Highlights of the proposed rules changes include adding public commentary to council work sessions. But public speaking time would be reduced from three minutes to two minutes across all types of public speaking – general commentary, public hearings, and reserved time. A “frequent flyer” rule would prevent people from signing up for reserved time at the start of a meeting two meetings in a row.

The total time that each councilmember could speak on an item of debate would be reduced from eight minutes to five minutes. In more detail, the two turns they get per item would be reduced from five to three minutes and from three to two minutes.

Another change would put nominations and appointments to boards and commissions at the start of the agenda, before the council’s voting business, instead of after all the items. For Chronicle coverage on these proposed changes, see “Council Mulls Speaking Rule Changes.”

The council had also postponed a vote from its previous meeting on the rules changes.

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

Door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber.

The April 15 meeting had lasted until 3 a.m. before the council decided to postpone all remaining items on its agenda until May 6. Two controversial issues left unfinished from April 15 – 413 E. Huron’s site plan and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority ordinance – could themselves potentially take up enough time to extend the May 6 meeting into the early morning hours.

In addition to a significant amount of new business on the council’s agenda, the May 6 docket includes a total of eight public hearings, including one on the fiscal year 2014 budget. The council will need to make any amendments to the city administrator’s proposed budget by the end of its May 20 meeting.

Based on discussion by councilmembers after their special workshop held on April 29, and subsequent follow-up by The Chronicle, the council has a contingency plan for the May 6 meeting. If it lasts too long, councilmembers may decide at a certain point to recess the meeting until May 13. That is, on May 13, the May 6 meeting would continue. That’s a different strategy from the one used on April 15, when the council chose to end that meeting, but postponed all remaining items until May 6.

Recessing a meeting, to be resumed at a later time, is a strategy the council last used two years ago. The council began a meeting on May 16, 2011 – when it was supposed to adopt the FY 2012 budget – but recessed the meeting until May 23, 2011. Then on May 23 councilmembers immediately recessed the meeting again, and finally ended the meeting on May 31, 2011.

Readers can follow the live meeting proceedings on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network. But even for interested residents, the proceedings might be difficult to follow – due to their sheer length.

So in this report, we’ll be filing live time-stamped updates from the meeting. At the end of the May 6 session, these updates will provide a record of what items received council action and which (if any) were left until later.

6:45 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. Scheduled start time is 7 p.m. Roughly two dozen people are currently in the council chambers. The accordion doors have been opened to accommodate the anticipated large crowd. Typically the meeting doesn’t start until at least 7:10 p.m.

7 p.m. Scheduled start time. Around 50 people total are now here. So far only mayor John Hieftje, Margie Teall (Ward 4), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) are in council chambers.

7:12 p.m. Pledge to flag and moment of silence. Standard opening items are now concluded. Roll call of the council establishes all 11 members are present and correct.

7:16 p.m. Proclamation honoring Pioneer Global Improvement Society. Molly Cocco, Mallory Munzel, and Claire Crause Members were the honorees for their efforts to assist helping in the city parks like decorating the farmers market for the holidays. We’ve now begun public commentary reserved time. Only six of the 10 slots were reserved today.

7:31 p.m. Public commentary reserved time. Topics covered included: disability and human rights, 413 E. Huron site plan, and Palestinian rights and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. We’re now hearing communications from the council and the city administrator.

7:43 p.m. Council and city administrator communications. This communications slot is now concluded. Topics included a plug from Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) for input from the public on the plans for the Washtenaw Transportation Study (WATS). Also mentioned were anticipated revisions to the DDA ordinance proposal (which appears later on the agenda), from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), that would earmark some of the TIF rebate for affordable housing. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) made remarks on the development process. Mayor John Hieftje and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) gave an update on their meeting earlier today with the Metro Alliance – which covered increased coordination of fire protection throughout the county. City administrator Steve Powers reminded the public of the Saturday, May 11 safety services open house to be held from 11 a.m.–1 p.m. at the Justice Center, 301 E. Huron, next to city hall.

