Julie Grand, Samuel McMullen and Bob Dascola at Ann Arbor’s Fourth of July parade.

This year’s Ward 3 contest features Julie Grand, Bob Dascola and Samuel McMullen.

Grand is a lecturer in public health policy at the University of Michigan Dearborn, and former chair of the city’s park advisory commission. She fell about 60 votes short of prevailing in last year’s primary against Stephen Kunselman.

Dascola owns a downtown barbershop. He filed a successful lawsuit to be placed on the ballot this year.

McMullen is a University of Michigan sophomore, who graduated from Rudolf Steiner High School in Ann Arbor.

The scheduled broadcast start time on CTN is at 9 p.m. today (July 8) and can be viewed as a live video stream in the embedded player below.

CTN has pre-recorded some comments from candidates in all races. [link to CTN video-on-demand for council candidate comments ]

And the League of Women Voters provides written candidate profiles with responses to questions on its Vote411.org website. [Ward 3 Vote411.org profiles]

If you’re not sure whether you’re registered to vote or you’re not sure which ward you live in, Michigan’s Secretary of State website offers an easy way to check.

If you don’t think you’ll be able to make it to the polls on Aug. 5, an application to receive an absentee ballot can be downloaded from the city clerk’s website. [.pdf of absentee ballot application form]

Completed applications can be mailed or hand delivered to the clerk’s office on the second floor of city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor, MI 48104.

The applications can also be scanned and emailed to cityclerk@a2gov.org.

Watch the Ward 3 candidate forum below.

Under the video player are two text boxes with identical content. They embed the file that The Chronicle will use to “voice write” the LWV candidate forums in real time. The top box forces the view to the bottom of the file, so that the forum can be viewed hands-free. The bottom box does not force the view to the bottom of the file.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local elections. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already voting for The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Nancy Kaplan and Kirk Westphal marches in Ann Arbor’s Fourth of July parade.

The Ward 2 city council Democratic primary forum features current chair of the city planning commission, Kirk Westphal and current trustee on the board of the Ann Arbor District Library board, Nancy Kaplan.

The Ward 2 seat does not have an incumbent this year, because Sally Petersen is running for mayor, instead of seeking re-election to another two-year term on the city council.

The scheduled broadcast start time on CTN is at 8 p.m. today (July 8) and can be viewed as a live video stream in the embedded player below.

CTN has pre-recorded some comments from candidates in all races. [link to CTN video-on-demand for council candidate comments ]

And the League of Women Voters provides written candidate profiles with responses to questions on its Vote411.org website. [Ward 2 Vote411.org profiles]

If you’re not sure whether you’re registered to vote or you’re not sure which ward you live in, Michigan’s Secretary of State website offers an easy way to check.

If you don’t think you’ll be able to make it to the polls on Aug. 5, an application to receive an absentee ballot can be downloaded from the city clerk’s website. [.pdf of absentee ballot application form] Completed applications can be mailed or hand delivered to the clerk’s office on the second floor of city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor, MI 48104. The applications can also be scanned and emailed to cityclerk@a2gov.org.

Watch the Ward 2 candidate forum below. The Ward 3 candidate forum will follow at 9 p.m.

Under the video player are two text boxes with identical content. They embed the file that The Chronicle will use to “voice write” the LWV candidate forums in real time. The top box forces the view to the bottom of the file, so that the forum can be viewed hands-free. The bottom box does not force the view to the bottom of the file.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local elections. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already voting for The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

As a candidate not affiliated with a political party (i.e., an independent candidate), he has until July 17 to collect at least 50 valid signatures from each of the city’s five wards. Kelly took the petitions out on June 3, 2014.

Kelly is the only potential candidate so far who could oppose the winner of the Aug. 5 Democratic primary, which features four sitting city councilmembers: Sabra Briere, Sally Petersen, Christopher Taylor and Stephen Kunselman. No Republicans took out nominating petitions.

Updated July 9: According to the city clerk’s office, an insufficient number of valid signatures was submitted by Kelly and he will need to submit supplemental signatures in order to qualify for the ballot.

Updated July 15: According to the city clerk’s office, as of 9 a.m. this morning, Kelly had achieved enough signatures in Wards 1, 4 and 5, but staff were still processing supplemental signatures from Wards 2 and 3.

Four quotes from four candidates for mayor in the Ann Arbor Democratic primary.

The fact that all of the primary candidates are current city councilmembers does not in my view reflect positively on Ann Arbor. In a city that prides itself for its diversity, are there really no others beyond established political personalities who’d be willing to serve the community as mayor?

Putting aside that lament, the upside is that all four candidates have been recently vetted by the local electorate. And council service can be a useful common denominator for contrasting the four candidates. Over the last few weeks, they have appeared at several forums, fielding questions in a variety of formats. And the candidates have attempted to contrast themselves with each other. But on occasion that contrast has been hard to hear – because it has been oblique or offered quickly in passing.

The Chronicle has broadcast live audio from three candidate events, hosted by the Ann Arbor Democratic Party, Literati Bookstore and the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber. We wanted to provide that service, because those events would otherwise have been inaccessible – except for those physically present. And even those who were physically present might want to check their recollections against the actual audio recordings.

During these forums, it has been interesting for me to listen to the range of ways that candidates have tried to distinguish themselves from the others. I think in some cases those attempts have not been necessarily conscious and deliberate. And in some cases those attempts rely on lumping other candidates together.

Based on these candidate forums, here’s how I see the most salient aspects of the mayoral campaign strategies – listed in the order that candidates announced their intention to run.

Stephen Kunselman is asking voters to cast their ballots for him the person: A vote for Kunselman is a vote for integrity and dignity, and for someone who was born and raised here.

Christopher Taylor is inviting voters to identify him with the city of Ann Arbor itself in broad terms: If you think Ann Arbor is basically a great place, on the right track, and you’d like it to stay on track, then vote for Taylor.

Sabra Briere is asking voters to notice that she has accurate knowledge of the issues: If you want a mayor who is willing to work down in the weeds on policy questions, and get something done based on analysis of those policy questions, vote for Briere.

Sally Petersen has absolutely pounded the theme of economic development in her campaign messaging: If you want a mayor who will develop a strategy to pay for all the things people say they want, and won’t get distracted from that plan by factional squabbles on the council, vote for Petersen.

Those summaries are a bit one-dimensional. And I’m sure that the candidates themselves would argue that there is much more to their campaigns than that. And there is, of course. But I’d like to share in a bit more detail how I arrived at those summaries.

Kunselman: A Person to Vote For

At the Ann Arbor Democratic Party forum, Kunselman made an overt effort to contrast himself with the other candidates – by contending that he was the only one of the four who was not looking for votes from supporters of outgoing mayor John Hieftje. That was the choice being offered to voters, he contended. That choice is somewhat supported by the fact that Kunselman is endorsed by four other councilmembers who might be fairly characterized as Hieftje’s political opponents: Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Stephen Kunselman at the Literati Bookstore mayoral forum on June 25.

But that was not the contrast that was most evident throughout that particular forum: Kunselman was the one candidate among the four who shared specific details about his personal self with the audience – not just during his opening and closing statements, but sprinkled throughout his remarks. From that forum you knew that Kunselman was married – to Letitia, who he called “the dynamo behind my politics here in Ann Arbor. Without her, I would not have the courage to stand before all of you.”

You learned that Kunselman has a stepson – who had flatted out on his bicycle twice recently on Ann Arbor’s roads. You learned that Kunselman grew up in Ann Arbor, attending Pittsfield Elementary, and that his grandparents were founding members of St. Francis Catholic Church. You learned that he was raised by a single mother, and that they lived adjacent to the Library Lot for a time.

Kunselman also managed to work in the fact that he still holds a certified water distribution system operator license from the state of Michigan – from his days as township planner and supervisor in Sumpter Township.

From the Dems forum alone, attendees could not have learned much of anything about the other candidates’ personal backgrounds: Are they married? Do they have kids? Where in the city do they live? Briere did quip, “I don’t know that man,” when her husband Dave Cahill rose to speak and cheerfully admonished those audience members standing in the back to “sit down…and shut up.” But to get the joke you had to know already that Briere and Cahill are a couple.

At the Dems forum, Kunselman identified himself in his closing statement as a common-sense, fiscally responsible Democrat, who lives in a low- to moderate-income neighborhood, not an upscale neighborhood – a precinct where there’s a mobile home park. The attempted contrast was apparently to neighborhoods where Petersen and Taylor live, which feature median home values of something like $370,000 and $440,000, respectively. Even though it was Petersen and Taylor who were probably being lumped together, it was Briere who was stirred to respond. In her closing statement, she said she wouldn’t talk about her economic status, but anyone who’s been to her house knows she’s not living in a posh neighborhood. “The idea that we play against each other that way strikes me as absurd, because we’re not here to work for ourselves and we’re not here for any other reason except to represent you,” Briere said.

Kunselman also highlighted his personal self at the Literati Bookstore forum. At the Literati forum you learned that Kunselman worked as a roadie in the past. From that forum, you also learned that he grew up in Ann Arbor and had an acquaintance with a police officer: “And I remember the beat cops. I remember Officer Blake. We got to know them as teenagers. … I won’t tell you why! From that experience, as a teenage rebel growing up in Ann Arbor, I have great admiration for the police force as an adult. Because I understand the difficulties that they have to deal with, I understand the clientele they have to deal with, and I think that’s the number one issue.”

