The 15th District Court’s portion of that adjustment stemmed from $112,000 in salary increases based on an interest in retaining employees, $203,000 due to a “catch up” payment to the law firm that provides indigent representation, and a back-bill for security from Washtenaw County for two fiscal years for $110,000.

Related to the FY 2013 budget adjustment to account for 15th District Court indigent representation were two other agenda items regarding the law firm that provides that kind of representation. [The 15th District Court is required to provide representation to those who cannot afford an attorney, if a conviction would result in jail time.]

The council approved a $240,000 flat-fee contract for representation of indigent defendants – with Nassif and Reiser, P.L.L.C. (f/k/a Funkhouser and Nassif, P.L.L.C.), d/b/a Model Cities Legal Services (“MCLS”). The contract covers FY 2014.

The reason the contract was structured as a flat fee is that MCLS had customarily delayed billing for services until a defendant’s case was completely closed or additional court action was deemed unlikely. Even after a guilty verdict, defendants remain under court supervision and can be subject to other court orders. So for the previous year, the council was asked at its June 3 meeting to cover $203,000 of fees that accrued due to the delayed billing practice used by MCLS.

In addition to approving the city’s FY 2013 budget adjustment that included back-billing for security services, the council approved next year’s $160,000 contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office for weapons screening at the Justice Center, which houses the 15th District Court. The estimated annual cost is based on $25.25 per hour per court security officer. The estimated maximum annual cost of $160,000 is $27,000 less than last year. The money comes from the 15th District Court’s budget.

Two other items related to the 15th District Court appeared initially on the council’s consent agenda, a group of items considered routine and voted on as a group. The council was asked to approved $30,000 for a Sobriety Court grant program contract with the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO) to provide mental health treatment to 15th District Court defendants. And the council was asked to approve $65,000 for a Sobriety Court grant program contract with Dawn Farm for in-patient and out-patient drug abuse counseling to 15th District Court defendants.

The Dawn Farm item was pulled out for separate consideration, because the item included a request for a waiver of the city’s living wage ordinance for Dawn Farm to provide its counseling services. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, Dawn Farm employs 70 people, including 15 employees who are paid less than $12.52 per hour with health care coverage, and 18 people who are compensated at rates less than $13.96 per hour without health care coverage. Those are the rates specified in the city’s living wage ordinance.

Last fall the council engaged in a vigorous discussion of a living wage ordinance waiver for Community Action Network (CAN), which ultimately resulted in the granting of a waiver at the council’s Nov. 8, 2012 meeting.

On June 17, the council ultimately voted to approve the Dawn Farm grant over dissent from Sabra Briere (Ward 1) – based on the living wage issue.

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]

WEMU's Andrew Cluley had questions about the budget for Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers after the April 16 council meeting. Image links to Cluley's report. (Photos by the writer.)

But Powers led off the presentation by explaining that Monday evening would not be a time for detailed discussion and questions about the budget. For details of that presentation, see Chronicle coverage: “Ann Arbor Council Gets Draft 2013 Budget.”

The budget presentation occurred Monday night because of a city charter requirement. It was Powers’ first such presentation – as he was hired by the council last year, and started the job in September. The city council will have until May 21, its second meeting in May, to modify and adopt the budget.

In terms of the sheer number of agenda items, the topic of zoning and land use was a main focus of the meeting. The council unanimously rejected a proposed conditional rezoning of 1320 S. University to a higher density than its current D2 (downtown interface) designation. But winning unanimous approval was a site plan for a Tim Hortons on South State Street, near Ellsworth. The council also gave initial approval to AAA Michigan for a rezoning request involving a parcel on South Main, which the auto club would like to have designated as P (parking). A half dozen different rezoning requests for parcels that had recently been annexed into the city also received initial approval.

Prompting considerable discussion among councilmembers were four resolutions concerning an environmental study on a possible extension of a runway at the Ann Arbor municipal airport. The resolutions all passed, but the main grant funding went through on just a 7-4 vote. The city was being asked for an additional $1,125 in matching funds to wrap up the final stages of an environmental assessment being done by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, which was already mostly completed two years ago.

Also related to transportation, the council authorized over $6 million in contracts related to street resurfacing projects. That included a second set of local streets (after having approved funding for the first set at its previous meeting) as well as the section of East Stadium Boulevard between Packard and Washtenaw. In connection with those infrastructure projects, the council also authorized contracts for materials testing.

In other action related to infrastructure, the council approved a $93,438 item for construction of unisex bathrooms in city hall – but not without questions about the scope of the overall municipal center renovation work.

On personnel-related items, the council gave final approval to legislation that incorporates provisions of the collectively bargained labor contracts with police command officers and firefighters into the city’s set of ordinances on retirement and health care.

As a result of other council action on Monday night, Ann Arbor police officers will be able to arrest and charge “super drunk” drivers who have more than 0.17 blood alcohol content – because the council modified the city’s ordinances to conform with recent changes in state law.

In other business, the council also authorized a contract with a new auditor, The Rehmann Group, set a hearing on a tax abatement for Sakti3, and imposed a temporary ban on digital billboards.

Highlights of public commentary included concerns about new DTE “smart meters” and localized flooding incidents in the city. The flooding was attributed by residents to the city’s layering of new asphalt onto an adjacent street, and to the city’s sanitary sewer disconnection program.

1320 S. University Rezoning

The council was asked to consider a request to conditionally rezone 1320 S. University – from D2 (downtown interface) to D1 (downtown core).

The magenta parcel and arrow indicate the 1320 S. University parcel proposed for conditional rezoning to a higher density use that's found in the dark brown (D1) areas to the west and north. The light brown area to the south and west is D2 (downtown interface). Light green is PL (public land). Yellow is R2B and dark purple is R4C – both residential zoning. (Image links to higher resolution image.)

The request included setting conditions on the D1 designation, such as restrictions on height and floor area that are less than what’s allowed in “unconditioned” D1. For example, the by-right height limit in D1 is 180 feet, but one condition the owner of the property – Philip Sotiroff – wanted to place on the property was a 145-foot height limit.

That 145-foot limit, however, is more than twice the limit of the parcel’s current D2 zoning, which allows buildings only as tall as 60 feet. Currently at the site – on the south side of South University, between Forest and Washtenaw avenues – is the three-story Park Plaza apartment building.

The site is adjacent to a D1 parcel to the east, where the Landmark apartment building is being constructed, at 601 S. Forest. But the 1320 S. University property also abuts lower-density residential zoning. Single-family homes are located to the south of the site, and a fraternity is located to the west.

The South University area was an intensely debated part of the A2D2 downtown rezoning initiative, which the city council finally ratified on Nov. 16, 2009 after more than two years of planning work. As part of that process, the city planning commission had initially recommended a zoning map that assigned D1 zoning to the 1320 S. University parcel. The city council subsequently drew the lines differently, which resulted in a D2 designation for the parcel, and sent the map back to the planning commission. The planning commission then revised some parts of its map, including the designation for 1320 S. University.

More recently, at its Feb. 7, 2012 meeting, planning commissioners voted unanimously not to recommend that 1320 S. University be rezoned from D2 to D1.

Council on S. University Rezoning: Public Hearing

Marc Gerstein introduced himself as a resident of Forest Court, and since 1982 the owner of a house that abuts the south boundary of a parking lot at the rear of 1320 S. University. He noted that any change in the zoning will affect him directly. He urged the council to follow the staff report and the unanimous recommendation of the city planning commission and to reject the request for conditional rezoning from D2 to D1.

He noted that the planning staff report finds that D2 was warranted for the parcel and was carefully considered by the city planning commission and the council. The staff had found there was no error in that decision. He noted there’d been no changes in the neighborhood since passage of A2D2 two years ago. To rezone the parcel now would strip away any buffer between the small residential houses and the 1320 S. University parcel. He concluded by asking the council to deny the petition for rezoning.

Council on S. University Rezoning: Council Deliberations

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who is the city council’s representative to the city planning commission, described the location of the parcel proposed to be rezoned. Two high-rise buildings stand to the west at South University and South Forest – University Towers on the northwest corner and the currently under-construction Landmark Building (formerly called the 601 S. Forest). To the east stands a fraternity house. Derezinski noted the A2D2 zoning ordinances had been adopted after considerable debate. The planning commission had unanimously agreed with the recommendation of the staff that the parcel not be rezoned, he said.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) also concurred that the prior community conversation had been rigorous and extensive and warrants the council’s respect.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) added that she felt having a buffer in the form of D2 zoning makes a great deal of sense.

Outcome: The council unanimously rejected the proposed conditional rezoning of 1320 S. University.

The city council’s vote was just its initial consideration of the request – a “first reading.” A rezoning request, like any ordinance change, requires initial approval, followed by a public hearing and a final vote at a subsequent meeting. Often, councilmembers will advance an ordinance change to a second reading, if they have not settled on a position and are interested in hearing the sentiments that might be expressed at a public hearing. So the fact that the council rejected the proposal on first reading can be taken as a measure of the council’s especially strong opposition to changing the zoning that was agreed on as part of the A2D2 process.

Tim Hortons Site Plan

On the April 16 agenda was a site plan for a new Tim Hortons restaurant at 3965 S. State St. The site plan had received a unanimous recommendation for approval by the Ann Arbor planning commission at its March 6, 2012 meeting. The site is located on the east side of the street, near the intersection of State and Ellsworth.

The plan calls for demolishing a vacant building on the 2.23-acre site where previous restaurants, including Enzo’s and Gallagher’s, were located. In its place, a one-story 1,953-square-foot restaurant with drive-thru facilities would be built on a 1.18-acre site divided from the current parcel. The building would face West Ellsworth and use an existing shared drive on South State, as well as a relocated drive onto West Ellsworth. An outdoor seating area is proposed on the east side of the building.

The property is zoned C3 (fringe commercial), which allows for construction of a drive-thru restaurant. The planning commission’s recommendation of approval was contingent on two issues: (1) submission of a tree health evaluation form, and (2) approval of the parcel’s land division, prior to the city issuing permits for construction of the new building.

Much of the discussion among planning commissioners at their meeting had focused on the proposed roundabout at State and Ellsworth. A spokesman for Tim Hortons said they’d found out about the roundabout plans late in the process, but were working to integrate their own plans to accommodate it. He indicated that if the company gets approval from the city, they hope to open in August. Construction for the roundabout is expected to begin in the spring of 2013, with completion in the fall of that year.

During council deliberations on April 16, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), the city council’s representative to the planning commission, made some brief remarks. He described it as a property that’s been vacant for a couple of years. It would be a great improvement, he said. The planning commission went through ingress and egress issues. Derezinski said he felt it adds value and would be a good place to get coffee in the morning.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the State Street corridor is currently undergoing a study. She wondered how this particular project fits into the ongoing discussions that the corridor study group has had. City planning manager Wendy Rampson told Briere that it doesn’t really fit into ongoing discussions on the corridor, but it does remove a relatively blighted building on the site. The corridor study has not gotten as far as making land use recommendations yet, Rampson said.

Responding to a question from mayor John Hieftje, Rampson said that the plan is to begin construction in May. Tim Hortons is moving in a timely way, she said. A land division needs to be completed before they can start, she said. And the Tim Hortons team is coordinating with the Washtenaw County team that is planning the roundabout at Ellsworth and State. She figured in a couple of months, construction might start.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the Tim Hortons site plan.

AAA Request for Parking Zoning

Before the council for its consideration was initial approval to a proposal from AAA Michigan to rezone half of a parcel located at 1200 S. Main to P (parking). To take effect, the initial approval from the city council would need to be followed by a second and final approval following a public hearing at a subsequent meeting.

The rezoning to P (parking) is part of a two-parcel site plan proposal – for which the city planning commission provided a positive recommendation at its March 6, 2012 meeting. At that meeting, the commission took two votes on the 1200 S. Main parcel – the site plan and the rezoning proposal. And on both votes, the planning commission split 6-3. For the other, adjacent parcel at 1100 S. Main, the city planning commission voted unanimously to recommend the site plan for approval.

In front of the city council on April 16, however, was just the resolution to rezone a portion of the 1200 S. Main parcel to P (parking).

The two parcels, at 1100 and 1200 S. Main, are across from Michigan Stadium. An AAA branch built in the 1950s is located there. The owner wants to build a new branch on a different part of the site, tear down the existing building, and reconfigure parking spaces.

The two parcels are part of a 1.5-acre site containing four parcels owned by the auto club and all zoned O (office). Located on the 1200 S. Main parcel is the current one-story branch building with walk-out basement and 36 parking spaces, with exits onto South Main, Berkley and Potter.

The 1100 S. Main site is a surface parking lot, which has 72 spaces and exits onto both Potter and Keech. The owner is requesting to build a one-story, 5,443-square-foot new branch building on the northeast corner of that site, with parking for 21 spaces. A second phase of the project would include an eventual 2,230-square-foot addition to the south side of that building. There are six landmark trees on the site, and the plan would require removal of two that are located along South Main, near Keech. Other trees would be added elsewhere on the site.

After the new structure is completed, the old building at 1200 S. Main would be torn down and a 14-space parking lot would be put on that parcel. And to do that, the proposal asks that the northern 123 feet of that parcel – about half of the parcel – be rezoned from O (office) to P (parking), so that parking could become the principal use for that site. A site plan for that parcel is also required. The rezoning to P (parking) is what the city council considered on April 16.

The owner’s overall plan called for a total of 35 spaces – a reduction from the current parking on the site, which was approved in the mid-1970s but no longer conforms with existing zoning. The 35 spaces would be four more spaces than the 31 maximum number permitted under the O (office) zoning, based on the new building’s square footage in both phases. That’s why the owner requested that a portion of the overall site be rezoned for parking – in the P (parking) district, there is no maximum.

AAA Request for Parking Zoning: Council Deliberations

City planning manager Wendy Rampson was asked to the podium to summarize the proposal, which she did. The current configuration has the AAA office sitting on the parcel to the south, with surface parking on the parcel to the north. She said the configuration was approved in the 1970s based on an interpretation that parking would be allowed on the northern parcel, based on the ownership by AAA of both parcels. The city does things differently now – if there’s no other use on a parcel besides parking, then the city requires that it be zoned P (parking).

Rampson described what AAA wants to do as a “flip flop” – build a new branch office on the northern parcel and put parking on the south parcel. It’s that south parcel that AAA wants rezoned. She noted that the city planning commission vote was 6-3 on rezoning. Staff also had some concerns about approving parking as a principle use, because that’s something the city is trying to get away from. The plan has a lot of benefits with respect to stormwater detention, she said, and reduces the amount of impervious surface across the two sites, as well as the total amount of parking.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said the site plan really did sell the proposal. The building that AAA is putting up is an improvement over the one that’s currently there. The old building has a lot of mileage on it, he said. With its location across from the University of Michigan football stadium, the building would be noticed by a large number of visitors to Ann Arbor, he said.

Rampson added that it’s a two-phase project. In the new building, AAA anticipates adding more services, so that’s the rationale for wanting to have parking available on both parcels.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he felt like the project is a step in a better direction, but not what the city would want if the project were starting from scratch. He wondered what AAA’s plans would be if the council turned down the request to rezone. Rampson said she didn’t know. Before AAA brought forward their proposal, however, they’d gone over ways to solve the parking issue without rezoning. One possibility would be to retrofit the existing building. They also considered different configurations that would reduce the amount of parking. But ultimately AAA did not want to pursue those, she said.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked if there’d been given any consideration to moving the building further away from the sidewalk, and he wondered if AAA could be forced to comply with a greater setback requirement. Rampson reminded Anglin that the recent area, height and placement revisions had reduced the amount of setback required – which in this case allowed the building to be moved further way from the residential area to the west and closer to Main Street. Rampson also explained that the curbcuts to Main Street would be removed.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know what assurance the council would have that the old building will be torn down. Rampson explained that once it’s zoned P (parking), the building couldn’t be used for anything. And AAA is not intending to keep the building in place – the space is needed for parking.

Outcome: The council gave unanimous initial approval to the AAA Michigan rezoning request for 1200 S. Main.

Annexation Rezonings

The council was asked to consider initial approvals of six separate rezoning requests associated with annexation into the city of Ann Arbor from Scio Township. The zoning change in all cases is from the township to a residential category.

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

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

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

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

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) offered the only council comment on any of the annexation-related rezoning requests, noting that they all went from township zoning to single-family residential.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved all the annexation-related rezoning requests. The requests need to come back for a second and final approval by the council, after a public hearing.

Ann Arbor Airport Study

On April 16 the council considered four different resolutions in connection with Ann Arbor’s municipal airport, three of them connected to the completion of an environmental assessment of a proposed 800-foot lengthening of the airport runway.

The city council had initially authorized funding for the assessment project at its Feb. 2, 2009 meeting. The assessment began on May 4, 2009. The process appeared to culminate in a public hearing in April 2010. [See Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Airport Study Gets Public Hearing."] In the interim, city councilmembers have removed the runway extension from the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP) each year they’ve been asked to give the CIP its annual approval.

However, when the Federal Aviation Administration responded to the draft report, that prompted communication between the city of Ann Arbor and the FAA. And that back-and-forth has resulted in FAA requests for more work, which is meant to wrap up the environmental assessment (EA). From the staff memo accompanying one of the resolutions:

The FAA’s response was received nearly a year later (September, 2011). The remaining work on the EA includes modifications based on the FAA comments, coding public and agency comments and responses for the final EA document, preparation of the Errata and FONSI for submission to MDOT-Aero. There is about 2-3 months of work remaining to complete the EA.

One of the resolutions authorizes $800 for an additional map to be prepared by URS Corp., one of two consultants that the Michigan Dept. of Transportation is using for the project. The amount is covered by MDOT’s project contingency budget. This item is not specifically related to the environmental assessment.

A separate resolution authorized $12,000 of additional consulting work, also with URS. A third resolution authorized an additional $26,552 worth of consulting work from SmithGroupJJR. The additional work by URS and SmithGroupJJR is being covered by a $45,000 grant program, which consists of $42,750 in federal funds, $1,125 in state funds and $1,125 in airport matching funds (the city’s portion.) Authorization of the grant program was the fourth airport-related item on the agenda.

Ann Arbor Airport Study: Public Comment

During public comment, James Vincze introduced himself as a member and vice chair of the airport advisory committee. He urged the council to complete the airport runway extension study. It’s important to get the process completed, he said. Significant time and resources have already been spent and the public has been involved. Matt Kulhanek is a good airport manager, he said. Voting to complete the study doesn’t mean the council favors runway extension, he said. Rather, it means the council wants to get the facts out and have a complete study and analysis.

Ann Arbor Airport Study: Council Deliberations

Airport manager Matt Kulhanek was asked to the podium to answer questions. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) began by asking why the city is continuing to spend money to study the runway extension, when the council had consciously removed the extension from the city’s capital improvements plan. She had a hard time reconciling that, even though the amounts of money weren’t actually all that large.

Kulhanek pointed out that the first airport-related item on the agenda – the $800 for the map preparation – was not related to the environmental assessment.

So mayor John Hieftje then asked the council to vote on that item. And that vote was unanimous in favor.

Kulhanek noted that the council’s direction had been to get the facts on the proposed runway extension and that direction had come on two occasions, with votes to fund the environmental assessment. He said the council’s subsequent action to remove the runway extension from the capital improvements plan was based on a concern that by including it in the capital projects budget, it reflected a de facto support of actually doing the project. But at no time has the staff received direction to pull back from completing the environmental assessment. Kulhanek indicated that another grant agreement would be coming to the council later, after the one they were considering that evening.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) talks to Kathe Wunderlich (back to camera) before the council meeting. Wunderlich has worked as part of a citizens group opposing the runway extension.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked for clarification of the unexpected review by the FAA technical committee to which the staff memo had referred. Kulhanek explained that when the document was first entered into the system, the city was not expecting further FAA review. But two weeks ago, he said, the city received notification from FFA technical operations, a branch within the FAA, indicating that branch would need to sign off on it. The reason that technical operations would need to review it was due to two sets of navigational aids that would be relocated if the runway project moves forward. The document had already been given an 11-month review by the district office of the FAA, and the conclusion had initially been that the technical operations division didn’t need to review it. At that point, the city had the understanding the FAA was finished. That changed in the last two weeks, when city staff found out that FAA technical operations would need to review it.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked if the resolution that night was specifically for the relocation of navigational aids. No, replied Kulhanek. A resolution to approve another grant for that would come some time in the future. The grant before the council that night was to finish up the documentation of the environmental assessment and get it in a final format to submit to the FAA for review. What would come back to the council later is a reimbursement agreement for the work the FAA will have done to review the documentation.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) briefed Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) before the start of the meeting. They both voted against the grant funding for the environmental assessment of the airport runway extension.

Kunselman said he was confused why there’d be the need for another reimbursement agreement. Kulhanek reviewed the purpose of that night’s grant agreement.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) was up next to question Kulhanek and she apologized for putting him on the spot. His reply indicated he’d anticipated lots of questions: “That’s okay, I didn’t think I was going to get a pass tonight!”

In 2009, Briere said, the council had approved two grants and in 2010 the council had approved an additional grant. At the time, she said, she thought that the EA document was in draft form and almost complete. Kulhanek indicated that was not the case. The grant funding in 2009 had kicked off the project, he said. When the 2009 grants were approved, the city had also approved contracts with the two engineering firms.

