’s important to recognize that hourly patrons are not the only source of revenue to the parking system as a whole. For example, on-street metered parking by itself provided about $3 million of revenue in the most recent three fiscal quarters – but that that type of parking does not contribute to the count of hourly patrons. If the revenue from parking meters and bags is subtracted from the total revenue figure, there’s still an increase – in fact, a greater percentage increase than across total revenues. The $11,529,132 collected for the nine months from October 2013 through June 2014 is about 2% more than was collected from October 2012 through June 2013.

Chart 3 below shows clearly that if on-street metered parking is considered as a facility, then it easily generates the highest gross revenue of any facility in the system.

Chart 3: Revenue by Facility. (City of Ann Arbor public parking system data from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, charts by The Chronicle.)

It is not as straightforward to test the DDA narrative for accuracy with respect to facilities that offer monthly permits as well as hourly parking – where those hourly patrons are counted. The revenue division between monthly permits and hourly patrons is not reported and apparently not analyzed by the DDA. So some of the total revenue increase might be attributable to increased optimization of the oversell margin for monthly permits in parking structures. Many structures show more monthly permits sold than they have spaces. The number of monthly permits sold in the entire system, as well as the percentage of the total inventory, shows a slight but clear upward trend over the last three years.

The DDA does not report monthly permit data broken down by permit type – regular, evening/overnight or premium – which might otherwise help to identify how well users of the public parking system are being served.

Monthly permit data is presented in Charts 4, 5 and 6 below.

Chart 4: Permits as Percentage of Inventory by Facility. (City of Ann Arbor public parking system data from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, charts by The Chronicle.)

Chart 5: Total Inventory and Total Permits. (City of Ann Arbor public parking system data from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, charts by The Chronicle.)

Chart 6: Monthly Permits as Percent of Inventory. (City of Ann Arbor public parking system data from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, charts by The Chronicle.)

For some facilities – like the surface lots at Huron/Ashley/First (the Brown Block) and at South Ashley (the Kline Lot) – no monthly permits are sold. So it’s possible to calculate average payments per patron at those facilities. And both of those facilities show evidence that a fewer number of patrons are generating more revenue, and that their average stay has become slightly longer.

Average payments per patron for Huron/Ashley/First and the Kline Lot are presented below in Charts 7 and 8.

Chart 7: Huron/Ashley/First Average Payment Per Patron. (City of Ann Arbor public parking system data from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, charts by The Chronicle.)

Chart 8: Kline Lot Average Payment Per Patron.  (City of Ann Arbor public parking system data from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, charts by The Chronicle.)

Revenue Per Space

The DDA does not calculate revenue-per-space figures. And the DDA has reduced the frequency of its reporting about the number of spaces at a facility – from monthly to quarterly. So the charts below are constructed based on estimates, using previous number spaces. In any case, most facilities have a stable number of spaces and vary at most by a handful, due to special temporary circumstances.

A couple of clear patterns emerge from the plots of revenue-per-space figures. One is that easily the highest revenue per space (though not per acre of land) is generated by the two surface lots on the west edge of downtown – Huron/Ashley/First and the Kline Lot.

Another trend is that the new Library Lane underground parking garage appears to have achieved a kind of equilibrium in its usage. Library Lane has settled in a bit higher than the lowest performing significant facility in the system in terms of the revenue-per-space metric – which is the on-street metered facility. Library Lane achieved what appears to be its current stable level of usage within nine months of opening.

The on-street facility shows a clear bump for April this year. That coincides with the closing of the Fifth and William surface lot, after it was purchased from the city by Dennis Dahlmann. However, it’s not clear what caused the April increase in revenue to the on-street metered system.

Chart 9: Revenue per Space, Focus on Structures. (City of Ann Arbor public parking system data from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, charts by The Chronicle.)

Chart 10: Revenue per Space, Focus on Surface Lots. (City of Ann Arbor public parking system data from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, charts by The Chronicle.)

