From left: Commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2), county treasurer Catherine McClary, and commissioner Conan Smith (D-District 9). The treasurer’s office is instrumental in a new approach to helping local municipalities pay off bonds backed by the county, which received initial approval on Sept. 18. (Photos by the writer.)

Even so, a wide range of resolutions were passed – mostly with no discussion. The absence of three commissioners also led to non-votes on two items originally on the agenda, out of concern that there would not be sufficient support to pass them.

During the meeting, the board postponed a final vote on a countywide micro loan program for small business. Under the county board rules, a resolution requires votes from “a majority of the members elected and serving” in order to pass – that is, five votes. Supporters of the resolution weren’t certain they could achieve that number. A resolution regarding the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law had been pulled from the agenda earlier in the day for the same reason.

Opponents of the “Stand Your Ground” resolution – which called on the state legislature to repeal the law enacted in 2006 – had been expected to appear at the meeting in force, prompting county administration to add extra security. However, after the resolution was pulled, only a handful of people attended to speak against it, as did one supporter.

In another resolution that addressed a statewide issue, commissioners voted to direct staff to explore options – including possible legal action – to help set cleanup criteria in Michigan for the carcinogen 1,4-dioxane. In part, the item relates to a 1,4 dioxane plume stemming from contaminants at the former Gelman Sciences plant, west of Ann Arbor.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) stated “present” during that vote, rather than voting for or against the resolution – because board rules do not allow for abstention. After the meeting, corporation counsel Curt Hedger told The Chronicle that he’d be looking at the board rules to determine how Smith’s vote will be recorded. Hedger pointed out that the resolution needed five votes to pass, which it garnered even without Smith’s vote.

Commissioners also gave initial approval for a new approach to paying off debt incurred from bonding – typically for public works projects in local municipalities. The proposal would allow local units of government to repay bonds early via the county’s delinquent tax revolving fund (DTRF), which is administered by the county treasurer. The intent is to reduce interest rate payments and the county’s debt burden. In a related resolution, commissioners gave initial approval to restructuring debt held by Bridgewater Township, using this new approach.

Several items that received initial approval at the board’s previous meeting on Sept. 4 were passed in a final vote on Sept. 18 with minimal discussion, including: (1) strengthening the county’s affirmative action plan, as well as other nondiscrimination in employment-related policies; (2) authorizing a range of grants administered by the county’s office of community & economic development, as well as a resolution that would give blanket approval in the future to nearly 30 annual entitlement grants received by the county; (3) adding three new full-time jobs for stewardship of the county nature preserves; (4) adding a new 10-bed treatment program for female teens in the county’s youth center that will create a net increase of 5.46 jobs; and (5) budgets for the county’s public health and community support & treatment service (CSTS) departments.

And after postponing action on Sept. 4, the board voted to create a 13-member community advisory group to look at options for the county-owned Platt Road site in Ann Arbor. The Sept. 18 resolution was much more general in its direction than the one that was debated on Sept. 4, stripping out most of the details related to a previous focus on affordable housing.

Also on Sept. 18 as an item of communication, Yousef Rabhi updated the board on plans to fill a vacancy on the county road commission, which will result from the recent appointment of current road commissioner Ken Schwartz as Superior Township supervisor. Applications for the road commissioner job are being accepted until Sept. 25, with the county board likely making an appointment at its Oct. 2 meeting.

1,4 Dioxane Cleanup

A resolution on the Sept. 18 agenda gave direction to the county staff to explore options – including possible legal action – to help set cleanup criteria for the carcinogen 1,4-dioxane in Michigan.

Map of Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane plume, by Washtenaw County. Black arrow added to indicate baseball field at West Park. The yellow region is the estimated plume area where the 1,4-dioxane concentration is greater than 1 ppb. That area encroaches well into the city of Ann Arbor and extends outside the well prohibition zone (red border).

In addition to its broader implications, the resolution is meant to address the 1,4 dioxane plume stemming from contaminants at the former Gelman Sciences plant in Scio Township, which is now closed. [.pdf of county resolution]

The Ann Arbor city council passed a resolution on Sept. 3, 2013 related to the 1,4-dioxane issue. However, the city council resolution makes no mention of legal action.

In contrast, the resolution passed by county commissioners includes passage that:

…directs the County Administrator, Corporation Counsel and other appropriate county staff to work in collaboration with the County Water Resources Commissioner to explore other actions available to the County, including but not limited to legal action, meeting with and petitioning the MDEQ and EPA to aid in setting appropriate cleanup criteria for 1,4-dioxane in Michigan, including the Pall-Gelman plume and without site specific criteria for the Pall-Gelman plume and to cooperate with other local units of government to ensure protection of public health and the environment; …

The history of Gelman Sciences and its 1,4-dioxane contamination goes back 40 years. The company was based in Scio Township and later acquired by Pall Corp. The Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality’s current 1,4-dioxane generic residential drinking water cleanup criterion was set at 85 parts per billion (ppb). But an EPA criterion set in 2010 was for 3.5 ppb.

The MDEQ was supposed to re-evaluate its own standards by December 2012, based on the EPA’s 2010 toxicological review. It missed that deadline, and is anticipated to miss a new deadline set for December 2013.

There was no board discussion on this item.

Outcome: Five commissioners voted in support of this resolution, so the resolution passed. When his name was called in the roll-call vote, Dan Smith (R-District 2) responded by saying “Present.” Three commissioners – Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) – were absent.

Responding to queries from The Chronicle after the meeting, Pete Simms of the county clerk’s office – who is responsible for recording votes and keeping the board’s official minutes – indicated that he would need to consult with corporation counsel Curtis Hedger about how to record Smith’s response. Hedger told The Chronicle that he would be looking into the question.

The board rules – adopted on Jan. 2, 2013 – state, in relevant part:

O. VOTING:
Every member who shall be present, including the Chair, when a motion is last stated by the Chair, and no other, shall vote for or against the motion unless the member has a conflict of interest, in which case the member shall not vote.

Dan Smith has been an advocate for allowing board members to abstain on certain votes. He was successful in adding a new rule in February 2012 that stated: “Commissioners may abstain from voting on resolutions that express support or opposition and otherwise take no action.” The question of abstaining from votes has related primarily to resolutions on state or federal issues, over which the county board has no control.

However, the composition of the board changed in the November 2012 elections, which also reflected redistricting that decreased the number of commissioners on the board from 11 to 9. And on Jan. 2, 2013, Conan Smith proposed an amendment to delete the rule that allowed commissioners to abstain. After debating the issue, the board voted 5-4 in favor of Conan Smith’s amendment – so abstaining from a vote is no longer allowed.

New Approach to Bond Debt

A proposal for a new way to pay off debt incurred from bonding – typically for public works projects in local municipalities – was on the Sept. 18 agenda for initial approval. The proposal would allow local units of government to repay bonds early via the county’s delinquent tax revolving fund (DTRF), which is administered by the county treasurer. The intent is to reduce interest rate payments while posing no financial risk to the county, according to a staff memo.

The maximum amount of the advance would be $1 million, with a term of 10 years or less. The action would require approval by both the treasurer and the board of commissioners. Several other criteria for using a DTRF advance are proposed:

• The approval of an advance would be considered only for the county’s own indebtedness, and would result in a reduction in the County’s bonded indebtedness.
• The local unit receiving the benefit agrees to contribute at least 10% of the outstanding principal amount of the debt toward the reduction of the bonded debt and to amend its contractual agreement with the county to include a new payment schedule and new interest rate(s).
• A refunding bond analysis must be performed to examine the potential for savings by selling refunding bonds.
• The estimated cost of issuance for a refunding bond is 25% or greater than the estimated interest savings from the refunding bond sale.
• The local unit has a bond rating in the top two tiers of a standard rating service, or if the local unit is too small to warrant a rating, a review of the most recent audit of the local unit shows that they are not experiencing fiscal stress.
• The interest rate of the advance will be determined by the county treasurer and will exceed the rate of return received by the county treasurer in her/his pooled accounts.
• The amended contract with the local unit will provide a process by which the county treasurer can adjust the interest rate.

In a related resolution, commissioners were asked to give initial approval to restructuring debt held by Bridgewater Township. The township owes $585,000 on $1.095 million in bonds issued in 2004 to fund a sewer system. County treasurer Catherine McClary has agreed to lend the township money to pay off the bonds. The township will repay the treasurer’s office at a lower interest rate than it was paying for the bond debt, which was averaging 4.1%. The rate will provide a greater rate of return than the treasurer is currently getting on investments, according to a staff memo.

The amount of the advance from the treasurer’s office is $430,000, loaned to Bridgewater Township over nine years at a starting interest rate of 2%. The township will use an additional $172,000 to pay down the existing principal on its bond debt. The transaction will cost about $6,000 in legal fees, which the township will pay. [.pdf of staff memo on Bridgewater Township debt]

New Approach to Bond Debt: Board Discussion

Deliberations were brief. Regarding the broad policy resolution, Dan Smith (R-District 2) noted that every year, the county’s auditor tells the board that an audit means something very specific. So Smith proposed amending out the phrase “the most recent audit” and substituting in the phrase “recent financial reports.” It was considered a friendly amendment.

Ron Smith, Bridgewater Township supervisor, received a round of applause from commissioners for his work on a new approach to paying off debt.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked everyone involved in developing this proposal. It’s a very creative way of reducing the county’s debt as well as the debt load for other local units of government.

He thanked the officials of Bridgewater Township for their leadership, as well as county treasurer Catherine McClary, public works director Dan Myers, and water resources commissioner Evan Pratt. Rabhi noted that this proposal was reviewed at length at the board of public works, on which he serves.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) also thanked staff and officials for their work. She noted that sometimes the out-county townships don’t feel that they get a lot of attention or service from the county. “This is one way that the county is able to step up and help out,” Ping said.

Outcome: Both resolutions were unanimously given initial approval, to be considered for a final vote on Oct. 2.

Platt Road Advisory Committee

After postponing action at its Sept. 4, 2013 meeting, commissioners considered a new resolution on Sept. 18 to create a 13-member advisory group to look at options for the county-owned Platt Road site in Ann Arbor, where the old juvenile center was located.

The original resolution brought forward on Sept. 4 was developed with guidance from commissioner Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), who represents the district where the property is located. It called for a nine-member committee with the following composition:

• 2 county commissioners
• 1 Ann Arbor city councilmember
• 2 residents from the adjacent neighborhood
• The executive director of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission [Jennifer L. Hall]
• The director of Washtenaw County parks & recreation [Bob Tetens]
• The director of the Washtenaw County office of community and economic development [Mary Jo Callan]
• The Washtenaw County infrastructure management director [Greg Dill]

During deliberations on Sept. 4, the committee structure was amended to include four additional Washtenaw County residents, including at least one with real estate experience.

The idea of an advisory committee to help with the dispensation of this property – at 2260 and 2270 Platt Road – was first discussed at the board’s July 10, 2013 meeting. It was included in an overall strategic space plan for county facilities, which proposed demolishing the former juvenile center and exploring redevelopment of the site for affordable housing, alternative energy solutions, and county offices. Details of how the advisory committee would be appointed, as well as the committee’s formal mission, was an item to be worked out for a board vote at a later date.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) talks with Bob Tetens, director of Washtenaw County parks & recreation.

On Sept. 4, a debate on the advisory committee proposal lasted about an hour, with concerns raised about the resolution’s focus on affordable housing. A staff memo listed several elements that would be explored, including: (1) affordable rental housing by the Ann Arbor housing commission; (2) an affordable housing green demonstration pilot project; (3) connection to the adjacent County Farm Park; (4) ReImagine Washtenaw Avenue design principles; and (5) other identified community priorities, such as geothermal, solar panels or community gardens.

According to that staff memo, this visioning work will be funded by $100,000 in grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Michigan State Housing Development Authority, with funds to support the development of affordable housing. The money was part of a $3 million federal grant awarded to the county in 2011 and administered by the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED).

On Sept. 4, several commissioners expressed interest in exploring a broader set of options, beyond affordable housing – including the possible sale of the property. Ultimately, the item was postponed. Board chair Yousef Rabhi had directed Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, to work with commissioners and staff to bring forward an alternative resolution on Sept. 18.

However, when the Sept. 18 agenda was posted online, the resolution remained unchanged, aside from the amendment made on Sept. 4.

A couple of hours prior to the start of the Sept. 18 meeting, LaBarre emailed commissioners and The Chronicle with a substitute resolution that he brought forward during the meeting. It was much more general in its direction, stripping out most of the details related to the affordable housing focus. In addition to the composition of the community advisory committee (CAC), the new resolution’s main directive was stated this way:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners directs the CAC to provide recommendations to the Board of Commissioners relative to disposition, including an alternatives analysis; and preferred methods of community engagement for the Board of Commissioners to undertake during the disposition process;

The resolution also set a deadline of Dec. 31, 2013 for the committee to deliver its analysis and recommendations to the board. [.pdf of substitute resolution]

Platt Road Advisory Committee: Board Discussion

There was scant comment on this item. Conan Smith (D-District 9) thanked LaBarre for the new resolution, saying that it reflected the concerns that had been raised on Sept. 4.

Outcome: The resolution passed unanimously.

The appointments to this committee have not yet been made. In conversation with The Chronicle after the Sept. 18 meeting, LaBarre and Rabhi indicated that they were in the process of identifying possible participants. It’s unclear whether the appointments will be made by Rabhi, as board chair, or whether he will nominate members to be confirmed by the board as a whole. The resolution indicates that the appointments will be made directly by the board chair. This differs from the typical appointment process, which entails nominations by the chair, followed by a confirmation vote of the board.

Non-Discrimination Policy

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to reaffirm and update the county’s affirmative action plan, as well as other nondiscrimination in employment-related policies. [.pdf of staff memo and policies] The primary change adds a prohibition of discrimination on the basis of gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.

