Mayor John Hieftje checked his computer screen before the meeting started. Six hours later he declared the meeting adjourned. (Photos by the writer.)

Some of that business – the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority ordinance revision on TIF (tax increment financing) capture – was postponed until the council’s next meeting, on Nov. 7. Other business – Ypsilanti Township’s membership in the AAATA – was postponed until Nov. 18. That will be the first meeting of the new, post-election composition of the council.

First, here’s a rundown of the main outcomes from the meeting.

Transportation was a main theme on the agenda. The postponement on admitting Ypsilanti Township as a member of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority was the clear majority consensus, as it succeeded on an 8-3 vote. After that, the council voted unanimously to approve a contract with URS Corporation Inc. (URS) to conduct the Ann Arbor Station project environmental review. The total approved for the Ann Arbor Station contract – which will cover public engagement, site selection and conceptual design – was $824,875, an amount that includes a $63,083 contingency.

The city would pay 20% of that, or about $165,000. The remainder will be covered by a federal grant. The council’s unanimous support was based on two factors: (1) the fact that there was to be no presupposed preferred alternative location for the station, and (2) that the public engagement process outlined in the project tasks was thorough.

The council also voted unanimously to give final approval to a change in the city’s sidewalk ordinance. As a result, cross-lot walkways in Ann Arbor will now be treated as “sidewalks” from the perspective of the city’s sidewalk repair millage. Even though the millage funds can now be used to repair the walkways, owners of property adjacent to cross-lot walkways will not bear responsibility for snow removal in the winter. Cross-lot walkways include those that connect streets to parks or school property, or connect two parallel streets.

The Ann Arbor DDA figured in other agenda items beyond the postponed vote on TIF capture. The council voted just 7-4 to approve a new budget allocation of $280,000 from the general fund to pay for a portion of a Main Street light pole replacement project. That didn’t meet the eight-vote majority requirement for the budget allocation to pass. The failed vote was the result of political wrangling between the council and the DDA board and staff over whether the DDA would not be able, or simply was unwilling, to fund the total cost of the $580,000 light pole replacement project. The poles are rusting out and pose some level of safety threat, although those deemed to be in immediate danger of falling have already been replaced.

The Ann Arbor DDA was also the topic of another agenda item – when the council voted 8-3 to reconsider its Sept. 16 vote on the appointment of Al McWilliams to the board of the DDA. On the 8-3 vote, the question of the appointment was again in front of the council. Councilmembers took 20 minutes to discuss the item before voting again 6-5 – along the same split as on Sept. 16 – to appoint McWilliams to the board. The 8-3 split on reconsideration was the same 8-3 split as on the postponement of the Ypsilanti Township membership in the AAATA – with mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) declining to join the majority on both occasions.

The other nomination on which the council voted was Wayne Appleyard’s reappointment to the city’s energy commission – with a tally of 8-3. That was enough to satisfy the city charter’s non-city resident requirement of seven votes. Dissenters were Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Kailasapathy and Lumm had concerns about Appleyard’s long term of service (since 2002). So they’ll be bringing forward an ordinance revision at a future meeting to establish term limits for all boards and commissions. The city charter already imposes term limits on a specific category of boards and commissions.

The council had another significant item on its agenda related to the energy commission – a resolution on divestment from fossil fuel companies that the commission had recommended the council approve. It was the third time the council had seen the question, after first voting it down, then reconsidering and postponing it. At the Oct. 21 meeting, the council amended the resolution to soften it further, which gave it a 9-2 tally when the council voted. Ward 2 councilmembers Sally Petersen and Jane Lumm dissented.

Besides the unfinished business from the Oct. 21 meeting, future meetings of the council will include the Lumm-Kailasapathy initiative to amend the city’s ordinance on boards and commissions to include term limits. Other initiatives announced at the Oct. 21 meeting included an outdoor smoking ordinance that Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) reported he’s been working on with city staff – with an eye toward establishing non-smoking areas in city parks.

Petersen announced that she’ll be putting forward a resolution stemming from frequent mention by community members of the need for a council ethics policy. Among other direction, Petersen’s resolution would ask the city attorney to provide guidance on a state statute. Warpehoski announced that he and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) were working on a framework to establish a pedestrian safety citizens advisory committee – possibly to be seated at the Nov. 18 council meeting. The effort is not designed to determine or preempt the outcome of an effort to repeal the pedestrian crosswalk ordinance, Warpehoski stated.

And Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) announced that he and Margie Teall (Ward 4) would be bringing forth a resolution asking the University of Michigan to decommission the large digital billboard it has constructed on East Stadium Boulevard next to the football stadium. The fallback position of the resolution will be to ask that the university restrict the time of the billboard’s operation, Taylor said.

Some items considered by the council but not included in this report are reflected in the live updates filed from the Oct. 21 meeting.

Transportation: Ypsilanti Township Membership in AAATA

The council was asked to approve revised articles of incorporation for the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, so that Ypsilanti Township could be admitted as a member of the authority.

Transportation: Ypsi Twp. Membership in AAATA – Background

The change to the articles of incorporation would expand the board from nine to 10 members, with the additional member to be appointed by Ypsilanti Township. At its Sept. 26, 2013 meeting, the AAATA board already approved the membership of Ypsilanti Township. That action was contingent on approval by the Ann Arbor city council.

Ypsilanti Township hopes to become a member of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, pending approval by the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti city councils. (Solid green indicates the geographic area already included by the AAATA.)

An earlier expansion in membership was given final approval by the AAATA board at its June 20, 2013 meeting. That’s when the city of Ypsilanti was admitted as a member of the AAATA and its board was increased from seven to nine members, one of whom is appointed by the city of Ypsilanti. The name of the authority was also changed at that time to add the word “area” – making it the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. [Amendment 3 of the AAATA articles of incorporation]

The expansion of the AAATA’s geographic footprint to include some jurisdictions geographically close to the city of Ann Arbor – and with whom the AAATA has historically had purchase-of-service agreements (POSAs) – sets the stage for a possible request of voters in the expanded geographic area. That request would be to approve additional transportation funding to pay for increased service frequencies and times.

The approach of focusing on the neighboring jurisdictions instead of all of Washtenaw County was one directed by the Ann Arbor city council at its Nov. 8, 2012 meeting, when the council chose to opt out of a countywide initiative.

The AAATA could place a millage request on the ballot in May 2014, probably at the level of 0.7 mills, to support a 5-year service improvement plan that the AAATA has developed. A schedule of public meetings to introduce that plan runs through mid-November. A decision to place a millage on the ballot would first need AAATA board approval – a question that has not yet come before the board.

Ypsi Twp. Membership in AAATA: Public Commentary

Martha Valadez introduced herself as a transit organizer for the Ecology Center and Partners for Transit. She told the council that access to public transportation is crucial for her personally and for her community. She supported the urban core transit program. She supported the membership of Ypsilanti Township in the AAATA. Membership would give the township a chance to participate in future funding requests, not just participation in governance, she said.

Matt Vanauker introduced himself as a Ward 5 resident and high school classmate of Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). He was surprised that the council didn’t support the countywide initiative last year. He couldn’t imagine a reason why Ypsilanti Township would not be included as a member in the AAATA. He relied on public transportation to accomplish basic life functions, like grocery shopping and medical appointments, he told the council.

Abishek Thiagaraj introduced himself as a junior at the University of Michigan, studying biomedical engineering and volunteering with Partners for Transit. He sees transit as a priority, he told the council. The student perspective is that they’re grateful for the current service AAATA provides. But he talked about the need to improve transportation services to off-campus locations. He talked about the ability to integrate students more completely into the community through public transportation.

Ypsi Twp. Membership in AAATA: Deliberations – Summary Version

The idea that a vote on the admission of Ypsilanti Township into the AAATA should be delayed was not a clear consensus view on the council at the start of the meeting. The decision to postpone evolved during the course of deliberations – which lasted about an hour and fifteen minutes.

From left: Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers and Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority CEO Michael Ford.

The deliberations appeared to shift in favor of postponement when Sally Petersen (Ward 2) ventured that if there were a delay now to allow for residents to get their questions answered and weigh in on the governance question, a future transit millage would have a better chance of passing. Earlier in the meeting, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) had also spoken of the “strong minority” that was now asking for more time to review the proposal – a group that could “put the AAATA over the top some day.”

Following Petersen’s remarks, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), who’s been consistent and adamant in his support of transit initiatives, revealed that he would support postponement. Warpehoski wanted to postpone so that when the question returned to the council, it would pass with as much support as possible, not just a slender majority.

Warpehoski’s willingness to postpone appeared to convince Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) also to support postponement. But Kunselman’s support was somewhat reluctant, because he’d pledged to the leadership of Ypsilanti Township a year ago that he’d do whatever he could as a city councilmember to get Ypsilanti Township into the authority. Kunselman’s connection to the township is personal, as he was employed briefly as a planner for Ypsilanti Township from August 2003 to February 2004 before resigning. Kunselman said he wanted to see the resolution pass unanimously when it returns at the council’s second meeting in November.

And Kunselman pledged to attend some of the meetings that the AAATA has scheduled over the next few weeks to explain the importance of adding Ypsilanti Township to the AAATA. Those meetings had been conceived by the AAATA as a way to introduce the 5-year service plan for increased frequency and times. Now the meetings will serve the dual purpose of entertaining a discussion of the AAATA’s governance as it relates to the township’s possible membership.

After midnight during the final general communications time of the meeting, Warpehoski expressed a concern that the council’s action in postponing had probably done some damage to the perception of Ann Arbor as a good regional partner. In apologizing for his part in that, Warpehoski said it would be important for councilmembers to reach out to the leadership of Ypsilanti Township to try to repair that relationship.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

The interactions on Oct. 21 between Ann Arbor city councilmembers and other officials – Ypsilanti Township supervisor Brenda Stumbo and AAATA’s CEO Michael Ford – were marked by a certain tension. Answering questions at the podium in front of the council, Stumbo and Ford appeared exasperated that the proposal the council was being asked to consider was being labeled as “rushed,” given the roughly year-long lead-up and the participation of five councilmembers in the ongoing discussions with other communities. Their frustration was also based on the fact that some councilmembers were not willing to separate out the question of governance – which was the question in front of the council that evening – from the question of future funding.

The atmosphere was one that saw Mike Anglin (Ward 5) – who’s been generally skeptical of AAATA initiatives – appear to sympathize with Ford, telling him that Ford is one of the most patient people he knows.

Just before she made the formal motion to postpone the vote, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) shut down Ford as he sought to respond to statements she’d made by telling him, “I didn’t ask you a question.” Later Ford asked mayor John Hieftje if he could respond to some statements Jane Lumm (Ward 2) had made. Hieftje declined to let him respond – but recognized Margie Teall (Ward 4) to speak. And Teall invited Ford to respond. Ford then stressed that the question before the council that night was governance: “The rest is noise,” he said.

Ypsi Twp. Membership in AAATA: Deliberations – Noisy Version

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off deliberations by noting that it’s been over a year since he had been actively opposing AAATA’s countywide initiative. But he had told Ypsilanti Township supervisor Brenda Stumbo at the time that he’d do whatever he could as a city councilmember to get Ypsilanti Township into the authority. He would support Ypsilanti Township as a member of the AAATA, he said, but it’s important to understand what the significance of that is. It’s a matter of governance, not of finances, he stressed. However, if there were questions that still needed to be answered, he’d be content to wait. Putting Ypsilanti Township at the table would bind the community together better, Kunselman said.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thought it was a bit premature to vote on the question that night, given that AAATA had just now started its public engagement campaign on the 5-year plan. She floated the idea of postponing until the second meeting in November. [That would be on Nov. 18, after the new composition of the council is seated, post-election.]

Michael Ford, CEO of the AAATA, answered questions from the podium, and was joined by Stumbo. Ford said all that was being asked of the council was to approve Ypsilanti Township admission as a member into the AAATA.

Stumbo told the council that Ypsilanti Township residents support this move. She recalled her long career in elected public service in the township – which spans nearly 25 years – joking that she started when she was 12. The township’s membership would come with a long-term financial commitment, she said. Currently the route the township pays for is $340,000 annually, she reported. It’s imperative for the township to have transportation. “We need to lift people up,” she said, and the way to do that is to provide transportation. Public transportation will help decrease congestion in Ann Arbor, she said. She was proud to be there that night and noted that the township board supports the move.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) confirmed with Ford that Ypsilanti Township currently has a purchase-of-service agreement (POSA). She said that although meetings were held in the township about this and the move was supported by Ypsilanti Township, she’s supposed to represent Ann Arbor. She characterized the timetable as “rushing” it. She addressed comments made by Ford and Stumbo from the podium that when the city of Ypsilanti was given membership, no objections were raised by the council and councilmembers had approved membership for the city of Ypsilanti. Kailasapathy noted that just because concerns weren’t raised when Ypsilanti city was added, doesn’t mean that she could not raise concerns now.

Ford responded by saying that the proposal was not being rushed. The AAATA had followed the Ann Arbor city council’s direction to work with the urban core communities to develop a service plan, the financial structure, and governance.

Kailasapathy countered Ford by saying that it’s not required that Ypsilanti Township be handled the same way as the city of Ypsilanti.

Petersen pointed out that the AAATA already has 5-year service plan meetings scheduled over the next few weeks. Petersen said her understanding was that the meetings would provide an opportunity for a give-and-take exchange. Given that the meetings are already scheduled, and her constituents have asked that the meetings be used to hear what everybody has to say, she indicated she wanted the meetings to be used to discuss the question of adding Ypsilanti Township. She wanted to slide the approval schedule forward only four weeks, she said, until the middle of November.

Margie Teall (Ward 4).

Margie Teall (Ward 4) responded to Petersen’s suggestion by saying that just because the meetings happen to be already planned, they shouldn’t be used to divert the planned focus of those meetings. Teall said the planning process had been exhaustive – describing it as lasting years. Ford noted that he’d met with individual councilmembers, so the proposal shouldn’t be a surprise to them. He pointed out that five of the councilmembers had participated in the urban core discussions, which had included Ypsilanti Township.

Ford said that some of the questions posed by the councilmembers had been received by the AAATA at noon that day, but the AAATA staff had done its best to answer them. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) responded that some of the questions weren’t answered. A spirited back-and-forth unfolded between Ford and Lumm. Lumm took the position that admitting Ypsilanti Township into the AAATA is not a stand-alone decision.

Ford reviewed the point of the 5-year service plan meetings – to go over the planned improvements to service. Lumm said she was trying to weigh the cost-benefit of a possible 0.7 mill tax. It’s difficult to assess it without more information, she said.

Mayor John Hieftje weighed in, saying he didn’t see how the funding mechanism affected the decision in front of the council that night. Admitting Ypsilanti Township is something that should have happened 30 years ago, he said. Anyone who was paying attention to transportation issues would have known this was coming, Hieftje said. And any funding decision would need to be approved by voters. Ann Arbor needs to work with communities around it, to realize its great promise as a city, Hieftje said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said the question is whether to allow Ypsilanti Township a seat at the table. Briere asked Stumbo what she sees as a benefit to membership.

As benefits, Stumbo talked about the Washtenaw Avenue connection to the eastern part of the county, and the long-term commitment that the township would be making. Instead of a year-to-year POSA agreement, there would be a longer-term agreement, she said. Stumbo said she was trying not to take it personally, but she could not understand why the council wouldn’t vote to allow Ypsilanti Township to join the AAATA.

Briere asked Ford if residents will be presented with a menu of improvements and their associated costs so that residents can choose what services they’d like. Ford described it as a very engaged process that would include adjustments based on what people say at the engagement meetings. Briere asked again when the dollar amounts would be broken down for each element of the service improvement plan. Ford replied that about a month after the meetings are concluded, those exact costs will be available. [Given the mid-November conclusion of the series of meetings on the 5-year service plan, that would mean the cost information would be available in mid-December.]

Kunselman reiterated that he’s committed to Ypsilanti Township having a seat at the table. That seat at the table does nothing to change the financing, he said. The city of Ann Arbor would still have eight out of 10 seats, which could easily control the board. He said that transportation services would only be “given away” to Ypsilanti Township if Ann Arbor’s own representatives on the AAATA board approved it. A discussion about the finances isn’t the one the council should be having right now, he said. That’s possibly even a year away, he said. [That means Kunselman is thinking a May 2014 millage vote is probably too soon.]

Kunselman said he’d opposed the initiative to establish a countywide transportation authority because of the proposed board composition. [Ann Arbor would have had 8 out of 15 board seats on that now-demised proposal.] He didn’t think the Ann Arbor city council needed to worry about board control. It’s just approving a seat at the table so the township can have a voice, Kunselman said.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) started by saying that he was wrong earlier – when the council had decided to “bail” on the countywide proposal – saying he’d been angry and he might have said some things about Kunselman that might have been insulting to Kunselman. [That was an allusion to the fact that Kunselman had cited an insult from DDA appointee Al McWilliams as Kunselman's reason for voting against McWilliams.] Warpehoski said that he now took it very seriously when Kunselman said that Ypsilanti Township should have a seat at the table. It’s important to be a good regional partner, Warpehoski said.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

On the finances, Warpehoski said it’s a chicken-and-egg problem. To get a solid financial foundation, you need a solid governance structure, he said. The step of finalizing governance needs to be taken before establishing the funding and service plan, he said.

Warpehoski asked Ford about the various permutations of Ypsilanti Township being in or out of the AAATA, and whether the millage passes or not: Is there any threat to Ann Arbor services? No, answered Ford. What’s the mechanism for funding Ypsilanti Township service as a member of AAATA if the millage doesn’t pass? Warpehoski asked. Stumbo explained that it would be paid for out of the township’s general fund. Ford noted that a similar financial agreement to the one the city of Ypsilanti had recently made would also be made with the township.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) characterized the proposal before the council as a pretty simple process. After the countywide transportation initiative was turned down a year ago, the council had said to the AATA: Go away and come back with an urban core plan. Now the question is whether the council meant what the council said back then, Taylor said. Taylor then ticked through the general benefits of public transportation – including congestion reduction and economic development.

Kailasapathy questioned Stumbo and Ford again. She wanted a copy of the MOU (memorandum of understanding) that would be signed with the township. Ford explained that the MOU would follow admission of Ypsilanti Township as a member of the AAATA. Kailasapathy indicated that she thought it would be appropriate to have a copy now for review. She referred to Taylor’s comments about the direction the council had given to the AAATA about the urban core process – by saying that the council had not given the AAATA a blank check for that process.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) acknowledged some of the frustration that had been expressed to that point by calling Ford one of the most patient people he knows. But Anglin said a strong minority on the council had asked for something specific – a strong minority that could put the AAATA over the top someday. Some councilmembers are asking for more time to answer questions of their constituents, he said. And Ann Arbor residents have paid the transit millage for many years, so if some councilmembers want some more time, they should be listened to, Anglin concluded.

Ford said that everyone seemed to be hung up on the idea of the millage. The AAATA had done what the council had asked it to do and that’s what the proposal was about, Ford said.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) told Ford said that the discussion is about whether the board should be expanded – and that’s what residents want to weigh in on. People get very concerned if a decision is made without giving them a chance to provide input, she said. On the question of expanding the board, people should have a chance to weigh in on that, she said – during the meetings the AAATA has scheduled over the next few weeks. Higgins said she was not against having residents have a say.

Ford pointed out that the process for admitting Ypsilanti Township is the same process that had been used with the city of Ypsilanti. But Higgins shut down Ford by saying, “I didn’t ask you a question.” At that point, Higgins moved for postponement.

Teall said she’d oppose postponement. Warpehoski asked Ford what the impact of a postponement would be. Ford explained that the AAATA has been working on this a long time. Treating the township differently from the city of Ypsilanti is a problem, he said. It’s not the first time the AATAA has talked with the council about it, he noted. When Ford responded to Warpehoski’s specific question, he said it would slow down the process and not send a good message.

Hieftje said that Ypsilanti Township has been a “good citizen” for many years. He didn’t understand why the city of Ypsilanti should “breeze through” and then there’d be a pause with the township. Briere picked up on a concern expressed by Teall – that the meetings scheduled for the next few weeks would be refocused – from the 5-year service plan to the expansion of the board. Ford said it would put the AAATA behind on making any improvements to service. Briere asked how many meetings had been scheduled. Thirteen, said Ford, running through Nov. 14.

Briere ventured that Lumm wants dollar amounts attached to each improvement, to be able to choose from them Chinese-menu style. Briere asked Ford if that information could be assembled by mid-November. Ford ventured that it would take about a month after the meetings conclude to do that analysis.

Briere ventured that without membership on the board, Ypsilanti Township would still continue with its year-to-year POSA. She asked if it will be possible to have productive conversations at the scheduled public meetings if the governance question were not already settled. At that point, Jerry Lax – legal counsel for the AAATA – said Ypsilanti Township was prepared to make the longer-term POSA commitment, if it has a seat at the table. Lax said that if the township did not commit to a longer-term arrangement after being admitted to the authority, the AAATA would still have leverage in the negotiation of the year-to-year POSA.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Lumm disagreed with Ford that it’s inappropriate to treat the city and the township differently – citing the city’s dedicated millage versus the township’s POSA. Lumm said it sets a bad precedent – that to be eligible for membership in the AAATA, all you need is a POSA. She wanted to see the long-term MOU.

Lumm added that with so many unanswered questions, she thinks it’s important to postpone. Taking a cue from Higgins’ earlier objection to his commenting unless he’d been asked a question, Ford asked to be able to respond to Lumm, but Hieftje declined.

Teall was next to be called on by Hieftje, and after some brief remarks she gave Ford the floor. Ford reiterated that the issue before the council is governance – that is, adding Ypsilanti Township to the board. He added: “The rest is noise.”

Petersen responded to Ford’s statement by saying that governance and funding are inextricable linked. Petersen said that based on constituent feedback, the two issues are co-mingled. By delaying now, she said, a millage would have a better chance of passing.

Kailasapathy still wanted to see the MOU before voting to add Ypsilanti Township as member. Hieftje then indicated that he was keen to see the council progress to a vote on the motion to postponement. Ypsilanti Township has a greater risk in joining the authority, Hieftje said. He reiterated that Ypsilanti Township should have been added as a member of the transportation authority 30 years ago.

Stumbo told the council that the township doesn’t have a ward system like the city does – saying that she was elected in the township at large. So she understood the conversation around the table in that context. She pointed to the geography of the township, which surrounds the city of Ypsilanti. The city of Ypsilanti and the Ypsilanti Township are linked.

Warpehoski said he’d vote to admit Ypsilanti Township into the AATA today or a month from now. Kunselman’s 8-2 odds for the city on the board are pretty good, he allowed. But he’d vote for postponement because he wanted the final vote to have as much support as possible. He did not want it to pass with just a 6-5 vote, but rather with a solid majority.

Kunselman said he started out the deliberations stating he had unwavering support for adding Ypsilanti Township, but had been open to postponement. He told Stumbo that he was still committed to getting it done, but that night he’d support the postponement. “When we get back here, I look to have everybody here unanimously supporting this,” Kunselman said.

If the addition of the township as a member did not win that kind of support on the council, a millage wouldn’t pass, Kunselman cautioned. He said he’d attend some of the already-scheduled meetings and make clear why it’s important to add Ypsilanti Township as a member of the AAATA. It’s important to rebuild trust, he said. But “government is messy,” Kunselman allowed. He added that he had almost been ready to go for the vote that night, but now felt it was important to take the time to build trust.

Outcome: The council voted 8-3 to postpone the revised articles of incorporation for the AAATA admitting Ypsilanti Township as a member. The item was postponed until the council’s second meeting in November – on Nov. 18. That’s after the new composition of the council is seated, following the Nov. 5 election. Dissenting were mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

Transportation: Ypsi Twp. Membership in AAATA – Coda

At the end of the meeting, well after midnight during the council’s final opportunity for communications, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) said that Ypsilanti Township had done a tremendous amount of work. When he counted the votes around the table, he thought there would have been six votes that night and would be at least six votes in a month – but he wanted to work toward unanimity. He said that “relationships are important,” and he feared that by postponing the Ypsilanti Township vote, the council was not perceived by the township leadership as working well with its regional partners.