Conclusions

Given the kind of parking data currently collected, analyzed and reported by the DDA, it’s not possible to get a very clear understanding of how Ann Arbor’s public parking system is currently supporting three different key user groups: (1) downtown employees; (2) retail/transactional customers and visitors; and (3) downtown residents.

The DDA could improve its understanding of the system by collecting, analyzing and reporting data on hours parked by monthly permit holders as compared to hourly patrons. The hours parked by permit holders should be further broken down by permit type. The DDA could also improve its understanding of the on-street metered system by collecting, analyzing and reporting usage by individual meter – a straightforward possibility at least for those meters that are paid for using the relatively new kiosks.

Certainly there are other fiscal policy issues at stake as the DDA evaluates whether parking rates should be increased. For example, are current revenue levels adequate to pay for existing debt on past construction, the go!pass bus pass program, ongoing maintenance and a possibly $5 million renovation to the Fourth and William Structure? In its oversight role, the city council should certainly include consideration of these basic financial issues.

I’m reasonably confident that the council will exercise appropriate oversight with respect to the purely financial question: Will there be enough money and how much does the city get?

But without a clearer understanding of how the parking system supports different user groups, it will not be possible to measure the impact of a price increase on those user groups.

So at the joint city council-DDA work session on Sept. 8, I hope the city council will include in their oversight role a request for data and metrics that will help answer this question: How does Ann Arbor’s parking system actually work?

From left: Scott Betzoldt of Midwestern Consulting, Ann Arbor housing commission executive director Jennifer Hall, and John Mouat, project architect for AAHC’s proposed development at 3451 Platt Road.

They sent the rezoning request for the 3451 Platt Road property – R1C (single-family dwelling district) and R2A (two-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district) – to the city council with a recommendation of approval. However, commissioners postponed consideration of the site plan for the five-building, 32-unit project, amid concerns about the site’s location in the floodplain and stormwater management.

Zoning and site plan approval must ultimately be given by the city council. However, the zoning approval will require two votes by the council at two separate meetings – because changes to the zoning code are actually changes to a city ordinance. So the delay on the approval of the site plan would not necessarily delay the project, as long at the site plan is put in front of the council for consideration by the time the council takes a second vote on the rezoning.

AAHC is hoping that the zoning and site plan approval can be obtained from the city council by sometime in mid-October, because that will help support a grant application.

Several residents who live near the proposed site spoke against the project during the public hearing on Aug. 6, while advocates for more affordable housing spoke in support of it. That public hearing will be continued when the site plan is next taken up by the commission.

The question of whether those speakers will be allowed to speak again at that same public hearing is the type of issue that was addressed in a different item handled by the commission at its Aug. 6 meeting. The commission approved revisions to its bylaws, including one stipulating that people who have already spoken at a public hearing can speak at a continuation of that public hearing only at the discretion of the planning commission chair – or if a proposal has changed in a material way between the initial portion of the hearing and the continued portion.

Revisions to the planning commission bylaws will be forwarded to the city council for approval.

AAHC Platt Road Project

At its Aug. 6 meeting, the Ann Arbor planning commission considered two actions related to an Ann Arbor housing commission project at 3451 Platt Road.

Aerial view of 3451 Platt.

The first was a rezoning proposal on 3.1 acres – from R1C (single-family dwelling district) and R2A (two-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site includes a property currently owned by AAHC, as well as an adjacent parcel that’s being purchased by the city on behalf of AAHC. The rezoning request needs approval from the city council, in a two-step process.

In a separate item, the commission considered a recommendation on a proposed site plan for the low-income housing development, to allow AAHC time to address staff concerns regarding the impact on natural features. The site plan will also need city council approval. AAHC hopes to have a decision on the zoning and the site plan from the city council by mid-October, to enhance a grant application.

The project calls for demolishing four single-family homes and one two-family building, and constructing a 32-unit apartment complex with five buildings, 61 parking spaces, a playground, and a community building. The new apartments will include: 8 one-bedroom units; 12 two-bedroom units; 6 three-bedroom units; 2 four-bedroom units; and 4 five-bedroom units.