During public commentary on Sept. 4 – when an initial vote was taken – community activist Jim Toy and Jason Morgan, a board member of the Jim Toy Community Center, had spoken in support of the changes. No one from the public addressed the issue during the Sept. 18 meeting.

The resolution’s three resolved clauses state:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners reaffirms its intent to prohibit discrimination in Washtenaw County against any person in recruitment, certification, appointment, retention, promotion, training and discipline on the basis of race, creed, color, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, national origin, age, handicap, veteran status, marital status, height, weight, religion and political belief.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners shall strive to promote a workforce that welcomes and honors all persons and that provides equal opportunity in employment.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners directs the Human Resources / Labor Relations Director to update the Affirmative Action Plan, as well as policies Prohibiting Discrimination in Employment, Sexual Harassment, and the County’s Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity to reflect the Boards commitment and reaffirmation described herein.

Non-Discrimination Policy: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) made a minor amendment, which was accepted as friendly, to add in the word “sex” in the list of categories that cannot be discriminated against. He said it had been inadvertently edited out in the initial resolution.

Outcome: Changes to the non-discrimination policy were given final approval in a unanimous vote.

Change to Grant Approval Process

On the Sept. 18 was resolution that gives blanket approval in the future to nearly 30 annual entitlement grants received by the county totaling an estimated $8.8 million, beginning in 2014. Currently, each of those grants requires separate annual approval by the board. The item – one of several resolutions related to the office of community & economic development, which administers these grants – had been given initial approval on Sept. 4, 2013.

According to a staff memo, the entitlement grants are awarded on a reoccurring basis based on pre-existing state or federal allocation formulas. They require board approval as individual items, which “ends up consuming a significant portion of Board and staff time throughout a given year, as formula grants are on a variety of different fiscal years, and are awarded at several different points throughout the year. Furthermore, the piecemeal nature of the resolutions does not provide a holistic overview of the continuum of services provided to the community by OCED,” the memo states. [.pdf of staff memo regarding blanket grant approval]

There are several categories of grants that will continue to require a board vote, even with this blanket approval. Those categories include:

• competitive grants;
• grants that are not based on pre-established federal or state funding formulas or entitlement formulas;
• new grants, or ones that have not been previously awarded to or administered by OCED;
• grants that would require a county general fund appropriation in excess of the amount approved by the county board in the budget;
• grants that would require a change in OCED position control;
• grants more than $100,000 or 10% more than the anticipated amount, whichever is greater.

There was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: Commissioners gave final approval to authorize blanket approval for entitlement grants.

Federal & State Grants: Office of Community & Economic Development

Several items on the Sept. 18 agenda related to funding for programs managed by the county’s office of community & economic development, totaling nearly $2 million. They had been given initial approval on Sept. 4:

• $88,263 from the federal dislocated worker training (DWT) national emergency grant [.pdf of staff memo for DWT grant]
• $16,277 in federal funding for the Michigan Works! Service Center Operations [.pdf of staff memo for Michigan Works funding]
• $50,000 in federal Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) employer-based training foundation funding [.pdf of staff memo for TAA funding]
• $287,860 in federal Dept. of Energy weatherization funding [.pdf of staff memo for weatherization funds]
• $274,792 in federal Emergency Solutions Grant funding. The total program budget is $412,188, which includes $137,396 of in-kind matching contributions. The program supports the Housing Access for Washtenaw County (HAWC) partnership between Salvation Army, the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County and the Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County. [.pdf of ESG staff memo]
• $516,156 in federal Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) funds [.pdf of CSBG staff memo]
• $21,828 in discretionary funds from the federal Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) to provide free income-tax preparation for low-income residents [.pdf of discretionary CSBG staff memo]
• $703,214 in federal funding for a senior nutrition program, with a total budget of $873,372. Additional funding comes from a USDA reimbursement of $100,001 and in-kind contributions of $70,157. [.pdf of senior nutrition memo]

There was no discussion on any of these items.

Outcome: All resolutions related to these grants were given final approval.

Staff for Natural Areas Stewardship

Final approval authorizing three new full-time jobs for stewardship of Washtenaw County’s nature preserves was on the Sept. 18 agenda.

Evan Pratt, Washtenaw County water resources commissioner.

The positions include: (1) a park laborer with a salary range of $31,507 to $41,766; (2) a park associate/principle planner with a salary range of $40,253 to $61,195; and (3) a stewardship coordinator, with a salary range of $43,373 to $56,586.

The additional jobs reflect a change approved by the county board nearly a year ago. At their Sept. 19, 2012 meeting, commissioners voted to amend the Natural Areas Ordinance No. 128, which established the county’s natural areas preservation program in 2000. The change removed a previous restriction that only 7% of millage funds could be used for management or stewardship. The goal was to use $600,000 per year for management and stewardship. Of that, roughly $240,000 would be used for ongoing stewardship activities, and $360,000 would remain to be invested in a dedicated reserve for long-term land stewardship.

According to a staff memo, the county’s parks system manages more than 4,500 acres of land in 13 parks and 22 preserves. In addition to the 556 acres of property already “actively” managed in the nature preserves, the staff also have active stewardship responsibilities for another 372 acres of prime natural areas within the county parks system. Overall, staff has identified 1,868 acres – or roughly 42% of the system’s current total acreage – as core conservation areas.

Funding for these new positions would be paid for entirely from the countywide natural areas millage, which was initially approved by voters in 2000 and renewed in 2010. The current 0.2409 mill tax raises roughly $3.5 million in annual revenues, and runs through 2021.

There was no discussion among commissioners about this item.

Outcome: Final approval was given to create these stewardship jobs.

CSTS Budget

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to the 2013-14 budget for the community support and treatment service (CSTS) department, from Oct. 1, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2014. The $34.96 million budget includes $29.598 million in revenue from the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO), which contracts with CSTS to provide services for people who are mentally ill and developmentally disabled. Other revenue comes from the Haarer bequest ($165,192), a contract with the county sheriff’s office ($246,846), smaller contracts with other entities, and fee-for-service billing. [.pdf of CSTS budget]

The budget calls for putting six full-time positions and two part-time jobs on “hold vacant” status. Those positions are currently unfilled.

The resolution also authorized county administrator Verna McDaniel to approve a service agreement with the WCHO, which is a separate nonprofit that’s a partnership between the county and the University of Michigan Health System.

Initial approval was given on Sept. 4, and there was no discussion about this item on Sept. 18.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the CSTS 2013-14 budget.

Public Health Budget

The Sept. 18 agenda included a resolution giving final approval to the public health department’s $10.796 million budget for 2013-14, from Oct. 1, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2014. The budget includes $3.553 million in an appropriation from the county’s general fund, and $243,226 from the department’s fund balance. [.pdf of staff memo regarding public health budget]

As part of the budget, the public health department is proposing a net increase of 1.5 full-time equivalent positions. That results from eliminating 4.5 FTEs and creating 6 new positions. In addition, 5 positions will be put on “hold vacant” status, effective Oct. 1.

The resolution also included a proposed fee schedule for vaccines and clinic visits. [.pdf of proposed fee schedule] The minimum fee is proposed to be raised from $30 to $40.

There was no discussion of this item. Initial approval had been given on Sept. 4.

Outcome: The board unanimously gave final approval to the public health budget and fee schedule.

Trial Court Child Care Fund

The board was asked to give final approval to 2013-2014 state child care fund expenditures of $9,425,785 for the trial court’s juvenile division and county dept. of human services. About half of that amount ($4,712,892) will be eligible for reimbursement from the state. [.pdf of budget summary]

According to a staff memo, the child care fund is a joint effort between state and county governments to fund programs that serve neglected, abused and delinquent youth. Part of this year’s funding will support a new 10-bed treatment program that will be housed in the county’s youth center facility, opening in November of 2013. From the staff memo:

The treatment program in its initial phase will exclusively provide treatment services to females aged 12-17 using an integrated therapeutic treatment model. The program will offer a short-term 90 day option as well as a 6 to 9 month long-term treatment option. The second phase of treatment programming will expand services to males aged 12-17.

The new program is expected to generate revenue from out-of-county treatment referrals.

The expenditures will result in a net increase of 5.46 jobs. A total of 10.46 full-time equivalent positions will be created, and 5 FTEs will be eliminated.

Commissioners did not discuss this item, which had been given initial approval on Sept. 4.

Outcome: The board gave final approval to the trial court child care fund.

Stand Your Ground Repeal

A resolution urging the state legislature to repeal Michigan’s “Stand Your Ground” law was part of the Sept. 18 online agenda that had been posted on the county’s website on Friday, Sept. 13. But in a phone conversation with The Chronicle on the morning of Sept. 18, board chair Yousef Rabhi confirmed that he had decided to pull the resolution from the Sept. 18 meeting agenda.

Rabhi expected that at least two commissioners on the 9-member board – Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) – would be absent. [It turned out that Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) also did not attend the meeting.] And Rabhi expected that three other commissioners would vote against the resolution. Because of that, it would likely only garner four votes in support. Under the county board rules, a resolution requires votes from “a majority of the members elected and serving” in order to pass. With an anticipated 4-3 vote, it would fall short of achieving the 5-vote majority needed.

The resolution urged state legislators and Gov. Rick Snyder to repeal Public Act 309 of 2006 and Public Act 319 of 1990, and “to adopt common-sense gun regulations such as improved background checks, strengthened gun-free zones, and limits on the sale of high-capacity magazines.” [.pdf of proposed resolution originally on the Sept. 18 agenda]

A few opponents of a resolution to repeal the Michigan “Stand Your Ground” law attended the Washtenaw County board’s Sept. 18 meeting.

It was similar to a resolution passed by the Ann Arbor city council on Aug. 8, 2013. Activists have been calling for the repeal in the wake of a Florida verdict in the Trayvon Martin case that was handed down in mid-July. Three people had spoken at the county board’s Sept. 4 meeting, urging commissioners to take action.

However, opponents rallied after hearing about the proposed resolution. Michigan Open Carry Inc., an advocacy group based in Lansing, encouraged people who live near Ann Arbor to attend the Sept. 18 meeting and protest the resolution. A post on the group’s Facebook page stated: “We understand the County Building does not contain a court, but we have not verified this. If it is indeed not a court, open or concealed carry would be lawful and the county building would be covered under preemption.” There is no court in the building where county commissioners hold their meetings, at 220 N. Main St. in downtown Ann Arbor.

There were reports that buses would be transporting protesters to the meeting, and the county administration ordered extra security. Two sheriff’s deputies were on hand before the start of the meeting, as was an Ann Arbor police officer, whose patrol car was parked in front of the county administration building.

Having heard about the decision to pull the resolution off the agenda – the county administration posted a notice on its website earlier in the day – only a few opponents showed up to the meeting.

Stand Your Ground Repeal: Public Commentary

A resident from Manchester told commissioners that research by John Lott and others shows that when there are more responsible gun owners, there is a decrease in crime. Just the mere presence of a weapon can be a deterrent, he said, adding that he speaks from first-hand experience in Detroit. The resolution proposed by county commissioners isn’t in the best interest of the public, he said, and he urged them to vote against it.

George Lawrence of Whitmore Lake asked when the resolution would be brought back for a vote. Alicia Ping (R-District 3), who was chairing the ways & means committee meeting, indicated that it’s unclear when that will happen. “Don’t bring it back,” Lawrence told the board.

Robert Dick disputed some of the claims made in the resolution. It states that “Stand Your Ground” laws increase murder rates, but he pointed to a substantial decrease in murders since 2006, when the Michigan law was enacted. He provided a handout to commissioners with an analysis relevant to the issue, saying that after they read it, they might not be as happy to have their names associated with the resolution.

A resident of Lodi Township disputed the resolution’s assertion that Michigan’s “Stand Your Ground” law puts an unreasonable burden on prosecutors. He said that if Michigan repeals the law, the criminal justice system will operate on the “duty to retreat” legal doctrine, which he argued violates civil and constitutional rights. “Duty to retreat” also imperils citizens, he said, because it mandates that a citizen give ground to an attacker, “elevating the criminal’s rights above the victim’s rights.” It also denies the victim’s rights to be or remain in any legal location, he said. Therefore, the “duty to retreat” doctrine violates a citizen’s 14th Amendment rights to life, liberty and equal protection under the law.

“Duty to retreat” also requires citizens to tell police, prosecutors and juries why the fear of imminent death, great bodily harm or sexual assault was honest and reasonable, which violates a citizen’s 5th Amendment right to remain silent, he said. It also assumes a citizen is guilty until proven innocent, which violates the 4th Amendment right to due process. He argued that “duty to retreat” endangers citizens, if they have to pause and evaluate possible escape routes rather than focusing on how to survive an attack. If the victim does survive the attack, they’ll find themselves attacked later by the prosecutor. “Duty to retreat” adds insult to injury, he said, but Michigan corrected that injustice with a “stand your ground” law. He urged commissioners not to cede the public square to violent criminals, nor to ask Michigan to violate its citizens’ rights.

Judy Bonnell-Wenzel of Ann Arbor was the only person who spoke in support of the resolution on Sept. 18. By and large, she said, it’s the color of your skin that makes people think they should be afraid of you. Unfortunately in America, “there’s something in the air” that needs to be eradicated from our collective psyche, she said, “and that is racism.”

Stand Your Ground Repeal: Commissioner Follow-Up

Every agenda includes a slot for commissioner follow-up to public commentary. Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) thanked Judy Bonnell-Wenzel for coming to the meeting and speaking out. He said she’s a constituent of his and someone he’s known for several years, who is active in a lot of causes that he believes in.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) also thanked Bonnell-Wenzel as well as all the other residents who’d come to the meeting. It’s always good to hear from citizens on any issue, he said. Rabhi clarified that the “Stand Your Ground” resolution had been removed from the agenda and therefore wouldn’t be debated during the meeting.