7:50 p.m. A public hearing on revisions to the outdoor sign ordinance. This public hearing has concluded after three people spoke. This public hearing was continued from the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting when the second reading of the ordinance was postponed until tonight. An indication it might be postponed again is the scheduling of a townhall meeting later this week.

A townhall meeting on billboards, hosted by Ward 5 councilmembers Chuck Warpehoski and Mike Anglin at Downtown Home & Garden at Ashley and Liberty streets, is scheduled to take place on May 8 starting at 7 p.m. [.pdf of town hall flyer] Most of the existing billboards in the city are located in Ward 5.

7:52 p.m. Public hearing on 413 E. Huron site plan. The public hearing is now underway. It was continued from a previous meeting.

7:57 p.m. Recess. Thomas Partridge attempted to speak at the public hearing, but he’d spoken at the same public hearing at a previous meeting. So mayor John Hieftje informed Partridge that he couldn’t speak. The meeting was recessed for a minute as the city attorney discussed the issue with Partridge. The meeting came out of recess with the next speaker, John Floyd. A highlight of Floyd’s turn was a blistering rebuke of councilmembers who did not appear to be paying attention.

8:15 p.m. Nine speakers have now addressed the council during the 413 E. Huron St. public hearing. At least seven people are standing in line to speak.

8:41 p.m. A total of 21 people have now spoken during the public hearing on 413 E. Huron. Opposition is based on a variety of points. Speakers worked together to produce a booklet, which they’re citing in turn as they speak. Issues identified include impact on landmark trees, configuration of the service drive, lack of detail on a retaining wall, logistics for student move-in week, and shading on historic properties to the north. One speaker referred to it as a “slum in the sky.” But he allowed that a benefit to the 413 E. Huron project was that city hall would no longer be the ugliest building in the city.

9:11 p.m. The public hearing on the 413 E. Huron site plan has concluded. A total of 31 people addressed the council during the hearing.

9:24 p.m. Recess. After the conclusion of the 413 E. Huron public hearing, the council recessed to take a break. The council is still in recess. People are milling about in small conversational pods. Those who brought snacks are snacking and sharing same.

9:31 p.m. Public hearing on revisions to the DDA ordinance. The council is now out of recess. The revisions to the ordinance would impose term limits for Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board members and place restrictions on elected officials serving the board. [.pdf of DDA ordinance as it appears on the council's May 6, 2013 agenda]

The ordinance revisions would also prevent an interpretation that the DDA is giving to the existing ordinance language. The existing language appears to cap the amount of tax increment financing (TIF) revenue that the DDA can receive. More background on TIF calculations in this Chronicle op-ed: “A TIF with A2Y Chamber.” [.jpg of graph showing impact on DDA planning]

10:00 p.m. DDA ordinance public hearing has concluded. A total of 11 people spoke.

10:08 p.m. Public hearing on Hideaway Lane Planned Project Site Plan. This is a proposal to build 19 single-family houses on a 4.6-acre site on Hideaway Lane off Traver Road – near the city’s Leslie Park Golf Course. The city planning commission recommended approval at its March 19, 2013 meeting. No one spoke at this public hearing.

10:09 p.m. Public hearing on fee adjustments for public services area. Background here: [public services area fee schedule] No one spoke at this public hearing.

10:10 p.m. Public hearing on fee adjustments for community services area. Background here: [community services area fee schedule] No one spoke at this public hearing.

10:11 p.m. Public hearing on fee adjustments for safety services. Background here: [safety services area fee schedule] No one spoke at this public hearing.

10:21 p.m. Public hearing on FY 2014 budget. The basic theme through the first four speakers on the FY 2014 budget is human services and affordable housing.

10:30 p.m. After seven speakers, the public hearing on the FY 2014 budget has concluded.