Briere played off Kunselman’s vignette a bit later at the Literati forum and got a laugh line out of it: “I remember beat cops too, although I was not a troubled teenager. I wasn’t a rebellious teenager, either!” If it was not clear from that follow-up that Briere was in some sense chiding Kunselman for talking too much about himself, then it was possibly more apparent later on when she gave her closing statement: “I didn’t talk a lot about myself, I talked a lot about what I think and what I believe and what I have done. … That’s what I bring to this – a skill set …”

It’s not as if Kunselman talked only about his person at the Literati forum. He did talk about things he’s done – like his vote against the original A2D2 zoning for downtown. That vote was taken in late 2009, so it served to contrast him with Briere and Taylor, but not with Petersen, who was not a member of the council at the time. And at the Dems forum, Kunselman contrasted himself with Taylor by talking about something he would not do: He doesn’t work on something then plop it on the council table – after the city attorney’s office has been told not to communicate it to other councilmembers.

That was an allusion to the approach that Taylor reportedly took to his development of a charter millage question on public art, which the council put on the November 2012 ballot. Voters rejected it. Responding to a Chronicle query about whether he’d asked assistant city attorney Abigail Elias not to talk about the millage question before he unveiled it, Taylor at the time refused to answer the question, but stated: “It strikes me, therefore, that the attorney who declines to speak with one council member about legal advice given to another council member does so in the public interest.”

But at the chamber forum, Kunselman seemed to take a cue from Briere – by talking more about what he has done and was doing on the council. On balance, Kunselman’s prepared remarks at the chamber forum highlighted more of those things he considered to be his accomplishments on the city council than his personal background. Those included: leading the effort to amend the ordinance regulating the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority tax capture; opposing the countywide transportation initiative in favor of a more limited expansion like the one that was eventually ratified; eliminating the city’s Percent for Art funding mechanism; advocating for the sale of the former Y lot, which led to its sale; and advocating for preserving Argo Dam and for building a new skatepark – both of which were successful.

And a question from Sean Duval – founder and CEO of Golden Limousine International and chair of the chamber’s executive board – allowed Kunselman to talk about some of his council work that he’d done that very morning, as a representative to the taxicab board. Duval’s question was about Uber and Lyft, which have entered the Ann Arbor market – so Duval wanted to know what Kunselman would do as mayor to regulate those companies. Kunselman told Duval that the taxicab board was already addressing the issue – by considering a recommendation on a draft ordinance that would require all drivers for hire – including those for Uber and Lyft – to be registered with the city.

But the chamber’s forum also showed that in impromptu settings, Kunselman is among the candidates probably the most inclined to share anecdotal vignettes about his personal background. After his prepared remarks, responding to a question about the condition of local roads, Kunselman included his skateboarding as a youth in his answer: “I’ve been the most consistent councilmember, the most consistent politician focusing on those things because of my work history, and because of the community that I grew up in. I remember when our roads were in great shape, because I was a skateboarder and didn’t have to worry about any potholes.”

Taylor: Embodiment of the City of Ann Arbor

Taylor has identified himself in the role of the city of Ann Arbor itself in a few different ways. At the Ann Arbor Democratic Party forum, he led off in his opening statement like this:

I sorta think that … we’re goin’ in the right direction. You know, we’re far from perfect. It’s not Elysium, it’s Ann Arbor, we live in Michigan. But I think we’re doin’ the right things for the most part. We have improvements, but we can be confident that we’re doin’ all right. If I’m elected mayor I’d like to work on two piles of things, broadly speaking. Number one is all the basic stuff ….

The first way Taylor identifies himself with the city is to stress that our current direction is basically right and should not change much. The sentiment of “We’re doin’ all right” was one he also highlighted at the chamber forum. So Taylor is not a candidate who perceives a need for radical reform or change from the current course. This is a well-known and established successful campaign strategy in American politics. Taylor has essentially invited voters who look around the city and ask themselves if they are content and comfortable with what they see, and then vote for the candidate they think is most likely to continue the existing quality of life they enjoy. Taylor has made an explicit effort to make voters think of him in that context.

Christopher Taylor at the Literati Bookstore mayoral forum on June 25.

A second way Taylor has identified himself with the city of Ann Arbor is to highlight the role of the mayor as the city’s external representative. Just by way of background, the mayor, of course, represents the interests of all city residents in the context of our internal local governance. That’s the mayor’s role as a member of the city council. The mayor is, in some sense, merely an at-large city councilmember with only a few extra powers – most notably to preside at council meetings, to nominate members of boards and commissions, and to veto legislation. Somewhat remarkably, at the Dems forum, not one of the four candidates mentioned the power to nominate members of boards and commissions when asked to name a key distinction between a councilmember and the mayor. The mayor is also described in the city charter as being the “ceremonial head” of the city.

So, when asked at the Dems forum how the roles of mayor and councilmember are different, the point that Taylor highlighted was the role of ceremonial head. Specifically, he highlighted the mayor’s role in representing the city to third parties – like the state, the county, and the university. He called this role the “head of state” or “secretary of state” for the city.

And at the chamber’s forum, Taylor misspoke in a way that I think is, if not revealing, then at least interesting in this context. He began by saying he was running for the city of Ann Arbor – then realized he’d misspoken, and joked that he knows the chief executive embodies the city, adding “but I think that’s getting a little grand.”

So Taylor is inviting voters to weigh the question of which candidate would seem more mayoral in a context where the person is supposed to be the embodiment of the city. That plays to Taylor’s advantage, because Taylor is the candidate I think more voters would cast in the role of mayor in a movie, compared to the other three. He simply looks the part. That’s not just because he’s always well-mannered and neatly pressed, but because he is significantly taller. There’s at least some research to suggest that taller candidates win elections more often than shorter candidates. Taylor’s exact height (6′-6″) is a fact about himself that he volunteered at the chamber forum – as a time filler, waiting for someone to ask a question. He also managed to work his height measurement into his remarks delivered at the recent grand opening of the new skatepark.

Taylor has implicitly invited voters to identify himself with the city – not just as an abstract institution, but also as a kind of synthesized amalgam of the entire populace of the city. His speech patterns at recent forums have often been those of an everyman, alloyed with an aspiration to erudition – even if that alloy is not always perfectly forged. The opening passage above is a typical example. Taylor drops his g’s like a regular guy – unlike a former law review editor, and unlike the councilmember most likely to sprinkle his speech with gratuitous Latin phrases or technical vocabulary. Then, Taylor tosses in a reference to Elysium – a somewhat jarring juxtaposition, to my ear at least – but nevertheless more consistent with the persona he’s cultivated over the past six years of his city council service.

As the city’s head of state, speaking to different groups who might have different expectations or backgrounds can require some adjustment in presentation, even at the level of word choice. And Taylor has demonstrated during the campaign that he is capable of adjusting his lexical choices to suit an audience. For the general audience of the Dems Taylor offered [emphasis added], “If I’m elected mayor I’d like to work on two piles of things,” and to the general audience at Literati Bookstore, ”If I’m your mayor I’m gonna work on two big piles of things.” But for the members of the chamber – a possibly somewhat more buttoned-down crowd – Taylor was slightly more refined: “If I’m elected mayor, I’d like to work on two big sets of things.”

The two sets of things that Taylor wants to work on are (1) basic infrastructure and services, and (2) those things that make Ann Arbor more than just a basic city. This second set of things – consistently recited by Taylor at forums – has included affordable housing, parks, mitigation of climate change and mass transit. While voters will likely differ slightly on various details for policy implementation in those topic areas, these are all topics that resonate strongly in the community. More than 70% of voters supported the recent transit millage earlier this year. And on the National Citizen Survey conducted in Ann Arbor last year, 50% of those surveyed rated Ann Arbor’s parks as “excellent” – top of the scale. Another 40% gave parks a “good” rating for a total of 90% rating Ann Arbor’s parks as good or excellent.

So Taylor is linking his candidacy not just to a general contentedness with quality of life in Ann Arbor. It’s linked to specific areas in which many residents take pride.

Briere: Action Based on Sound Policy Knowledge

Candidates at the Literati Bookstore forum were asked to comment on how they saw the downtown and Ann Arbor in general five years from now. Briere pivoted away from the five-year time frame by focusing on the much longer-term, which depends on sound basic policies:

I don’t really like speaking in five-year increments. I know a lot of plans do that but the truth is we should really be talking about 40 years. We should be talking about 40 years, because the changes we make today are still going to be with us in 40 years.

And Briere highlighted longer-term planning in her remarks at the chamber’s forum, saying that more than just two-year or five-year planning is necessary, because just doing a street project can take five years of planning. It doesn’t make sense to talk about how much difference one person is going to make in a two-year term, she said, because it can take two years to get an ordinance passed – from the time that you think about it, until it’s approved by city council and implemented. That doesn’t even factor in evaluating it to see if it’s been done correctly, she noted.

Sabra Briere at the Literati Bookstore mayoral forum on June 25.

Beyond a focus on the longer-term effects of policy choices, Briere seems to have made a conscious attempt to convey her mastery of factually accurate detail, related to specific policy areas.

The Literati forum provided an opportunity for candidates to talk about public safety. With respect to public safety and police staffing levels, Briere’s embrace of factual detail took the form of an allusion to technology that the police department has implemented – which automates the measurement of how officers are spending their time. ”For the past year the city police chief has been looking at what the police do. And looking at what the police do, he’s discovered that he had a lot of slack time that he could reassign. He reassigned police to traffic enforcement, he reassigned people to walking downtown. This process of looking at our expectations and how well we can meet them is a much more effective way to convince me how many more police we need and what we need them to do.”

Action based on knowledge of policy was evident at the Literati forum, when Briere said that she would, no matter what the outcome of the election, work to incorporate into the zoning regulations requirements for protected pedestrian walkways during downtown construction. At the Dems forum, Briere conveyed her command of factual detail related to zoning policy considerations by outlining the way development incentives work in the downtown, describing the by-right 400% floor-area-ratio (FAR), and how building residential units (as opposed, say, to office units) can result in an additional 300% premium, for a total of 700% FAR.

That sort of wonky command of zoning regulations is in Briere’s wheelhouse – as the city council’s representative to the planning commission. Taylor, at the Literati forum, expressed his view of the problem with residential premiums, by saying that the residential premium tended to encourage 6-bedroom units, which were marketed primarily to students.