He suggested that councilmembers reach out to the township and give the relationship a personal touch. The relationship was hurt that night, he said, and he’d been a part of that, so he apologized. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) added his support to Warpehoski’s remarks.

Transportation: Ann Arbor Station

The council considered a contract with URS Corp. Inc. (URS) to carry out an environmental review of the Ann Arbor Station project. This rail station project relates most immediately to the prospect that Amtrak will be offering improved intercity service on the Chicago-Detroit Amtrak line.

Amtrak train arrival in Ann Arbor. (Chronicle file photo from September 2013)

An improved intercity rail station also has implications for the way that a different type of service – commuter rail service between Ann Arbor and Detroit – might be created and offered in the future. The total budgeted for the Ann Arbor Station contract on the Oct. 21 agenda – which will cover public engagement, site selection and conceptual design – was $824,875, an amount that includes a $63,083 contingency. The city would pay 20% of that, or about $165,000. A transfer of $550,000 to the city’s major grant fund was approved a year ago by the city council at its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting for the total project budget.

The federal grant that will cover 80% of the project cost, up to $2.8 million for the federal share, had been accepted by the council at its June 4, 2012 meeting. So for the contract on the Oct. 21 agenda, the city’s share works out to approximately $165,000 with the Federal Rail Authority covering the remaining $660,000.

The funding approved by the city council a year ago came after the city learned that previous expenditures – which were made in connection with the now demised Fuller Road Station project – would not be considered as eligible local matching funds under the federal grant. Fuller Road Station had been a joint venture with the University of Michigan, and called for UM to build a parking structure on the same site as the proposed rail station at a location on Fuller Road.

The preliminary work that URS would do under the contract on the Oct. 21 agenda does not presuppose a preferred location for a new passenger rail station. The existing Amtrak station on Depot Street would be among the alternatives considered, in addition to the location identified for the Fuller Road Station, which is on city-owned land between Fuller Road and East Medical Center Drive adjacent to the UM medical center. The land is designated by the city in planning documents as parkland, and is zoned as public land. A 2009 appraisal commissioned by the city put the value of the land at $4.25 million.

Transportation: A2 Station – Public Commentary

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the council’s meeting, several people addressed the council on the topic of the train station.

Rita Mitchell told the council that the community has not yet agreed on whether the city should take responsibility for a new train station. She pegged the total amount of money already invested in study of a site at $1.7 million, when the sewer work was factored in. She questioned whether URS could be an objective consultant, given some work done in connection with the previous Fuller Road Station and as well as the ongoing connector study. Mitchell questioned the amount of funding in the contract just for the public engagement process, which she thought was too much, compared to the amount for the environmental assessment per se.

Nancy Shiffler introduced herself as chair of the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club. She thought the public involvement component is a strength of the proposal. She’s looking forward to a well-publicized schedule for that engagement. She cautioned against relying on self-selected participants in online surveys. Task 4 of the contract, she said, is problematic, because it could result in a categorical exclusion for an FRA requirement with respect to parkland – an exclusion that would come too early in the process.

Clark Charnetski recalled the 30-year history of the study of different sites for a new rail station. Charnetski participated in the 1979 study. [.pdf of "The Ann Arbor Depot: A First Phase Investigation of Location Alternatives"] That was the era when the Amtrak station was still located within the building where the Gandy Dancer restaurant is currently located, Charnetski said. He invited the council to think about rail transportation from the passenger’s point of view. He noted a number of assumptions that were in place 30 years ago that have not proven to be correct. He said that even with current levels of ridership, an improvement to the station is needed. Responding to the idea that the current location could be used to improve the station, he said that the study will examine that option.

Jeff Hayner delivered remarks on several topics during public commentary, but on the train station contract, he told the council the public engagement component is very heavy, but wondered if that would be used to shape public opinion or to listen to it.

Transportation: A2 Station – Section 4(f) Background

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

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

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

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

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

.gif animation of the Fuller Road site, which loops continuously, beginning with an image from the 1940s.

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

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) noted during the Oct. 21 meeting that the Fuller Road site had not seen a soccer ball since the Clinton administration, a rhetorical flourish he consistently uses in deliberations about the planning for a rail station at that location. Taylor’s point is relevant to the extent that the focus of the conversation remains only on the section of the site that’s currently paved and used as a parking lot. If it were determined that construction of a rail station facility on just that section of the site that’s paved still had an adverse effect on the use of the portion nearer the Huron River, which serves as a soccer field, then the SAFETEA-LU “de minimis” impact standard might not be met, and the Section 4(f) “no feasible” alternative standard would then apply.

Transportation: A2 Station – Sewer Work Background

During public commentary, Rita Mitchell referred to the sewer work that had been done on the Fuller Road site. That resulted in a defense of that work during deliberations by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and mayor John Hieftje – as a project that was part of the city’s capital improvements plan. That is, they argued that it was not done just to move sewer lines so that a foundation for a parking structure and train station could more easily be built. The council had originally approved the work at its June 20, 2011 meeting, but then reconsidered the vote on July 5, 2011 at the request of Mike Anglin (Ward 5). The council then re-voted the approval, but with Anglin’s dissent.

The approval two years ago was for a $1,216,100 construction contract to Hoffman Brothers Inc. The project involved relocating a sanitary sewer south of Fuller Road, and east of the Maiden Lane and East Medical Center Drive intersection. The project included moving and replacing an 825-foot, 30-year-old section of 60-inch sanitary sewer pipe. It also included construction of 525 feet of 24-inch stormwater pipe, as well as construction of 925 feet of a new 12-inch water main for service to Fuller Pool.

Transportation: A2 Station – Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off deliberations by asking city transportation program manager Eli Cooper to clarify how much of the contract would use city funds. Cooper explained that the city amount is $165,000. Kunselman noted that the money has been appropriated and does not presuppose a particular site – so he was going to support the contract.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) wanted to know who would decide the recommended location of the train station. Cooper noted that residents during the public commentary period that evening had pointed out that one-third of the contract was for public engagement. And council could participate in the process, he said. Kailasapathy asked if there would be one preferred site at the end. Cooper indicated that there would be a single preferred site at the end, and explained that as the sites are winnowed down, the criteria to be used would also be subject to public review and input.

Briere noted that most of the suggested sites are in Ward 1. She confirmed that the goal of a previous process was to present the federal government with a preferred site. Cooper indicated that Briere was right – it’s a requirement of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) project. The emphasis on the previous project [Fuller Road Station] was based on the intermodal character of that facility. How does this proposal differ from that [Fuller Road Station] proposal? Briere asked. Cooper said that one difference is that there’s no initially preferred alternative for the location.

Briere followed up with another question: What is an environmental assessment? Cooper explained that it’s an analysis of the direct, indirect and cumulative effect of human action. It’s a qualitative descriptor about the impact of a project. That contrasts with an environmental impact statement, which is quantitative, he said.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she hadn’t yet heard Cooper say the word “parkland.” Responding to a question from Lumm, Cooper said that any project on parkland would not be eligible for an FRA categorical exclusion. If the preferred site were parkland, then it would be subject to Section 4(f) review, Cooper said. Lumm asked for confirmation that as part of the process, it would be possible to see the “arc” of the selection process – as the set of potential sites is winnowed down.

In a comment that reacted to concerns expressed during public commentary, Cooper said that the public engagement process is not meant to tell people what the plan already is. Lumm asked who Cooper sees as the stakeholders. Cooper said that will be clearer after the project kickoff. Power Marketing Research will be doing the public engagement, he said. Cooper allowed that some of the stakeholders will be the “usual suspects,” in addition to the stakeholders who’d participated in the previous, now-demised Fuller Road Station project, he said. Those would include transportation agencies like the AAATA, MDOT, and UM parking and transportation staff, he said. It would be as comprehensive a list as possible. Stakeholders are only one part of the public engagement process, he said. There will be site tours to “walk the ground together,” he said.

Cooper noted that the no-build alternative is required to be included in the set of alternatives. The intent is to do this in an open and transparent and participatory process, he said. Lumm told Cooper some people have “zero confidence” that the outcome has not been determined to be Fuller Road. She contended the existing location of the Amtrak location is a “sweet spot” in terms of engineering.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) asked what she should tell residents who wonder why the city should build a new station for Amtrak. Cooper explained that Amtrak’s focus is on the operations – the trains themselves. It’s a discretionary decision for the city, he allowed. The idea is to meet the needs of residents and businesses to provide the kind of transportation facility they’d expect arriving in Ann Arbor. [In this remark, Cooper alluded to the sentiments expressed during an Oct. 14, 2013 city council work session by MDOT director of rail operations Tim Hoeffner, who described a passenger rail station as “the gateway to your community.” Hoeffner added: "That should be your face – that should be what you want to put forward. That shouldn’t be what we want to have come forward from Lansing."]

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said he was happy to see that this project seems different from the previous approach, with the Fuller Road Station. He said it seemed like the proposed process would actually consider alternate locations besides the Fuller Road site. He called for all the public process meetings to be videotaped. Some of the previous money that’s been spent was “foolishness,” he said. But he’d vote to support this. The public is tired of bad dialogue, he told Cooper. Cooper responded by saying the staff would do their best to facilitate good dialogue.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) posed a hypothetical question: If the site across the track, owned by Amtrak, turned out to be the preferred site, how would that work? Cooper explained that the federal dollars would come from the Federal Rail Administration. If the Amtrak property were the preferred location, there would be MOUs and legal instruments to bind the parties together.

Clark Charnetski was invited from the audience to explain that Amtrak owns the parking lot. The place where the tracks had been and were removed is now owned by MDOT. Amtrak owns the station, the property on which it sits and the metered parking lot, Charnetski said.

Lumm said that there’s no guarantee there’ll be federal money for eventual construction of a train station. She added that there’s no demonstrated need for a new train station. She’d reviewed the contract for the study. It’s an important study the community cares about, she said. It’s important that there be substantial public engagement. She then ticked through the elements of the public engagement process. She said it’s important to consider using the existing site as well as doing nothing at all. Given that those two primary concerns are addressed, she’d support the contract, but she called it a “tough” decision.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that improvement to the train station is deeply important. He pointed to improvements in Amtrak service and possible commuter service – with railcars having been acquired. It won’t happen tomorrow, but it’s important to plan for the future, he said. He called the sewer reconstruction done at the Fuller Road site – which was in the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP) – as something necessary anyway. To suggest that it wasn’t necessary is “flat-out false,” he said.

Hieftje picked up on Taylor’s defense of the sewer work. It’s important not to create myths, he said. He was pleased to see planning for a new rail station moving forward, whatever the location. He noted that Gov. Rick Snyder and MDOT are very interested in commuter rail between Ann Arbor and Detroit. But commuter rail would only be funded through the regional transit authority (RTA), Hieftje said.

Briere also added her comments on the sewer work that was done at the Fuller Road site. She reviewed the reasons that she voted to support that sewer work. She said that part of the issue was the fact that the line runs under the river. If a sewer line is under the river, it would be difficult to notice if there were a problem. It was not the case that the only reason for the sewer work was to allow for the foundations of the demised Fuller Road Station to be put in, she said.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the URS contract.

Transportation: Sidewalks

The council considered a revision to the definition of “sidewalk” so that cross-lot walkways could be repaired using sidewalk repair millage funds, but not trigger the ordinary winter maintenance requirement for adjacent property owners. Cross-lot walkways include those that connect streets to parks or school property, or connect two parallel streets.

At the council’s July 1, 2013 meeting, councilmembers were set to give final approval to a different version of the ordinance revision, which would have still placed the responsibility of sidewalk shoveling in the winter on owners of property adjacent to cross-lot walkways. But the council took a different approach after hearing objections from the owners of adjoining property.

A companion resolution later on the agenda completed the necessary council action to allow the definitional change to have an actual impact: The definition makes a walkway a “sidewalk” if the council formally accepts the walkway for public use. So the companion resolution accepted 34 cross-lot walkways for public use.

This cross-lot path was described by John Ohanian at the city council’s July 1, 2013 meeting as one that he’d become responsible for shoveling if the city adopted the change in the definition of sidewalk that was being considered at that meeting.

This is the path – looking east from Frederick and Middleton into Greenbrier Park – that abuts Ohanian’s property.

No one spoke at the public hearing on the ordinance change.

Council deliberations were scant on both items, consisting of Jane Lumm acknowledging the hard work and responsiveness of city staff in working on the issue.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the change to the sidewalk ordinance and to accept the 34 cross-lot walkways for public use.

Transportation: Ice Control Salt

The Oct. 21 agenda included an item authorizing the purchase of bulk salt, for ice control, and seasonal back-up supplies to be sourced from the Detroit Salt Company for $245,143 (2,800 tons of “early fill” at $34.50 a ton and 4,100 tons of “seasonal backup” at $36.23 a ton).

Winter use of ice control salt on roadways by the city of Ann Arbor (in tons). Data from the city of Ann Arbor. Chart by The Chronicle. This year the council is being asked to authorize the purchase of a total of 6,900 tons of ice control salt.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the purchase of ice control salt.

Ann Arbor DDA: Al McWilliams

On the council’s agenda was a reconsideration of the council’s previous vote that appointed Al McWilliams to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. That original vote was taken on Sept. 16, and resulted in a 6-5 tally in favor.

Al McWilliams attended the Oct. 2, 2013 meeting of the DDA board and voted on the one agenda item. This photo is from Chronicle coverage of that meeting.

The Sept. 16 vote came after mayor John Hieftje stated during deliberations on Sept. 3 – as McWilliams’ confirmation that night appeared to have insufficient support on the short-handed council – that he was withdrawing the nomination.

That gave rise to a technical procedural issue – because Hieftje’s request for confirmation on Sept. 16 appeared to be a fresh nomination. So it should have been subjected to the council’s rule that applies when the vote comes at the same council meeting as the nomination – namely, that the confirmation achieve an eight-vote majority. For detailed analysis of the procedural issue, see “Column: How to Count to 8, Stopping at 6.”

City attorney Stephen Postema was then directed by the council at its Oct. 7 meeting to produce a written opinion on the legal validity of the 6-5 vote, which he subsequently did. Later in the Oct. 7 meeting, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) convinced his council colleagues to re-open the agenda to consider a motion to reconsider the Sept. 16 vote on McWilliams. Warpehoski could do that as someone who voted on the prevailing side.

That motion for reconsideration was immediately postponed until the Oct. 21 meeting. The first vote faced by the council was the motion to reconsider.

Ann Arbor DDA: Al McWilliams – Public Commentary

Drew Waller, director of sponsorship at the Michigan Theater, told the council he was excited about the prospect of Al McWilliams being appointed to the DDA. [A single hiss came from the audience when he made the remark.] We should focus on what McWilliams can do for the community, Waller said. [Russ Collins, executive director of the Michigan Theater, also serves on the DDA board.]

Ann Arbor DDA: Al McWilliams – Council Deliberations

The council did not engage in substantive deliberations on the question of reconsideration.

Outcome: The council voted 8-3 to reconsider the vote on McWilliams’ appointment. Voting against reconsideration were mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

With the question of McWilliams’ appointment again in front of the council, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) recalled the possible conflict of interest issue. [The AAATA is a client of McWilliams' ad agency, Quack!Media, and the issue of conflict of interest could arise when the DDA considers its annual grant to the AAATA to support the go!pass program – at an amount totaling roughly a half million dollars a year. The go!pass allocation is not made under the terms of a contractual relationship, and DDA legal counsel Jerry Lax has opined in the past that the controlling statutory language does not apply in the event there's not a contract to be voted on.]

More important than the conflict of interest issue, Anglin said, was the reaction some of the female councilmembers had to the material on McWilliams’ website. McWilliams might be very talented, but Anglin feels that McWilliams erred in his judgment to post some of that material. It had been a 6-5 vote, Anglin noted, saying that it’s the first time he’s opposed a mayoral nomination. [Anglin actually also voted on May 13, 2013 against the appointment of Eric Mahler to the board of the AAATA.]

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked Warpehoski for his action to move to reconsider the vote, saying it was honorable. She thanked city attorney Stephen Postema for writing the opinion that the council had requested. She said she’d vote against the appointment. It’s not hard to find qualified applicants for the DDA board, she said. She wanted someone who has the maturity to serve on the board. She characterized the issue as one of judgment and respect.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he’d support the nomination, noting that the council had received many communications from people who know McWilliams well in a professional context. Business leaders are universal in their support of him, he said.

Warpehoski reviewed some of the objections to McWilliams’ appointment: (1) conflict of interest; (2) misogyny; and (3) judgment. He thought that (1) could be addressed with timely recusal. As far as the misogyny, he felt the material McWilliams had posted was a media critique, not an invitation to “Hey, check out this hottie!” He said he didn’t see any basis for the claim of misogyny. On (3) he echoed Taylor’s remarks.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) thanked Warpehoski for his effort to have the question reconsidered. But ultimately, “The man insulted me,” Kunselman said. And for that reason he’d be voting against McWilliams. Kunselman said he wouldn’t repeat the insult because it wouldn’t be appropriate decorum. Kunselman stated that “third-grade potty humor” is not appropriate for a public official. He cautioned that someone else at the table could be the next person that McWilliams insults.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) said we all curse, but cursing with women’s body parts is unacceptable.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) stated that she wished the council wouldn’t spend time on this agenda item, but would “pipe up as well.” She said that someone who could bring great life to the DDA should be supported.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) said she wasn’t planning on saying anything. But she felt the fact that the word “misogyny” was being used in the debate about the appointment indicates that the appointment isn’t appropriate. She recalled her interaction with McWilliams on the phone. She’d told him he’d watered down his message with his choice of images and language. He’d told her he disagreed – and said it was appropriate vernacular. The recommendations the council had received were from people she respected, Petersen said, but they did not know about the conversation she’d had with him. At this point, she was not ready to appoint him to the DDA. “We need the highest caliber people” on the DDA board, she said.

Lumm thanked Petersen for her remarks. Lumm said it was a core demonstration of poor judgment to defame her colleagues in the way that McWilliams did.

Outcome: After 20 minutes of deliberations, the council again voted 6-5 to appoint McWilliams to the DDA board. Voting against McWilliams’ appointment on Sept. 16 and on Oct. 21 were: Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Voting in favor were: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and mayor John Hieftje.

Ann Arbor DDA: DDA TIF Ordinance

On the council’s Oct. 21 agenda was final approval an ordinance revision to Chapter 7. The revision would clarify the existing language of the ordinance, which regulates the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s TIF (tax increment financing) capture.

The clarification would disallow the DDA’s preferred interpretation of a restriction on TIF revenue that’s already expressed in the ordinance language. It would essentially enforce the existing ordinance language. This ordinance revision was first considered by the council in February of this year. It received initial approval in April and has been in front of the council several times since then, but always postponed.

A joint committee of councilmembers and DDA board members has been meeting, most recently on Oct. 16, and appear headed toward an alternative that would enact a “cap” on DDA TIF revenue – that could be set at a high enough level that it might not have a substantive impact on actual TIF revenue. The idea is that a basis would be defined in terms of the taxable value of the increment in the TIF district on which the DDA could capture TIF. And the DDA would not be able to capture taxes on any amount in excess of that. An annual percentage increase would be applied to the basis, effectively raising the cap each year.

On that approach, the key questions are what number to choose as the basis and what percentage to choose as the escalator. The committee’s current conversation appears to be headed toward establishing the basis at a level that reflects all the new construction through the next year and a percentage increase somewhere around 5%.

The existing ordinance language already defines a cap, but is calibrated to the projections of the increase in taxable value in the DDA TIF plan. Mathematically, the alternative approach could be expressed in terms of changing the projections in the DDA TIF plan.

When that alternative proposal from the committee is finalized, it would be brought forward as a substitute proposal for the ordinance revision.

At its Oct. 21 meeting, the council didn’t deliberate beyond remarks offered by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who reported that a joint committee meeting of DDA board members and councilmembers, held on Oct. 16, had not yet settled on the details of an alternative approach to the ordinance revision. He ventured that the discussion about the amount of the escalator on the basis for the cap currently stood around 4.5%.

Kunselman moved that consideration of the ordinance be postponed again until Nov. 7, so that the council could weigh the current proposal and the alternative that the committee puts forward.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the DDA ordinance changes until its Nov. 7 meeting. That’s the last council meeting before the new composition of council is seated, following the Nov. 5 election.

Ann Arbor DDA: Main Street Light Poles

The city council considered approval of $280,000 to be spent replacing 81 light poles in downtown Ann Arbor. The resolution stated that the light poles would be purchased from Spring City Electrical Manufacturing at a cost of $173,307, with additional costs for installation and labor bringing the total to $280,000.

Downtown Ann Arbor Main Street light pole on the northeast corner of Main & William. Photograph is from the city of Ann Arbor, taken in April 2012.

The potential expenditure amounted to the city’s portion of a $580,000 project to replace 81 light poles – with the other portion of the cost borne by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

The $280,000 for the city’s share would need to be allocated from the general fund to the field operation unit’s FY 2014 street lighting budget. As a budget amendment, the resolution needed eight votes under the city charter.

By way of additional background, in April 2013 when the council gave initial approval of the change to the city ordinance that regulates the DDA’s TIF capture, an argument against that move was that it would leave the DDA without sufficient revenue to pay for the roughly $580,000 cost of replacing the decorative light poles, which are described by some as an iconic feature of Main Street.

Replacement was characterized as an urgent public safety issue, because the bases of some of the poles are rusting. Various statements were made about the number of light poles that had failed, but responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle earlier this year, city of Ann Arbor staff indicated that in early 2012 two of the light poles fell – due to a structural failure at the base of the poles caused by rust. After inspection of all the poles, two additional light poles were deemed to be in immediate risk of falling and were also replaced. As a part of the council’s FY 2014 budget deliberations, the council altered the DDA’s budget and directed the DDA to allocate $300,000 toward the replacement of the Main Street light poles.

The council’s specific action on May 20, 2013 was to alter the DDA’s budget by recognizing additional TIF revenues of more than $568,000, and shifting $300,000 of that revenue from the DDA’s TIF fund to the DDA’s housing fund. The council’s budget resolution also recommended that the DDA spend $300,000 of its TIF fund on the Main Street light pole replacement. Earlier this year, in response to an emailed query from The Chronicle, city administrator Steve Powers indicated that the city council was expected to be asked to act on the matter either at its July 15 or Aug. 8 meeting. But the issue was not placed before the council until Oct. 21.

Ann Arbor DDA: Main Street Light Poles – Background

Most of the council’s deliberations focused on the council’s decision in May this year to alter the DDA’s budget when the council adopted the FY 2014 budget. That budget change was first to add $568,343 in TIF revenue to the amount the DDA itself had budgeted for FY 2014 and then to transfer $300,000 of that from the TIF fund to the DDA’s affordable housing fund. The council’s budget amendment earlier this year also included a request that the DDA allocate at least $300,000 to the light-pole replacement project.

The council’s budget deliberations featured an argument by some councilmembers that the $300,000 transfer to the housing fund would impair the DDA’s ability to undertake the light pole replacement project and that the city would need to absorb the cost differential.

However, the set of budget amendments approved by the council in May didn’t include an allocation for the city to pay for the light poles, nor did the council’s action include a commitment expressed in a resolution that the city would absorb the cost.

All of that came in the context of the council’s consideration of a change to the city ordinance that regulates the DDA’s TIF capture – Chapter 7. That Chapter 7 change was given initial approval on April 1, before the council deliberated on its budget in May and even before it received the proposed budget from the city administrator later in April. The Chapter 7 change – on which final action continues to be postponed by the council – would essentially enforce the limitations on TIF revenue that are already expressed in the ordinance language, and disallow the DDA’s preferred interpretation.

On the DDA’s current interpretation of Chapter 7, there’s no limitation on its TIF revenue as along as it has debt payments to make. Earlier in 2011, when the issue was first noticed, the DDA had agreed that there was a limitation, after analysis of the ordinance by its own legal counsel and the city attorney’s office. When it became apparent that the amounts that would need to be returned would recur and be more substantial than the DDA first calculated, the DDA adopted a different legal position – involving the debt clause.