10:37 p.m. Communications. Another opportunity for communications from council has now concluded. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) announces a town hall meeting at Downtown Home & Garden on May 8. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) heaps praise on Water Hill Music Fest that took place yesterday, on May 5. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked mayor John Hieftje to clarify the mayoral appointment process. The question stems from a public hearing comment from Mark Koroi, who noted that none of the “members” of the downtown citizens advisory council have current appointments. The meeting agenda now includes a re-appointment of all those members.

Another nomination of interest on tonight’s agenda is Susan Baskett to replace Jesse Bernstein on the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. Baskett currently is a member of the Ann Arbor Public Schools board of education, an elected position.

10:39 p.m. Consent agenda. Outcome: The council unanimously approved the consent agenda.

10:40 p.m. Sign ordinance. Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the consideration of the second reading until June 17, 2013. [Civic News Ticker on sign ordinance]

11:01 p.m. DDA ordinance revision. Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone consideration of the DDA ordinance until the council’s first meeting in September – on Sept. 3, 2013. [Civic News Ticker on DDA ordinance.]

11:17 p.m. Video privacy ordinance. Coming out of recess, the council’s first item was the video privacy ordinance. Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the item until May 20, 2013. [Civic News Ticker on video privacy ordinance]

11:21 p.m. Appointment of Stephanie Buttrey as a member of the greenbelt advisory commission (GAC). This had been postponed from the April 15, 2013 meeting. The council considered it a nomination. Action will take place on May 20. Outcome: The council formally postponed action until May 20.

11:22 p.m. Summit Townhomes site plan. Outcome: The council unanimously approved the site plan for Summit Townhomes on Ellsworth Road. [Civic News Ticker on Summit Townhomes]

11:24 p.m. Withdrawal of Ann Arbor’s objection to renewal of liquor license for The Arena. The Arena paid all outstanding obligations to the city on April 30, 2013. The renewal of liquor licenses is the purview of the Michigan Liquor Control Commission. Outcome: The council voted unanimously to withdraw its objection to the renewal of The Arena’s liquor license. [Civic News Ticker on Arena Liquor License]

11:30 p.m. Fourth Avenue street improvements. Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the contract.

11:31 p.m. Recess until May 13. The council will resume the May 6 meeting at 7 p.m. on May 13. The first item to be considered will be the 413 E. Huron site plan. [Details on some individual voting items can be found in The Chronicle's Civic News Ticker.

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 helping The Chronicle with some financial green, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

One of those items features a proposal to redraw the boundaries for the city’s five wards. The resolution before the council would change the boundaries during the time between the Ann Arbor city council primary election in August and the general election in November. While the changes to the boundaries are relatively minor and are not the subject of great dispute, the proposed timing of the changes is controversial enough that several redistricting experts may appear at the council’s meeting to weigh in on the topic during public commentary.

And the council reportedly may decide to convene a closed session on the subject, citing attorney client privilege. If the council were to convene such a closed session, it would be the first such session convened since being sued by The Chronicle over a similar session in early September 2010. After publishing a July 2 column – “Ann Arbor Ward Shifts Should Wait” – The Chronicle has established that city staff were aware of the issue with sufficient time for the city council to take action. However, that did not result in resolving the redistricting issue before the primary election candidate filing deadline.

A second agenda item that may generate some discussion among councilmembers is a resolution that would increase voluntarily the payment the city makes to Recycle Ann Arbor for curbside collection of the city’s single-stream recycling carts – from $3.25 to $3.55 per month per cart. The city council had voted on March 15, 2010 to adopt the single-stream recycling program, which began exactly one year ago, on July 5, 2010.

The rationale for the change is that RAA is receiving less revenue than anticipated under the adopted contract. In the first year of the contract, RAA received less money from its cart-emptying service, because there are fewer carts deployed in the city than projected. And although the tonnage of recyclable material collected has increased, it has not increased by as much as projected, so RAA is receiving less revenue for tonnage than expected.