It’s unclear when the item will be brought forward again. Initially, Rabhi had indicated that he would put the resolution on the Oct. 2 agenda. However, that night the board will be presented with a draft budget for 2014-2017, which is expected to be the focus of the meeting.

Micro Loan Program for Small Business

The Sept. 18 agenda included a resolution on a new countywide micro loan program for small businesses. The item had received initial approval on Sept. 4, 2013, and was on the agenda for a final vote on Sept. 18.

Commissioner Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and county administrator Verna McDaniel.

The resolution would authorize the county’s office of community & economic development to contract with the Center for Empowerment and Economic Development to manage this program. CEED already handles a smaller micro loan program focused on the eastern side of the county. [.pdf of CEED micro loan proposal]

Micro loans would range from $500 to $50,000, for businesses that can’t get conventional financing. CEED has a $5 million borrowing capacity from the U.S. Small Business Administration, and expects to make $300,000 in micro loans in the next two years in Washtenaw County. The county would provide $45,000 out of revenues from levying the Act 88 millage. Of that amount, $35,000 would be used to seed a loan loss reserve fund and $10,000 would be designated for initial operating costs.

To be eligible for a micro loan, businesses must be based in Washtenaw County and have been turned down by two financial institutions for loans over $20,000. Other requirements include: (1) a business plan for businesses that are less than 3 years old; (2) a marketing plan for businesses that are 3 years or older; (3) two years of financial statements and tax returns; and (4) a personal financial statement.

The county is allowed to levy up to 0.5 mills under Public Act 88 of 1913, but currently levies a small percentage of that – 0.06 mills, which will bring in $696,000 this year. It’s used for programs run by the county’s office of community & economic development, and to fund the county’s MSU extension office. Act 88 does not require voter approval. It was originally authorized by the county in 2009 at a rate of 0.04 mills, and was increased to 0.043 mills in 2010 and 0.05 in 2011.

Last year, Conan Smith (D-District 9) of Ann Arbor proposed increasing the rate to 0.06 mills and after a heated debate, the board approved the increase on a 6-5 vote. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Debates, OKs Act 88 Tax Hike."] Increasing this tax was one of several revenue options that the county commissioners discussed at their Aug. 8, 2013 working session, as part of a broader strategy to address a projected $3.9 million budget deficit in 2014. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Eyes Slate of Revenue Options."]

The county has identified economic development as one of its main budget priorities.

Micro Loan Program for Small Business: Board Discussion

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) made a motion to postpone the item until the board’s Oct. 2 meeting.

He did not state a reason during the meeting and there was no discussion on the item.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to postpone a final vote on the micro loan program until Oct. 2.

When queried after the meeting by The Chronicle, LaBarre indicated that with three commissioners absent – Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) – it was unclear whether there were sufficient votes to pass the measure. Under the county board rules, a resolution requires votes from “a majority of the members elected and serving” in order to pass – that is, five votes. The resolution regarding the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law had been pulled from the agenda for the same reason.

When an initial vote was taken on Sept. 4, Dan Smith (R-District 2) had cast the only dissenting vote against this program. He objects to using taxpayer dollars for a program where funds are allocated without the opportunity for input at public meetings, and believes there are other avenues that small businesses can use for financing.

Hearing for Indigent Veterans Services Tax Hike

No one spoke at a public hearing held on Sept. 18 to get input on a proposed increase to the Washtenaw County tax that supports services for indigent veterans and their families.

The current rate, approved by the board last year and levied in December 2012, is 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. The new proposed rate of 1/30th of a mill would be levied in December 2013 to fund services in 2014. It’s expected to generate $463,160 in revenues.

The county is authorized to collect up to 1/10th of a mill without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy this type of tax – the Veterans Relief Fund Act – predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. The county first began levying this millage in 2008. Services are administered through the county’s department of veterans affairs.

Increasing this tax was one of several revenue options that the county commissioners discussed at their Aug. 8, 2013 working session, as part of a broader strategy to address a nearly $4 million projected budget deficit in 2014. See Chronicle coverage: “County Board Eyes Slate of Revenue Options.”

The board will likely take an initial vote on this tax increase at its Oct. 2 meeting.

Appointments

There was one appointment on the Sept. 18 agenda: April Baranek, representing Washtenaw County on the Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office (SEMREO) Community Alliance for a term ending Dec. 31, 2014.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Conan Smith (D-District 9) thanked board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) for making the nomination. He described the alliance as a collaboration of six local units of government that work together on energy financing for local government projects and for community energy-efficiency projects. It took a long time to create the alliance, he said. The bylaws had to be reviewed by the state attorney general’s office and authorized by the governor’s office, which happened over the summer. He felt that the alliance would do great work.

Outcome: The appointment of April Baranek was approved unanimously.

By way of background, this alliance dates back to 2010. The county board voted initially to join the Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office (SEMREO) – a separate entity from the SEMREO Community Alliance – at its March 17, 2010 meeting. At the time, SEMREO was a division of the Michigan Suburbs Alliance, a Ferndale-based nonprofit that’s led by Conan Smith. Smith abstained from the March 17, 2010 vote, following conflict-of-interest concerns raised by other commissioners. SEMREO later split off from the Michigan Suburbs Alliance as a separate organization, but Smith serves on its board of directors.

Washtenaw County became involved in the SEMREO Community Alliance in 2011. On Aug. 3, 2011, the county board voted to join the SEMREO Community Alliance and approved the original interlocal agreement. The alliance was created in order to pursue certain grant funding that’s not available to municipalities directly. It includes six partners: Washtenaw County, and the cities of Lathrup Village (in Oakland County); Sterling Heights and Roseville (in Macomb County); and Lincoln Park and Southgate (in Wayne County). [.pdf of original interlocal agreement] Smith was absent from the Aug. 3, 2011 meeting when the Washtenaw County board voted to join the alliance.

At the county board’s Feb. 6, 2013 meeting, Smith was also absent for the vote to amend the SEMREO Community Alliance interlocal agreement, arriving at the meeting after the vote had been taken. However, he asked the board if he could record affirmative votes for all items that he had missed – which included the SEMREO Community Alliance item. None of the other commissioners objected.

Communications & Commentary

During the evening there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Road Commission

Dan Smith (R-District 2) asked board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) for an update on the Washtenaw County road commission.

Rabhi reported that Ken Schwartz, a former county commissioner who currently serves as one of the three county road commissioners, has been appointed by the Superior Township’s board of trustees to replace former supervisor Bill McFarlane, who resigned recently because of health issues. The appointment was made at the township board’s Sept. 16, 2013 meeting.

According to a post on the township’s website, Schwartz’s term as supervisor begins Oct. 1 and ends at noon on Nov. 20, 2014. The elected office will be on the ballot for the August 2014 primary and the November 2014 general election.

Although the township notice indicates that trustees had interviewed three candidates – Schwartz, current trustee Alexander Williams, and Evert Van Raden – the decision to appoint Schwartz had been anticipated. In an email sent to county commissioners on Sept. 6, Rabhi wrote that he had directed staff to prepare a notice for the potentially vacant seat on the road commission, if Schwartz were appointed supervisor. [.pdf of Rabhi's email] That notice was posted on the county’s website on Sept. 17.

Applications for the road commissioner job are being accepted until Sept. 25, 2013, with the county board likely making an appointment at its Oct. 2 meeting. The position would be for the remainder of a six-year term, through Dec. 31, 2018. Applications – including a letter of interest and resume, with a home address – should be sent to Peter Simms of the county clerk’s office, P.O. Box 8645, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107. Applications can also be submitted via email to simmsp@ewashtenaw.org, or via fax to 734-222-6528.

In his Sept. 6 email, Rabhi indicated that several members of the community had already expressed interest in the road commissioner job, and that he had received one formal letter of interest. He wrote: “I urge you to keep an open mind and give each qualified candidate that applies full consideration.”

Other current road commissioners are Doug Fuller and Fred Veigel, who also is a member of the county’s parks & recreation commission. The salary for road commissioners, which is set by the county board, is $10,500 annually.

At the Sept. 18 county board meeting, Rabhi said he hoped to bring forward a nomination at the board’s Oct. 2 meeting.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) asked whether the board was definitely going to fill the vacancy. Rabhi said he’d like to replace Schwartz, and didn’t think that would preclude the board from discussing whether to expand the number of road commissioners or absorb the road commission into the county operations. “But I’d like to view that as a separate process,” Rabhi said.

Dan Smith suggested talking about this more at length when the vacancy is actually in effect – after Oct. 1. However, he said, he’d be a little concerned about confirming someone to fill a partial term that’s more than three years, without more clarity about the board’s future direction regarding the road commission.

Conan Smith wondered what the process would be for commissioners to ask questions of the candidates. Rabhi suggested contacting the candidates directly.

Communications & Commentary: Hiring Freeze

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Doug Smith reminded commissioners that at their Sept. 5, 2013 working session, he had urged the county to implement a hiring freeze until Jan. 1, 2014. He said he’d also asked commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) to put an item on the Sept. 18 agenda about that issue for discussion, “but she apparently has decided not to do that.” [Brabec was absent from the Sept. 18 meeting.]

From left: Commissioner Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) and Doug Smith.

Vacancies don’t need to be filled before Jan. 1, he said – it’s the fiscally responsible thing to do. He has a friend who works for the county, who told him that her supervisor wants to fill all the vacancies in the department before Jan. 1 “because it would be unfair to the new employees to miss out on the pension plan.” Those supervisors should be looking out for the taxpayers well-being, Smith said.

By way of background, current employees participate in a defined benefit pension plan, which will be closed to new employees at the end of 2013. Employees hired starting Jan. 1, 2014 will be part of a defined contribution plan instead. The long-term liabilities of the county’s pension plan and retiree healthcare costs are a concern, and prompted efforts earlier this year to push for a major bond proposal that was ultimately dropped.

During his Sept. 18 public commentary, Smith also asked for an appeal to his most recent request under the state’s Freedom of Information Act. The response given to him by the county’s FOIA coordinator is illegible, he contended. “They need to stop playing games in giving me things that are illegible, that they know are illegible.”

Communications & Commentary: Budget Update

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), who as chair of the board’s ways & means committee also serves on the county’s budget task force, was absent from the Sept. 18 meeting. Vice chair Alicia Ping (R-District 3) gave a budget update on Brabec’s behalf. The draft budget is in the final stages of preparation, and will be presented to the board on Oct. 2.

The board’s priority committee meetings are completed, with draft outcome statements related to five areas: heath and human services, economic opportunity, mobility and civic infrastructure, environmental impact, and internal labor force. [The work of those committees was reviewed at a board working session on Sept. 19, which will be covered in a separate Chronicle report.]

The administration will also a 2013 third-quarter budget update to the board in November.

Present: Andy LaBarre, Kent Martinez-Kratz, Alicia Ping, Yousef Rabhi, Conan Smith, Dan Smith.

Absent: Felicia Brabec, Ronnie Peterson, Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Oct. 2, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

Map of Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane plume, by Washtenaw County. Black arrow added to indicate baseball field at West Park. The yellow region is the estimated plume area where the 1,4-dioxane concentration is greater than 1 ppb. That area encroaches well into the city of Ann Arbor and extends outside the well prohibition zone (red border).

The vote was taken at the board’s Sept. 18, 2013 meeting with three of the nine commissioners absent: Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Dan Smith (R-District 2) stated “present” during the vote, rather than voting for or against the resolution. After the meeting, corporation counsel Curt Hedger told The Chronicle that he’d be looking at the board rules to determine how Smith’s vote will be recorded. Hedger pointed out that the resolution needed five votes to pass, which it garnered.

The Ann Arbor city council passed a resolution on Sept. 3, 2013 related to the 1,4-dioxane issue. However, the city council resolution makes no mention of legal action.

In contrast, the resolution passed by county commissioners includes passage that:

…directs the County Administrator, Corporation Counsel and other appropriate county staff to work in collaboration with the County Water Resources Commissioner to explore other actions available to the County, including but not limited to legal action, meeting with and petitioning the MDEQ and EPA to aid in setting appropriate cleanup criteria for 1,4-dioxane in Michigan, including the Pall-Gelman plume and without site specific criteria for the Pall-Gelman plume and to cooperate with other local units of government to ensure protection of public health and the environment; …

The history of Gelman Sciences and its 1,4-dioxane contamination goes back 40 years. The company was based in Scio Township and later acquired by Pall Corp. The Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality’s current 1,4-dioxane generic residential drinking water cleanup criterion was set at 85 parts per billion (ppb). But an EPA criterion set in 2010 was for 3.5 ppb.

The MDEQ was supposed to re-evaluate its own standards by December 2012, based on the EPA’s 2010 toxicological review. It missed that deadline, and is anticipated to miss a new deadline set for December 2013.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Despite Ann Arbor’s reputation, on this occasion councilmembers appeared to be leaning to the right. The meeting featured public commentary that recalled a standard political joke about Ann Arbor during football season: “Fake left, run right.” (Photos by the writer.)

Both issues also had been postponed from previous meetings. However, the committees that were supposed to have provided more specific recommendations to the full council prior to Sept. 3 did not accomplish that work.

After the Sept. 3 council meeting, both of the relevant committees subsequently met. An update on their work is included in this council meeting report.

The DDA ordinance revisions have already been given initial approval by the council and are awaiting a final vote. The amendments to Chapter 7 include various changes to governance, including term limits for board members, as well as clarifications to the existing language on TIF capture. The amendments would enforce the existing language of the ordinance in a way that has an impact on the DDA’s TIF revenue that would roughly match the DDA’s projected revenues in its 10-year planning document.

However, since that 10-year document was last updated, the amount of new construction in the DDA district has resulted in significant increases in the taxable value on which TIF is computed. About $1 million a year is at stake – which would be distributed to the other jurisdictions whose taxes the DDA captures, instead of being collected by the DDA. The joint committee of DDA board members and city council members met on Sept. 10, and the group appeared to be ready to recommend that the council table the initially-approved ordinance changes and start from scratch, likely shedding the proposed changes to governance.