The Main Street light pole issue surfaced during the deliberations on April 1 about the ordinance revision – as an example of a project the DDA might not be able to pay for, if the council enacted the Chapter 7 revision. At the council’s April 15 meeting, an amendment to the Chapter 7 revision proposed by Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and adopted by the council delayed application of the revised language until next year – FY 2015.

In timeline overview form:

• April 1, 2013: Initial approval of DDA TIF capture ordinance revision (Chapter 7). Main Street light poles were cited as a project the DDA might not be able to pay for if the Chapter 7 revisions were approved.
• April 15, 2013: City council approves the Petersen amendment to the Chapter 7 revision, which delayed application of the revised language until FY 2015.
• May 20, 2013: City council approves FY 2014 budget amendment that affects DDA budget.
  

  Whereas, The DDA is forecasted to receive $568,343 more in TIF revenues than anticipated in the proposed FY14 budget;
  Whereas, Council desires to support the public housing program in the DDA area;
  RESOLVED, The DDA TIF fund revenue and expenditure budgets be increased by $568,343 for the purposes of creating a one-time transfer;
  RESOLVED, The DDA Housing fund revenue and expenditure budgets be increased by $300,000 to reflect Council’s desire for the DDA to support affordable housing in the DDA area; and
  RESOLVED, Ann Arbor City Council requests that the DDA allocate at least $300,000 for the replacement of the light poles on Main Street.

• June 5, 2013: DDA board meets and executive director Susan Pollay reports the council’s action. She tells the board that she’s meeting with city staff to figure out how the light poles will be paid for.
• July 3, 2013: DDA board allocates $300,000 for the light pole replacement project at the same meeting it allocates $250,000 for other capital projects, and $59,200 to support the creation of a business improvement zone in the South University area. One “whereas” clause characterized the council’s action in a way that is not based on the wording of the city council’s May 20 budget amendment.
  

  Whereas, Through the 2013/14 budget approval process it was determined that the City would undertake this street light replacement in calendar year 2013, with the DDA allocating $300,000 toward the cost of the project, and the City allocating $216,000; [.pdf of complete DDA light pole resolution]

Ann Arbor DDA: Main Street Light Poles – Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off deliberations. She asked public services area administrator Craig Hupy to come to the podium. She wanted to know when the light poles were installed and by whom. Hupy explained that they were installed by the DDA in the late 1980s, so the poles are not quite 30 years old. They weren’t noticed to be rusting because their decorative base shields the rust from view, he explained. He said the bases might have contributed to water not draining away and that the replacement light poles would have a gap between the pole and the base, he explained.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked why the appropriation for the light poles was not included in the budget that the council was asked to approve in May. Hupy explained that at that time, the DDA was proposing to cover the entire cost. Based on that explanation, Kunselman wouldn’t support the resolution appropriating the money.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) pointed out that the council’s budget resolution was a request for the DDA to spend at least $300,000. She asked DDA executive director Susan Pollay if the DDA had considered making a greater contribution. Pollay reviewed the history of the council’s budget resolution.

Lumm inquired about the status of the city council’s resolution requesting the DDA to fund downtown police officers. Pollay told Lumm the DDA is looking at possibly hiring “ambassadors,” not police officers. She noted that some DDA board members would be traveling to Grand Rapids to learn more about that city’s ambassador program.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) asked where the $300,000 came from that the DDA had granted to Washtenaw County for its Annex renovation. It was allocated from the DDA’s TIF fund.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) began his remarks with: “C’mon, we knew this was coming” – indicating a view that the council understood that the council’s action to alter the DDA’s budget back in May meant that the city would need to pay a portion of the light pole replacement cost. Mayor John Hieftje said he remembered it the same way as Warpehoski.

Petersen asked if there was other money besides general fund money that could be used to pay for the light poles. No, said Hupy.

Kunselman pressed Hupy on the question of the appropriation of the funds. The DDA had said that the DDA would step up and cover the expense, Hupy said. It was not put into the city’s budget after discussion with the DDA, he said. Kunselman said that the council had not made a commitment to pay for the light poles. The DDA had spent money for other things, like the Washtenaw County Annex building.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) then claimed that Kunselman had made a “flat-out misrepresentation” of what had happened. The council had been told that the council would need to spend the general fund money to do it, Taylor contended. And it was the council’s ill-advised interference with the DDA’s budget earlier in the year that had caused this situation, Taylor said. The council had made the budget adjustments in May, “knowing full well that we’d be on the hook for the balance.” Taylor called the need to spend the money now a “self-inflicted wound.”

Briere said she appreciated what Taylor and Kunselman both said. Briere then told the council how she explained to a constituent the difference between the city’s and the DDA’s budgets. Briere said that the city council had told the DDA how to spend its money, and the DDA had done that. She was filled with regret that the council had done that, she said. When the DDA said it would step up and make that investment, she’d been relieved.

Petersen asked what the level of risk is for the light poles falling down. What kind of health and safety risk is posed? Hupy said those that were in immediate danger had been replaced. If the light poles were not all going to be replaced in the near term, the city would go out and replace a few more poles, he said.

Petersen said she sees the budgets of the DDA and the city as “fungible.” She’d like to see the DDA find the money to complete this project. Based on Pollay’s response to Lumm’s question, Petersen concluded the DDA would not be funding the police officers that the city council had requested. Responding to Briere’s remark, Petersen said she didn’t regret giving direction to the DDA. She said that she thought the DDA should find the money to pay for the light poles.

Lumm said that the resolution to allocate funds that night was consistent with the council’s budget resolution, so she’d support it. Warpehoski asked if the overall cost of replacement changes, if the poles are replaced in stages as compared to doing it all in one phase. Hupy explained that labor costs would go up. There would also be a mismatch between the globes for a time while the replacement was underway.

Kailasapathy related a vignette about a neighborhood where there’s no streetlight and no sidewalk – at the intersection of Dhu Varren and Birchwood. She’d met with city staff there early in the morning before it was light and they had seen children waiting for the bus to arrive. She compared the potential for mismatching light poles downtown to not having any streetlight at all at that Dhu Varren location. Like Petersen, Kailasapathy said she had no regrets about changing the DDA’s budget earlier in the year to allocate $300,000 for affordable housing.

Outcome: The council rejected the resolution on a 7-4 vote. It failed because it needed 8 votes to pass on the 11-member council. Voting against the resolution were Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

City Energy Commission: Fossil Fuel Divestment

A resolution on divestment from fossil fuel companies was back in front of the council for the third time. When it was initially considered on Sept. 3, 2013, the council voted it down. But on Sept. 16, 2013 the resolution was brought back for reconsideration, then postponed until Oct. 21.

It’s based on an energy commission resolution passed on July 9, 2013. The resolution 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 recommended by the energy commission 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.

Nancy Walker, executive director of the city’s employee retirement system, has reviewed for the council at its meetings the implications of fossil fuel divestment on the retirement fund. Walker had told the council that moving to separately managed accounts from the system’s preferred strategy – of using co-mingled funds, mutual funds, and particularly indexed funds – would cost 30-40 basis points more in fees, independent of any difference in the return on investment.

City Energy Commission: Fossil Fuel Divestment – Public Commentary

Mike Shriberg, an energy commission member who’d addressed councilmembers the two previous times that the item had been on the agenda, conveyed some of the information orally that was included in the commission’s written response to the council’s questions. [Divestment: Response from Energy Commission] He asked that the council not be fixated on the question of fees. Rather, he urged the council to focus on what can be done now – by focusing on the investments that are not in indexed funds.

City Energy Commission: Fossil Fuel Divestment – Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje said he hoped the discussion could be brief, because it’s already been discussed a lot. [The council's deliberations lasted a half hour.]

Ann Arbor city energy commissioner Michael Shriberg.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that his impression is that the council was eager to express its support for divestment, but concerned about interfering with the pension board. An earlier amendment had been made to try to address that tension, he said. [The amendment was proposed by Taylor at the council's Sept. 16, 2013 meeting, and adopted by the council before postponing a vote on the resolution until Oct. 21. The amendment acknowledges that compliance with the requests by the council had to be consistent with the pension board’s fiduciary responsibility.]

Taylor indicated that he’d be more comfortable with further amendments so that the resolution enumerated a set of requests to investigate and consider various topics, as opposed to “urging” the pension board to do something. But he didn’t move the amendments at that point.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) said it makes sense to remove language that has to do with divestment. She would be more inclined to support something that is more proactive about directing investment in clean energy instead of divesting from anything.

Hieftje said the resolution as it reads doesn’t have any “teeth” that would direct the pension board to do anything. It would send a message, however, that the city wants to align its investment strategy with its sustainability plan. He ventured it could be watered down further by saying, “maybe please could you possibly do something.” But the resolution was already soft enough as it is, Hieftje said. He felt the council should give the resolution an up-or-down vote and if the council voted it down, the council could ask the energy commission to come up with something else. [Hieftje serves on the city's energy commission.]

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) thought the resolution did need to be watered down further. He didn’t want to “urge” another body to do something over which the council has no control. Some of the other cities that have been referenced as having a similar policy simply had mayoral directives, he pointed out. Kunselman said the resolution should just be very simple. The list of things that are in the resolution as it’s written aren’t “neighborly,” he said. Kunselman felt that a resolution could be crafted that could be just enough to put the city of Ann Arbor on a list of cities that support the idea of divestment and that no one would check in detail to see what the resolved clauses actually say.

At that point Taylor proposed the amendments he’d alluded to earlier. The word “urges” would be replaced with “requests” throughout. Also the word “immediately” would be deleted from the first resolved clause. Another piece of language from Taylor’s amendments: “… to investigate whether it can reasonably divest …” The phrase “consider ensuring” would be used instead of just “ensuring.” [.pdf of fossil fuel resolution as amended]

Outcome: The council approved Taylor’s amendments with dissent from John Hieftje.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) indicated he’d support the resolution. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she supported the elimination of the word “urge” and the substitution of “request.” But she didn’t know what this resolution will accomplish. She thanked the retirement board for its work. She pointed to the fees that would be incurred as a result of withdrawing investments from indexed funds.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said that she couldn’t match Lumm’s rhetoric when it comes to investments because it’s not in her skill set. She relies on other people to guide her. There’s a concern that the staff of the pension board might not be able to distinguish between looking into things versus implementing something, she said. So Taylor’s amendments, she said, are reasonable. They provide guidance without imposing restriction.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) indicated she’d support the amended resolution. Petersen allowed the amendments do water down the resolution, but she doesn’t want to support something that doesn’t have teeth. The council would be asking the pension board to take its eye off the ball for a while, she said. A resolution about investment as opposed to divestment would have teeth, she said.

Kunselman wanted to make sure that the title of the resolution had the word “urges” replaced with “requests,” along with the body of the resolution. Kunselman said he’d support the resolution, but made some remarks about what he wants the energy commission to focus its efforts on – energy efficiency projects, not investment strategy. Kunselman ventured that some members of the pension board were present and made a brief gambit to have them come to the podium.

Instead, city administrator Steve Powers gave some brief background on the work the pension board had done to give a preliminary assessment to the council’s requests. CFO Tom Crawford came to the podium and explained that the pension board had taken the council’s questions and deliberations seriously. The time it would take the board’s investment committee to investigate further was a concern, he said. The volunteer board has a professional investment advisor, and the advice from that advisor was there’s no way to very simply address the issue.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the amended fossil fuel resolution on a 9-2 vote. Dissenting were Ward 2 councilmembers Sally Petersen and Jane Lumm.

City Energy Commission: Appleyard Appointment

On the council’s agenda was just one appointment – that of Wayne Appleyard to the city’s energy commission.

Wayne Appleyard at an April 2010 joint meeting of the city’s energy, environmental and planning commissions. Next to Appleyard is Bonnie Bona, who at that time chaired the planning commission. (Chronicle file photo.)

Appleyard’s nomination was put forward at the council’s Sept. 16 meeting, but his confirmation was not requested at the council’s following meeting on Oct. 7. Even though the nomination was not put forward at the Oct. 7 meeting, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) registered his concerns then about the nomination.

So the confirmation request was pending clarification of some concerns that Anglin and other councilmembers had raised about Appleyard’s status as a non-city resident and his long tenure on the commission – since 2002.

As a non-city resident, Appleyard’s confirmation needed seven votes, which it would likely not have received on Oct. 7 given the short-handed council that night. [Only eight out of 11 councilmembers attended.]

The seven-vote majority, instead of the typical six, is required by the city charter for non-city residents: [emphasis added]:

Section 12.2. Except as otherwise provided in this charter, a person is eligible to hold a City office if the person has been a registered elector of the City, or of territory annexed to the City or both, and, in the case of a Council Member, a resident of the ward from which elected, for at least one year immediately preceding election or appointment. This requirement may be waived as to appointive officers by resolution concurred in by not less than seven members of the Council.

Appleyard lives in Grass Lake, Mich. With respect to Appleyard’s long tenure, a city charter requirement on city boards and commissions has been analyzed as not applicable to the city’s energy commission. The charter requirement limits continuous service on some kinds of boards and commissions to six years, after which a three-year lapse is required:

Boards and Commissions SECTION 5.17.
(a) The Council may create citizen boards for each of the following departments: Police Department, Fire Department, Department of Public Works, Utilities Department, Department of Parks and Recreation, and Department of Building and Safety Engineering. It may, in addition, create such a board for any department established pursuant to this charter. The Council shall prescribe the number of persons on each such board, the terms of office, the method of appointment of members, the board officers and the method of their selection, and provisions concerning the holding of regular and special meetings. No person serving on such board continuously for six years shall be eligible to reappointment, until the lapse of three years. …

The city energy commission was established in 1985 by a council resolution to “oversee City policies and regulations in areas of energy efficiency concerns and make periodic public reports and recommendations to the City Council.” So it’s not analyzed as corresponding to any particular city department. Under special qualifications, the online Legistar description states: “wide spread representation; interest in energy.” Terms of appointment for energy commissioners are three years.

When Appleyard was up for reappointment in 2010, no objections were raised. On that occasion, mayor John Hieftje pulled out Appleyard’s confirmation for a separate vote to ensure it was clear that he’d specifically received adequate support from the council, despite not being a city resident.

Appleyard is principal with Sunstructures Architects, with a focus in renewable energy and sustainable architecture. Appleyard designed the house of Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

City Energy Commission: Appleyard Appointment – Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje led off by saying he couldn’t imagine anyone who’s more knowledgeable or qualified to serve on the energy commission.

Mayor John Hieftje and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). They were looking at the mayoral proclamation recognizing Diwali in Ann Arbor.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) acknowledged that Appleyard is highly qualified, and thanked him for his service. But local government is about local governance, she said. Her objection to the appointment was not personal, she said, and she valued Appleyard’s service. She thought, however, that among the 115,000 residents of Ann Arbor, other qualified commissioners could be found. If the energy commission recommends measures that could have an effect on the city’s financial well-being (like the fossil fuel divestment resolution), then the recommendations should be made by people who will live with the consequences, she said – that is, city residents.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) noted that Appleyard is abundantly qualified. But she’s concerned about the length of his service – as a non-city resident. Reasonable term limits are a good government practice, she said. So Lumm wouldn’t support the appointment.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that service in the community leads to even more service in the community. There needs to be a kind of welcome mat put out to residents encouraging them to serve. Anglin offered his view that the energy commission should be focusing more on residential solar and geothermal initiatives. Going outside the community to fill the seat shouldn’t be necessary, he concluded.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) stated that it’s not Appleyard’s fault that there are no term limits on the energy commission, so she’d support the appointment. She reminded the council that non-city resident Alison Stroud was unanimously approved by the council as an appointee to the city’s commission on disability issues, because of her unique qualifications.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) stated that he was delighted to support Appleyard, who exemplifies excellence. Hieftje reiterated that Appleyard has tremendous expertise. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) pointed out that Appleyard also serves on the environmental commission as the energy commission’s representative. Based on her experience serving on the environmental commission as one of two city council appointees to that group, Briere said Appleyard represents a valuable background and voice that would be otherwise unrepresented. She called his explanations cogent and patient. She characterized his style as non-aggressive but firm. So she supported his appointment.

Hieftje pointed out that Appleyard is a taxpayer as the owner of a business within the city limits. [Added after initial publication: According to Appleyard, he has moved his business address to his home in Grass Lake after maintaining it in Ann Ann Arbor for 35 years. The address listed on his website in downtown Ann Arbor is no longer current.]

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) recalled his relationship with Appleyard: Appleyard designed Kunselman’s house and Kunselman served on the energy commission back when Kunselman was the planning commission’s representative to that body. Kunselman said he’d support Appleyard’s appointment.

Outcome: The council voted 8-3 to approve the reappointment of Wayne Appleyard to the city energy commission. Dissenting were Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Upcoming Business

Several specific initiatives were announced by councilmembers at the Oct. 21 meeting, one of which grew out of the Wayne Appleyard appointment. Councilmembers will also be asked to vote on some nominations, which were made at the Oct. 21 meeting.

Upcoming Business: Board/Commission Term Limits

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) announced during the final communications time of the evening – which took place well after midnight – that she’d consulted with the city attorney to bring forward a resolution to apply the term limit restriction of the city charter to all boards and commissions. [The city charter provides term limits for a particular subset of boards and commissions. Lumm's proposal would likely be to incorporate the city charter limit of two terms (unless there's a one-term lapse) into the city's ordinance about boards and commissions.]

Upcoming Business: Nominations

Nominated to fill the remaining vacancy on the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board – due to the resignation of Nader Nassif – was Cyndi Clark, owner of Lily Grace. The business is described on its website as a luxury cosmetics boutique in downtown Ann Arbor.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) perused the pink appointments and nomination list before the meeting started.

To fill a vacancy left by Leigh Greden on the Ann Arbor housing commission board, Tim Colenback was nominated on Oct. 21. Greden’s nomination had been made, but was never put forward for a confirmation vote. Colenback also serves on the city’s housing and human services advisory board. Colenback has told mayor John Hieftje that he won’t be able to serve on both bodies.

A replacement for Julie Grand on the park advisory commission was nominated at the Oct. 21 meeting – David Santacroce. He’s a professor of law at the University of Michigan, and chaired the North Main Huron River corridor task force, which worked for a year and delivered its report recently to the council on recommendations to the corridor. Grand attended her last meeting of PAC on Oct. 15, 2013, after completing the maximum two terms of service.

Amy Shepherd was nominated to serve on the city’s commission on disability issues. On the energy commission, Shoshannah Lenski was nominated to replace Mike Delaney, and Mike Shriberg was nominated for reappointment.

Upcoming Business – Ethics Policy?

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) noted there’s been a lot of conversation about the notion of a conflict of interest. And she’s been meeting with constituents about the possibility of implementing a city ethics policy. So she’s preparing a resolution for the next meeting to instruct the city attorney to provide education and professional training for city councilmembers and appointees on Act 196 of 1973, which outlines standards of conduct. The city administrator would be directed to provide information on the city’s website about standards of conduct. She invited other councilmembers to co-sponsor the resolution.

Upcoming Business – Outdoor Smoking

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) announced that he’s working with staff on an outdoor smoking ordinance that would mirror an ordinance enacted by Washtenaw County. He’s looking to empower the city administrator to designate some areas of parkland as non-smoking areas, he said. Warpehoski said that at least the playgrounds should be non-smoking. He reported that he’d be asking the park advisory commission for input, as well.

Upcoming Business – Pedestrian Safety

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) announced that he and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) were working on a framework to establish a pedestrian safety citizens advisory committee.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

The Federal Highway Authority has a framework, he said, for developing a pedestrian safety action plan. He said that city staff is moving forward with a plan to implement that framework. It would take a little money and the council’s approval, he said. One of the components of that framework is a citizens advisory committee. He thought the committee would be seated at or after the second council meeting in November, on Nov. 18. And the process of coming up with recommendations would last six to nine months, he thought.

The effort is not designed to determine or preempt the outcome of the effort to repeal the pedestrian crosswalk ordinance, Warpehoski said.

Briere followed up on Warpehoski’s remarks by saying they want first to identify the broad categories of people or groups who might serve on such a pedestrian safety committee. As examples she gave representatives from the disability community, or school groups. But the idea would not be to identify individuals. Instead, people who were interested in serving would be asked to submit an application. At this point, she and Warpehoski hadn’t “been foolish enough to say, ‘Oh, one person from each ward.’” She hoped that the mayor’s office would work with the representation from each ward to ensure good representation on the committee.

Upcoming Business – UM Billboard

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) announced that he’s working with Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) on a resolution asking that the University of Michigan decommission the large digital billboard outside the Michigan football stadium on East Stadium Boulevard. The background of that resolution given by Taylor was the council’s relatively recent action, on June 17, 2013, to limit digital billboards in the city.

Taylor contended that the UM billboard creates the kind of harms that the council’s action in revising its ordinance sought to avoid. If it won’t be decommissioned, he said, the resolution will ask that the university operate the billboard only just before events at Michigan Stadium or at Crisler Center.

Upcoming Business – Downtown Parks

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who serves as one of two ex officio council appointees to the city’s park advisory commission, alerted the council to the recommendations of the park advisory commission‘s subcommittee on downtown parks. That will be on the next meeting’s agenda for formal acceptance, he said.

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. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as an advocate for all members of the community, including the middle class. He was there as a candidate for city council, and asked voters in Ward 5 to write in his name when they vote. He called for the ending of homelessness, and more access to affordable transportation, and health care. He recalled the demonstration several years ago at city hall by the KKK, which he claimed mayor John Hieftje authorized. [Hieftje was not mayor at the time, as demonstrations took place in 1996 and 1998. This was a point that Sabra Briere (Ward 1) made several hours later at the end of the meeting. Jane Lumm (Ward 2), whose previous tenure on the council included that era, noted that the KKK had not been invited to Ann Arbor. Hieftje, for his part, said he was glad he was not mayor at the time.]

Partridge complained that the planned redesign of the city’s website doesn’t go far enough. [The redesign of templates for the city's website was on the consent agenda – a contract with Keystone Media for $26,900.]

Comm/Comm: Jeff Hayner

Jeff Hayner is running for Ward 1 city council as an independent. He had just arrived from the PTO Council launch party, he told councilmembers. He drew an analogy to the trust we have in educators and the trust we have in elected representatives. He thought community engagement is the key – in improving schools as well as in local government. He said the redesign of the city webpages that was on the agenda was long overdue. He was glad to see that one of the tabs will be “Democracy in Ann Arbor.” He disagreed with Tom Partridge, when Partridge had said that it’s difficult to get to the website.

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

Next council meeting: Due to the Nov. 5 general election, the next council meeting will be on Thursday, Nov. 7, 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!

Al McWilliams attended the Oct. 2, 2013 meeting of the DDA board and voted on the one agenda item. This photo is from Chronicle coverage of that meeting.

The Sept 16 vote came after mayor John Hieftje stated during deliberations on Sept. 3 – as McWilliams’ confirmation that night appeared not to have sufficient support on the short-handed council – that he was withdrawing the nomination.

That gave rise to a technical procedural issue, because Hieftje’s request for confirmation on Sept. 16 appeared to be a fresh nomination. So it should have been subjected to the council’s rule that applies when the vote comes at the same council meeting as the nomination – namely, that the confirmation achieve an eight-vote majority. For detailed analysis of the procedural issue, see “Column: How to Count to 8, Stopping at 6.”

City attorney Stephen Postema was then directed by the council at its Oct. 7 meeting to produce a written opinion on the legal validity of the 6-5 vote, which he subsequently did. Later in the Oct. 7 meeting, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) convinced his council colleagues to re-open the agenda to add a motion to reconsider the Sept. 16 vote on McWilliams. Warpehoski could do that as someone who voted on the prevailing side.

That motion for reconsideration was immediately postponed until the Oct. 21 meeting. The point of Warpehoski’s motion was not based on his desire to change his vote, but rather to eliminate the procedural question about McWilliams’ appointment.

Voting against McWilliams’ appointment on Sept. 16 and on Oct. 21 were: Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Voting in favor were: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), and mayor John Hieftje.

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.

It’s possible that the council might be briefed at the meeting on proposals received by the Oct. 18 deadline for the purchase of the city-owned parcel on William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues (the former Y lot), but that’s not yet clear. The property had been listed for $4.2 million.

