On Jan. 29, Kristin “KT” Tomey attended her first regular meeting of the Ann Arbor public art commission since being appointed by the city council on Jan. 6. (Photos by the writer.)

Some commissioners expressed frustration that they had insufficient information on which to base their evaluation. And after about two hours of discussion – using a scoring rubric with seven criteria – commissioners had evaluated only a few projects: artist-designed street access (manhole) covers, art for the Springwater subdivision, and art for the corridors of Main Street and Plymouth Road. Because there were still several other items on the agenda, they voted to postpone further evaluation of possible capital projects until their next meeting.

In other action, commissioners discussed and approved a draft annual public art plan that’s officially due to the city council on Feb. 1, for projects to be undertaken in the fiscal year that begins July 1. It includes projects that are underway – like artwork for East Stadium bridges and Argo Cascades – as well as a proposal to add some enhanced capital projects, like street access covers on resurfaced roads.

The draft annual plan had been prepared by Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator. Commissioners asked for some revisions and designated commissioner John Kotarski to work with Seagraves on a final version that will likely be presented to the council on Feb. 18. Kotarski praised the draft, saying “It has as much meat as anyone wants. It shows a lot of work. It shows an art commission that gets the message from an impatient city council.”

Commissioners also discussed a proposal from the Clean Energy Coalition to select and fund an artist who would help incorporate art into a new bike share program. They tabled action on this item, wanting additional information about the CEC’s expectations for funding.

This was AAPAC’s first regular meeting since Oct. 23, 2013, although they held a retreat in December and a planning session earlier in January. Throughout the evening, concerns were raised about the future of the public art program, in light of recent city council discussions. The council had postponed a requested six-month extension of Seagraves’ contract, and will be taking up that item on Feb. 3.

Also on the council’s Feb. 3 agenda is an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance. The amendment would allow the council to return about $800,000 accumulated under the city’s former Percent for Art program to the funds from which that money was drawn, such as the street millage or sanitary sewer fund. It’s the latest in an ongoing transition for the city’s public art program – a transition that’s been unsettling for public art commissioners.

The Jan. 29 meeting marked another transition for AAPAC, which has seen considerable turnover during the past year. It was the first regular monthly meeting for the newest commissioner, Kristin “KT” Tomey, who was appointed by the city council on Jan. 6. And it was the last meeting for Malverne Winborne, whose term ended on Dec. 31. He did not seek reappointment, and was serving until the position was filled. His replacement, Jim Simpson, is expected to be confirmed in a vote at the city council’s Feb. 3 meeting.

Winborne has served as vice chair of AAPAC – but the group held new officer elections on Jan. 29. Bob Miller was re-elected to another one-year term as chair, and John Kotarski was elected vice chair. There were no competing nominations, and both votes were unanimous.

Noting that the Jan. 29 meeting had been especially challenging, Miller thanked commissioners for their work. “This is probably the most belabored meeting I think we’ve ever gone through, aside from maybe one of the retreats,” he said. “I’m tapped out.” He jokingly cajoled commissioners: “Please do come back.”

Miller also encouraged students to return, as about two dozen students from Skyline High School – and some parents – attended the Jan. 29 meeting. “It’s the most amount of people we’ve ever had at any of our meetings,” Miller noted. One student pointed out that they were all from the same government class, facing a Jan. 31 deadline to attend a public meeting.

Future of Public Art Program

At the beginning of the Jan. 29 meeting, commissioners voted to amend the agenda – over the dissent of John Kotarski – to add an item for discussion about the interaction between AAPAC and the city council.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s part-time public art administrator.

Bob Miller, AAPAC’s chair, reviewed the current discussion that’s underway at city council. At their Jan. 21, 2014 meeting, councilmembers were asked to approve a six-month extension to the contract for the public art administrator – a part-time position held by Aaron Seagraves. Some councilmembers were concerned about the transition from the previous Percent for Art funding mechanism to the new approach, where public art will be “baked in” to the city’s capital projects or done with money that’s raised through other sources in the community. Also raised at that Jan. 21 city council meeting was the issue of as-yet-unallocated funding that remains from the Percent for Art program – about $800,000.

Ultimately, councilmembers postponed action on Seagraves’ contract extension – and that item is now on the Feb. 3 council agenda. The Feb. 3 agenda also includes initial consideration of an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance, sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2). The amendment would allow the council to return money accumulated under the city’s former Percent for Art program to the funds from which that money was drawn – such as the street millage or sanitary sewer fund. The ordinance change would need a second and final council vote at a subsequent meeting to be enacted. Any transfer of public art money would require separate council action after the potential ordinance change.

Miller noted that when the council made revisions to the public art ordinance to eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism at its June 3, 2013 meeting, the remaining funds had been intended to provide a transition for the program. [At that time, Lumm had also tried unsuccessfully to return the remaining Percent for Art money to its funds of origins, but she didn't get sufficient support on the council to make that change.]

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator who attended AAPAC’s Jan. 29 meeting, added that it’s within the council’s “political prerogative to revisit that decision, which is what they are doing now.” He noted that when the council made changes to the program, they made no provisions to pay for arts administration. That’s why the contract extensions for Seagraves – who reports to Hupy – have been made.

If the council decides to return the roughly $800,000 to its funds of origin, Hupy said, it means there won’t be funds available during this interim period for public art. The intent going forward to include public art funding as part of certain capital improvement projects, but those are longer-term efforts. The other funding approach is to partner with outside organizations and do fundraising from the community, but that hasn’t yet gotten off the ground in a significant way. [It's also an option for the council to allocate money from the general fund to cover the salary of a public art administrator salary, but that option has not yet been publicly floated by city councilmembers.]

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Nick Zagar.

Hupy said that if the council doesn’t approve the current contract extension, then staff will be asking for a budget appropriation during the fiscal 2015 budget process for public art administration. That fiscal year runs from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. The staff is currently developing that budget, which will be brought forward to the council in the spring. “I’m not giving you a whole lot of clarity,” Hupy added, “because this is a process that’s in council’s hands.”

Hupy noted that the city council task force that brought forward a proposal last summer to restructure the public art program had envisioned a three-year transition process. “So to think you’re going to whip this in one or two meetings – you’re not going to do it that quickly,” he told commissioners.

Miller added that it’s still “muddy” as to how AAPAC will be structured to do fundraising and partnerships with outside organizations. He noted that some projects – a Coleman Jewett memorial, and the Canoe Imagine Art project, for example – are already using this approach. “So we’ve been moving toward this new model,” Miller said, “but the council still hasn’t figured out how to house the commission in a structure that will allow for us to be fundraising.” He noted that commissioners shouldn’t be the the people who go out and raising money – they should be advising the city on how to select art projects.

Nick Zagar expressed concern about the current status of AAPAC. “We’re volunteers trying to do things we’re passionate about, but there’s never any certainty about things.” And if the city eliminates the public art administrator’s position, “everything I’m sure will grind to a dramatic halt,” Zagar said. It’s hard to want to invest a lot of energy into the program, he added, given that commissioners don’t really have a clear direction about the program’s future.

Miller agreed, and said those questions will have to be answered by the council on Feb. 3. “Public art has been a hot topic since it started,” he said. “It would be nice if [the public art program] had some consistency behind it, for sure.”

Selection of Capital Projects for Public Art

On Jan. 22, AAPAC met in a planning session focused on fine-tuning a criteria and scoring rubric for prioritizing capital projects that could possibly have a public art component. [.pdf of draft scoring rubric]

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator.

The rubric is modeled after a similar system that’s used by city staff to score and prioritize projects in the capital improvements plan (CIP). Commissioners had been briefed on the CIP process at their Oct. 23, 2013 meeting by Deb Gosselin, who oversees the CIP process.

The draft rubric includes seven categories, with scoring on a scale of 1-10: (1) distribution of art throughout the city; (2) locations of high use and high visibility; (3) placemaking; (4) integrated artwork (whether artwork can be integrated into a project or location); (5) partnerships; (6) funding; and (7) programming – whether a school or other organization could develop programs related to the artwork.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, had selected 10 projects that are in the city’s current capital improvements plan (CIP) – three starting in fiscal 2015, and seven starting in fiscal 2016.

Those capital projects and possible public art enhancements proposed by Seagraves are:

• Annual street resurfacing (FY 2015): artist-designed street access covers (manhole covers) for the city’s water, sanitary sewer and stormwater systems.
• Sidewalk gaps (FY 2015): Sidewalk stamping.
• Mid-block street crossing improvements, pavement marking and sign replacement (FY 2015): Art to-be-determined for the streets.
• Six specific road projects (FY 2016): East Stadium Boulevard from Huchins to Kipke; Springwater subdivision (south of Packard, west of Platt); Main Street (non-motorized corridor); Plymouth Road (non-motorized corridor); Stone School Road improvements; Packard/Eisenhower, from Stone School to Platt. Artwork would be integrated into the projects.
• Ann Arbor Station (FY 2016): Art would be integrated into the project.

Seagraves noted that he focused on projects that could be included in the annual plan that AAPAC is required to submit to the city council in February. The intent is that the capital projects, when sent to the council for budgetary approval, would include funding for public art to be integrated into the work. He hoped that commissioners could reach a consensus score to prioritize these projects.

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Ashlee Arder.

Commissioners spent about two hours discussing only a few projects on this list: street access covers, art for the Springwater subdivision, and art for the corridors along Main Street and Plymouth Road.

Some commissioners expressed frustration at having to score these items without having a specific project proposal to evaluate. When Seagraves asked who would define the project at this point, John Kotarski suggested that Seagraves would do that, and it would then be evaluated by commissioners. Malverne Winborne agreed: “We need something to grasp on to, and we don’t have it.”

Seagraves noted that it would be difficult to predetermine the art projects – that would be the work of a task force, after AAPAC identifies a CIP project for enhancement. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, explained that AAPAC at this point needs to rate the location or type of project and its suitability for art, rather than the specific artwork that might be part of a capital project.

Kotarski felt there was inadequate information to do the scoring. Bob Miller, AAPAC’s chair, directed Seagraves in the future to include photos of the locations, and some suggestions for possible art projects that might be appropriate. But Winborne expressed concern that this would be taking away from the artist’s creativity. “We’ve had long conversations about that,” he noted. “It seems like we’re sort of discounting that now, saying ‘We’ll do it.’” Winborne noted that there’s been turnover on AAPAC, so many of the current commissioners weren’t part of those previous discussions.

Ashlee Arder urged commissioners to focus on the information that they had, rather than on the information that wasn’t available yet. “We realize there are a lot of holes,” she said. Hupy reiterated the purpose of this process – to rate a site or capital project with regard to its potential for public art. Kotarski argued that without a concrete art project in mind, “it’s going to be very difficult for us to do that, in a meaningful way.”

There also was discussion at various points about definitions in the scoring criteria, and a consensus that the rubric needs to be tweaked. It emerged that some commissioners had different understandings of what the criteria meant.

At one point, to expedite the process, Kristin Tomey suggested eliminating some of the categories – like funding, for example, since all projects incorporated into a capital project would presumably receive funding from the city. She also suggested using walkability scores as part of the scoring, using the website Walk Score. It can help identify locations that are high use, she said. Three categories – distribution of art within the city, visibility, and placemaking – seemed like those that AAPAC should focus on, she added.

Miller suggested presenting the rubric to the city council, with notes indicating that there are certain aspects of the rubric that will be modified. Hupy supported that approach, saying it was understandable that there would be changes to the process, because this was the first time that AAPAC had done it.

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Devon Akmon.

Hupy told the commissioners that they are suffering from what happens to other groups that go through this process: It’s very difficult at first, but gets easier as they score more projects. “It’s a process of learning,” he said. Hupy noted that the council has asked for staff to report back about AAPAC’s selection process – the rubric that the commission has been developing to help prioritize capital projects that could possibly be enhanced with public art. “So the work you’ve been doing is following the transition as laid out in the ordinance.”