The approach the committee is now taking would remove the current Chapter 7 language expressing restrictions on the DDA’s TIF revenue, and replace it with a “cap” that would have a built-in annual increase. Among the scenarios the committee is weighing would be a cap set at a high-enough level that it would likely have no impact on the amount of the DDA’s TIF revenue, compared to the amount the DDA is receiving under its own current interpretation of the ordinance, which is disputed.

While the Sept. 3 postponement of the DDA-related ordinance was dispatched quickly, later in the meeting the council engaged in a substantial debate on an appointment to the DDA board – that of Al McWilliams. With only nine councilmembers present and his confirmation dubious – because it needed six votes on the 11-member council – mayor John Hieftje withdrew the nomination.

The council’s rules committee also met on Sept. 10 and reviewed revisions that had previously been recommended. Basing its work on a debate that the entire council had on July 15, 2013, the committee decided that none of the council rules on the length of speaking turns (for the public or for councilmembers) or for reserving time to speak at the start of meetings would be changed from the current rules. Among the proposed changes that survived committee discussion included: (1) adding public commentary at work sessions, (2) re-ordering the agenda to place nominations and appointments near the start of the meeting, and (3) prohibiting use of personal electronic communications devices while at the council table.

The council will take up the DDA ordinance as well as the internal rules issue at its next meeting on Sept. 16.

Other business handled by the council on Sept. 3 included passage of a resolution calling for work on better cleanup standards for 1,4-dioxane – which came only after lengthy debate about possibly postponing it in order to strengthen the language and seek the advice of additional stakeholders.

The council also passed a resolution recommended by the city’s energy commission, to direct city staff to develop a pilot program with DTE for a “community solar” project. Another resolution recommended by the energy commission failed to win council approval, however. It would have directed the city’s employment retirement system to divest from fossil fuel companies.

In land-related business, the council approved the city’s participation in two deals related to the city’s greenbelt program. Councilmembers also gave approval to a Hampton Inn project on Jackson Road and initial approval to a drive-thru to be constructed at a Shell/Tim Hortons at Eisenhower and Ann Arbor-Saline Road.

As part of city administrator Steve Powers’ report to the council, he mentioned that a memo on the review of the city’s crosswalk ordinance would be forthcoming. That memo was subsequently released.

Downtown Development Authority Ordinance

On the council’s Sept. 3 agenda was a final vote on revisions to the Ann Arbor city code regulating the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s tax increment finance (TIF). At stake is around $1 million or more a year in tax revenue.

DDA Ordinance: Background

A joint council-DDA committee was appointed on July 1, 2013 with a charge to begin meeting immediately to work out a recommendation on possible legislation that would clarify the ordinance.

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

However, that committee did not convene until eight weeks later, on Aug. 26. The committee met on just that one occasion before the Sept. 3 council meeting. The postponement until Sept. 3 had come at the council’s May 6, 2013 meeting.

The council had given initial approval of an ordinance change at its April 1, 2013 meeting. The change would clarify the existing language in the ordinance – which outlines how the DDA is supposed to return excess TIF revenue to other taxing jurisdictions – to the extent that the revenue exceeds projections in the DDA’s TIF plan.

Until two years ago, the existing limitation expressed in the ordinance had never been applied. But in May 2011, the city treasurer called the issue to the DDA’s attention, characterizing it as a roughly $2 million issue, dating back to 2003. However, when the DDA retroactively calculated its revenue, as well as rebates to other taxing jurisdictions, it applied a methodology chosen to minimize the amount of “rebate” owed to other taxing jurisdictions, reducing the amount to roughly $1.1 million.

When challenged on its method of calculation, the DDA subsequently changed its position, claiming that the money it had already paid back to other taxing jurisdictions was a mistake. The DDA’s new position was to claim an interpretation of a clause in Chapter 7 as providing an override to limits on TIF revenue – if the DDA has debt obligations, which it does. So in 2012 and 2013, the DDA did not return any of its TIF capture to other taxing authorities. In addition to the city, those taxing authorities are the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw County, and Washtenaw Community College.

The proposal as approved at first reading by the council on April 1, 2013 would essentially enforce the language that is already in the ordinance, but disallow the DDA’s interpretation of the “debt override” clause. Compared to the DDA’s own 10-year planning document, revenue to the DDA under the ordinance change would be roughly similar. The minimal impact compared to the planning document depends on the enactment of the ordinance to apply beginning with fiscal year 2015. However, the 10-year planning document in question did not include a large amount of new construction in the downtown area, which has already generated higher TIF revenue than estimated in the 10-year plan.

The ordinance revision as approved at first reading also includes term limits for DDA board members, and would make the appointment of the mayor to the board of the DDA contingent on a majority vote of the council. Without majority support, the mayor’s spot on the board would go to the city administrator.

Serving on the joint council-DDA committee for the council are: Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Representing the DDA are Sandi Smith, Joan Lowenstein, Bob Guenzel, and Roger Hewitt.

The Aug. 26 committee meeting was dominated by political squabbling. The only substantive concept that was batted around briefly at that meeting was the idea of defining some kind of fixed cap on TIF revenue. This approach would replace the existing ordinance language, which calibrates the DDA’s TIF capture with projections in the TIF plan. But the discussion never went as far as to include dollar amounts for the fixed cap.

DDA Ordinance: Public Commentary

During public commentary reserved time on Sept. 3, Jim Mogensen began by saying that municipal finance is “broken” particularly as it relates to cities. In the context of the spirited conversation that’s going on about the DDA, he wanted to comment on the topic of municipal finance. He categorized Michigan cities in different ways. As Category A he described cities like Pontiac, Benton Harbor and Detroit, which have their own concerns related to municipal finance. In Category B, he said, there are cities like Lansing, Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – because they have lots of governmental non-taxable land and that creates its own set of issues. In Category C, he put, Northville, Birmingham, and Gross Pointe.

Mogensen noted that Ypsilanti is in Category B, but has sprinkles of Category A as part of its challenges. Ann Arbor, Mogensen continued, is in Category B, but has sprinkles of Category C. Oftentimes, he said, Ann Arbor tries, as does the general public, to deny these challenges exist, Mogensen said, when it comes to setting the budgets and making things work. Some people say, “Well, you know, it must be those liberals – they’re always making us spend money on things that we shouldn’t be spending money on!” He alluded to the old quip about Ann Arbor, particularly during the football season: “Fake left, run right.” The reality is that there’s not much of that kind of spending in the budget, he said.

When people look at the city, they overemphasize perceived mismanagement, and underestimate those structural problems, Mogensen said. So when people think about the DDA, people overestimate and overemphasize perceived management prowess, Mogensen said, and they underestimate the tremendous set of conditions the DDA has, which include: limited scope of responsibility, very high density, and the ability to capture taxes. When you look at all that, he said, it’s obvious why some things happen. Coming out of this conversation, there should be a way to make sure the city can function well. There should be a way of making that happen without discrediting people who are a part of different organizations, he said.

DDA Ordinance: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off the deliberations, recalling the history of the proposal, and mentioning the meeting of the committee on Aug. 26. Not enough information was available to the committee when it met, he said. Staff had been directed to come up with draft language, he said. Kunselman told the council that he wanted to postpone action again, so the committee could meet again and bring back a recommendation that had more substance.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

The initial inclination was to postpone action until Oct. 7. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) reacted to that date, saying she might be out of town at that meeting. Kunselman asked city administrator Steve Powers if draft language could be ready as soon as the Sept. 16 council meeting. The joint council-DDA work session on Sept. 9, 2013 was floated as a possibility when the issue could be addressed. But Powers indicated that the Sept. 9 work session would be focused on the topic of the parking agreement – between the city and the DDA, under which the DDA manages the public parking system. He ventured it could be a challenge to schedule that many people to meet on an additional occasion. Mayor John Hieftje suggested postponing action until the next meeting, on Sept. 16, and assessing how things stand at that time.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), who’s a member of the council’s audit committee, noted that she’d requested that a review of Chapter 7 compliance be included in the city’s annual audit. [The DDA is a component unit of the city.] The answer that had come back from the auditor, Kailasapathy said, was that the ordinance language was unclear.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked if the DDA needed to be able to vote on something before the council acted. [The DDA board meets on the first Wednesday of the month, with its next regular meeting scheduled for Oct. 2.] Hieftje, who sits on the DDA board, indicated that he didn’t think the DDA would necessarily need to vote on anything before the council acted.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone the DDA ordinance until its next meeting, on Sept. 16.

DDA Ordinance: Joint Committee Meeting – Sept. 10, 2013

The meeting of the council and DDA board joint committee – held the week after the council’s Sept. 3 session – was not attended by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) on the side of the council or by Bob Guenzel for the DDA. [Lumm was out of town due to a death in her family.]

The Sept. 10 meeting was different in tone from the Aug. 26 meeting, which featured bickering back and forth between councilmembers and DDA board members. The Sept. 10 session focused on a specific alternative to the current Chapter 7 language, which currently reads [emphasis added]:

If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction, and increase in value of property newly constructed or existing property improved subsequent thereto, grows at a rate faster than that anticipated in the tax increment plan, at least 50% of such additional amounts shall be divided among the taxing units in relation to their proportion of the current tax levies. If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction grows at a rate of over twice that anticipated in the plan, all of such excess amounts over twice that anticipated shall be divided among the taxing units. Only after approval of the governmental units may these restrictions be removed.

The last sentence of that section indicates that removal of those restrictions on TIF revenue to the DDA would require approval of the other taxing jurisdictions. However, the committee did not discuss that aspect of the current law, and appeared comfortable with the idea that the language could simply be replaced with a different conceptual approach – without approval or consultation with the other taxing jurisdictions.

The different conceptual approach would establish a basis level for the maximum captured taxable value in the DDA district and then set some clearly defined annual increase, keyed to a specific percentage or some variant of a consumer price index (CPI).

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

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

2. The maximum captured taxable value shall be fixed 
at a base value of $167,000,000 for tax year 2014. Each tax 
year thereafter, the maximum captured taxable value shall be 
increased by (CPI, 3%, 5%) per annum.

DDA TIF Capture Cap.
TIF value in millions with $167 million 
taxable value basis in FY 2014.
Columns correspond to yearly value of cap
assuming the increase indicated in the 
column header.
===================================
FY    CPI         3%     5%    10%
___________________________________
2013  $3.767  $3.767  $3.767 $3.767 (Actual)
2014   4.500   4.500   4.500  4.500
2015  tbd      4.635   4.725  4.950
2016  tbd      4.774   4.961  5.445
2017  tbd      4.917   5.209  5.990
2018  tbd      5.065   5.470  6.588
2019  tbd      5.217   5.743  7.247
2020  tbd      5.373   6.030  7.972
2021  tbd      5.534   6.332  8.769
2022  tbd      5.700   6.649  9.646
2023  tbd      5.871   6.981  10.611

-

The DDA would be projected to capture around $4.5 million in TIF this fiscal year (FY 2014), even on the Chapter 7 amendments given initial approval by the council. But under those amendments, the DDA’s TIF capture in FY 2015 would be $3.68 million, which compares to $3.75 million in the DDA’s 10-year planning document from earlier this year.

At the Sept. 10 committee meeting, not much interest was shown in defining the escalator in terms of a CPI. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) ventured that it might be appropriate to use 2.2% as an escalator – as that’s the figure used for the DDA’s 10-year planning document. DDA board treasurer Roger Hewitt objected that this was a fairly conservative number. Board chair Sandi Smith argued that any choice of a percentage would be “random” and that the choice of the escalator should be considered in the context of its implications for the DDA’s ability to complete projects described in a draft list of projects the DDA has recently assembled.

The development of the draft list came partly in response to pressure from the city council – dating back to April of this year – asking the DDA to explain what projects would not be undertaken if the DDA didn’t continue to receive TIF revenue based on its preferred interpretation of the city’s ordinance. An ordinance amendment included in the revisions given initial approval by the council would require closer integration of the DDA’s projects with the city’s capital improvements plan. The amendment was put forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

The authority shall submit their capital budgets to incorporate them into the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The authority shall at the time they submit their budget for Council approval identify that portion of the budget which is operating and that which is capital projects.

The project list was introduced at the Sept. 4, 2013 DDA board meeting. [.pdf of draft five-year plan]

Based on the committee conversation, the next step for the DDA appears to be comparing the different definitions for the escalator to its 10-year planning document and to the draft five-year project list. And based on that analysis, the DDA would come back with a recommendation for how the escalator should be defined.

For the council, the consensus appeared to be that the council will delay again at its Sept. 16 meeting – either by postponing or tabling a vote. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated a willingness to start with a fresh draft of ordinance changes, which would allow the council to shed the changes in the original proposal that would affect DDA board governance, including term limits. That would reset the requirement that the council approve the ordinance revisions at a first reading and then again at a second reading at a subsequent council meeting.

There’s an outside chance that a fresh first reading of the ordinance changes could be brought to the council for its consideration by Oct. 7, the first meeting in October. Even if a fresh first reading is not ready until Oct. 21, the second council meeting in October, an approval then would set up the council to give final approval on Nov. 7. That follows the Nov. 5 election, but the current composition of the council would still be at the table, no matter the general election outcome. So even if independent incumbent Jane Lumm were not to prevail in the Ward 2 race – which is also contested by Democrat Kirk Westphal and independent Conrad Brown – she would still be able to vote on Nov. 7.

Appointments to Boards, Commissions

At its Sept. 3 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council was asked to confirm just three of the four nominations made at the council’s previous meeting on Aug. 19.

One nomination that had been made on Aug. 19 – for Leigh Greden’s reappointment to the Ann Arbor housing commission – was withdrawn prior to the start of the Sept. 3 meeting.