Briere summarized what the council was considering as funding additional work by the engineering firms to get the EA document into shape to be submitted to the FAA. Kulhanek indicated that was basically right. The work the two firms would do would in essence finalize the document for everything except the FAA technical operations review. That review will have a specific scope – just the impact on the navigational aids.

Responding to a question from Briere, Kulhanek explained that the EA would cover more than just a discussion of navigational aids. It would include economic impacts, physical impacts, noise impacts, and wetlands impacts. There’s a whole variety of things that are included. It’s a broad document that includes public comment, as well as input from various agencies like the county road commission, county water resources commissioner and the like.

Briere said she had trouble understanding why an environmental assessment would take four years.

Hieftje asked if Kulhanek saw a benefit to the city and users of the airport, if the council does not want to go ahead with the runway extension, once the process is completed. Kulhanek told the mayor that he felt the biggest benefit would be to finishing what they’ve started back in 2009. The council would be able to make a decision based on an actual study of what the impacts are – not what our gut feels or our heart feels. A decision could be based on actual data and feedback from the public and various agencies and everyone involved. Kulhanek said there’s already been a lot of time and money invested in getting to this point in the project, and he thought it’s important to follow through to have solid information. If the council chooses not to go forward on the runway project, it can make that choice.

Mayor John Hieftje opposed the grant funding for completion of the environmental assessment for an extension of the Ann Arbor municipal airport.

Hieftje started adding up the money in the request. He asked Kulhanek how much more money would need to be spent – local as well as other money – to complete the project. Kulhanek said the first three grant agreements totaled $309,000.

The city’s share of that had been $7,725. From a local perspective, he said, that’s a minor cost. The grant agreement before the council that night was for $45,000 with a local share of $1,125. The next and last grant agreement will be around $30,000. The total for the EA would be around $385,000 with a local share of less than $10,000, Kulhanek said.

Kulhanek estimated that it would take the consultants another two months to do the additional work. He thought that three to six months from now, the last grant agreement would be back in front of the council for approval. Assuming three to four months for review, Kulhanek estimate that it would be early 2013 before the process was complete.

Hieftje asked again if there was some benefit to the environmental study, beyond knowing the impact of the runway extension. Kulhanek said it’s good information. Knowing the noise levels is useful. Knowing about bird species is also useful, he said. There are some mowing restrictions to protect their habitats.

Kunselman contended that everything Kulhanek had just mentioned as beneficial had already been done, so what the council was being asked to do was approve more money for consultants to wrap things up. He said the city continues to throw money at a project at the end. He said he’d vote no on everything. It’s taxpayer dollars, whether it’s local or federal. He said his constituents don’t want the runway extension and he’d vote no on that, too. The consultants can wrap it up without additional money, he said. He said he was done throwing money at this kind of thing.

Lumm said she’d been struggling with this. She allowed that it was a very small city share. Ultimately though, what the council would be doing is spending money on something that won’t move forward. She reiterated the fact that the council had removed the project from the CIP, which she translated into a decision that the council wouldn’t move forward. Kulhanek ventured that the council might be “wowed” by the EA and perhaps be open to the possibility of extending the runway.

Outcome: The main resolution, on the $45,000 grant, was approved on a 7-4 vote. Voting for a grant contract with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation were Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Opposing it were Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and mayor John Hieftje. Both contracts with the consultants were opposed by Lumm and Kunselman. Hieftje joined them in opposing the contract with SmithGroupJJR.

Street Repair

The council was asked to consider two major contracts involving street resurfacing and reconstruction. One was a second large contract for street resurfacing work this season – $4,054,599 with Barrett Paving Materials Inc. At its previous meeting on April 2, 2012, the council had authorized a $3.6 million contract with Barrett for an initial set of streets to be resurfaced. The project includes a $405,000 contingency.

The second set of streets includes portions of the following: South Seventh Street, Mt. Pleasant Avenue, Park Drive, Mt. Vernon Avenue, Manhattan Drive, Meadowbrook Avenue, Martha Avenue, Palomar Drive, Catalina Avenue, Eton Court, South Forest Avenue, Vinewood Blvd., Dorset Road, Berkshire Road, Woodside Road, Londonderry Road, Tremmel Avenue, Page Court, Pine Valley Court, Esch Avenue, and Esch Court.

Also at the April 16 meeting, in connection with the regular street resurfacing program, the council considered a $143,455 contract with a different company, CTI and Associates Inc. (CTI), for construction materials testing services. The materials to be tested include oils, aggregates, asphalt, and concrete. Funds for the street resurfacing projects are drawn from the city’s street repair tax, which voters agreed to renew in November 2011 for another five years, through 2016.

Another road construction project on the agenda was a contract with Dan’s Excavating Inc. for $2,314,951 for replacement of two old water mains and resurfacing of the East Stadium Boulevard from Washtenaw Avenue to Packard Street. The total project is estimated to cost $3,600,000. Of that amount, $1,400,000 will come from the water fund capital budget and $2,200,000 will come from millage approved capital budget.

The East Stadium project will maintain the existing five lanes of vehicular traffic, and new bike lanes will be added on both sides of the street.

Also on the agenda was a materials testing contract for the East Stadium Boulevard project – $50,185 with Inspection Services Company Inc.

The only substantive discussion on the four items was on the materials testing. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked why the materials testing was being done. City project engineer Igor Kotlyar explained that such testing is always done for such projects. It’s a standard testing procedure, he said. Some of it involves making sure the proper materials are delivered to the site. But it also involves making sure that the materials are properly deployed as the project work is done.

For example, when a water main is backfilled with sand, it’s tested to make sure that the sand is compacted to the proper density. Gravel that’s put into the road bed is also tested for property compaction, Kotlyar explained. Homayoon Pirooz, head of project management for the city, responded to a question from Anglin by explaining that the city itself is not certified to perform that kind of testing, and does not have the certified equipment to do that. He indicated that it’s essentially a specialty.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the four resolutions involved with street resurfacing and reconstruction work.

Fire, Police Retirement/Health Changes

On the April 16 agenda was a resolution for final approval of changes to the employee retirement system to accommodate recent changes to the collective bargaining agreement with the city’s police command officers union and firefighters union. Also before the council was final approval to revisions of the retirement health care benefits to reflect changes to those collectively bargained agreements.

Changes to the retirement system include: (1) increasing the pension contribution of command officer members to 6% from 5%; (2) implementing a pick-up feature as permitted by the Internal Revenue Code for the pension contributions of firefighters and command officers, converting their 6% pre-tax contribution to a 6% post-tax contribution; (3) increasing the vesting and final average compensation requirements for firefighters hired after July 1, 2012; and (4) implementing a federal provision that allows eligible retired public safety officers to pay qualified health insurance premiums directly from their pensions.

The change to the retiree health care system stipulates that new hires after July 1, 2012 will be eligible for an access-only health care plan at the time of their retirement, instead of a city-paid retiree health care plan.

Fire, Police Retirement/Health Changes: Public Hearings

On the retirement changes for police command officers and fire personnel, Thomas Partridge questioned whether the public had been fully informed on the substance of the change. He felt that representatives of the police department and the union representatives involved in the contract negotiations should have been present to explain their side of the issue.

Edward Vielmetti flipped through the pages of the ordinance revision in the three-ring binder that holds the council agenda, and counted out the number of pages that had been red-lined as he flipped through them. When he got to 16, he did not continue counting, but noted that more than 16 pages of the ordinance have been amended. He stated that he had no idea how councilmembers could evaluate whether this is a good idea or a bad idea. He said that he himself (if he were a member of council) wouldn’t know what to do with a proposal like that. He hoped the city was making a wise choice.

On the retiree health care benefits, Partridge complained that Gov. Rick Snyder and former city administrator Roger Fraser [who now works for the state as an assistant state treasurer] are attempting to erode benefits to public employees, including those in high-risk jobs.

Fire, Police Retirement/Health Changes: Council Deliberations

On the retirement changes, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she believed the primary changes reflect the bargained-for benefits from recent union settlements. The city is taking advantage of IRS rules, she said.

On the retiree health care changes, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said that the changes to the ordinance were consistent with the changes to the access-only health plan that had been adopted by the command officers and firefighters.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the ordinance changes affecting retirement and health care benefits for police command officers and firefighters.

0.17 BAC as Separate Offense

The council considered final approval to a change in the city’s traffic ordinance to adopt a provision of the Michigan Vehicle Code – which establishes driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of more than 0.17 as a separate offense from operating under the influence. The council had given its initial approval to the ordinance change on April 2.

The Michigan legislature had previously changed the MVC, which Ann Arbor has adopted, to include the separate charge for the very high BAC of 0.17. However, the legislature did not at that time change the Home Rule Cities Act to allow cities to impose the greater penalty of 180 days in jail and/or $700 fine that comes with the BAC 0.17 charge. But in February 2012, the legislature amended the Home Rule Cities Act to allow for that penalty. Ann Arbor is making the change to its local ordinance in order to be able to charge drivers with the 0.17 offense.

Records from January 2010 through February 2012 provided to The Chronicle by CLEMIS (Courts and Law Enforcement Management Information System) show three instances of 0.17 offenses – which could not at the time be charged as a separate offense. The CLEMIS records for the same time period also show three reports for the moderately higher BAC level of .08, which could already be charged separately from operating under the influence. [.jpg of bar graph of OWI offenses]

As a change to the city’s ordinances, the change required a second vote and a public hearing (which is separate from the general public commentary held at the start of the meeting.)

0.17 BAC: Public Hearing

Edward Vielmetti led off the hearing by asking where a copy of the proposed changes to the ordinance might be found. Mayor John Hieftje told him it was available online or in a large three-ring binder near the podium – which Thomas Partridge had been perusing. Vielmetti then reviewed the ordinance change, while Partridge held forth.

Partridge began by complaining about Hieftje’s standard boilerplate recitation of the rules for public hearings, which include a provision that speakers confine their remarks to the topic of the public hearing. Partridge construes the rule as a way of inappropriately limiting free speech.

On the substance of the ordinance change, Partridge said it would have been better to attach a resolution that would stop people who are high on alcohol and drugs from driving or causing disruptive behavior in the city of Ann Arbor. He called for a parallel amendment to go forward, that would encourage and require all retailers and bars serving alcohol and supermarkets selling alcohol, to note the names and identity of people who purchase alcohol. He also called for bars to refuse service to patrons who have visited other bars before arriving, who are clearly under the influence of alcohol, and who intend to drive.

Based on his review – while Partridge was speaking – of the ordinance changes, Vielmetti said it appeared to him that the ordinance changes would increase the penalties for driving “super drunk.” He pointed out that there are a number of students in Ann Arbor who don’t just drive relatively drunk, but who also walk relatively drunk. And they may be so drunk that they pose a danger to others while driving, but also to themselves due to alcohol poisoning.

From reading the student press, Vielmetti said it’s his understanding that there’s a concern about prosecution for those who help their classmates who are trying to obtain treatment for alcohol poisoning – because they might be slapped with a “minor in possession” citation themselves. He cautioned the council not to overly hastily increase the penalties for drunken behavior, without also addressing the needs of those who need to receive treatment. It would be unfortunate to put yourself in a situation where you thought you were making an improvement, and then create some unintended consequences, he said – people driving themselves home, because they weren’t ready to help their friends walk themselves home.

0.17 BAC: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) alluded to Vielmetti’s comments during the public hearing, by saying she liked the idea of finding a solution for adolescents who are at risk of underage drinking violations. She felt the decision was straightforward. People who have 0.17 BAC should pay a heavier penalty, she said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked if the state law on 0.17 BAC was already in effect for people on University of Michigan property. Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias responded to the question by saying that for the “super drunk” provisions, which are for driving or operating a vehicle, the change to the ordinance simply brings it into conformity with the state law. If anyone were driving where the city did not have jurisdiction, she said, state law would apply.

Kunselman followed up by asking if UM’s department of public safety already has the authority to enforce the 0.17 BAC provisions on the Ann Arbor city streets. Elias told Kunselman that Ann Arbor police officers would enforce the law on city streets. She said she did not know if UM DPS officers were enforcing state law on city streets. That’s a question she could not answer, she said. Mayor John Hieftje said his understanding was that UM DPS officers have the ability to enforce laws on Ann Arbor city streets, but it’s unusual for them to do so. He stated that he’d be happy to see UM DPS join in helping out on the “party patrol” that the Ann Arbor police department uses to police student neighborhoods on evenings when parties are frequently held.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the 0.17 BAC ordinance change.

Selection of Auditor

The council was asked to consider a five-year contract for independent auditing work with The Rehmann Group – based on its $344,500 bid. The contract allows for two one-year extensions.

Abraham & Gaffney, the firm that the city has used for the last few years, also bid on the work. The Abraham & Gaffney bid came in at $387,500. Two other firms also bid for the city of Ann Arbor auditing work: Andrews, Hooper, Pavlik PLLC ($340,500); and Doeren Mayhew ($361,300).

Andrews, Hooper, Pavlik’s was the low bid, but the selection was not made purely on price. The amount of the bid counted for 30 points out of a possible 100. The other two categories were “expertise and experience” (40 points) and “auditing approach” (30 points). Rehmann and Abraham & Gaffney both scored the maximum 70 on the categories other than price. The memo accompanying the resolution indicates that the choice was also based on “a desire to periodically change service providers.” [.pdf of scoring metric and comments]

For Rehmann, then, the fact that it was not the incumbent firm was an advantage for the city auditing contract award. Last year, when it competed for the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s auditing contract, Rehmann had found its incumbent status to be a disadvantage. Because of the auditor rotation policy the AATA board had adopted on June 16, 2011, Rehmann was not eligible for selection when the AATA board opted to award the contract to Plante & Moran on Sept. 15, 2011.

Selection of Auditor: Council Deliberations

Margie Teall (Ward 4) introduced the resolution as chair of the audit committee, indicating that she was pleased that the audit committee had been asked to be a part of the selection and evaluation process. The audit committee had been pleased with the representative from Rehmann who had interviewed with the committee.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she supported the selection of Rehmann, saying that it was considered best practice to rotate auditors and that Rehmann is well respected. She asked about the notation in the evaluation of proposals that indicated Rehmann projected using 200 hours less than Abraham & Gaffney. She asked if the city is comfortable with that.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who also serves on the audit committee, noted that the auditor’s contract is a multi-year contract. The firm will need fewer hours as they get more familiar with the city’s auditing project over time.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the selection of The Rehmann Group as the city’s auditor.

Hearing on Sakti3 Tax Abatement

On the agenda was a resolution to set a public hearing for May 7 regarding a tax abatement for Sakti3 – an Ann Arbor-based battery technology spinoff from the University of Michigan. Sakti3 is led by UM professor Ann Marie Sastry.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, Sakti3 is requesting an abatement on $151,433 of real property improvements and $1,374,861 of new personal property. If approved, it would reduce Sakti3 Inc.’s annual tax bill by $23,200 for each of three years in the recommended abatement period. The new building improvements and personal property investments would generate about $29,500 in property taxes for each year during the abatement period.

Previously, the council voted on March 21, 2011 to set a public hearing on the establishment of the industrial development district under which Sakti3 is applying for an abatement. And on April 4, 2011, the city council voted to establish the district.

Outcome: Without comment, the council unanimously approved setting a May 7 public hearing on a tax abatement for Sakti3.

Digital Billboards

The council was asked to consider a 180-day moratorium on two items: (1) city staff consideration of applications to erect digital billboards; and (2) the erection of digital billboards.

Coming under the temporary moratoria are “billboards commonly referred to as ‘electronic message centers,’ ‘electronic message boards,’ ‘changeable electronic variable message signs,’ or any billboard containing LEDs, LCDs, plasma displays, or any similar technology to project an illuminated image that can be caused to move or change, or to appear to move or change, by a method other than physically removing and replacing the sign or its components, including by digital or electronic input.”

The resolution acknowledged that such signs are already prohibited by the city’s sign ordinance. From that ordinance, the list of prohibited signs include those that “…incorporate in any manner or are illuminated by any flashing or moving lights other than for conveyance of noncommercial information which requires periodic change.”

The resolution was added late to the agenda, after printed copies of the agenda were made for the council chamber audience. Based on the time stamp on the online agenda, the item appears to have been added at 6:48 p.m. – for the council meeting scheduled to start at 7 p.m. The item was sponsored by mayor John Hieftje.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she was confident there are some places for digital billboards in our lives, but she did not want to see them on crowded downtown Ann Arbor streets. Imposing a temporary moratorium on whether to allow them in the city limits made sense to her, she said.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that many of the billboards in the city had 30-35 year leases on them, and it becomes complex to get them removed. He said that Adams Outdoor Advertising had been asking to “do trades” for many years. As issues for the public, Anglin identified distractibility while driving and “virtual vision pollution.” He gave the corner of Madison and Main, late at night, as an example. It looks like you’re coming into an entertainment area, he said, like vaudeville or something. He called for a community discussion about whether to have digital billboards. Do they bring value? he asked. He didn’t want to make the decision piecemeal.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the temporary 180-day moratorium on digital billboards.

Personal Computer Replacement

The council had on its agenda a $450,000 purchase order with Sehi Computer Products to cover the replacement of personal computers over the next two years.

Paul Fulton (right, foreground) is typically on hand before the council meetings start, to handle any computer issues councilmembers might have. On April 16, he was called to the podium during the meeting to explain the computer replacement cycle.

The project budget includes the purchase of a minimum of 305 desktops and 195 laptops. Funding for replacement of the city’s computers comes from the information technology services unit.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked for an explanation of the city’s replacement policy. Paul Fulton, the city’s IT service delivery manager, described how the replacement cycle for desktop machines and special-purpose laptops is five years. The replacement cycle for general purpose laptops is three years. About four years ago, he said, the city did a general refresh, and those machines are now coming due for replacement – a total of about 500 machines.

Outcome: The $450,000 purchase order with Sehi Computer Products was unanimously approved.

Biosolids Contract

The council considered a contract with BioTech Agronomics Inc. to spread biosolids from the wastewater treatment plant on agricultural fields – during April to December. The rest of the year, the material gets landfilled. The contract pays about $0.0321 per gallon, which works out to approximately $514,000 per year.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know where the material was going. Ed Sajewski, contract/project services manager for the wastewater treatment plant, explained that it would be spread on farm fields in the outlying area. He described the nutritive benefit – carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus – of applying the material to fields, as opposed to just landfilling it. Kunselman wondered if there were testing procedures to make sure no heavy metals were in the material. Yes, replied Sajewski, the city has a lab to do that testing, and it’s required to be done through the permit the city has with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the $514,000 contract for spreading of biosolids.

Mowing Contracts

The city council considered three contracts for mowing different city-owned properties – traffic islands, areas of the wastewater treatment plant, and neighborhood athletic fields: (1) Green-Vision Lawn & Landscaping ($105,336 for 3 years); (2) A2 Outdoors Creations ($43,275 for 3 years); and (3) KBK Landscaping for mowing and trimming services at neighborhood athletic fields and five city locations in the amount of $17,190/year ($51,570 for 3 years).

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said that people who drive into the city would have a right to complain if the city didn’t maintain the traffic islands. Logistically, she described it as a challenge to get the mower out to the locations and to then mow just five square yards.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked about the four parks that are a part of the contract – which parks? Matt Warba, acting field operations manager, told Kunselman the four are: Miller Nature Area, Forsythe, Kempf House and 875 S. Maple. Warba confirmed what Briere had said about the logistical challenge of mowing the areas covered in the contracts. He said there are 184 traffic islands. The city’s strength is mowing large areas of grass, not the small intricate areas like traffic islands or the areas around Kempf House, a museum located on South Division.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the mowing contracts.

City Hall Restrooms

Pulled out of the consent agenda by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) for separate consideration was a $93,438 contract with LC Construction LLC. The project involves the construction of five unisex restrooms, on floors 2-6, in the old elevator tower of city hall.

Before the council meeting, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) talked with city administrator Steve Powers (left).

Lumm was dissatisfied with the answer she’d received from staff before the meeting to a question about why the bathrooms had not been constructed as part of the overall municipal center renovation project.

She characterized the response she’d received as essentially, “We ran out of money.” She wanted all the costs for such projects captured in one place.

Otherwise, it’s hard to understand which costs are related to city hall renovation and which are not, she said.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the restroom construction contract.

Placid Way Park Improvements

Pulled out of the consent agenda by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) for separate consideration was a $79,980 contract with Michigan Recreational Construction Inc. for improvements to Placid Way Park. The contract – which involves installing new play equipment as well as park furniture and landscaping – had been recommended for approval by the city’s park advisory commission at their March 20, 2012 meeting. The 1.32-acre neighborhood park is located on the city’s north side near the larger Dhu Varren Woods Nature Area and Foxfire South Park.

In her brief remarks, Briere described Placid Way as an unusual park that runs between neighborhoods. It’s heavily-used by a neighborhood that has many children, she said. And it’s a pathway from one neighborhood to another. She was happy see the upgrades happening. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) who serves as one of two city council ex officio non-voting appointees to the park advisory commission, noted the discussion that PAC had had on the park.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the Placid Way Park renovation contract.

Technical Amendment to Retirement System

Before the council for its final consideration were some amendments to the city ordinance that governs the retirement system. The first change explicitly describes the process that’s already used to establish the interest rate in crediting participant contribution accounts. The second change corrects a language error introduced with an ordinance revision made last year, which misstates the methodology for calculating a participant’s early retirement benefit. The staff memo accompanying the council resolution indicates that the rates have been calculated correctly, despite the language error.