Hupy also offered to bring back more supporting materials for commissioners to help them evaluate capital projects, and pointed out that nothing is set in stone at this point – they can revisit their decisions.

Nick Zagar also requested maps showing the location of existing public art – including art on the University of Michigan campus – to make it easier to tell what neighborhoods or areas don’t have public art. Devon Akmon suggested putting that information online, as a resource for commissioners but also as a marketing tool for the public.

Tomey recommended standardizing the presentation of material to commissioners, so they could be sure they had the information they needed.

After nearly two hours, Akmon pointed out that the group hadn’t finished scoring the 10 CIP projects that Seagraves had brought forward – and they still had most of their agenda to move through, in addition to that. He suggested postponing discussion of the other CIP projects, and tackling only two or three per meeting. “It’s a little fatiguing,” he said, describing the effort as almost like urban planning, with public art as the next step.

Miller agreed, saying “we’ve been stifled by this process.”

Hupy noted that in refining this scoring rubric, it might make sense to focus on locations as a first step, then looking at a public art concept as a second step. There seemed to be some consensus about taking this approach.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone further evaluation of the possible CIP projects that might be enhanced with public art. They’ll take up the task again at a future meeting.

Public Art Annual Plan

In the past, the public art annual plan was required to be submitted to the city council by April 1. But at AAPAC’s April 24, 2013 meeting, commissioners voted to recommend shifting that date to Feb. 1 – a move intended to allow the council to make budget decisions based on recommendations from AAPAC. Shifting the date of the annual plan was linked to a major restructuring of the city’s public art program, which is still underway. The city council subsequently made revisions to the public art ordinance – Chapter 24 of the city code – that included the Feb. 1 deadline for submitting the annual plan. From the city code:

(2) The oversight body shall:
…
(B) By February 1 of each year, submit to City Council a plan detailing potential projects and desirable goals to be pursued in the next fiscal year, including enhanced projects and any proposed expenditure of donated, grant, or other funds. The plan shall also include a recommendation as to which projects from the current Capital Improvements Plan are appropriate for designation as enhanced projects; …

On Jan. 29, Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, presented a draft annual plan for fiscal 2015. He hoped AAPAC would approve that night, so that it could be forwarded to the city council. [.pdf of draft FY 2015 annual plan]

Ann Arbor public art commissioner John Kotarski.

John Kotarski characterized the draft as one of the best plans that AAPAC has ever created. It’s thorough, covering everything that the commission has done, and has a plan for moving forward, he said.

“It has as much meat as anyone wants,” Kotarski added. “It shows a lot of work. It shows an art commission that gets the message from an impatient city council.”

Bob Miller then asked about the wastewater treatment plant project that was included in the draft plan. “I don’t want to include it,” Kotarski replied, saying that the Ann Arbor Hands On Museum had withdrawn a proposal to partner on artwork at the new plant.

Six other ongoing public art projects were listed in the draft plan:

• Completion of the public art project at East Stadium bridges. Artist Catherine Widgery was recommended by a selection panel, and is completing modifications to the original design. The final design will be brought forward for additional public input, and will need approval by AAPAC and then by the city council. Installation is expected in FY 2015. The project’s total budget is $400,000.
• Completion of public art at Argo Cascades. The selection panel has tabled proposals by the previous two finalists, and is reviewing other options for that site. No recommendation has yet been made to AAPAC. The total budget is set at $150,000.
• Public art at Arbor Oaks Park. This project is in partnership with Bryant Neighborhood Association and the nonprofit Community Action Network, which is under contract with the city to run the Bryant Community Center. It will involve participation of the neighborhood in the design and creation of the artwork. A grant application to help fund this project was submitted to the Southeast Michigan Community Foundation in November 2013. No city public art funds have been allocated, and additional funding is expected to be raised through community donations.
• Canoe Imagine Art. AAPAC has approved $10,000 in funding for this community art project – a temporary art display in downtown Ann Arbor using old canoes from the city that would be repurposed as public art. The installation is expected to take place in fiscal 2015 or 2016, depending on funding. The project also has received a $21,000 grant from the Michigan Council for Arts and Cultural Affairs, and organizers plan to raise additional funds from private donors.
• Coleman Jewett Memorial. A bronze replica of an Adirondack chair made by Coleman Jewett will be located at the Ann Arbor farmers market. Jewett was a long-time local educator who died in January of 2013. After he retired, he made furniture that he sold at the Ann Arbor farmers market. AAPAC has committed $5,000 to the project, which has a total project of $36,000. Other funds will be raised from private donations, including a contribution from the Old West Side Association.
• Graphics for Control Boxes. Called “PowerArt,” this project involves wrapping about 40 traffic signal boxes in the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district with vinyl printed replicas of artwork. The initial pilot phase would focus on 14 boxes at a total cost of $41,000, to be split between the city and the DDA. AAPAC approved $20,500 for the first year as a pilot project. The project is being administered by the Arts Alliance in response to a DDA request.

In addition, Seagraves hoped to include some projects from the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP), which commissioners had discussed and started to evaluate earlier in the meeting. Kotarski suggested stating in the annual plan that AAPAC is working on a rubric and practicing the application of that rubric on potential projects – that it’s a work in progress.

Seagraves proposed including three projects from the FY 2015 CIP. Commissioners agreed, noting that there had been consensus on these projects during their earlier discussion:

• Annual street resurfacing (FY 2015): artist-designed street access covers (manhole covers) for the city’s water, sanitary sewer and stormwater systems.
• Sidewalk gaps (FY 2015): Sidewalk stamping.
• Mid-block street crossing improvements, pavement marking and sign replacement (FY 2015): Art to-be-determined for the streets.

Seagraves also recommended including dollar amounts to fund these projects – $60,000 for access covers and $60,000 for sidewalk stamping. Kotarski expressed concern that there wasn’t sufficient justification at this point for any particular amount. Seagraves said he’d research the cost so that he could include it in the plan.

Miller proposed that AAPAC approve the annual plan at that night’s meeting, contingent on revisions that Seagraves would make. Kristin Tomey asked whether commissioners could vote on the plan via email, after Seagraves made revisions. [The answer is no. Even if the public art commission were analyzed as a purely advisory body under the Michigan Open Meetings Act that would not allow the commission to ignore the OMA. That's because of a policy approved by the city council in 1991, which states that such groups are still expected to conform to the spirit of the OMA – to the best ability of that entity’s members. For more background on this issue, see "Column: A Reminder on Open Government."]

Malverne Winborne suggested that the commissioners approve the draft plan, then empower one commissioner to work with Seagraves on the final revisions. Miller asked Kotarski to take on that task.

Outcome: Commissioners approved the draft annual plan, and authorized John Kotarski to work with Aaron Seagraves in making final revisions.

The expectation at the Jan. 29 meeting was that the annual plan would be submitted to the council on Feb. 3. Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle on Jan. 30, Seagraves said that the plan will instead be on a future agenda, possibly on Feb. 18.

Bike Share Program

AAPAC was asked to consider a proposal from the Clean Energy Coalition to select an artist who would work to incorporate art into a new bike share program. [.pdf of CEC proposal]

The bike share program, with a planned launch in the summer of 2014, will include 14 stations and 125 bikes at locations in downtown Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan campus.

In part, the proposal states:

CEC seeks a local artist to join the bike share team and contribute to several areas of the Ann Arbor bike share project. Specifically, CEC proposes to work directly with the Art Commission to select a local artist to work on the program. The artist would fill an integral role within the planning and launch processes currently in motion. In addition to standard graphic design work for promotional purposes, the artist will have the opportunity to design a collection of maps to feature bike share stations and local elements. The artist would also participate in marketing meetings and other planning activities to ensure that art is a deliberate and consistent attribute of the bike share program.

The position will run from late winter through the summer launch of bike share. CEC hopes to embrace the city’s vibrant culture of artists and creativity to design a unique identity for the bike share program, and commissioning a local artist is the ideal way to build this brand. This position would likely require 10-15 hours per week to attend partner meetings and produce the desired materials. CEC requests that the Public Art Commission cover the cost of the artist’s time and materials needed to produce artwork for the program. CEC will offer office space, make connections to program partners, and serve in a project management role to provide as much guidance as needed.

Nick Zagar questioned whether AAPAC could select a local artist. Bob Miller replied that the call for artists is open to anyone, and it’s up to the task force to select an artist – local or not. Miller began to elaborate, saying, “Speaking candidly about that…” He was cut off by John Kotarski, who cautioned: “I wouldn’t speak candidly, because your candid comments might very well be published.”

Bob Miller, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission.

Miller replied, saying “This is not something that’s secret. Dollar amounts sometimes dictate who gets involved.” [His point was that if a budget is low, it won't likely attract applicants from outside the area.] Kotarski noted that Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, had indicated it would be possible to select an artist as a “sole source provider” for a particular project. An open call for proposals, however, can’t be restricted geographically, he said. If AAPAC picked a single artist as a sole source provider, they’d have to explain why that particular artist has been selected. Kotarski said that Hupy had reviewed this process with the city attorney’s office too. [Hupy had left the meeting by this point.]

Zagar said it seemed like CEC was really looking for a graphic artist.

Commissioners also discussed where the funding might come from, if they pursued this project. In response to a suggestion from Miller, Kotarski expressed skepticism that the city council would allocate money from the city’s general fund. “Let’s bring it up at the next [council] meeting, when they’re sending the money back,” Kotarski quipped – a reference to the Feb. 3 council resolution that, if approved, would return remaining Percent for Art money to its original funding source.

Kotarski recommended that AAPAC endorse the project and help in any way they can, but without committing dollars to it.

Ashlee Arder noted that there were a lot of unanswered questions regarding the proposal, such as what kind of funding the CEC is requesting. She compared it to the much more detailed proposal that Deb Polich had provided for the PowerArt project. [.pdf of PowerArt proposal, made by Polich at AAPAC's Sept. 25, 2013 meeting.]

Miller said the commission would be hard-pressed to make a decision on this, without additional information. Kotarski added that AAPAC would be hard-pressed to spend any additional money at all, other than the projects that are in progress.

Kristin Tomey wondered about the process by which proposals like this are brought forward to AAPAC. Miller replied that in the past, most proposals haven’t provided the level of detail that AAPAC would like to see.

By way of background, the commission has previously developed a project intake form as a template for new projects. The project intake form is posted on AAPAC’s website. However, some commissioners have criticized the current process. The issue was debated at AAPAC’s Sept. 25, 2013 meeting. From The Chronicle’s report:

As he did during the Canoe Imagine Art discussion, John Kotarski said he’d like a more elaborate proposal for this and all projects that come to AAPAC for approval. He thought that the fundraising materials that [Marsha] Chamberlin had developed might serve that purpose.

Chamberlin pointed out that this project was approved about six months ago and has been discussed at virtually every meeting since then. “I just assumed people were up to speed on it,” she said.

Kotarski said his intent isn’t to get AAPAC up to speed. Rather, this kind of documentation will show the public that AAPAC was thorough in its work, before making decisions. He said he was critical of all the intake forms, and he’d emailed Aaron Seagraves with his comments. “I think our approach now is shoot, ready aim,” Kotarski said. “We are making decisions before we really, fully have a fleshed out concept and idea.” He’d like to change their approach, and said the Arts Alliance proposal [for PowerArt] provides a good model.

Chamberlin replied that the commission had developed the process of using project intake forms, so it should be a commission decision if they want to change that approach. These projects have been documented and presented to the commission at previous meetings, she noted.

Connie Brown felt that Kotarski was raising a broader issue, and she agreed that going forward, each project should have a more detailed packet of material. Bob Miller asked [Aaron] Seagraves to provide that type of packet in the future.

Chamberlin noted that this would dramatically change the process that AAPAC has developed. That process entails initial approval by AAPAC to move ahead on a project, followed by the formation of a task force to flesh out a more detailed proposal, on which AAPAC then votes.

After further discussion, commissioners reached consensus for Seagraves to compile more detailed proposals for AAPAC projects.