Many of the Oct. 21 items already on the agenda can be divided into three main categories: transportation, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and the city’s energy commission.

The council held a work session about transportation on Oct. 14, 2013. Transportation-related items on the Oct. 21 agenda include a resolution that would admit Ypsilanti Township as a member of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. The specific question to be considered is a revision to the AAATA’s articles of incorporation – which would also expand the number of board members from nine to 10.

A second transportation-related agenda item is a city-led initiative to develop a new train station, with the location to be determined. The existing location, as well as one on Fuller Road near the University of Michigan medical campus, would be among the possibilities. On the council’s agenda is a contract with URS Corp. to conduct an environmental review that would include public engagement, site selection and conceptual design. The council’s authorization would be $824,875, an amount that includes a $63,083 contingency. The city would pay 20% of that, or about $165,000, with the rest covered by a federal grant that has already been awarded by the Federal Rail Authority.

To the extent that pedestrian infrastructure is also part of the city’s transportation system, a transportation-related pair of items would alter the definition of “sidewalk” to include cross-lot walkways. Affected by the change, for example, would be walkways that connect streets with parks or school property. The change would allow for use of sidewalk repair millage funds to repair cross-lot walkways, without triggering the winter maintenance requirement for adjacent property owners.

Finally, the city council will be asked to approve an annual resolution related to wintertime transportation – the purchase of ice control salt for city streets.

Related to the Ann Arbor DDA are three items: (1) reconsideration of the appointment of Al McWilliams to the board of that authority – likely to be confirmed on a re-vote, if reconsideration is approved; (2) final consideration of a change to the city ordinance regulating the DDA’s TIF (tax increment financing) capture – likely to be postponed yet again; and (3) a budget allocation of $280,000 to cover costs associated with replacement of downtown ornamental, pedestrian-scale light poles. The DDA is contributing $300,000 to the cost of the $580,000 project. Some councilmembers think the DDA should pay for the full amount, so the eight-vote majority required for the budget amendment might not be achieved.

The specific size of the majority vote required could also be a factor in one of two agenda items related to the city’s energy commission – the re-appointment of Wayne Appleyard to the commission. The confirmation will need a seven-vote majority under the city charter, because he’s not a city resident. The other energy-related item is an energy commission-recommended resolution – which was previously rejected, reconsidered and postponed by the city council. The resolution would call upon the city’s employee retirement board to divest from fossil fuel companies.

This article includes a more detailed preview of each of these agenda items. More details on other meeting agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. Readers can also follow the live meeting proceedings Monday evening 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 preview material. The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m.

Transportation

Three transportation-related issues appear on the agenda.

Transportation: Ypsilanti Township Membership in AAATA

The council will be asked to approve revised articles of incorporation for the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, so that Ypsilanti Township is admitted as a member of the authority. The board would be expanded from nine to 10 members, with the additional member to be appointed by Ypsilanti Township. At its Sept. 26, 2013 meeting, the AAATA board already approved the membership of Ypsilanti Township. That action was contingent on approval by the Ann Arbor city council.

Ypsilanti Township is now a member of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, pending consideration by the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti city councils. (Green indicates the geographic area included by the AAATA.)

An earlier expansion in membership was given final approval by the AAATA board at its June 20, 2013 meeting. That’s when the city of Ypsilanti was admitted as a member of the AAATA and its board was increased from seven to nine members, one of whom is appointed by the city of Ypsilanti. The name of the authority was also changed at that time to add the word “area” – making it the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. [Amendment 3 of the AAATA articles of incorporation]

The expansion of the AAATA’s geographic footprint to include some jurisdictions geographically close to the city of Ann Arbor – and with whom the AAATA has historically had purchase-of-service agreements (POSAs) – sets the stage for a possible request of voters in the expanded geographic area. That request would be to approve additional transportation funding to pay for increased service frequencies and times.

The AAATA could place a millage request on the ballot in May 2014, probably at the level of 0.7 mills, to support a 5-year service improvement plan that the AAATA has developed. A schedule of public meetings to introduce that plan runs through mid-November. A decision to place a millage on the ballot would first need AAATA board approval – a question that has not yet appeared before the board.

Transportation: Ann Arbor Station

Appearing on the Oct. 21 agenda is a contract with URS Corp. Inc. (URS) to carry out an environmental review of the Ann Arbor Station project. This rail station project relates most immediately to the prospect that Amtrak will be offering improved inter-city service on the Chicago-Detroit Amtrak line.

Amtrak train arrival in Ann Arbor. (Chronicle file photo from September 2013)

An improved intercity rail station also has implications for the way that a different type of service – commuter rail service between Ann Arbor and Detroit – might be created and offered in the future. The total budgeted for the Ann Arbor Station contract on the Oct. 21 agenda – which will cover public engagement, site selection and conceptual design – is $824,875, an amount that includes a $63,083 contingency. The city would pay 20% of that, or about $165,000. A transfer of $550,000 to the city’s major grant fund was approved a year ago by the city council at its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting for the total project budget.

The federal grant that will cover 80% of the project cost, up to $2.8 million for the federal share, had been accepted by the council at its June 4, 2012 meeting. So for the contract on the Oct. 21 agenda, the city’s share works out to approximately $165,000 with the Federal Rail Authority covering the remaining $660,000.

The funding approved by the city council a year ago came after the city learned that previous expenditures – which were made in connection with the now demised Fuller Road Station project – would not be considered as eligible local matching funds under the federal grant. Fuller Road Station had been a joint venture with the University of Michigan, and called for UM to build a parking structure on the same site as the proposed rail station at a location on Fuller Road.

The preliminary work that URS would do under the contract on the Oct. 21 agenda does not presuppose a preferred location for a new passenger rail station. The existing Amtrak station on Depot Street would be among the alternatives considered, in addition to the location identified for the Fuller Road Station, which is on city-owned land between Fuller Road and East Medical Center Drive adjacent to the UM medical center. The Fuller Park land is designated by the city in planning documents as parkland, and is zoned as public land. A 2009 appraisal commissioned by the city put the value of the land at $4.25 million.

Transportation: Sidewalks

The ordinance change in front of the council for final approval on Oct. 21 would revise the definition of “sidewalk” so that cross-lot walkways could be repaired using sidewalk repair millage funds, but not trigger the ordinary winter maintenance requirement for adjacent property owners. Cross-lot walkways include those that connect streets to parks or school property, or connect two parallel streets.

At the council’s July 1, 2013 meeting, councilmembers were set to give final approval of a different version of the ordinance revision, which would have still placed the responsibility of sidewalk shoveling in the winter on owners of property adjacent to cross-lot walkways. But the council took a different approach after hearing objections from the owners of adjoining property.

A companion resolution later on the agenda completes the necessary council action to allow the definitional change to have an actual impact: The definition makes a walkway a “sidewalk” if the council formally accepts the walkway for public use.  So the companion resolution accepts 34 cross-lot walkways for public use.

This cross-lot path was described by John Ohanian at the city council’s July 1, 2013 meeting as one that he’d become responsible for shoveling if the city adopted the change in the definition of sidewalk.

This is the path – looking east from Frederick and Middleton into Greenbrier Park – that abuts Ohanian’s property.

Transportation: Ice Control Salt

The request to be considered by the council is for the purchase of bulk salt, for ice control, and seasonal back-up supplies to be sourced from the Detroit Salt Company for $245,143 (2,800 tons of “early fill” at $34.50 a ton and 4,100 tons of “seasonal backup” at $36.23 a ton).

Winter use of ice control salt on roadways by the city of Ann Arbor (in tons). Data from the city of Ann Arbor. Chart by The Chronicle. This year the council is being asked to authorize the purchase of a total of 6,900 tons of ice control salt.

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority

Three items on the Oct. 21 agenda relate to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

Ann Arbor DDA: Al McWilliams

The item on the council’s Oct. 21 agenda is a reconsideration of the council’s vote that appointed Al McWilliams to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. That original vote was taken on Sept. 16, and resulted in a 6-5 tally in favor.

Al McWilliams attended the Oct. 2, 2013 meeting of the DDA board and voted on the one agenda item. This photo is from Chronicle coverage of that meeting.

The Sept. 16 vote came after mayor John Hieftje stated during deliberations on Sept. 3 – as McWilliams’ confirmation that night appeared to have insufficient support on the short-handed council – that he was withdrawing the nomination.

That gave rise to a technical procedural issue – because Hieftje’s request for confirmation on Sept. 16 appeared to be a fresh nomination. So it should have been subjected to the council’s rule that applies when the vote comes at the same council meeting as the nomination – namely, that the confirmation achieve an eight-vote majority. For detailed analysis of the procedural issue, see “Column: How to Count to 8, Stopping at 6.”

City attorney Stephen Postema was then directed by the council at its Oct. 7 meeting to produce a written opinion on the legal validity of the 6-5 vote, which he subsequently did. Later in the Oct. 7 meeting, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) convinced his council colleagues to re-open the agenda to consider a motion to reconsider the Sept. 16 vote on McWilliams. Warpehoski could do that as someone who voted on the prevailing side.

That motion for reconsideration was immediately postponed until the Oct. 21 meeting. Even if successful, Warpehoski’s motion is unlikely to result in a change of any councilmember’s vote, but would serve to eliminate the procedural question about McWilliams’ appointment. On Oct 21, the first vote to be taken will be on the motion to reconsider. If at least six councilmembers vote to reconsider, then the question of the appointment itself will be in front of the council.

Ann Arbor DDA: DDA TIF Ordinance

An ordinance revision to Chapter 7 that’s in front of the council for final approval on Oct. 21 would clarify the existing language of the ordinance, which regulates the DDA’s TIF capture. The clarification would disallow the DDA’s preferred interpretation of a restriction on TIF revenue that’s already expressed in the ordinance language. This ordinance revision was first considered by the council in February of this year. It received initial approval in April and has been in front of the council several times since then, but always postponed. Another postponement is likely on Oct 21.

A joint committee of councilmembers and DDA board members has been meeting, most recently on Oct. 16, and appear headed toward an alternative that would enact a “cap” on DDA TIF revenue – that could be set at a high enough level that it might not have a substantive impact on actual TIF revenue. When that alternative is finalized, it would be brought forward as a substitute proposal. But based on the Oct. 16 committee meeting, that won’t be ready for the Oct. 21 council meeting.

Ann Arbor DDA: Main Street Light Poles

The city council will be asked to approve $280,000 to be spent replacing 81 light poles in downtown Ann Arbor. The light poles will be purchased from Spring City Electrical Manufacturing at a cost of $173,307, with additional costs for installation and labor bringing the total to $280,000.

Downtown Ann Arbor Main Street light pole on the northeast corner of Main & William. Photograph is from the city of Ann Arbor, taken in April 2012.

The expenditure would amount to the city’s portion of a $580,000 project to replace 81 light poles – with the other portion of the cost borne by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

The $280,000 for the city’s share still needs to be allocated from the general fund to the field operation unit’s FY 2014 street lighting budget. As a budget amendment, the resolution needs eight votes under the city charter. It might not achieve that number, because of the ongoing political wrangling between the Ann Arbor DDA and the city council.

By way of additional background, in April 2013 when the council gave initial approval of the change to the city ordinance that regulates the DDA’s TIF capture, an argument against that move was that it would leave the DDA without sufficient revenue to pay for the roughly $580,000 cost of replacing the decorative light poles, which are described by some as an iconic feature of Main Street.

Replacement was characterized as an urgent public safety issue, because the bases of some of the poles are rusting. Various statements were made about the number of light poles that had failed, but responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle earlier this year, city of Ann Arbor staff indicated that in early 2012 two of the light poles fell – due to a structural failure at the base of the poles caused by rust. After inspection of all the poles, two additional light poles were deemed to be in immediate risk of falling and were also replaced. As a part of the council’s FY 2014 budget deliberations, the council altered the DDA’s budget and directed the DDA to allocate $300,000 toward the replacement of the Main Street light poles.

The council’s specific action on May 20, 2013 was to alter the DDA’s budget by recognizing additional TIF revenues of more than $568,000, and shifting $300,000 of that revenue from the DDA’s TIF fund to the DDA’s housing fund. The council’s budget resolution also recommended that the DDA spend $300,000 of its TIF fund on the Main Street light pole replacement. Earlier this year, in response to an emailed query from The Chronicle, city administrator Steve Powers indicated that the city council was expected to be asked to act on the matter either at its July 15 or Aug. 8 meeting. But the issue was not placed before the council until Oct. 21.

City Energy Commission

Two items on the Oct. 21 agenda relate to the city’s energy commission.

City Energy Commission: Appleyard Appointment

On the agenda as of Friday, Oct. 18 was just one appointment – that of Wayne Appleyard to the city’s energy commission.

Wayne Appleyard at an April 2010 joint meeting of the city’s energy, environmental and planning commissions. Next to Appleyard is Bonnie Bona, who at that time chaired the planning commission. (Chronicle file photo.)

Appleyard’s nomination was put forward at the council’s Sept. 16 meeting, but his confirmation was not requested at the council’s following meeting on Oct. 7. Even though the nomination was not put forward at the Oct. 7 meeting, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) registered his concerns about the nomination of a non-city resident.

So the confirmation request is pending clarification of some concerns that Anglin and other councilmembers have raised about Appleyard’s status as a non-city resident and his long tenure on the commission – since 2002.

As a non-city resident, Appleyard’s confirmation needs seven votes, which it would likely not have received on Oct. 7 given the short-handed council that night. [Only eight out of 11 councilmembers attended.]

The seven-vote majority, instead of the typical six, is required by the city charter for non-city residents: [emphasis added]:

Section 12.2. Except as otherwise provided in this charter, a person is eligible to hold a City office if the person has been a registered elector of the City, or of territory annexed to the City or both, and, in the case of a Council Member, a resident of the ward from which elected, for at least one year immediately preceding election or appointment. This requirement may be waived as to appointive officers by resolution concurred in by not less than seven members of the Council.

Appleyard lives in Grass Lake, Mich. With respect to Appleyard’s long tenure, a city charter requirement on city boards and commissions has been analyzed as not applicable to the city’s energy commission. The charter requirement limits continuous service on some kinds of boards and commissions to six years, after which a three-year lapse is required:

Boards and Commissions SECTION 5.17.
(a) The Council may create citizen boards for each of the following departments: Police Department, Fire Department, Department of Public Works, Utilities Department, Department of Parks and Recreation, and Department of Building and Safety Engineering. It may, in addition, create such a board for any department established pursuant to this charter. The Council shall prescribe the number of persons on each such board, the terms of office, the method of appointment of members, the board officers and the method of their selection, and provisions concerning the holding of regular and special meetings. No person serving on such board continuously for six years shall be eligible to reappointment, until the lapse of three years. …

The city energy commission was established in 1985 by a council resolution to “oversee City policies and regulations in areas of energy efficiency concerns and make periodic public reports and recommendations to the City Council.” So it’s not analyzed as corresponding to any particular city department. Under special qualifications, the online Legistar description states: “wide spread representation; interest in energy.” Terms of appointment for energy commissioners are three years.

When Appleyard was up for reappointment in 2010, no objections were raised. On that occasion, mayor John Hieftje separated out Appleyard’s confirmation for a separate vote to ensure it was clear that he’d specifically received adequate support from the council, despite not being a city resident.

Appleyard is principal with Sunstructures Architects, with a focus in renewable energy and sustainable architecture. Appleyard designed the house of Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

City Energy Commission: Fossil Fuel Divestment

A resolution on divestment from fossil fuel companies is back in front of the council for the third time. When it was initially considered on Sept. 3, 2013, the council voted it down. But on Sept. 16, 2013 the resolution was brought back for reconsideration, then postponed until Oct. 21.

It’s based on an energy commission resolution passed on July 9, 2013. The resolution 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.

Nancy Walker, executive director of the city’s employee retirement system, has reviewed for the council at its meetings the implications of fossil fuel divestment on the retirement fund. Walker had told the council that moving to separately managed accounts from the system’s preferred strategy – of using co-mingled funds, mutual funds, and particularly indexed funds – would cost 30-40 basis points more in fees, independent of any difference in the return on investment.

Live updates from the meeting will appear starting here a few minutes before the scheduled meeting start time of 7 p.m.

6:42 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 has arrived. Responding to a Chronicle query, he indicates that bids on the old Y lot will not be reported out or discussed tonight – because Colliers is still analyzing the responses.

6:49 p.m. Several attendees are here for the Diwali proclamation. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) is wearing a sari for the occasion.

7:07 p.m. Thomas Partridge is using the time before the meeting to quiz Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) about the DDA ordinance. And we’re off.

7:08 p.m. Pledge of allegiance, moment of silence and the roll call of council. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) is absent. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) is absent for roll call, but he’s here. Higgins’ absence will have implications for vote tallies.

7:12 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wants the McWilliams reconsideration moved up on the agenda, right after the mayor’s communications. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) points out that Higgins is absent and that one condition on the reconsideration was that all councilmembers be present for the reconsideration. Mayor John Hieftje says Higgins is on her way. Warpehoski ventures that he could re-open the agenda in case Higgins has not arrived when the council considers the item.

7:14 p.m. City administrator communications. City administrator Steve Powers reports on a “feel-good” story – 400 trick-or-treaters during the city’s trick-or-treating on the Huron River. Community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl introduces some guests from Thailand and China who have been visiting Ann Arbor.

7:14 p.m. Proclamations. The proclamation on the agenda tonight is for Diwali – a five-day Hindu festival, the “festival of lights.” It declares Nov. 3, 2013, as Diwali in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

7:23 p.m. Speakers are in turn explaining the religious and cultural significance of Diwali.

7:23 p.m. Higgins has just arrived.

7:25 p.m. Buddhism is now being explained. Previous speakers explained Jainism and Sikhism.

7:27 p.m. We’re now receiving a chanted blessing. The blessing earns applause from the audience.

7:29 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.]

Four people are signed up to speak on the topic of the contract with URS for the environmental review for the Ann Arbor Station project: Rita Mitchell, Nancy Shiffler, Clark Charnetski, and Jeff Hayner. One of the two alternate speaker slots is also filled with a speaker who wants to address the council on the topic of the URS contract – Drew Waller. [More background above on Ann Arbor Station].

Four people are also signed up to talk about the addition of Ypsilanti Township to the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority: Martha Valadez, Matt Vanauker, Marko Arizankoski, and Abishek Thiagaraj. Alternate speaker Emmanuel Jones is also signed up to talk about adding Ypsilanti Township to the AAATA. [More background on Ypsilanti Township membership in AAATA]

Ann Arbor energy commissioner Mike Shriberg is signed up to speak in support of the resolution urging the employee retirement system to divest from fossil fuels companies. This resolution is back in front of the council for the third time. When it was initially considered on Sept. 3, 2013 the council voted it down. But on Sept. 16, 2013 the resolution was brought back for reconsideration, then postponed until tonight. It’s based on an energy commission resolution passed on July 9, 2013 recommending 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. [More background on fossil fuel divestment]

Tom Partridge is signed up to speak in favor of his Ward 5 city council write-in candidacy.

7:36 p.m. Tom Partridge introduces himself as an advocate for all members of the community, including the middle class. He’s here as a candidate for city council and asks voters in Ward 5 to write in his name when they vote. He calls for the ending of homelessness, more access to affordable transportation, and health care. He recalls the demonstration several years ago at city hall by the KKK, which he says mayor John Hieftje authorized. [Hieftje was not mayor at the time.] Partridge complains that the planned redesign of the city’s website doesn’t go far enough.

7:40 p.m. Rita Mitchell says the community has not yet agreed on whether the city should take responsibility for a new train station. She pegs the total amount of money invested in study of a site at $1.7 million. She questions whether URS can be an objective consultant given some work done in connection with previous Fuller Station and the connector study. Mitchell questions the amount of funding in the contract just for the public engagement process, which she thinks is too much, compared to the amount for the environmental assessment per se.

7:42 p.m. Martha Valadez is transit organizer for the Ecology Center and Partners for Transit. She says access to public transportation is crucial for her personally and for her community. She supports the urban core transit program. She supports the membership of Ypsilanti Township in the AAATA. It will give the township a chance to participate in future funding requests, not just participation in governance, she says.

7:44 p.m. Matt Vanauker introduces himself as a Ward 5 resident and high school classmate of Kunselman. He’s surprised that the council didn’t support the countywide initiative last year. He can’t imagine a reason why Ypsilanti Township would not be included as a member in the AAATA. He relies on public transportation to accomplish basic life functions, like grocery shopping and medical appointments.

7:46 p.m. Nancy Shiffler is chair of the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club. She thinks the public involvement component is a strength of the proposal. She’s looking forward to a well-publicized schedule. She cautions against self-selected participants in online surveys. Task 4 of the contract, she says, is problematic, because it could result in a categorical exclusion for an FRA requirement with respect to parkland – and exclusion that would come too early in the process.

7:49 p.m. Mike Shriberg is an energy commission member. He’s spoken to the council twice previously. He’s conveying some of the information in this document: [Divestment: Response from Energy Commission] He asks that the council not be fixated on the question of fees. He asks the council to focus on what can be done now – by focusing on the investments that are not in indexed funds.

7:53 p.m. Clark Charnetski recalls the 30-year history of the study of different sites of a new rail station. That was the era when the Amtrak station was still located within the building where the Gandy Dancer restaurant is currently located. He invites the council to think about rail transportation from the passenger’s point of view. He notes a number of assumptions that were in place 30 years ago that have not proven to be correct. He says that even with current levels of ridership, an improvement to the station is needed. Responding to the idea that the current location could be used to improve the station, he says that the study will examine that option.

7:56 p.m. Abishek Thiagaraj is a junior at UM in biomedical engineering, volunteering with Partners for Transit. He sees transit as a priority. The student perspective is that they’re grateful for the current service AAATA provides. He talks about the need to improve transportation services to off-campus locations. He talks about the ability to integrate students more completely into the community through public transportation.

7:59 p.m. Jeff Hayner is running for Ward 1 city council as an independent. He’s just come from the PTO launch council. He draws an analogy to the trust we have in educators and elected representatives. He thinks community engagement is the key – in improving schools as well as in local government. He calls the redesign of the city webpages that’s on the agenda tonight long overdue. He’s glad to see it – one of the tabs will be “Democracy in Ann Arbor.” He disagrees with Tom Partridge that it’s difficult to get to the website. On the train station contract, he says the public engagement component is very heavy, but wonders if that will be used to shape public opinion or to listen to it.

8:01 p.m. Drew Waller works at Michigan Theater. He’s excited about the prospect of Al McWilliams being appointed to the DDA. [A single hiss comes from the audience.] We should focus on what McWilliams can do for the community, he says.

8:01 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.

8:04 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) says she’s been meeting with constituents about a city ethics policy. She’s not sure there’s appetite for it, but is preparing a resolution for the next meeting to instruct the city attorney to provide training for public officials on Act 196 of 1973 and to the city administrator to provide information on the city’s website. She announces the re-launch of a customer satisfaction survey she conducted previously. The Huron High School tennis team has won a championship, that she’s reporting tonight at the council table.

8:12 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) expresses his appreciation for city administrator Steve Powers’ work. He’s seen Powers show up to community meetings, he says.

8:12 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) give a shout-out to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission for a national level recognition. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) echoes Anglin’s remarks about Powers. She refers to a meeting on the Dhu Varren, Green, Nixon intersection as an example of his work. “Our taxes are well-invested,” said one resident, according to Lumm.

8:12 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) mentions an Oct. 30 meeting on a public improvement project in Springbrook subdivision, near his neighborhood. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) thanks Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) for bringing forward the Diwali proclamation. He also announces that he’s working with staff on an outdoor smoking ordinance that would mirror the county ordinance. He’s looking to empower the city administrator to designate some areas of parkland as non-smoking areas. He says at least playgrounds should be non-smoking. He’ll be asking the park advisory commission for input, as well.

He announces that he and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) are working on a framework to establish a pedestrian safety citizens advisory committee. He thinks the committee would be seated at the second council meeting in November. The effort is not designed to determine or preempt the outcome of the effort to repeal the pedestrian crosswalk ordinance.