Not on the agenda – and not expected to be announced at tonight’s meeting – are names of the finalist candidates for the city administrator job. However, the council’s search committee is scheduled to meet in a closed session on Tuesday afternoon (July 5) to winnow down the applicant pool to a handful. Robyn Wilkerson, head of human resources for the city, indicated in an email to The Chronicle that she did not expect that names of finalists would be released until Thursday or Friday.

For Chronicle readers who want immediate reports on the votes taken by city council, check out The Chronicle’s Civic News Tickers – brief reports on actions taken by the council that will be filed during tonight’s meeting.

Ward Boundary Changes

Why is the city contemplating a change to its ward boundaries?

By the numbers, if the 2010 census population were distributed perfectly evenly across the city’s five wards (pie-shaped, per the city’s charter), they would each have a population of 22,787 – the ideal number in redistricting terms. Without any redistricting, the imbalance among wards, due to relative population growth in Ward 1 since 2000, breaks down as follows: Ward 1 [24,616 population, +1,829 whole number deviation from ideal (+8.03%)]; Ward 2 [22,419, -368 (-1.61%)]; Ward 3 [22,206, -581 (-2.55%)]; Ward 4 [22,585, -202 (-0.89%)]; Ward 5 [22,108, -679 (-2.98%)].

In 2000 the variance from the ideal for each ward ranged between +1.5% and -1.5%.

The city’s proposed redistricting plan would yield the following breakdown: Ward 1 [22,795, +8 (+0.04%)]; Ward 2 [22,739, -48, (-0.21%)]; Ward 3 [22,919, +132 (+0.58%)]; Ward 4 [22,760, -27 (-0.12%)]; Ward 5 [22,721, -66, (-0.29%)].

To restore population balance in the wards, the redistricting proposal focuses on shifting ward boundaries where the five wedges of the ward “pie” meet, in the center of the city near the downtown. [.pdf of City of Ann Arbor proposed ward boundary changes]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) has proposed a slightly different tweak for a portion of the interface between Ward 1 and Ward 5. [.pdf of Briere's proposed ward boundary changes].

What’s controversial is not where the lines are being drawn but when they’re proposed to be enacted. It’s controversial enough that several redistricting experts are expected to attend the council meeting and weigh in during public commentary. Among them: Washtenaw County clerk Larry Kestenbaum, a representative from the Washtenaw branch of the lawyer’s committee of the American Civil Liberties Union (likely John Shea), and a local attorney who has extensive experience in past city of Ann Arbor ward redistricting, Tom Wieder.

A July 2 column published by The Chronicle argued against making the change between the primary and the general election: “Column: Ann Arbor Ward Shifts Should Wait.” The column makes the point that there was sufficient time between the release of the census data and the primary election candidate filing deadline to enact the ward boundary changes before that filing deadline – if the city had been aware of the issue in time.

Specifically, the census data were released on March 21, 2011, but the candidate filing deadline for the city council primary election was not until May 10. If acted upon in a timely fashion, the council could have given the boundary changes their two approvals at two separate meetings – as required for all ordinance changes. (The ward boundaries are expressed in a city ordinance.) The council had three regular meetings scheduled during that time period, and could, if necessary, have convened a special meeting for the first reading of the ordinance change.

Since that column was published, The Chronicle has established that the city was aware of the issue with sufficient time for the city council to take action. However, that did not result in resolving the redistricting issue before the primary election candidate filing deadline. An email from a city GIS coordinator to city clerk Jackie Beaudry and assistant city attorney Abigail Elias indicates that city staff were actively addressing the redistricting issue at least as early as April 12. [.pdf of email]. That left regularly scheduled meetings on April 19 and May 2 for the council to approve the boundary changes before the May 10 candidate filing deadline for the primary election, plus the option of scheduling a special meeting.

But the city council was reportedly not apprised of the redistricting question until its working session on June 13. As of Sunday evening, July 3, assistant attorney Abigail Elias was still working on a memo to the city council outlining her position that the boundary changes should be enacted after the primary but before the general election.