At the Jan. 29 meeting, Kotarski said he’d like to endorse the CEC bike share project, but that at this time AAPAC couldn’t commit any funding to it. Malverne Winborne reminded Kotarski about previous discussions that AAPAC has had about not endorsing projects. [The issue of endorsements arose when AAPAC was approached about endorsing a large Whirlydoodle installation. At AAPAC's July 25, 2012 meeting, Kotarski was unsuccessful in convincing other commissioners to support an endorsement policy for non-city-funded art projects. After a lengthy debate, AAPAC passed a resolution at that meeting stating that the commission would not make endorsements – and Kotarski cast the lone dissenting vote. There has been considerable turnover on the commission since that time.]

Winborne explained to new commissioners that there had been concern about “scope creep” at a time when AAPAC was trying to focus on moving forward with projects funded by the city’s Percent for Art program. Kotarski told Winborne that he’d take back his recommendation to endorse the bike share program.

Kotarski then moved to table the item until AAPAC received more information about the proposal.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to table the CEC bike share proposal.

Officer Elections

AAPAC’s bylaws call for the commission to hold officer elections for chair and vice chair in January, by secret ballot. From the bylaws:

Article VI Officers
Section 1. The officers of AAPAC shall be a Chair and Vice-Chair. The officers shall be elected by secret ballot each year from among the voting members of AAPAC. The officers shall be elected for a one-year term by a majority of the voting members currently serving on AAPAC. No member shall serve more than three (3) consecutive one-year terms in one office. The term of the officers shall run from the date of AAPAC’s regular meeting in January to the date of AAPAC’s regular meeting in January of the following year. [.pdf of AAPAC bylaws]

Bob Miller has served as chair for the past year, and offered to serve again. There were no other competing nominations.

Malverne Winborne attended his last meeting as an Ann Arbor public art commissioner on Jan. 29.

The current vice chair, Malverne Winborne, is stepping down from AAPAC. He did not seek reappointment after serving one three-year term, and the Jan. 29 meeting was his final one. John Kotarski was nominated as vice chair, and there were no competing nominations.

Votes were taken on slips of yellow paper and tallied by Winborne.

Outcome: Bob Miller and John Kotarski were unanimously elected as chair and vice chair of AAPAC.

At the city council’s Jan. 21 meeting, Jim Simpson was nominated to fill the vacancy of Winborne on the public art commission. Winborne’s term ended on Dec. 31, 2013. A confirmation vote on Simpson’s appointment is expected at the council’s Feb. 3 meeting.

Simpson works with the software firm Duo Security in Ann Arbor, and is affiliated with Baron Glassworks in Ypsilanti.

Commissioners present: Devon Akmon, Ashlee Arder, John Kotarski, Bob Miller, Kristin Tomey, Malverne Winborne, Nick Zagar. Also: Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Feb. 26, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. in the basement conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our artful coverage of public entities like the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) share a light moment before the Aug. 8 meeting started. They had both contested Democratic primaries two days earlier. Kunselman prevailed in a narrow race against Julie Grand. Jack Eaton won the Ward 4 race. (Photos by the writer.)

An hour of the meeting was taken up with a discussion of street closures around Michigan Stadium on football game days. The street closures are part of an effort to increase safety by creating a vehicle-free zone around the stadium. It involves a cooperative effort with the University of Michigan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the city of Ann Arbor police department.

Those deliberations ultimately resulted in a modification of the original plan, so that the southbound lane of Main Street would not be closed until an hour before the start of the game.

Other parts of the plan were approved as originally proposed, starting three hours before kickoff: E. Keech Street between S. Main and Greene streets will be closed, and access to Greene Street from E. Hoover to E. Keech streets will be limited to parking permit holders; the westbound lane on E. Stadium Blvd. turning right onto S. Main Street (just south of the Michigan Stadium) will be closed; and S. Main Street except for the southbound lanes will be closed from Stadium Boulevard to Pauline.

The council also amended the plan to require a report by its Oct. 7 meeting on how well the procedures are working. Even with the modification to the plan and the requirement to brief the council on Oct. 7, the proposal to close streets on football Saturdays was approved on just a 7-4 vote, with dissent from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). That neighborhood is located in Ward 4.

Also during the meeting, the council denied a requested street closure for a non-university event on South University Avenue. The requested closing was for “Beats, Eats, and Cleats,” sponsored by The Landmark apartment building. It was planned for the evening before a football game between the University of Michigan and the University of Notre Dame. Councilmembers expressed concerns about the probability of alcohol consumption.

Another 40 minutes of the meeting was taken up with discussion of a bike share program, which did have a direct connection to the University of Michigan. The council was asked to contribute $150,000 from the city’s alternative transportation fund. That money provided a 20% local match on a $600,000 Federal Highway Administration Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant that the Clean Energy Coalition (CEC) has received. The CMAQ funds have to be spent on capital, such as bikes and stations. Operations will be supported in the first three years of the program by UM at a level of $200,000 annually for a total of $600,000. The program will be operated by the CEC using B-Cycle as a vendor. The council’s vote on the bike share program was 9-2, with dissent from Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Higgins also dissented on a council resolution that called upon the state legislature to repeal Michigan’s version of a “stand your ground” law, as well as to repeal legislation that prevents local municipalities from regulating the sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of firearms and ammunition. That resolution came after public commentary on the verdict in the Trayvon Martin case at the council’s previous meeting. Higgins agreed with the sentiments in the resolution, but said she thought it would have a greater impact if people spoke as individuals. Other councilmembers expressed some skepticism that the resolution would have much impact, but it received their support.

The Kerrytown Place project – an 18-unit townhouse development planned for the location of the former Orthodox Greek church on North Main Street – was subjected to only brief remarks. The council unanimously approved its requested rezoning and site plans.

In other business, the council approved a $10,000 design budget for a sidewalk on Waldenwood near King Elementary School. Construction of the sidewalk would allow a mid-block crosswalk to be moved to a four-way stop intersection.

The council also agreed to accept $202,370 from the Federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP) to help the city purchase development rights on land in Lodi Township, southwest of the city.

Over dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), the council approved $18,500 to pay for public art administrator Aaron Seagraves’ contract through the end of 2013.

Among the nominations to boards and commissions announced at the meeting, two were significant: Rishi Narayan, founder and managing member of Underground Printing, to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority; and Jack Bernard, chair of the University of Michigan’s council for disability concerns, to the board of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.

Street Closures

The council was asked to approve street closures for all University of Michigan home football games. The council was also asked to approve a street closure for a one-off, non-university sponsored event – but timed for the evening before a home football game.

Street Closures: 2013 UM Football Games

This is the first year that the council has been asked to approve street closings around Michigan Stadium on all football game days. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, it’s part of an effort to increase safety by creating a vehicle-free zone around the stadium, and involves a cooperative effort with the University of Michigan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the city of Ann Arbor police department.

Street Closures: UM Football Games – Council Deliberations

On hand to answer questions were AAPD police chief John Seto, UM Dept. of Public Safety deputy chief Melissa Overton, and an official from U.S. Homeland Security.

UM football game day street closures (pink) with detour route (purple).

Seto led off by providing background on the issue. He described the street closures as a request that came from the University of Michigan public safety department, working in conjunction with U.S. Homeland Security. Seto described how he had asked for some modifications before he was comfortable with the request. He described a community meeting on July 24, saying that many comments and suggestions had been received. One modification Seto described coming out of that meeting was that southbound lanes of Main Street would be open until one hour before the game start.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she hadn’t seen the modified proposal, pointing out that the resolution on the agenda did not include the modifications. Higgins noted that she attended the community meeting. On football Saturdays, she said, the city does a great job for people going south, but not west.

Higgins made clear that she would not support the street closing, saying that the security issue was brought up at the time that the university renovated the stadium. The university had decided to build out as close to the street as possible, Higgins said. She wasn’t opposed to closing the right-turn lane on Stadium Boulevard, she said, but for the rest of the closures, she’d respect her constituents. As an argument against the proposal, she noted that the exact game start times aren’t necessarily known months in advance. She thanked Seto for attending the neighborhood meeting. But she contended that there should have been a meeting held earlier than two weeks before the council needed to vote.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) had questions for UM representatives. Briere noted that Ann Arbor is not unique as a city in hosting football games. Do other cities close streets near their stadiums? Ohio State University and University of Wisconsin close streets, Overton explained. Seto then gave more detail on game-day operations in other cities. Briere confirmed with Seto that the street closures in other cities are due to security concerns.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) asked how closing the street helps to prevent terrorism. Seto explained it’s part of what can be done as a “reasonable” approach. A Homeland Security official was invited to the podium, and he described how blast modeling of a small truck laden with explosives showed that considerable damage could be done. The recommended street closures were based on that blast modeling, he explained. Kailasapathy ventured that the same truck could come at the end of the game. Why is there a higher threat before the game? she asked. Overton explained that just before the game is when the heaviest pedestrian traffic occurs and when the most people are inside the stadium.

Seto added that the idea is to open things up in order to dissipate the crowd as quickly as possible. For some games, he noted, the crowd starts to leave early.

Responding to the 2010 date given for the Homeland Security recommendations, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) wondered why it’s taken three years to implement those recommendations. Higgins pointed out that East Stadium bridges were closed at the time for reconstruction. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated that for her it was significant that few complaints were received – based on Seto’s report – when street closures were implemented for a nighttime Notre Dame game in 2011.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) ventured that the main threat that is supposed to be mitigated is a potential truck bomb. Seto indicated that it’s one part of the motivation. Taylor inquired about the possible one-hour/three-hour mix of lane closures. Seto explained the balance between asset protection and the interest in getting the crowd to dissipate. The representative from Homeland Security explained that the proposed street closure plan around Michigan Stadium meets the national standards for security for major sporting events.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked who would pay for the extra security measures. Overton explained that the UM athletic department would pay the costs. Anglin asked how much the city contributes to the provision of security for football games.

Higgins responded to Anglin’s question by explaining that signs and signals work required in connection with football games is now paid for by the university. Higgins then asked who owns the barricades. Overton explained that the university owns the portable vehicle barriers (PVBs), which were purchased with Homeland Security funds, and described how they could be moved by two people.

Seto recalled how difficult it was to determine the end of the 2011 Notre Dame game, which included overtime periods, he contended. That description was corrected later in the meeting, when Petersen reported that she’d received a communication from a family member during the meeting saying that there were not any overtime periods but that the game had been decided on a play late in the fourth quarter.

Higgins challenged Seto’s characterization of the 2011 UM-Notre Dame game day logistics, saying that there were many issues associated with the 2011 street closures that perhaps Seto wasn’t aware of. She stressed that after the first three games this year, the residents want a review of how well things are working. Seto assured Higgins that review would be done.

Higgins asked what will happen if it turns out that the logistics aren’t working out. She ventured that the resolution should be modified to reflect that possibility.

Briere asked public services area administrator Craig Hupy to come to the podium. She asked about increased traffic flow in neighborhood streets, citing the possibility of increased deterioration of streets due to added traffic. Hupy indicated that would be minimal compared to the amount of traffic volume over the entire life of the street. Hupy explained that the concern is actually about diminished traffic, which could have a negative impact on the lawn parking that residents enjoy.

Lumm then moved to amend the resolution to make the closure of the southbound lane on South Main restricted to just one hour before the game start.

Outcome on Lumm’s amendment: The amendment passed unanimously.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) explained that he was living in Washington D.C. on 9/11. Many people had mourned the increased “locked down” status of the city following that attack, and he’d shared that view. Now, however, he weighs the question of “What if I’m wrong?”

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) followed up on the issue of reimbursement by UM for the signs and signals work. Hupy reported that when the city has billed the UM recently, the invoices have been paid. Kunselman then said as everyone knows, he works at the university. [Kunselman is a Planet Blue energy conservation liaison.] He called the street closures a public safety issue. He recalled being able to sneak in through a hole in the fence as a youngster. But it’s a changing world and we have to accommodate the change, Kunselman said. So he’d support the resolution.