8:16 p.m. Briere follows up on Warpehoski’s remarks by saying they want first to identify the broad categories of people or groups who might serve on such a pedestrian safety committee.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) announces that he’s working with Teall on a resolution asking that the University of Michigan decommission the large billboard outside Michigan football stadium on Stadium Boulevard. If it won’t be decommissioned, he says, the resolution will ask that the university operate the billboard only just before large events. Taylor also alerts the council to the recommendations of the park advisory commission‘s subcommittee on downtown parks. That will be on the next meeting’s agenda for formal acceptance, he says.

8:17 p.m. Nominations. Being nominated to fill the remaining vacancy on the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board – due to the resignation of Nader Nassif – is Cyndi Clark, owner of Lily Grace. The business is described on its website as a luxury cosmetics boutique in downtown Ann Arbor.

To fill a vacancy left by Leigh Greden on the Ann Arbor housing commission board, Tim Colenback is being nominated tonight. Greden’s nomination had been made, but was never put forward for a confirmation vote. Colenback also serves on the city’s housing and human services advisory board. Colenback has told Hieftje that he can’t serve on both bodies.

A replacement for Julie Grand on the park advisory commission is being nominated tonight – David Santacroce. He’s a professor of law at the University of Michigan, and chaired the North Main Huron River corridor task force, which worked for a year and delivered its report recently to the council on recommendations to the corridor. Grand finished her term on PAC, completing her maximum two terms of service at PAC’s Oct. 15, 2013 meeting.

Amy Shepherd is being nominated to serve on the city’s commission on disability issues. On the energy commission, Shoshannah Lenski is nominated to replace Mike Delaney, and Mike Shriberg is being nominated for reappointment.

8:17 p.m. Appointments. On the agenda as of Friday, Oct. 18 was just one appointment – that of Wayne Appleyard to the city’s energy commission. Appleyard’s nomination was put forward at the council’s Sept. 16 meeting, but his confirmation was not requested at the council’s following meeting on Oct. 7 – pending clarification of some concerns that councilmembers have raised about Appleyard’s status as a non-city resident and his long tenure on the commission, since 2002. [More background on Appleyard appointment]

8:21 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje begins by saying he can’t imagine anyone who’s more knowledgeable or qualified to serve on the energy commission.

8:21 p.m. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) says Appleyard is highly qualified, and thanks him for his service. But local government is about local governance, she says. It’s not personal, she says, and she values his service. She thinks that among the 115,000 residents of Ann Arbor, other qualified commissioners could be found. If the energy commission recommends measures that could have an effect on the city’s financial well-being (like the fossil fuel divestment resolution), the recommendations should be made by people who will live with the consequences.

8:24 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) says Appleyard is abundantly qualified. But she’s concerned about the length of his service – as a non-city resident. Reasonable term limits are a good government practice. So Lumm and Kailasapathy won’t support the appointment. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) says that service in the community leads to more service in the community. There needs to be a kind of welcome mat put out to residents. Watching the energy commission, Anglin says, he thinks that residential solar and geothermal initiatives should have received more attention. Going outside the community shouldn’t be necessary, he concludes.

8:30 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) says it’s not Appleyard’s fault that there are no term limits. She’s going to support the appointment. She reminds the council that non-city resident Alison Stroud was unanimously approved by the council as an appointee to the city’s commission on disability issues, because of her unique qualifications.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) says he’s delighted to support Appleyard, who exemplifies excellence. Hieftje reiterates that Appleyard has tremendous expertise. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) points out that Appleyard also serves on the environmental commission as the energy commission’s representative. She says he represents a valuable background and voice that would be otherwise unrepresented. She calls his explanations cogent and patient. His style is non-aggressive but firm, she says. She supports his appointment. Hieftje points out that Appleyard is a taxpayer as a business owner.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) recalls his relationship with Appleyard. Appleyard designed Kunselman’s house and Kunselman served on the energy commission back when Kunselman was the planning commission’s representative to that body. He says he’ll support Appleyard’s appointment.

8:31 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 8-3 to approve the reappointment of Wayne Appleyard to the city energy commission. Dissenting were Lumm, Anglin and Kailasapathy.

8:31 p.m. Reconsider: Appointment of Al McWilliams to DDA (postponed from Oct. 7). The council’s vote on Al McWilliams’ appointment to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority was taken on Sept. 16, and was approved on a 6-5 vote in favor – but appears to have required eight votes under the council’s rules. That vote resulted in a procedural controversy. Late in the Oct. 7 meeting, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) convinced his council colleagues to re-open the agenda to consider a motion to reconsider the Sept. 16 vote on McWilliams. Warpehoski could do that as someone who voted on the prevailing side. That motion for reconsideration was immediately postponed until tonight’s meeting.

The point of Warpehoski’s motion is unlikely to result in a change of any councilmember’s vote, but would serve to eliminate the procedural question about McWilliams’ appointment. Tonight, the first vote to be taken will be on the motion to reconsider. If at least six councilmembers vote to reconsider, then the question of the appointment itself will be in front of the council. [More background on Al McWilliams appointment]

8:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 8-3 to reconsider the vote on McWilliams’ appointment. Voting against reconsideration were Hieftje, Taylor and Teall.

8:34 p.m. Anglin reviews the conflict of interest issue. He says that more important than that was the reaction some of the female councilmembers had had to the material on McWilliams’ website. McWilliams might be very talented, but Anglin feels that he erred in his judgment to post some of that material. It was a 6-5 vote, he says, adding that it’s the first time he’s opposed a mayoral nomination.

8:37 p.m. Lumm thanks Warpehoski for his action to reconsider the vote. She says it was honorable. She thanks city attorney Stephen Postema for writing the opinion that the council had requested. She’ll vote against the appointment. It’s not hard to find qualified applicants for the DDA board, she says. She wants someone who has the maturity to serve on the board. It’s an issue of judgment and respect, she says.

Taylor says he’ll support the nomination, noting that the council has received many communications from people who know McWilliams well in a professional context. Business leaders are universal in their support of him, he says.

8:41 p.m. Warpehoski reviews some of the objections: (1) conflict of interest; (2) misogyny; and (3) judgment. He thinks that (1) could be addressed with timely recusal. As far as the misogyny, he felt the material McWilliams had posted was a media critique, not an invitation to “Hey, check out this hottie!” He said he didn’t see any basis for the claim of misogyny. On (3) he echoes Taylor’s remarks.

8:46 p.m. Kunselman thanks Warpehoski for his effort. “The man insulted me,” Kunselman says. And for that reason he’ll be voting against McWilliams. Kunselman says he won’t repeat the insult because it wouldn’t be appropriate decorum. Kunselman says that “third-grade potty humor” is not appropriate for a public official. He cautions that someone else at the table could be the next person that McWilliams insults.

Kailasapathy says we all curse, but cursing with women’s body parts is unacceptable.

8:52 p.m. Teall says that she wishes the council wouldn’t spend time on this agenda item, but will “pipe up as well.” She says that someone who could bring great life to the DDA should be supported.

Petersen says she wasn’t planning on saying anything. The fact that the word “misogyny” is being used indicates that the appointment isn’t appropriate. She recalls her interaction with McWilliams on the phone. She’d told him he’d watered down his message with the images and the language. He’d told her he disagreed and said it was appropriate vernacular. The recommendations the council had received were from people she respected, she said, but they did not know about the conversation she’d had with him. At this point, she’s not ready to appoint him to the DDA. “We need the highest caliber people” on the DDA board, she says.

Lumm thanks Petersen. She says it’s a core demonstration of poor judgment to defame her colleagues in the way that McWilliams did.

8:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has again voted 6-5 to appoint McWilliams to the DDA board.

8:52 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Four public hearings are scheduled. The first is on a change to the definition of sidewalks – the effect of which will allow sidewalk millage repair funds to be used to fix cross-lot walkways, but not trigger a winter maintenance requirement.

The second and third hearings are fairly straightforward rezoning issues – one involving an annexation into the city from an adjoining township and the other a rezoning from residential to public land (because the city acquired the land). The fourth public hearing is on site plan for U-Haul on South State Street.

8:53 p.m. PH: Sidewalk ordinance. No one speaks at this public hearing.

8:57 p.m. PH: Rezoning of Kocher property. Thomas Partridge says that items like this should have amendments attached requiring accessibility to public transportation and affordable housing.

8:57 p.m. PH: Rezoning of 3875 East Huron River Drive. No one speaks at this public hearing.

9:00 p.m. PH: U-Haul site plan. Thomas Partridge again calls for an amendment requiring access to public transportation on the site. He says the site plan should be referred back to the planning commission.

9:01 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 two items. One is a contract with Keystone Media ($26,900) to redesign the basic templates for the city’s website. The other is the acceptance of the board of insurance review minutes from Sept. 19.

9:01 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. No one does tonight.

9:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has now approved the consent agenda.

9:01 p.m. DDA ordinance. The ordinance revision (to Chapter 7) in front of the council for final approval tonight would clarify the existing language of the ordinance. The clarification would disallow the DDA’s preferred interpretation of a restriction on TIF (tax increment financing) revenue that’s expressed in the ordinance language. This ordinance revision was first considered by the council in February of this year. A joint committee of councilmembers and DDA board members has been meeting, most recently on Oct. 16, to develop a substitute proposal. But based on the Oct. 16 committee meeting, that won’t be ready for tonight’s meeting. The item is likely to be postponed. [More background on DDA TIF ordinance]

9:03 p.m. Kunselman reports that a joint committee meeting of DDA board members and councilmembers has not yet settled on the details of an alternative approach. Kunselman wants the ordinance postponed again until Nov. 7, so that the council can weigh the current proposal and the alternative that the committee puts forward.

9:04 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to postpone the DDA ordinance changes until its Nov. 7 meeting. That’s the last council meeting before the new composition of council is seated, following the Nov. 5 election.

9:04 p.m. Sidewalk Ordinance. This ordinance change in front of the council for final approval would revise the definition of “sidewalk” so that cross-lot walkways could be repaired using sidewalk repair millage funds, but not trigger the ordinary winter maintenance requirement on adjacent property owners. The definition makes a walkway a “sidewalk” if the council formally accepts the walkway for public use; so the companion resolution accepts 34 specific cross-lot walkways for public use. [More background above on cross-lot paths]

9:05 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanks staff for their work.

9:05 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the change to the sidewalk ordinance.

9:05 p.m. Accept 34 sidewalks for public use. This is the companion resolution to the sidewalk ordinance change. The definition makes a walkway a “sidewalk” if the council formally accepts the walkway for public use; so the companion resolution accepts 34 cross-lot walkways for public use.

9:06 p.m. Lumm thanks staff for being responsive to concerns from specific neighborhoods.

9:06 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to accept the 34 cross-lot walkways for public use.

9:06 p.m. Zoning: Kocher parcel. This is a typical rezoning after annexation from a township into the city. The 2925 Devonshire parcel is 0.66 acres and will be rezoned to R1A (single-family dwelling district).

9:06 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the zoning of the Kocher property.

9:06 p.m. Zoning: 3875 East Huron River Drive. The council is being asked to give final approval of a rezoning request for 3875 E. Huron River Drive from R1A (single-family dwelling) to PL (public land). The council had given initial approval of the rezoning at its Sept. 16, 2013 meeting. The site, which is adjacent to the city’s South Pond park, will be used as parkland.

Aerial view of 3875 E. Huron River Drive.

The property was acquired by the city in 2010, but a “life estate” was in place until earlier this year, according to a staff memo. The two-acre site – located on the north side of E. Huron River Drive and west of west of Thorn Oaks Drive – includes a single-family home. The land overlooks South Pond. City assessor records show that the property was previously owned by the Elizabeth Kaufman and Wes Vivian trust.

9:07 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) calls it a generous gift.

9:07 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the zoning of the 3875 East Huron property.

9:09 p.m. Recess. The council is now in recess. The next item up on the agenda is the Ypsilanti Township membership in the AAATA. Township clerk Karen Lovejoy Rowe and supervisor Brenda Stumbo were here previously, but it appears they have departed from the meeting.

9:20 p.m. And we’re back.

9:20 p.m. Admit Ypsilanti Township to AAATA. The council is being asked to approve revised articles of incorporation for the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, so that Ypsilanti Township is admitted as a member of the authority. The board would be expanded from nine to 10 members. [More background on Ypsilanti Township membership in AAATA]

9:21 p.m. Brenda Stumbo is actually still here.

9:25 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) says it’s been over a year since he was out opposing the countywide initiative. But he’d told Stumbo at the time that he’d do whatever he could as a city councilmember to get Ypsilanti Township into the authority. He’ll support Ypsilanti Township as a member, he says, but it’s important to understand what the significance is. It’s a matter of governance, not of finances. However, if there are questions that still need to be answered, he’d be content to wait. Putting Ypsilanti Township at the table will bind the community together better, he says.

9:25 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) says she thinks it’s a bit premature to vote on it tonight, given that AAATA has just now started its public engagement campaign on the 5-year plan. She floats the idea of postponing until the second meeting in November. [That will be after the new composition of the council is seated, post-election.]

9:29 p.m. Michael Ford, CEO of the AAATA, is now at the podium. He notes that Ypsilanti Township leadership is here. [Both Stumbo and Lovejoy Rowe are still here.] Ford says that all that’s being asked is for Ypsilanti Township to be admitted as a member.

Stumbo says township residents support this move. She recalls her long career in public service in the township, joking that she started when she was 12. It’s a long-term financial commitment. Currently the route the township pays for is $340,000 annually, she says. It’s imperative that the township have transportation. “We need to lift people up,” she says, and the way to do that is to provide transportation. It will help with congestion in Ann Arbor. She’s proud to be there tonight and says that the township board supports the move.

9:32 p.m. Kailasapathy confirms with Ford that Ypsilanti Township currently has a purchase-of-service agreement (POSA). She said that although meetings were held in the township about this, she’s supposed to represent Ann Arbor. She characterizes this timetable as rushing it. Just because concerns weren’t raised when Ypsilanti city was added doesn’t mean that she can’t raise concerns now.

Ford responds by saying that it’s not being rushed, and that the AAATA had followed the Ann Arbor city council’s direction to work with the urban core to develop service, the financial structure, and governance.

9:33 p.m. Kailasapathy counters by saying that it’s not required that Ypsilanti Township be handled the same way as Ypsilanti city.

9:37 p.m. Petersen says that it just so happens that the 5-year service plan meetings are being scheduled over the next few weeks. Petersen said her understanding was that it would be a give-and-take exchange. The meetings are already set up. And her constituents have asked that the meetings be used to hear what everybody has to say. That would slide the schedule forward only four weeks, she says, until the middle of November.

Teall says that just because the meetings happen to be planned, they shouldn’t be used to divert the focus. She says the process has been exhaustive. It’s been years, she said. Ford notes that he’s met with individual councilmembers and it’s not a surprise. He points out that five of the councilmembers have participated in the urban core discussions.

9:42 p.m. Ford says that some of the questions posed by the councilmembers were received by the AAATA at noon today. Lumm says some of them weren’t answered. Ford and Lumm engaged in spirited back-and-forth. Lumm takes the position that admitting Ypsilanti Township into the AAATA is not a stand-alone decision.

Ford reviews the point of the 5-year service plan meetings – to go over the service improvements. Lumm says she’s trying to weigh the cost-benefit of a possible 0.7 mill tax. It’s difficult to assess it without more information. Hieftje says he doesn’t see how the funding mechanism affects the decision tonight. Admitting Ypsilanti Township is something that should have happened 30 years ago. Anyone who was paying attention to transportation issues would have known this was coming, he says. Any funding decision would need to be approved by voters. Ann Arbor needs to work with communities around it, to realize its great promise as a city, Hieftje says.

9:46 p.m. Briere says the question is to allow Ypsilanti Township a seat at the table. Briere asks Stumbo what she sees as a benefit to membership. Stumbo talks about the Washtenaw connection, and the long-term commitment as benefits. Instead of a year-to-year POSA agreement, there would be a longer-term agreement. She says she’s trying not to take it personally, but she can’t understand why the council wouldn’t vote to allow Ypsilanti Township to join the AAATA.

9:49 p.m. Briere asks Ford if residents will be presented with a menu of improvements and their costs so that residents can choose what services they’d like. Ford described it as a very engaged process that would include adjustments based on what people say at the engagement meetings. Briere asks when the dollar amounts will be broken down for each element of the service improvement plan. Ford says that about a month after the meetings are concluded, those exact costs will be available.

9:53 p.m. Kunselman reiterates that he’s committed to Ypsilanti Township having a seat at the table. That seat at the table does nothing to change the financing, he says. The city of Ann Arbor will still have eight out of 10 seats, which can control the board. He says that transportation services would only be “given away” to Ypsilanti Township if Ann Arbor’s own representatives on the AAATA board approved it. A discussion about the finances isn’t the one the council should be having right now. That’s possibly even a year away, he says. [That means Kunselman is thinking a May 2014 millage vote is probably too soon.]

Kunselman said he’d been against the countywide transportation authority initiative based on the board composition [8 out of 15 board seats on that now-demised proposal]. He didn’t think the council needed to worry about board control. It’s just approving a seat at the table so the township can have a voice, he says.

9:56 p.m. Warpehoski starts by saying that he was wrong earlier – when the council had decided to “bail” on the countywide proposal, he’d been angry and allowed that he might have said some things about Kunselman that might have been insulting. He now took it very seriously when Kunselman says that Ypsilanti Township should have a seat on the table. It’s important to be a good regional partner, Warpehoski says.

On the finances, Warpehoski says it’s a chicken-and-egg problem. To get a solid financial foundation, you need a solid governance structure, he said. The step of finalizing governance needs to be taken before establishing the funding and service plan.

10:00 p.m. Warpehoski asks under the various permutations of Ypsilanti Township being in or out, or whether the millage passes or not: Is there any threat to Ann Arbor services? No, says Ford. What’s the mechanism for funding Ypsilanti Township service as a member of AAATA if the millage doesn’t pass? Stumbo says it’d be paid for out of the township general fund. Ford explains that a similar arrangement to the one the city of Ypsilanti had recently made would also be made with the township.

10:03 p.m. Taylor says it’s a pretty simple process. After the countywide transportation initiative was turned down, the council had said to the AATA: Go away and come back with an urban core plan. Now the question is whether the council meant what the council said back then. Taylor is now ticking through the general benefits of public transportation – congestion reduction and economic development.

Kailasapathy is asking Stumbo and Ford questions. She wants a copy of the MOU (memorandum of understanding) for the township. Ford says that the MOU will follow the membership. Kailasapathy wants it now. She references Taylor’s comments about the urban core – saying that the council had not given the AAATA a blank check.

10:06 p.m. Anglin calls Ford one of the most patient people he knows. He says the strong minority has asked for something specific, a strong minority that could put the AAATA over the top someday. Some councilmembers are asking for more time to answer questions of their constituents. Ann Arbor residents have paid the millage for many years, so if some councilmembers want some more time, they should be listened to.

Ford says that everyone is hung up on the idea of the millage. The AAATA had done what the council had asked it to do and that’s what this is about, Ford said.

10:10 p.m. Higgins says that the discussion is about whether the board should be expanded, and that’s what residents want to weigh in on. People get very concerned without giving them a chance to provide input. On the question of expanding the board, people should have a chance to weigh in on that, she says – during the meetings the AAATA has scheduled over the next few weeks. Higgins is not against having residents have a say.

Ford says that this is the same process used with the city of Ypsilanti. Higgins shuts down Ford saying, “I didn’t ask you a question.” Higgins moves for postponement.

10:12 p.m. Teall says she’ll oppose postponement. Warpehoski asks Ford what the impact of a postponement would be. Ford says the AAATA has been at this a long time. Treating the township differently from the city of Ypsilanti is a problem, he says. It’s not the first time the AATAA has talked with the council about it, he notes. Ford says it would slow the process down and not send a good message.

10:17 p.m. Hieftje says that Ypsilanti Township has been a “good citizen” for many years. He says he doesn’t understand why the city of Ypsilanti should “breeze through” and then there’d be a pause with the township. Briere picks up on a concern expressed by Teall – that the meetings scheduled for the next few weeks would re-focus from the 5-year service plan to the expansion of the board. Ford says that it would put the AAATA behind on making any improvements to service. Briere asks how many meetings. Thirteen, says Ford, running through Nov. 14.

Briere ventures that Lumm wants dollar amounts attached to each improvement, to be able to choose Chinese-menu style. Briere asks Ford if that information can be assembled in mid-November. Ford says that it’ll take about a month after the meetings conclude.

AAATA legal counsel Jerry Lax has joined Stumbo and Ford at the podium, but he hasn’t spoken yet.

10:27 p.m. Briere ventures that without membership on the board, Ypsilanti Township will continue with its year-to-year POSA. She asks if it will be possible to have productive conversations at the scheduled public meetings without the governance question settled. Lax says Ypsilanti Township is prepared to make the longer-term POSA commitment, if it has a seat at the table. Lax says that if the township did not commit to a longer-term arrangement, the AAATA would still have leverage in the negotiation of the year-to-year POSA.

Lumm disagrees with Ford that it’s inappropriate to treat the city and the township differently – citing the city’s dedicated millage versus the township’s POSA. Lumm says it sets a bad precedent that to be eligible for membership in the AAATA, all you need is a POSA. She wants to see the long-term MOU. [Lax has basically explained earlier that the willingness on Ypsilanti Township's part to enter into the long-term MOU is based on having a seat at the table.]

Lumm says that with so many unanswered questions, she thinks it’s important to postpone. Ford asks to respond. Hieftje says no. Teall makes some remarks and gives Ford the floor. Ford reiterates that the issue before the council is governance – that is, adding Ypsilanti Township to the board. He adds: “The rest is noise.” Petersen says that governance and funding are inextricable linked. Petersen says that based on constituent feedback, the two issues are co-mingled. By delaying now, she says, a millage would have a better chance of passing.

10:31 p.m. Kailasapathy still wants to see the MOU before voting to add Ypsilanti Township as member. Hieftje wants to move to a vote on the postponement. Ypsilanti Township has more to risk, Hieftje says. He says that it should have been done 30 years ago.

Stumbo says that the township doesn’t have a ward system – they’re elected at large. So she understands the conversation around the table. She points to the geography of the township, which surrounds the city of Ypsilanti.

10:33 p.m. Warpehoski says he’d vote for it today or a month from now. Kunselman’s 8-2 odds for the city are pretty good, he says. But he’ll vote for postponement because he wants the final vote to have as much support as possible. He doesn’t want it to pass with a 6-5 vote. He wants a solid majority.

10:36 p.m. Kunselman says he started out saying he had unwavering support for adding Ypsilanti Township, but was open to postponement. He tells Stumbo that he’s still committed to getting it done. He’ll support the postponement. “When we get back here, I look to have everybody here unanimously supporting this,” he says. If it’s not that kind of support, a millage won’t pass. He says he’ll attend the scheduled meetings and make clear why it’s important to add Ypsilanti Township to the board. It’s important to re-build trust, he says. “Government is messy,” Kunselman says. He adds that he had almost been ready to go for the vote tonight, but now felt it was important to take the time to build trust.

10:37 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 8-3 to postpone the revised articles of incorporation for the AAATA admitting Ypsilanti Township as a member. The item is postponed until the council’s second meeting in November. That’s after the new composition of the council is seated. Dissenting were Hieftje, Taylor and Teall.

10:37 p.m. Recess. We’re again in recess.

10:49 p.m. And we’re back.

10:49 p.m. Fossil fuel divestment resolution. This resolution is back in front of the council for the third time. When it was initially considered on Sept. 3, 2013, the council voted it down. But on Sept. 16, 2013 the resolution was brought back for reconsideration, then postponed until tonight. It’s based on an energy commission resolution passed on July 9, 2013 recommending 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. [More background on fossil fuel divestment]

10:50 p.m. Hieftje says he hopes the discussion can be brief, because it’s already been discussed a lot.

10:55 p.m. Taylor says that his impression is that the council is eager to express its support for divestment but concerned about interfering with the pension board. An earlier amendment had been made to try to address that tension. He’d be more comfortable with a set of requests to investigate and consider various topics.