But Briere subsequently countered Taylor’s characterization with some factual detail: “Almost all of the buildings that have been built under D-1 zoning, the modern zoning, don’t have six bedroom units. They have one-, two- and three-bedroom units. I think that’s important to keep in mind, because honestly the people who can afford to live in those buildings don’t want to live with five other students. The other thing to keep in mind is that not everybody who lives in those buildings is a student. There are a lot of people who live in those buildings who work downtown. It always surprises me, but it is just true.”

The way Briere concluded that statement – “… it is just true …” – is another way of saying, “What I’m telling you is factually accurate.” Another variant Briere sometimes uses to convey the same idea is to introduce a statement with: “The truth is …”

And Briere will sometimes correct factual errors made by other candidates – which might come across as pedantic to some listeners, especially when the point seems to be minor or inconsequential. But in the case of such a correction made by Briere at the Literati forum, the end result was, I think, an amplification of part of Briere’s implicit message – that she knows what she’s talking about because she works hard at it.

The factual point in question was a passing comment from Petersen to the effect that all four mayoral candidates had served on a joint committee of councilmembers and DDA board members. Briere interjected that she had not served on that committee. Petersen gracefully walked back that minor factual mistake like this: “You attended the meetings, it felt like you were there. Thank you for attending.” Petersen had made Briere’s point for her: Briere puts in the time and the effort to keep informed – showing up when she’s not required to. And that supports Briere’s campaign theme of having mastered the material, because she’s put in the necessary homework.

A question about city income tax was posed at the chamber forum, which is a topic that has not been an active part of community debate for at least three years. But Briere gave a decent general summary of some of the issues at stake, including the fact that in Ann Arbor, the charter prevents adding a city income tax layered on top of the existing operating millage. That is, we could levy a city income tax or a general operating millage, but not both. More telling than the basic competence of the answer was, I think, the way Briere responded initially to the person who asked the question, local attorney Scott Munzel. As he was introducing the topic, Briere said: “Oh, really, Scott – are you going to bring that up?” That quip had about the same effect as if she’d said, “I know this topic cold, folks, so if you want to ask about the city income tax, well, take your best shot.”

So one of Briere’s basic themes is that she has a factually accurate mastery of policy issues. Put crassly, that could translate as: “I have studied things, and I am right about things.” At the Literati forum, that theme was both highlighted (by way of contrast) and hedged with some humility by Briere’s mention of a book, “Being Wrong.” That mention came as candidates were asked to talk about what book they were reading currently: “And you may think ["Being Wrong"] is an odd thing for somebody to read. But first it is a fast read, second it is a comprehensive read, and third, it reminds us that we all make decisions based on just inadequate information from time to time. And as we talk about being wrong we also talk about how to be right. But how to admit you made a mistake is a really important part of my life. And it’s a really important part of city government.”

Petersen: A Way to Pay

Anyone who has listened to the mayoral forums and has not heard a main theme of Petersen’s campaign as “economic development” has not been listening very closely.

Sally Petersen at the June 25 Literati Bookstore mayoral forum.

During the Literati forum, the word “economic” was uttered 12 times total. Of those 12 mentions of the word “economic,” Petersen accounted for 11 of them. The other one came from the moderator. So it’s not just that Petersen talked explicitly and often about local economic development at that forum – it’s that other candidates seem content to allow Petersen complete ownership of the topic.

That can’t be chalked up an unwillingness to step on each other’s toes. Candidates are not in general squeamish about adopting each other’s talking points when the situation demands it. For example, at the Literati forum, Taylor stated: “We will have a new mayor, we will have a new university president, we have a school district that is, candidly, in trouble …” Those who listened to the Ann Arbor Democratic Party forum will have heard Petersen say something similar: “They’re [University of Michigan] going to have a new president. We’re going to have a new mayor. It’s time for a new attitude to really balance the town-gown relationship.” Just barely on mic, Petersen’s reaction to Taylor’s remarks at Literati was this: “Where have we heard that before?”

On that occasion, Taylor had brought up the university’s change of leadership in response to a question about the city’s possible role in the K-12 public schools. But as part of Petersen’s campaign, the university fits into the priority that she’s placing on economic development. And in that context, Petersen does not want to dwell on the fact that the University of Michigan does not pay property taxes.

So a key part of her economic development strategy is better cooperation between the city and the university – through regular conversations at the top levels of leadership.  In her formal response to Taylor’s comments at the Literati forum, she stated: “And I will finish Christopher’s statement that, yes, the university will have a new president and the city will have a new mayor, and it’s time for a new town-gown relationship. The city and the university don’t have a strategic dialogue on a regular basis at the top, and this needs to happen. The city for too long has been resentful, not just the city government, but there are plenty of residents who are resentful towards the university for not paying property tax, and we need to get over that.”

The first part of Petersen’s economic development strategy, as articulated at the Dems forum, is to grow jobs in Ann Arbor. An economic outlook report for Washtenaw County states that 12,500 jobs are coming to the county in the next three years: “I want those jobs to come to Ann Arbor – but where are we going to put them?” Her economic strategy would include a plan to redevelop the downtown and business corridors in ways that preserve the community’s character and heritage. The point of Petersen’s emphasis on economic development is to make sure there is sufficient revenue to the city to pay for those things that are priorities: better roads, more beat cops downtown, and safer mobility for motorists, pedestrians, cyclists and runners.

Petersen is able to pivot from pretty much any topic to the general question of economic development strategy and increased revenue. At the chamber forum, responding to a question about road repair, Petersen acknowledged that roads are one of the key pieces of infrastructure that the city needs to improve. The city has a revenue problem, she said, and without an economic strategy, “I don’t know how we’re going to solve that revenue problem.”

Petersen helped establish economic health as a council priority at the council’s December 2012 retreat. And she’s made into a campaign resume point an economic collaborative task force she led the council to create. At the chamber’s forum, she gave some detail about the work of that task force, describing it as taking inventory of several economic development activities. Gaps were identified, she said. While the DDA focuses on downtown Ann Arbor and SPARK’s focus is countywide, no entity is solely focused on economic development throughout the city, outside of the downtown. For example, she noted, the city recognizes the need to encourage redevelopment of areas like the North Main corridor and South State Street, which are major gateways to the downtown. The task force recommended continuing its work after a new mayor is elected, with additional stakeholders including UM, Washtenaw County, and potentially the chamber of commerce. [.pdf of economic collaborative task force report]

Also at the chamber’s forum, she more narrowly focused a strategy she’d used at the Dems forum to address a possible perception about a lack of experience on the city council. [Petersen's nearly two years of service is at least four years less than other candidates' time on the council.] At the Dems forum, she invited attendees to focus not on her shorter experience on the council, but rather on her full scope of experience: She’s lived in Ann Arbor 18 years, and has held leadership positions in the private sector, the nonprofit sector, and now the public sector. But at the chamber forum, she highlighted the parts of her background related more to economic development, like her private sector experience and her business degree. Petersen noted that she’s the only candidate with an MBA. She also cited her work in senior-level positions at CFI Group, ABN AMRO Mortgage Group and HealthMedia.

Another part of Petersen’s campaign message is that she’s not a part of  factional politics on the city council. At the Dems forum she characterized  the council’s factions not in terms of  personal politics, but rather in terms of pro-neighborhood versus pro-downtown. She described herself as aligned with neither of those factions. Separate from those remarks, she also noted that she’d been elected to the council as a “supposed outsider” – which helps support her contention that she’s not a part of a council faction.

Coda

It’s worth repeating an observation from the beginning of this column: No doubt the candidates and their supporters would argue that there’s much more to their campaigns than those aspects of their remarks that I’ve highlighted here.

I’d encourage you to listen for yourselves – either to the audio recordings that The Chronicle has provided of the Ann Arbor Democratic Party, Literati Bookstore and the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber forums, or to upcoming forums or city council meetings. Three forums will take place in the coming weeks:

• Wednesday, July 9, 8 p.m.  The League of Women Voters of the Ann Arbor Area is hosting a weeklong series of candidate debates. Space for a limited live audience is available at the Community Television Network studios at 2805 South Industrial Highway. The forums will be broadcast on CTN Channel 19, which is also streamed live over the Internet.
• Tuesday, July 15, 7 p.m. A group of faith organizations is hosting a forum on homelessness at the St. Clare of Assisi Episcopal Church and Temple Beth Emeth, co-located at 2309 Packard Road.
• Saturday, July 19, 1-5 p.m. Hosted by the Ann Arbor Ypsilanti Black Chamber of Commerce, this event will provide a 3-minute opportunity for candidates running in mayoral, city council, and judicial races. This event will be held in the Morris Lawrence Building at Washtenaw Community College.

The next city council meeting takes places on Monday, July 7 starting at 7 p.m. You can watch it in person at city hall, 301 E. Huron, as broadcast on Channel 16, or streamed online by Community Television Network.

You might hear things differently than I do.

But because the outcome of the Aug. 5 Democratic primary will almost certainly determine the next mayor of Ann Arbor, now’s a good time to start listening.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local government. We listen to every word, so that you don’t have to. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

• Saturday, June 14, 10 a.m. The Ann Arbor Democratic Party will host a mayoral candidate forum at the Ann Arbor Community Center, 625 North Main St. Refreshments and mingling with the candidates starts at 9:30 a.m.
• Wednesday, June 25, 7:30 p.m. Literati Bookstore will host a mayoral candidate forum at their store located at 124 East Washington St. Questions will focus on how the next mayor of Ann Arbor can support local business owners.
• Thursday, June 26, 4:30 p.m. The Ann Arbor / Ypsilanti Regional Chamber of Commerce will host a mayoral forum at the Regent Hotel, 2455 Carpenter Road.
• Wednesday, July 9, 8 p.m.  The League of Women Voters of the Ann Arbor Area is hosting a weeklong series of candidate debates. Space for a limited live audience is available at the Community Television Network studios at 2805 South Industrial Highway. The forums will be broadcast on CTN Channel 19, which is also streamed live over the Internet.
• Tuesday, July 15, 7 p.m. A group of faith organizations is hosting a forum on homelessness at the St. Clare of Assisi Episcopal Church and Temple Beth Emeth, co-located at 2309 Packard Road.
• Saturday, July 19, 1-5 p.m. Hosted by the Ann Arbor Ypsilanti Black Chamber of Commerce, this event will provide a 3-minute opportunity for candidates running in mayoral, city council, and judicial races. This event will be held in the Morris Lawrence Building at Washtenaw Community College.