From left: Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Briere wanted to make sure the street closing procedures were reviewed soon enough for the council to take action to revise them at the Oct. 7 council meeting. Higgins followed up by saying she wanted to add a resolved clause stipulating that following the first three football games, the AAPD would meet with the neighborhood and bring recommendations to the Oct. 7 city council meeting. Briere said she’d support such a resolved clause.

Lumm asked Seto to come back to the podium. Seto said what’s being asked in terms of reporting is doable. He could hear concerns and make suggestions, he continued, but there would probably be certain things he couldn’t fix.

Mayor John Hieftje asked Seto how easily things could be changed in the middle of the season. Seto expressed confidence that AAPD could be flexible. He gave the Ann Arbor marathon as an example of that. He described how AAPD often modifies its logistical operations on the fly. Hieftje expressed some concern that the plan called for taking down the barriers too soon – at the conclusion of the game. Seto described the balance that is to be struck on that issue.

Outcome: The amendment to include a report to the council by its Oct. 7 meeting was unanimously approved.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she still could not support the resolution, based on what she’d heard from the neighbors. She’d heard a lot of complaints about the 2011 Notre Dame game.

Petersen countered by calling the street closures “common sense,” saying it’s a public safety issue. She pointed out that the council had heard many voices calling on the council to ensure that public safety meets national standards – and she cited the Homeland Security official’s point that this street closure plan met national standards for football games in large stadiums. She could think of 114,000 good reasons to support this resolution [the population of the city], plus another 107,000 reasons [the capacity of the stadium], though she allowed there could be some overlap in those two figures.

Lumm said she appreciated the modification of the closure of southbound Main to be just one hour before the game started. Higgins responded to comments by Lumm and Petersen about meeting national standards for security, by saying UM needed to think about meeting those standards as it builds out its campus. Higgins somewhat wistfully said that in the future that will be the rest of the council’s problem – an apparent reference to her loss in Tuesday’s primary election.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the street closures around the Michigan football stadium on game days. Dissent came from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Street Closures: “Beats, Eats, and Cleats”

Appearing on the consent agenda was a resolution approving a street closure on South University Avenue between Washtenaw and Forest, for “Beats, Eats, and Cleats” – an event sponsored by The Landmark apartment building. The event was scheduled for Friday, Sept. 6, 2013, the evening before the football game between the University of Michigan and the University of Notre Dame.

Consent agenda items are voted on as a block, but councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked for separate consideration of the Beats, Eats and Cleats street closure. Briere said that although the event is advertised as non-alcoholic, she was aware of how many bars are located in the vicinity. She was also concerned that the street closure would be taking place on the evening before a football game.

The event was described as follows in the staff memo accompanying the item:

This event is a welcome to new and returning students and will have a pep rally, live music, food trucks, inflatable boxing, and other entertainment. Alcohol will not be served.

Briere asked if a representative from The Landmark was present to answer questions – but no one was there.

Briere ventured that except in unusual circumstances, the city did not typically agree to close streets on the evening before a home football game. City administrator Steve Powers said he wasn’t aware of that as a general policy. Mayor John Hieftje indicated that he believed that former police chief Barnett Jones had been inclined to be cautious about allowing street closures on the night before football games, and indicated that he shared Briere’s concern.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) ventured that there’d been a precedent for a June event hosted by the Neutral Zone teen center, called “Live on Washington.” That event also catered to young people and there are a number of bars and restaurants in the vicinity, so she wanted to know if there were any incidents related to alcohol for that event. Police chief John Seto responded to Petersen by saying he wasn’t aware of any incidents that had occurred. Seto said he wasn’t aware of a general policy on when street closures are approved or not, saying that they’re considered on a case-by-case basis. He noted that it’s the night before the UM-Notre Dame football game. He allowed he had some concerns – after weighing the things he knows against the things that he doesn’t know.

Petersen wondered if World of Beer, located at 1300 S. University Ave., would be serving alcohol during the event. Seto didn’t know. Petersen allowed that even if there was no beer tent on the street, World of Beer would be serving. Hieftje said he didn’t see much difference between having a beer tent and serving alcohol at a bar where people could take a few steps to the street. Hieftje reiterated that he had some concerns.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked if there’d be a difference in the police presence, if the event were to take place. Would there be an expectation that The Landmark building would provide security? Seto explained that the sponsor of the event intended to provide private security, but that the event could still require some additional police presence – because they’d be enforcing open intoxicants and minor-in-possession ordinances. Kunselman asked how this proposed event might compare to the Mud Bowl. Seto indicated that the Mud Bowl is a morning event and historically no street closures are associated with it. Kunselman said he couldn’t support the street closure for “Beats, Eats, and Cleats.”

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she appreciated everyone’s comments. She asked what “inflatable boxing” is. Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith, who was filling in for community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl, fielded the question, saying he was not certain what inflatable boxing is.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) indicated that she also would not support the street closing. Teall argued against the street closure based on the liability it seemed to introduce. Hieftje ventured that a Tuesday night would be better for such an event. Teall agreed that a different time would be better.

Outcome: The street closing for “Beats, Eats, and Cleats” was unanimously denied by the council.

Bike Share Program

The council was asked to approve a $150,000 expenditure from the alternative transportation fund in support of a bike share initiative. The project, spearheaded by the University of Michigan and the Clean Energy Coalition (CEC), is to establish a bike share program on the university campus and an area west of campus in downtown Ann Arbor. The selected vendor is B-Cycle. In a bike share program, users get access to bicycles parked at a station by swiping their credit card or membership card. Users can then return the bicycle to another station near their destination.

Potential specific and general bike share station locations in Ann Arbor, redrawn by The Chronicle from the council’s information packet. The program would include 12-14 bike share stations with an anticipated total of 120-140 bicycles. The contract to provide the service was won by B-Cycle.

Map provided by CEC subsequent to the council’s meeting.

The city’s $150,000 would provide the necessary local match for a $600,000 Federal Highway Administration Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant that the CEC has received. The CMAQ funds have to be spent on capital, such as bikes and stations. Operations will be supported in the first three years of the program by UM at a level of $200,000 annually for a total of $600,000.

Bike Share Program: Public Commentary

Jeff Hayner introduced himself as a resident of Ward 1. He told councilmembers he was there to speak in support of the bike sharing program. He described his participation in the first attempt at a bike sharing program about 25 years ago, when a small group of cyclists and bike mechanics had provided the community at large a fleet of free bicycles, with what he called the “unreasonable expectation” that they be shared freely and left available for the next person. It didn’t work out so great, he said, but then he ventured that “you gotta try.” Bike sharing has come a long way since then, Hayner said, and the bikes are used in a way that’s secured with a credit card.

Jeff Hayner (standing) talked with city administrator Steve Powers (seated) before the meeting started.

The bike sharing program that the council was being asked to support was a “winner in many ways,” he contended. The cost to the taxpayers is relatively small, he said, compared to the grant money that it would leverage – citing the 20:80 ratio of local to federal support. The city’s non-motorized plan and the climate action plan both call for programs like the bike sharing system, he said, with goals of mitigating congestion, improving air quality, and encouraging alternative means of transportation. He described the program as providing 125 bikes in 14 locations.

Hayner allowed that the locations in the university campus area and downtown don’t really serve the outlying neighborhoods. But he argued that the University of Michigan is also bearing the lion’s share of the costs, the UM deserved to receive the most benefit. He calculated the city’s cost at about $300 per bike per year, and characterized that as fair in light of the societal benefits. He concluded by saying he hoped that if the bike sharing program were successful, it could be held out as an example of a new, cooperative spirit between the University of Michigan and the city of Ann Arbor.

Bike Share Program: Council Deliberations

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) led off by saying that she had mixed feelings about the plan. She said she’s disappointed that there’s not a communications plan for safety in the city’s parks – saying she’d like more signs on mixed-use paths. She didn’t feel like the city has the safety infrastructure and adequate bike lanes to support a bike share program. Her vote, she said, was “not yet.”

Responding to Petersen’s remarks about the adequacy of bicycling safety infrastructure, mayor John Hieftje said that the plan was never to put bike lanes on every downtown street, because the traffic moves slow enough in some places that bicycles can keep up with cars. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) agreed with Petersen about the need for more education. Briere said that signage is great, but she didn’t think that signage replaces “people paying attention.” Briere was encouraged that UM is a strong financial supporter. She noted that that bike share program is not about commuting, but rather about moving from places like State and Liberty to the corner of Huron and Main (the Washtenaw County building).

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) shared a laugh before the meeting started.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) recalled the bike share program that Jeff Hayner had described during public commentary. The bicycles were painted green and were made available, and they disappeared to the far reaches of the city, never to return to the downtown, Kunselman said. He described the number of abandoned bikes downtown and on the campus that clutter the streets. He ventured that the bike share program might help to “clean up our streets.”

Kunselman talked about the “carrying capacity” of the environment. He was concerned about the fact that the money is coming from the alternative transportation fund, and might be taking away from other needs. Transportation program manager Eli Cooper described the intended use of the fund as making improvements as well as maintaining non-motorized infrastructure. Kunselman asked for examples of maintenance activities. Cooper explained that if anything were to be deferred, then it would be a half-mile of bike lane, including signs. That project would be postponed for about a year, he said.

Kunselman clarified that this is “seed money.” That’s right, Cooper replied, saying that it’s for capital needs. The University of Michigan is contributing operating money and the CEC is working on sponsorship revenue and handling fare revenue, Cooper explained. Cooper sketched a vision of public/private cooperation.

Kunselman asked about the clutter on downtown sidewalks. He wanted to know if the specific locations for bike share stations will require council approval. Cooper indicated that the right-of-way permitting program is authorized by the council, but the individual locations wouldn’t need approval.

Cooper responded to Petersen’s concern about adequate signs in the park system, by indicating it’s on the work plan. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reported she’d heard about mishaps in the parks – pedestrians being “slammed into” by bicyclists. She felts that bicyclists are now more inclined to commute by bicycle on paths in the parks. She brought up the issue of bells. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, told Lumm he has a bell on his bike and he’s one of those people who commutes through parks.

Lumm observed that obviously a lot of effort has gone into the bike share initiative. She appreciated the responses she’d received to questions about its impact on the alternative transportation program. She said the bike share program is appropriate to Ann Arbor. But she also expressed skepticism, saying that the city doesn’t prioritize its transportation programs. She objected to the fact that there’s not a long-term plan for the operating expenses – saying that UM’s commitment ends after three years. Still, she said she’d support the resolution.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked Cooper about the CMAQ grant deadline. Cooper indicated that there’s a deadline at the end of the federal fiscal year – Sept. 30.

Briere ventured that the council will hear that some of the bicycle lanes are in bad shape and that the city should spend the money on maintenance of bike lanes and not a bike share program. What’s being done to maintain bike lanes? Cooper replied to Briere by explaining he conducts an annual visual inspection of the entire bike lane system. An inventory of the bike lane inspections is available online, he said – saying it’s part of the city’s Bicycling in A2 website. He described the citizens request system for repairing potholes.

Petersen asked how long it would take before signs will show up in the parks. City administrator Steve Powers indicated he can provide an answer the following day. Petersen asked how to obtain a specific piece of educational literature about what every motorist should know about bike lanes. Cooper listed off various locations where it’s available and ways it’s distributed.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she doesn’t think the city has done a good job of educating cyclists. She described bicyclists who go through red lights. But she also described encountering a cyclist who was using proper hand signals and discovered that it was her council colleague, Chuck Warpehoski. She oftentimes sees cyclists go up on the sidewalk and use the crosswalk, she said. Higgins expressed concern that the city would be suddenly adding a lot of additional cyclists. About the city’s readiness for a bike share system, “I don’t think we’re there, yet,” Higgins said. Cooper ventured that the bike share program is another point of contact for additional educational efforts.