Two of the proposed buildings would be in the floodplain, which raised concerns from city staff. The AAHC is working to address those concerns – possibly by eliminating or reducing the number of buildings in the floodplain. It’s expected that the AAHC can address the issues raised by city staff so that the site plan can return to the planning commission at its Aug. 19 meeting. [.pdf of planning staff report] [.pdf of June 28, 2014 citizen participation meeting report]

This project is part of major renovations and improvements the commission is making to its low-income housing inventory. For background on the AAHC process of renovating its properties, see Chronicle coverage: “Public Housing Conversion Takes Next Step.”

Alexis DiLeo of the city planning staff.

This project is not the same site as a county-owned property on Platt Road, which is also being considered for affordable housing.

City planner Alexis DiLeo gave the staff report on the project. She described how staff had considered how modifications might be made under a “planned project” designation – to allow a single mid-rise building 6-9 stories tall, or to allow decreased side setbacks and building spacing. But those decreased setbacks might not be desirable to neighbors, she said. DiLeo’s remarks on those “planned project” modifications were met with headshaking from some in the audience.

On the rezoning issue, DiLeo commented that the R4B zoning district allows for every type of dwelling unit and noted that the parcel is big enough to be zoned with its own zoning designation. The city staff from various departments are providing feedback on the site plan proposal, DiLeo said, and the systems planning department had just completed its comments – so the AAHC has not had time to examine those comments. The city’s floodplain coordinator [Jerry Hancock] does not support the existing design, she noted.

The staff were making a split recommendation – to recommend the rezoning, but to delay the site plan. Given the two-step approval process that the council must follow for changes to zoning regulations – with an initial and final vote taken at two separate meetings – the site plan should be able to catch up and could go to council for action at the same time the zoning is considered for final approval, DiLeo thought. That would be in mid-October, she said, “if all the stars align.”

Planning commission chair Wendy Woods indicated that Ron Woods, her husband, serves on the AAHC board. She had no financial interest in the project, but said that she could recuse herself at the pleasure of the commission. None of the other commissioners objected to Woods’ participation in the deliberations and vote on the project.

AAHC Platt Road Project: Public Hearing

The public hearing on this project drew 17 speakers.

Sarah McCallum told the commission she lives within 1,000 feet of the project. She’s been a homeowner for 10 years. She had several concerns, she said. One concern was that she’d attended a citizens participation meeting in February held at the Malletts Creek branch of the Ann Arbor District Library. The site plan presented at that meeting was drastically different from the one now being presented. The current plan has a scope that is exponentially larger, she said – up to 78 bedrooms. She also had concerns about the floodplain. The fact that the buildings won’t have basements means that if there were a storm or tornado, residents would have nowhere to seek shelter.

From left: Joan Doughty, executive director of the nonprofit Community Action Network (CAN), and housing commission executive director Jennifer Hall.

McCallum also told the commission that traffic in the morning is very congested – because the road had been reduced to two lanes and two bike lanes. The project would result in additional congestion, she said. Property values since she purchased her home started off nice, then decreased but have started to recover. She was concerned about the negative impact of the project on surrounding property values. She questioned why affordable housing projects were being “pushed on” that neighborhood? The neighborhood already had the Hikone project [also operated by AAHC].

She was not opposed to affordable housing – but the proposed project was too dense. She noted that 60% of students at the nearby Mitchell Elementary and Scarlett Middle School qualified for free or reduced lunches. She wondered if the neighborhood could afford additional affordable housing units. She reiterated that she was not opposed to affordable housing. She asked the commission to postpone action, saying that half the people who would have attended a July 28 public meeting weren’t in town.

Julie Steiner, former executive director of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance, spoke in support of the project. While previous speaker, Sarah McCallum, thought the project was dense, Steiner called the 32 units acceptable. A different developer could build more units than that, she pointed out. This project is a chance to put in more affordable housing – in a neighborhood with good schools and transportation. The project is recommended to be built to “green” standards, with the possibility that solar panels will be installed, Steiner said. AAHC is also thinking of adding a community center so services can be provided on-site and children have somewhere go and something to do. No matter where we try to put affordable housing, neighborhoods will object, Steiner ventured. But the city only has a limited amount of land.