Two nominations from Aug. 19 were confirmed: Devon Akmon’s appointment to fill a vacancy on the public art commission; and Logan Casey to fill a vacancy on the human rights commission. Akmon is an Ann Arbor resident and the new director of the Arab American National Museum in Dearborn. Casey is a graduate student at the University of Michigan.

Considered separately was the nomination of Al McWilliams’ appointment to the board of the Ann Arbor DDA.

Appointments: Background

The nomination of former city councilmember Leigh Greden to the Ann Arbor housing commission had been withdrawn before the Sept. 3 meeting, around 2:30 p.m. that same day.

Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje.

No conversation took place at the Sept. 3 meeting about Greden’s nomination. His initial appointment to the AAHC board in January 2011, replacing Jayne Miller, had been unanimous.

Earlier this year, at the council’s April 1 meeting, Nickolas Buonodono had been nominated to replace Greden on the AAHC board, after Greden had reached the end of his first term. Buonodono is an attorney, and a member of the Washtenaw County Democratic Party executive committee. However, that nomination was not on the council’s April 15 meeting agenda for confirmation. According to AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall, who spoke to The Chronicle in a telephone interview in mid-April, Greden was going to seek reappointment for a second term if he could accommodate his schedule to the meeting times. The housing commission is undergoing a major transition to a project-based voucher system, which the council authorized at its June 3, 2013 meeting on a unanimous vote.

The nomination of Al McWilliams to the Ann Arbor DDA also came forward from mayor John Hieftje with a wrinkle. Before he was nominated at the council’s Aug. 19 meeting, McWilliams’ name had appeared on an early version of the list of nominees for the council’s Aug. 8 meeting. The final version for that meeting, however, did not include his name.

McWilliams is founder of Quack!Media, an ad agency located in downtown Ann Arbor. Quack!Media lists the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority on its website as one of its clients. McWilliams has written advocacy pieces for bicycling on his blog.

Appointments: Council Deliberations – DDA

Mayor John Hieftje led off the conversation by noting that there are currently some openings on the DDA board. He asked for the council’s support on Al McWilliams’ nomination. Hieftje said he had wanted to find someone representing the Main Street business district and the entrepreneurial community, and he thought that McWilliams fit that description.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) indicated that she’d asked for a list of those who’d applied for the appointment to the DDA. She’d been told that the person in charge of the list was on vacation, but the list would be provided next week.

The second issue, she continued, was that McWilliams’ company, Quack!Media, is a vendor for the AAATA. The DDA grants money to the AAATA, she said, calling that a conflict of interest.

Hieftje told Kailasapathy that his assistant was out of town, and he had not had time to “rustle up those files” of applications. [Former DDA board member and local developer Ed Shaffran has indicated a willingness in serving again on the DDA board.]

Hieftje reviewed the fact that the process calls for him, as mayor, to make nominations. And he’d wanted to nominate McWilliams after reviewing the applications on file. Hieftje noted that there is an additional seat open on the DDA board, and that he’d be looking forward to bringing a nomination to fill that additional seat to the council’s next meeting. [The two seats that currently need to be filled are those of Newcombe Clark, who made an employment-related move to Chicago after serving out a four-year term on the board, and Nader Nassif, who resigned from the board this summer after being arrested for sexual assault.]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported that she’d asked the city attorney about the conflict-of-interest question. Briere indicated that she didn’t think it was clear that a conflict of interest arose out of the situation that Kailasapathy had described. Briere asked city attorney Stephen Postema to comment on the question.

Postema essentially indicated that he didn’t think there’s an inherent conflict for McWilliams in serving on the DDA board, but if any conflict-of-interest issue arose while serving on the board, it could be dealt with when it came up.

Postema stressed that if there are two public entities involved, it’s not considered to be a conflict under the statute. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) said that even though the state doesn’t define it as a conflict, the council has rules on the question. She didn’t think the state law is stringent enough. She ventured that McWilliams would need to recuse himself quite frequently, possibly including votes on the DDA budget.

Responding to Petersen, Postema indicated that the state statue is not as stringent as many people would like it to be. Postema noted that while Petersen might perceive a conflict, he was looking at it as a matter of state law.

By way of background, one state statute on conflicts of interest for a public official is Act 317 of 1968 “Contracts of Public Servants with Public Entities.” It’s the state statute to which DDA legal counsel Jerry Lax had appealed at the DDA board’s meeting three and a half years ago – on May 5, 2010. It involved a question about whether mayor John Hieftje and then-councilmember Sandi Smith should participate in a vote to allocate $2 million to the city of Ann Arbor, given the fact that they’re paid salaries as elected officials by the city of Ann Arbor.

The statute prohibits the public servants from soliciting contracts with entities by whom they are employed:

(2) Except as provided in section 3, a public servant shall not directly or indirectly solicit any contract between the public entity of which he or she is an officer or employee and any of the following: (a) Him or herself. (b) Any firm, meaning a co-partnership or other unincorporated association, of which he or she is a partner, member, or employee. [...]

In analyzing the situation for Hieftje and Smith in 2010, Lax pointed out that there was a specific exemption for contracts between two public entities [emphasis added]:

15.324 Public servants; contracts excepted; violation as felony. Sec. 4. (1) The prohibitions of section 2 shall not apply to any of the following: (a) Contracts between public entities.

Under that statute, Lax concluded it was not a problem for Hieftje and Smith to participate in the deliberations and vote on the resolution that the DDA board was considering.

Later in the May 5, 2010 meeting, however, the resolution considered by the DDA was proposed to be altered so that the $2 million payment was not described as part of any contract – because at that point the existing parking agreement between the city and the DDA had expired, and no money was owed under that contract. At that point, Lax indicated that the state statute did not provide an exemption – because the DDA was contemplating a grant. So Lax expressed his view that Hieftje and Smith should sit out the vote on amending the resolution, which they did. The attempted amendment failed, however, and the two subsequently returned to the table to vote on the resolution.

So in considering whether Al McWilliams would be able to participate in a vote to allocate money for getDowntown, for example – given that AAATA is a client of his company – it’s not obvious at first glance that Act 317 of 1968 would apply. If the money allocated to the AAATA’s getDowntown program takes place outside of a contractual agreement, then the inapplicability of the statute could be based on the same reasoning Lax used in the May 5, 2010 vote involving Hieftje and Smith.

However, based on the annual signed agreements that AAATA provided to The Chronicle in response to a request under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act, some basic getDowntown program funding is granted to AAATA by the DDA under that annual signed contractual agreement. Funding for getDowntown’s go!pass program, which was $479,000, does not appear to be covered by that annual contract. [.pdf of 2013 getDowntown agreement]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

During the council’s Sept. 3 deliberations, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) contended that there’s no conflict at all for McWilliams. As an example, Taylor cited employees of the University of Michigan who serve on the council. [Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) is currently an employee, as is Hieftje. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) was previously, but is no longer a UM employee.] Using the same standard would require the recusal of these councilmembers on any UM-related matter, Taylor contended.

If there were an actual conflict on a particular occasion, then it’s well established that someone can simply stand down for a particular vote, Taylor said. [Taylor has himself on occasion asked that councilmembers vote to excuse him from votes the council has taken, for example, when a bar that is a client of his law firm – Hooper Hathaway – had requested a special event street closure that required council approval.]

At that point in the deliberations, Kunselman asked if the other nominations to be considered that night could be separated out. Hieftje proposed voting on the confirmations of Devon Akmon and Logan Casey separately, which the council did.

Outcome: The council voted to confirm Akmon to the public art commission and Casey to the human rights commission.

Kunselman said he appreciated the fact that the issue had been raised about the appearance of a conflict, even if there’s not a legal conflict. However, Kunselman asserted that he had the prerogative to vote as he liked. So Kunselman was interested in confirming the appointment to the DDA board of someone who might be able to accept some “reform” of the DDA. And Kunselman didn’t think that McWilliams, as a DDA supporter, would be open-minded with respect to following city ordinances. So Kunselman stated that he would vote against the appointment of McWilliams.

Hieftje asked Kunselman if he’d met with McWilliams. No, Kunselman replied, but he’d read McWilliams’ public statements.

Briere said she has not met with McWilliams, but she’d talked with Maura Thomson, director of the Main Street Area Association, who was very enthusiastic about McWilliams being appointed. Briere then talked about the issue of perceived conflict of interest. Briere said she’s heard that she could have a conflict due to her spousal relationship. [Briere is married to local attorney David Cahill.] She’d heard that she’d had a conflict when she worked for a nonprofit that received city funding. If the council gets interested in the question of whether someone is even just “dimly friendly” with someone, then that will shrink the pool of those who are eligible to serve, Briere said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Briere noted that there were two former mayors who were UM faculty. She was surprised that people are considering this kind of thing to be a conflict. If a councilmember feels a nominee falls short of the mark, then they should be voted against based on the merits, she said.

Taylor added that if one of the goals is to have people who are involved in local business to be involved in civic life, then this level of relationship can’t be a prohibitive factor. The council’s conversation that night was already doing damage to the possibility that others will want to step forward, Taylor ventured.

By way of background, by state statute a 12-member DDA board must include either the mayor or the city administrator, and at least seven members having an interest in property located in the DDA district or be an officer, member, or trustee, principal, or employee of a legal entity having an interest in property located in the downtown district. And at least one of the DDA board members is required to be a resident of the downtown district. Three at-large members fill out the other seats.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) stated there are three questions to consider: qualifications, perspective, and conflict. He was not upset that the council was discussing any of these questions. Warpehoski reported that he’d met McWilliams only once. Based on that interaction, he said McWilliams has a sharp mind. So Warpehoski concluded McWilliams is qualified. Warpehoski wasn’t familiar with McWilliams’ perspective on the DDA, except for what Kunselman had reported earlier during deliberations.

On the question of conflict, Warpehoski stated that McWilliams should not vote on contracts that his company would service – but he didn’t think there would be that many votes fitting that description. He thought that the question of conflict is still a fair one to ask.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she was supportive of McWilliams’ nomination. Responding to Kunselman’s point about McWilliams’ attitude toward the DDA, Teall said that it’s natural that someone who wants to serve on the DDA would be supportive of the DDA.

Kailasapathy was skeptical that there would be only a few votes from which McWilliams would need to refrain. She stated that she thought there was a direct conflict of interest.

Hieftje asked for the ability to withdraw the nomination, so that some of the issues that had been raised could be explored.

Outcome: The council did not vote on McWilliams’ nomination because Hieftje withdrew it. The council’s vote looked like it might have failed on a 5-4 vote with Kunselman, Petersen, Kailasapathy, and Anglin possibly voting against it.

Council Rules Changes

The council’s Sept. 3 agenda included an item related to changes to its internal rules. This revision to the set of council rules was first presented to the council on June 17, 2013. However, a vote was postponed at that meeting.

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

After again postponing a vote at its July 1, 2013 meeting, the council used its following meeting, on July 15, 2013, to eliminate one of the proposed rule changes – the shortening of public speaking turns. But the council postponed further revisions and a vote until Sept. 3.

The council’s rules committee – consisting of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), and mayor John Hieftje – was supposed to meet before the Sept. 3 meeting to consolidate input from other councilmembers and perhaps present a clean slate of proposed revisions. However, in the interim, the rules committee did not meet.

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

Council Rules Changes: Public Commentary

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a 2010 Michigan senate candidate and 2012 candidate for the Michigan house of representatives, who’s now a write-in candidate for Ward 5 city council this year. He spoke as an advocate supporting Martin Luther King Jr.’s agenda. Partridge called for emphasis on affordable housing, public transportation, and fair access to public meetings. He called for 3- to 5-minute public participation time. There should be no reductions in the amount of time offered to the public, he said. A forward-looking city council would look for new ways to increase public participation time, not to constrain it, he concluded.

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Partridge called on the council to be aware of the need for greater public participation. He complained that there’s been scant information on a recent murder of a UM student.

Mark Koroi reminded councilmembers that he’d spoken to the council previously on the topic of public commentary at working sessions. He said he wants to see the issue taken care of. He noted that Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) was not in attendance at that night’s council meeting and referred to her a “the invisible woman.” More public commentary means that the council will hear more from Thomas Partridge and Blaine Coleman, Koroi allowed, adding that the U.S. Constitution and the Michigan Open Meetings Act should be upheld.

Council Rules Changes: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) recited the history of the proposal, but observed that time is the enemy of all and so the committee had not met. He reported that the rules committee was committed to meeting in a swift fashion. He suggested postponing the vote.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that part of the rationale offered for postponing until that night’s meeting – instead of waiting until Sept. 16 – was to change the rules to require public commentary at work sessions in time for the Sept. 9 work session. Warpehoski asked if postponement would preclude allowing public commentary at the Sept. 9 meeting.

City attorney Stephen Postema indicated that public commentary wouldn’t be precluded. From Postema’s remarks on Sept. 3 [emphasis added]:

You could just simply direct that public notice be given that there will be public commentary, if you wanted to put that as a part of the motion with a further direction I suppose to, in setting the agenda that public commentary will be listed. There’s certainly no prohibition of adding public commentary. Without it, I think what you’re focusing on, without it, the council rule says nothing about work session, and on the other hand the issue really is what’s going to be done at that meeting.”

Warpehoski asked that a postponement include direction to notice the public that public commentary will be provided and that it be added to the work session agenda.