Higgins responded to Cooper by saying that handing someone a pamphlet doesn’t educate them about what they need to do. She thought users of the bike share system should have to pass a test. Petersen indicated she’s not concerned about educating cyclists, because they know their risks. Instead, Petersen said she’s concerned about the education of motorists.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) stated that he thinks it’s a good program. Matt Sandstrom from the CEC fielded some questions. Anglin asked if helmets are required to use the bike share system. That’s a tricky question, Sandstrom replied. He pointed out that helmets are not required by law in Michigan. Education about helmets could be placed on the bike station kiosks, he suggested. CEC would be pro-helmet, Sandstrom said.

Anglin asked if most of the users are anticipated to be younger. Not necessarily, Sandstrom replied.

Kunselman picked up the idea of education, saying that education needs to be taking place in schools. He asked if anyone remembered the rule about bicycles needing to give an audible signal before overtaking a pedestrian. He also pointed out that pedestrians don’t follow the rules of the road, either. This isn’t about education, but rather about bike sharing, Kunselman said. It’ll be the first in the state, he said.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the $150,000 allocation over two years to support the bike sharing program. Dissenting were Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Repeal of “Stand Your Ground”

A resolution added to the agenda on Tuesday before the Thursday meeting called upon the state legislature to repeal Michigan’s version of a “stand your ground” law, as well as to repeal legislation that prevents local municipalities from regulating the sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of firearms and ammunition. [.pdf of Self Defense Act 309 of 2006] [Firearms and Ammunition Act 319 of 1990]

The resolution cited an “outpouring of local voices calling for the repeal of Michigan’s Stand Your Ground Law,” that were heard following the mid-July verdict in the Trayvon Martin case. That included public commentary at the council’s July 15, 2013 meeting as well as subsequent public demonstrations.

The Trayvon Martin case involved an African American youth, Martin, who was shot and killed by George Zimmerman. Zimmerman was found not guilty of the crime, based on Florida’s “stand your ground” law.

Repeal of “Stand Your Ground”: Public Commentary

Lefiest Galimore led off public commentary at the start of the meeting with remarks on the topic of the resolution about the “stand your ground” legislation. He offered his greeting so the mayor, the council, and other Ann Arbor citizens. He mentioned that he’d addressed the council at its previous meeting on this issue, as something they should take seriously. He noted that the meeting had just begun with a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the phrase, “And justice for all.” Galimore contended that “stand your ground” laws allow individuals to interpret for themselves what justice means. As a citizen in the community, Galimore said, he felt he deserved the council’s support. He said he could be subjected to someone’s interpretation of what the “stand your ground” law means. He felt that if the council would support the resolution, it could be added to the support of other local units of government and be presented to state legislators. He urged councilmembers to support the resolution. Galimore’s remarks generated applause from the roughly two dozen people standing in support of his comments.

Blaine Coleman characterized “stand your ground” laws as licenses to hunt black men and black boys. It’s a sad thing, he said, that in 2013 black people have to come to a city council and ask: “Please don’t shoot us.” That’s an elementary demand that should have been fulfilled several hundred years ago, he said. Speaking only for himself, he said, he felt that the city council should go further, by passing a resolution urging $1 trillion to be spent on Detroit and every inner city. It’s easy for the U.S. Congress to cut a check for $1 trillion for a war in Iraq or Afghanistan, he said. And it’s easy to cut a check to bail out “Wall Street gamblers.” It should be equally easy to cut a check to rebuild Detroit and every inner city. It’s an elementary thing that should not require hand-wringing or complex decision making. Detroit was robbed over a period of a half century, he said, along with other inner cities. So they need to be rebuilt, Coleman concluded.

Mozhgan Savabieasfahani offered her perspective on racism in America – as someone from the Middle East, who had watched that area of the world be “plundered” with U.S. invasion and occupation. She characterized Trayvon Martin’s death as a lynching on the streets of America. The laws of this country don’t protect people of color, she said. That tells everyone in the world that racism is alive and well in the United States, and that racists will not see justice, she said. She described a protest during the Ann Arbor art fairs by some African American University of Michigan students. They had chanted, “Racism killed Trayvon,” and people of color had responded with cheers, but many white observers responded, “No, it didn’t.” She said that we’d do well do look inside ourselves and see how our laws promote racism, and then to change those laws.

Lucia Heinold also spoke in favor of the resolution on repealing “stand your ground” in Michigan. She introduced herself as a voter in Ward 5, so she thanked Chuck Warpehoski and Mike Anglin for sponsoring the resolution. She was impressed by the hard work that went into writing the resolution. It’s so easy to possess a gun that when you stand your ground, it’s quite possible that the person standing their ground will have a gun, she said. She said that Michigan’s law threw out centuries of common law that held that if people could not agree, then they should retreat. Heinold also contended that the evidence is that these types of laws are enforced in a disparate way, with people of color convicted disproportionately. She called Michigan’s “stand your ground” law the latest version of Jim Crow laws.

Repeal of “Stand Your Ground”: Council Deliberations

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) led off deliberations by thanking Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) for his hard work getting the resolution ready. She referred to the public commentary at the previous council meeting. She said she was aware that the council would face criticism for bringing a national issue to the city council agenda. So she wanted to make sure residents understood why the resolution is relevant. Part of her remarks included the statement that we don’t live in a post-racial society. There are groups that are still profiled, stalked and killed because they belong to a stigmatized minority group, she said. The 911 call transcripts, she said, clearly showed that the police did not want George Zimmerman to follow Trayvon Martin. But people like Zimmerman felt that the “stand your ground” law empowers them to take the law into their own hands, she noted.

A so-called self-defense law, Kailasapathy continued, turns into a “license to kill” in the hands of vigilantes. The reason the Trayvon Martin case had drawn national attention, Kailasapathy said, is that it showed the consequence of racial profiling and stereotyping and the inability of the courts to provide justice. Michigan’s version of the “stand your ground” law is flawed in a similar way to Florida’s law, she said – in that it condones the use of deadly violence, even when there’s an opportunity to retreat. By nullifying the common law duty to retreat, she said, it effectively removes any reasonable constraint on self-defense. Kailasapathy concluded: “Historically, African Americans have been oppressed – economically, culturally, socially, legally. We need to put a stop to this history of oppression now, and we as a city council should pass this resolution.”

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) thanked Kailasapathy and Warpehoski for the work they’d done to produce the language of the resolution. She described herself as someone who’s “not big on guns.” The idea that guns could be used in the way that Michigan’s “stand your ground” law allows had not occurred to her and was “news to her.” She said that someone who’s in fear for their life has a right to defend themselves, but someone who simply feels intimidated in a public place still has the ability to walk away. And that ability to walk away is something that should be encouraged, Briere said.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5). In the background is Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Warpehoski thanked Kailasapathy and Briere. The more he’d looked into “stand your ground” laws, the more disturbed he’d become, he said. Such laws do not reduce property crime rates, but rather increase murder rates, he said. The application of the laws has a disparate impact. He characterized the burden on prosecutors in connection with such laws as unreasonably high. He hoped the resolution would be heard by legislators in Lansing as more than just an editorial comment.

Mayor John Hieftje thanked the sponsors of the resolution for their work. He allowed that it might not sway a lot of people in the state capitol. He supported especially the second resolved clause on gun laws.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) told her colleagues that she’d be consistent as she has been for 14 years in opposing this kind of resolution. She contended that it’s a much more powerful message for individuals to send the message, instead of the city council. The legislature isn’t really listening to the Ann Arbor city council, she said. So individuals would have the potential to have a stronger impact. While she shared the sentiments in the resolution, she did not know that everyone in the city feels the same way about the resolution.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) would support the resolution, but cautioned that there’s a lot more going on in the world than we realize. He’d visited the Washtenaw County clerk’s office a few times in the last few months, he said, [submitting campaign finance reports, for example] and remarked on the lines of people coming in to get concealed weapons permits, saying it was “breathtaking.”

Continuing on that theme, Kunselman said: “It’s disturbing. It makes me wonder: Why don’t we all just get them? … I’m sure we all know somebody who has a concealed weapons permit. I think we should be talking to them: Why do they have them? I know that I’ve thought about getting one, just for sitting here, because of the concerns that I have – but I haven’t.” Some kidding from other councilmembers ensued, as they told him that now he would need one. He responded by saying, “I’ll walk away.”

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) acknowledged Higgins’ point of view, but said the resolved clause about gun laws moved her. She called it a public safety issue, and noted that public safety was a priority that the council had adopted as a budget priority. Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she appreciated everyone’s work on the resolution and said it’s the kind of issue that had prompted her to get involved in politics 13 years ago. She expressed some skepticism, however, that it would have any effect.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) appreciated Higgins’ point of view. She said the council needs to be cautious about venturing down this path – sending messages on issues that the council was not elected to address. However, she felt differently about this one. She agreed with Petersen that the resolution speaks to the issue of public safety. She said that local control over firearms is a good thing. So she was comfortable sending this message to the state legislature.

Outcome: The council voted to pass the resolution calling on the repeal of Michigan’s “stand your ground” law, with dissent from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Kerrytown Place: Rezoning, Site Plans

The council was asked to give final approval for two rezoning requests in connection with Kerrytown Place development. The council had given initial approval to the requests at its July 1, 2013 meeting. The two parts of the project – one fronting Main Street and the other Fourth Avenue – were treated separately for the purposes of the rezoning request. In both cases, the requested rezoning is from PUD (planned unit development district) to D2 (downtown interface base district).

3D rendering from site plan submitted for Kerrytown Place – the view from Main Street.

The 18-unit townhouse project that developer Tom Fitzsimmons is planning to build is much smaller than The Gallery, for which the PUD zoning had originally been approved at the request of a different owner. The city planning commission gave Kerrytown Place a unanimous recommendation of approval at its May 21, 2013 meeting. On the North Main Street side, the project would include a 16-unit townhouse building with an underground parking garage, 12 carport parking spaces and 24 surface parking spaces. On the North Fourth site – now a surface parking lot – the plan calls for constructing a duplex with a 2-car garage for each unit and a 21-space parking lot. Each unit of the duplex would face North Fourth Avenue.

The corresponding site plans for each part of the project had corresponding agenda items. As part of the development agreement, the project must achieve the disconnection of five footing drains from the sanitary sewer system elsewhere in the city. The city has temporarily suspended part of footing drain disconnection program, but the developer mitigation offset portion of that program remains in place.

No one spoke at any of the four public hearings related to this project.

Kerrytown Place: Council Deliberations

The agenda was altered to group the rezoning items with their corresponding site plan approvals. Deliberations were scant. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) called the development an appropriate scale for the neighborhood.

Tom Fitzsimmons, developer of the Kerrytown Place project.

She encouraged support for the “downzoning.” Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked planning manager Wendy Rampson how much it’s costing the petitioner to go through the process of rezoning.

The background to Kunselman’s question was that he’d put forward a resolution for a council-initiated rezoning of the parcel, which was voted down by other councilmembers a year earlier on Aug. 20, 2012. At that time, the parcel was in the hands of the Washtenaw County treasurer, as a result of a foreclosure proceeding.

Rampson responded to Kunselman’s question by venturing that it might be costing developer Tom Fitzsimmons around $20,000.

About the site plans, Briere characterized it as an opportunity for the council to approve a site plan that’s completely supported by the people who live in the area.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the rezoning for the Kerrytown Place project, as well as the site plans – on four separate votes.

Waldenwood Sidewalk Design Budget

The council was asked to approve a $10,000 design budget for a sidewalk to fill in a gap from the northeast corner of Penberton Ct. and Waldenwood northward to connect to the path leading the rest of the way to the King Elementary School.

In its form, the resolution was similar to other sidewalk design budgets the council has been asked to approve in recent months. [For example, the council has approved similar design budgets for a sidewalk on Barton Drive at its July 15, 2013, a sidewalk on Newport Road at its Jan. 22, 2013 meeting, and for a sidewalk on Scio Church Road at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting.]

Waldenwood sidewalk gap. Green indicates existing sidewalks. Red indicates a sidewalk gap. Blue stars indicate signers of a petition in support of the sidewalk.

However, the sidewalk gap near King Elementary School includes a history of advocacy by nearby resident and former Ann Arbor Public Schools board member Kathy Griswold dating back to 2009.