Flo Burke told the commission that the Aug. 6 meeting was the third one she’d attended on this project. She contended that the notes about those meetings that the AACH had provided to the planning commission had not reflected a lot of the comments made at the meetings. There were a lot of people who’d attend the meetings who didn’t think the project was a good idea, she said – like Sarah McCallum, who’d led off the public hearing. Burke told the commission that she lived on Springbrook. Neighbors on Springbrook are not opposed to public housing or low-income housing, she said. And in fact many of them are low-income residents themselves. She noted that she’d received money from a community development block grant to renovate her house. She pointed out that public housing at Hikone is located not far from the proposed project. She asked the commission to pay attention to residents and not to affordable housing advocates.

Paul Zsenyuk told the commission that he lived across the street from the proposed project. He’d lived there for 27 years and paid taxes. He’d put money into his house fixing it up, he said. Things had reached a point where he had a hard time going to retrieve his mail from the mailbox on Platt Road because there is so much traffic. He told the commission that he was 61 and would be retiring. He didn’t want to sit on his porch and look at that development. He liked the peace and quiet of the property now, and he didn’t want that changed, concluding, “This is not acceptable to me at all.”

Tracy Williams introduced himself as a member of Camp Take Notice, MISSION and Camp Misfit. He understood that there’s a lot of need for affordable housing, he told the commission. Affordable housing should stay affordable and not go up, he said. About the development of the land, he said, this is Ann Arbor and we all knew it was going to grow.

Wendy Woods, chair of the planning commission.

Peg Ball addressed the commission from her wheelchair. She told the commission she was really excited about this development. She’d spoken with the architect before the meeting [John Mouat]. Many new developments are built with 8-10 or 20-step stairs. But this proposed development includes “visitability” – and that means that every unit will be enterable by people with disabilities. That’s something that’s needed, she said: People with disabilities want to be a part of the community and be able to visit neighbors, just like able-bodied people do.

Seth Best told the commission that he lived at the corner of Packard and Platt. As someone who needs affordable housing, he was very excited about the proposed project. The proposed design makes it looks like a residential community as opposed to an apartment complex, he said. As far as the concern that during a tornado, a house with no basement would have no place to offer shelter, Best told the commission that people down South live in houses built on slabs and they survive bad weather. The 78 bedrooms that would be built as a part of this project should be considered in the context of the 500 units that are needed, he said. Some people have to choose between sleeping on the street or visiting the shelter, he said. He relied on disability payments, which were $1,000 a month and he was paying $690 a month for a one-bedroom apartment. He thanked god he had a Section 8 voucher. He’d come to Ann Arbor because it was safe, and he was also staying because he expected it would stay that way. Best concluded his remarks by congratulating Sabra Briere on her run for mayor, saying he was sorry that it didn’t work out – but she’d run a wonderful campaign. [Briere is a city councilmember who also serves on the planning commission.]

Greg Pratt addressed the issue of the floodplain by telling the commission that Swift Run ran behind his house. His house is built on a slab, because that’s the way it needs to be built given that the Swift Run drain is that close. He’s a member of MISSION, and that group works with hundreds of people who have no place to go at night. He was in support of the AAHC project.

Tom Snoblen said he’s in favor of Section 8 housing. But he’d bought his house as an investment. And he really didn’t want to see a big building like that across the street from him. He wanted to see the zoning stay the same.

Abdul Al-Samadi told the commission that he and my family would be affected as they live at 3451 Platt, one of the houses that is proposed to be demolished.  They love their neighborhood and  they have a strong sense of community, he said. The proposal will construct a big building in a field, he said – where they enjoy playing soccer. He felt the project is not going to be feasible, because it’s going to be overcrowded. Platt Road is crowded as it is, he said.