By way of background, the actual wording of the current council rules contradicts Postema’s assertion that the council rule on agenda setting says nothing about work sessions. The rule actually sets forth an order of business for the council’s meetings and work sessions [emphasis added]:

RULE 3 – Agenda
3A – Preparation of the Agenda
The agenda for each Regular Council meeting and Council Work Session shall be prepared by the City Administrator. A resolution approving a contract shall only be included on the agenda if the City Attorney has reviewed the contract and the result of that review is included or with the proposed resolution.
The agenda will be prepared in accordance with the following order of business:

Moment of Silence
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call of Council
Approval of the Agenda
Introductions
Public Commentary – Reserved Time
Communications from Council
Public Hearings
Communications from Council
Approval of Council Minutes
Consent Agenda
Ordinances – Second Reading
Ordinances – First Reading
Motions and Resolutions
Council Business
Boards and Commissions
Staff
Communications from the Mayor
Communications from Council
Communications from the City Administrator
Communications from the City Attorney
Clerk’s Report of Communications, Petitions and Referrals
Public Commentary – General
Adjournment

Specification of an order of business – as opposed to required elements of any agenda – makes the listing as suitable for either work sessions or regular meetings.

As deliberations continued, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) asked if signing up would be required to speak at the work session. Postema indicated that he imagined it would simply be general time.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone the change to council rules, but indicated it would allow public commentary at its next work session on Sept. 9. At that session, Thomas Partridge and Jim Mogensen addressed the council during public commentary time.

Council Rules Changes: Committee Meeting – Sept. 10

The rules committee met on Sept. 10. Mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) attended the meeting. Hieftje reported that the committee chair, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), had texted him that she would not be able to attend.

In reviewing the proposed changes, the committee determined that based on the July 15 full council deliberations, some rules proposed initially to be changed should be left intact. At the July 15 meeting, the council had voted explicitly to leave the duration of all types of public commentary speaking turns (public hearings, reserved time, general time) at three minutes.

And at the Sept. 10 committee meeting, the view of committee members was that the general sentiment of the council on July 15 indicated little enthusiasm for changing speaking times for councilmembers, or for changing the way that public speaking time is reserved.

Among the substantive changes that will likely be presented by the committee to the council at its Sept. 16 meeting will be: adding public commentary to work sessions; changing the order of the agenda to move nominations and appointments to earlier in the meeting; prohibiting the use of personal electronic communications devices while at the council table.

Pall-Gelman Plume

The council considered a resolution directing staff to explore actions available to the city on the issue of cleanup standards for an existing 1,4-dioxane plume on the city’s west side. Those options include meeting with the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality and petitioning the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to help set cleanup criteria for the carcinogen 1,4-dioxane in Michigan.

Map of Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane plume, by Washtenaw County. Black arrow added to indicate baseball field at West Park. The yellow region is the estimated plume area where the 1,4-dioxane concentration is greater than 1 ppb (parts per billion). That area encroaches well into the city of Ann Arbor and extends outside the well prohibition zone (red border).

The actions to be undertaken by staff can be related to the Pall-Gelman plume or also site specific criteria for the Pall-Gelman plume. The goal would be to improve the cleanup standard for 1,4-dioxane. [.pdf of resolution as amended and approved] The resolution was sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and mayor John Hieftje.

The history of Gelman Sciences, which caused the 1,4-dioxane contamination, goes back 40 years. The company was based in Scio Township and later acquired by Pall Corp. The MDEQ’s current 1,4-dioxane generic residential drinking water cleanup criterion was set at 85 parts per billion (ppb). But an EPA criterion set in 2010 was for 3.5 ppb.

The MDEQ was supposed to re-evaluate its own standards by December 2012, based on the EPA’s 2010 toxicological review. It missed that deadline, and according to the council’s resolution, is anticipated to miss a new deadline set for a year later in December 2013.

Pall-Gelman Plume: Public Commentary

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Roger Rayle introduced himself as chair of Scio Residents for Safe Water. He spoke in support of the resolution on the agenda calling on the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality to tighten up the standards for the Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane cleanup. When the standards were loosened back in 1985, he said, it happened overnight. Implicitly addressing the potential criticism that the resolution might not be strong enough, Rayle noted that this doesn’t have to be the last resolution on this topic.

Rayle was glad that the council’s attention is back on this topic, he said. Ann Arbor’s water system could eventually be threatened, he observed, noting that a “new hit” was recorded on a well where nobody expected it. He described his work with GoogleEarth to show how the plume has spread. He called on Gov. Rick Snyder to get involved and to get the MDEQ straightened out, as well as the state attorney general’s office.

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, after the council had acted on the issue, Kai Petainen thanked the council for passing the Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane resolution. But he called it insulting that some councilmembers weren’t previously aware of the issue, asking them where they’ve been. He complimented the city for its disclosure of a raw sewage spill recently.

Pall-Gelman Plume: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off the deliberations by describing the chemical properties of 1,4-dioxane. She also described the long history of the problem. Briere noted that some people had voiced concern that the people who have been involved in advocacy should have been involved in the drafting of the resolution – specifically, the Coalition for Action on Remediation of Dioxane (CARD). Briere agreed with that sentiment. So she said she had a substitute resolution she wanted the council to consider. She described the changes as minor, but noted that they included an added “whereas” clause.

That added clause was as follows:

Whereas, Thousands of residents of The City of Ann Arbor and neighboring municipalities including Scio Township, Ann Arbor Township, have been working for over 20 years for the protection of the surface and ground waters of the State from the continuing threat and actual contamination from 1, 4-dioxane contamination originating at the Pall/Gelman Sciences, Inc. (“PGSI”) Wagner Road facility, and for effective containment and proper treatment of waters already impacted by the contamination; [.txt of original resolution] [.txt of modified resolution]

Briere described the MDEQ as eager to talk to the city about the issue and as welcoming the resolution.

Mayor John Hieftje, who’d co-sponsored the resolution with Briere and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), indicated that the city’s lobbyist, Kirk Profit, has been working hard to keep the issue in front of the state. Margie Teall (Ward 4) thanked Briere and Warpehoski for their work on the resolution. Teall said she was glad there might be some movement on the part of the MDEQ.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) complained that the resolution came to the council only late last week. She characterized the resolved clauses as not having “enough teeth.” The language could be strengthened by defining specific cleanup criteria, defining, goals and consulting the expertise of CARD members, Petersen said. So she wanted the resolution postponed.

Briere asked assistant city attorney Abigail Elias to explain the “teeth” of the resolution. Elias described the settlement between the city and Pall-Gelman related to the northwest supply well. Elias was not sure what might be added to strengthen the resolution any further.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) said she didn’t want to bring up the issue, but as long as Petersen had done so, she was going to pursue it – that of involving those who’ve been advocating on the issue for a long time. She described herself as a social-scientist-turned-CPA, and thus valued the input of more people. She had mixed feelings about the process used to develop the resolution.

Petersen indicated she wanted to move to postpone the resolution. Hieftje asked city environmental coordinator Matt Naud to approach the podium.

Hieftje ventured that the resolution was about as strong as it could be made at this time. Naud responded by describing the Pall situation as very complicated. CARD has worked hard on the issue and there’s a long list of things they’d like done, Naud said. What’s clearly expressed in this resolution, Naud said, is that the federal government, the EPA, now thinks 1,4-dioxane is more cancer-causing than the EPA previously thought. The state of Michigan’s job is to take that and promulgate it under the Clean Water Act, but that hasn’t been done, Naud said.

Environmental coordinator Matt Naud answered questions from the podium.

Naud said the resolution is a message to the MDEQ. Changing the standard would radically change the attention being paid to the Pall-Gelman site, he said. Michigan has had an 85 ppb standard for a very long time, when everyone else has had a much lower [that is, more demanding or stronger] standard, Naud says.

Petersen asked what the risk would be in using the resolution language to identify a specific standard for cleanup as a goal. Naud explained that he wasn’t sure what number would come out of the state of Michigan’s algorithm. Naud went on to describe part of the problem as getting access to data, and noted that some of Rayle’s work has included hand-entering data from paper copies. Petersen wanted to postpone a vote on the resolution, in order to add CARD’s “wish list” to the resolution.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked Naud why the state is dragging its feet. Naud indicated that it’s a broader problem than just the 1,4-dioxane issue.

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

From left: Ward 5 councilmembers Chuck Warpehoski and Mike Anglin.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) characterized the problem as one of court decisions, saying that the courts are generally going to find in favor of Pall-Gelman. He said that when he started serving on the council, he attended some CARD meetings and it was very confusing. Anglin said he wanted the city council to hold a work session on the topic of the 1,4-dioxane plume. He pointed out that the issue had arisen in connection with the City Apartments project: Who would be responsible if the 1,4-dioxane contamination were to penetrate to that site? Anglin indicated he was in favor of postponement, because of the magnitude of the issue. But he thanked Briere and Warpehoski for their effort.

Briere characterized the issue as “not a new emergency,” saying that it’s an ongoing problem. The first step seems to be to get MDEQ to act, Briere ventured. Naud indicated some agreement with that idea. The change at the federal level should have trickled through to the state level, Naud said. But it hasn’t and so Pall-Gelman says that currently they don’t have to worry about areas that have concentrations below 85 ppb.

Briere said she had assumed that other councilmembers were already up to speed on the issue, and she thought that the opportunity to achieve something should be seized. Naud said there’s no question that the state should have acted in some way, and that’s why the resolution focuses on that.

Petersen asked if the purpose of the resolution was just to put MDEQ on notice. Naud indicated basic agreement with that characterization. Petersen ventured that a delay of two more weeks shouldn’t be a problem, saying she wanted to hear from CARD on the question, to see if the language can be strengthened. She then formally moved for postponement.

Hieftje said he didn’t think that the resolution could be strengthened and characterized it as providing a start to a conversation. The resolution would give the city’s lobbyist something to work with, Hieftje said. He was impressed that Roger Rayle had been consulted and had spoken in favor of the resolution during public commentary. So Hieftje indicated he’d vote against postponement.

Kunselman expressed concern that the city is “going it alone.” Briere says she’s talked to other elected representatives – county commissioners, Scio Township representatives, and members of the state legislature. She said it’s not Ann Arbor going it alone, but rather Ann Arbor taking the first step. Taking that first step, she says, seems to be vital. She’d attended a briefing with Evan Pratt, Washtenaw County water resources commissioner, and the message at that briefing was that the first step is for MDEQ to change the 85 ppb number. [Based on remarks made at the most recent meeting of the Washtenaw board of commissioners, the board will be considering a similar resolution on 1,4-dioxane at its Sept. 18, 2013 meeting.]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked for a basic status report on how things stand with respect to the city’s water supply. Naud indicated that when 1,4-dioxane was detected in the city’s northwest supply well in 2003, the city stopped using that well.

Naud described various locations where the city tests for 1,4-dioxane. Taylor described himself as delighted the proposers had brought the resolution forward, saying that a revised version might be a “scootch” more detailed. He indicated that he didn’t think that a delay of two weeks would matter.

Teall asked about the testing locations. Naud described how there are a couple hundred monitoring wells. Anglin asked about the city’s conversations with the EPA.

Warpehoski indicated he was going to violate the council rules by sending the media Briere’s revisions to the resolution via email. [Because Warpehoski did that, The Chronicle was able to include the revised resolution in its brief on the resolution filed from the meeting.]

Warpehoski supported the approach that Briere had taken as “more surgical” than to try to hang a bunch of wish-list items on it, as if the resolution were a Christmas tree. He summarized the intent of the resolution as saying to the MDEQ: “Do your job!” Warpehoski indicated that Briere had done a lot of heavy lifting on the resolution.

Outcome on postponement: On a 4-5 vote, the motion to postpone failed. Voting against postponement were Teall, Warpehoski, Anglin, Hieftje and Briere. Voting for postponement were Kailasapathy, Petersen, Taylor and Kunselman. Lumm and Higgins were absent.

The council continued with deliberations on the resolution. Kunselman indicated he’d support it. He ventured that if the city’s water system were compromised, then Ann Arbor would connect to the Detroit system. But responding to a question from Briere, Naud indicated that he wasn’t sure that connecting to Detroit would be the city’s first option. Kunselman noted that it’s important to hear what the contingency plan is.

Kunselman asked what the criteria would be for shutting down Barton Pond as a water source. City administrator Steve Powers indicated he’d follow up on that. Hieftje stated that shutting down Barton Pond is not imminent. Briere asked Naud if there’s any imminent risk. Naud replied that the geology in this area is complicated. There’s a lot of science and research that would need to be done to determine if the plume could get to Barton Pond and if so, how fast, Naud said. He allowed that 1,4-dioxane has shown up in places where it was not expected.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to direct city staff to take action related to helping set cleanup standards for 1,4-dioxane.

Energy Commission Recommendations

Two resolutions sponsored by the city’s energy commission were considered by the council on Sept. 3. The first called on the city’s employee retirement system to divest from fossil fuel companies. The second directed city staff to work with DTE to create a community solar pilot project.

Energy Commission Recommendations: Fossil Fuels

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

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

Energy Commission Recs: Fossil Fuels – Public Commentary

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Mike Shriberg spoke on behalf of the city’s energy commission, asking the council to support the community solar resolution and the fossil fuel divestment resolution. He mentioned Seattle, San Francisco, State College and Boulder as examples of cities that have divested from fossil fuel companies. He described the increased financial risk as minimal.

From left: Ward 3 councilmembers Christopher Taylor and Stephen Kunselman. Visible in the audience is Jeff Hayner.

Monica Patel also spoke in support the resolutions on community solar and fossil fuel divestment – on behalf of the Ecology Center. She delivered the council petitions signed by Ann Arbor residents in support of the resolutions.

During public commentary reserved time, Jeff Hayner – who’s running as an independent for city council in Ward 1 against incumbent Democrat Sabra Briere – talked about the balance between vision and common sense. He spoke in support of the community solar resolution. He also spoke in support of the divestment of fossil fuels companies, but urged caution and warned of possible financial losses. Is social gain worth the financial risk? he asked. Hayner thanked Roger Rayle for speaking during public commentary about the 1,4-dioxane resolution, saying that it’s a complex problem that is not going away.