For students crossing Waldenwood from the west to attend school, the segment of sidewalk would allow them to make the crossing at the intersection, where there is a four-way stop – instead of crossing the street using a mid-block crosswalk. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, “The Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS) Transportation Safety Committee has agreed the use of a new crosswalk at this stop controlled location would be preferable over the existing mid-block crossing at the school entrance.”

From the fall of 2009 through the spring of 2010, Griswold addressed the council on at least nine occasions on the topic of the King school crosswalk and the related sidewalk gap. The construction of a sidewalk had been met with opposition by the immediately adjoining property owners. The funding of new sidewalks – as contrasted with repair of existing sidewalks – is typically achieved at least partly through a special assessment on adjoining property owners. Sidewalk repair – but not new construction – can be paid for with the city’s sidewalk repair millage.

Waldenwood Sidewalk: Council Deliberations

The proposed sidewalk location is in Ward 2. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) led off deliberations by saying she was happy to see this come to the council in a formal process, noting that it has been debated since 2009. Petersen stated that the AAPS safety committee minutes from that era don’t indicate clearly that the group endorsed moving the crosswalk from mid-block to the four-way stop. City traffic engineer Pat Cawley stepped to the podium to offer his recollection of the meeting.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) asked public services area administrator Craig Hupy to the podium. She asked if the project would come to a halt if the property owners objected. Hupy indicated that if the council approves the resolution on its agenda, then the city staff would meet with the community and then come back for the second resolution in the special assessment process. Kailasapathy confirmed with Hupy that it’s a council decision, not one made by the adjoining property owners. Hupy indicated there are three chances to kill the project along the way in the special assessment process. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) got additional confirmation that the property owner can’t kill the project.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked staff for their work. She asked how residents would be notified for the next step. Hupy explained that they’d be mailed a meeting notice. He ventured that there could be more than one meeting. Lumm noted that it would have made sense to undertake the sidewalk construction when Waldenwood was recently repaved. She indicated that she was glad that this is going through a formal process.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked for the approximate timeline for the project. Hupy couldn’t speak to exact details, but characterized it as a relatively simple project from an engineering and design perspective. The time-consuming part for this project would be the public engagement portion of the project, Hupy said. He thought it might come back to the council by late winter or spring of 2014.

Briere ventured that the sidewalk could be constructed by the start of school in the fall of 2014. Hupy allowed that might be possible.

Petersen said she thought the property owners wouldn’t be special-assessed because it’s on their rear lot lines. Hupy indicated that Petersen had picked up on the fact that there’s likely not anything that will be special-assessable in the project.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the design budget for the Waldenwood sidewalk.

Greenbelt

Two items appeared on the council’s agenda in connection with the city’s greenbelt: acceptance of a federal grant, and the appointment of a new member to the greenbelt advisory commission.

Greenbelt: $202,370 from FRPP

At its Feb. 19, 2013 meeting, the council had approved an application to the Federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP) for the purchase of development rights on two properties in Lodi Township – the 78-acre Donald Drake Farm on Waters Road in Lodi Township, and for a 90-acre property owned by Carol Schumacher on Pleasant Lake Road in Lodi Township.

Properties currently protected through the Ann Arbor greenbelt program (smaller green areas) in the context of the greenbelt boundary (larger squarish region). (Data from the city of Ann Arbor mapped by The Chronicle on Aug. 3, 2013 with geocommons.com)

The city of Ann Arbor was notified recently that for the two properties, a total of $202,370 in matching dollars had been approved to fund the purchase of development rights – $50,960 for the Drake property and $151,410 for the Schumacher land. The council was asked to authorize the receipt of the federal matching funds.

The award of FRPP money comes in the context of the city’s greenbelt program, supported by a 0.5 mill tax approved by voters to acquire development rights on land to preserve open space.

Lodi Township covers the southwest corner of the greenbelt boundary area.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) got confirmation that the issue would come back before the council for approval of the actual purchase of development rights, when all the funding sources are identified. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, responded to Lumm’s questions by saying that in the past, Lodi Township has contributed to the acquisition of development rights. Smith was filling in for community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl. Lumm said she looked forward to possible participation from Lodi.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to authorize the receipt of the federal farmland protection money.

Greenbelt: Appointment to GAC

The appointment of John Ramsburgh to the greenbelt advisory commission had been postponed from the council’s July 15 meeting, which is customary for appointments to GAC. It’s one of the few boards or commissions whose members are nominated by the city council, not the mayor. The usual two-step process associated with appointments – nomination at one council meeting followed by confirmation at the subsequent meeting – is mirrored for GAC appointments by postponing action on a resolution appointing a representative until the following meeting.

Ramsburgh is a development officer with the University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science & the Arts. He also is the son of Ellen Ramsburgh, a long-time member of the Ann Arbor historic district commission, and its former chair. He is filling a position previously held by Dan Ezekiel, who was term limited.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously, without discussion, to appoint John Ramsburgh to GAC. Appointments to GAC are for three years.

Public Art Administrator Contract

The council was asked to appropriate funds to pay for public art administrator Aaron Seagraves’ contract through the end of 2013. The amendment brings his total compensation for the period from June 11, 2011 through Dec. 31, 2013 to $48,900. The specific projects mentioned in the resolution, which require administrative work, are artwork in the Kingsley rain garden, Argo Cascades, and the East Stadium Blvd. bridges.

From left: Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off deliberations by saying she could imagine people asking why the city has a public art administrator, if the city doesn’t have a Percent for Art program any longer. She explained the need for a public art administrator by pointing out there’s old and new business to address. There’s the old business of artwork at the Kingsley rain garden, Argo Cascades, and East Stadium bridges. There’s also a need to address the new business of integrating the new public art program – which is not based on a 1% allocation from every capital improvement project – into the capital improvements program.

Public services area administrator Craig Hupy, who supervises Seagraves, explained to Briere that the reason that the contract extension goes through the end of the year is to allow for a bridge between the old Percent for Art program and the new program.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) noted that an issue had come up when she and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) had attempted an amendment to the new public art ordinance that would have allowed money set aside for public art in previous years to be returned to its funds of origin. Kailasapathy said she really had a problem with the resolution, so she wouldn’t support it.

Lumm also said she had a problem with the resolution. She said she’d tried at every point to discontinue the Percent for Art program. Instead of returning the $800,000 in unspent funds, the council had decided to maintain a public art “slush fund,” she contended. She didn’t think that the council should continue to “throw good money after bad.” She would not support the continued spending on Percent for Art projects.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked why $18,500 was being appropriated for the public art administrator’s compensation, but $20,500 is the amount in the resolution. Hupy described miscellaneous supplies as accounting for the $2,000. Hupy pointed out that the information was provided in answers to the council’s caucus questions.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) indicated she’d support the resolution – because she wants the area around the Dreiseitl sculpture outside city hall to become ADA compliant. Kailasapathy asked why a public art administrator would be handling ADA compliance. City administrator Steve Powers responded by saying that hasn’t been decided yet.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) calculated that the public art administrator is being paid only $20/hour. He called that a bargain. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated he’d support the allocation, because it’s a small amount. But he cautioned that he might not vote to support spending the money on the remaining Percent for Art projects in the pipeline. He said the pressure is on the public art commission to bring forward a high quality piece of art. Kunselman could say right then that he’s not going to vote to spend money on “anything that’s hanging from a light pole.” That was a reference to the recommended project for the East Stadium bridges location, proposed by artist Catherine Widgery and recommended by a task force.

Briere asked what would happen if the council voted not to spend the money on the East Stadium bridges location. Would the money revert to the public art fund? Powers responded to Briere’s question by saying that’s for the council to decide. The council could say to the public art commission, “Try again,” Powers said. Briere pointed out that the council would still need to amend the city’s public art ordinance in order to return public art funds to their funds of origin.

Mayor John Hieftje supported the resolution, saying that it’s necessary to have administrative support for the art program. Margie Teall (Ward 4) reiterated that point – that a successful art program requires an administrator. Teall said that residents do see the value of public art, and having an administrator is vital.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) stated that there was a common understanding, if not a unanimous one, that a transition from the old program to the new program would need to be funded. He called for honoring the effort that had gone into this.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the contract extension for the public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, over dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Appointments, Nominations

Pending a possible council rule change that would slot mayoral appointments and nominations to boards and commissions earlier in the meeting, those items still come near the end of the meeting. The council will vote on the rule change at its Sept. 3, 2013 meeting.

Appointments

The council was asked to confirm mayoral nominations made at the previous council meeting on July 15: Sue Perry to the Elizabeth Dean Fund committee; and Evan Nichols to the zoning board of appeals.

Outcome: The council voted to confirm Perry and Nichols.

Nominations

Highlights from nominations for boards and commissions added on Aug. 6 include Rishi Narayan to replace Leah Gunn on the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Narayan is founder and managing member of Underground Printing, which offers screenprinting of apparel in more than a dozen cities nationwide. Narayan made the Crain’s Detroit Business “Twenty in their 20s” list in 2010 as a 28-year-old.

Mayor John Hieftje before the start of the Aug. 8 meeting. Nominations are printed out on pink sheets for councilmembers.

Jack Bernard is being nominated to the board of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. When the AAATA articles of incorporation were changed recently to add the city of Ypsilanti as a member, the board was expanded from seven to nine members. One of the two additional seats is appointed by the city of Ypsilanti. Gillian Ream was appointed to that spot. Bernard’s appointment would fill the additional slot appointed by the city of Ann Arbor.

Bernard is a lecturer in the University of Michigan law school and an attorney with UM’s office of the vice president and general counsel. He is also currently chair of the university’s council for disability concerns. Given the nature of wrangling over Eric Mahler’s recent appointment to the AAATA board, Bernard’s chairship of that group could be a key qualification. Some councilmembers objected to Mahler’s appointment, arguing that someone who could represent the disability community should be appointed instead.

Mayor John Hieftje did not offer explanations for any of the nominations he put forward at the Aug. 8 meeting.

Originally slated on the agenda to replace Newcombe Clark on the board of the Ann Arbor DDA was Al McWilliams. However, the final version of the agenda did not include his name. Al McWilliams is founder of Quack!Media, an ad agency located in downtown Ann Arbor. Quack!Media lists the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority on its website as one of its clients. McWilliams has written advocacy pieces for bicycling on his blog.

Originally slated for nomination to serve on the public art commission was Jeff Hayner. But the final version of the nomination list did not include his name. He has filed petitions to run for the Ward 1 city council seat. The Ward 1 city council ballot for November will include incumbent Democrat Sabra Briere, and independents Hayner and Jaclyn Vresics.

The nominations put forward on Aug. 8 will be put before the council for a confirmation vote on Aug. 19.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Video Privacy, Surveillance

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Meghan Clark introduced herself as a resident of Ward 1. She’s also a PhD student in computer science at the University of Michigan, she said. She addressed the video privacy ordinance, which the council had voted down at a recent meeting. She characterized the rejected law as requiring a democratic process to be followed before long-term video surveillance cameras could be installed. Technology is advancing faster than the law, she said. She held up a small device in her hand, explaining that it was a camera capable of high resolution, equivalent to HD video.

Clark also held up a Raspberry Pi, which is a computer capable of running advanced computer vision libraries. And the whole system could be powered with a cell phone charger. The components she had described, she continued, could be purchased online for about $60. A friend of hers in Washington D.C. runs a user group on drones, which has 471 active members. Police departments in 13 states have applied for, and in some cases received, FAA licenses to use drones for police work.

“Surveillance technology is here,” Clark said, but the legal predisposition to protect privacy is not. Privacy means having input into what happens to your personal information, Clark said. She was disappointed that the council rejected the video privacy ordinance. As a computer scientist and a citizen, she said, she was frightened. So she encouraged the council to pursue the suggestion that Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had made at the July 1 meeting, to at least develop policy guidelines for the future.