Judy Shapiro told the commission she lived right across the street from the proposed project. She and her husband had bought the house they live in 13 years ago, and they knew that the AAHC property was located across the street from theirs. But they thought it would keep the same zoning. Right across the street the zoning is for single family. There is supposed to be a process for changing the zoning, she said. There were a lot of angry people at the citizens participation meeting – but she didn’t see that reflected in the AAHC’s report on that meeting.

Caleb Poirier told the commission that his nonprofit owns a property on Stone School Road about 1 mile from the location of the proposed AAHC project. He ventured that those who live near a property tend to “mentally lay ownership beyond their property lines.” If you want to maintain a low-density environment, then you move into a subdivision to secure that type of density, he said. The R4B zoning allows for 15 units per acres – so 45 units. But only 32 units are proposed to be built. He also wanted to draw the commission’s attention to the people who were not at the meeting that night – those who would be living in this project.

Tim Colenback, a member of the AAHC board.

Joan Doughty allowed that she lived nowhere near the project, but she works for Community Action Network (CAN), which is the service provider for Hikone. [Doughty is CAN's executive director.] She was there of her own volition. The AAHC Platt Road proposal is exactly the kind of proposal that would work, she said. Hikone has 29 units and Green Baxter has 23 units. At that size, there is a challenge achieving a critical mass for programs, she said. But 32 units is a perfect size. She also liked the variable sizes of the apartments that are proposed. Sometimes a family gets larger and smaller – so it’s awesome for kids if they don’t have to move to a different community as the family grows. AAHC is an excellent steward, she said. Doughty also highlighted the proposed community center as a benefit.

Tim Colenback, who serves on the AAHC board, told commissioners there are a lot of reasons to support this project. It is only a small development, he said, and it’ll be an improvement over what’s there now. The buildings will have high quality construction with green standards beyond what is required by the city.

But real reason he wanted to support the project is because of the people who will be served. The community has had a crisis for some time, he said. People who do the difficult jobs in the city can’t live here – those who clean our buildings and serve our food. Some of our low-income housing has been converted to market rate, he noted. His polling location for elections is at Arrowwood Hills Cooperative housing. It’s just a stone’s throw – because he lives near there, he said. He has many great friends who live at Arrowwood. He was very glad they didn’t go market rate because there is a large group of low- and moderate-income people there. He asked planning commissioners to please meet the needs of 32 families who need this kind of housing.

AAHC executive director  Jennifer Hall noted that the property had been owned by the city of Ann Arbor for over 40 years – and it was purchased to be affordable housing. It never went through the process of zoning, she said. She didn’t know why only four units were built there. About the citizen participation meeting, Hall allowed that there’d been a lot of yelling and anger. She characterized most of the opposition as being against developing the property on the west side of Platt, which was not part of site plan. The reason the proposal had been increased from 26 to 32 units was because the AAHC had been approached by the owner of the adjoining parcel with a duplex, so the project now comprises three parcels instead of two. The density of the three-parcel project, she explained, is actually less than the density was as a two-parcel project. It’s less density than Colonial Square, she noted.

Scott Betzoldt of Midwestern Consulting and John Mouat of Mitchell and Mouat Architects wrapped up the public hearing with a description of the site plan.

AAHC Platt Road Project: Commission Discussion – Rezoning

Diane Giannola asked for clarification about the staff preference to delay on the site plan, but to send the rezoning proposal to the city council with a recommendation of approval.

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

DiLeo explained that the city planning staff is doing the best it can to set the AAHC up for a possible city council approval by mid-October. AAHC is applying for a grant, and if the site plan and zoning approval is completed by mid-October, the AAHC gets additional points on its grant application. There’s “automatic dead time” between the first and the second readings of the zoning change in front of the city council, DiLeo explained.

Giannola expressed some concern that the site plan might be completely different by the time it reached the city council, and might not be compatible with the R4B zoning. DiLeo explained that R4B allows for a lot of flexibility and would likely be consistent with anything that AAHC might propose.

Eleanore Adenekan asked some questions about the proposed detention pond. It was proposed to be about four feet deep.

On the specific question of the rezoning, Jeremy Peters stated his support for the rezoning, saying that it would allow the development of additional affordable housing, which was a community goal – as reflected in the sustainability framework. He also said the rezoning would provide site improvements that would benefit the broader neighborhood.