During the public hearing on the amendments, Edward Vielmetti introduced himself as a graduate of the University of Michigan’s economics department. He said he didn’t know very much about retirement planning. But he said he did know that projections for future returns are notoriously unreliable. In the past, retirement plans that made naive assumptions about future returns have had catastrophic surprises attached to them. He said he could speak to that from some of his own investments over the last 20 years.

Even portfolios that appear to be diversified usually are not, Vielmetti said. He urged the council to do something other than the simplest straight-line projection of future interest rates to project the range of possible outcomes – because a very good year or very bad year early in the cycle can make an enormous difference. Retirement planning is a serious business, he said, and he hoped the city is not taking an oversimplified approach.

Deliberations by the council included brief remarks from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who characterized the amendments as technical changes that had been requested by the city attorney’s office. It’s not a change to the actual retirement plan, but rather a cleanup of some language, she said.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the technical changes to the retirement ordinance.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Greenbelt

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) gave an update on the most recent greenbelt advisory commission – as the city council appointee to that body. He briefed his council colleagues on the mid-year financial report the group had received at its last meeting – there’s about $6 million left in the millage fund for greenbelt acquisitions, and $4.5 million that’s designated for park acquisitions. [For a more detailed look at the April 5, 2012 GAC meeting, see Chronicle coverage: "Greenbelt Commission Briefed on Food Hub," which includes details of the mid-year financial report.] Hohnke also highlighted a deal that the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy had closed on 100 acres along Prospect Road, a large portion of which is open to the public. The deal was done in partnership with the Ann Arbor greenbelt program. [For coverage, see "Superior Greenway Deal Adds 100 Acres."]

Comm/Comm: Parks Millage

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) – in his capacity as one of two city council ex officio non-voting appointees to the city park advisory commission – reminded his colleagues of the remaining public outreach activity the city is doing on the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage renewal. [For coverage of the millage proposal, which the city council will likely put on the November 2012 ballot, see "Park Commission Briefed on Millage Renewal."] A public meeting on the renewal of the tax will be held on April 23 from 6:30-7:30 p.m. at Leslie Science and Nature Center. And the final meeting will be April 26 at the Ann Arbor District Library Traverwood branch, Taylor said.

Comm/Comm: UM Wall Street Parking

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported that earlier in the day, Jim Kosteva –University of Michigan director of community relations – had informed members of the Ann Arbor city council that UM’s board of regents would be voting on April 19 on a proposal to build a 700-space parking structure, to be located between Wall Street and Maiden Lane. [As expected, UM regents approved the project.]

By way of background, the university announced on Feb. 10, 2012 that it was withdrawing from a partnership with the city to build additional parking at the same site where the city hopes to build a transit station – just south of Fuller Road and north of East Medical Center Drive. The Fuller Road site, as a location for additional university parking, had been an alternative to constructing additional parking on Wall Street – which the UM was on course to build up until 2009. The news Briere was reporting, then, reflects the UM’s decision to revert to a previous course.

Since before she was first elected [in 2007], Briere said, other members of the city council, the mayor, and other residents had tried to convince regents that while additional parking might be necessary, it should be considered for a satellite location, not a residential street. She said some folks look at the barren parking lot that forms the block between Maiden Lane and Wall Street and say, “Well, who’d want to live there, anyway? Go ahead, shove in a parking structure.”

Briere said she’d rather have seen a much more serious effort on the part of UM to improve mass transit. She wanted to encourage the university to develop more aggressive carpooling and alternative transportation options for staff. She wanted to see the number of people reduced who feel that they need to be able to get into their car without walking or waiting. She wanted better consideration of the infrastructure and the environmental impact that the parking structure would have on the community.

For those who think that no one will care and that it’s all a wasteland, she asked them to remember, “It’s the university that created that wasteland, and the university that wants to make it increasingly inhospitable to the residents who live [there].” She asked the regents of the University of Michigan to remember that good neighbors work together. They could just as easily build parking structures on the north campus or the athletic campus, creating options for those who want to park there, and reducing the number of employees who choose to park and not ride [a play on the term for lots designed for people to arrive, park, then take public transportation to their final destination – called park-and-ride lots.]

Comm/Comm: Agenda Item Titles

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the length of the titles to agenda items had begun to creep longer and they were not getting clearer as a result. She asked that the 20-word rule on agenda item titles be followed.

By way of illustration, the following title appeared on that night’s agenda (137 words):

An Ordinance to Amend Sections 1:552.1, 1:561, 1:562, 1:565, 1:566, 1.567, 1:568, 1:572 and 1:592 of Chapter 18, Employees Retirement System, Title I of the Code of the City of Ann Arbor to Implement a “Pick-Up” Provision Allowed by Internal Revenue Code 414(h) for Members represented by the IAFF, Local 693 and the Command Officers Association, and Increase the Contribution Level for Members Represented by the Command Officers Association, and to Implement a HELPS provision for Eligible Retired Public Safety Officers, and to Implement an Other Qualified Adult Pop-Up Provision for Members represented by the Ann Arbor Police Officers Association, the Command Officers Association and AFSCME, and to Implement Other Collectively Bargained Changes for Members Represented by the IAFF, Local 693 (Ordinance No. ORD-12-10)

Comm/Comm: Medical Marijuana Dispensary Licenses

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) also told her colleagues that she’d listened to their requests at the council’s previous meeting, on April 2, 2012, that medical marijuana dispensary licenses be brought to the council for a vote. However, after further consultation with the city attorney, Stephen Postema, she reported that he’s said he would not be able to provide adequate background information to the council on the issue until June. She wanted to let her colleagues know that she had checked, and that Postema was not prepared to move as quickly as she was.

Comm/Comm: Blight Removal

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) reported that the city’s efforts at blight removal are working in his neighborhood, on Springbrook. He thanked everyone who supports blight removal and the city staff for making it happen.

Comm/Comm: Localized Flooding

During public commentary time, Ellen Fisher told the council she was speaking for herself and many of her neighbors in the Churchill Drive area. [It's an area on the west side of the city, east of I-94 and south of Scio Church Road.] She reminded councilmembers that some of them had heard from her before in letters she’d written. That night, she said she wanted to put a face to the message. She told the council that she and her husband had moved into their house on March 23, 1974 – 38 years ago. For 26 years, they had no problems, she reported. However, they’d experienced three localized floods in the neighborhood since 2000, two within the last two years.

Churchill Drive (highlighted in pink) was the subject of public commentary about localized flooding. It's located south of Scio Church Road and east of I-94. This screenshot is from the recent FEMA flood maps adopted by the city, which shows the floodplain (green) and floodway (blue) that exists in the neighborhood, but starting east of Churchill and extending eastward. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

She contended that three specific actions by the city of Ann Arbor were responsible for the flooding – which resulted in her home now serving as the “neighborhood detention pond.” First, she said, residential development had been allowed north of Scio Church Road, which caused additional water to flow into the Churchill Downs neighborhood during bad storms. Second, she said, in 1998 the roads in the neighborhood (Wiltshire and Churchill) were resurfaced. But instead of removing older pavement, she said, new asphalt was just laid on top of the old. As a result of laying down new asphalt on top of the old, she described the crown of the road now as above the curb, and the curb as only two inches high. So any time the water gets deeper than two inches on the road during a storm, it’s forced off the road into people’s houses.

The third city action, she said, was the footing drain disconnection program implemented after the floods of 2000. Since that time, the city has known that the stormwater system in the Churchill Downs area is inadequate, she said. But in 2009 homeowners there had to participate in the footing drain disconnect program.

By way of background, the program requires disconnection of a property’s footing drains to the sanitary sewer system, with a new connection made to the stormwater system. The move is meant to prevent the phenomenon of raw sewage backing up into people’s basements – due to overloading the sanitary system, which is not designed to deal with the volume of water associated with storms. Fisher’s contention is that the stormwater system in the neighborhood is also not adequate to handle the volume of water due to storms.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) as she listens to Ellen Fisher's public comment on localized flooding issues. To Higgins' right (in green shirt) is Margie Teall (Ward 4). Fisher was speaking about flooding in Ward 4.

Fisher continued by describing another flood just a month ago, and showed the council a photo of her house, which she described as an island surrounded by water – 5-6 inches. Storm drain covers were blown off, and geysers shot up five feet into the air, she reported. Water flowed into their basement through the egress windows and up from the sump that was installed through the footing drain disconnect program.

The city of Ann Arbor has attributed this to an “act of god,” she said. But she called the flood in her basement an “act of the city.” She called on the city to accept responsibility. In the short term, she called for the city to solve the problem of water entering the basement through the sump and to cover the cost of cleanup and mitigation. In the long term, she said, the city needs to address flooding in the neighborhood. She presented the council with a petition signed by several residents of the neighborhood, many of whom were in the audience at city council chambers.

Lowell Fisher, Ellen Fisher’s husband, spoke from his wheelchair. He told the council that the floods were taking an emotional and financial toll on him. The value of their home has plummeted, he said. They’re afraid to restore their basement – so they’re left with a basement they can’t use. Because he can’t visit all his children, they travel to visit him. They need their basement to host their children and grandchildren. Two years ago a flood cost them $20,000. But their claim for $5,000 in cleanup costs was denied. Nothing was done by the city to prevent another occurrence, he said. He stressed that the floods are not freak storms. There had been storms for the last 26 years prior to the occurrence of flooding problems. He concluded that it’s time for the city to take action. More than a dozen people stood in the audience to show support during Fisher’s remarks.

Comm/Comm: Smart Meters

Nanci Gerler alluded to a mayoral proclamation that led off the meeting, which established April 22, 2012 as Earth Day in Ann Arbor – the 42nd anniversary of the international observation of Earth Day, which was launched in Ann Arbor on March 10-14, 1970.

Gerler told the council she’d attended the first Earth Day and still has an Earth Day button somewhere in her house. She told the council she appreciated being a part of a community that values the environment and accessibility for those with disabilities. She warned the council that DTE’s smart meters had been introduced in Ann Arbor like a Trojan horse, using the guise of sustainability. Only recently had the meters been installed in Ann Arbor, she said, but other parts of the state had a longer experience with them. She told the council that 18 other municipalities have passed resolutions and moratoriums on smart meters, due to questions health safety and invasion of privacy, she said. Why not Ann Arbor? she wondered. Ann Arbor is usually progressive on such issues.

Gerler described how DTE is making no exceptions, and does not give consumers the right to opt out. She said that she’d been told by the Michigan Public Service Commission that if she refuses to allow installation, she could have her electricity shut off, even if she pays in a timely fashion. She offered to work with councilmembers to bring them up to speed on the issue. She asked councilmembers to help her get the message out.

Darren Schmidt introduced himself as the president and CEO of the Nutritional Healing Center of Ann Arbor. He described how the center helps people improve their health through nutrition. He said that a few years ago he became aware that some of the fatigue, memory loss, sleep disorders, and illnesses including Parkinson’s Disease could be attributed to “dirty electricity” and magnetic fields. [The council's agenda included a mayoral proclamation establishing April as Parkinson's Disease Awareness Month.] He showed the council a book titled “Dirty Electricity,” which that concluded electromagnetic frequencies and radio frequencies are the No. 1 cause of cancer in the U.S. He cited another book, titled “Zapped,” that provides ways to avoid electromagnetic pollution.

Schmidt said 3-5% of the population are extremely sensitive to magnetic fields and 35-50% are somewhat sensitive, but may not know it. Most doctors don’t know anything about this condition, he said. He had stumbled across it because his patients need the best care possible and they’re not constrained by pharmaceutical requirements. He also showed the council a letter from the American Academy of Environmental Medicine. The president-elect of that organization, he said, is Amy Dean, who’s a doctor of osteopathic medicine (D.O.) and based in Ann Arbor. The AAEM on April 12 released its position paper on electromagnetic fields and radio frequency health effects, and that paper had called for immediate caution on installation of “smart meters.” He compared installing “smart meters” in neighborhoods to “living in a microwave” that can’t be turned off.

Comm/Comm: Affordable Services for Most Vulnerable

Thomas Partridge called on the council to fund services for the most vulnerable – from disabled citizens, to senior citizens, to the middle class – those who need job opportunities and access to public transportation to get to those jobs. He called for the nomination of Barack Obama for re-election as president of the United States.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, May 7, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

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

According to the staff memo accompanying the council’s resolution, the city of Ann Arbor expects to realize at least $500,000 in savings annually compared to continuing to employ its own dispatchers. The cost savings arise from the fact that not all of the city’s current dispatchers would be hired on by the sheriff’s office. Around four city of Ann Arbor dispatchers would not have dispatching jobs under the new arrangement.

The contract is offset by a $12,520 facility use fee paid by the county to the city. The Washtenaw County sheriff’s office is already co-located with Ann Arbor police dispatch, in a facility above the city’s Fire Station #1 on Fifth Avenue just across the street from the municipal center. The sheriff’s office also currently handles dispatching services for  Northfield Township, Michigan State Police, Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority and the city of Ypsilanti. [Additional Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor, Washtenaw: Joint 911 Dispatch?"]

According the staff memo accompanying the council’s resolution, the consolidation of dispatch operations would put the city in the state of Michigan’s Economic Vitality Incentive Plan. The MEVIP has replaced statutory state-shared revenue as the means that the state legislature uses to distribute to local governmental units their portion of the state’s sales tax. The distribution of a portion of the state sales tax to local units is based on the fact that in Michigan, local units have limited ability to generate revenue through taxes.

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]

Of the positions on the 9-member LDFA board, the city of Ann Arbor appoints six and the city of Ypsilanti appoints three. One of the six Ann Arbor spots is for a member of the Ann Arbor city council, which had been held by Rapundalo, until he was defeated in the Nov. 8 general election by Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Taylor is thus replacing Rapundalo as the city council representative. Rapundalo’s appointment is to fill an existing additional vacancy on the board. Jacobson was also appointed to the LDFA to fill a vacancy on the board.

The local development finance authority is funded through a tax increment finance (TIF) mechanism for the same geographic district as the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti downtown development authorities. The LDFA currently receives no revenue from the Ypsilanti portion of its district. The taxes on which the increment is captured are local school taxes. The impact of the LDFA tax capture is spread across school districts statewide, due to the way that local school taxes are pooled by the state of Michigan and redistributed to local districts.

Based on data available through A2OpenBook, in fiscal year 2011, the LDFA generated $1.475 million in tax capture. The LDFA contracts with Ann Arbor SPARK to operate a business accelerator.

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]

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) was first to arrive at the council’s meeting and was rewarded by a dozen or so requests from high school students who needed a signature to attest to their attendance for a class assignment. It was Rapundalo’s last meeting, having lost the Ward 2 election on Tuesday, Nov. 8, to Jane Lumm. (Photos by the writer.)

The council had made several revisions to the law in 2010, including a requirement that motorists accommodate not only pedestrians who are “within” a crosswalk, but also those who are “approaching” a crosswalk. Thursday’s initial revision amended out the “approaching” language in favor of the following wording: “… the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian stopped at the curb or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk.”

The second and final vote on the pedestrian ordinance change is expected to come after a council working session in December, and after a public hearing at the council meeting when the final vote is taken. Based on deliberations on the change at Thursday’s meeting, the outcome of that vote is not a foregone conclusion, and further revisions might be possible.

The council also took action at the Nov. 10 meeting that will allow two downtown residential projects to start construction. The council approved the site plan for The Varsity Ann Arbor, a “planned project” consisting of a 13-story apartment building with 181 units at 425 E. Washington, between 411 Lofts and the First Baptist Church.

And the final deal was approved with Village Green to purchase the city-owned parcel at First and Washington. On that site Village Green will build a 244-space parking deck as the first two stories of a 9-story building with 156 dwelling units – City Apartments.

The council gave final approval to a change in its taxicab ordinance, spelling out conditions under which licenses can be revoked or suspended.

The council also gave final approval to two ordinances that make retiree health care and pension benefits for two of the city’s larger unions parallel to benefits for non-union employees. The approvals gave Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) an opportunity to comment on the labor issues that had been a centerpiece of his re-election campaign, which concluded unsuccessfully on Tuesday.

It was due to the election held on Tuesday that the council’s meeting was shifted from its regular Monday meeting slot to Thursday. The shift is stipulated in the city charter. All council incumbents won their races except for Rapundalo, a Democrat defeated by Jane Lumm, who was running as an independent. Rapundalo began his final meeting by signing multiple attendance sheets for high school students who were attending the meeting on a class assignment, and ended it by hearing praise from his colleagues around the table.

Pedestrian Safety Ordinance

Before the council for consideration was initial approval to a tweak to its pedestrian safety ordinance. The language given initial approval by the council now reads in relevant part: ” … the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian stopped at the curb or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk, …”

Some amendments to the law made by the council over a year ago – on July 19, 2010 – included an expansion of the conditions under which motorists must take action to accommodate pedestrians. Specifically, the 2010 amendments required accommodation of pedestrians not just “within a crosswalk” but also “approaching or within a crosswalk.”

A draft of the current revision that was circulated prior to Thursday’s meeting would have simply struck the phrase about “approaching” a crosswalk – which resulted in a mischaracterization in other media reports of a possible council action to “repeal” the ordinance.

Besides the “approaching” phrase, the 2010 amendments also contained two other key elements. The 2010 amendments included a requirement that motorists “stop” and not merely “slow as to yield.” And the 2010 amendments also eliminated reference to which half of the roadway is relevant to the responsibility placed on motorists for accommodating pedestrians. With regard to that amendment, the intent of the council was to place responsibility on motorists when pedestrians approach crosswalks on either side of the roadway.

Revisions contemplated by the council this time around do not change the intent of the ordinance on either the “stopping” or the “roadway side” elements. However, language has been inserted to make explicit that motorists have a responsibility “without regard to which portion of the roadway the pedestrian is using.”

Pedestrian Ordinance: Public Commentary

Matthew Grocoff led off public commentary from the contingent of advocates for pedestrians who attended the meeting. He said it’s been an interesting week for pedestrians. The issue is not really about pedestrians, bikes, and cars, but rather about the value of people, he said. He appreciated the shifting of the burden from the pedestrian. He said he is looking forward to strengthening the language that’s in the ordinance now.

Joel Batterman introduced himself as a 2006 graduate of Huron High School, vice chair of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition (WBWC), and an urban planning student at the University of Michigan. Changing the ordinance [from the 2010 amended version] would make the community less safe, he said. The ordinance is working, he contended. A few months of education and enforcement has increased the number of people stopping.

Joel Batterman.

Batterman said that media reports have attributed collisions on Plymouth Road to the 2010 amendments to the ordinance. But he said that Plymouth Road has always been a problem, and he reminded the council that in 2003 two students died trying to cross Plymouth Road. [From a Nov. 15, 2003 Ann Arbor News report: "Teh Nannie Roshema Rolsan, 21, and Norhananim Zainol, 20, both engineering students at the University of Michigan, were killed Sunday night after they left the Islamic Center of Ann Arbor, 2301 Plymouth Road, and tried to cross the five-lane road."]

Batterman noted that many students trying to cross Plymouth are international students who find it difficult to make their voices heard. He called on the council not to backpedal on their commitment.

Responding to the criticism that Ann Arbor’s pedestrian safety ordinance is at odds with prevailing traffic culture, Batterman said that’s exactly the point. Metro Detroit has the highest pedestrian fatality rate in the country and is three times that of New York City. He called for change at the state level as well.

Thomas Collet told councilmembers that they could likely tell from his accent that he grew up in Europe. He reported that he commutes on Plymouth Road, and it’s atrocious how fast people drive – motorists are looking to get on US-23 and turn on their cell phones. He said Ann Arbor is a community that is accommodating to pedestrians and bicyclists. Regarding possible traffic accidents, he said the actual problem is people driving too fast and following too close.

Isaac Gilman introduced himself as an urban planning student at UM and a resident of Courtyard Apartments, near Plymouth and Broadway, for over a year. It’s difficult to cross Plymouth at non-signalized crosswalks, he said. Two specific locations he noted are at the Islamic Center and at Traver Village, where Kroger is located.

Cars travel 40-45 mph when the posted limit is 35, Gilman said. It takes three to five minutes to make it across. The pedestrian island helps, but he said he doesn’t feel safe there. The pedestrian ordinance is a great plan – human life should be the most important focus. He encouraged the city to adopt crosswalk design guidelines, to identify improvements, and to implement them. He said it was important to educate pedestrians, motorists and bicyclists. He encouraged the council to keep the ordinance. People shouldn’t fear crossing the street, he said.

Erica Briggs introduced herself as a board member of the WBWC. She supported the revisions, she said. She agreed that the “approaching” phrase is vague. The WBWC had received a grant from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the Washtenaw County public health department to do outreach and education, and she wanted to give a status update. She’d done observations in the spring and fall of this year of actual driver behavior at different intersections, which she then shared with the council.

[The study did not use pedestrians observed in the wild. Briggs acted as a pedestrian, and an observer monitored motorist behavior. For the study, at each location observations were recorded over a period of about an hour and a half, with roughly 50-80 attempted crossings. Stop rates were calculated based on the number of cars that should have stopped, by ordinance, compared with the total number of vehicles traveling through the location.] Stop rates were measured in the spring of 2011 and again in the fall. Fall figures are given in parens.

Plymouth Road
Stop Rate: 1.5% (9.5%)

Liberty Street
Stop rate: 8% (24%)

Main Street
Stop rate: 5.3% (14%)

Stadium Blvd
Stop rate: 1.2% (12%)

-

Briggs noted that there had been improvement in the stop rates as measured by the WBWC, but it’s nowhere where it needs to be.