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Kai Petainen said it doesn’t make sense to divest from an entire sector of the economy – a reference to the fossil fuel divestment resolution. [.pdf of statement from Kai Petainen emailed to The Chronicle following the Sept. 3 meeting]

Energy Commission Recs: Fossil Fuels – Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje led things off by saying, as a member of the energy commission, he could say that the issue had been thoroughly reviewed and researched. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) referred to Jeff Hayner’s public commentary, which indicated that there could be a financial impact. Have there been any other examples of divestment along these lines? Briere asked.

City administrator Steve Powers indicated that the last time it came up was in connection with South Africa. So it was a long time ago, Briere concluded. Briere asked Nancy Walker, executive director of the retirement system, to come to the podium and comment. Briere wanted to know if Walker would be concerned if the council were to approve the resolution.

Walker said the board had been made aware of the resolution and had some discussion at its meeting just that afternoon. The board had not taken a position, she said, but would certainly consider a council resolution. She indicated that there would be some financial implications. Right now, the trustees have made a conscious effort over the last several years to shift the investments away from separately managed accounts, to either co-mingled funds or mutual funds – particularly indexed funds. That’s a very low-cost way to invest the money, she said. For example, 25% of the fund is invested in domestic large cap equity, and on that, the blended rate is about 2.5 basis points – on more than $100 million.

On initial investigation, Walker said, there really aren’t any indexed funds that exclude fossil fuel companies. If the city were to pull more money out of an indexed fund and put it into a separately managed fund, there would probably be a fee of 20-30 times the fees for an indexed fund.

There are really three separate considerations, Walker explained: fiduciary duty (beneficiaries are the primary concern); cost impact; and consideration of other options. Some of the other options included environmentally-friendly, socially-responsible, corporate-governance type funds. There are not a lot of such funds out there, Walker said, based on initial investigation.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) wanted to know what the differential would be of an indexed fund compared to a socially-responsible fund. Walker indicated that they had not gotten to that point of being able to say. But assuming that the return was equal, Walker said, you could anticipate a 30-40 basis point differential on the return, just due to the increased cost of fees.

Outcome: A 5-4 vote fell short of the six-vote majority needed to pass on the 11-member council. Voting against the resolution were Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) were absent.

Energy Commission Recommendations: Community Solar

The second energy-related resolution also stemmed from an energy commission recommendation – that the council direct city staff to work with DTE to develop a “community solar” pilot program. A “community solar” program would allow people to invest in a solar energy system, even if the energy that’s generated would be located off-site from their own electric meter.

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

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

Outcome: The council voted to direct staff to work with DTE to develop a community solar pilot program.

Ann Arbor Greenbelt

The council considered two deals adding land to the city’s greenbelt program. The program is funded by the voter-approved open space and parkland preservation millage.

The Sheldon and Wolf property is indicated in red. The green highlighted area denotes area already protected as a part of Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program. The heavy green line is the boundary encompassing eligible properties. This is the northwest corner of the boundary area.

The first deal – the Sheldon and Wolf property – involved 20 acres in Webster Township. It’s located on Zeeb Road, next to active farmland and other property that has already been protected by the city’s greenbelt program.

The purchase price, after deducting a $6,500 landowner donation, is $47,500. Webster Township is contributing $2,000 and Cherry Republic is contributing another $2,300, leaving the city’s share of the purchase price at $43,200. Due diligence, closing costs and a contribution to the endowment brings the city’s total contribution to $82,067.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the acquisition of development rights on the Sheldon and Wolf property.

The second deal involved participation in the acquisition of two pieces of land owned by DF (Domino’s Farms) Land Development LLC. The appraised value of the land is $322,000, of which the city would contribute up to $32,200. The lead agency on the deal is the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission, which voted to approve the purchase of the two parcels at its Aug. 13, 2013 meeting. The city’s greenbelt advisory commission recommended the city’s participation at its July 11, 2013 meeting.

According to the city administrator’s report from the Sept. 3 meeting, there will be a motor coach tour of the city’s greenbelt program’s protected properties on Saturday, Sept. 21 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. The cost is $10. People can register by calling 734.794.6000 ext. 42798.

Outcome: The council voted to authorize the city’s participation in the acquisition of the DF Land Development property.

Hampton Inn on Jackson Road

The council considered a proposal to build a new Hampton Inn at 2910 Jackson Ave., across the street from Weber’s Inn.

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

The four-story hotel, located on an 8.8-acre site north of Jackson and south of I-94, will include 100 bedrooms and 51,608 usable square feet. A 163-room Clarion Hotel stands on the same site, east of the proposed new hotel.

The planning commission gave this “planned project” a recommendation of approval at its July 2, 2013 meeting.

Planning commissioners had discussed the proposal at length during their June 18, 2013 meeting. Ultimately, they unanimously voted to postpone action on that occasion, instead asking the developer to address concerns over pedestrian access within the site.

The planned project status was sought so that the existing foundation can be used. In 2008, an earlier site plan had been approved, but nothing beyond the foundation was built. At the time, no maximum front setback had been required. Now, however, a maximum front setback of 50 feet is required on at least one of the site’s three front property lines. A planned project status would allow that requirement to be waived.

Hampton Inn: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge told the council that he is wary of the planning commission’s approval of the project. We don’t want more pedestrian casualties or deaths, he said. Many people use this stretch of Jackson Road to deliberately speed, he contended.

Andy Wakeland with Giffels-Webster Engineers of Washington Township, Mich. – the civil engineer for the Hampton Inn project – addressed the council. He discussed the pedestrian issues, calling it a pedestrian-friendly site and said, “We’re pretty proud of it.”

The architect for the project – Jeff Ryntz of Victor Saroki and Associates – also addressed the council. He recalled how the project was started several years ago, and the foundations had been completed. In the interim, the city had changed its area, height and placement zoning ordinance, and those concerns had to be addressed. He noted the planning commission voted 8-0 to recommend approval.

Hampton Inn: Council Deliberations

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked city planning manager Wendy Rampson to answer questions. He asked if there’s any plan to install signalization of crosswalks like HAWK or rapid flashing beacons. No, she answered. He asked for some explanation of the traffic analysis. Rampson reported that city planner Jill Thacher and traffic engineer Pat Cawley had visited the site. The location of the crossing was the best one available, Rampson explained.

Warpehoski ventured that of the bad options, he can see how this could be the best one. But as consultations with MDOT continue and as the project goes through the building permit phase, he wanted attention paid to the issue, and urged that every appropriate analysis and protection is put in.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the planning commission [on which she serves as the city council representative] delayed the project, asking for additional pedestrian amenities within the site. However, the crosswalk had been a part of the initial proposal, she says.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) suggested that he and Warpehoski could meet with Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority staff about the bus stop.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked about the stormwater detention pond. He ventured that the overflow discharge goes to the expressway. Yes, and that will need to be approved by MDOT, explained a representative of the developer. Kunselman asked if MDOT would dictate the signage on the crosswalk. Rampson was not sure if the signs would be different from the other signs next to crosswalks in the city.

Mayor John Hieftje noted that Ann Arbor has the highest hotel occupancy rate in the state.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the Hampton Inn planned project.

Tim Hortons Drive-Thru

The council was asked to give initial approval to a drive-thru at the Shell station and Tim Hortons at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline Road and Eisenhower Parkway.

The requested changes to the PUD (planned unit development) regulations would allow for a drive-thru restaurant within the existing convenience store, where a Tim Hortons is already located. The businesses are located on a 1.44-acre site.

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

Tim Hortons: Council Deliberations

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) led off deliberations by asking for a representative of the project to come forward. He noted that the area plan doesn’t support a car wash. But possible use of a car wash was left in the PUD description, so Warpehoski said he wanted it removed. The developer’s representative did not have any objection. Warpehoski also wanted to strike the language that described the ability for someone to get food and beverage without leaving their vehicle as a public benefit.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

One of the requirements of the rezoning allowed on a discretionary basis by the city council under a planned unit development (PUD) is that the project have some public benefit. Warpehoski objected to inclusion of the drive-thru as a public benefit: “To say that somebody now doesn’t have to spend the 10 extra calories between getting out their car to get their salt-sugar-fat fix?! I don’t see that as a public benefit and I don’t want us to list that as some big thing that we’re modifying our zoning for in our ordinance.”

Warpehoski also didn’t like the idea of describing the drive-thru as a “gateway.”

Margie Teall (Ward 4) followed Warpehoski’s turn with questions of the developer’s representative. She ventured that the adherence to architectural design standards would ensure appropriate development of the “gateway site.” All that was being requested at this point, the developer said, was a small drive-thru window, which amounted to 109 square feet of space. Teall wanted to make sure the design of the window fit the architecture. The developer indicated that he proud of the building’s appearance.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) recalled the planning commission discussion. [She serves as the council's representative on the commission.] She asked for an explanation of why the proposed seating area is an appropriate place for such an area.

The developer indicated that the location can be a welcoming symbol or a “gateway.” At the citizens participation meeting, they were told there was quite a bit of pedestrian and bicycle traffic in the area – so the seating area was thought to be a good amenity. Briere asked city planning manager Wendy Rampson to comment on the number of residents in the area. Rampson indicated that there are a lot of people who cross through the area. So there’s a lot of pedestrian travel, in addition to the auto travel, Rampson said.

Briere ventured that confusion results from the fact that there’s a list of eight items of benefit, and it’s not clear if each item is a discrete benefit. So she had no problem removing an item from the list. Briere asked Rampson to explain how it’s determined what counts as a public benefit for the purpose of evaluating a PUD.

“It’s fairly unusual to have a gas station PUD,” Rampson replied. The property was originally owned by the school district, she reported. She said that the planning commission felt that as a whole, the items were felt to be a benefit. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked about the previous iterations of the PUD. Did more public benefits get added to the list each time? Kunselman questioned whether an amendment to a PUD really requires an additional benefit above and beyond the original public benefit.

Kunselman stated that if the word “gateway” were removed, he’d be fine with everything else. Rampson reported that the owners of the project have expressed concern about making a substantive change, which would require an additional reading and approval by the city council. City attorney Stephen Postema ventured that the proposed change by Warpehoski wouldn’t be substantial enough to require additional council approvals.

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

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

Teall appreciated Briere’s remarks about accountability. She didn’t have a problem with stating more benefits or with the word “gateway.” She appreciated the attention to detail the developer was giving the project. She said she wouldn’t support Warpehoski’s proposed amendments to the language. [The property is located in Ward 4, which Teall represents.]

Mayor John Hieftje said he didn’t think the change was substantial. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) thought it was important to consider the gas station as a gateway based on its entry location. She also pointed out that Tim Hortons has healthy choices on its menu. Anything that helps beautify the corridor should be supported, Petersen said.

Warpehoski suggested separating his proposed amendment into the part about the car wash and the part about the public benefits.

Outcome on amending the public benefits language: The council approved that amendment over dissent from Teall, Anglin, and Petersen.

Outcome on amending out “car wash”: The council approved eliminating the word “car wash.”

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

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Crosswalk Ordinance

During council communications time, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) reported that she’s been working with city staff on getting a report from a professional traffic engineer regarding a recommendation for the city’s crosswalk ordinance.

Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers.

She indicated that she might bring forward a resolution at the next meeting calling for an independent review of the crosswalk ordinance and the associated infrastructure.

During his report to the council, city administrator Steve Powers indicated that he’ll be providing an update to the council on the review of the new crosswalk ordinance, and of the sanitary sewer overflow in the Arboretum that had taken place at the start of the weekend.

That memo was released subsequent to the meeting. [.pdf of crosswalk memo] [.pdf of WMU study mentioned in memo]

Comm/Comm: Regional Transit Authority

During communications time toward the end of the evening, mayor John Hieftje noted that an October city council work session [likely to be set for Oct. 14] will include representatives from the southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA).

Comm/Comm: Fuller Road Station

During council communications time, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) alerted his council colleagues that he’d be bringing forward a resolution that would rescind the memorandum of understanding between the city and the University of Michigan in connection with the Fuller Road Station. [Rescinding the memorandum of understanding is something that Kunselman talked about during his Democratic primary re-election campaign, at a June 8, 2013 candidate forum. Kunselman prevailed in the Aug. 6 primary over challenger Julie Grand.]

Comm/Comm: North Main Huron River Corridor Task Force

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) gave an update on the work of the North Main Huron River Corridor task force. Their final report has been submitted. [It's now on the Sept. 16 council agenda as a resolution that would formally accept the report.]

The report includes some before-after photos depicting possible improvements, like a pedestrian bridge across the Huron River connecting the Argo berm to the DTE-MichCon property. The task force was established at the council’s May 7, 2012 meeting, and a report had been due at the end of July. But Briere had apprised the council at previous meetings of the slight delay.

Briere apologized for the delay in the delivery of the report. She hoped there would be a presentation at the next council meeting on Sept. 16.

Comm/Comm: D1 Zoning Review

During her council communications, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported that the D1 zoning review could be delayed. More public meetings have been added than were originally planned.

Comm/Comm: Sensory Garden

During council communications, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) announced that on Sept. 15 at 1 p.m. a Sensory Garden will be dedicated at Liberty Plaza – the downtown park at Division and Liberty. It’s a project of the Ann Arbor commission on disability issues, in collaboration with the city’s adopt-a-park program and the University of Michigan Matthaei Botanical Gardens. A ceremony will be held to honor former commissioner Pamela Baker-Trostle.

Comm/Comm: Anti-Israel Protests

During public commentary reserved time, Henry Herskovitz cited two news articles about the protests in front the Beth Israel Congregation on Washtenaw Avenue, in which he regularly participates. He noted that at the previous council meeting [on Aug. 19, 2013], the council had been asked to express its displeasure about the protests. He objected to comments made by mayor John Hieftje and other councilmembers. Herskovitz noted that Hieftje had indicated that the city had tried all legal methods to stop the protests, which Herskovitz feared could be interpreted by some to mean that now illegal methods should be used. He reported that three days earlier, someone had spat on a protestor. A police officer had come out to investigate and to view video of the incident, Herskovitz said.