Petersen currently serves on the Ann Arbor city council, as do the other three mayoral candidates in the Democratic primary: Sabra Briere, Christopher Taylor and Stephen Kunselman. No Republican is running for mayor this year. One independent candidate, Bryan Kelly, has taken out petitions.

The city’s offices closed today at noon for the holiday weekend.

Here’s a quick status report as of noon April 18 on who’s taken out petitions, who’s filed signatures, and whether they’ve been verified by the city clerk’s staff. All candidates who have taken out petitions and are eligible are Democrats.

Mayor

• Sabra Briere: petitions filed
• Sally Petersen: petitions filed
• Christopher Taylor: petitions filed
• Stephen Kunselman: petitions filed and verified

Ward 1

• Don Adams: petitions filed
• Sumi Kailasapathy (incumbent): petitions filed and verified
• Eric Sturgis: took out petitions but has indicated to clerk staff he will not be filing
• Bryan Kelly: took out petitions as a candidate with no party affiliation on April 18, but according the city clerk, he does not meet the one-year durational residency and voter registration requirements in the city charter. He moved from Ward 4 to Ward 1 on Nov. 19, 2013.

Ward 2

• Nancy Kaplan: petitions filed and verified
• Kirk Westphal: petitions not yet filed

Ward 3

• Bob Dascola: petitions filed and verified, but a lawsuit is pending to determine eligibility in light of one-year durational residency and voter registration requirements in the city charter.
• Julie Grand: petitions filed and verified
• Samuel McMullen: petitions filed

Ward 4

• Graydon Krapohl: petitions filed and verified

Ward 5

• Leon Bryson: petitions filed and verified
• Chuck Warpehoski (incumbent): petitions not yet filed

Updated April 21, 2014 5:30 p.m.: Signatures have now been filed for all eligible candidates who intended to file. Clerk’s staff have also verified all signatures except for those of Chuck Warpehoski, which are still in process, and Samuel McMullen, who fell eight signatures short. McMullen has been notified of the shortfall, and he’ll have until tomorrow to hand them in.  

A lawsuit has been filed in the 22nd Circuit Court challenging the constitutionality of the city of Ann Arbor’s footing drain disconnection program. (Illustration by The Chronicle.)

The ordinance was enacted in 2001. It establishes a program under which property owners can be required to disconnect their footing drains from the sanitary sewer system. Its intent is to diminish the risk of sanitary overflows into the Huron River and of sanitary sewage backups in homeowners’ basements.

In connection with that lawsuit, a motion for a preliminary injunction has also been filed, asking that the court order the city immediately to stop enforcement of its ordinance.

[FDDP-Complaint-Feb.27.2014-OCR] [FDDP-Motion-Feb.27.2014-OCR]

In September 2012, the Ann Arbor city council already took action partially to suspend the FDD program. That council decision of nearly 18 months ago came not in response to a formal legal action, but rather coincided with complaints from residents in the southeastern part of the city.

Then about a year ago, in February 2013, the city authorized a contract with an engineering firm to undertake a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation (SSWWE) – in part to determine the impact of the FDD program to date. At a public meeting on the SSWWE held two weeks ago, on Feb. 6, 2014, the future status of the FDD program was portrayed as dubious: Even if the SSWWE study eventually identified an ongoing risk of sewage backups in Ann Arbor basements, the FDD would probably not continue “as is.”

The lawsuit claims the city’s FDD ordinance violates: (1) the Michigan state law setting forth the requirements for a government to take private property for public use; (2) the Michigan state constitutional prohibition against taking private property for public use without just compensation; (3) the corresponding U.S. constitutional prohibition against taking private property, which is a Fifth Amendment claim; and (4) the prohibition against violating the federally protected rights of others, which is a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

The lawsuit asks that the court declare the FDD ordinance is “unconstitutional, on its face and as implemented.”

Plaintiffs in the case are Ann Arbor residents John Boyer, Mary Jean Raab and Anita Yu. They are represented by attorneys Dan O’Brien, who’s chair of the litigation department at Woods Oviatt Gilman in Rochester, New York; Irvin Mermelstein, a local Ann Arbor attorney in private practice; and Mark Koroi, a Plymouth attorney.

Background leading up to the filing, as well as a description of the filing, has been tracked on a2underwater.com. Mermelstein is the resident agent for a2underwater, LLC.

The lawsuit was filed on Feb. 27, 2014. It has been assigned to judge Donald Shelton.

Some of the legal theories on which the lawsuit is based have already surfaced in correspondence that’s become public. And some aspects of the city’s potential defense against a lawsuit may have already been described publicly by assistant city attorney Abigail Elias. That description came at a recent meeting of a citizens advisory committee that is supposed to make a recommendation sometime in the summer of 2014 on the future of the FDD program. For additional background on the topic of the footing drain disconnection program, see Chronicle coverage: “Backups: Lawyers, Sewers, Pumps.”

Physical Taking: Whose Pump Occupies the Space?

One aspect of the unconstitutional takings legal theory, in broad strokes, is that the city is occupying space in a homeowner’s basement – without compensation or due process for such an occupation. The theory is based in part on the Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. et al U.S. Supreme Court case, which found that a required installation of cable wiring amounted to an unconstitutional taking. In the case of Ann Arbor’s footing drain disconnection program, it’s the installation of a sump and a pump that allegedly amounts to an illegal physical occupation.

From the complaint:

The mandatory disconnection of the Plaintiff’s footing drains and the forced installation of sump pumps and related equipment constituted a physical intrusion by the City, or others acting on its behalf or in its stead, resulting in a permanent physical occupation of the Plaintiffs’ property and a significant interference with the Plaintiffs’ use of their property.

Where does a sump and a pump fit into the requirement that footing drains be disconnected from the sanitary sewer? Before a disconnection, rain water flowed away from the foundation of a house through forces of gravity into the sanitary sewer. So after disconnection, that water needs to be managed. It’s managed by installing a sump, where the water collects. A pump then lifts the water up and out to the surface, where it can eventually flow into the stormwater pipes – which are designed to handled that kind of flow. The animation below illustrates the contrast between a pre-FDD and a post-FDD configuration. To see something close to a full-screen version of the animation, use this [link].

Figure 3. Animation of contrast between the pre-FDD configuration and the post-FDD configuration. (Original illustration from screenshots of YouTube video by Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, modified by The Chronicle.)

The physical occupation of a homeowner’s basement through a sump and a pump is a theory on which assistant city attorney Abigail Elias has already commented publicly. She made the comments on Jan. 9, 2014 to a citizens advisory committee that formed in connection with the city’s sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation (SSWWE). On Jan. 9 Elias essentially reviewed the content of her Nov. 25, 2013 memo for the committee, which came in part in response to an email sent by attorney Irvin Mermelstein on Oct. 29, 2013 to the consultant hired by the city to facilitate the committee’s work.

Elias explained the notion of “taking” by telling the committee that under the U.S. Constitution, a government cannot take private property without compensation. Elias told the committee: “If I condemn your land because I need to run a street through it, I have to pay you for that land.”

The requirement that someone be paid for their land is reflected in the causes of action listed in the Feb. 27 complaint. Payment is one required component of Michigan law (MCL Section 213.23) for taking someone’s property. But the law also includes an additional requirement that it be for a public use. The proposed use of the property must, by statute, be fairly deemed a governmental activity by one or more of the following standards:

(a) A public necessity of the extreme sort exists that requires collective action to acquire property for instrumentalities of commerce, including a public utility or a state or federally regulated common carrier, whose very existence depends on the use of property that can be assembled only through the coordination that central government alone is capable of achieving.

(b) The property or use of the property will remain subject to public oversight and accountability after the transfer of the property and will be devoted to the use of the public, independent from the will of the private entity to which the property is transferred.

(c) The property is selected on facts of independent public significance or concern, including blight, rather than the private interests of the entity to which the property is eventually transferred.

The complaint alleges that the city of Ann Arbor would have failed to meet that requirement. From the complaint:

Alternatively, if the City had attempted to comply with the requirements of MCL Section 213.23, it would have failed in its burden of proving that the taking was necessary in accordance with Section 213.23 (2) because no public necessity of an extreme sort existed, the property taken will not remain subject to public oversight and the property was not selected on facts of independent public significance or concern, including blight.

The complaint cites the statutory requirement on takings that transfer the property to a private entity. By implication, the legal theory on which the lawsuit is based includes the possibility that the sump pump, after it is installed in someone’s home, is not owned by the homeowner, but rather a private party, presumably the plumbing contractor. The ownership question arose at the Jan. 9 meeting of the citizens advisory committee.

At the Jan. 9 meeting, Elias began her explication of the legal framework for the city’s footing drain disconnection (FDD) program by saying that the situation is “very, very different” from the Loretto case. According to Elias, a key difference is this: Who owns the pump? Her answer: The homeowner.

Elias explained that in the Loretto case, a couple of inches on the side of a building for installing cable wiring was, in fact, considered a taking. That was because New York City had required building owners to allow the local cable provider to attach its antennas to the building so that the tenants could get service – whether the landlord wanted it or not. According to Elias, in the Loretto case the court said that the requirement of allowing installation of cable equipment might be for a public purpose, but it involved a third party occupying space with its equipment – and that’s not allowed because that’s a taking.