Kathy Griswold told council she’s been speaking about pedestrian safety long before it was popular. Transportation engineering is life and death, not trial and error, she said. She didn’t support the pedestrian ordinance revision, saying that it’s not the optimal approach, because it introduces unnecessary conflict and risk. She said the discussion needed to be framed more broadly. She noted that people want to model the pedestrian safety ordinance on the city of Boulder’s law, but she noted that Boulder has other laws supporting that one, like a law on sight distance. She compared Ann Arbor’s approach to someone taking a laxative to get in shape.

Griswold asked why Ann Arbor needs a local ordinance that is inconsistent with the Uniform Traffic Code (UTC). She wondered why local politicians are editing traffic engineering laws, wordsmithing language at the council table. The city of Ann Arbor is reluctant to maintain sight distances, she contended, and it doesn’t keep rights-of-way free of overgrowth. There’s not adequate lighting at crosswalks, she continued, and utility boxes are placed in the line of sight. From a historical perspective, she said, there’s been a trend of politicizing traffic engineering. You can’t just pick and choose high visibility projects, she cautioned.

Larry Deck introduced himself as a board member of the WBWC. He said it looks like the council has made good progress. He cautioned that a cultural change takes time. The focus should first be on education instead of the punitive part. He said that the group is working on crosswalk design guidelines. As an example of items to be addressed are consistent signage across the city, advance yield signs, High-intensity Activated crossWalK beacons (HAWK), and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB). He said the community shares a common interest in making crosswalks safer.

Pedestrian Ordinance: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), a co-sponsor of the amendment, noted there had been a grammatical error in the updated online version on Legistar. So she asked her colleagues to consider the updated version she’d passed around printed on sheets of paper. [Compared to the version approved by the council in July 2011 2010 additional language is in italics and deleted language is struck through.]

[Proposed Amendment Nov. 10, 2011] 10:148. Pedestrians crossing streets.
(a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian approaching or stopped at the curb or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk, without regard to which portion of the roadway the pedestrian is using. 
(b) A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible unsafe for the driver to yield.
(c) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

Briere said she’d heard a lot of concern about the ordinance in the last 13-14 months since the it was revised. There’d been a flurry of publicity when it was approved in 2010. Many people had written about their concern, but had also expressed their gratefulness. For occasional pedestrians, crossing at anywhere but a signal is difficult, she said. The council had approved the language with “approaching” as a way to evaluate the intent of pedestrians. Since then, the council had heard a lot of discussion about understanding what that means.

At the Oct. 24 council meeting, those concerns had been discussed by the council, Briere said. She’d volunteered to work on this issue, but said the current amendment didn’t reflect her work alone – it’s the work of other councilmembers and community members, and she thanked them for their input.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who also co-sponsored the amendment, said he’d heard a great deal from his constituents about the ordinance. Two main points of that communication were that: (1) there is great value in a pedestrian-friendly culture, and (2) the “approaching” standard is problematic due to perceived and real ambiguity.

The current revision advances public safety, he said, and provides clarity without forcing pedestrians into the crosswalk before they get the right-of-way. He said he continues to learn about the issue through communication with advocacy groups and he thanked them collectively for it.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she is very appreciative of work that Briere and Taylor had put into the ordinance.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who had sponsored the original 2010 amendment to the ordinance, said he was glad that the sponsors had stepped back from the previous draft that would have simply struck the phrase with “approaching.”

Hohnke said it’s important to keep in mind what’s important: the safety of pedestrians. It’s important that the city is not asking people to risk life and limb to claim the right-of-way. He said he wasn’t sure the newly revised language is a huge improvement. He was inclined to support the revision in paragraph (a), but wanted to note that the original language was the result of a multi-stakeholder process, that included physical audits, videos, data, and a publicly-held forum with traffic engineers and experts from Lansing.

Through that process, Hohnke contended, people had wrestled with the issues that people are now identifying. He cautioned against taking a reactionary step backwards. He agreed with the concern that Griswold had raised during public commentary about councilmembers trying to wordsmith traffic safety laws. To a lay person, the revised language might seem to accomplish the goal. But Hohnke said the “so-called ambiguity” is something the city needs to educate people about. That kind of ambiguity already exists in the traffic code in other places, he said, giving tailgating as an example. He was willing to support the paragraph (a) revisions if it would make people feel more comfortable, saying at least it’s not the step backward.

But as for the revisions in paragraph (b), Hohnke said the language strays from UTC guidelines and is inconsistent. He contended that the addition of the word “unsafe” adds ambiguity that sponsors were trying to avoid.

Later during deliberations, Taylor offered, in response to Hohnke’s concern about paragraph (b), that he would be willing to consider a reversion to the original language in that paragraph as friendly. And that amendment was accepted without requiring a vote.

Mayor John Hieftje said he appreciated the work done by Briere and Taylor. Noting he was a sponsor of the 2010 amendment, the “approaching” standard was a term that worked well in other places and that traffic professionals had worked with him and Hohnke to develop the language. Hieftje said there’d be a working session on the topic in December and that a second and final vote on the ordinance change would be taken at a meeting following the working session. Hieftje said progress is being made in recognizing pedestrians who are within and approaching crosswalks.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said he was appreciative of the councilmembers who had made the effort to bring the revision forward. He was glad the council was not considering simply striking the “approaching” language, because he would not have supported that. Pedestrians need strong language to support them, to support a level of walkability in the city. Saying it’s a step in the right direction, he cautioned that there are still inconsistencies with the UTC. Rapundalo said he thinks other things to contemplate are: technological options; definitions of everything a “crosswalk” includes; and signage.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said he also wants the effect of the ordinance on liability studied, in particular with respect to the “last clear chance” doctrine. Does this change that liability? [The "last clear chance" doctrine is that, independent of the negligence on the part of one of the parties, if the other party had the last opportunity to avoid an accident, the negligent party could still avoid liability for that accident.]

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said it’s great the council is talking about this, because it’s consistent with the council’s practice of revisiting ordinances a year after the ordinance is amended, which is now. Kunselman asked chief of police Barnett Jones to come to the podium.

A back-and-forth between Jones and Kunselman drew out the fact that under state law, Ann Arbor police officers can ticket motorists for failing to accommodate pedestrians who are in a crosswalk and that it results in two points on the motorist’s license.

To illustrate the kind of friction that exists between motorists and pedestrians on the ordinance, Jones related receiving a call about a situation at Huron and State streets. The motorist was eastbound on Huron Street approaching State Street. A pedestrian pointed at the crosswalk and stepped in. The motorist pointed to the green light and drove around the pedestrian.

Jones said he believed some relief is needed for mid-block major road crossings, and the city is starting to get better compliance. Jones then implicitly disputed a report in AnnArbor.com that attributed the cause of some rear-end accidents to the pedestrian ordinance. Jones said that when the third, fourth or fifth cars behind a stopped car have a rear-end accident, it’s not the fault of the pedestrian ordinance. Instead, Jones said, that kind of accident is caused by a driver who failed to keep their vehicle under control.

Briere told Jones that when she’d looked at the reports that were supposed to be the basis of the claims published in AnnArbor.com that the pedestrian ordinance had caused accidents, she’d found that a lot of the reports didn’t deal with areas that would be affected by this ordinance. The accidents had happened at signalized intersections (which are not included in the scope of the pedestrian safety ordinance) or else involved bicyclists on sidewalks, she said. She said that looking at the actual reports was surprising to her, because having read the coverage in AnnArbor.com she’d expected to find an uptick in rear-end accidents at those crosswalks without a signal.

Jones said that on Plymouth Road, the accidents he’d looked at had involved a distracted driver who did not stop behind a car that was already stopped. Briere requested a comparison of rear-end collisions today versus 2009, so that there can be an effective comparison.

A question from Hohnke to the chief about what it means exactly for a pedestrian to be “stopped at the curb” resulted in a couple of suggestions from Jones. First, he said there were some bus stops that might need to be moved from their locations immediately proximate to crosswalks. Second, he suggested the possibility of extending the crosswalk striping from the road onto the sidewalk pad to clearly delineate an area.

Hohnke reacted to the extended striping by saying that was new information to him. Hohnke said that’s a pretty significant change and wondered if the ordinance language actually entailed such a delineation and a requirement that engineering of the crosswalks be undertaken.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) took over the duties of chairing the Nov. 10 council meeting midway through it, when mayor John Hieftje could no longer continue, due to hoarseness. The duty fell to Higgins as mayor pro tem. Hieftje remained at the meeting. 

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) was chairing the meeting (as mayor pro tem) by that point due to illness-induced hoarseness on Hieftje’s part. She said the council had heard that the city needs engineered crosswalks and it’s important to look at different needs for Seventh and Liberty streets as compared to Huron Street and Plymouth Road. She ventured that the city’s traffic engineers would be able to weigh in on the issue at the December work session and the council would have that information before taking a final vote.

Briere wanted to remind people that ordinances don’t control everything. She referred to the three Es: education, enforcement and engineering. Putting up signs has alerted motorists that crosswalks are there. Getting a standard warning sign across the city will be valuable to residents, as well as to people who are driving through the city. It’s the lack of clarity that has compounded the problems, she said. The city also needs to look at the engineering of crosswalks.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) noted that the city needs to think about how to fund engineering improvements to crosswalks. He noted the reduction in bus service provided by the Ann Arbor Public Schools system meant that more people were walking.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give initial approval to the revision to the pedestrian safety ordinance. A working session and a final vote are anticipated for December 2011.

Pedestrian Ordinance: Remembering Kris Talley

When the council revised the city’s pedestrian safety ordinance on July 19, 2010, the public hearing included remarks from Kris Talley on behalf of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition, a group she chaired for a time. From The Chronicle’s July 19, 2010 meeting report:

Speaking during the public hearing on behalf of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition, board member Kris Talley indicated the group had been working on the issue for more than a year. She pointed the council to a video that they’d created to illustrate what motorist behavior is like towards pedestrians who are trying to enter crosswalks.

What had been particularly striking, Talley said, was a forum attended by city transportation staff, a city attorney, a police officer and advocates for non-motorized transportation where there’d been a lack of consensus about what was required by the city’s current pedestrian ordinance – for pedestrians and motorists alike. The proposed revision, she said, is language that makes crosswalks meaningful.

Advocacy for pedestrians in the current round of legislative review will be missing Talley’s voice. Last week, on Nov. 4, she died of ovarian cancer. In a message to the WBWC newsgroup, her husband Phil Farber described Talley as “a tireless advocate for pedestrians and non-motorized transportation, especially bicycling.”

In this Chronicle file photo from July 19, 2010, Kris Talley addressed the city council that night in support of the amendment to the city’s pedestrian safety ordinance. Tally died of ovarian cancer on Nov. 4, 2011.

Farber continued, “I want to ask everyone reading these words to consider what they can do in large or small ways to improve conditions for those of us who walk and bicycle for our transportation needs.”

In a May 2007 interview, Talley related a vignette that illustrates the large and small deeds she contributed to the walking and bicycling community. After being run off the road by a gravel truck while riding her bicycle on Scio Church Road, she followed the truck to the gravel pit and tracked down the driver, who was called “Catfish.”

Said Talley: “I went into the dispatch office and that’s how I found out his name. She called down and said, Catfish, there’s someone up here who wants to talk to you or something. Yeah, he wasn’t too receptive to my message of sharing the road.”

Talley continued to deliver that message as recently as early October of this year. She sent an email to several parties, including The Chronicle, asking for help in an attempt to convince Zipcar (a car-share company) to stop using a particular advertisement: “Aaaargh, I can’t take it that Zipcar still has this ad in its rotation, almost a month after Bike Portland first pointed it out: [link] … I was hoping if the AA entities that deal directly with Zipcar and at least one AA customer (I think you are, HD?) could protest it would have more impact than the average cyclist.”

When Talley asked people to do something, it was hard for them to find a way to say no. [.pdf of email written to Zipcar at Talley's request]

The Varsity Ann Arbor

On the council’s agenda was a resolution for approval of a residential project on East Washington Street: The Varsity Ann Arbor. The Varsity is a “planned project” consisting of a 13-story apartment building with 181 units at 425 E. Washington, between 411 Lofts and the First Baptist Church.

The city planning commission recommended approval of The Varsity at its Oct. 4, 2011 meeting.

Intended for students, it’s the first project to go through the city’s new design review process. The Varsity was first considered at the planning commission’s Sept. 20 meeting, but postponed before eventually winning recommendation.

A “planned project” allows modifications of the area, height, and placement requirements related to permanent open space preservation, if the project would result in “the preservation of natural features, additional open space, greater building or parking setback, energy conserving design, preservation of historic or architectural features, expansion of the supply of affordable housing for lower income households or a beneficial arrangement of buildings.” However, all other zoning code requirements must still be met – including the permitted uses, maximum density, and maximum floor area.

The Varsity was submitted as a planned project in order to make the plaza area off Washington Street larger than what would have been required by the zoning code.

The Varsity: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge stated that he felt the requirements for the property should include access on a non-discriminatory basis to transportation.

Chris Crockett noted that the proposed building is bounded on two sides by structures in the Old Fourth Ward historic district. She had met with developers and architects for a number of months, she said, and allowed that The Varsity is an appropriate development for the site – it is tall and could be taller. However, she still had real concerns about some issues to which she’d not received a good response from the architects and the developer. One concern is the Huron Street facade, she said. It’s a major thoroughfare and buildings on the street should be architecturally significant. But The Varsity’s facade on Huron Street is anything but that, she contended. It offers a flat face with an entrance for pedestrians and a garage door.

Alluding to the design changes that had been made since the initial review by the city’s design review board, Crockett called it a “glorified garage door.” The developer had been asked to change it, but it hasn’t been changed, she said. The door is also dangerous, because traffic on Huron Street could get backed up. She expressed skepticism that it would be effective, for the developer simply to tell residents they can’t turn left out of the garage. She maintained it would be a hazard for drivers on Huron Street. She noted that The Varsity was the first building to go through the city’s new design review process and the garage door entrance had been brought to the attention of the development team as unacceptable, she said.

Ethel Potts called The Varsity the first test of the city’s new planning process. Next spring there’ll be a review of how well it’s working, she said. She criticized the fact that height and mass was not considered by the design review board, and that resulted in a project that is not compatible with its context – next door to a small, elegant historic church.

Potts said the reason the design review board didn’t consider height and mass was because those elements were made a part of the zoning code, which was a mistake, she said. A flaw of the project is a lack of green space – it has open space, but that’s not green space. “So much for downtown livability,” she said. She concluded that she doesn’t think the ordinances are working.

Steve Kaplan introduced himself as the owner of the apartment building at 418 Washington. He said he was excited to see the project get built on the street. He told the council he’d attended the design review board and had been impressed with the energy the development team had put into the changes they’ve made.

Kaplan said he appreciated that a developer must balance concerns that are financial with those that are aesthetic. But he suggested that some improvements could be made that do not impact affordability of the construction. On the east wall, the current plan calls for just one color of brick. But with such a large face, he suggested it might make sense to alternate colors to break it up.

Kaplan also said the parking offered inside the building at grade level squanders an important opportunity to contribute to the community. That block of Washington Street has been historically a “sleepy block,” he allowed, but it seems to be changing towards something more exciting. The space allocated to parking could be commercial or retail, so allocating it permanently to parking seems wasteful, he said.

Brad Moore introduced himself as working on the project as an associate architect. He noted that other members of the team were also there. The approval was being sought under the city’s “planned project” provision, he said, a designation that has a controversial history. For this project, Moore explained, the “planned project” designation allows the developer to provide a larger public plaza on Washington Street – at the request of the First Baptist Church. The “planned project” designation is not being used to gain increased mass, density or height, he said. The project team has worked very hard with the neighbors, the design review board and the city planning commission.

The project has evolved, Moore said, and they had done the best job possible. One challenge noted by Moore is that the width of the lot on the Huron side of the site is quite limited. The garage door mimics a “curtain wall,” he said. There is room for the staging of cars, he said. A car can be completely outside the garage, before it gets to the Huron Street edge.

Bob Keane, a principal with WDG Architects in Washington D.C., told the council that the project team had been working together with a local group [Brad Moore]. He described how they’d had a nice process with the design review board, the neighborhood and the church. The team took the commentary seriously, which they’d received as feedback. He called the evolution of the Huron Street facade a great improvement. The way the building steps back responds to the two houses appropriately, he said.

Although Keane had heard people describe the Huron Street facade as “flat,” he said he felt it had a rich texture. He allowed that the long facade facing east really was a bit plain originally, and vertical elements had been added, as well as a metal element at the top to define the building top. He also noted that the team had looked at ways to enhance the mid-block pedestrian connector – the mews, which runs between Huron and Washington.

John Floyd introduced himself as treasurer of the First Baptist Church, located next to the proposed project. He allowed it “could be a lot worse” but told the council that the reason it’s going to be built is: “You guys passed the zoning!” He allowed that the developers are probably nice people, who are nice to kids, and nice to have a pint with.

Tom Heywood (left) and John Floyd (right) chatted during a recess in the meeting. 

At that point Floyd paused and said he wanted to wait until all the councilmembers were ready to listen, saying that Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) seemed to have other things to do besides pay attention to him. [Hohnke has also in the past made a point of not looking at Floyd when Floyd has spoken during public commentary.]

Floyd ventured that Hohnke was writing an email, at which point Hohnke was piqued into responding verbally to Floyd during Floyd’s commentary. [Councilmembers have rarely if ever responded to speakers during public commentary over the more than three years of Chronicle coverage. They will on occasion offer a response later in the meeting.] Hohnke told Floyd he was taking notes on what Floyd was saying.

When Floyd continued, he called the construction of The Varsity in that spot civic vandalism and church desecration. He said Huron Street used to be the most elegant street in town, and The Varsity starts its diminishment, he said. To take a building that scale and put it through the whole block [from Washington to Huron] is wrong, he contended. It was an “act of irresponsibility” by the council to approve the zoning, he said. It was wrong, Floyd said, and will be wrong for the next 100 years, and is the responsibility of this city council.

At the time allowed for public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Floyd also addressed the council, again on the topic of The Varsity. He told them he had a passion about The Varsity and Huron Street. He responded to remarks made by mayor John Hieftje during the council deliberations on The Varsity – Hieftje had called the process of rezoning inclusive and open.

Floyd recalled that part of the public process had involved the Calthorpe study, which had introduced the idea of “transition zoning.” Out of that public process, he said, Huron Street originally had been designated as D2, the transition zoning. The eventual change later in the process from D2 to D1 – zoning that allows for denser development – did not have the appearance of an open process, Floyd said. Instead, it had the appearance of a middle-of-the-night process. That part seemed like it threw out a large part of the public process and ignored it, he said.

Tom Heywood introduced himself as executive director of the State Street Area Association. When the owners of the project had approached him eight months ago, he asked them to work with neighbors. He turned to Floyd and asked if he’d met with the developer – no, answered Floyd. Heywood went on to say that the co-pastor of Floyd’s church, Stacey Simpson Duke, couldn’t be at the meeting that night – her twin boys had a “family thing” – but Duke supported the project. [However, during the rezoning process to which Floyd had referred during his commentary, Duke had weighed in against the D1 zoning that the council ultimately approved for that area.]

Heywood noted that the developer could have proceeded with a “by right” project, but chose not to. The plaza proposed on the Washington Street side was added so that the building would flow with the rest of the street. The State Street Area Association board had unanimously approved a resolution supporting the project. He said he understood that there are people who don’t like the massing of the building, but he believes it reflects the future of downtown.

Ray Detter spoke on behalf of the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council. He said the group has urged the developer to improve the project, and that many changes have been made that have improved the project. For example, a small green roof was recently added. The group supported the increased setback on Washington Street and the resulting plaza. The group would have liked the developer to eliminate the Washington Street parking entrance.

The mews on the east side is of special interest, said Detter, because it’s a public benefit. He contended that expansion of the surface to the church property would require only administrative review of the city’s historic district commission. He hoped the mews will result in a crosswalk and a connection to the alley between Washington and Liberty, which he said is now a “stinking, dirty, nasty alley.” Detter wants to see that alley turn into a well-designed pedestrian walkway.

The Varsity: Council Deliberations

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) led off deliberations, saying the project was unanimously recommended for approval by the city planning commission. [Derezinski serves as the council's representative to the planning commission.] He noted that the new design review board process is new. Some people who were most enthusiastic about the project were neighbors, he said. The sticking point was the Huron Street entrance. The only way to solve it completely would have been to eliminate it, he said, which the developer didn’t do. He alluded to the idea that the perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of the good, and said that there’d been a lot of public input.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3 ) said he was glad the issue of the two entrances had been raised – he had a problem with the Washington Street entrance, because it’s pedestrian unfriendly. He said the city’s experience with garage doors between Division and Fifth along Liberty was not good – it’s unsightly along that corridor, he said, and makes it difficult for pedestrians. Why does the building need two entrances? Kunselman asked.

Brad Moore clarified that the project is not changing anything that doesn’t already exist – both entrances already exist. The Washington entrance is back far enough for a motorist to pull out of the garage and still be cognizant of pedestrians. The lot has a panhandle shape, with the narrow end on the north (Huron Street). In trying to find a way to use one entrance and build a ramp inside the building, they discovered that it just didn’t work, Moore explained. As a result, from the Huron Street side, you descend to one level of parking.