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

Absent: Jane Lumm, Marcia Higgins.

Next council meeting: Sept. 16, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

Map of Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane plume, by Washtenaw County. Black arrow added to indicate baseball field at West Park. The yellow region is the estimated plume area where the 1,4-dioxane concentration is greater than 1 ppb. That area encroaches well into the city of Ann Arbor and extends outside the well prohibition zone (red border).

The goal would be to improve the cleanup standard for 1,4-dioxane by at least a factor of 30. The direction, which was given at the council’s Sept. 3, 2013 meeting, includes exploring actions related to the Pall-Gelman plume as well as without site specific criteria for the Pall-Gelman plume.

The council passed a resolution that was slightly different than the one originally on the agenda. The council’s deliberations lasted more than 30 minutes and focused on a possible postponement to make the resolution stronger. The motion to postpone, however, failed on a 4-5 vote on the 11-member council. Voting against postponement were Margie Teall (Ward 4), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and mayor John Hieftje. Councilmembers Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) were absent. [.pdf of resolution as amended and approved] The resolution was sponsored by Briere, Warpehoski and Hieftje.

The history of Gelman Sciences, which caused the 1,4-dioxane contamination, goes back 40 years. The company was based in Scio Township and later acquired by Pall Corp. The MDEQ’s current 1,4-dioxane generic residential drinking water cleanup criterion was set at 85 parts per billion (ppb). But an EPA criterion set in 2010 was for 3.5 ppb.

The MDEQ was supposed to re-evaluate its own standards by December 2012, based on the EPA’s 2010 toxicological review. It missed that deadline, and according to the council’s resolution, is anticipated to miss a new deadline set for a year later in December 2013.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7:07 p.m. And we’re off.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7:49 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Only one public hearing appears on the agenda tonight. It’s a proposal to build a new Hampton Inn at 2910 Jackson Ave., across the street from Weber’s Inn. The proposed four-story hotel, located on an 8.8-acre site north of Jackson and south of I-94, would include 100 bedrooms and 51,608 usable square feet. A 163-room Clarion Hotel stands on the same site, east of the proposed new hotel.

The planning commission gave this “planned project” a recommendation of approval at its July 2, 2013 meeting. Commissioners had discussed the proposal at length during their June 18, 2013 meeting. Ultimately, they unanimously voted to postpone action at that meeting, instead asking the developer to address concerns over pedestrian access within the site. The planned project status is being sought that the existing foundation can be used. In 2008, when an earlier site plan had been approved, but nothing beyond the foundation built, no maximum front setback had been required. Now, however, a maximum front setback of 50 feet is required on at least one of the site’s three front property lines. A planned project status would allow that requirement to be waived.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9:43 p.m. Hampton Inn planned project. The proposed four-story hotel, located on an 8.8-acre site north of Jackson and south of I-94, would include 100 bedrooms and 51,608 usable square feet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10:04 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to direct staff to work with DTE to develop a community solar pilot program.

10:04 p.m. Resolution to approve the purchase of development rights: Sheldon and Wolf property. This resolution would add land to the city’s greenbelt program, which is funded by a voter-approved millage. The 20-acre property is located in Webster Township. It’s further described in the staff memo accompanying the resolution as located on Zeeb Road, next to active farmland and other property that has already been protected by the city’s greenbelt program.

The purchase price, after deducting a $6,500 landowner donation, is $47,500. Webster Township is contributing $2,000 and Cherry Republic is contributing another $2,300, leaving the city’s share of the purchase price at $43,200. Due diligence, closing costs and a contribution to the endowment brings the city’s total contribution to $82,067.

The Sheldon and Wolf property is indicated in red. The green highlighted area denotes area already protected as a part of Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program. The heavy green line is the boundary encompassing eligible properties. This is the northwest corner of the boundary area.

10:04 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the acquisition of development rights on the Sheldon and Wolf property.

10:04 p.m. Resolution to approve participation agreement with Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation. This resolution would authorize the city to participate in the acquisition of two pieces of land owned by DF (Domino’s Farms) Land Development LLC. The appraised value of the land is $322,000, of which the city would contribute up to $32,200. The lead agency on the deal is the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission, which voted to approve the purchase of the two parcels at its Aug. 13, 2013 meeting. And the city’s greenbelt advisory commission recommended the city’s participation at its July 11, 2013 meeting.

10:04 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to authorize the city’s participation in the acquisition of the Domino’s Farms land.

10:04 p.m. Resolution to approve Suntel Services agreement. The agreement would be for three years for telecommunications maintenance and support at an annual cost of $189,491. The memo accompanying the resolution describes the telecom systems covered by the agreement as “mission critical.” That includes the five phone servers, which process all incoming and outgoing city phone calls. It’s the same system shared by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority – so the AAATA will be billed $7,238 annually for its share of the contract.

10:04 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Suntel agreement.

10:04 p.m. Resolution to award purchase orders for utility infrastructure components. The two purchase orders would go to ETNA Supply ($167,883) and HD Supply ($163,913). According to the staff memo, the kind of parts included are “valves, brass saddles, various sizes of replacement pipe, fire hydrants, hydrant repair parts, service line connectors, main line connectors and accessories required to repair and maintain the water delivery system.”

10:05 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the purchase orders for utility system parts.

10:05 p.m. Confirmation of appointments. The council was originally going to be asked to confirm four nominations made at the council’s previous meeting on Aug. 19, 2013: Leigh Greden’s reappointment to the Ann Arbor housing commission; Al McWilliams’ appointment to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority; Devon Akmon’s appointment to fill a vacancy on the public art commission; and Logan Casey to fill a vacancy on the human rights commission.

However, the list was updated around 2:30 p.m. today, omitting Greden’s name. The outcome of a possible vote on Greden’s confirmation was dubious. Both Greden’s and McWilliams’ nominations had come forward from mayor John Hieftje with some wrinkles. On April 1, Nickolas Buonodono had been nominated to replace Leigh Greden on the Ann Arbor housing commission (AAHC) board, after Greden had reached the end of a term. Buonodono is an attorney, and member of the Washtenaw County Democratic Party executive committee. However, that nomination was not on the council’s April 15 meeting agenda for confirmation.

According to AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall, who spoke to The Chronicle in a telephone interview in mid-April, Greden was going to seek reappointment for a second term if he could accommodate his schedule to the meeting times. So Greden’s nomination on Aug. 19 appeared to indicate that scheduling issues had been resolved. The housing commission is poised to undergo a major transition to a project-based voucher system, which the council authorized at its June 3, 2013 meeting, on a unanimous vote. An argument for Greden’s continued service on the board could have been made based on the importance of continuity among board members familiar with the intricacies of the transition.

Before McWilliams was nominated at the council’s Aug. 19 meeting, his name had appeared on an early version of the list of nominees for the council’s Aug. 8 meeting. The final version of the list for that meeting, however, did not include his name. McWilliams is founder of Quack!Media, an ad agency located in downtown Ann Arbor. Quack!Media lists the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority on its website as one of its clients. McWilliams has written advocacy pieces for bicycling on his blog.

Akmon is an Ann Arbor resident and the new director of the Arab American National Museum in Dearborn. Casey is a graduate student at the University of Michigan.

10:07 p.m. Hieftje says that there are some openings on the DDA. He asks for the council’s support on tonight’s nomination. He wanted to find someone representing the Main Street business district and the entrepreneurial community.

10:13 p.m. Kailaspathy is speaking to McWilliams’ nomination. She’d asked for a list of those who’d applied for the appointment to the DDA. She’d been told that the person in charge of the list was on vacation but the list would be provided next week.

The second issue, she continues, is that McWilliams’ company is a vendor for the AAATA. The DDA grants money to the AAATA, she says, calling that a conflict of interest.

Hieftje says that his assistant is in fact out of town, and he had not had time to “rustle up those files.” Hieftje says that the process is that the mayor makes nominations. He’d wanted to nominate McWilliams after reviewing the applications on file. Hieftje noted that there is another seat open on the DDA board and that he’d be looking forward to bringing a nomination to the council’s next meeting.

Briere reports that she’s asked the city attorney about the conflict-of-interest question. It’s less clear that there’s actually a conflict, Briere says. She asks city attorney Stephen Postema to comment on the question. Postema essentially indicates that he doesn’t think there’s an inherent conflict, but if an issue arose that could be dealt with when it came up.

10:18 p.m. Postema stresses that if there are two public entities involved, it’s not considered to be a conflict under the statute. Petersen says that even though the state doesn’t define it as a conflict, the council has rules on the question. She doesn’t think the state law is stringent enough. She ventures that McWilliams would need to recuse himself quite frequently, possibly including votes on the DDA budget.

Postema stressed again that the state statue is not as stringent as many people would like it to be. Postema says Petersen might perceive a conflict but that he’s looking at it as a matter of state law.

Taylor argues that there’s no conflict here at all. He gives employees of the University of Michigan on the council as an example. Using the same standard would require the recusal of councilmembers on any UM-related matter, Taylor says. If there’s an actual conflict on a particular occasion, then it’s well established that someone can simply stand down for a particular vote, Taylor continues.

10:24 p.m. Kunselman asks if the other nominations can be separated out. Hieftje proposes voting on confirmations of Akmon and Casey.

10:25 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm Akmon to the public art commission and Casey to the human rights commission.

10:30 p.m. Kunselman says he appreciates the issue being raised of the appearance of conflict, even if there’s not a legal conflict. He asserts that he has the prerogative to vote as he likes. So Kunselman is interested in a candidate who might be able to accept some reform. He doesn’t think that McWilliams, as a DDA supporter, will be open-minded with respect to following city ordinances. So Kunselman says he will vote against the appointment of McWilliams.

Hieftje asks Kunselman if he’s met with McWilliams. No, Kunselman says, but he’s read McWilliams’ public statements.

Briere says she has not met with McWilliams, but she’d talked with Maura Thomson, director of the Main Street Area Association, who was very enthusiastic about McWilliams being appointed. Briere is now talking about the issue of perceived conflict of interest. Briere says she’s heard that she could have a conflict due to her spousal relationship. She’d heard that she’d had a conflict when she worked for a nonprofit that received city funding. If the council gets interested in the question of whether someone is even just “dimly friendly” with someone, then that will shrink the pool of those who are eligible to serve, Briere says.

10:38 p.m. Briere says that there were two former mayors who were UM faculty. She was surprised that people are considering this kind of thing to be a conflict. If a councilmember feels a nominee falls short of the mark, then they should be voted against based on the merits, she said.

Taylor adds that if one of the goals is to have people who are involved in local business to be involved in civic life, then this level of relationship can’t be a prohibitive factor. The council’s conversation tonight is already doing damage to the possibility that others will want to step forward, he said.

Warpehoski says there are three questions: qualifications, perspective, and conflict. He’s not upset that the council is discussing any of them. Warpehoski says that he’s met McWilliams only once. He says McWilliams has a sharp mind. So Warpehoski says McWilliams is qualified. Warpehoski isn’t sure of the perspective, except what Kunselman has reported. On the question of conflict, Warpehoski says that McWilliams should not vote on contracts that his company would serve. He doesn’t think there would be that many votes that fit that description. He thinks that the question of conflict is still a fair one to ask.

10:44 p.m. Teall says that she’s supportive of McWilliams’ nomination. Responding to Kunselman’s point about McWilliams’ attitude towards the DDA, Teall says that it’s natural that someone who wants to serve on the DDA would be supportive of the DDA. Kailasapathy is skeptical that there would be only a few votes that McWilliams would need to refrain from. She says she thinks there’s a direct conflict of interest.

Hieftje asks for the ability to withdraw the nomination, so that some of the issues that have been raised can be explored.

10:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has not voted on McWilliams’ nomination because Hieftje has withdrawn it. The council’s vote looked like it would have risked failing on a 5-4 vote with Kunselman, Petersen, Kailasapathy, and Anglin possibly voting against it.

10:47 p.m. Council communications. Hieftje says that an October work session will include representatives from the southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA).

Kunselman says he’ll be bringing forward a resolution that rescinds the memorandum of understanding between the city and the University of Michigan in connection with the Fuller Road Station.

10:47 p.m. Public commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

10:55 p.m. Kai Petainen thanks the council for the Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane resolution. But he calls it insulting that some councilmembers weren’t aware of the issue, asking them where they’ve been. He compliments the city for its disclosure of the raw sewage spill recently. He says it doesn’t make sense to divest from an entire sector of the economy – a reference to the fossil fuel divestment resolution.

Thomas Partridge calls on the council to be aware of the need for greater public participation. He complains that there’s been scant information on a recent murder of a UM student.

10:55 p.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Five of the properties were annexed into the city on Oct. 3, 2011 – in connection with the expansion of a well-prohibition zone due to 1,4 dioxane groundwater contamination caused by the Pall Corp.’s Wagner Road facility, formerly owned by Gelman Sciences. Those five properties are: 305 Pinewood St.; 3225 Dexter Rd.; 427 Barber Ave.; 545 Allison Dr.; 3249 Dexter Rd.

Annexation into the city allows the properties to connect to city of Ann Arbor water services. Pall has paid all petition filing fees as well as the connection and improvement charges for water and sanitary sewer service that are related to the annexations. The zoning for which the city council gave initial approval is for R1C. [Google map of well prohibition zones and property locations] [.jpg of map with well prohibition zones and property locations]

A sixth parcel for which the council gave initial rezoning approval – also due to annexation, but not related to the well-prohibition zone – is located at 1575 Alexandra Blvd. The parcel was given initial approval to be rezoned from the township to R1A zoning.

As ordinance changes, all rezoning requests require an initial approval from the city council, followed by a public hearing and a final approval at a subsequent meeting.

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