In the Loretto case, the cable company – not the landlord – still owned the equipment. If you consider the sump pumps in the city’s FDD program, they are owned by the homeowner, Elias contended. The sump pumps are not a part of the city’s utility system, she contended – as the pumps become part of the property owner’s house. The fact that the Loretto case was a physical occupation by a third party was what made the difference – tipping Loretto over the edge to being analyzed as a prohibited taking.

Responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle about the ownership of the pumps, Elias wrote that the homeowner becomes the owner of the pump at the point when it’s installed and the work is accepted by the homeowner:

Question: It was reiterated at the Jan. 9 meeting that a key difference between the city’s FDD program and the set of facts in the Loretto case involves the ownership of the installed equipment. From a legal perspective at what specific point in the transaction does the Ann Arbor homeowner become the owner of the FDD equipment?

Elias: The property owner owns the sump pump and lead lines as soon as they are installed and the property owner accepts the work done by the plumbing contractor with whom the property owner contracted to do the work. Except as inventory for the plumbing contractor, they are never owned by anyone else.

Retro Compliance: Health, Safety, Welfare

While connections between footing drains and the sanitary sewer system do not currently comply with the existing code, at one time they did. Until around 1980, footing-drain-to-sanitary-sewer connections were legal to make. They were also (and still would be) convenient to make, because the footing drains and the sanitary sewers are typically buried at roughly the same depth. That means gravity can be used to lead stormwater away from a building foundation by connecting footing drains into the sanitary system. Storm sewer pipes are typically not as deep, so gravity works against moving water from footing drains into the stormwater system.

At the start of the FDD program, the city identified roughly 16,000 houses in Ann Arbor that had such connections. But how is it that a requirement can be imposed retroactively to bring a building up to current code? That question is raised in the complaint that’s been filed with the 22nd Circuit Court:

Because the Plaintiffs’ homes were constructed in conformity with the then applicable building code and other relevant standards and the Plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-title received Certificates of Occupancy and/or other necessary approvals from the City, the Plaintiffs acquired vested rights to the footing drains and related storm water and sanitary sewer facilities related thereto.

One tack the city’s defense against the lawsuit might take is to cite a 2002 amendment to Michigan’s Home Rule City Act, which came a year after the city’s FFD ordinance passed. At the Jan. 9 meeting, Elias pointed out the amendment, which says you can require property owners to separate footing drains from the sanitary sewer. From the amended statute:

117.5j Sewer separation; authorization; ordinance; special assessment.
Sec. 5j. A city, in order to protect the public health, may adopt an ordinance to provide for the separation of storm water drainage and footing drains from sanitary sewers on privately owned property. The legislative body of a city may determine that the sewer separation authorized by this section is for a public purpose and is a public improvement and may also determine that the whole or any part of the expense of these public improvements may be defrayed by special assessment upon lands benefited by the public improvement or by any other lawful charge. A special assessment authorized by this section shall be considered to benefit only lands where the separation of storm water drainage and footing drains from sanitary sewers occurs.

Elias pointed out that the amended statute also says a city can impose a charge on those who benefit, and can even impose the cost only on the homeowners who benefit from the separation. About the city’s FDD program, Elias said: “So we could make the homeowners pay.” But she said the policymakers in Ann Arbor didn’t think that making property owners pay was the right way to do it, and the policymakers’ choice was to fund the program.

At the Jan. 9 meeting, Elias also said the courts distinguish exercising police powers – which are for health, safety and welfare of the community and its residents – from takings by a third party by occupying somebody’s property. The health, safety and welfare argument is based at least in part on the risk of sanitary sewer overflows into the Huron River, which can be caused by excess flows in the sanitary system during wet weather.

That concern – based on actual overflows – led in 2003 to the city’s signing of a consent order with the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality. That included a requirement that the city perform at least 155 footing drain disconnections a year for four years, for a total of 620. The 620 required disconnections were to be done in addition to 179 disconnections that had already been completed by the city by the time the consent order was signed. Those 179 disconnections were based on the 2001 FDD ordinance. The city has completed more than 1,800 disconnections under its program, nearly three times the number required under the consent order.

At the Jan. 9 meeting, Elias told the citizens advisory committee that when courts have looked at retroactive application of building codes, they look at a couple of issues: (1) Is there a public safety, health and welfare reason for doing it? and (2) Is it an overwhelming or undue burden on the property owner?

Regarding the first test mentioned by Elias, the complaint denies there’s a public safety, health and welfare reason for doing it. From the complaint:

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

As for the second test mentioned by Elias, the complaint contends that an unreasonable burden is imposed on the property owners. From the complaint:

Moreover, the ongoing and perpetual responsibilities for the operation and maintenance of the sump pumps and related equipment represent an unreasonable financial and personal burden upon the Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their property and represent an inappropriate delegation by the City to its citizens of its governmental obligations.

People Affected

Two of the plaintiffs in the case are Ann Arbor homeowners John Boyer and Mary Jean Raab, who have lived in their Ward 4 home since 1970, according to the complaint. And until 2006 when their footing drain was disconnected from the sanitary system, their basement had been dry and they had experienced no flooding, dampness or other water problems in their home. According to the complaint, their backyard and basement have flooded on a significant and recurring basis: “Two flooding events were particularly severe, with the basement living space under water while the sump pumps were fully operational.”

An additional plaintiff in the case is Anita Yu, who had her footing drains disconnected in 2003 – with a sump pump installed in a “The sump and sump pump were installed in a location accessible to plaintiff, Anita Yu, only with difficulty as she suffers from a disabling condition that it makes it impossible for her to perform the operation and maintenance mandated by the FDDP and the FDD Ordinance without hiring a contractor at her own cost.” Before the disconnect, Yu had “complete peace of mind,” according to the complaint.

The complaint also cites results of a survey of homeowners who’ve had their footing drains disconnected. For the survey, which was conducted in connection with the SSWWE study, 2,350 surveys were mailed and 850 responses were received. [.pdf of survey report]

One of many highlights of the survey responses were the divergent results on the kind of “peace of mind” issue cited by the complaint. According to the summary, after disconnection and installation of a sump pump, 35% of respondents had at least some reduction in anxiety, but 40% had at least some increase in anxiety. That difference is reflected in the verbatim comments of respondents:

This is the worst thing possible. The drain disconnect has cost me thousands of dollars. The installation destroyed my basement floor, holes dug, tiles not replaced, check valve at toe stubbing level. I’ve had 2 major floods, both happened during summer storms when the power went out. Both times I was traveling and did not know until I came home. Coach’s Catastrophe Carpet Care came both times; $2,200 the first time – all furniture, carpet, everything had to be thrown out, the second cost was $1,800, the same thing, everything had to be thrown away. I bought a generator at a cost of $7,000, then the pump stopped working – another flood. Replaced the pump for a few hundred dollars. I am a 73 year old widow on a fixed income, living alone. This program has cost me thousands of dollars, destroyed my peace of mind and had a negative impact on the value of my home. Also, I would be interested in knowing whether anyone has paid the onerous fines we were threatened with.

Survey results also included comments indicating that anxiety was eased:

I am much less concerned about sewage backups since the sump pump was installed.

We were very glad to have the pump installed. We had heard about flooding in this basement before we had the house. It provides peace of mind and has worked well for years ago.

So happy with this new system!! Greatly relieved, thank you so much!

Next Steps

The brief for the preliminary injunction sets forth four points as the standards that the court should balance in determining whether the injunction should be granted.

Those four points are: (1) whether the plaintiff has shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the plaintiff has shown “irreparable injury”; (3) whether issuing a preliminary injunction will cause substantial harm to others (or whether harm to the plaintiff in the absence of a preliminary injunction outweighs the harm to defendant if a preliminary injunction is granted); and (4) whether the public interest will be served by issuing a preliminary injunction.

With respect to those standards, the brief gives five summary points, in addition to the more detailed arguments in favor of an injunction:

1. The brief argues that the suit is likely to succeed on its merits: the “… United States Supreme Court’s decision in Loretto v. Teleprompter CATV Corp. and case law in Michigan have clearly held such governmental invasions to be takings in violation of the U.S. Constitution.”
2. The brief contends there would be no harm to the city of Ann Arbor as a result of granting a preliminary injunction: “The remedy sought herein is to prevent the city of Ann Arbor from enforcing its FDD ordinance. There is no proof that the city will be damaged from issuance of an injunction barring FDD ordinance enforcement.” The brief points to hardships endured by the three plaintiffs as described in their affidavits.
3. The brief contends that the injury is irreparable: “… irreparable injury, also known as inadequacy of legal remedies, is present here as is the danger of a multiplicity of suits.”
4. On the permanent and continuous question, the brief states that: “… equity will enjoin interference of enjoyment and use of land where the invasion is of a continuous character.”
5. On the question of public interest, the brief argues that “… the public interest is advanced by preventing future constitutional injury and preventing a multiplicity of suits due to enforcement of an unconstitutional ordinance.”

A posting on the website a2underwater.com indicates that a show cause hearing on the preliminary injunction would take place no earlier than March 26, 2014. Based on the posting on a2underwater.com the complaint has not yet been formally served to the city of Ann Arbor, but that is expected Friday or Monday.

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

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the March 3, 2014 meeting agenda.

New to the agenda are several items related to non-motorized issues, most prominently a funding request to support the activity of an already-established task force on pedestrian safety and access.

The council will also be asked to fund requests related to city parks and other city facilities like city hall and the airport. Eighteen new vehicles will also be added to the city’s fleet, contingent on council action on March 3.

The council will also consider a resolution that urges full funding of the state of Michigan’s fire protection grant program – for cities like Ann Arbor that host state-owned facilities like the University of Michigan.