In response to questions from Kunselman about required parking and the ability to convert space to retail use, Moore explained that there’s a congregational space, a lounge, on the ground floor, so that if retail demand exists, it could be converted to retail. That would still leave a lounge on the top floor.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked for the plans to be shown that illustrated the contrast between the original plans and the changes that had been made in response to suggestions from the design review board and others. The contrasts were then discussed by councilmembers and the design team.

Mayor John Hieftje said he was normally not a fan of “planned projects,” so he appreciated the work the developer was willing to do with the neighboring First Baptist Church. He said he grew up attending that church. Hieftje then referred to Floyd’s comments about the zoning, but refrained from mentioning Floyd’s name. Hieftje said that thousands of hours had been put into it and it was one of the most participatory things he’d seen in government. He said not everybody would be happy with everything about it, but it’s something they could live with.

Village Green, First and Washington

The council was asked to consider final authorization of a land deal to sell the city-owned First and Washington lot to Village Green. Village Green will build a 244-space parking deck as the first two stories of a 9-story building with 156 dwelling units – City Apartments.

Village Green: Background

The purchase price of the land is $3,200,000, the bulk of which ($2,500,000 plus $500,000 previously borrowed from the risk fund to cover construction costs) is earmarked for the city’s new municipal building fund. This has been a part of the city’s financing plan for that building. Construction of the municipal building is now essentially completed.

The city has previously received $103,000 in earnest money from Village Green. The city is covering $5,000 in closing costs – that puts net proceeds of the transaction at $3,092,000. The remaining $92,000 (after appropriating the $3 million total for the municipal center) and the earnest money will be appropriated to the general fund, designated as “non-departmental” (as non-recurring revenue), where it will add to the general fund reserve.

The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority has pledged around $9 million of support for bonds to pay for the parking deck component of City Apartments – the city will own that part of the project. Payment is not owed to Village Green for the parking deck construction until a certificate of occupancy is issued for the parking deck, which is expected to open for business in about a year (late 2012), before the residential portion of the project is complete.

The deal had a five-year trajectory after the city council first approved the recommendation of the First and Washington RFP Review Committee, and the city started negotiations with Village Green for the sale and redevelopment of the site. The goals of the deal were: to increase downtown residential density; replace public parking spaces; maximize the sale price; and maximize future tax revenue, captured by the Ann Arbor DDA Authority TIF (tax increment finance) district.

The vote by the council required an 8-vote majority on the 11-member body, because the city charter stipulates that “The City shall not purchase, sell, or lease any real estate or any interest therein except by resolution concurred in by at least eight members of the Council.”

Also before the council on Thursday night was the affordable housing component of the project. Under those terms, 16 of the units must be permanently affordable to households earning no more than 80% of the area median income (AMI).

The Ann Arbor DDA has also agreed to support the project with $400,000 from its housing fund, if four of the 80% AMI rental units are made affordable at the 60% AMI level. The affordable units will be of the same appearance and finish as other units and would be distributed throughout the project. Village Green does not have the option of making a payment in lieu of providing the affordable units as part of the project.

Village Green: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked city of Ann Arbor chief financial officer Tom Crawford about how the proceeds of the sale would be appropriated. She contended one step has been missed – it should first go into the general fund before being appropriated to the municipal building fund.

By way of background, Briere was making the point that in 2008, the council had included a condition on a further extension of Village Green’s purchase option that proceeds of the sale be deposited into the general fund, not the municipal building fund. From The Chronicle’s meeting report ["Council Revisits the Mid-2000s"]:

As a historical point related to the planned use of the sale proceeds for the new municipal center construction, the council defeated a resolution on March 17, 2008 to extend the Village Green purchase option agreement for First and Washington. At the council’s following meeting, on April 7, 2008, the measure was brought back for reconsideration, and the council voted unanimously to extend the agreement. The key difference was the addition of a “resolved clause,” which stated: “Resolved, that the proceeds from this sale shall be designated to the general fund, Fund 010.”

Responding to Briere’s question, Crawford said that all along the financing plan for the municipal center has included proceeds of the First and Washington sale. As a reason for not first running the money through the general fund, he said, when citizens sees spikes in the fund balance level, it causes confusion. Briere noted that one of the reasons the project moved forward was the 2008 agreement that proceeds of the sale would go into the general fund.

Crawford told Briere that he wasn’t following her reasoning. From the beginning, he said, the proceeds of the sale were planned to pay for the municipal center. Briere allowed that Crawford was right, but noted that the first time the council had a chance to vote on the project, it was rejected on the theory that one project shouldn’t depend on another. The result was that the council approved it later, on the condition that the proceeds go to the general fund.

Crawford told Briere he didn’t recall that. If it were the council’s desire, he said, he didn’t have a problem doing it that way, but he said it was a matter of expediency to put funds where they’re eventually headed.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) retrieved her laptop from the podium after showing the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, a 2008 resolution the council had passed, requiring the proceeds of the Village Green land deal to be deposited into the general fund.

Briere gave the matter a rest, but continued later after she’d looked up the council resolution on her laptop computer and walked to the podium to show Crawford the resolution. Returning to her seat at the table, she asked Crawford if he saw what she meant. He confirmed he did, and offered his apology – he had not recalled the 2008 decision when he drafted the resolution for that night’s agenda. He said he wouldn’t recommend running the money through the general fund, but said he had no issue with first putting the money into the general fund and then moving it to the building fund.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) ventured that the 2008 vote had meant the council had decided not to put the proceeds towards the municipal center. Crawford stated that he did not believe the 2008 resolution said the city shouldn’t use the money for the municipal center.

The council as a whole did not seem to be in a mood to insist on conformance with its own 2008 resolution, or to undertake a revision to that night’s resolution to explicitly rescind that part of the 2008 vote.

Responding to a question from Anglin, Crawford said construction would start very soon. The actual closing would need to happen before Dec. 3, because that’s how long the purchase option is good for.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he wanted to hear very clearly that there’s no risk to the general fund if the project were to fall thorough. After several turns back and forth between Kunselman and assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald, a couple of points were established. First, no money was owed by the city to Village Green until the parking deck is completed and the certificate of occupancy has been issued. Second, the closing on the land deal with the city and the financing of the project would happen simultaneously.

The question of making payments in lieu of providing affordable housing units as part of a proposed project has been discussed recently by the council at its Oct. 24, 2011 meeting, in the context of a revised proposal for the Heritage Row project. At that meeting, Jennifer L. Hall – housing manager for the Washtenaw County/city of Ann Arbor office of community development – had told the council that the city’s current thinking was that payments in lieu might be a more effective policy than requiring affordable units to be provided on site. [The fact that this transition in policy direction has taken place over the lifetime of the Village Green deal speaks to the length of time that the First and Washington project has been in the works.]

Kunselman got confirmation from McDonald that Village Green can’t make a payment in lieu of providing the affordable units as part of the project.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve all the elements of the Village Green deal.

Taxicab Law

The council considered final approval to a set of changes to its taxicab ordinance. The changes make explicit how long a taxicab company license is valid (10 years) and spell out some additional conditions on revocation or suspension of the company license.

The revisions also add reasons that can be used for suspending an individual taxicab driver’s license, which include a city administrator’s view that a driver “has acted in an unprofessional, harassing or threatening manner to passengers, or others.”

At the council’s Oct. 17, 2011 meeting, when the revision had received its initial approval, Tom Crawford – the city’s chief financial officer – had briefed the council on the changes. Crawford serves as a non-voting member of the city’s taxicab board, which had recommended those changes. Crawford characterized the changes as falling in three areas. In the first area, related to licensing, Crawford said that in the past the city had seasonal operators who would want to come in and work the football season and then disappear. The ordinance is being changed so that if a company ceases operation for 45 days, the city can revoke the license. Crawford explained that a healthy taxicab industry needs stability and this is a mechanism to help guard against companies frequently coming in and out of the market.

Another area of change has to do with solicitations and how the companies represent themselves. Several companies advertise themselves as taxis, but they’re in fact limousines. Crawford characterized it as a safety issue for someone who believes a vehicle is a taxi, but it’s in fact a limo. [A taxi is per code "... accepting passengers for hire within the boundaries of the city as directed by the passenger." A limousine is pre-booked.] If a company holds itself out as a taxicab company, it has to be licensed as a taxicab company, Crawford said. [The city's taxicab code already prohibits advertising in the reverse direction – it prohibits taxicabs from holding themselves out as limousines.]

During the public hearing on Thursday, only one person spoke. Thomas Partridge began by saying he was opposed to the mayor using admonitions at the start of public hearings to speak only to the topic of a public hearing, saying it suppressed public comment. The ordinance, Partridge said, was misnamed. The name should refer to business subjects related to taxicab drivers and vehicles, he said. He told the council it should go back for discussion and further work.

Partridge called for a progressively-based fee, based on the assets of the applicant. The proceeds of the fees should be used to provide better accessible taxicab transportation for seniors and disabled people. He called for a committee to encourage courteous behavior and non-discrimination by taxicab drivers and to prevent unethical and illegal setting of fares. He raised the specter of illegal setting of fares possibly involving computer hacking.

During the scant council deliberations, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) urged his colleagues to go ahead and approve it. As the council’s representative to the taxicab board, he vouched that the ordinance revision has been vetted by drivers and companies and members of the community.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the taxicab ordinance revision.

Labor Retirement Benefits

Before the council for consideration was final approval to revisions of ordinances that govern the retirement and health care plans for two of the city’s unions: the Ann Arbor Police Officers Association (AAPOA) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

The revisions to the ordinances resulted from a collective bargaining agreement with AFSCME and a binding arbitration under Act 312 with AAPOA. The changes are similar to ordinance changes already enacted for non-union city workers.

The pension contribution for AAPOA and AFSCME workers will rise from 5% on a post-tax basis to 6% on a pre-tax basis. The vesting period for new hires will increase from 5 years to 10 years. Also for new hires, the final average compensation (FAC) calculation will be increased to a five-year period. The previous FAC was based on a three-year period.

On the health care side, the AFSCME and AAPOA employees will have the same access-only retiree health plan as non-union employees have.

Initial approval of the ordinance change came at the council’s Oct. 17, 2011 meeting.

Thomas Partridge spoke during the public hearings on both ordinance changes. He said his state senate campaign had included a platform that increased services to the public and avoided discrimination towards public employee unions. He viewed the ordinance change, albeit after negotiations, as bullying tactics. He said the city of Ann Arbor should turn its back on former city administrator Roger Fraser and his recruitment by Gov. Rick Snyder’s administration. [Fraser took a job earlier this year as deputy treasurer for the state of Michigan.]

The council should, Partridge said, reject the anti-democratic attitudes of bills put through the Republican administration, and not follow along. On their face, the bills are discriminatory towards the unions. He asked the council to table the ordinances and give them further consideration.

Speaking to the health care ordinance, Partridge contended that it impedes the ability of employees to access full and affordable health care.

Comment from the council on the two ordinances came only from Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who noted the council had already seen the changes when the bargaining agreements were ratified. The greater contributions by employees, the longer vesting periods and the increase in the period for final average compensation is the kind of approach that the city needs in the future, he said. He said he was glad to see both groups agree to that. Rapundalo noted that the changes put new union member hires on the same basis as non-union employees. It is a long-term strategy of having parity and equity, he said.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the changes to the ordinances on pension and the retiree health care benefits for the AFSCME and AAPOA unions.

Recycling Contract

The council was asked to ratify a revision to the city’s contract with RecycleRewards (parent company of RecycleBank), starting Dec. 1, 2011. Under terms of the new contract, Ann Arbor’s base payment to RecycleRewards will be reduced from $0.52 to $0.35 per household per month. Annually, that translates to a reduction from $149,244 to $100,455.

Under the contract revision, RecycleRewards will receive a $50 per ton incentive for any increase above 11,332 tons – that’s the amount collected in the first year of the RecycleRewards program (Sept. 1, 2010 to Aug. 31, 2011). However, even with possible incentives, the city’s payment is limited to a maximum of $150,000 in any fiscal year.

At its Sept. 19 meeting, the council had made the decision to direct city staff to renegotiate the new contract, after weighing the possibility of terminating it.

During the brief council deliberations, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reminded everyone that the contract revision came in response to the council re-examining the contract. She noted that the city is not committing to continuing the contract next year, if the council decides not to appropriate funds for RecycleBank.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to amend the contract with RecycleRewards.

Greenbelt Addition

On the agenda was a resolution to approve use of the city’s open space and parkland preservation (greenbelt) millage funds to preserve two parcels outside the city through the purchase of conservation easements.

The city of Ann Arbor is partnering with Ann Arbor Township and Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation by contributing $49,500 towards the $99,000 cost of a conservation easement on a 23-acre property owned by Joe Bloch in Ann Arbor Township. Part of the land is currently used for farming.

For a second parcel, the council was asked to authorize $15,000 to partner with the Legacy Land Conservancy to preserve a 30-acre property owned by Charles Botero in Northfield Township. Botero is donating the conservation easement to the Legacy Land Conservancy – the $15,000 will cover the closing, due diligence, and stewardship costs for the property.

The greenbelt advisory commission recommended both fund expenditures at its Sept. 14, 2011 meeting.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the expenditures of greenbelt funds.

The council postponed a vote on the appointment of Shannon Brines to the greenbelt advisory commission until Nov. 21. The resolution on the agenda would have made the effective date Nov. 21, and the council wanted to time their vote to the effective date. The next meeting of the greenbelt advisory commission is Dec. 14.

Leaf Truck Lease

As part of its consent agenda, the council was asked to approve a $93,720 emergency purchase order for the lease of trucks to help with the fall leaf pickup. The contract is for six trucks for two months from Premier Truck Sales & Rental Inc.

A leaf truck rented from Premier Truck Sales & Rental in action on the Old West Side in Ann Arbor.

The emergency nature of the purchase order resulted from the fact that a different company, Big Truck Rental LLC, was unable to provide the eight trucks the city had originally agreed to lease. The council had approved a $138,000 purchase order for Big Truck Rental at its Sept. 19 meeting.

The city no longer picks up leaves by asking people to rake them into the street, and instead requires residents to use containers – carts or bags. The rented trucks supplement the city’s regular trucks, and reduce the number of times that trucks would need to be emptied as they cover their routes.

When the city budgeted for 2011, it expected to save $104,000 by moving to containerized leaf collection. In fact, it realized a $200,000 savings (based on unaudited figures). For the 2012 fiscal year, the city is estimating $150,000 in savings.

Outcome: As part of its consent agenda, the city council approved the emergency purchase order for the lease of trucks .

Rapundalo’s Last Meeting

Nov. 10, 2011 marked Stephen Rapundalo’s (Ward 2) final council meeting of his council term.

Rapundalo: Background

Rapundalo lost Tuesday’s general election to Jane Lumm. She will take office on Monday, Nov. 14, based on the Ann Arbor city charter provision on terms of city council office:

Terms of Office
SECTION 12.4. (a)
The term of office of each member of the Council, including the Mayor, except as by this section provided, shall be two years. Such term shall commence on the Monday next following the regular City election at which such officers are elected. …

Lumm will be ceremonially sworn in at the council’s Nov. 21 meeting.

During his last communications to the council, Rapundalo reminded them that there is a vacancy on the local development finance authority (LDFA) board that they would need to fill.

Rapundalo serves as the city council representative to the LDFA. However, at its Sept. 19, 2011 meeting, the council approved a change to the agreement between Ann Arbor and the city of Ypsilanti, so that the city councilmember representative to the LDFA board would cease to be a member of the board immediately when membership on the council ceased.

One scenario would be for the council to appoint Rapundalo to the open seat, because he’s now available to serve as a non-council member of the LDFA board. The council will also need to appoint one of its own members to serve as council representative. Appointments of councilmembers to other boards and commissions, as well as to subcommittees of the council, are typically decided at the second meeting in November or the first meeting in December.

Rapundalo: Council Words of Farewell

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) led off the words of farewell to Rapundalo, saying that on Rapundalo’s last evening he wanted to tell him how much he’d appreciated working with him. Hohnke appreciated Rapundalo’s thoughtful and fact-based approach to issues in front of the council. Rapundalo would be missed. Hohnke thanked Rapundalo for his hard work over the years. He’d taken on duties that someone needed to take on – duties that would not generate additional friends, but that need to be done.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) before the meeting, discussing changes to the pedestrian safety ordinance. Hohnke is signing Rapundalo’s farewell card. 

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) noted that he and Rapundalo were wardmates. They both represented Ward 2 together for three years. One of the things that is under-appreciated about service on the council is the amount of time it takes, Derezinski said. Tough decisions are made, the effects of which will not be noticed until a long time from now. Derezinski said he and Rapundalo were not always in agreement, but most of the time they were.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she would miss Rapundalo and thanked him for his service. She told him he had never veered away from saying what needs to be said and told him he had a lot of courage and great insight. She said he was very thoughtful and is the kind of amazing thinker who is needed on council.

Mayor John Hieftje said he very much appreciated having Rapundalo on the council, and that Rapundalo’s scientific way of thinking was beneficial to the council.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) echoed his colleagues’ sentiments, saying it’s been a pleasure to serve with Rapundalo. Taylor said he still recollected being fresh on the council and had enjoyed learning from Rapundalo. Taylor then attempted a joke based on the fact that Rapundalo and Hohnke, who sit on opposite sides of the table, hold PhDs. Taylor ventured that Rapundalo’s side of the table now had a deficit in doctorates, but that perhaps his and Derezinski’s JD degrees might balance that out.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that often he and Rapundalo had been on different sides of issues. But he and Rapundalo had served on the liquor committee together, and Rapundalo had done an outstanding job. Rapundalo had done the rudimentary things necessary to get the liquor committee board in shape to be able to deal with the issues that arise with bars, Anglin said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he’d enjoyed his time working with Rapundalo – noting playfully that they shared the same name. He noted that he and Rapundalo had at times been on the same side of issues and also on opposite sides. He told Rapundalo he appreciated Rapundalo’s support on the Argo Dam issue [both men supported keeping it in place], but not so much on the issue of the airport runway extension [unlike Rapundalo, Kunselman was adamant about not extending the runway].

Right to left: Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2). Kunselman is telling Rapundalo that he figures Rapundalo will find it difficult to stay away from involvement in city issues.

Kunselman said he greatly admired Rapundalo’s service to the city. He then told Rapundalo that “I have been where you’re going” – an allusion to the fact that three years ago, in 2008, Kunselman had lost his seat on the council, but returned the following year to defeat Leigh Greden, winning back a seat. Kunselman said Rapundalo would have a hard time leaving, and he suspected Rapundalo would be back in some form or another. Kunselman then alluded to the fact that Rapundalo enjoys dual Canadian-U.S. citizenship, and told him to “go have some fun, eh.”

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) told Rapundalo he’d always been gracious, kind and thoughtful. She told him she’d miss sitting “not quite next” to him. [Derezinski sits between Briere and Rapundalo at the council table.]

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) told Rapundalo she would miss looking at him across the table. She said that the first she’d met him, he was an involved citizen, and the issue they were looking at was sewer backups. She noted his service on the park advisory commission before being elected to the council. Noting he’d been involved in many aspects of public service before sitting at the table, she hoped he would consider some of those things again.

During the meeting, two speakers during public commentary mentioned Rapundalo’s service. John Floyd, former candidate for Ward 5 city council, thanked Rapundalo for doing what Rapundalo thought was right, even though mostly Floyd disagreed with him. And Tom Heywood, executive director of the State Street Area Association, told Rapundalo he appreciated working with Rapundalo, and also looked forward to working with Lumm.

Rapundalo: Response

Rapundalo responded to the remarks of his colleagues by saying he appreciated their kind and generous words. It was a privilege and honor to be a public servant. He said he’d had “a lot of darn fun” serving with all of them. He’d tried to serve with dignity and with thoughtfulness and integrity – that’s the only way he knew to approach it. He said he called things as he sees it.

He hoped he’d been able to make some contributions, and he’d worked on some issues he’d enjoyed – from labor issues to human services. He ventured that in serving, one hopes to make a difference in people’s daily lives. To that end, his focus had been on finding solutions. He contended he’d never been motivated to serve on the council because of ego or a power trip. He was just doing what was right, he said. He appreciated the help, advice and criticism he’d received from his colleagues on the council.

Rapundalo singled out former city administrator Roger Fraser for special thanks, saying he’d enjoyed Fraser’s leadership. One of Rapundalo’s disappointments was not being able to work with new administrator Steve Powers. Rapundalo said he also wanted to thank the city staff, because they often get forgotten. The staff works hard in every corner of the organization and they don’t get enough respect, he said. Responding to Kunselman’s suggestion that he’d be back, Rapundalo said he didn’t know about running again, but he would find a way to contribute to the community.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Pancreatic Cancer Awareness

Mayor John Hieftje issued a proclamation making November Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month. On hand to accept the proclamation was Mary Wenners, who told the council about her friend Jim Hetzel, who died of the disease last year at the age of 62. His death didn’t make headline news, she said. She called the council’s attention to the purple ribbons and bracelets associated with pancreatic awareness as well as the slogan: Know it, fight it, end it.

Comm/Comm: R4C Review

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2)) reported that the R4C zoning review committee had held its 11th and final meeting. A report will be forthcoming to the planning commission, he said. It had taken two years and there’d been a lot of public input, he said.