Petersen says it makes sense to remove language that has to do with divestment. She would be more inclined to support something that is more proactive about directing investment in clean energy instead of divesting from anything.

Hieftje says that the resolution as it reads doesn’t have any “teeth” that would direct the pension board to do anything. It would send a message, however, that the city wants to align its investment strategy with its sustainability plan. He ventured it could be watered down further by saying, “maybe please could you possibly do something.” But the resolution is already soft enough as it is. He felt the council should give this an up or down vote and ask the energy commission to come up with something else.

10:59 p.m. Kunselman says it does need to be watered down further. He doesn’t want to urge another body to do something over which the council has no control. Some of the other cities that have been referenced as having a similar policy simply had mayoral directives, he says. Kunselman says it should just be very simple. The list of things that are in the resolution aren’t “neighborly,” he says.

Taylor now offers a set of amendments that he says he’s sending around by email and to the clerk.

11:01 p.m. Taylor says that “urges” will be replaced with “requests” throughout. Also the first resolved clause deletes the word “immediately.” Another piece of language from Taylor’s amendments: “… to investigate whether it can reasonably divest …” The phrase “consider ensuring” is used instead of just “ensuring.”

11:02 p.m. Taylor’s amendments are approved, with dissent from Hieftje.

11:09 p.m. Warpehoski says he’ll support the resolution. Lumm says she supports the elimination of the word “urge” and the substitution of “request.” She doesn’t know what this resolution will accomplish, however. She thanks the retirement board for its work. She points to the fees that would be incurred as a result of withdrawing investments from indexed funds.

Briere says that she can’t match Lumm’s rhetoric when it comes to investments because it’s not in her skill set. She relies on other people to guide her. There’s a concern that the staff of the pension board might not be able to distinguish between looking into things versus implementing something. Taylor’s amendments, she says, are reasonable. They provide guidance without imposing restriction.

11:12 p.m. Teall indicates she’ll support the amended resolution. Petersen says the amendments do water down the resolution, and she doesn’t want to support something that doesn’t have teeth. The council would be asking the pension board to take its eye off the ball for a while. A resolution about investment as opposed to divestment would have teeth, she says.

11:18 p.m. Kunselman wants to make sure that the title of the resolution has “urges” replaced with “requests,” along with the body of the resolution. Kunselman says he’ll support the resolution, but makes some remarks on what he wants the energy commission to focus its efforts on – energy efficiency projects, not investment strategy. Kunselman ventures that some members of the pension board are present.

City administrator Steve Powers gives some brief background, and CFO Tom Crawford takes the podium. The pension board had taken the council’s questions and deliberations seriously, Crawford says. The time it would take the board’s investment committee was a concern, he says. The volunteer board has a professional investment advisor, and the advice has been that there’s no way to very simply address the issue. Hieftje wants to move to a vote.

11:19 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the amended fossil fuel resolution on a 9-2 vote. Dissenting were Petersen and Lumm.

11:21 p.m. Resolution to accept donation of property at 3013 W. Huron River Drive. This resolution accepts and appropriates foundation funds to the parks for upkeep and maintenance of 3013 W. Huron River Drive as parkland.

11:22 p.m. Briere and Teall make remarks in support. Kunselman adds a lighthearted remark about a junior high classmate.

11:22 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the donation.

11:22 p.m. Resolution recognizing Skyline Athletic Booster Club as a civic nonprofit organization. The purpose of the recognition is for the booster club to obtain a charitable gaming license. The booster club is hosting the Millionaire Party (a poker tournament) on eight occasions: Nov. 1, 2, 3 and 4, as well as Dec. 7, 8, 9 and 10.

11:22 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to recognize the Skyline Athletic Booster Club as a civic nonprofit organization.

11:22 p.m. Site Plan: U-Haul Moving and Storage The city planning commission recommended approving the site plan for the U-Haul expansion at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. The U-Haul business is located at 3655 S. State St., south of the I-94 interchange.

Aerial view of U-Haul site on South State Street, indicated with crosshatches.

The project calls for building a 1,246-square-foot addition to the front of the existing retail building. The expansion includes a new 4,994-square-foot, one-story warehouse and an 11,696-square-foot, one-story self-storage building. Both of the new buildings would be at the rear of the site and not visible from South State Street. The project is estimated to cost $1.2 million.

This site is part of the area covered in the South State Street corridor plan, which the planning commission voted to add to the city’s master plan at its May 21, 2013 meeting. That plan calls for office uses at that U-Haul location in the future.

11:22 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the U-Haul site plan.

11:23 p.m. 81 street light poles for Main Street. The light poles would be purchased from Spring City Electrical Manufacturing at a cost of $173,307, with additional costs for installation and labor bringing the total cost to $280,000. The $280,000 still needs to be allocated from the general fund to the field operation’s unit FY 2014 street lighting budget.

As a budget amendment, the resolution needs eight votes under the city charter. It might not achieve that number, because of the ongoing political wrangling between the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the city council. [More background on Main Street light poles]

11:26 p.m. Briere leads off. She asks Craig Hupy to the podium. He’s the city’s public service area administrator. She wants to know when they were installed and by whom. Hupy says that they were installed by the DDA in the late 1980s, so the poles are not quite 30 years old. They weren’t noticed to be rusting because their decorative base shields the rust from view. He says the bases might have contributed to water not draining away. The new light poles would have a gap between the pole and the base, he explains.

11:31 p.m. Kunselman asks why the appropriation was not included in the budget. Hupy says that at that time, the DDA was proposing to cover the entire cost. Kunselman won’t support this resolution.

Lumm points out that the council’s budget resolution was to spend at least $300,000. She asks DDA executive director Susan Pollay if the DDA had considered making a greater contribution. Pollay reviews the history of the council’s budget resolution. Lumm inquires about the council resolution requesting the DDA to fund downtown police officers. Pollay says the DDA is looking at ambassadors, not police officers. She notes that some DDA board members will be traveling to Grand Rapids to learn more about that city’s ambassador program.

Kailasapathy asks where the $300,000 came from that the DDA had granted to Washtenaw County for its Annex renovation.

11:32 p.m. “C’mon, we knew this was coming,” Warpehoski says. Hieftje says he remembers it the same way as Warpehoski. Petersen asks if there is other money besides general fund money that could be used. No, says Hupy.

11:34 p.m. Kunselman presses Hupy on the question of the appropriation of the funds. The DDA had said that the DDA would step up and cover the expense. It was not in the city’s budget after discussion with the DDA. Kunselman says that the council had not made a commitment to pay for the light poles. The DDA had spent money for other things, like the Washtenaw County Annex building.

11:37 p.m. Taylor says that Kunselman has made a “flat-out misrepresentation” of what had happened. The council had been told that the council would need to spend the general fund money to do it. It was the council’s ill-advised interference with the DDA’s budget earlier in the year that has caused this situation, Taylor says. The council had made the budget adjustments in May, “knowing full well that we’d be on the hook for the balance.” He calls this a “self-inflicted wound.”

11:44 p.m. Briere says she appreciates what Taylor and Kunselman both said. Briere is now telling the council how she explained the difference between the city and the DDA’s budget to a constituent. Briere says that the city council had told the DDA how to spend its money, and the DDA has done that. She was filled with regret that the council had done that. When the DDA said it would step up and make that investment, she’d been relieved.

Petersen asks what the level of risk is for the light poles falling down. What kind of health and safety risk is posed? Hupy says those that were in immediate danger have been removed. If the light poles were not all going to be replaced in the near term, the city would go out and replace a few more poles, he says. Petersen says that she sees the DDA and the city’s budgets as “fungible.” She would like to see the DDA to find the money to complete this project. The DDA would not be funding police, she noted. She didn’t regret giving direction. She says that she thinks the DDA should find the money.

11:48 p.m. Lumm says that the allocation resolution is consistent with the council’s earlier budget resolution, so she’ll support it. Warpehoski asks if the overall cost of replacement changes, if the poles are replaced in stages as compared to doing it all in one phase. Hupy says that labor costs would go up. There would also be a mismatch between the globes.

11:48 p.m. Kailasapathy relates a vignette about a neighborhood where there’s no streetlight and no sidewalk – and a meeting that the city staff and she had attended about it. She had no regrets about changing the DDA’s budget earlier in the year to allocate $300,000 for affordable housing.

11:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has rejected the resolution on a 7-4 vote. It failed because it needed 8 votes to pass on the 11-member council. Voting against the resolution were Kailasapathy, Petersen, Kunselman and Anglin.

11:49 p.m. Ann Arbor Station. The request in front of the council is to approve a contract with URS Corp. Inc. (URS) for the Ann Arbor Station project environmental review. The total budgeted for the Ann Arbor Station contract on tonight’s agenda – which will cover public engagement, site selection and conceptual design – is $824,875, an amount that includes a $63,083 contingency. The city would pay 20% of that, or about $165,000. A Federal Rail Authority grant awarded to the city will cover the remaining $660,000. [More background on Ann Arbor Station]

11:50 p.m. Kunselman wants city transportation program manager Eli Cooper to clarify how much of the contract would use city funds. Cooper says it’s about $165,000. Kunselman notes that the money has been appropriated and does not presuppose a particular site. He’s going to support the contract.

11:57 p.m. Kailasapathy wants to know who decides the location of the site. Cooper notes that public commenters had pointed out that a third of the contract was for public engagement. The council could participate in the process, he says. Kailasapathy asks if there would be one preferred site at the end. Cooper says that as the sites are winnowed down, the criteria to be used would also be subject to public review and input.

Briere notes that most of the suggested sites are in Ward 1. She confirms that the goal of a previous process was to present the federal government with a preferred site. Cooper indicates that she’s right – it’s a requirement of the NEPA project. The emphasis on the previous project was based on the intermodal character of that facility. How does this proposal differ from that [Fuller Road Station] proposal? Cooper says that one difference is that there’s no initially preferred alternative for the location.

12:00 a.m. Briere asks: What is an environmental assessment? Cooper says it’s an analysis of the direct, indirect and cumulative effect of human action. It’s a qualitative descriptor about the impact of a project. That contrasts with an environmental impact statement, which is quantitative.

12:03 a.m. Lumm says she hasn’t heard Cooper say the word “parkland.” Cooper says that any project on parkland would not be eligible for categorical exclusion. If the preferred site were parkland, then it would be subject to Section 4F review, Cooper says. Lumm asks for confirmation that as a part of the process, it would be possible to see the “arc” of the selection process.

12:06 a.m. Cooper says that the public engagement process is not meant to tell people what the plan already is – he’s reacting to concerns expressed during public commentary. Lumm asks who Cooper sees as the stakeholders? Cooper says that will be clearer after the project kickoff. Power Marketing Research will be doing the public engagement. Cooper allows that some of the stakeholders will be the usual suspects. Stakeholders are only one part of the public engagement process, he says. There will be site tours to “walk the ground together,” he says.

12:08 a.m. Cooper notes that the no-build alternative is required to be included in the set of alternatives. The intent is to do this in an open and transparent and participatory process, he says. Lumm tells Cooper some people have zero confidence that the outcome has not been determined to be Fuller Road. She says the existing site is a “sweet spot” in terms of engineering.

12:09 a.m. Thomas Partridge asks, “Does anybody know what time it is?” Briere points out the clock on the wall. It’s 12:08.

12:11 a.m. Kailasapathy asks what she should tell residents who wonder why the city should build a new station for Amtrak. Cooper explains that Amtrak’s focus is on the operations – the trains themselves. It’s a discretionary decision, he allows. The idea is to meet the needs of residents and businesses to provide the kind of transportation facility they’d expect arriving in Ann Arbor.

12:14 a.m. Anglin says he’s happy to see that this project seems different from the previous approach. He says it seems like this process will actually consider alternate locations besides the Fuller Road site. He calls for all the public process meetings to be videotaped. Some of the previous money that’s been spent was “foolishness,” he says. He’ll vote to support this. The public is tired of bad dialogue, he says. Cooper responds by saying they’ll do their best to facilitate good dialogue.

12:16 a.m. Kunselman poses a hypothetical: If the site across the track, owned by Amtrak, is the preferred site, how would that work? Cooper explains that the federal dollars would come from the FRA. If the Amtrak property were the preferred location, there would be MOUs and legal instruments to bind the parties together.

12:17 a.m. Clark Charnetski from the audience explains that Amtrak owns the parking lot. The place where the tracks had been and were removed are now owned by MDOT. Amtrak owns the station, the property on which it sits and the metered parking lot, he says.

12:21 a.m. Lumm says that there’s no guarantee there’ll be federal money for eventual construction of a train station. She says there’s no demonstrated need for a new train station. She’d reviewed the contract for the study. It’s an important study the community cares about, she says. It’s important that there be substantial public engagement. She’s now ticking through the elements of the public engagement process. She says it’s important to consider the existing site or doing nothing at all. Given that those two primary concerns are addressed, she’ll support it, even though she calls it a “tough” decision.

12:27 a.m. Taylor says that improvement to the train station is deeply important. He points to improvements in Amtrak service and possible commuter service – with railcars having been purchased. It won’t happen tomorrow, but it’s important to plan for the future, he says. He calls the sewer reconstruction done at the Fuller Road site – which was in the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP) – as something necessary anyway. To suggest that it wasn’t necessary is “flat-out false,” he says.

12:27 a.m. Hieftje picks up on Taylor’s defense of the sewer work. It’s important not to create myths, he says. He says he’s pleased to see planning for a new rail station moving forward, whatever the location. He notes that the governor and MDOT are very interested in commuter rail. It would only be funded through the regional transit authority (RTA), Hieftje says.

12:32 a.m. Briere also adds her comments on the sewer work that was done at the Fuller Road site. She reviews the reasons that she voted to support that work. She says that part of the issue was the fact that the line runs under the river. If a sewer line were under the river, it would be difficult to notice if there were a problem. It was not the case that the only reason for the sewer work was to allow for the foundations of the demised Fuller Road Station to be put in, she says.

12:33 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the URS contract.

12:33 a.m. Purchase of ice control salt ($245,143). The request is for the purchase of bulk salt, for ice control, and seasonal back-up supplies to be purchased from the Detroit Salt Company for $245,143 (2,800 tons of “early fill” at $34.50 a ton, and 4,100 tons of “seasonal backup” at $36.23 a ton).

12:34 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the ice control salt purchase.

12:34 a.m. Fire department mutual aid box alarm system (MABAS) Division. The resolution authorizes the city administrator to enter into the required Act 7 (interlocal) agreements necessary to establish the city of Ann Arbor Fire MABAS Division and appoint Ann Arbor’s fire chief as a representative to the MABAS executive board. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, participation in MABAS would not replace any of the existing mutual aid agreements the city of Ann Arbor has. A MABAS approach to response by multiple jurisdictions defines a standard response package of equipment and personnel, which is automatically dispatched to a fire. That contrasts with the mutual aid approach, in which additional resources can be called if they’re deemed necessary once the initially-responding units have assessed the situation.

12:34 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve participation in MABAS.

12:36 a.m. Council communications. Briere recalls the 1996 visit by the KKK. She was a member of the ACLU team who worked to ensure that the peace was kept. Hieftje had not been mayor on that occasion, she said. She was referring to Thomas Partridge’s public commentary. Lumm says that she was a councilmember at the time and the KKK was definitely not invited to come to Ann Arbor.

12:43 a.m. Lumm says that she’s consulted with the city attorney to bring forward a resolution on term limits to be applied in the city charter.

Warpehoski says that Ypsilanti Township has done a tremendous amount of work. When he counts the votes around the table, he thinks there will be six votes in a month, but wants to work toward unanimity. He says that “relationships are important,” and he fears that by postponing the Ypsilanti Township vote, the council was not perceived by the township leadership as working well with its regional partners. He suggests that councilmembers reach out to the township and give the relationship a personal touch. The relationship was hurt tonight, he says, and he’d been a part of that, so he apologized. Kunselman added his support to Warpehoski’s remarks.

12:45 a.m. Public Commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

12:45 a.m. Thomas Partridge is holding forth. He complains about the locations where meetings of some boards and commissions are held. He asks the voters of Ward 5 for their support in his effort to win election to the council as a write-in candidate. He complains that the AAATA bus system is not adequate, yet the council is talking about the right location for a train station.

Clark Charnetski recalls how he first arrived in Ann Arbor 53 years ago on the New York Central and got off at what is now the Gandy Dancer. He thanks the council for their vote on the Ann Arbor Station study.

Kai Petainen takes the podium to thank the council for its vote on the Ann Arbor Station study. It’s the public engagement portion of the contract he supports. He says he’ll complain if the preferred location turns out to be Fuller Road Station. In a nod to his Canadian roots, Petainen notes that Winter Classic tickets go on sale soon.

Michael Benson takes the podium on behalf of the graduate student government at the University of Michigan. He announces a forum on the city’s leasing ordinance, on Wednesday, Oct. 30 at 6:30 p.m. in the fourth floor auditorium of the Rackham Building.

12:52 a.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.

In reaching the conclusion that the vote is legally valid, Postema relies on the city charter, the council’s rules and Robert’s Rules of Order. The opinion relies on the basic principle that objections to a conclusion that a motion has passed must be made in a timely way.

Postema’s opinion does not attempt to settle the question of whether an 8-vote majority should have been required for McWilliams’ appointment. Eight votes arguably should have been required, given the nomination’s withdrawal and apparent subsequent re-introduction by mayor John Hieftje, which made the confirmation a one-step process, requiring eight votes under the council’s rules.

Postema’s opinion indicates that for the purposes of the legal validity of the vote, it does not actually matter if eight votes were required or not. Even in a situation where a name is brought forward for the very first time and the council is asked to vote on it – which would clearly require eight votes under the council’s rules – a vote tally of 6-5 would be legally valid, if no timely objection were made to the conclusion that the motion had carried.

Postema’s written opinion on the matter marks the first one he’s written and filed with the city clerk since he began working for the city of Ann Arbor over 10 years ago in April 2003. The city charter contemplates the writing of opinions as a part of the city attorney’s job responsibility: “The attorney shall … advise the heads of administrative units in matters relating to their official duties, when so requested, and shall file with the Clerk a copy of the entire Attorney’s written opinions; …”

A motion to reconsider the McWilliams appointment was made at the council’s Oct. 3, 2013 meeting, and was immediately postponed until the council’s meeting on Oct. 21.

Mayor John Hieftje. There are 26 more regular city council meetings left in Hieftje’s mayoral tenure. He announced on Oct. 11 that he’s not planning to run for re-election in 2014. In an email sent to The Chronicle, he said the decision was made much earlier: “I made the decision over the summer on a kayak trip on the north east coast of Lake Superior.” (Photos by the writer.)

The confirmation vote that did not take place was on the appointment of Wayne Appleyard to the city’s energy commission. Although his nomination had been announced at the council’s Sept. 16 meeting, mayor John Hieftje did not move his name forward for a vote on Oct. 7. Appleyard’s appointment would have required a 7-vote majority under the city charter – because he’s not a city resident. With only eight councilmembers in attendance, his confirmation might not have received seven votes. A recent change to the council’s rules put the routine appointments – which the council approved unanimously – near the start of the meeting.

The confirmation vote that was moved for reconsideration at the end of the Oct. 7 meeting was that of Al McWilliams to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Midway through the meeting, the council had voted to direct the city attorney to write an opinion on the legal issues surrounding McWilliams’ appointment, which was made on a 6-5 vote at the council’s Sept. 16 meeting.

Under the council’s rules, McWilliams’ appointment appears to have required an 8-vote majority, because his nomination and confirmation came on the same night. That analysis relies on Hieftje’s statement at the council’s Sept. 3 meeting that on that occasion he was withdrawing McWilliams’ nomination. But because no objection to the apparent violation of the council’s rules was raised on Sept. 3, the city attorney’s opinion will likely just establish that a court challenge to the appointment could not be made.

A portion of the minutes of the council’s Sept. 16 meeting – relating to McWilliams’ appointment – was the topic of considerable back and forth, with approval of the minutes coming only after an amendment had been made to change the way some remarks made by Hieftje had been characterized.

The frustration of councilmembers on the losing side of the Sept. 16 vote was evident during deliberations – reflected in Mike Anglin’s (Ward 5) sole vote of dissent against the resolution directing the city attorney to write an opinion. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) also indicated dissatisfaction that the opinion resolution would not address the public’s interest in due process.

So a few minutes past midnight, after the council’s other business had been dispatched, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) convinced his council colleagues to re-open the agenda for a motion to reconsider the vote on the appointment. Warpehoski had been on the prevailing side of the McWilliams’ confirmation vote. He then moved immediately for postponement until the Oct. 21 meeting and councilmembers supported that motion – so the council will take up the question of reconsideration at that time.

In other business, the council adopted an update to its solid waste plan, but not before amending the plan to remove mention of exploring the possibility of every-other-week trash pickup and pay-as-you-throw options in the future.

The council also considered two items related to hyper-local neighborhood infrastructure issues – cross-lot walkways and traffic calming projects.

Councilmembers gave initial approval to a change in the city’s sidewalk ordinance that would define certain walkways as “sidewalks.” The change will affect cross-lot walkways that connect streets with schools or parks, or streets with other streets. Defining these walkways as  “sidewalks” allows them to be eligible for funds from the sidewalk repair millage, but does not trigger winter maintenance responsibility for adjacent property owners.

The council also approved a budget allocation of $55,000 to fund an additional two traffic calming (speed bump) projects this year. The same resolution directed the funding of three traffic calming projects next year.

Two site plans were approved by the council – one for a Tim Hortons drive-thru on Ann Arbor-Saline road, and another for a Belle Tire on Ellsworth.

A new schedule of liquor license fees was approved by the council. In some cases fees were lowered or eliminated, and in other cases they were raised – to reflect actual city costs in processing. For example, on-premise liquor license annual renewal fees were set at $90, an increase from $50, while fees for new liquor licenses were set at $600, a reduction from $2,500.

The council also approved a grant application to the Rockefeller Foundation for designating Ann Arbor as one of 100 Resilient Cities. While the total amount of funding for the program is identified as $100 million, according to the Rockefeller Foundation, that does not mean that each of the 100 cities would receive $1 million of support if selected.

DDA Appointment: McWilliams

The appointment of Al McWilliams to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board was again the focus of the council at its Oct. 7 meeting. McWilliams had been confirmed to the DDA board on a 6-5 vote taken at the council’s meeting on Sept. 16, 2013.

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

The minutes of the Sept. 16 meeting also were the subject of debate, based on the way some remarks by mayor John Hieftje had been characterized.

DDA Appointment: McWilliams – Public Commentary

Three people touched on the McWilliams appointment during public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting.

Mary Underwood told the council that after all the “brouhaha” about the McWilliams appointment, she decided to look at his blog. She called it third-grade level potty humor. She said she was embarrassed for the mayor, the council, and downtown merchants. She questioned the ability of McWilliams to exercise good judgment. She asked if he was the best candidate that could be found to represent the city. In wrapping up, she gave councilmembers gift certificates for ice cream cones. Written on the envelopes was a phrase that she attributed to McWilliams about an ice cream promotion: “Hey everybody, don’t forget to shove an ice cream cone up your ass.”

Peter Zetlin talked about community values related to Al McWilliams’ appointment to the DDA board. He’d looked at McWilliams’ blog and seen images of women that objectified them. He invited councilmembers to think about how they’d react if the images had related to race or religion.

Rita Mitchell, who was signed up as an alternate to speak on the question of Al McWilliams’ appointment to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, held a sign that indicated where she stood on the nomination.

If the images were appropriate, he asks, why did McWilliams take them down? [According to a subsequent blog post by McWilliams, the blog had not been redacted except for one image that he'd taken down at the request of a councilmember. He wrote: "It is unchanged & unedited since my nomination to the DDA save one photo from the Huffington Post that was removed at the specific request of a councilperson... because I’m nice."]

Zetlin contended that McWilliams is immature. He alluded to the recommendation by Maura Thomson of McWilliams. Thomson, who’s executive director of the Main Street Area Association, declined to answer his question to her, Zetlin said: Did she still support McWilliams? Zetlin’s remarks got a smattering of applause.