Ken Clein asked DiLeo what criteria are used to evaluate whether the rezoning would have a negative impact on the area. DiLeo clarified that the claim in the report about a lack of any negative impact was the AAHC’s response on the application for rezoning, not the planning staff’s conclusion. But she gave a hypothetical example of a proposed rezoning to allow manufacturing. Her professional planning opinion would be that rezoning to manufacturing would have a negative impact on public welfare and property rights. Or if it were rezoned to commercial, which would allow a Target to be built there, then the traffic and intensity of land use would be impactful on the area.

Clein concluded that the proposed AAHC project was a little different from what the neighbors are accustomed to, allowing that it’s a little more dense than what it is now. Clein cautioned against thinking of this as “poor people housing.” Some back-and-forth between Clein and AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall clarified how residents of AAHC units are screened.

Sabra Briere asked for the maximum number of units could be built under the existing zoning. Hall indicated that Midwestern Consulting’s Scott Betzoldt had calculated that number to be 20. Briere concluded that it would be an increase in density. Briere asked about turf pavers that were mentioned in the site plan – which were explained to be there to allow fire trucks to have access. Briere said she continued to be hopeful that more open space could be provided on the site. She said that according to the description of R4B, it is supposed to be suitable for infill development for moderate density – which she concluded the AAHC project seemed to be.

Outcome: The planning commission voted unanimously to recommend rezoning of the parcel to R4B.

AAHC Platt Road Project: Commission Discussion – Site Plan

The discussion by planning commissioners about the site plan focused on the natural features and the floodplain.

Planning commissioner Ken Clein.

Giannola asked how anything could be built in the floodplain. DiLeo explained that buildings can be constructed in the floodplain, if they are elevated. She noted that the city’s floodplain coordinator does not support this project as proposed.

Briere was concerned about the amount of impervious surface and increased runoff. She also expressed some concerns on an aesthetic level – saying there was not enough distinction between one unit and another. In an allusion to her mayoral campaign, she said after spending a lot of time in the last few months walking through residential neighborhoods, she’d observed that there were always ways that people had made their homes their own. She encouraged the architects to look for opportunities to make the units more human and less consistent in pattern and design to the point that when they deteriorate they’ll all deteriorate the same. She also encouraged that AAHC heed the concern about soccer-playing families and that there be space to run around.

Clein questioned why 61 parking spaces are being proposed when only 48 spaces are required. Hall explained that there are complaints at other AAHC sites about the lack of parking, and pointed out that there is no on-street parking at the site.

After some additional discussion, the commission moved towards a vote to postpone. Peters wanted to be sure that the public hearing would be continued, whenever the site plan was back in front of the planning commission, noting that it was not certain when that might be.

Outcome: The commission voted unanimously to postpone consideration of the site plan.

Revision to Bylaws

At its Aug. 6 meeting, the Ann Arbor planning commission considered revisions to its bylaws related to public hearings.

Planning commissioner Jeremy Peters.

At the commission’s July 15, 2014 meeting, planning manager Wendy Rampson had introduced staff recommendations for changes to the bylaws, which had also been discussed at a July 8 working session. She noted that when revisions to bylaws are being considered, the commission must provide notice at a meeting before that potential action. That public notice happened on July 15.

Planning commissioners had originally adopted similar revisions to their bylaws at a Feb. 20, 2014 meeting. Such revisions require city council approval. However, the city attorney’s office did not forward the Feb. 20 changes to the council for consideration. There was no action until July, when assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald provided suggested revisions to the bylaws related to public hearings. Those were the changes that were presented to commissioners at their July 15 meeting, and considered on Aug. 6. [.pdf of revised bylaws regarding public hearings] [.pdf of bylaws staff memo]

The main changes considered on Aug. 6 are in Sections 3 and 5 of Article 5 – Public Hearings. In Section 3, the changes eliminate the ability of the commission’s chair to modify or waive the speaking time limitations. Instead, the changes stipulate that the entire commission would have to make that decision via a majority vote.