In somewhat more detail, one public art issue, embodied in two different resolutions, was postponed from the council’s Feb. 18, 2014 meeting, when councilmembers could not agree on an approach to transferring money out of the public art fund back to the funds from which the money was originally drawn. The specific point dividing the council was not so much the transfer of money but rather a plan to fund the new approach to public art – after the council eliminated the Percent for Art funding mechanism last year.

Updated March 1, 2014: The first resolution has been altered for consideration on March 3 so that it focuses exclusively on the public art program transition issue. The second resolution incorporates changes to reflect the council’s deliberations on Feb. 18: It transfers a total of $943,005 of Percent for Art money to its funds of origin, an amount that defunds the art project at Argo Cascades, but keeps funding for the Coleman Jewett memorial and for a project called Canoe Imagine Art.  [public art resolution (1) for consideration on March 3, 2014] [public art resolution (2) for consideration on March 3, 2014]

That disagreement over funding of the newly created program is also related to another public art item on the agenda – a six-month contract extension for the city’s part-time public art administrator. The item first appeared on the council’s Jan. 21 agenda, but the council postponed that vote until Feb. 3, when it was defeated. On Feb. 18 it was then brought back for reconsideration, but immediately postponed until the March 3 meeting.

Also postponed from Feb. 18 is an item that would direct the city administrator to prepare for the council’s approval a budget resolution regarding affordable housing. The resolution would allocate $600,000 from the city’s affordable housing trust fund to support the Ann Arbor housing commission’s plan to renovate its properties. That allocation would be contingent on the closing of the sale of the former Y lot to Dennis Dahlmann, as the net proceeds of that sale are to be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

Postponed from the Feb. 3 meeting was the first reading of an ordinance that would regulate smoking outside of public buildings and also potentially in areas of some city parks. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), sponsor of the new proposed local law, appeared before the park advisory commission at its Feb. 25 meeting to brief commissioners on the proposal and solicit feedback.

New items on the March 3 agenda include a funding proposal for the pedestrian safety and access task force established by the city council late last year, with members appointed in late January. The $122,250 item includes a $77,500 contract for facilitation services from Project Innovations. That’s the same firm contracted for similar work in connection with the city’s sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation – which is expected to conclude in the summer of 2014.

Other issues on the March 3 agenda with a non-motorized connection are three stretches of sidewalk. In the context of sanitary sewer design work that Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. is being hired to do, two sidewalks are included: a stretch along Barton Drive, and a stretch along Scio Church Road. The council will also be asked to pay for the construction of a stretch of sidewalk along Ann Arbor-Saline Road near the I-94 bridge – as part of a road reconstruction project that the Michigan Dept. of Transportation is handling.

Another new item is a resolution that Jack Eaton (Ward 4) had announced at the council’s Feb. 18 meeting that he’d be bringing forward. It would waive the attorney-client privilege on a staff memo about laws governing the assessment of homes. The resolution indicates that the memo addresses the effect that reducing the assessment for one year would have on the property tax assessment for the subsequent year, based on action by the Board of Review and/or the Michigan Tax Tribunal.

In other action, the council will be asked on March 3 to approve the purchase from Signature Ford of 18 new vehicles – most of them for use by the Ann Arbor police department. Total cost of the purchase is $457,393.

City parks factor into three agenda items: (1) a resolution to establish an urban park on part of the surface level of the Library Lane underground parking structure; (2) a paving contract for the replacement of basketball and tennis courts at Clinton Park; and (3) a grant application to the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Grants Management (MDNRGM) to support a universal access playground at Gallup Park. The Rotary Club has already pledged $250,000 toward such a playground.

The city hall (Larcom Building) is featured in two agenda items – to pay $160,923 for a secondary chiller unit and $28,469 for new light fixtures. An amendment to an agreement with MDOT for an already-completed fence project at the Ann Arbor municipal airport also appears on the agenda, and will cost the city $425.

After authorizing significant equipment purchases to support water main repair activity at its Feb. 18 meeting, the council will be asked to approve two additional items related to water main repair. One item is a $44,702 emergency purchase order to buy more aggregate material used for backfilling water main repairs. A second item authorizes an emergency purchase order for repairing and making a new connection for the water main at 1214 S. University. In both cases, the emergency purchase orders were authorized by the city administrator, and the work was done.

Street closures for two events are on the council’s March 3 agenda: Take Back the Night and the Monroe Street Fair.

Also on the agenda is a resolution that would encourage Gov. Rick Snyder, state senator Rebekah Warren, and state representatives Jeff Irwin and Adam Zemke to explore creative ways to fund the state’s fire protection grant program for municipalities like Ann Arbor, which host state institutions. In the last three years, the program has been only 40-55% funded.

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

Public Art

At the council’s Feb. 18, 2014 meeting, two resolutions on the transfer of public art money back to its funds of origin were postponed. Councilmembers seemed to agree that a substantial sum – at least $800,000 that had accumulated under the now defunct Percent for Art funding mechanism – should be transferred back to its funds of origin. The issue actually dividing the council was not so much the transfer of money but rather a plan to fund the new approach to public art that the council put in place when the Percent for Art funding mechanism was eliminated last year.

The resolution proposed by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) called for establishing a budget for public art administration for FY 2015 and FY 2016. The resolution by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) did not include a budget provision for public art administration.

Updated March 1, 2014: The  resolution ordered first on the agenda (Briere’s) has been altered for consideration on March 3 so that it focuses exclusively on the public art program transition issue. This resolution was put forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and is co-sponsored by Sally Petersen (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5)

The resolution ordered second on the agenda (Lumm’s) incorporates changes to reflect the council’s deliberations on Feb. 18: It transfers a total of $943,005 of Percent for Art money to its funds of origin, an amount that defunds the art project at Argo Cascades, but keeps funding for the Coleman Jewett memorial and for a project called Canoe Imagine Art. The defunding of the art project at Argo Cascades was originally a feature of Briere’s resolution that was not shared by Lumm’s.  In addition to Lumm, the second item on the agenda is cosponsored by Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

[public art resolution (1) for consideration on March 3, 2014] [public art resolution (2) for consideration on March 3, 2014]

The former Percent for Art funding mechanism required 1% of all capital fund project budgets to be set aside for public art. The new approach entails including city-funded art when it’s designed as an integral part of a capital project, with council approval. Art projects also could be funded through a combination of private and public money.

Possibly a part of the council’s discussion on March 3 will be a review of what a council committee recommended in advance of the council’s decision to eliminate the Percent for Art program at its June 3, 2013 meeting. That recommendation was attached to the council’s agenda as a report/communication about a year ago, for the council’s March 18, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of council committee's public art findings and recommendations]

The five councilmembers serving on that committee included Margie Teall (Ward 4), as well as all of those who have declared their intention to participate in the Democratic mayoral primary race: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

The time frame that some councilmembers have talked about for funding the new approach to public art – before judging whether it has succeeded – is as long as three years. That appears to be based on one of the committee’s recommendations:

Recommendation: The staff should review the successful implementation of any changes in the ordinance after 36 months. This timing is based on the task force’s awareness that capital improvements may take longer than two years to move from inception to completion.

That finding also included a recommendation on administrative support:

Recommendation: a professionally trained public art administrator can provide this level of support, but needs to be employed more than 50% of the time. The Public Art Task Force agrees that the program would benefit from the services of a trained administrator, either as a contract employee or a direct hire.

The disagreement over funding of the newly created program is also related to another public art item on the March 3, 2014 agenda – a six-month contract extension for the city’s part-time public art administrator. The item first appeared on the council’s Jan. 21 agenda, but the council postponed that vote until Feb. 3, when it was subsequently defeated. On Feb. 18 it was then brought back for reconsideration, but immediately postponed until March 3. The amount at issue to fund the contract is $18,500.

Affordable Housing

Also postponed from the Feb. 18 meeting is an item that would direct the city administrator to prepare for the council’s approval a budget resolution regarding affordable housing. It would allocate $600,000 from the city’s affordable housing trust fund to support the Ann Arbor housing commission’s plan to renovate its properties. That allocation would be contingent on the closing of the sale of the former Y lot to Dennis Dahlmann, as the net proceeds of that sale are to be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

The item was postponed on Feb. 18 only after the council’s two liaisons to the housing and human services board – Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) – had aired out conflicting perspectives on the importance of having the item on the agenda. Briere had placed the item on the Feb. 18 agenda. Lumm argued that the agenda placement had come late on Friday and that it was not necessary – for the housing commission’s purposes – to vote on the issue until March 3.

Politics between the city council and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority are also a part of the mix, as the housing commission has made a $600,000 request of the DDA as well. DDA board members seem keen to see the city pledge its support to the housing commission before committing DDA funds. And some city councilmembers appear to want to secure the DDA’s commitment before voting to support the housing commission’s renovations with affordable housing trust fund dollars.

Outdoor Smoking

Postponed from the Feb. 3 meeting was the first reading of an ordinance that would regulate smoking outside of public buildings and also potentially in areas of some city parks. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), sponsor of the new proposed local law, appeared before the city’s park advisory commission at its Feb. 25 meeting to brief commissioners on the proposal and solicit feedback.

Made punishable under the proposed ordinance through a $50 civil fine would be smoking within 20 feet of: (1) bus stops; (2) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of the Blake Transit Center; and (3) entrances, windows and ventilation systems any city-owned building.

The ordinance would also authorize the city administrator to have signs posted designating certain parks or portions of parks as off limits for outdoor smoking, and to increase the distance from entrances to city buildings where outdoor smoking is prohibited.

Where no signs are posted noting the smoking prohibition, a citation could be issued only if someone doesn’t stop smoking immediately when asked to stop.