It’s not clear that her memo could legally form the basis of an attorney-client privileged closed session on the topic (which is reportedly planned for the council’s meeting) because Elias has already discussed with Wieder her legal position, together with the case law and the arguments she believes supports her position on the timing of the boundary change. (Wieder is not a member of the council or the city staff, and is thus not a client.)

Recycling Cart Contract Change

A proposal before the city council would increase voluntarily the payment the city makes to Recycle Ann Arbor for curbside collection of the city’s single-stream recycling carts – from $3.25 to $3.55 per month per cart. The city council had voted on March 15, 2010 to adopt the contract for the single-stream recycling program, which began exactly one year ago, on July 5, 2010.

At that time, the city approved a contract with RAA that called for a payment of $3.25 per month per cart that RAA empties, plus a per ton payment of between $18.74 and $30.00. The amount of revenue RAA has received last year through these two kinds of revenue has been less than projected.

Specifically, the tonnage payments received by RAA for fiscal year 2011 (which ended June 30) for recyclable material were projected to be $406,332, but in fact only generated $187,560 for RAA – only 46% of what was expected. The shortfall was $218,772.

Also, the city expected to distribute 32,779 carts, but it turned out that 29,734 carts were deployed, or 9.3% fewer than planned. A staff memo accompanying the resolution explained the reduced number this way: “… many of the smaller multi-family residential units that were previously using the 11-gallon recycling ‘totes’ are able to share recycle carts, resulting in a smaller number of deployed carts.” In terms of revenue, the reduced number of carts meant that RAA received only $1,159,626 compared to the projected $1,278,381, resulting in a shortfall of $118,755.

Summing the shortfalls in the two kinds of revenue ($118,755 + $218,772), RAA received $337,527 less than it expected for FY 2011. The proposed increase in the monthly per cart service fee – for all five years of the five-year contract – works out to nearly cover the annual shortfall that was due only to the decreased number of carts: $107,042 versus $118,755.

The overly-optimistic projections were made by the city’s recycling consultant Resource Recycling Systems and RecycleBank, a company that administers a coupon-based incentive program to encourage residents to recycle. When the council approved the single-stream recycling contract with RAA last year, it also struck a 10-year deal with RecycleBank, at roughly $200,000 per year, to administer their coupon-based incentive program to help boost recycling rates in conjunction with the single-stream rollout.

At the time, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) questioned the length of the RecycleBank contract, and established in the course of deliberations that the city’s opt-out clause would be less costly than the cost of the contract. He was concerned that the city had options in the event that RecycleBank’s incentives did not boost recycling tonnage to the levels that were forecast. ["Council Banks on Single-Stream Recycling"] From Chronicle coverage of that meeting:

Kunselman reflected on the fact that the roughly $200,000 per year over the life of the 10-year contract represented $2 million. He established that the escape clause for not funding the program was slightly less than $200,000 a year – to cover the under-appreciated capital investment in the trucks. In light of that, Kunselman wondered why it was necessary to have a 10-year contract. Getzloff indicated that there were a variety of term lengths for RecycleBank contracts and that the best price came with the longest one – a 10-year contract.

Kunselman returned to the topic of Ann Arbor’s already high 80-90% participation rate. Based on the chart that had been handed out to councilmembers, Kunselman wanted to know how much of the doubling of recycled tonnage could be attributed just to the implementation of the single-stream system independently of the incentive program.

Frey went through a chart that showed how estimates of the current level of 5,084 tons – for single households in Ann Arbor – would rise to 10,708 tons in the second year of the program. Of those 5,624 extra tons, fully 4,201 were attributable to the incentive program.

Kunselman also questioned whether the city would in effect be paying twice for the educational efforts of both Recycle Ann Arbor and of RecycleBank. McMurtrie replied by saying that “We’re all in this together.” RecycleBank, McMurtrie indicated, is simply a new layer.

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