Comm/Comm: Unwanted Newspapers

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that many constituents had communicated their displeasure about undesired delivery of newspapers and other commercial handbills to their residences. He said he was working with Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) on an ordinance change that would address that issue.

Comm/Comm: 618 S. Main

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) alerted the public to a meeting the following day at the location of the former Fox Tent and Awning building for a citizen participation meeting regarding a proposed residential development. The site is zoned D2, he said, and is on the edge of the Old West Side historic district.

Comm/Comm: Medical Marijuana

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported that the medical marijuana license board, on which she serves, has now met three times, and she expected it would meet again on Nov. 30. The board is supposed to deliver a report to the council in January 2012, she said, and is working towards that deadline. At this point, she said, no applications for medical marijuana licenses have been evaluated.

Comm/Comm: Partridge

Thomas Partridge spoke at both times slots on the agenda available for public commentary. He said he had been “working unceasingly” on ending discrimination and called for access to affordable housing, transportation, education and health care. He called the city’s greenbelt program a carry-over from the Eisenhower administration that used the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture to take land out of useful agricultural production. He complained of discrimination he’d encountered at the polling place at Dicken Elementary School.

Comm/Comm: Energy Farms

Kermit Schlansker described the use of biomass in energy production. Energy production will always accompany food production, he said: with corn there will always be the cob. He called on people to plant trees from seeds. Specifically he called for the planting of nut-bearing trees in parks. Even school children can do it, he said. At age 86 he allowed he has difficulty walking. But he still scattered 100 walnuts this year, so that they can grow into trees.

Comm/Comm: Israel

Henry Herskovitz reminded the council he’d spoken during public commentary the previous month and had showed them a world map. He then pointed the council to work done by Alison Weir, who’d founded an organizations called If Americans Knew, which he called an informative and unbiased source of information on Israel’s founding. He then went through some of Weir’s arguments that some of the votes for Israel at the United Nations came as the result of political pressure applied by the U.S.

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

Absent: Sandi Smith

Next council meeting: Monday, Nov. 21, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

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

One request from the developer was to waive a landscape buffer requirement that was introduced through an ordinance change made after the project was initially approved in 2009. The second request was for approval of changes to the buildings that included a new window on the upper floors of the north and south-facing sides, and a change from horizontal siding to simulated shingle siding on the dormer.

Both re-votes were prompted by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who had posed questions at the Oct. 17 meeting to which he did not feel he’d received adequate answers. One question related to fire exits for the upper floors of the development, which calls for demolition of seven existing houses to be replaced by two apartment buildings, separated by a parking lot.

The Oct. 24 meeting was scheduled initially by the council solely for the purpose of taking a second and final vote on a planned unit development, Heritage Row, for the same site as City Place. Heritage Row would have rehabilitated or reconstructed the existing seven houses and built three additional apartment buildings behind the houses. However, Heritage Row was pulled from the agenda on Oct. 21.

The site where City Place and Heritage Row have been proposed and the area further south near Madison Street have a long history. [timeline]

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.

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.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) talk before the start of the Oct. 3 council meeting. (Photos by the writer)

But two agenda items – both related to the future of the block of South Fifth Avenue just south of William – resulted in over an hour of deliberations by the council.

An item added late Monday afternoon gave a glimmer of hope to the Heritage Row planned unit development (PUD), which the council last had on its agenda on Dec. 6, 2010 – nearly a year ago. On Monday, the council voted to suspend its rules, then voted to reconsider the project, and finally voted to postpone it until its Oct. 17 meeting.

By Oct. 17, a set of changes proposed by the development team are to be incorporated into the site plan and zoning regulations for Heritage Row. The developer says the changes to Heritage Row would be necessary, in order for him to diverge from his current intention to build City Place, an already approved “matter of right” project at the same location. Those changes include eliminating any on-site parking requirement, increasing the number of residents, relaxing the energy standards, and not making a commitment to the historical preservation of the existing seven houses on the site. [.pdf of letter from developer]

If the council were to give the new version of Heritage Row initial approval at its Oct. 17 meeting, it would then take a second and final vote on it at a meeting now scheduled for Oct. 24.

In a related action, the council approved a revision to the development agreement for City Place that eliminated the need for the developer to complete off-site utility work before being issued a building permit for that project. Now, that utility work would need to be completed later in the process, before the certificate of occupancy is issued. The relaxation of the timeline was undertaken to allow the developer additional flexibility to discuss a modified Heritage Row, as an alternative to City Place.

In other business, the council again delayed action on a resolution of intent for the use of revenue generated by a proposed street and sidewalk repair millage that voters will be asked to approve at the Nov. 8 election. Questions concerned the need for such a resolution at all, as well as the plan for use of the millage inside the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district.

A request for rezoning a medical marijuana business on South State Street was denied by the council, but did achieve three votes on the 11-member body.

The council also approved an easement for DTE to replace a gas main along the north side of Fuller Road.

Heritage Row

Added to the agenda late Monday afternoon was a bundle of resolutions that in concert put the Heritage Row planned unit development (PUD) for South Fifth Avenue back before the council for formal consideration and possible future approval. Approval of the project is contingent on the council’s judgement that the project meets the standard of public benefit required in order to replace the land’s existing zoning with the alternate zoning requested for it.

Heritage Row, as it had been previously designed, consisted of preserving seven existing houses and constructing three apartment buildings behind them, with underground parking.

A different project for the same site, City Place, has already won council approval. That approval was based on the planning staff and city attorney’s judgement that the project met all existing zoning codes and regulations, and could be approved as a matter-of-right project. City Place would require demoliting the existing seven houses, to be replaced with two apartment buildings separated by a parking lot.

City Place is seen by most observers as an inferior project to Heritage Row, and the prospect that City Place will actually be built – based on recent pre-construction meetings and the termination of leases for tenants in existing properties – has prompted the council to take up the issue again.

Heritage Row: Parliamentary Issues

In broad strokes, there were three parliamentary steps for the Heritage Row agenda item, each corresponding to a separate vote.

First, the council needed to suspend two parts of a council rule on reconsideration of previous votes. The council had previously reconsidered the project over a year ago – on July 6, 2010, when the council rejected Heritage Row on a 7-3 vote. The council had initially rejected the project at its June 21, 2010 meeting on a 7-4 vote. The project needed an eight vote super-majority to pass, because sufficient signatures were collected from nearby property owners to force the eight-vote majority.

So some parts of Rule 12 needed to be suspended. It reads [relevant parts in italics]:

RULE 12 – Consideration of Questions
When a question has been taken, it shall be in order for any member voting with the prevailing side to move a reconsideration thereof at the same or the next regular meeting; but, no question shall a second time be reconsidered.

The parliamentary motion to suspend the rules is not subject to debate. This is a point that Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) made on Dec. 6, 2010, when the council had a similar set of motions on its agenda concerning Heritage Row. Citing the parliamentary rule, Hohnke successfully quashed all debate on the issue that evening. At Monday’s Oct. 3 meeting, Hohnke did not choose to invoke this rule, and councilmembers debated the suspension of council rules for an extended period.

Because Hohnke had previously voted with the prevailing side – along with Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) – he could then make the motion to reconsider Heritage Row.

The second step of the Oct. 3 process was a vote on whether to reconsider the Heritage Row project.

The third step of the Oct. 3 process was a vote on the project itself, which was presented to the council as an action to postpone a decision until the council’s next regular meeting, on Oct. 17. Part of the motion to postpone included a direction to city staff to incorporate the content of a set of developer-proposed changes into the site plan and zoning for Heritage Row, so that on Oct. 17 those changes would be presented to the council for their initial consideration.

The third step also included a motion to add a “regular meeting” to the council’s calendar for Oct. 24, so that the council could give the project a second and final approval, assuming that it received initial approval at the Oct. 17 meeting. All ordinance changes require two readings by the council. [A PUD project is an ordinance change, because it changes the zoning of a parcel.] The first regular council meeting in November falls on Nov. 10 (due to the Nov. 8 election) and that was deemed by the developer to be too late.

During deliberations, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) questioned whether the revision to the calendar to add an extra meeting constituted the addition of a “regular meeting,” or was rather the addition of a “special meeting.” Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald noted that it had to be a “regular meeting” due to the charter requirement that a second reading of an ordinance cannot come before the next “regular meeting” of the council, after the initial reading. From the city charter [emphasis added]:

SECTION 7.3.
…
(b) Each proposed ordinance shall receive two readings, which may be by title only, unless ordered by the Council to be read in full or in part. After the first reading of a proposed ordinance, the Council shall determine whether it shall be advanced to a second reading. The second reading shall not be given earlier than the next regular Council meeting.

If the Oct. 24 meeting were labeled a “special meeting,” then the council could not take the second vote on the Heritage Row project at that meeting, because that would be earlier than Nov. 10, the next regular council meeting.

The city charter also stipulates that the council must determine its regular meeting times:

SECTION 4.4.
(a) The Council shall fix the time and place of its regular meetings and shall hold at least two regular meetings in each month. If any day prescribed for a regular meeting of the Council is a holiday, such regular meeting shall be held at the same time and place on the next secular day, except that when such holiday is an election day, the meeting shall be held on the following Thursday.

At the Oct. 3 meeting, defending the labeling of the additional Oct. 24 meeting as a “regular meeting,” mayor John Hieftje observed that the charter allows for more than two “regular meetings” in a month.

However, the mechanism the council uses to fix the time of its “regular meetings” is the set of council rules, which it ratifies after installation of new councilmembers each year. In Rule 1, the principle for scheduling of regular meetings, is laid out:

RULE 1 – Time of Council Meetings
Regular meetings of the Ann Arbor City Council shall be held on the first and third Monday of the month at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber at City Hall.

During a recess in the Oct. 3 meeting, after the Heritage Row votes were taken, including the motion to modify the council’s calendar by adding a single “regular meeting,” The Chronicle pointed out to Higgins that the council’s vote to establish a “regular meeting” on Oct. 24 had flouted Rule 1. When the council resumed its meeting, Higgins made a motion to suspend Rule 1, and to re-establish the modification of the calendar to add a “regular meeting” on Oct. 24.

Outcome: Later in the meeting, after a recess, the council unanimously approved the suspension of Rule 1 and the addition of a “regular meeting” to the calendar for Oct. 24.

Heritage Row: Substance of the Letter

Around 4 p.m. on Oct. 3, councilmembers received a letter written by Jeff Helminski representing City Place Ann Arbor LLC, the owner of the City Place project. The letter outlined the expectations for modifying the Heritage Row project that would be necessary for the project’s new ownership group to consider building Heritage Row instead of City Place.

Helminski writes: “The investment perspective of the new ownership group and development team is that the formerly proposed Heritage Row project is not economically viable or financeable.” [.pdf of letter from developer] [.pdf of revisions to supplemental regulations for PUD]

The main points of the letter that likely pose the greatest hurdle include a relaxation of the commitment to historic preservation of the existing houses, a relaxation of the energy-conservation features, an increase to the number of residents, and the elimination of any on-site parking requirement.

Heritage Row: Why Hohnke?

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) sponsored the agenda item related to the Heritage Row project. His has been considered the key vote on the project, which needs an eight-vote majority because of a successful petition by nearby property owners to force the super-majority requirement.

The other three councilmembers on the 11-member council who voted against the project have not indicated any hint that they might be inclined to support it now.

On July 6, 2010, when the council reconsidered the project for the first time, later in that same meeting Hohnke first attempted to get his council colleagues to reconsider establishing a historic district in the area. When that failed, he made a motion to suspend the council rules to reconsider the Heritage Row project, apparently finally ready to change his vote. However, the mayor called a recess to the meeting, and during the break Hohnke apparently changed his mind. When that meeting resumed, Hohnke withdrew his motion.

Heritage Row: Council Deliberations – Administrative Envelope

On Oct. 3, Hohnke led off deliberations on the Heritage Row item. He referred to the complexity of the consideration and the multiple timelines as accounting for the late addition to the agenda. He said the council had anticipated a different process for this project. As a council, they had voted to waive part of the fee for resubmitting the project. [The council made that decision at its Feb. 7, 2011 meeting.]

However, Hohnke said, that initial development team discovered that the Heritage Row project was not financially viable. The new development team is moving forward with the City Place project instead, he said. Hohnke characterized the new team as very gracious about discussing the Heritage Row project. Hohnke allowed that he had not had a chance to speak with all of the neighbors on the block, but that those he’d spoken to have been very constructive. And those who have been closely involved have indicated support, he said.

What he intended to accomplish, Hohnke said, was to create the opportunity to continue conversations about how to modify the Heritage Row project so that it’s financially viable to the developer and continues to provide the beneficial effects to the city as required by a PUD. He alluded to the letter from the development team, and noted that there’s “a lot of devil in the detail” of the letter. The shortest way to communicate the content of the letter, Hohnke said, is that the goal is for the developer to come back with a version of the plan that is “inside the administrative amendment envelope to the existing site plan.” That is, he said, there would be adjustments of the type that could have been approved administratively for the site plan currently on file with the city.

By way of background, Chapter 57 of the city code defines specifically the type of administrative amendments allowable to a PUD site plan [emphasis added]:

Administrative Amendments to Approved PUD Site Plans. A minor change to an approved PUD site plan may be approved as provided in this Chapter for Administrative Amendments to Approved Site Plans, except that the proposed changes shall not alter the fundamental design, conceptual integrity, natural features shown to be preserved, any specific conditions of the PUD development program, the conceptual PUD plan or the supplemental regulations. The following restrictions shall also apply: Adjustment in approved phase lines shall not result in a change greater than 10% of the total gross land area in any phase, or 10% of the number of approved lots, or 10% of the approved maximum building square footage. Any decrease in building size or changes in bedroom counts per dwelling unit shall not reduce the size or number of affordable housing units approved as part of the PUD site plan.

Given the nature of the explicit changes to the supplemental regulations corresponding to the stipulations in Helminski’s letter, Hohnke’s description of a revised proposal that would fall within the envelope of administrative amendments appears questionable.

In a followup phone interview with The Chronicle, city of Ann Arbor planning manager Wendy Rampson offered some clarity about the goal of the conversation between the staff and developer. The proposal to be worked out for the Oct. 17 first reading wouldn’t fit within the envelope of “administrative amendment” to the site plan currently on file with the city, Rampson said. Instead, the goal was to alter the site plan and PUD zoning in a way that, if approved by the council on second reading, any additional changes needed by the developer could be made administratively, Rampson said.

Hohnke concluded by saying that the point of suspending the council rules was for the sole purpose of reconsidering Heritage Row. He stressed that the action that night would not be “determinative” of the kind of project that would result. He urged his colleagues’ support of the motion to suspend the rules.

Heritage Row: Council Deliberations – What Are We Approving?

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Hohnke to explain why he was asking the council to suspend the rules now, some 14 months after the initial vote on the project, and why the developer is not going through a standard PUD process.

Hohnke said there are significant timeline constraints. There are significant financial constraints that the development team is under. Backing up the time of having rent-paying tenants in a new development, Hohnke said, you have a situation where there is not time to have a full process of submitting a new proposal with new supplemental regulations and a new site plan, and going through staff review and the planning commission. The timeline for a full process, he said, is not an option for the development team. The alternative of City Place would be pursued if the full-process option were the only option for Heritage Row. But the council has the opportunity to reconsider a previously submitted site plan, he said.

The flip side to that shortened process is that the development team is then constrained by the existing site plan, Hohnke said. The need to reconsider the existing site plan, he said, is driven by the timelines that drive the financial ability to finance the alternative project.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) ventured that basically it’s because the developer has given tenants notice – that’s what is driving the timeline. The developer could leave tenants in place and go through the process from square one, she said. Hohnke stated that was not the case. He said that when the carrying costs are factored in – something like $14 million – keeping the current tenants in place would cover some, but not enough of the costs to keep the tenants in place and move ahead with a full process. Eliminating the financing carrying costs becomes the critical factor, Hohnke concluded.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said in looking at the reconsideration, there are attachments to the resolution. [.pdf of letter from developer] [.pdf of revisions to supplemental regulations for PUD] She wanted to know if the council would be approving the attachments – because their content gave her great pause, she said.

Kevin McDonald of the city attorney’s office reviewed for Higgins the set of parliamentary motions described in one of the attachments. [.pdf of parliamentary motions] The first motion was the suspension of rules. The second motion was about the question of the reconsideration. The third motion was to explain the resulting timeline. McDonald noted that one of the attachments is a developer’s letter of requested changes that the city received at 4 p.m. on Monday, which was forwarded to the council.

McDonald stressed that those changes were the developer’s requested changes. McDonald said the city attorney’s office has not had time to review the material. He noted that the third parliamentary motion gave direction to staff to work on incorporating those requests so that council could have a first reading with revised supplemental regulations. The council was not being asked for an approval specifically, he said.

Higgins noted that under the scenario councilmembers were weighing, the council would reconsider the project, then postpone it, giving specific direction to revise the project. She noted the council would be giving direction that staff should spend time on making changes – but she did not agree with many of the changes. The original elements of the project with great public value are being significantly changed, she said. It would be one thing if the direction was being given based on the council’s view of what should happen, she said, but that it appeared that the direction was being given to make modifications based on what the developer wanted.

McDonald acknowledged that the changes were proposed by the developer and had not been reviewed by staff – Higgins was correct. Unless the council provided some other direction, staff would try to check to see if the developer-proposed changes met the PUD standards and would seek to incorporate them as best they could.

Heritage Row: Council Deliberations – Are These Actual Demands?

Hohnke stressed that there is nothing about the letter and the third motion that is constraining. The motion simply directs staff to work with the development team, the council and the community on a “slightly modified PUD.” Hohnke thought it would be helpful to the council for the developer to lay out exactly what he’s suggesting. Because of the accelerated timeline, Hohnke said, it’s not exactly clear to the developer how they need to modify the project to provide financial viability.

Hohnke ventured that the developer is asking for the “maximum envelope.” Hohnke said he would hope that the version the council would see at first reading on Oct. 17 would be “much tighter” on the requirements for renovating the existing houses, height, floor-area-ratio (FAR) and open space requirements. It provides the opportunity to get input to make the project as beneficial as possible, he said.

Hohnke thought the eventual proposal would be different from the outline in the letter – it would be “more beneficial” to the community. At the first reading and at the second reading, the council would have the opportunity to provide additional input. Higgins clarified with McDonald that it would come before the council on Oct. 17, and that it comes back to second reading the very next week on Oct. 24 – at a meeting created through modifying the council’s calendar. Hohnke clarified that given the way weekdays fall this year (with the first day of November falling on a Tuesday), the first regular meeting of the council falls as late as it can possibly come in the month – on Thursday Nov. 10, after the Nov. 8 election. That would be too late for the developer’s timeline, Hohnke said.

With respect to the timeline, McDonald weighed in, saying that the statutory requirement of a 15-day notice before the public hearing on Oct. 24 meant that the public hearing would need to be noticed to the public before the first reading on Oct. 17.

Responding to Hohnke’s mention of opportunities to modify the proposal further at the first and second readings, McDonald advised councilmembers that it was really the occasion of the first reading when they should be considering any possible revisions to the proposal, not the second reading. Material changes made at the second reading would result in an additional reading required before the council, McDonald said.

Higgins lamented the fact that it means it won’t be until the night of the final decision that the council would have the opportunity to hear from the public, and it’s been a very hot topic with the public, she said.

Heritage Row: Council Deliberations – Public Benefit

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted the majority of the public benefit had been removed. [The PUD ordinance stipulates that a public benefit must be provided by a project in order to justify the non-conformance to zoning.] Nothing requires historic preservation of the homes. The developer is cutting back on the affordable housing component. So the question, Kunselman said, is whether the project is a PUD or not. Obviously, he said, Heritage Row did not meet the financial requirements of the developer, because there was too much public benefit and it was costing too much money.

If they’re stripping that out, Kunselman said, maybe the developer needs to do a different project that the developer can afford. What’s wrong with townhomes? he wondered. It’s “mind boggling” Kunselman said, looking at it as someone who had not seen the project from the very beginning. [Kunselman was referring to the fact that a City Place PUD had originally been rejected by the council in January 2009, just after Kunselman left the council, following his defeat in the 2008 Democratic primary by Christopher Taylor. Kunselman won back a seat the following year.]

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) reminded Kunselman that he’d been at the table for the initial Heritage Row vote in the summer of 2010. But she said she had similar concerns as Kunselman. At first glance, she said, it looked like the developer was reducing the public benefit. It wasn’t palatable in the summer of 2010 to some councilmembers, she said, so she was not sure why it would be palatable now, given the reduction in public benefit. She said she was not saying that she wouldn’t continue to support the project – she’d voted for it back in 2010. She found it “kind of awkward” that there is a “bulldozer here and a developer here” and the council is moving towards a weaker set of public benefits than they had the first time around.

Smith said if the preservation of the properties is a public benefit, then she hoped that would be negotiated – at least the facades and as much of the structures as possible. To accept less in public benefit, it would be difficult to agree. She said she’d support it going forward, but she wanted to send the message to be tough in the negotiations.