Comm/Comm: North Main Huron River Task Force

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported on the North Main Huron River task force. The due date of July 31 for a final report hadn’t been met, she said. She conveyed an apology from the task force. She expected the report will be completed by the end of August.

Comm/Comm: Planning Commission Update

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who represents the city council on the planning commission, announced a meeting of the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC) the following Tuesday, Aug. 13. A planning commission work session to start at 7 p.m. would be followed by an ORC meeting – to discuss the review of D1 (downtown core) zoning – at 8 p.m. The ORC meeting would run concurrently with a planning commission committee meeting on the non-motorized plan revision.

Comm/Comm: Disabilities Survey

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) called attention to a survey on disabilities being conducted by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR).

Comm/Comm: Housing Commission Update

Margie Teall (Ward 4), who serves as liaison from the council to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, gave an update on the AAHC. The weatherization at Hikone is done, she reported, and the window replacements for tenants are done at Baker Commons. A non-smoking policy will be implemented at all the housing commission properties, she said.

Comm/Comm: Argo Cascades

City administrator Steve Powers reported that usage at Argo Cascades is up over 50% for July compared to July last year.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, Aug. 19, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]

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

Potential specific and general bike share station locations in Ann Arbor. The program would include 12-14 bike share stations with an anticipated total of 120-140 bicycles. The contract to provide the service was won by B-Cycle.

The selected vendor is B-Cycle. In a bike share program, users get access to bicycles parked at a station by swiping their credit card or membership card. Users can then return the bicycle to another station location near their destination.

The Ann Arbor city council’s action authorizing the alternative transportation funds came at its Aug. 8, 2013 meeting. The vote was 9-2, with dissent from Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

The city’s $150,000 will provide the necessary local match for a $600,000 Federal Highway Administration Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant that the CEC has received. The CMAQ funds are required to be spent on capital (bikes and stations). Operations will be supported in the first three years of the program by UM at a level of $200,000 annually for a total of $600,000.

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

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

The council’s agenda for Thursday includes a relatively uncontroversial downtown development project. It’s also dominated by several items that relate to the way people move around inside the city. Some other agenda items relate to land outside the city.

Four different items appear on the council’s agenda related to developer Tom Fitzsimmons’ Kerrytown Place project – an 18-unit townhouse development proposed for the site of the former Greek Orthodox church on North Main Street. Nestled between Main Street on the west and Fourth Avenue on the east, the project is divided into two pieces – the Main Street frontage and Fourth Avenue frontage. Each piece of the project includes a rezoning request and a site plan proposal – and each of those constitutes an agenda item unto itself. The rezoning requested is from PUD (planned unit development) to D2 (downtown interface).

Three items relate to a piece of infrastructure closely associated with people walking as a way to get around town – sidewalks. Two resolutions involve the acceptance by the city of easements for sidewalks – one as part of a mid-block cut-through for The Varsity, a residential high-rise downtown, and the other in connection with a Safe Routes to School project near Clague Middle School on the city’s northwest side. Another sidewalk on the agenda with a school-related theme is a request for the council to approve a $10,000 design budget for about 160 feet of new sidewalk near King Elementary School, which would allow for a mid-block crosswalk to be moved to a four-way stop intersection.

More people might be able to get around the downtown and University of Michigan campus area by bicycle – if the council approves the use of $150,000 from the alternative transportation fund as requested on Thursday’s agenda. The money would provide the local match on a $600,000 federal grant obtained by the Clean Energy Coalition to establish a bike-sharing program through B-Cycle.

Getting around inside the city this fall will include the annual wrinkles due to University of Michigan move-in – and those traffic control measures are included in the council’s consent agenda. New this year will be additional traffic controls around Michigan Stadium on football game days – including the closure of Main Street between Pauline and Stadium Blvd. for a period starting three hours before kickoff until the end of the game. At its Thursday meeting, the council will be asked to give approval of the football game day traffic controls.

In matters outside the city, the council will be asked to authorize the receipt of $202,370 from the Federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP) to help the city purchase of development rights on land in Lodi Township, southwest of the city. That federal grant comes in connection with the city’s greenbelt program. The council will also be asked to confirm the nomination of John Ramsburgh to the greenbelt advisory commission.

Also on the council’s agenda is the extension of a contract for the city’s part-time public art administrator through the end of the year – to handle projects in the works at locations the Kingsley rain garden, East Stadium bridges, and Argo Cascades.

Added to the agenda late, on Tuesday, is a resolution that calls upon the state legislature to repeal Michigan’s version of a “stand your ground” law as well as to repeal legislation that prevents local municipalities from regulating the sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of firearms and ammunition. The agenda item comes in response to public commentary after the verdict in the Trayvon Martin case was handed down in mid-July.

Details of other meeting agenda items are available on the city’s Legistar system. Readers can also follow the live meeting proceedings on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network.

The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the meeting, published in this article “below the fold.” The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m.

6:54 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. Councilmembers who’ve arrived in council chambers so far are Stephen Kunselman, Sumi Kailasapathy, Sally Petersen, and Marcia Higgins.

7:08 p.m. Pledge of allegiance, moment of silence and the roll call of council. All councilmembers are present.

7:08 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Six people are signed up tonight for public commentary reserved time. Of those, three are described on the agenda as speaking on the bike share agenda item – which asks the council to approve a $150,000 expenditure from the city’s alternative transportation fund in support of a bike share initiative in downtown and the University of Michigan campus area. Speakers signed up to speak on the bike share item are listed on the agenda as Lucia Heinold, Jeff Hayner, and Lefiest Galimore. Heinold and Galimore, however, will be speaking on the resolution calling for a repeal of Michigan’s “stand your ground” law. Others who are signed up to speak on the “stand your ground” item include Mozhgan Savabieasfahni and Blaine Coleman. The sixth person signed up to speak is Meghan Clark – on the topic of surveillance and privacy.

7:12 p.m. Lefiest Galimore is now holding forth. He quotes the pledge of allegiance: “And justice for all.” He asks the council to support the repeal of “stand your ground” law. His remarks get applause from the roughly two dozen people standing in support of his remarks.

7:15 p.m. Jeff Hayner is speaking in support of the bike sharing program. He describes his participation in the first attempt at a bike sharing program several years ago, where bikes were simply provided for free, which he describes as “not turning out so well.” He argues for the bike share funding support based on the amount of grant funds that it will leverage. He allows that it doesn’t serve the outlying neighborhoods, but argues that the University of Michigan is also bearing the lion’s share of the costs. He calculates the city’s cost at about $300 per bike per year.

7:21 p.m. Blaine Coleman characterizes “stand your ground” laws as hunting licenses for black people. They should not have to appear before a city council and ask: “Please don’t shoot us,” Coleman says. He calls for the council in the future to pass a resolution calling for $1 trillion of support for the city of Detroit.

Savabieasfahni offers her perspective on racism in America. She characterizes Trayvon Martin’s death as a lynching on the streets of America. The laws of this country don’t protect people of color, she says. She describes a protest during the art fairs by University of Michigan students during which they chanted, “Racism killed Trayvon,” and many white observers responded, “No, it didn’t.” She says we’d do well do look inside ourselves and see how our laws promote racism and to change those laws.

7:24 p.m. Meghan Clark describes how a sophisticated surveillance system can be constructed for about $60. Surveillance technology is here, she says. Privacy means having input into what happens to your personal information. She’s disappointed that the council rejected the video privacy ordinance. She encourages the council to pursue the suggestion that Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had made to at least develop policy guidelines.

7:26 p.m. Lucia Heinold is now speaking in favor of the resolution on “stand your ground.” The evidence is that these laws are enforced in a disparate way, she said, with people of color convicted disproportionately.

7:27 p.m. Council communications. This is the first of three slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:28 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reports on the North Main Huron River task force. The due date of July 31 won’t be met for the final report she says. She conveys an apology from the task force. She expects it will be completed by the end of August. Briere announces a meeting of the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee next Tuesday.

7:32 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) calls attention to a survey on disabilities. Margie Teall (Ward 4) gives an update from the Ann Arbor housing commission. The weatherization at Hikone is done. The window replacements for tenants are done at Baker Commons, Teall reports. A non-smoking policy will be implemented at all the housing commission properties. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) announces an effort by a church to make the city aware of some of their concerns. City administrator Steve Powers had attended, Anglin says.

7:33 p.m. Powers reminds the public of the groundbreaking for the skatepark at noon tomorrow, at Veterans Memorial Park. Argo Cascades usage is dramatically up in July compared to July last year, Powers reports.

7:33 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Four of the five hearings tonight relate to the Kerrytown Place project being proposed by developer Tom Fitzsimmons for the location on North Main Street where the former Greek Orthodox church stood. The project is divided into two parts – the Main Street frontage and the Fourth Avenue frontage. Each part includes a request for rezoning – from PUD (planned unit development) to D2 (downtown interface) – and a separate site plan. For each rezoning request and for each site plan, a separate public hearing is held. The council gave initial approval to the requests at its July 1, 2013 meeting.

The other public hearing is on a change to the ordinance governing the employee retirement system – to reflect some recently negotiated changes to the contracts with two of the police unions.

7:34 p.m. No one speaks at the public hearing on the retirement ordinance. Thomas Partridge is not in attendance tonight.

7:35 p.m. No one speaks at any of the Kerrytown Place public hearings.

7:35 p.m. Minutes and consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. Tonight’s consent agenda includes five items, three of which relate to street closings:

• A purchase order not to exceed $85,000 with SEHI Computers for replacement of computers. The amount is to cover 60 desktops and 20 laptops for a proposed cost of $75,648. The $85,000 figure includes a contingency of 12% ($9,351).
• A $32,977 professional services agreement for testing of the road materials for the Packard Street resurfacing project (from Anderson to Kimberly). Construction is scheduled for fall 2013, from August through October.
• Resolution approving a street closure on South University Avenue between Washtenaw and Forest, for “Beats, Eats, and Cleats” – an event sponsored by The Landmark Building. The event is Friday, Sept. 6, 2013.
• Resolution approving changes to traffic patterns and parking in connection with University of Michigan student move-in – from Aug. 28-30. This is an annual approval.
• Resolution approving closure of South Main Street between Huron and Liberty, and Washington Street between South Ashley and the alley on East Washington toward South Fourth Avenue – for “Dancing in the Streets.” The closure lasts from noon to 7:30 p.m. on Sunday, Sept. 1, 2013.

7:45 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. Briere asks for separate consideration of the Beats, Eats and Cleats street closures and the Dancing in the Streets items. Briere says that she’s concerned that this street closure will be taking place on the evening before a football game. Mayor John Hieftje shares her concern.

Police chief John Seto said he wasn’t aware of a general policy, saying that they’re considered on a case-by-case basis. He noted that it’s the night before the UM-Notre Dame football game. He allowed he had some concerns, after weighing the things he knows against the things that he doesn’t know. Petersen wonders if World of Beer will be serving beer. Hieftje says he doesn’t see much difference between having a beer tent and serving alcohol at a bar. He reiterates that he has some concerns.

Kunselman asks if there’d be a difference in the police presence, if the event takes place. Seto says the sponsor of the event intends to provide private security. Kunselman asks about a comparison to Mud Bowl. Seto indicates that’s a morning event and there’s historically no street closures associated with that event. Kunselman inquires about a “pep rally.” He said that he can’t support it.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) says she appreciates everyone’s comments. She asks what “inflatable boxing” is. Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith is fielding questions. He’s not certain what inflatable boxing is. Teall says she also won’t support this street closing.

7:47 p.m. Teall is continuing to argue against the street closure based on the liability it seems to introduce. Hieftje ventures that a Tuesday night would be better. Teall allows that a different time would be better.

7:47 p.m. Outcome: The street closing for Beats, Eats, and Cleats is unanimously denied by the council.

7:49 p.m. Outcome: The Dancing in the Streets street closure is approved. The consent agenda is now dispatched.