Jeff Hayner, who’s contesting the Ward 1 city council seat with incumbent Democrat Sabra Briere, read aloud from the New York City charter, Chapter 68, on conflicts of interest. He asked why the council has no conflict of interest policy, citing the deliberations on Al McWilliams’ appointment to the Ann Arbor DDA. He said we can’t trust the national or the state government – or now the local government to make good appointments. It’s important to choose carefully, he said. Hayner said he’d asked to be appointed to the North Main Huron River task force, and the reply he’d received from Briere indicated to him that the members of that task force had been pre-selected before the task force had been established.

During council communications time a short while later in the meeting, Briere responded to Hayner’s remarks. Often a task force is appointed the same night it is established, she said. When the North Main Huron River task force was established, many people stepped forward and asked that additional seats be added. She said they’d tried to make the process open and transparent. Many of the non-members of the task force had attended meetings and helped the process, she said.

DDA Appointment: McWilliams – Sept. 16 Minutes

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off deliberations on the approval of the council’s Sept. 16, 2013 meeting minutes. [Approval of the minutes is typically routine and perfunctory, and usually is dispatched without comment by the council.]

Kunselman alluded to an updated version of the council minutes. He questioned whether the minutes accurately reflected the McWilliams confirmation to the DDA board. Kunselman first appealed to the Sept. 3 meeting minutes – because that’s the meeting when mayor John Hieftje indicated he was withdrawing McWilliams’ nomination. Kunselman then reviewed the Sept. 16 meeting minutes.

As originally proposed, the minutes in relevant part read as follows – referring to the point early in the Sept. 16 meeting when Hieftje told the council that he’d be asking councilmembers to vote on confirmation later in the meeting:

Mayor Hieftje stated that he postponed the nomination of Al McWilliams to the DDA at the September 3 meeting and he will be bringing that nomination forward tonight under the Communications from the Mayor.

That version appears to be consistent with a transcription of Hieftje’s exact words:

I would note one thing that I didn’t see on the agenda that uh, the nomination of Al McWilliams was postponed and I will be bringing that forward when it comes time for the mayor’s communications. [Sept. 16, 2013]

But Kunselman wanted the minutes to reflect the fact that Hieftje had misstated a fact – that the nomination had been postponed, as opposed to withdrawn. That is, Kunselman appeared keen to draw out the fact that on Sept. 3, the action taken had been to withdraw the nomination, not postpone it. A transcript of Hieftje’s Sept. 3 remarks:

If it is friendly I would ask the mover and the seconder to allow me to withdraw this nomination tonight to explore some of these issues and come back with answers. But. Is that friendly? Okay, so I will withdraw it tonight. [Sept. 3, 2013]

Kunselman pointed out that McWilliams’ name was crossed out after the Sept. 3 meeting in the online Legistar file. [For a detailed accounting of the situation, see: "Column: How to Count to 8, Stopping at 6."

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) indicated support of Kunselman's contention that the nomination had been withdrawn, by saying she also thought the nomination of McWilliams had been withdrawn on Sept. 3. She alluded to a subsequent email exchange she'd had with McWilliams in which she'd stated that she thought his nomination had been withdrawn. On Sept. 6, she'd replied to McWilliams, who'd offered to meet with her about concerns she'd raised. She wrote, in part, "I believe that the mayor has withdrawn your name. If he decides to renominate you we can meet."

Kunselman then offered an amendment to the minutes that left councilmembers and members of the public somewhat perplexed – because he wanted the minutes to indicate that Hieftje had "pretended" the nomination had been postponed. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) expressed no enthusiasm for discussing it. She asked for input from city attorney Stephen Postema. Postema replied that it was not a legal issue, saying that what the council was being asked to do is approve the minutes.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) ventured that the minutes could be approved with an exception. Kunselman indicated to Anglin he was not interested in pursuing an approval with an exception.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) said that what Kunselman was proposing was to falsify the historical record, and told Kunselman he was just engaging in political theater.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said that she thought McWilliams' name had been withdrawn on Sept. 3 and was surprised to see it brought forward on Sept. 16. She said she wished she'd had better command of the parliamentary procedures so that she could have objected at the time.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) countered Kailasapathy and Lumm by saying she thought the confirmation had been postponed on Sept. 3 and that Hieftje's intent had been to postpone a vote. Teall told Kunselman that what he was proposing wasn't accurate.

Kunselman stated that he and others took the mayor at his word when Hieftje had said he was withdrawing the nomination. Teall and Kunselman went back and forth for a bit on the question of Hieftje's intent. Briere raised a point of order, asking Hieftje to recognize each speaker in turn to regulate the speaking turns.

Hieftje apologized for contributing to the murkiness. He stated that his intent was to have the motion for confirmation withdrawn, but not to withdraw the nomination. If he had it to do over again, he said, he would have said that he wanted to have the motion withdrawn. But Hieftje added that he didn't have a problem having the minutes amended to reflect the exact transcript of the meeting.

Kunselman's initial proposal, which would have indicated Hieftje "pretended" he'd postponed the nomination, was not approved. Instead the council settled on the following correction [new text in italics and deleted text in strike-through]:

Mayor Hieftje stated that he didn’t see on the agenda that postponed the nomination of Al McWilliams to the DDA was postponed at the September 3 meeting and he will be bringing that nomination forward tonight under the Communications from the Mayor.

Outcome: The amendment on the minutes was unanimously approved, as were the minutes themselves.

DDA Appointment: McWilliams – Attorney Opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Oct. 7 agenda item on the attorney’s opinion was sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Warpehoski explained that the resolution was developed before the city attorney’s advice memo was written. The city attorney’s advice is generally confidential for a good reason, he said. Warpehoski proposed four tests for waiving privilege: (1) legal risk should be small; (2) public interest is wide; (3) release of information doesn’t unduly constrain future council action; and (4) it doesn’t blindside the city attorney. Based on conversations with the city attorney and with Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who is also an attorney, Warpehoski reported that the idea of the resolution, which had been altered from the resolution originally put on the agenda, was to ask that an opinion, for a third party, be written as opposed to waiving privilege for an existing document.

Warpehoski explained the difference between the first draft of the resolution and the revised one. The revised draft read: “That City Council requests that the City Attorney draft an opinion by October 16, 2013 for the benefit of the public that answers whether the September 16, 2013 vote to appoint Al McWilliams to the DDA can be challenged on the grounds that the confirmation motion should have required 8 votes…”

Postema said that it would make no sense for him to prepare an opinion for an audience outside the council in the ordinary course of business. But this resolution is an action taken by the council, his client, so he’s prepared to draft the opinion.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) weighed in by addressing the issue of the public’s interest. Postema told her that the vote on the confirmation of McWilliams was taken and the vote was announced. The legal significance of that is the only thing he was going to put in his opinion, and the answer was going to be fairly easy, he said.

Kailasapathy was not satisfied: “People are really upset.” She was troubled that the legal opinion would be so narrowly focused. She was concerned about the integrity of the entire confirmation process.

Briere observed that Postema had suggested that the council’s rules be revised to make the appointment process clearer. She said she was not sure how to change the outcome of the vote. She didn’t know how Kailasapathy’s goal could be realized – which Briere thought was to rescind McWilliams’ nomination.

Kunselman stated that he found the resolution bizarre, because the provision in the charter already sets forth the procedure for filing a city attorney opinion. Kunselman then reviewed the arguments regarding the procedural requirement of 8 votes for confirmation of McWilliams’ nomination. He reviewed his email correspondence with the city clerk, in which city clerk Jackie Beaudry had indicated she’d asked the city attorney for advice. Kunselman contended that triggers the city charter requirement related to the city attorney’s job responsibility when an administrative head requests advice.

From the Ann Arbor city charter:

The Attorney shall:
(1) Advise the heads of administrative units in matters relating to their official duties, when so requested, and shall file with the Clerk a copy of the entire Attorney’s written opinions; …

By way of background, the city clerk could be considered the head of the administrative unit of the clerk’s office, and has an official duty during council meetings to administer the roll call votes and to report the result of a vote on a question as passed or failed. At issue with the McWilliams nomination was judgment on whether the tally of six was adequate for approval, which Beaudry announced on Sept. 16 was sufficient.

Postema essentially told Kunselman that Beaudry is not a part of the council and that the issue was a council matter, so he only would respond to council requests.

Mayor John Hieftje said he’d be happy to support the resolution.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) ventured that anyone who voted in favor of McWilliams’ nomination could bring it back now for reconsideration. [That is, in fact, allowed under the council's rules, because it was the immediately subsequent meeting after the vote confirmation vote was taken.]

Warpehoski asked Kailasapathy what she was looking for in the resolution. She replied that she didn’t have the exact verbiage, but she felt that justice was not served. It was not just the council that felt blindsided, but also the public, she said. Warpehoski indicated he heard what she was saying, but as he reads Robert’s Rules, he doesn’t see a motion to reconsider as being in order – based on the DDA Act that states that a member can only be removed after a public hearing. He had been ready to move forward with a motion to reconsider, but now didn’t think it was in order under parliamentary rules.

From left: Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and city attorney Stephen Postema.

Kunselman came back to his point that that the city clerk was due a response to her request for guidance from Postema. Postema contended she was not due a response from him under the charter. Kunselman then asked Postema if Warpehoski could bring back the motion for reconsideration. Postema replied that’s up to Warpehoski to answer. Warpehoski explained that the outcome of the confirmation vote has been at least partially executed, and for that reason Robert’s Rules would prohibit it, he thought.

By way of additional background, after the Sept. 16 confirmation vote, McWilliams took his constitutional oath, on Oct. 2, to become seated on the DDA board – according to city clerk Jackie Beaudry, responding to a Chronicle query. He then participated in the DDA board meeting on Oct. 2, which included one voting item.

Kunselman asked Hieftje if he would allow Warpehoski to bring a motion to reconsider the question. Hieftje appealed to the DDA Act and what’s required for removal of a DDA member. If the question were reconsidered, and the vote did not succeed for some reason, then the outcome might be considered a removal from the DDA board. And by state statute, a DDA board member can be removed only for cause:

Pursuant to notice and after having been given an opportunity to be heard, a member of the board may be removed for cause by the governing body. Removal of a member is subject to review by the circuit court.

Kunselman responded by saying that the entire board has engaged in willful neglect – by failing to respond to letters that Ann Arbor District Library director Josie Parker had sent to the DDA and to the city. So that would be the “cause” that could be used to remove members of the DDA board, Kunselman concluded.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) stated that it’s important to clear the air on this. Postema replied that the question is the legal effect of the 6-5 vote that had been taken. Lumm said she didn’t think that clears the air.

Anglin said that the councilmembers who were “hiding behind” legal considerations should move for a reconsideration of the vote.

Outcome: The council voted, over dissent from Mike Anglin (Ward 5), to direct the city attorney to draft an opinion on McWilliams’ appointment.

DDA Appointment: McWilliams – Reconsideration

After the other voting business of the council was finished, Warpehoski announced that he wanted to re-open the agenda to reconsider the McWilliams nomination. The council agreed to do that.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Warpehoski then moved reconsideration of the nomination. He said that whether it took six or eight votes, the ruling on the vote made at the meeting when the vote was taken on Sept. 16 should stand, saying that it’s too late now to raise a point of order. A point of order has to be made at the time of breach. So he felt the vote stands.

However, for purposes of the public interest and the smooth working of the council, Warpehoski wanted to put forward a reconsideration. He asked for some assurances: (1) that there’d be support for a postponement, and that the council wouldn’t vote on it that night; (2) that the vote required at a later meeting would be a six-vote tally, not eight; and (3) if six votes in support weren’t in attendance on Oct. 21, then there’d be support for postponement until the Nov. 7 meeting.

Kunselman responded to the requests for assurance by saying he really supported Warpehoski’s leadership. He offered the assurances requested by Warpehoski. Warpehoski then moved for postponement. Hieftje indicated the motion to reconsider would be shifted to the next meeting. If that vote is successful, then the council will debate the confirmation again and re-vote it.

Hieftje said he’d support that effort. He apologized for using the wrong word – “nomination” versus “motion” at the council’s Sept. 3 meeting. Briere said she appreciated Warpehoski’s work on the effort. They’d worked together on the issue of the attorney’s opinion as well, she said.

Outcome: The council postponed until Oct. 21 the motion to reconsider the vote on the Al McWilliams appointment to the DDA board.

Other Appointments: Appleyard

The council was asked to vote on nominations that were made at the Sept. 16, 2013 meeting. Those included Brock Hastie to the employees’ retirement system board of trustees. That was a re-appointment. Appointed to the city’s energy commission were Erik Eibert (replacing Cliff Williams), and Elizabeth Gibbons (replacing Josh Long). Being appointed to fill a vacancy on the housing and human services advisory board was Kyle Hunter, and to fill a vacancy on the recreation advisory commission was Katie Lewit.

Outcome: The council voted to appoint all the nominees.

In connection with that vote, some back and forth ensued between Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and mayor John Hieftje on the nomination of Wayne Appleyard to the city’s energy commission. Appleyard’s nomination was not actually put forward by Hieftje for a confirmation vote, although the nomination had also been put forward at the council’s Sept. 16 meeting.

Anglin appeared to have anticipated that the confirmation would be considered and he raised a concern. Appleyard’s nomination had not been moved, Hieftje explained. Anglin responded by saying that he didn’t think it’s necessary to recruit people who don’t live in the city to serve on boards and commissions. Appleyard is not a city resident. Hieftje pointed out the unique qualifications of Appleyard, saying that he would probably bring the nomination forward at a later time.

Appleyard’s confirmation, as a non-city resident, would have needed seven votes, which it would likely not have received, given the short-handed council. Three councilmembers – Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) – were absent on Oct. 7.

From the city charter: [emphasis added]:

Section 12.2. Except as otherwise provided in this charter, a person is eligible to hold a City office if the person has been a registered elector of the City, or of territory annexed to the City or both, and, in the case of a Council Member, a resident of the ward from which elected, for at least one year immediately preceding election or appointment. This requirement may be waived as to appointive officers by resolution concurred in by not less than seven members of the Council.

Appleyard lives in Grass Lake, Mich., according to the nomination information. The city energy commission was established in 1985 by a council resolution to “oversee City policies and regulations in areas of energy efficiency concerns and make periodic public reports and recommendations to the City Council.” Under special qualifications, the online Legistar description states: “wide spread representation; interest in energy.”

Appleyard has served on the energy commission since 2002. Terms of appointment for energy commissioners are three years. When Appleyard was up for reappointment in 2010, no objections were raised. Hieftje pulled out Appleyard’s confirmation for a separate vote at that time to ensure it was clear that he’d specifically received adequate support from the council, despite not being a city resident. Appleyard is principal with Sunstructures Architects, with a focus in renewable energy and sustainable architecture.

Solid Waste Resource Plan

The council considered an update to the solid waste plan of the city of Ann Arbor.

The updated plan presented to the council included a number of initiatives, including goals for increased recycling/diversion rates – generally and for apartment buildings in particular. Also included in the draft plan is a proposal to relocate and upgrade the drop-off station at Platt and Ellsworth. The implementation of a fee for single-use bags at retail outlets is also part of the plan.

A pilot program in the plan would add all plate scrapings to the materials that can be placed in the brown carts used to collect compostable matter. And if that pilot program were successful, the original draft of the plan called for the possibility of reducing the frequency of curbside pickup – from the current weekly regime to a less frequent schedule. [Waste Less: City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste Resource Plan.] [Appendices to Waste Less] [Previous Chronicle coverage: Waste as Resource: Ann Arbor's Five Year Plan.]

Solid Waste Resource Plan: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) explained the background of how the plan was developed. The goal was to reduce the amount of material that is thrown away, she said. Solid waste manager Tom McMurtrie explained that there was a lot of participation from various parts of the community to develop the plan. There’s a big item that the plan includes, he told the council – reduced organic waste. It’s the next big “frontier,” he said, to expand organics collection for composting.

From left: Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

Briere then asked a series of questions of McMurtrie. When the manual sorting of the waste in a truck had been done, she said, it was hard to estimate how much food waste could be diverted from the landfill. McMurtrie explained that it was hard because it was mixed in with all the other material – and he asked councilmembers to imagine “ripping open garbage bags pawing through material” in order to get an estimate of food waste.

Responding to a question from Briere, McMurtrie allowed there would be increased costs associated with processing food waste.

Briere asked McMurtrie to address the issue of some items that could not be composted – like diapers. McMurtrie described the plan as directing the evaluation of reduced frequency, not the implementation of it. He gave Portland as an example. Briere ventured that the food waste collection could be implemented and then be evaluated for the potential of reduced frequency of collection. She ventured that reduced frequency could voluntarily be implemented by people simply not setting out their carts if they’re not full.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked all those involved in developing the plan. She understood that the plan doesn’t commit the city to particular actions, but was concerned about some that are mentioned – like the reduced frequency of trash pickup. People can’t believe that the solid waste millage, which generates $12 million annually, she noted, isn’t enough to pay for weekly trash pickup. She called this the most basic and fundamental service to residents. She moved an amendment to the solid waste plan, to remove all references to every-other-week curbside pickup.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) also wanted mention of “pay as you throw” to be deleted from the plan. Lumm considered Kailasapathy’s suggestion friendly.

Lumm recalled her previous tenure on the council when pay-as-you-throw proposals had been studied. Briere told McMurtrie that she recalled him saying that not everything the city has done in the last 10 years has been included in the plan. She ventured that even if the mention of the frequency reduction were omitted, it’s still possible that it could be implemented. McMurtrie indicated Briere was right, but it couldn’t be implemented without approval of the council.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) questioned whether Portland should be used as an example, because that region doesn’t deal with freezing weather. Kunselman indicated that he supported the amendments proposed by Lumm and Kailasapathy. He said that if you leave a baby diaper in a cart for more than a week, it will be pretty “rank.”

Margie Teall (Ward 4).

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she wouldn’t support the amendments. You have to study an issue, she said, to find out if it will work. Teall said she was grateful that we live in an environment where “poop freezes.”

Warpehoski teased Teall that the council will not appoint her, implying that she’d be disqualified for her use of the word “poop” – a reference to the controversy over the McWilliams appointment to the DDA.

Responding to Kunselman, Hieftje said that Portland is generally regarded as a model city in the U.S. Briere noted that it’s possible to track how often people set out their refuse carts [through RFID chips], so the city could measure the impact of its efforts. Briere pointed out that Portland has privatized its trash collection, so its approach can’t be compared directly.

Kunselman noted that Briere’s point about privatization is an important piece of information. He asked if Portland has a “dumping problem.” McMurtrie told Kunselman that hasn’t been researched. Briere reported she couldn’t find anything on that topic.

Responding to Teall’s point that there are a lot of citizens who really like to reduce, reuse, and recycle, Kunselman allowed he’s one of them. But it’s important to give residents confidence that the city is staying on track with weekly trash collection, he said.

Hieftje then wanted to have the amendments on pay-as-you-throw and on every-other-week trash collection separated out again. Lumm and Kailasapathy agreed to that. Hieftje reported that on his block, many people don’t put out their trash every week.

Warpehoski understood Teall’s frustration about Ann Arbor not being able to show leadership on this issue. But he said he’d support the amendment that eliminated the mention of every-other-week trash collection. There’s other lower-hanging fruit than food waste – like improving multi-family recycling rates – which offer less angst, he said.

Responding to Hieftje’s effort to move the council along to a vote on the amendment, Kunselman said there’s nothing he likes more than “talking trash,” apparently completely aware of the pun. Lumm said she supported the amendment.

Outcome on the every-other-week amendment: The council approved the amendment over dissent from Hieftje and Teall.

Kailasapathy then argued for her amendment that would remove mention of pay-as-you-throw from the five-year solid waste plan. Hieftje said he’d support the amendment and hoped it’d move along quickly.

Outcome on the pay-as-you-throw amendment: The council unanimously approved the amendment removing mention of pay-as-you-throw as a possibility.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) raised the question of how dangerous materials are disposed of, like fluorescent light bulbs. Lumm said she’d support the solid waste plan. Kunselman then read a headline out of Portland indicating that when Portland switched to every-other-week pickup, dirty diapers started piling up in recycling bins.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to adopt the solid waste plan as amended.

Cross-Lot Walkways

The council considered a change to the city’s sidewalk ordinance that would affect how cross-lot walkways are treated under the city code.

Elements of the ordinance change would: (1) allow such cross-lot paths to be repaired with funds from the city’s sidewalk repair millage; and (2) not trigger the winter maintenance requirement for adjacent property owners.

Under the city’s current ordinances, if an existing walkway meets the definition of a “sidewalk,” then the city bears responsibility for its repair for the duration of the sidewalk repair millage – which was approved by voters in November 2011 for a five-year period. But all other things being equal, the adjacent property owners are responsible for snow removal in the winter.

The change to the definition relates to walkways that connect a street to a park or school, or that connect two parallel streets. The city calls them “cross-lot” walkways. The ordinance change considered by the council for approval on Oct. 7 would allow such walkways to be “sidewalks” if the council votes to accept them for “public use.” A companion resolution on Oct. 7 called for acceptance of 34 cross-lot walkways throughout the city for public use.

The ordinance change had previously been in front of the council for final approval – on July 1, 2013. However, objections by several property owners to the winter maintenance requirement led the council to postpone the final vote until Oct. 7. Because of the new approach the city took – which does not trigger the winter maintenance requirement for adjacent property owners – the council’s Oct. 7 consideration was considered only the initial approval. The ordinance change does not relieve owners of property adjacent to other sidewalks from the winter shoveling requirement.

The city has estimated that for the 34 cross-lot paths, repairs and snow clearance would annually total around $7,000 – $5,100 for snow plowing and $1,900 for repair.

Cross-Lot Walkways: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) thanked the staff for responding to concerns of the council about the burden that the definition change could place on property owners. The ordinance doesn’t just change the definition, but also makes clear that adjacent property owners are not responsible for winter snow clearance or mowing the grass. Historically, they’ve never been responsible for that, she said. She noted that this approach would eliminate the possibility that one of four property owners who shared the responsibility might be regarded as a “slacker.”

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) also indicated she’d support the ordinance change. Lumm said the original intent was a good one – to allow the sidewalk repair funds to be used for these cross-lot paths. She complimented the staff for researching how the problem was addressed in other communities. The $7,000 cost to the city for repair and maintenance, she said, is “peanuts.” It’s just what local government should do, Lumm concluded.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) also said he supported this approach to the issue. But he wanted to know what happens if a renewal of the sidewalk repair millage did not pass in a future election

Cresson Slotten, manager of the city’s systems planning unit, explained to Kunselman that if that millage were not renewed, the property owners would still not have any responsibility for repair or winter maintenance.

Responding to a question from Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Slotten indicated that the new ordinance makes clear that adjacent property owners do not have responsibility for repair and maintenance. Anglin wanted it to be made clearer. Briere said she could understand Anglin’s confusion, because the two parts of the ordinance don’t appear to be related. But she reiterated Slotten’s point – that the ordinance simply states that property owners don’t have responsibility for cross-lot walkways.

Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias explained that the exception for the cross-lot walkways is an absolute exception – that is, not contingent on the passage of the sidewalk repair millage. Lumm reported that this clarification had been sent to adjacent property owners, saying it was “great work on staff’s part.”

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) brought up subsection (B) and wondered if it voided existing agreements with neighborhood associations. Elias indicated that it did not void such agreements. Anglin said he wanted the city to provide a document for residents that they can keep with their deeds.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) questioned whether the cross-lot walkways belong to the property owners in a sense that would make recording with deeds appropriate. Elias was reluctant to support the recording of any documents with deeds, because the council can change the ordinance in the future.

Anglin reported that a resident had just handed him some communication that the resident had received from the city in 2009. That communication had stated that the resident now had responsibility for maintenance. Anglin suggested that a similar communication could be sent to state that people don’t have responsibility now.

Slotten responded to a question from Warpehoski saying that two of the 34 cross-lot walkways have existing maintenance agreements with a homeowner’s association. Elias explained that the agreements with the homeowner’s associations will remain intact.