An existing Washtenaw County ordinance already prohibits smoking near entrances, windows and ventilation systems, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution – but the county’s ordinance can be enforced only by the county health department. The memo further notes that the Michigan Clean Indoor Air Act does not regulate outdoor smoking.

Non-Motorized Issues

New items on the March 3 agenda include a funding proposal for the pedestrian safety and access task force established by the city council late last year, with members appointed in late January. The $122,250 item includes a $77,500 contract for facilitation services from Project Innovations. That’s the same firm contracted for similar work in connection with the city’s sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation – which is expected to conclude in the summer of 2014.

Other issues on the March 3 agenda with a non-motorized connection are three stretches of sidewalk. In the context of sanitary sewer design work that Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. is being hired to do, two sidewalks are included: a stretch along Barton Drive; and a stretch along Scio Church Road.

Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. did design work for another project for which the council will be asked to authorize funding. The firm prepared the construction drawings, contract specifications and an opinion of probable construction costs for the roadway and non-motorized improvements for a stretch of sidewalk along Ann Arbor-Saline Road near the I-94 bridge. That’s part of a road reconstruction project the Michigan Dept. of Transportation is handling.

Non-Motorized: Pedestrian Safety and Access Task Force

A pedestrian safety and access task force was established through a council resolution passed on Nov. 18, 2013. Confirmed as members of the task force on Jan. 21, 2014 were: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, and Owen Jansson.

A key resolved clause establishing the group’s scope of work includes the following: “… the task force will explore strategies to improve pedestrian safety and access within a framework of shared responsibility through community outreach and data collection, and will recommend to council improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

The council will be asked on March 3 to consider a resolution to appropriate $122,250 to support the task force’s work, which includes delivery of a report a year from now – in February 2015. The funds are sourced in part from an allocation made during the May 20, 2013 budget deliberations, which appropriated  $75,000 for a study to prioritize sidewalk gap elimination. The connection between sidewalk gaps and the task force’s work is based in part on one of the other resolved clauses establishing the task force: “… the task force will also address sidewalk gaps and create a tool for setting priorities for funding and filling those gaps; …”

The funding will in part be used to pay for a $77,400 contract with Project Innovations Inc. to provide facilitator support to the task force.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, a “team of staff members has identified Project Innovations, Inc. as a firm in the region that has demonstrated skill in task force facilitation and robust community engagement efforts, and is uniquely qualified with the capacity to facilitate the pedestrian safety and access task force’s rigorous work approach within the specified timeframe.” Based on the phrasing in the memo, the work appears not to have been put out to bid and Project Innovations was identified as a “sole source” provider.

Project Innovations is the same firm currently providing facilitation support to a citizens advisory committee that is attached to a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study being conducted by the city.

The resolution establishing the task force does not explicitly charge the group with a review of the city’s crosswalk law. But the pedestrian safety task force was established in the same time frame as the council considered an amendment to the city’s crosswalk law. The council ultimately voted to change the language of the law at its Dec. 2, 2013 – so that motorists were required to concede the right-of-way only to pedestrians who had already entered the crosswalk.

That change was subsequently vetoed by mayor John Hieftje. Drawing on the phrasing used in Hieftje’s statement of veto, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) has indicated he intends to bring forward an amendment that would require motorists to stop at crosswalks for pedestrians only if “they can do so safely.” At the council’s Feb. 18, 2014 meeting, Kunselman announced he’d be pursuing such an amendment.

Non-Motorized: Sidewalks – Barton Drive, Scio Church

As part of the same contract to design urgent repairs to the sanitary sewer pipes and structures in Huron Street near the intersections of Glen Street and Zina Pitcher, Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. is also being tapped to provide the designs for two sidewalk projects that could ultimately result in special assessments for adjoining property owners.

At its July 15, 2013 meeting, the council approved $15,000 for preliminary design of a sidewalk along Barton Drive.

Location of proposed Barton Drive sidewalk.

At its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting, the council approved $15,000 for preliminary study of a sidewalk to be constructed along Scio Church, west of Seventh Street. And on Nov. 7, 2013 the council approved another $35,000 for Scio Church sidewalk design work.

Purple indicates stretches of Scio Church Road where no sidewalk exists.

The contract with Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. – which includes $50,629 for the design of the two stretches of sidewalk – would draw on that previously authorized funding.

Non-Motorized: Sidewalks – Ann Arbor-Saline

The council will also be asked at its March 3 meeting to approve a $30,000 general fund expenditure to pay for a new sidewalk along the east side of Ann Arbor-Saline Road from the westbound I-94 exit ramp to the north end of the I-94 bridge, and along the west side of Ann Arbor-Saline Road from Brookfield Drive to the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) park-and-ride commuter parking lot. The work is part of a more general road reconstruction project being handled by MDOT under an agreement between the city of Ann Arbor, the Washtenaw County road commission, MDOT and Pittsfield Township.

Additional Vehicles

The council will be asked on March 3 to approve the purchase of 18 new vehicles from Signature Ford in Perry, Michigan. Most of the new vehicles are for use by the Ann Arbor police department. Total cost of the purchase is $457,393 and includes:

• one 2014 Ford F-150 four-wheel-drive pickup at $26,407.
• one 2014 Ford Escape four-wheel-drive at $24,050.
• four 2014 Ford Police Interceptors: Sedans at $24,601 each.
• nine 2014 Ford Police Interceptors: Utility at $26,298 each.
• two 2014 Ford Police Interceptors: Utility with rear-auxiliary air-conditioning for use as K-9 units at $26,846.
• one 2014 Ford F-150 two-wheel-drive pickup at $18,158.

The staff memo notes that the police vehicles to be purchased will replace vehicles that will have reached either the 80,000-mile or the six-year limit specified in the city’s labor contracts with the Ann Arbor Police Officers Association and the Ann Arbor Police Supervisors.

The memo further notes that the new sedans have less shoulder room than Crown Victorias. So the AAPD is finding it difficult to install the increased amount of equipment needed in police vehicles, while still maintaining adequate room for officers. That’s why more of the SUV pursuit-rate vehicles are being incorporated into the police department’s fleet.

The city’s non-police vehicles are subjected to a two-step process to determine replacement. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the first step scores a vehicle’s age, miles/hours of use, type of service, reliability, maintenance and repair cost. The second step is review of the vehicle repair history and general condition.

One non-police vehicle to be replaced through the purchase is a truck that has been in service for 7.6 years and has over 4,800 total hours of operation, averaging 0.23 repair work orders per month. The total cost of repairs has exceeded 60% of its purchase price.

City Assets

Several items related to upkeep and improvement of city assets appear on the city council’s March 3 agenda.

City Assets: Parks

City parks factor into three agenda items: (1) a resolution to establish an urban park on part of the surface level of the Library Lane underground parking structure; (2) a paving contract for the replacement of basketball and tennis courts at Clinton Park; and (3) a grant application to the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Grants Management (MDNRGM) to support a universal access playground at Gallup Park. The Rotary Club has already pledged $250,000 toward such a playground, which is expected to cost about $500,000.

City Assets: Parks – Library Lane Surface?

A resolution that proposes to build an urban park on top of the Library Lane underground parking structure appears on the city council’s March 3 agenda. The proposal was also presented at the Feb. 25, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. The commission was not asked to act on it.

Library Lane park proposal.

The presentation to PAC by Will Hathaway, on behalf of the Library Green Conservancy, included a proposal to reserve about 10,000 square feet on the surface of the Library Lane Structure for an urban park, to be “bounded by the Fifth Avenue sidewalk on the west, the Library Lane Street sidewalk to the south, the western entry to the central elevator to the east, and the southern curb of the service alley on the north.” [.pdf of proposed resolution] [.pdf of proposed site boundaries]

Hathaway reported at that meeting that he’s been working with city councilmember Jack Eaton (Ward 4). Sponsors of the resolution on the March 3 agenda are Eaton, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5), who serves on PAC as an ex officio member.

The resolution calls for financial support as well as an allocation of staff time to design and create the park. The resolution asks PAC and the parks staff to prepare preliminary recommendations for the park’s design, to be presented at the council’s first meeting in October of 2014.

Other aspects of the proposal include:

• asking the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to prepare for an eventual transition from parking to non-parking on the surface of the Library Lane structure;
• asking the DDA to conduct a structural analysis of the Library Lane structure to determine if any modifications are needed to safely support design features, such as soil, plantings of various sizes, water features, a skating rink, a performance stage, and play equipment;
• asking that the city’s community services and parks staff work with DDA and the Ann Arbor District Library to facilitate public programming with activities including craft fairs, book fairs, food carts, and fine arts performances;
• asking the DDA to work with the city to explore possible above-ground private and/or public development of the remaining, build-able portion of the surface level north of the central elevator and above the central exit/entrance ramp.

The resolution specifies certain conditions for development rights on the remaining surface of Library Lane, including additional public open space and pedestrian access as features of any private development. The resolution also calls for close collaboration with neighboring properties and businesses, including the Ann Arbor District Library, First Martin Corp., the University of Michigan Credit Union, the Inter-Cooperative Council, and the businesses facing Fifth Avenue and Liberty Street.

Activists have pushed for a public park or plaza on the top of the Library Lane underground parking structure for several years. Several members of the Library Green Conservancy – including former park commissioner Gwen Nystuen, and former Ann Arbor planning commissioner Eric Lipson – attended PAC’s Feb. 25 meeting.

PAC has explored the urban park issue more broadly, most formally with a downtown parks subcommittee created in 2012. The subcommittee presented a report at PAC’s Oct. 15, 2013 meeting that included general recommendations, with an emphasis on “placemaking” principles that include active use, visibility and safety. The most specific recommendation also called for developing a park or open space on top of the Library Lane structure. A park or open space at that location should exceed 5,000 square feet, according to the report, and connect to Library Lane, the small mid-block cut-through that runs north of the library between Fifth and Division. [.pdf of 21-page full subcommittee report]

The subcommittee’s report was accepted by the Ann Arbor city council on Nov. 7, 2013 over dissent from Anglin.