The changes for Section 5 relate to the continuation of a hearing, and are as follows [deletions in strike-thru, additions in bold]:

Section 5. At the discretion of the Chair, or by vote of a majority of the members present, public hearings may be continued to another date. meeting, but will not be deemed to be a new hearing but a continuation of the original. If a public hearing is continued, individuals who have not previously addressed the Commission during the public hearing may address the Commission following the requirements of Section 3. Individuals who have addressed the Commission previously during the public hearing may only address the Commission for additional time (as limited by Section 3) during the continued public hearing if the Chair, with the consultation of Planning and Development Services staff, determines that: 1) additional public feedback is necessary, or 2) a specific petition has materially changed since the date of the original public hearing date. Agendas for continued public hearings shall specify whether members of the public shall be granted additional time to speak.

There were no changes suggested for the revisions that were passed by planning commissioners on Feb. 20 related to interactions with city councilmembers. That revised section states:

Section 9. A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission during the Councilmember’s term in office.

The revisions must be approved by the council before taking effect.

Revision to Bylaws: Commission Discussion

Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that these changes had been presented to the commission at its July 15 meeting. The bylaws changes clarified how public speaking time at public hearings is regulated. The intent is to make sure the public and commissioners understand whether someone can speak again at a public hearing if it is continued from one meeting to the next.

Rampson explained the basic rule is that there’s an opportunity for a person to speak at a public hearing for three minutes – or five minutes if the person is speaking on behalf of a neighborhood group. The planning commission can waive the time limit through a majority vote, Rampson noted. The new section, as proposed, would clarify that if a public hearing is continued to the next planning commission meeting, a person who spoke at the initial meeting’s portion of the public hearing can’t speak at the continued hearing.

However, the chair of the commission can, in consultation with the staff, determine to allow someone to speak again – if there is some compelling reason, or material changes have been made in a proposal since the initial portion of the public hearing was held.

Jeremy Peters noted that he was the one who had originally proposed this change to the bylaws. The language in the proposal now more closely meets the intent of what he had originally proposed – so he was fully in support of it.

Planning commission chair Wendy Woods got clarification that changes to the planning commission’s bylaws are subject to city council review and approval. Until the council approves the changes, the commission will operate under the current rules.

Kirk Westphal thanked Peters and everyone who pushed it through. He noted there’d been a lot of back-and-forth with the city attorney’s office on the change to the bylaws.

Outcome: The planning commission unanimously approved the changes to its bylaws.

Minutes of Previous Meeting

The usually perfunctory approval of minutes from previous meetings received some detailed discussion. Kirk Westphal asked that the minutes from the May 20, 2014 meeting be corrected, to insert the word “no” in the following passage that reported what he’d said [insertion is denoted in bold]:

Martin said they are confident that it will be extremely active and with a hotel, there will be people coming into that building all the time so the use itself is built in activity. He said he would like to have the flexibility as there are still many unknowns but he believes restaurant or retail will be on the ground floor. He asked if Westphal wanted him to commit to office use.

Westphal clarified no office or financial institution uses.

By way of background, Westphal’s disfavorable view of financial institutional uses for ground-floor, street-facing contexts is well documented.

Planning commissioner Kirk Westphal.

In 2009, as the Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown (A2D2) rezoning legislation was moving through the approval process, he wrote a guest op-ed piece for the Ann Arbor News that argued for a requirement that street-facing, ground-level land uses in the downtown should be required to be “active.” Banks and offices are not considered to be active uses. The “active use” requirement was not adopted in the final rezoning of downtown.

Consideration of the June 3, 2014 meeting minutes was postponed by the commission. They had been completed just the previous day, planning manager Wendy Rampson told the commission. So staff was requesting postponement – so that the commission could have a chance to review them.

Outcome: The commission approved the May 20, 2014 minutes as amended, and postponed approval of the June 3, 2014 minutes.

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

Absent: Bonnie Bona.

Next meeting: Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2014 at 7 p.m. in council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]