Kunselman asked about the dates in the ordinance that refer to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Elias allowed that the ordinance would need to be revised if the sidewalk repair millage were renewed. She explained that Kunselman was referring to the section of the ordinance that relates to ordinary sidewalks on the side of streets.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give initial approval to the inclusion of cross-lot walkways in the definition of sidewalk, but without the associated requirement that adjacent property owners are responsible for snow clearance.

Cross-Lot Walkways: Public Acceptance of Walkways

This was considered a companion resolution to the sidewalk ordinance change that would broaden the definition of a sidewalk to include cross-lot walkways. The ordinance change – which was given initial approval earlier in the meeting – allows such walkways to qualify as sidewalks for purposes of spending from the sidewalk repair millage, without triggering a winter maintenance requirement by adjacent property owners. But to qualify, the walkways must be accepted for public use by the city council. So the council considered a resolution to accept 34 cross-lot walkways for public use.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) moved to postpone the resolution. It will be considered at the same meeting as the second reading of the related ordinance change. City administrator Steve Powers confirmed it would be appropriate to postpone the resolution.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone acceptance of 34 different cross-lot walkways for public use until the council’s Oct. 21 meeting.

Traffic Calming Projects

The council considered a resolution adding five traffic calming (speed bump) projects to the city of Ann Arbor’s work plan over this year and the next.

By way of background, starting in 2010, the city had reduced the number of traffic calming studies that it would fund to just one per year. The Oct. 7 resolution transferred $55,000 from the city’s general fund to the local street fund, to pay for an additional two studies this year (FY 2014). In addition, the resolution directed city administrator Steve Powers to include three traffic calming projects in FY 2015.

The five projects mentioned in the resolution are: South Boulevard (Ward 3 – qualified for traffic calming in 2009); Pomona Road (Ward 5 – qualified in 2009); Wells (Ward 3 – qualified in 2009); Larchmont Drive (Ward 2 – qualified in 2010); and Northside (Ward 1 – qualified in 2012).

The resolution was sponsored by Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Traffic Calming: Public Commentary

Several people addressed the council on the topic of the traffic calming measures during public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting.

Diane Kreger told the council she loves living in Ann Arbor. She loves her neighborhood. She’s lived on Northside for many years, but she’s concerned about the lack of traffic calming. She called it a “recipe for disaster.” She described a situation where a car had come whipping down the street and almost hit a little girl. She then read a statement from a 10-year old girl, Anna Morgan, who wrote that she’s not allowed to play in the front yard because the cars go faster than the 25 mph speed limit, and there are no sidewalks. “Please help make my street safer for everyone,” the statement concluded.

James Billingslea noted that the traffic calming item was the topic of six of the 10 reserved time speaking slots. He said that there would have been more people who would have come to address the council, except for the limit on reserved slots. He stressed that these traffic calming measures are not luxuries. He described several of the specific locations where there are problems. He lives on Northside, which he described as a short street with 20 houses. Eight of those houses have young children living there. He described how cars often have taken out mailboxes or the stop sign. A short 25 mph street shouldn’t have to endure that, he said. There’s a blind rise and a blind corner on the street, he said. Without the budget amendment, it would be 2017 before traffic calming measures would be implemented, he noted.

Alissa Ruelle represented residents who live on Pomona, a street that runs north-south from the water treatment facility down to Miller. Newport is a main road, but Pomona is a secondary road, she said. Pomona winds downhill and has only one stop sign, and cars drive very fast down Pomona, she told the council. The neighborhood had petitioned back in 2009 for traffic calming measures. Her understanding was that the traffic calming measures are supposed to be implemented next year. Regarding the children who live on the street, she said she didn’t want their young mistakes to be their last mistakes. Residents are looking forward to traffic calming measures, she said. Her remarks generated applause.

Sheila Henley also represented Pomona. There are definitely kids in the neighborhood, she said. Her mother is 78 and there are Alzheimer patients. She signed the petition back in 2005, she said. She definitely supports the resolution. Her remarks drew applause.

Zoltan Jung spoke on behalf of the Northside neighborhood in support of traffic calming measures. He characterized the demographics as a bimodal distribution of very old and very young. The neighborhood kids run and play on this street, he said. Cars bounce off the neighbor’s tree and wind up in his yard, he reported.

Lisa Richardson lives on Wells, seven houses from Packard and Burns Park Elementary. Drivers routinely speed down the street, using it as a cut-through, she said. Someone is going to be injured or killed, she told the council. Fourteen small children live on the street, she said. No one stops at the three-way stop. When drivers turn onto Wells, they “gun it” to get to Packard, in order to make the light, Richardson reported. A traffic study was completed in 2010, she said, but the traffic calming measures are not scheduled for implementation until 2016. The city knows that a dangerous situation exists and that results in liability for the city, she said. The reaction time of drivers doesn’t allow them to react if they’re speeding. She thinks the city needs to look at speeding on all the city’s roads. Her commentary generated a lot of applause.

Traffic Calming: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said that her neighborhood [along Broadway] had sought traffic calming measures back in about 2003. They’d first asked for stop signs and had been told they couldn’t have them. She recalled the confusion about the petitioning process. She recalled how a porch had been torn off by a speeding car. A stopped speeder told the police officer to just keep her driver’s license because she was in a hurry. Briere then talked about the importance of addressing the traffic calming measures in other neighborhoods.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) said that cars speeding down quiet streets is not the kind of Ann Arbor we want to see. Traffic calming helps make neighborhoods livable, she said. She contrasted the importance of funding projects like this, with the constant push to focus on the downtown area.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she was happy to co-sponsor the resolution, and thanked Briere and Kailasapathy for co-sponsoring it too. She asked Nick Hutchinson, senior project manager, some questions about traffic calming. He explained that the five petitions mentioned in the resolution are the only petitions currently active with the city.

Lumm wanted to know if the money allocated for the State Street corridor study could be used for the FY 2014 traffic calming projects. City administrator Steve Powers indicated that the State Street corridor study is complete – so no. There’s also a State Street traffic study, he explained. Community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl explained that the study in the FY 2014 budget is for traffic and transportation in the State Street area.

Lumm said she’s supportive of the resolution and was glad to see it move forward.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he’s also supportive, but he was concerned about a future backlog, saying he’d hate to have a backlog in FY 2016. He wanted to know who makes the decisions about opening up the petitioning process.

Hutchinson replied that the FY 2014 projects would need to be completed by June 30, 2014. The other two would need to be done after July 1, 2014. Kunselman noted there are a number of street projects coming up in FY 2014. Kunselman wanted to know if the traffic calming projects would impact the staff’s ability to complete those other street projects.

The design of a traffic calming project, Hutchinson explained, is not complicated. It’s more the public engagement process that requires effort. He said the 2010 decision to suspend acceptance of petitions was made by the public services area administrator at the time [Sue McCormick].

Kunselman pressed for more details about the program. He wanted to know why more money wasn’t already budgeted in FY 2014. Powers explained it was a question of priority. Kunselman wanted to know why the council would now amend the budget. Briere ventured that the reason that the city council didn’t ask for more traffic calming is that the council had forgotten that such projects were even done. She ventured that the neighborhoods might not have pestered councilmembers about that concern enough.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) reported that the rerouted traffic from the East Stadium bridges project had led a neighborhood to delay a request for traffic calming. Lumm reported she now had a list of streets where people have said they want traffic calming for their streets.

Lumm suggested that the $237,000 of street funds in the public art fund could be tapped for additional traffic calming projects. She wanted information from the city attorney about how to proceed with that. That seemed like a logical and appropriate source for funding traffic calming, Lumm said.

Briere appreciated the reminder about the public art fund. She noted that the public art ordinance would need to be amended first – in order for the council to have the legal authority to return those public art funds to the street fund.

Kunselman responded to the idea of using street millage funds – returned from the public art fund – for traffic calming, saying he didn’t think that the street millage fund could be used for traffic calming.

In a follow-up response to an emailed Chronicle query, Hutchinson confirmed Kunselman’s understanding: “Some types of traffic calming measures (such as curb bump-outs) can be incorporated into our street projects as part of the project cost. However, the more familiar ‘in-street’ traffic calming measures (speed humps, raised crosswalks, raised intersections) cannot.”

Kunselman wanted more information about how to fund traffic calming for a much longer duration. He didn’t want a stop-and-go approach for the funding of the program. As much as he’d like to spend the money, he said he still wanted to be careful. A more comprehensive long-term approach would open up the door for other safety projects – streetlights, crosswalks and the like.

Kunselman wanted a postponement. [As a budget amendment, the resolution needed eight votes, so any one of the councilmembers could effectively "veto" the resolution.] So Kunselman moved for postponement.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) began speaking. Margie Teall (Ward 4) raised a point of order, saying that Anglin should be speaking to the postponement. Anglin replied that he was speaking about a reason for the postponement – that he wants a more scientific way of looking at the issue.

Lumm understood the intent of the postponement, but wouldn’t support it. The resolution that night was modest, she said.

Briere said she appreciated Kunselman’s goal in postponement. She felt it was an infrastructure improvement, so it was a resolution consistent with the council’s priorities. It focused on Kunselman’s regular critique of the council, she noted – that the council doesn’t focus on health, safety and welfare. Briere said she appreciated the need for more data, but thought that a lot of the data already exists.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she would support the postponement, but appreciated what Kunselman’s goal is – to look at the issue more comprehensively.

Outcome on postponement: The motion to postpone failed.

With postponement no longer an option, Kunselman said he’d support the resolution. It brought forth a new era of projects supporting safety in neighborhoods, he said. Lumm reiterated her support of the resolution.

Mayor John Hieftje recalled being around when the traffic calming program started. During the recession, many things were cut, he said, including the traffic calming program. He warned there could pushback on these kinds of projects, because some people don’t support traffic calming.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to add five traffic calming projects.

Belle Tire Site Plan

The council considered a site plan for a new Belle Tire, to be located at 590 W. Ellsworth – just east of the intersection with South State Street.

Aerial view of a proposed Belle Tire site.

The planning commission had recommended approval of the site plan at its Aug. 20, 2013 meeting.

The 1-acre site – currently vacant – is on the north side of Ellsworth, adjacent to and east of a new Tim Hortons. A restaurant building formerly located on the property was demolished. The proposal calls for putting up a one-story, 9,735-square-foot auto service facility with 49 parking spaces, included 10 spaces located in service bays.

An existing curb cut into the site from Ellsworth will be closed, and the business will share an entrance with the Tim Hortons site. The project includes a new sidewalk along Ellsworth.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the Belle Tire site plan.

Tim Hortons Drive-Thru

The council considered final approval of a Shell/Tim Hortons drive-thru at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline Road and Eisenhower Parkway. The council needed to approve changes to the planned unit development (PUD) zoning supplemental regulations on the 1.44-acre site in order to allow for a drive-thru restaurant within the existing convenience store, where a Tim Hortons is already located.

The council was asked to vote separately on approval of the project’s site plan.

The project includes constructing a 109-square-foot drive-thru window addition and access driveway on the north side of the building. 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 Drive-Thru: Public Hearings

During the public hearing on the zoning, Thomas Partridge told the council that the intersection of Ann Arbor-Saline and Eisenhower is a very busy location. He contended there’s no evidence of a traffic study being done, especially during rush hour. He asked that the proposal be referred back to the planning commission. During the public hearing on the site plan, Partridge again criticized the project based on traffic issues.

Another resident – who lives near the corner of Eisenhower and Ann Arbor-Saline Road – addressed the council about a number of concerns that had been voiced by residents, none of which had been addressed so far, he said. Because of the speed on Ann Arbor-Saline, bicyclists use the sidewalk. So he had concerns about pedestrians being impacted by this development. Planning staff contend that traffic would not increase, but he was skeptical about that. He asked that the project be referred to the planning commission for further review.

Tim Hortons Drive-Thru: Council Deliberations

Margie Teall (Ward 4) invited city planning manager Wendy Rampson to the podium to address the traffic issues that had been mentioned during public commentary. Rampson indicated that a traffic study concluded that most of the traffic that would be turning into the drive-thru would be traffic already traveling along the road. That is, the project isn’t expected to generate additional traffic.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the changes to the PUD supplemental regulations for the Shell/Tim Hortons drive-thru on Ann Arbor-Saline Road. In a separate vote, without deliberations, the council also approved the associated site plan.

New Liquor License Fees

The council considered changes to the liquor license fee schedule. Some fees were proposed to be eliminated – those related to licenses for which the state of Michigan doesn’t require local review. And the remaining license fee schedule is was proposed to be revised to reflect actual costs:

• on-premise liquor license annual renewal – $90 (increase from $50)
• new liquor license – $600 (reduction from $2,500)
• new liquor license application fee – $150 (increase from $100)
• new DDA district license – $600 (reduction from $1,000)

New Liquor License Fees: Public Hearing

Jeff Hayner addressed the council by saying he’d just received a text message from a Ward 1 bar owner. The bar owner’s message allowed that lowering the fee for new licenses helps reduce the barrier to entry to starting a new business, but the owner was not in favor of the increase of fees for existing license holders. But the bar owner appreciated the fact that the city wants to cover its staff costs, Hayner reported.

Thomas Partridge was concerned about the loss of income to the city through the lowering of the fees. He called for the proposal to be returned to the council’s liquor license review committee, to see if fees can be raised.

Joshua Nacht addressed the council from the perspective of free market principles. It should be easier to start businesses in all areas, he said. The city should make it cheaper to obtain liquor licenses, he said.

New Liquor License Fees: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) introduced the resolution on behalf of the council’s liquor license review committee. She explained that transfers don’t require review by the state, so those fees are being eliminated. She noted that the adjustments are meant to reflect the actual underlying city costs. The fees hadn’t been reviewed in a quite a while, she said.

Lumm thanked the various staff who helped with the recommendation.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the changes to the liquor license fees.

Ann Arbor: Resilient City?

The council was asked to approve the city’s application for designation as one of 100 Resilient Cities by the Rockefeller Foundation. The Rockefeller Foundation defines “resilience” in terms of preparedness to withstand catastrophic events – both natural and manmade.

Each of 100 winning cities will receive three forms of support, according to the Rockefeller Foundation website:

• Membership in the newly formed 100 Resilient Cities Network, which will provide support to member cities and share new knowledge and resilience best practices.
• Support to hire a chief resilience officer (CRO). The CRO would oversee the development of a resilience strategy for the city.
• Support to create a resilience plan, along with tools and resources for implementation.

At the Oct. 7 meeting, Matt Naud – environmental coordinator for the city – said the grant would be for $1 million. However, according to the Rockefeller Foundation, it’s not the case that cities would receive that much money. The deadline to apply is Oct. 14, 2013.

Ann Arbor: Resilient City – Council Deliberations

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) reported that the resolution was recommended by the city environmental commission. He characterized the city’s chances as somewhat of a long shot, but the strength of the city’s application resides in the work that the city has already done, he felt. The staff effort to put together the application is not anticipated to be onerous, he said.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) asked Matt Naud, environmental coordinator for the city, to come to the podium. She asked about working toward improved rankings compared to actually improving the quality of life in the city. Naud reported that the amount of the grant would be $1 million, with the only requirement that the city name someone as the chief resilience officer.

By way of background based on communication from the Rockefeller Foundation to The Chronicle, it’s not accurate to divide the $100 million total grant funding into the 100 cities and conclude that each city would receive $1 million. According to the Rockefeller Foundation, “The direct financial support from the Foundation will be in the form of 2 years of salary support for the Chief Resilience Officer. Each selected city will receive support to develop a resilience plan and a resilience fund is being developed to support the cities to implement these plans. We cannot specify a dollar amount as the plans are to be developed.”

Kailasapathy asked about staff time necessary to do the work of developing the resiliency plan. Naud replied that the city would be buying someone to work on developing the plan for the period of the grant. He said it would supplement the work that the city is already doing.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked what “resiliency” means in this context and what the city would be planning for. Naud’s first try got this response from Kunselman: “You didn’t answer my question.” On follow-up, Naud indicated that the idea is to be being resilient in the face of natural and manmade disasters. Naud referred to the city’s emergency management plans and climate action plans as examples.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported that the environmental commission, on which she serves as a councilmember along with Warpehoski, has been talking about resiliency. It includes helping neighborhoods to make connections to the city to make sure that assistance can be provided – to deal with a tree that’s fallen down or a road that’s collapsed. The goal is to create the capacity to recover quickly when things go wrong, she said.

Briere said the issue has been studied in New Orleans in the wake of Katrina, as well as in Chicago, looking at how neighborhoods responded to economic downturns.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wondered if these grants were intended for cities much larger than Ann Arbor. Anglin said he thinks it’s a good idea to be prepared. Mayor John Hieftje said he didn’t see a reason not to apply, saying the reward could be great. He ventured that these kinds of grants tend to be awarded to cities that already have “a lot on the ball.” Ann Arbor is not immune from natural disasters, he allowed. He called the departure of Pfizer as an economic storm that the city had weathered very well. He appreciated the environmental commission bringing it forward.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to direct the city administrator to apply for the Rockefeller Foundation 100 Resilient Cities grant.

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. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Attendance

Only eight of 11 councilmembers attended the Oct. 7 meeting. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2) were absent. Taylor and Petersen were attending the International Downtown Association conference in New York City, which ran Oct. 6-9. A contingent of Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board members (5) plus the executive director also attended the conference.

City administrator Steve Powers responded to an emailed Chronicle request about the council’s travel budget: $6,500 was budgeted for FY 2014 with $0 used to date.

Petersen responded to a Chronicle emailed inquiry by saying that the DDA is paying for her conference registration, but she is paying for her own airfare, hotel, meals, etc. The conference registration was $743.75 each, according to Petersen. [.pdf of DDA travel policy]

Comm/Comm: Michigan Association of Planning Conference

During communications time, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that she had attended the Michigan Association of Planning conference in Kalamazoo the previous weekend. Briere serves on the city planning commission as the city council’s representative. Per the planning commission’s bylaws, commissioners at their Sept. 17, 2013 meeting had voted to reimburse the conference expenses for Briere and one other planning commissioner, Paras Parekh. Their expenses will be paid for out of the city’s training budget for planning staff and related commissions.

Comm/Comm: Crosswalk Ordinance

During council communications time, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) talked about the city’s crosswalk ordinance and the possibility of repealing that ordinance and replacing it with the uniform vehicle code. Lumm’s remarks indicated that a proposal would be coming forward at a future meeting.

On the topic of education about crosswalk safety, Lumm said there’s the possibility for posting signs for bicyclists to educate them about how to approach crosswalks. This is appropriate in the context of launching a bike sharing program next spring, Lumm said. She wanted the signs placed first at the busiest crosswalks.

Comm/Comm: UM Football Game Street Closures

City administrator Steve Powers announced that the Ann Arbor police department’s final report on University of Michigan football game street closures was now available. [.pdf of UM football street closures report] Police chief John Seto gave a preliminary oral report at the council’s Sept. 16, 2013 meeting. Seto attended the council’s meeting on Oct. 7, and a bit after midnight he delivered highlights of the report and accepted thanks from councilmembers.

Comm/Comm: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge addressed the council during public commentary reserved time asking for write-in votes for the Ward 5 council seat. He’s a declared write-in candidate. He called for a new attitude in Ann Arbor, one that’s family-friendly. The number of speakers in favor of traffic calming is a testament to the problem with the socio-economic environment, Partridge said. He called for the end of crime and corruption. He called for the replacement of mayor John Hieftje, Gov. Rick Snyder, and U.S. House speaker John Boehner. Ann Arbor and its families and college students suffer without a respectful set of attitudes, he said. Partridge called for building affordable housing and ending homelessness in Ann Arbor.

Comm/Comm: Against Negative Perceptions of Muslims

Eldred Bruce Meadows, who introduced himself as a practicing Muslim, rose to speak during the public hearing on the Shell/Tim Hortons PUD zoning issue, indicating that he wanted to advocate against negative perceptions of Muslims.

Mayor John Hieftje, left, talks with Eldred Bruce Meadows.

Mayor John Hieftje explained that speakers must address the topic of the public hearing. Meadows thanked Hieftje for the explanation and left the podium. He waited until the end of the meeting for the general public commentary time and then addressed the council. He invited councilmembers to the Islamic Center of Ann Arbor to learn more about their community.

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sumi Kailasapathy, Stephen Kunselman, John Hieftje, Chuck Warpehoski.

Absent: Sally Petersen, Marcia Higgins, Christopher Taylor.

Next council meeting: Oct. 21, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The memo responds to questions that were raised about the procedure used to appoint Al McWilliams to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority at the council’s Sept. 16, 2013 meeting. Mayor John Hieftje asked the council to vote on McWilliams’ appointment after saying at a previous meeting that he was withdrawing the nomination. Under the council’s rules, an 8-vote majority is required for confirmation of an appointment when the nomination is made at the same meeting when the confirmation vote is taken. McWilliams was confirmed on a 6-5 vote.

The advice memo likely establishes that it’s doubtful a successful court challenge could be brought – partly because it’s not clear who might have standing to bring such a suit.

A “whereas” clause in the waiver resolution states that “the public good will be best served by releasing this advice to the public.”

The first of two “resolved” clauses makes clear that the waiver of the attorney-client privilege is confined to a narrow circumstance: “The Council waives privilege in this specific circumstance, as the waiver of privilege does not expose the City to material legal risk and disclosure of the legal issues raised in this memo would not unduly constrain future Council actions.”

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

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

The Oct. 7, 2013 agenda item is sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legistar Files

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

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

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

Timeline for McWilliams Nomination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  When the meeting reaches that point, Hieftje says:

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

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

Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

How to Fix It

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coda

Updated Sept. 19, 2013.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The action came after his nomination had been withdrawn by mayor John Hieftje in the middle of deliberations at the council’s previous meeting, on Sept 3, 2013. At that meeting, the nomination appeared to be in doubt, as two councilmembers were absent – Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). The vote from Higgins was one of the six that was in favor of McWilliams at the Sept. 16, 2013 meeting.

Voting against the appointment of McWilliams were Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). In addition to Higgins, those voting for his confirmation were mayor John Hieftje, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

The deliberations on Sept 16 focused on whether McWilliams had sufficient maturity to hold the public office of DDA board member. Kunselman said he’d met with McWilliams and had found him to be “not ready for prime time,” citing blog posts and Tweets that he thought were not appropriate for a public official. Kailasapathy said she found McWilliams’ attitudes toward women to be degrading. In perusing some of McWilliams’ online work, Petersen remarked that there was a photo of Miley Cyrus’ rear end.

Hieftje was sarcastic in responding to the objections about profanity, saying he was “shocked” that someone had used profanity on the Internet.

Deliberations on Sept. 16 had a different focus from those at the previous meeting, when Hieftje withdrew the nomination mid-deliberation. At that Sept. 3 session, councilmembers who were opposed to the nomination expressed a concern about a potential conflict of interest for McWilliams in votes he might take on DDA funding for the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority’s getDowntown program. His firm, Quack!Media, is 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.

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]

Leigh Greden’s nomination to the Ann Arbor housing commission had been withdrawn before the meeting. And one of the remaining three nominations was withdrawn during deliberations. Mayor John Hieftje withdrew Al McWilliams’ appointment to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority during the meeting. But the dynamic of the meeting, which included the absence of two councilmembers, suggested that McWilliams’ appointment might be brought forward for a vote at a future session.

The two other 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.

No conversation took place on the nomination of former city councilmember Leigh Greden to the Ann Arbor housing commission – because his nomination was withdrawn earlier in the day, around 2:30 p.m. Greden’s 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 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.

Council deliberations centered on the possibility that McWilliams might have a recurring conflict of interest stemming from his company’s work for the AAATA, which receives funding for its getDowntown program from the DDA. Councilmembers Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2) felt that the potential conflict was substantial. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated that the possible appearance of a conflict was a problem for him, even if there were no legal conflict. Kunselman also indicated that he would prefer a nominee who was prepared to accept some reform of the DDA. And based on remarks of Mike Anglin (Ward 5) at the table, it was not clear whether Anglin would support McWilliams nomination either.

Because two councilmembers were absent – Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) – four votes against the nomination would have been sufficient to defeat it. So during deliberations, mayor John Hieftje withdrew the nomination, so that questions about McWilliams’ potential conflicts could be answered more fully.

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]