Hohnke said he agreed with Smith. He felt the historic preservation element of the project was very important. The council had an option for thorough historic preservation, Hohnke reminded his colleagues, which the majority of the council decided not to pursue – despite the unanimous recommendation of the unanimously-appointed historic district study committee to establish an historic district in that area. Whatever way the council had gotten to its current position, he said he didn’t see the value in evaluating past arguments and instead wanted to find a path forward that makes the most sense. If someone wanted to reconsider establishing a historic district, he would be willing to entertain that.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said he couldn’t help but think of the phrase: “It’s deja vu all over again.” He ventured that some deathbed conversions are valid and this is one where the council should see what can be done at the last minute to preserve a better project. Derezinski said he’d been supporting the project consistently, because the design was creative and functional, and the public got a lot of benefit out of it. He said Smith is right – as currently described, there’s less public benefit. Giving it a shot would be worth it, he said, so he’d vote for the reconsideration.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he saw very little utility in reviewing past postions. In his view, it was a reasonable and forward-looking proposal to pursue conversations, and it was to the larger good of Ann Arbor that the council do so. Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she was very reluctant to see the public benefit scaled down. Mayor John Hieftje said he would join others in being cautious. He ventured that the whole development saga on the block will show up in a planning textbook and it would probably “not reflect brightly on us.” But he said he would support Hohnke’s efforts to pull it out of the fire in the end.

Hohnke stressed that there is a long way to go and said that the probability of success is “well, let’s just say not 100%.” But Hohnke said the thinking was to stay on the ballfield until the last out.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she would vote for the reconsideration on the understanding that the council has not seen the development agreement. She echoed Smith’s thoughts in saying she hoped the council sees something better by the time it comes back. The race is to the swift, Briere said, but it’s also to the most accurate.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said everyone had worked hard for the last four years on this project. He was willing to give it another look. He said that with a change of ownership, a new game has started, and the council has to see who it’s dealing with now. That could lead to surprises in either direction.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said that he, too, would support the project but like others, he remained somewhat skeptical. It’s going to take a Herculean effort to get to some semblence of a modified project, he felt. However, he was willing to give it one last shot. He’d supported it from the very beginning.

Outcome on suspension of council rules: The council voted unanimously to suspend council rules in order to vote on the matter of reconsideration.

Outcome on reconsideration: The council voted unanimously to reconsider the Heritage Row project.

Heritage Row: Council Deliberations – Incorporating the Letter

Before voting on the postponement and the direction given to staff, and the setting of the additional council meeting on Oct. 24, Higgins ventured that the additional meeting would be a “special meeting” not a “regular meeting.” McDonald said the charter required “at least” two regular meetings each month, but that having a third meeting would not make it a special meeting. It needed to be called a “regular meeting” because otherwise the soonest regular meeting after Oct. 17 would be Nov. 10.

Smith asked for clarification on the final paragraph of the motion:

I move that City Council direct the Planning and Development Services Unit and City Attorney’s Office to incorporate the developer’s proposal into the PUD Zoning and Site Plan, and review all required revised plans, regulations and agreements submitted by the developer, prior to Council consideration.

From that Smith concluded that the attachment was to be incorporated. McDonald said that Smith was correct, but that staff had heard some concerns from the council about public benefit and that it would be appropriate for the council to modify that language – if the council wanted to alter the wording, the council could provide specific direction to staff.

Hohnke did not agree with McDonald’s interpretation. Incorporating the developer’s proposal into the PUD site plan does not reference any particular attachment or set of proposals, Hohnke contended. It just asks staff and the developer to work on this project. The developer’s proposal might be modified from the developer’s letter by the time it reaches its first reading on Oct. 17. He asked McDonald to confirm that there’s nothing in the language to require that the “maximum envelope” expressed in Helminski’s letter be incorporated into the PUD zoning and site plan.

McDonald reiterated what he’d already said: If the council wants the staff to negotiate something, it would be helpful to add specific direction in the motion. McDonald indicated that they’d already heard in the discussion that councilmembers had concerns.

Hieftje said he read Helminski’s letter as saying: We’re going to build City Place, but we may change our mind if we can change Heritage Row so that it’s financially viable for us. He said it’d be a mistake not to put those the elements from the letter into the PUD zoning and site plan. Then if councilmembers wants to say no to it, they can do that. Hieftje said he appreciated the straightforwardness of Helminski’s letter.

Higgins said she understood the developer’s starting point, but still felt there needs to be an accounting for what city staff is to do. If there’s no agreement by Oct. 17, then there may be nothing that comes forward anyway.

Kunselman noted that the already-approved motion had put Heritage Row back on the table. He wanted to know if the council could vote for Heritage Row as it was without any of the amendments, but with all of the public benefit in the project, and just vote it up without amendment? McDonald said he didn’t think that would be appropriate. The owner has not asked for reconsideration except together with some changes pursuant to Helminski’s letter. The developer is not asking for reconsideration of the original proposal, and has stated that the original project is not financially viable, McDonald said.

Taylor felt there was a lot of conversation about what it means for it to be the “developer’s proposal” and for his reading, he did not believe the letter constitutes an “in stone” set of deal points that the developer was proposing. The letter is certainly forceful, Taylor said, and articulates a number of business points that the developer wants to achieve. The current resolution, he said, is appropriate. At the point the council receives a proposal in the form of a revised site plan, that would be the appropriate time to consider the public benefit associated with the proposal.

The development team knows what the council is saying, Taylor said. He thought it made a great deal of sense to go forward along the path indicated in the resolution. When the times comes, the council will make the judgement as to whether the public benefit is great enough.

Teall said that in addition to the letter, she was also looking at the supplemental regulations draft. That seemed pretty specific, she said, and she thought it was pretty clear what the developer was saying. She felt like it could easily be an “exercise in futility.” The developer had laid it out very clearly. She said she would not count on a lot of changes from what was indicated.

Rapundalo agreed with Taylor and felt it was a set of parameters or conditions. It’s “the box we’re going to work within.” The developer would come back with a final version and the council could then take it or leave it on its merits, he said. The developer just wanted to let the council know what the key elements were for the developer. He had no problem giving the developer time to work with the staff.

Heritage Row: Council Deliberations – Making Direction Explicit

Derezinski said he felt there was potential ambiguity in the last paragraph. He proposed an amendment to the resolution that gave it the following form [additional material in italics]:

I move that City Council direct the Planning and Development Services Unit and City Attorney’s Office to incorporate the developer’s letter proposal into the previously proposed PUD Zoning and Site Plan, and review all required revised plans, regulations and agreements submitted by the developer, in accordance with the requirements of the PUD ordinance, including making suggested changes, prior to Council consideration.

Taylor said that a number of councilmembers had indicated their dissatisfaction with a number of points articulated in the developer’s letter. In the amendment, the council would be instructing staff to incorporate the letter into the site plan amendments, without regard to whether the developer might choose to rethink the requirements.

Taylor said he wouldn’t support the amendment because of the injection of the mention of the letter. The goal is to receive the developer’s last, best offer. Let’s wait and see what the developer brings to the staff – if it’s exactly what’s in the letter, councilmembers can vote on it as they will, Taylor said.

Briere confirmed with Hohnke that the letter and revised supplemental regulations had just arrived late that afternoon and McDonald had indicated he had not yet reviewed it. To her, she said, that indicated it was put together “in a hurry.” Hohnke replied to Briere by saying that “overnight is a generous description.”

Hohnke then said he felt the council was “over-thinking it.” City staff had asked the developer to provide the letter and revised supplemental regulations merely to provide the council with an understanding of the “maximum envelope” the developer is considering. It was not intended to lay out clearly specifically what they’re driving at. It was meant to “set some stakes in the ground.”

Briere replied that if the letter is just concepts, then the council was not actually seeing the developer’s proposal that night. She wondered if the council would see the proposal before the evening of Oct. 17. Hohnke said it would come sooner than that, because it would be an agenda item and would be distributed on Wednesday afternoon [Oct. 12] before the council meeting. There would be plenty of time to review it. If that was the case, Briere ventured, the council should be content to wait.

Higgins said two paragraphs in the letter were of concern to her:

I encourage you to take the necessary actions to allow our team and the City to continue a productive dialog in pursuit of the creative solutions necessary to devise an alternative development plan that meets the requirements of all involved.

Following is a summary of the revisions to the former Heritage Row supplemental regulations necessary to facilitate a change of direction from City Place to an alternative plan

Higgins said that read to her as exactly the things the developer needed to have in order to diverge from constructing City Place. That’s saying to her these are things they need to have. Maybe that’s a starting point, but the council will have to see if that meets the PUD ordinance. Then the council could see if there is a way to meet in the middle. She supported the amendment.

Kunselman suggested taking the course of striking all reference to the developer. Then the staff and the developer can work through whatever they want. At Hieftje’s request, McDonald offered that the council’s conversation had made clear what their concerns were and the council’s position with regard to Helminski’s letter. McDonald said he did not think that Derezinski’s amendment would require staff to follow Helminski’s letter. The amendment added some clarity that the staff needed to respond to the appropriateness of the proposal with regard to the PUD ordinance, McDonald said.

Higgins said she appreciated hearing from the city attorney’s office, but she also needed to hear it from the city administrator, because he would be handling it. “Do you have clear direction to move forward and have this dialogue?” she asked city administrator Steve Powers. His one-word reply: “Yes.”

Hieftje said he wouldn’t support the amendment, saying the way the resolution had come to the council was fairly simple, cut-and-dried.

Outcome on Derezinski’s amendment: The council approved the amendment on a 6-5 vote. Voting for it were Anglin, Smith, Derezinski, Kunselman, Teall and Higgins. Voting against it were Hieftje, Briere, Rapundalo, Taylor and Hohnke.

Some confusion ensued when the mayor misheard the report from the clerk that the amendment had been approved.

Outcome on the main motion: The council voted to postpone consideration of Heritage Row until Oct. 17.

City Place Construction Sequence

Also considered by the council at its Oct. 3 meeting was a request to modify the original development agreement for City Place. The intent was to relieve the timeline pressure on the developer to start utilities work immediately. The original agreement was standard for the city of Ann Arbor. It called for utilities work on water mains and storm sewers to be completed before construction could start.

The revised agreement on City Place doesn’t require the utilities work to be completed until later – before a certificate of occupancy is issued. So the revision gives the developer added flexibility to enter into negotiations with the city on the resubmittal of Heritage Row, which would require different utilities work.

City Place Construction: Council Deliberations

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said the intent of the resolution has two elements: the assignment of the project to the new ownership; and modification of the construction sequence.

Hohnke asked city planning manager Wendy Rampson to explain the rationale for the standard requirement that off-site utility work be completed before on-site construction starts. Rampson said that if a building gets built without public utilities, you would have a completed building with no utilities in place. The standard requirement avoids that situation, she said.

Hohnke drew out the fact that Zaragon II had been a project where a pitted water main had slowed down work on off-site utilities and that the city had worked with the developer to allow off-site work and on-site construction to go on concurrently – the idea of allowing the adjustment of the requirement was not unprecedented.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) ventured that if Heritage Row were to be approved, the resolution would be moot.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) was worried about the certificate of occupancy and wondered if the state statute stipulated when a certificate of occupancy could be granted. He indicated he would not be voting for it, based on that consideration.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she could imagine that the council would approve the resolution on the construction sequence. She said she could also imagine that in three weeks, the council would not approve Heritage Row. She asked what the options were on that scenario. She wanted to know if the council could revisit the resolution and remove the arrangements about construction sequencing.

Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald indicated that would not be appropriate – the developer asked for the construction sequence change to allow reconsideration of Heritage Row. The development team wanted to make sure they weren’t put at a loss with respect to carrying costs, with the construction season now coming to a close. Once that’s approved, he said, it would be in place permanently. Briere confirmed there would be no opportunity to revisit the issue.

In light of Kunselman’s expressed concern, Hohnke asked for confirmation from McDonald that the language had been reviewed and approved by the city attorney’s office.

Outcome: The council approved the alteration in the construction sequence with apparent dissent from Anglin, Briere and Kunselman, but no roll call vote was taken.

Intent on Street/Sidewalk Tax

Again on the council’s agenda, after being postponed at its last meeting, was a resolution of intent for the use of proceeds from a street/sidewalk repair millage that will be on the Nov. 8 ballot.

Voters will be asked to approve two separate proposals: (1) a 5-year renewal of a 2.0 mill tax to support street repair projects; and (2) an 0.125 mill tax to pay for sidewalk repair.

The resolution of intent would specify that the street repair millage will pay for the following activities: resurfacing or reconstruction of existing paved city streets and bridges, including on-street bicycle lanes and street intersections; construction of pedestrian refuge islands; reconstruction and construction of accessible street crossings and corner ramps; and preventive pavement maintenance (PPM) measures, including pavement crack sealing. [.pdf of resolution of intent]

The resolution of intent would stipulate that sidewalk repairs inside the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district will not be funded by the sidewalk repair millage, except when the sidewalks are adjacent to single- and two-family houses. A recent meeting of the DDA’s operations committee revealed a measure of discontent on the DDA’s part about the intended restriction inside the DDA district and the lack of communication from the city of Ann Arbor to the DDA about that issue.

The resolution states that both inside and outside the DDA district (otherwise put, throughout the city), the sidewalk repair millage would be used only to pay for sidewalk repair adjacent to property on which the city levies a property tax. One impact of that resolution of intent, if it’s adopted, is that the city’s sidewalk repair millage will not be used to pay for repairs to sidewalks adjacent to University of Michigan property.

Intent on Sidewalk/Streets: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) who sponsored the resolution, began by noting that a phrase had inadvertently been dropped from the language of the resolution of intent in the editing from the last council meeting. She asked that it be re-inserted. It was part of the statement that the accounting for how the millage money would be spent would be separate, even though the revenue would be deposited into the same fund. Briere said this was a commitment that staff had made during the public information meetings about the millage. She moved an amendment that made the change.

Sue McCormick, the city’s public services area administrator, said that in the staff’s discussions with the public there was general support for flexibility in the sidewalk millage. The city may need to spend more than .0125 mills, or less, depending on the need. But McCormick said the city is committed to tracking what it’s spending on each kind of activity: sidewalk repair and bridges/street repair. It won’t be in separate funds, but the city will track it, she said. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) asked if McCormick saw any problems with the language in the resolution of intent. She told him she saw no problems whatsoever.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked about the DDA exclusion. She didn’t think the DDA was excluded in the ballot language, just in the resolution of intent. McCormick could not confirm Smith’s statement, saying she wished she had it in front of her. However, she did confirm for Smith that the exclusion was part of the discussion the city staff had with the public.

Smith asked what portion of the city’s sidewalks are inside the DDA district. McCormick didn’t know. Smith then asked what the revenue from the millage would be for the city compared to the DDA’s tax capture in the district – Smith ventured it was roughly a 2/3 to 1/3 split. McCormick said she could not speak to those numbers. [For Chronicle reporting on this, see: "Committee Briefed on Downtown Sidewalks"]

Smith then focused on the qualitative aspect of the exclusion instead of dwelling on the quantitative angle. The idea is that all properties inside the DDA would be excluded, except single-family houses and duplexes. McCormick contended that it’s consistent with what the DDA has done with sidewalk corner ramps. Smith asked if the DDA maintains responsibility for the sidewalks in the downtown – yes, answered McCormick. What about the vaults? Smith asked. McCormick characterized that as a private property issue. Smith asked if city staff would do sidewalk inspections inside the DDA. At that point, mayor John Hieftje asked Smith if she intended to be talking on the topic of the amendment. She replied, “Oh, I’m way off the amendment!” The council then approved the amendment Briere had suggested and Smith continued with her line of questions.

McCormick explained that city staff “could be available” for sidewalk inspections inside the DDA district, but that it has not been discussed. Smith inquired about the property across from the University of Michigan – like on State Street along the Diag – how will the city treat that? McCormick said she wished that Homayoon Pirooz, the city’s head of project management, were at the meeting – she couldn’t answer at that level of detail. Smith then apologized for not having it dawn on her until this point to ask about the DDA issue, and noted that no staff was present to address her questions. At that point, Smith moved for a postponement, saying, “I would beg indulgence to postpone for another two weeks.”

Derezinski asked if there was any timing problems associated with a delay. McCormick indicated there was not a problem – the idea is to have something in place before the Nov. 8 ballot.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) reminded her colleagues that when the issue was before the council at its previous meeting, they’d talked about using a fact sheet to tell people how the money will be spent. She asked if there was anything in the resolution of intent that is not in the fact sheet. McCormick described the language in the fact sheet and in the resolution of intent as “mutually supportive.” Higgins ventured that if the fact sheet is even more detailed than the resolution of intent, she was not sure the council needed to pass a resolution.

Hieftje noted that the conversation seemed to be wandering from the issue of postponement. Briere said she’d rather vote it up or down, instead of postponing. But in arguing for a resolution of intent instead of just a fact sheet, she reported that when she looked for fact sheets for the current millage, they’d disappeared. But a resolution of intent for the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage remained in the public record – you can find it again 20 years later. The fact sheet, however, can no longer be found on the city’s website. She said she agreed with whatever the rest of the council decides what to do, as long as they do something by the time of the election.

Briere said that Smith hadn’t noticed that the DDA exclusion was already in the resolution for the ballot language. A fact sheet is created for the public to present at public meetings, but a resolution is for the council to have a record to refer to in the future. It would be a benefit to future members of the council who want to know why previous members did what they did, she said.

The motion to postpone was then withdrawn in order to continue debate on the motion itself.

Higgins said she thought that Pirooz had the old fact sheet. She suggested that a way to approach the issue would be to do things administratively (with a fact sheet) instead of legislatively (with a resolution). The fact sheet is more detailed anyway, Higgins said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he was a little confused. He noted that the city staff drafted a fact sheet. What’s new this year on the fact sheet is preventive maintenance, which was not done in the past, he said. How does staff determine to take a reconstruction millage and do preventive maintenance? If the council passes a resolution, then when the staff holds public meetings, they could say the council has approved preventive maintenance.

Hieftje then asked McCormick how the street repair millage works for streets in the DDA district. McCormick explained that historically, in the old contract under which the DDA manages the public parking system, the DDA made a contribution to the street millage fund for maintenance of on-street parking lanes. Under the new contract, she explained, it’s a formulaic approach in which a lump sum payment is made by the DDA to the city, based on a percentage of gross parking revenues. Hieftje stated that his understanding is that the DDA has taken care of sidewalk repair for property owners.

Smith responded to Hieftje by saying that the way the resolution is worded, the DDA appears to be responsible for repairs but would not receive the full benefit of the millage, but would instead receive only a portion – due to the TIF capture. Based on her back-of-the-napkin calculations, it would be around $15,000, Smith said. Hieftje contended that the DDA had been handling sidewalk repair in the downtown all this time on their own. Smith countered, saying she was not sure that’s accurate.

Smith then reintroduced her motion to postpone. Hieftje said he’d support the postponement, given the uncertainty about the situation with the DDA sidewalks.

Briere took the perspective that staff has set its budget based on the expectation of doing things a certain way. If the resolution of intent were amended, and it changed the responsibility of who repaired sidewalks inside the DDA district, Briere wanted to know if that would significantly affect the budget. McCormick replied that it was hard to say. If more had to be spent on sidewalks, then less would be spent on bridge and street repair, she said.

Briere said given that the staff set the language in the ballot based on a set of assumptions. Briere did not have a problem with clarifying the situation with the DDA sidewalks, but only if it affects what the council decides. What benefit would the information bring to deliberations? she asked.

Outcome: The council approved postponing the resolution of intent on the use of street/sidewalk repair millage funds, over the dissent of Kunselman.

Rezoning for Med Marijuana

At its Oct. 3 meeting, the council was asked to rezone a South State Street property, so that it could be used as a medical marijuana dispensary.

The owner of Treecity Health Collective, a dispensary at 1712 S. State, had requested that the city planning commission recommend the location be rezoned from O (office) to C1 (local business). The owner had also asked that the area plan requirement for that location be waived. However, at their Aug. 16, 2011 meeting, planning commissioners recommended denial of the requests, based on a staff recommendation, stating that C1 zoning is not consistent with adjacent zoning, land uses and the city’s master plan.

And at their Sept. 19 meeting, councilmembers were hesitant to vote down the rezoning, and instead decided to delay their vote. The council is looking ahead to another rezoning request in the same vicinity on South State – for Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky – and appears keen to treat them in parallel fashion. At its Sept. 8 meeting, the city planning commission recommended denial of Biercamp’s rezoning request, which would allow the sausage business to sell a greater variety of products beyond those manufactured on the site.

The Treecity Health Collective opened in 2010. This summer, the council approved amendments to the city’s zoning ordinances that prevent medical marijuana dispensaries from operating in office zoning districts – those changes were set to take effect on Aug. 22, 2011. Rather than relocate the dispensary, the business asked for the zoning change. The property – located on the west side of State, south of Stimson – is owned by Francis Clark.

A recent court of appeals ruling has raised legal questions about the existence of dispensaries under Michigan’s Medical Marijuana Act. However, the Ann Arbor city council decided at its Sept. 6 meeting to proceed with the appointment of four out of the five members of its medical marijuana licensing board and subsequently appointed the fifth member. That body met for the first time on Sept. 21.

Medical Marijuana Rezoning: Public Commentary

Dennis Hayes began by quipping that just when the council thought they could get rid of him, he was back again. He told councilmembers that Treecity Health Collective has been working hard to comply with numerous requests from the city. Treecity has been in contact with the city attorney’s office and the planning staff and and have been quite diligent, he said. He understood that the requested zoning by Treecity is not part of the master plan, but he thinks it’s an appropriate use. It’s a nice space that was built up quite nicely, he said.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and local attorney Dennis Hayes.