Hathaway’s presentation on Feb. 25 drew on recommendations from the PAC subcommittee, as well as from information in the DDA’s Connecting William Street study.

On Feb. 25, several park commissioners raised concerns, some of which focused on the process of bringing this resolution forward without specific direction from the council. Hathaway noted that the council resolution is intended to start the process, with council direction, to begin working with stakeholders, PAC, the public and others in the design and development of this park.

City Assets: Parks – Clinton, Gallup

At its Feb. 25, 2014 meeting, the Ann Arbor park advisory commission recommended approving a $133,843 contract with Best Asphalt to rebuild the tennis and basketball courts at Clinton Park. The council will be asked to act on the contract at its March 3 meeting.

Clinton Park is located in the southeast part of the city, on Stone School Road, north of Ellsworth Road.

The park is located on the west side of Stone School Road, south of Eisenhower Parkway.

Including a 10% construction contingency, the project’s total budget is $147,227. Best Asphalt provided the lowest of five bids, according to a staff memo. The project will be funded with revenues from the park maintenance and capital improvement millage.

Another item on the March 3 council agenda relates to a proposed “universal access” playground at Gallup Park. At its Jan. 28, 2014 meeting, the park advisory commission recommended applying for the grant from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Grants Management (MDNRGM) to help fund the project. Representatives of Rotary Club attended that PAC meeting to convey the group’s $250,000 pledge. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, told park commissioners that although there are about 80 playgrounds in Ann Arbor, none are universally accessible. It’s a “huge shortcoming” for the parks system, he said.

The exact location within Gallup Park hasn’t been determined, but the playground would be about 5,000 square feet and exceed the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The design and equipment is intended to create environments that can be used by all people, with features like ramps, color-contrasting structures, wider bridges and walkways, and playground equipment that makes it easier for people using wheelchairs.

The council will be asked to authorize the grant application at its March 3 meeting.

City Assets: Larcom Building

The city hall (Larcom Building) at 301 E. Huron is featured in two agenda items – to pay $160,923 for a secondary chiller unit and $28,469 for new light fixtures.

The $160,923 contract for installation of a secondary chiller would go to CSM Mechanical LLC. The existing chiller for city hall is described in the staff memo accompanying the resolution as old, requiring extensive maintenance. Repair is difficult because parts are becoming harder to find. It’s the only unit for the building, so if it goes down, the building has no cooled air. The unit also doesn’t handle well the rapid change in temperatures in spring and fall.

So the city’s strategy will be to install a secondary chiller – leaving the old chiller still in service. The new chiller unit will have about two-thirds the capacity of the old one. If the older unit breaks down during the peak summer season, the new unit will at least be able to provide some cooling air. The long-term plan is to replace the old chiller unit with a second smaller capacity chiller.

The purchase of $28,469 worth of light fixtures for city hall would be from McNaughton McKay Electric Company of Ann Arbor. The new fixtures will replace the original fixtures – which are being removed as part of an asbestos abatement project. The purchase covers the light fixtures for the third and fourth floors. They will match those installed in the basement and first floor during the recent renovation of city hall.

City Assets: Airport

A $17,000 amendment on a contract with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation for a fence and gate project at the Ann Arbor municipal airport appears on the council’s March 3 agenda. Of that, the city’s portion is $425. The remainder is covered by federal and state funds. The actual project was completed in October 2013.

Water Main Issues

After authorizing significant equipment purchases to support water main repair activity at its Feb. 18 meeting, the council will be asked to approve two additional items on March 3 related to water main repair. One item is a $44,702 emergency purchase order to buy more aggregate material used for backfilling water main repairs. A second item authorizes an emergency purchase order for repairing and making a new connection for the water main at 1214 S. University. In both cases, the emergency purchase orders were authorized by the city administrator, and the work was done.

The emergency purchase order with Ellsworth Industries for $44,702 was submitted and approved on Feb. 14. The city had an existing contract with Ellsworth Industries to supply the aggregate material. The staff memo cites the extreme cold during the 2013-2014 winter as causing “a greater than average number, scope and magnitude of water main breaks city-wide.”

The emergency purchase order with E.T. MacKenzie was for a water main repair not to exceed $30,000 – on South University at the location of Pinball Pete’s. Here’s a timeline of the events of early February released by Oxford Property Management. [.pdf of Oxford Property Management timeline Feb. 6 through Feb. 12, 2014]

The city opted to use E.T. MacKenzie for the work – which included making a new connection to a different main – because the owner’s contractor was already on site.

Street Closures

Street closures for two events are on the council’s March 3 agenda: Take Back the Night and the Monroe Street Fair.

Take Back the Night is a demonstration against sexual violence. This year’s event begins on April 2 at 7 p.m. in the ballroom of the Michigan Union. The keynote speaker is Samantha Soward. A march through the University of Michigan campus and the city of Ann Arbor follows. The route of the march goes south down State Street to Madison, taking Thompson, William, Fourth Avenue and Liberty back to State Street.

This year’s annual Monroe Street Fair takes places on Saturday, April 5. The section of Monroe Street to be closed is between Tappan and State streets.

Fire Protection

A resolution sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) could be analyzed as obliquely related to the council’s decision at a special session on Feb. 24, 2014 not to exercise a right of first refusal to purchase the Edwards Brothers Malloy property on South State Street.

By way of background, that property will now be purchased by the University of Michigan, thus removing it from the tax rolls – because UM does not pay property taxes.

As a result, the city will lose about $50,000 per year in revenue, which is used to pay for basic services like police and fire protection. The university does not operate its own fire protection service.

The city’s station #5 is located on university property, for which the university does not charge rent, utilities, or maintenance costs. UM estimates the annual value of that arrangement to the city at about $230,000. In general, however, the Michigan legislature recognizes that municipalities hosting state-owned facilities face a burden of providing fire protection for such facilities – without receiving property tax revenues to pay for that fire protection.

So the legislature enacted a law to award fire protection grants from the state of Michigan – which are dependent on an allocation from the state legislature each year. The allocation is governed by Act 289 of 1977. [.pdf of Act 289 of 1977] The statute sets forth a formula for a state fire protection grant to all municipalities that are home to state-owned facilities – a formula that attempts to fairly determine the funding allocated for fire protection grants in any given year. The fire protection grant formula is defined for any municipality in terms of the relative value of the state-owned property in the municipality.

More precisely, the percentage in the grant formula is the estimated state equalized value (SEV) of state-owned facilities, divided by the sum of that estimated value and the actual SEV of the other property in the community. For example, in Ann Arbor, the total SEV of property on which property tax is paid is roughly $5 billion. The estimated value of state-owned facilities (primarily the University of Michigan) is around $1 billion. So the percentage used in the state fire protection formula for Ann Arbor is about 16% [1/(1 + 5)].

The percentage in the formula is different for each municipality. That percentage is then multiplied by the actual expenditures made by a municipality for fire protection in the prior fiscal year.

The formula can be described as equitable among municipalities – because the grant amount depends in part on the relative value of state-owned facilities in a given municipality. All other things being equal, a city with a greater number of state-owned facilities receives more fire protection grant money than one with a small number of state-owned facilities. The formula can also be described as equitable to the state of Michigan, because the formula calibrates the state’s investment in a municipality’s fire protection to the level of funding that a local municipality itself is willing to provide.

The roughly $14.8 million in a provisional budget request from the Ann Arbor fire department for FY 2015 would translate to a state grant of roughly $2.3 million.

But the state statute explicitly provides for the possibility that the legislature can choose not to allocate funds sufficient to cover the amount in the formula [emphasis added]:

141.956 Prorating amount appropriated to each municipality.
Sec. 6. If the amount appropriated in a fiscal year is not sufficient to make the payments required by this act, the director shall prorate the amount appropriated to each municipality.

Since 1996, the legislature has funded the grants at amounts as low as 23% of the formula to as high as 68%. For the five-year period from 2007 through 2011, the legislature funded the same dollar amount of about $10.9 million statewide, but that translated into diminishing percentages over the five-year span. In the last three years, the program has been only 40-55% funded.

State of Michigan Fire Protection Grants: Actual Dollars. (Data from state of Michigan, chart by The Chronicle.)

State of Michigan Fire Protection Grants: Percentage of Formula Funded. (Data from state of Michigan, chart by The Chronicle.)

The resolution on the Ann Arbor city council’s March 3 agenda would encourage Gov. Rick Snyder, state senator Rebekah Warren (D-District 18), and state representatives Jeff Irwin (D-District 53) and Adam Zemke (D-District 55) to explore creative ways to fund the state’s fire protection grant program for municipalities like Ann Arbor, which host state-owned facilities.

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

The council had approved the significant amendment to the existing law on a 6-4 vote. The amendment would have eliminated the requirement that motorists extend the right-of-way to pedestrians at the curb or curb line – in addition to those within a crosswalk. It would have left in place the requirement that motorists stop, not just yield to pedestrians within a crosswalk.

As a result of Hieftje’s veto, the law will continue to read as follows:

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 any pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.

(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 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. (Corresponds to Uniform Traffic Code rule 706)

For more detail on the evolution of the local law, see Chronicle coverage: “Column: Why Did the Turkey Cross the Road?”

The text of the veto filed by Hieftje begins as follows:

Walkability and pedestrian safety are of fundamental importance to the quality of life in Ann Arbor. Ordinance No. ORD-13-31 would reduce both by requiring pedestrians to put themselves in harm’s way before obtaining the right of way. By way of this transmittal I, therefore, veto the Ordinance to Amend Section 10:148 of Chapter 126 Traffic of Title X of the Code of the City of Ann Arbor (Ordinance No. ORD-13-31, as amended) that was approved by City Council on December 2, 2013. [.jpg of filing]

The complete filing runs a full page.