Hayes also mentioned that city planning staff has demanded information about the operation of medical marijuana businesses, based on a court of appeals decision from a couple of weeks ago: People v. McQueen. Hayes criticized the city attorney for adopting the Michigan attorney general’s analysis of the lawsuit, which is a disservice to the law and to the office of the attorney general, Hayes said. The attorney general was dealing with medical marijuana patients by “taking a chainsaw” to the statute, he said.

Hayes encouraged the councilmembers who are lawyers to read the language in the McQueen case. He said he did not think the language in the case stands for the proposition that the city attorney has asserted. The case simply says you can’t sell it for profit in Michigan, which is not news, he said.

One of the problems on a larger scale, he said, is that it’s difficult to find places to accept medical marijuana collectives. He hoped that the approval process with the licensing board would take that into account.

Medical Marijuana Rezoning: Council Deliberations

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) led off deliberations saying she was a bit conflicted. She said the staff recommendation against the rezoning is based on the idea that rezoning would go against the city’s master plan. But she said that in going over the notes from the planning commission, she’d noticed that changes to the zoning are not to be undertaken “except to correct an error in the Chapter, because of a change in municipal policy, or because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the municipality generally, to rezone an area, extend the boundary of an existing Zoning District or to change the regulations and restrictions thereof.”

Smith said she felt the Produce Station, located nearby at 1629 S. State St., has changed the particular area tremendously. She did not feel it’s strictly speaking a “spot zoning,” as the planning staff had concluded. Smith invited Wendy Rampson, head of city planning, to come to the podium and help her to go through her thoughts. Why wasn’t changing conditions pertinent in this case?

Rampson told Smith that it is pertinent – for the whole State Street corridor, viewed from Stimson down to Ellsworth. The planning commission grappled with that, but it is a small piece of land, Rampson said, so to take one piece out of context wasn’t appropriate. There wasn’t sufficient justification for the rezoning.

Smith said it seemed that the row of 10 houses on the west side of the street had retail-like businesses. Did that have any relevance? Rampson told Smith that in looking at the whole corridor it would be relevant. Alluding to the use of the existing property as a medical marijuana collective, Rampson said there are some current uses that were determined without the benefit of permits. She noted that the property on which the Biercamp business is located was annexed into Ann Arbor from Ann Arbor Township with zoning grandfathered in from the township, even though the business hadn’t originally been legally established in the township.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said that as the city council representative on the planning commission, he agreed with what Rampson said. Once you start, it’s a slippery slope, he cautioned. This rezoning request, said Derezinski, underscores why the city needs to have a corridor study. It reminded him of the R4C/R2A situation, in which the zoning needed to accomodate the changes that are happening. [The city formed an advisory committee to study R4C/R2A zoning. A final recommendation hasn't yet been presented.] After the Washtenaw Avenue corridor, he said, the State Street corridor was the planning commission’s second priority.

Alluding to the planned construction of a Costco at the intersection of State and Ellsworth, Derezinski noted that the corridor would soon include a big-box store. Any consideration of rezoning should be done comprehensively, he said – that was the reason for the planning commission action on this matter.

From left: Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), and Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked Rampson to describe conditional rezoning. He wanted to know if that would still be an option that could be pursued if the council decided to deny the current rezoning request.

Rampson indicated that it could be brought back as a conditional rezoning request. The business had contacted the city about that option and informational materials had been provided, she said. She described conditional rezoning as allowing a property owner to come to the city with a request and voluntarily restrict itself to a particular use, in order to proceed with a particular zoning.

For example, Rampson said, a restriction could be to use it as a medical marijuana dispensary. A business at the location of Ellsworth and Platt is the one example of the application of this kind of tool in the city, she said. That business is restricted from alcohol sales, she said. She called it a relatively new tool.

Rampson invited assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald to comment. He characterized conditional rezoning as a really broad statute that the legislature created where a property owner can “offer and voluntarily accept a condition on zoning.”

As far as the timing issue, Rampson said a new request could go to the planning commission, or the current request could be paused at this point. The challenge for this petitioner, Rampson said, was the timing related to the medical marijuana licensing ordinance.

Kunselman thought this situation was a good example of where conditional rezoning would work. The business is already operational under the current condition, he said. If it comes back as a request under conditional rezoning, he said, he would support it.

Outcome: The council voted against approval of the rezoning request, with dissent from Mike Anglin, Sabra Briere and Sandi Smith.

Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) District

The council was asked to consider a resolution to establish an Energy Financing District and a Property Assessed Clean Energy program (PACE). The council had formally expressed its intention to establish an Energy Financing District and a PACE. The vote came after a formal public hearing.

The resolution of intent refers to a report, which describes in detail the project and property eligibility for PACE, as well as project size, application process, and financing, among other elements.

At its March 7, 2011 meeting, the council had voted to set up a $432,800 loan loss reserve fund to support the city’s planned PACE program. The money for the fund comes from an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) awarded to the city by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Through its PACE program, the city of Ann Arbor will help commercial property owners finance energy improvements through voluntary special assessments. By establishing a loan loss pool, the city can reduce interest rates for participating property owners by covering a portion of delinquent or defaulted payments. [Some previous Chronicle coverage of PACE: "Special District Might Fund Energy Program"]

PACE: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as an advocate for senior citizens and disabled persons who need the advantages of the improvements. He applauded this step, but called attention to the fact that most of the benefits are generally aimed at businesses – the most profitable businesses. There should be an “equal rights amendment,” Partridge said, to make it available to residents as well. He told the council they should ensure the district is as wide as possible – the entire county is possible.

Conan Smith is a Washtenaw County commissioner from Ann Arbor and is married to state Sen. Rebekah Warren, who has claimed a lot of the credit for the PACE legislation. Smith appeared during public commentary to say how excited he was about it. It’s one of the best things we can do, Smith said, and the fact that Ann Arbor is at the forefront is something to be proud of. The “green economy” is important for the future, he said. At the county level, Smith said, he would like to look at the work that is happening in the city and try to replicate that in smaller units of government across the county.

Smith noted that the the smaller townships wouldn’t be able to offer the bonds necessary for the program, but he thought that funding could be aggregated at the county level so that the program could be expanded. He thanked the council for taking the lead on the issue. He also thanked city environmental coordinator Matt Naud and others for their work on the issue.

PACE: Council Deliberations

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) [not related to Conan Smith] said she was pleased to see the program come forward. She described the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s energy grant program as a kind of “pilot program” for PACE. She hoped eventually it would be available for residential properties. It would result in better buildings and less waste on energy.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked for clarification about what properties are eligible. Wendy Barrot, who is administering the program for the city of Ann Arbor, explained that if a property has three or more units, it’s eligible. Mayor John Hieftje ticked through names of people he wanted to thank for moving the program forward.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to establish the PACE district.

Annexations: Scio to Ann Arbor

The city council was asked to consider annexations of six properties on the west side of the city, all inside a well prohibition zone that was expanded in March 2011. The expansion of the zone came as a result of a consent agreement between the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources and Environment, which relaxed environmental cleanup requirements on Pall Corp. The previous prohibition zone had been established because of 1,4 dioxane groundwater contamination caused by the Pall’s Wagner Road facility, formerly owned by Gelman Sciences.

Annexation will allow these properties to connect to city of Ann Arbor water services. Pall has paid all petition filing fees as well as the connection and improvement charges for water and sanitary sewer service that are related to the annexations. All of the parcels are currently part of Scio Township. They will be annexed with the R1C (single-family residential) category. These annexations are not part of the systematic township-to-city annexation strategy authorized by the city council at its Sept. 19, 2011 meeting.

[Google map of well prohibition zones and property locations] [.jpg of map with well prohibition zones and property locations]

Annexations: Public Hearings

Each annexation included a public hearing. Thomas Partridge spoke at only one of them.

Partridge introduced himself as a past candidate for the county board and for the state senate, and asked the council to delay action on all the annexation resolutions. It’s taking property away from the townships along with the property tax revenue that townships need. He called for state legislation to make consolidation of city and county governments possible, similar to what is being contemplated in the Grand Rapids area.

During council communications following the public hearings, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) gave a reminder to the public that each of the properties being annexed has its own reasons. The dioxane plume might have something to do with it, she said. She stressed that this is not a “cluster” that is part of the city’s recently enacted strategy for systematically annexing township islands into the city. She noted that all of the property owners are asking to leave Scio Township and join the city of Ann Arbor.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the annexations on separate votes.

DTE Gas Line Easement

On the council’s Oct. 3 agenda was a resolution granting an easement to DTE Energy for the installation of a gas main pipe north of Fuller Road in Fuller Park. The easement includes a number of requirements on DTE related to the gas line installation. DTE will need to use horizontal boring, instead of trenching, for the section of pipe near the Fuller Road pool entrance.

The easement also includes a number of requirements to protect trees in the vicinity. For example, no roots greater than two inches in diameter are to be cut except with authorization of a city forester, and no equipment can be stored under the dripline of any city-owned tree.

DTE Easement: Public Commentary

Rita Mitchell addressed the council on the grant of easement to DTE. The council information packet provides maps and the resolution, but no documentation of the language for the agreement between the city and DTE. She said that she felt it was important that the council and the public really understand what’s in the agreement. She criticized the fact that the context for the change is not provided – the location of existing gas lines and the reason for making the change is not provided. So she urged the council to defer action.

Mitchell said she believed the easement work was an attempt to move ahead with the Fuller Road Station without labeling it as such on the agenda. [Fuller Road Station is a proposed large parking structure, bus depot and possible train station, to be built on city-owned property in partnership with the University of Michigan. It has been criticized for its location on land designated as parkland. A surface parking lot is currently located on the site.]

Mitchell wanted to know what the city cost will be? Will the land that’s being granted belong to DTE? If so, that would be giving away parkland without a vote by the public, she said. Is the easement revocable? If it’s not, then it’s a gift, she said. She told the council that they are the ones who control the parkland and that they need to follow Chapter 34 of the city code in making their decision. [Chapter 34 concerns the grant of gas franchise.]

DTE Easement: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked who’s being served by the utilities work. Paul Ganz – DTE Energy regional manager for the counties of Ingham, Jackson, Livingston and most of Washtenaw – described it as a “garden variety easement request” to replace infrastructure that serves the entire city. It’s part of a federally-mandated effort to make sure gas infrastructure meets all new specifications, he said.

A high-pressure main will be replaced, Ganz said. It would provide service from the Maiden Lane regulator. The main serves a vault that disperses gas throughout that area of the city. It is typically at around 300 pounds of pressure. By way of comparison, Ganz said, a house is served at about 1/4 pound of pressure or the city hall at around 2 pounds of pressure.

Ganz said he expected the work would be completed in about four weeks. It’s a typical agreement that is struck between MichCon and municipalities. He noted that it sometimes requires the city and his company to work around each other, and said he appreciated consideration they received from the city of Ann Arbor staff.

Briere asked why the main was not installed under the road instead of in the park. The answer, from Barbara Rykwalder of DTE, was that they did not want to obstruct traffic on Fuller Road.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) got confirmation that there’s an existing pipeline with probably an existing easement.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked if there was any relation of the project to Fuller Road Station. Rykwalder explained that the work to be done is due purely to a federal mandate – the pipeline needs to be replaced and DTE was abiding by a federal mandate.

Anglin then asked if the city would still own the land. Kevin McDonald of the city attorney’s office explained that an easement granted use of land, but ownership would remain with the city.

Work Session: Nov. 14

The council was asked to consider a resolution to add a work session to its calendar for Nov. 14, 2011. At the council’s Sept. 19 meeting, the council had voted to postpone consideration of a proposed amendment to the city’s public art ordinance – councilmembers expressed an interest in having a working session on the topic before voting on the proposed amendment to the public art ordinance. The public art ordinance taps 1% of all capital improvement project budgets to pay for public art.

The resolution itself did not specify the topic of the working session. It simply indicates: “Due to the numerous activities developing in the City, it is necessary to schedule an additional work session to bring Council up to date;”

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to add a Nov. 14 work session to the calendar.

Ann Arbor Housing Commission Liaison

Near the conclusion of the meeting, mayor John Hieftje seemed prepared to forgo any additional transactions after confirmation of some appointments to the city’s human rights commission. But Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) reminded Hieftje that at the previous meeting, on Sept. 19, Hieftje had said he would be nominating Margie Teall (Ward 4) as the council’s liaison to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

The revelation at that Sept. 19 meeting also came at Kunselman’s prodding, after Kunselman had offered at the Sept. 6 meeting to serve as the replacement for Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) as liaison. Derezinski had asked to be excused from that position, in order to serve on the city’s public art commission, after Jeff Meyers resigned from that post.

Hieftje made the nomination of Teall as housing commission liaison.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve Teall’s appointment as council liaison to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

Habitat for Humanities Lawsuit Settlement

A late addition to the agenda asked the council to authorize settlement of a lawsuit. The authorized settlement resulted in the payment of $229.12 by Habitat for Humanities to the city of Ann Arbor. One of the defendants in the suit was the University of Michigan.

In contrast to the city of Ann Arbor, the university’s legal department makes its litigation reports easily accessible to the public. From the UM May 2011 litigation report to the board of regents:

Habitat for Humanity of Huron Valley v Angela Rowlands, The Regents of the University of Michigan and its Housing Bureau for Seniors, and the City of Ann Arbor. Washtenaw County Circuit Court. (Judge Archie C. Brown) (Served April 18, 2011 ).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Rowlands defaulted on a mortgage which was payable to Habitat for Humanity. The Housing Bureau for Seniors holds a second mortgage on the property. Habitat claims that defendants Regents and the City claim an interest in the property but that such interests are subordinate to the mortgage interest of Habitat. Plaintiff Habitat seeks payment of the note and mortgage, plus costs and attorney fees, from defendant Rowlands or, in the alternative, asks the court to allow the mortgage to be foreclosed and the premises sold at public sale with the proceeds paid to Habitat. Habitat also asks the court to determine that the interests held by the Regents and the City are subordinate to Habitat’s interests.

Outcome: Without comment, the council approved the settlement of the case involving Habitat for Humanities.

Fuller Road Station, Transportation

Although the council had an item on its agenda in the same geographic vicinity as the proposed Fuller Road Station – the DTE gas main easement – there were no items involving a vote specifically on that project. However, public commentary on that easement (from Rita Mitchell, see above) raised questions about the possible connection of that work to the planned transit station and parking structure.

Other parts of the meeting also included discussion of the proposed Fuller Road Station.

Fuller Road Station: Public Commentary

Libby Hunter delivered her public commentary, as has become her custom, in the form of some familiar tune with revised lyrics. The tune was “This Land Is Your Land,” featuring commentary on the proposed Fuller Road Station. Lyrics  included “This park’s not made for you and me” and “It’s Go Blue land,” a critical allusion to the University of Michigan’s role in the proposed deal. A reference to mayor John Hieftje was also included in the lyrics: “He stole our park land.”

Fuller Road Station: Council, Administrator Communications

During a slot on the agenda reserved for council communications, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said he wanted to read aloud a communication he’d received from a constituent about Fuller Road Station. The project seemed to be proceeding without an “absolute vote” of the council, he said. The communication indicated strong opposition to any planning for Fuller Road Station without a public referendum. The current proposal for the land is in the form of a lease, which seemed like a way to circumvent the requirement that the sale of city parkland be subjected to a public referendem. Having a referendum, even on the lease of the land, would abide by the spirit of the charter requirement.

Responding to Anglin, Hieftje said he had some news about the Fuller Road Station project, pointedly referring to the portion of Fuller Park where the project is to be built as the “paved parking lot across the street from the Fuller Park pool and soccer complex.” He said the federal government had previously awarded $2.8 million for the first phase of the Fuller Road Station, and the news was that the funds had now been formally obligated.

Hieftje also described the action by the Michigan state legislature as “tremendous news” for rail transportation in Michigan because $160 million had been secured in federal matching funds, which will come with an additional $200 million – bringing a total of roughly $380 million to the state. That will ensure the purchase of the rail line between Ann Arbor and Kalamazoo by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, and that the improvements needed to bring the track up to standards necessary for high-speed rail are made, Hieftje said. The track improvements needed for commuter rail will be part of that, he said.

Hieftje said he had told the city’s transportation program manager Eli Cooper to take up the issue of finding locations for possible sidings with Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). MDOT already owns the trains, he noted, and he’d learned on NPR that the sale of the rail from Norfolk Southern might come as early as next week. [A deal was announced on Wednesday, Oct. 5.]

From left: Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and city administrator Steve Powers.

Briere responded to the mayor by thanking him for the update. She said she was grateful he had mentioned the rolling stock, and that it was good to remind people that what they’re waiting on is the track. When the sale is completed, Briere said, the 25 mph limit on trains could be lifted, once the track is brought up to standard. Hieftje stated that Norfolk Southern has known for the last 1.5-2 years that it would be selling the track. He likened the situation to that of a homeowner who has already sold their house – you don’t spend a lot of money fixing it up.

Hieftje followed up again on the rolling stock by noting that the cars, outfitted with new seats, had received crash test certification.

From city administrator Steve Powers’ communications, one highlight involved transportation. He noted that the Oct. 10 city council work session would focus on the high-capacity connector feasibility study. [For background, see: "AATA: Transit Study, Planning Updates"]

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: ICMA Visitors

At the city planning commission’s Sept. 8 meeting, Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city, had told commissioners about some visitors from Indonesia that the city is hosting through an International City/County Management Association (ICMA) sustainability fellows program. At Monday’s council meeting, she introduced them: Olah Sajekti and Cesaria Hafstuti.

Comm/Comm: Government Consolidation

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) responded to comments by Thomas Partridge during a public hearing on annexations into Ann Arbor suggesting the consolidation of different levels of government. Derezinski said the council is not unaware of the One Kent proposal to which Partridge had alluded. [Reporting on the One Kent proposal from Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy: "Update on One Kent Local Government Consolidation Proposal"]

Derezinski said that councilmembers had talked to Grand Rapids mayor George Heartwell. The council is trying to get more regional collaboration, Derezinski said. The Grand Rapids proposal has been talked about a long time, he said– as long ago as back when he practiced law there in the 1970s.

Derezinski said that not all regional governments work, but some do. Indianapolis is a good example of one that works, he said. In the conversations about consolidation, there is a lot of emphasis on power sharing, which is a main obstacle. There are differences between Ann Arbor and Grand Rapids, he noted. But Grand Rapids is a comparable city to Ann Arbor in terms of the future of the state, he contended. “Stay tuned on that one,” Derezinski said. “There’s a lot more to come.”

Comm/Comm: Partridge

Thomas Partridge told the council that he had been a witness to history when John F. Kennedy came to Ann Arbor and proposed the Peace Corps, as well as when Lyndon Johnson had proposed the Great Society program. Partridge asked the council to remember the efforts in the 1960s to improve society, mentioning programs like Head Start. All issues are ultimately tied to the issue of civil rights, he said. He called on the council, in light of the unfinished work of the 1960s, to prioritize an agenda to address the need for affordable housing by requiring that every developer develop quality housing, not aimed at students.

At the conclusion of the council’s meeting during public commentary time, Partridge criticized bullying being perpetrated by Republican leaders in the state. He said he was disappointed that state representatives did not attend the council meeting to talk about their efforts in the legislature to stop the dishonorable bullying being carried out in the state of Michigan. Partridge said that in 2010 he had run for the senate seat now held by Rebekah Warren, but that she doesn’t appear at council meetings to convey what her stances are and what her votes are. [Warren attended part of the meeting that night in connection with the establishment of a PACE district – she played a role in enacting the state's enabling legislation.]

Comm/Comm: League of Local Government

Kermit Schlansker proposed a league of local governments that would include the city, county and state, and that could finance pilot projects that are important to the needs of the people, he said. Progress would then not be contingent on the uncertainties of national politics. As an example, he suggested a car specified as a four-passenger, hybrid car costing less than $18,000, built in the U.S. and getting 45 mpg. If the sale of 10,000 such cars were guaranteed, then the car would be built, he suggested. Schlansker went on to describe how a league of local governments could support energy farms.

Comm/Comm: Palestine

Henry Herskovitz told the council he wanted to address an issue of fairness. He drew an analogy from the local city code to international politics. He noted that Ann Arbor requires a window-unit air conditioner to be in the rear. If he wanted to install it on the side, he had to get support from his neighbors, he said. His neighbors’ opinions matter more, when it comes to his air conditioner, and that makes sense, he said. The opinion of someone who lives miles away, he said, should matter less.

Herskovitz continued by noting that in this summer’s edition of the Washtenaw Jewish News, Victor Lieberman appeals to the United Nations vote of 1947 to argue for the legitimacy of the state of Israel. The outcome of that vote, Herskovitz said, was 33-13, with 10 abstaining. Applying Ann Arbor’s doctrine of fairness, the votes from those countries that would be most impacted by creating a new state in that area should count for more. The group that was most impacted by the decision – Palestineans – had no vote whatsoever. He showed the council a map of the world.

Countries that voted no in 1947 included Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran and Yemen. Those are neighbors to Palestine, he said, and their votes should have counted more than the votes of those far away. Countries that voted yes in 1947 included the United States, Canada, Brazil, Bolivia, Norway, Australia and New Zealand. The 1947 vote didn’t represent the interests of those people who were most impacted by the decision. The unfairness of that decision, Herskovitz concluded, undermines the claim, based on the 1947 vote, to the legitimacy of the state of Israel.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, Oct. 17, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ward Boundary Changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recycling Cart Contract Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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