7:49 p.m. Retirement ordinance. The council is being asked to give final approval of a change to the ordinance governing the city employees retirement system to reflect changes negotiated with two of the police unions – the police service specialists and the command officers. The staff memo accompanying the ordinance change characterizes the changes as related to “new hires, rehires and transfers between City service units before, on or after July 1, 2013 as well as grammatical corrections where appropriate.” The council gave initial approval to the ordinance change at its July 15 meeting.

7:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously without discussion to give final approval of the changes to the ordinance on the city employee retirement system.

7:49 p.m. Kerrytown Place rezoning. Final approval for two rezoning requests in connection with Kerrytown Place appear on the council’s agenda. The council gave initial approval to the requests at its July 1, 2013 meeting. The two parts of the project – one fronting Main Street and the other Fourth Avenue – are treated separately for the purposes of the rezoning request. In both cases, the requested rezoning is from PUD (planned unit development district) to D2 (downtown interface base district). The 18-unit townhouse development that developer Tom Fitzsimmons is planning to build is much smaller than The Gallery, for which the PUD zoning had originally been approved at the request of a different owner. The city planning commission gave a unanimous recommendation of approval at its May 21, 2013 meeting.

3D rendering from site plan submitted for Kerrytown Place – the view from Main Street.

On the North Main Street side, the project would include a 16-unit townhouse building with an underground parking garage, 12 carport parking spaces and 24 surface parking spaces. On the North Fourth site – now a surface parking lot – the plan calls for constructing a duplex with a 2-car garage for each unit and a 21-space parking lot. Each unit of the duplex would face North Fourth Avenue. The corresponding site plans for each part of the project have corresponding items later on the agenda.

7:50 p.m. Briere calls it an appropriate scale for the neighborhood. She encourages support for the downzoning.

7:53 p.m. Briere reiterates that it’s considered a “downzoning.” Kunselman says he’ll support it. He asks planning manager Wendy Rampson how much it’s costing the petitioner to go through the process. She looks at Tom Fitzsimmons and ventures that it might be $20,000. She’s going to look it up for him.

7:54 p.m. Briere says it’s another opportunity to approve a site plan that’s completely supported by the people who live in the area.

7:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the rezoning for the Kerrytown Place project as well as the site plans.

7:55 p.m. Appointment to the greenbelt advisory commission (GAC): John Ramsburgh. This item was postponed from the council’s July 15 meeting, which is customary for appointments to GAC. It’s one of the few boards or commissions whose members are nominated by the city council not the mayor. The usual two-step process associated with appointments – nomination at one council meeting followed by confirmation at the subsequent meeting – is mirrored for GAC appointments by postponing action on a resolution appointing a representative until the following meeting.

Ramsburgh is a development officer with the University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science & the Arts. He also is the son of Ellen Ramsburgh, a long-time member of the Ann Arbor historic district commission, and its former chair. He is filling a position previously held by Dan Ezekiel, who was term limited.

7:55 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously without discussion to appoint John Ramsburgh to GAC. Appointments to GAC are for three years.

7:55 p.m. Resolution on Michigan’s “stand your ground” law. This is a resolution added to the agenda on Tuesday, which calls upon the state legislature to repeal Michigan’s version of a “stand your ground” law as well to repeal legislation that prevents local municipalities from regulating sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of firearms and ammunition. [.pdf of Self Defense Act 309 of 2006] [Firearms and Ammunition Act 319 of 1990]

The resolution cites an “outpouring of local voices calling for the repeal of Michigan’s Stand Your Ground Law,” that were heard following the mid-July verdict in the Trayvon Martin case. That included public commentary at the council’s July 15, 2013 meeting as well as subsequent public demonstrations.

8:00 p.m. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) thanks Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) for his hard work getting the resolution ready. She references the public commentary at the previous council meeting. She says she knows what criticism people face when a national issue is brought to the city council. She reads aloud written remarks. Part of her remarks includes the statement that we don’t live in a post-racial society. She characterizes “stand your ground laws” as being used as a license to kill.

Briere thanks Kailasapathy and Warpehoski. She describes herself as someone who’s “not big on guns.” The idea that guns could be used in the way that a “stand your ground” law allows had not occurred to her.

8:06 p.m. Warpehoski thanks Kailasapathy and Briere. The more he’d looked into “stand your ground” laws, the more disturbed he was. Such laws do not reduce property crime rates, he says. He characterizes the burden on prosecutors in connection with such laws as unreasonably high.

Hieftje thanks the sponsors of the resolution for their work. He supports the second resolved clause on gun laws. Higgins says she’ll be consistent as she has been for 14 years in opposing this kind of resolution. She says it’s a much more powerful message for individuals to send the message. She doesn’t know that everyone in the city feels the same way about the resolution.

Kunselman will support it, but says that there’s a lot more going on in the world than we realize. He talks about the number of concealed weapons permits that are being processed by the county clerk’s office. He’s thought about getting a concealed weapons permit just sitting at the council table, but stresses that he has not done so.

8:10 p.m. Petersen acknowledges Higgins point of view, but says the resolved clause about gun laws moved her. She calls it a public safety issue. Teall says she appreciates everyone’s work on the resolution and says it’s the kind of issue that had prompted her to get involved in politics 13 years ago. She expresses skepticism that it would have any effect.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) appreciates Higgins’ point of view. She says the council needs to be cautious about venturing down this path – sending messages on issues that the council was not elected to address. However, she felt differently about this one. She agrees with Petersen that it speaks to the issue of public safety. She says that local control over firearms is a good thing. So she was comfortable sending this message to the state legislature.

8:11 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to pass the resolution calling on the “stand your ground” law, with dissent from Higgins.

8:11 p.m. Acceptance of $202,370 from the Federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP). The award of FRPP money is in the context of the city’s greenbelt program, supported by a 0.5 mill tax approved by voters to acquire development rights on land to preserve open space.

At its Feb. 19, 2013 meeting, the council had approved an application to the FRPP for the purchase of development rights on two properties in Lodi Township – the 78-acre Donald Drake Farm on Waters Road in Lodi Township, and for a 90-acre property owned by Carol Schumacher on Pleasant Lake Road in Lodi Township. The city of Ann Arbor was notified recently that for the two properties, a total of $202,370 in matching dollars had been approved to fund the purchase of development rights – $50,960 for the Drake property and $151,410 for the Schumacher land.

The council is being asked tonight to authorize the receipt of the federal matching funds. Here’s a map of the properties currently protected through the greenbelt program (smaller green areas) in the context of the greenbelt boundary (larger squarish region). Lodi Township covers the southwest corner of the greenbelt boundary area.

Ann Arbor greenbelt properties. Data from the city of Ann Arbor mapped by The Chronicle on Aug. 3, 2013 with geocommons.com

8:14 p.m. Lumm confirms that the issue will come back before the council when all the funding sources are identified. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, notes that in the past, Lodi Township has contributed to the acquisition of development rights. Lumm says she looks forward to possible participation from Lodi.

8:14 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to authorize the receipt of the federal farmland protection money.

8:14 p.m. Recess. The council is now in recess.

8:23 p.m. The council has returned from recess.

8:23 p.m. Road closures for 2013 UM football games. Unlike the university student move-in traffic changes, which the council approved as part of its consent agenda, this is the first year that the council has been asked to approve street closings around the football stadium on game days.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, it’s part of an effort to increase safety by creating a vehicle-free zone around the stadium, and involves a cooperative effort with the University of Michigan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the city of Ann Arbor police department. The traffic controls would be in place for the period starting three hours before a game until the end of the game.

Traffic controls include the following: E. Keech Street between S. Main and Greene streets would be closed. Access to Greene Street from E. Hoover to E. Keech streets would be limited to parking permit holders. The westbound lane on E. Stadium Blvd. turning right onto S. Main Street (just south of the Michigan Stadium) would be closed. And S. Main Street would be closed from Stadium Blvd. to Pauline.

UM football game day street closures with detour route (purple).

8:28 p.m. Police chief John Seto gives the background on the issue. He describes it as a request that came from the University of Michigan public safety department. Seto describes how he had requested some modifications before he was comfortable with the request. He describes a community meeting on July 24 and says that many comments and suggestions had been received. Modifications had been proposed. One modification he describes proposing was that southbound lanes of Main Street would be open until one hour before the game start.

8:32 p.m. Higgins says she hasn’t seen the modified proposal. The resolution doesn’t include the modifications. Higgins says she attended the community meeting. She says the city does a great job getting people going south, but not west. Higgins won’t support the street closing. This was brought up at the time that the university renovated the stadium, and UM had decided to build out as close to the street as possible, Higgins said. She wasn’t opposed to closing the right-turn lane on Stadium Blvd. She says she’ll respect her constituents. As an argument against the proposal, she notes that the exact game start times aren’t necessarily known months in advance. She thanks Seto for coming to the meeting. But she says that there should have been a meeting held earlier than two weeks before the council needed to vote.

8:38 p.m. Briere has questions for UM representatives. Ann Arbor is not unique in hosting football games. Do other cities do that? Ohio State University and University of Wisconsin close streets, the UM DPS officer explains. Seto gives more details on game day operations in other cities. Briere confirms that those street closures are due to security concerns.

Kailasapathy asks how closing the street helps to prevent terrorism. Seto says it’s part of what can be done as a “reasonable” approach. A Homeland Security official describes how blast modeling of a small truck laden with explosives could do considerable damage. The recommended street closures were based on that blast modeling, he explains. Kailasapathy ventures that the same truck could come at the end of the game. Why is there a higher threat before the game? she asks. DPS officer explains that just before the game is when the heaviest pedestrian traffic occurs and when the most people are inside the stadium.

8:45 p.m. Seto explains that the idea is to open things up in order to dissipate the crowd as quickly as possible. For some games, he says, the crowd starts to leave early. Petersen wonders why it’s taken three years to implement the recommendations. Higgins points out that East Stadium bridges were closed at the time. Lumm says it’s significant that few complaints were received when street closures were implemented for a nighttime Notre Dame game in 2011.

8:54 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) ventures that the main threat that is supposed to be mitigated is a potential truck bomb. Seto indicates that that is part of the motivation. Taylor inquires about the possible one-hour/three-hour mix of lane closures. Seto explains the balance between asset protection and the interest in getting the crowd to dissipate. The representative from Homeland Security explains that this plan meets the national standards for security for major sporting events.

Anglin asks who pays for the extra measures. The DPS officer explains that the UM athletic department pays. Anglin asks how much the city contributes to the provision of security for football games.

8:57 p.m. Higgins is responding to Anglin’s question by explaining that signs and signals are now paid for by the university. Higgins asks who owns the barricades. The DPS officer explains that the university owns the barricades. They can be moved by two people.

9:07 p.m. Seto recalls how difficult it was to determine the end of the 2011 Notre Dame game, which included overtime periods. He describes the logistical tactics that were used. Higgins has more questions. She says there were many issues associated with the 2011 street closures, that perhaps Seto wasn’t aware of. She stresses that after the first three games the residents want a review of how well things are working. Seto assures Higgins that will be done.

Higgins asks what will happen if it turns out that the logistics aren’t working out. She ventures that the resolution should be modified to reflect that.

Briere asks public services area administrator Craig Hupy to come to the podium. She asks about increased traffic flow in neighborhood streets, citing the possibility of increased deterioration of streets due to added traffic. Hupy indicates that would be minimal compared to the amount of traffic volume over the entire life of the street. Hupy says that the concern is about diminished traffic, which could have a negative impact on the lawn parking that residents enjoy.

9:07 p.m. Lumm now wants to move to amend the resolution to make the closure of the SB lane on South Main restricted to just one hour before the game start.

Outcome on Lumm’s amendment: The amendment passes unanimously.

9:14 p.m. Warpehoski says he lived in Washington D.C. on 9/11. Many people had mourned the increased “locked down” status. Now, however, he weighs the question of “What if I’m wrong?”

Kunselman follows up on the issue of reimbursement by UM for the signs and signals work. Hupy says that when the city has billed the UM, they have been paid. Kunselman says as everyone knows, he works at the university. [Kunselman is a Planet Blue energy conservation liaison.] He calls it a public safety issue. He recalls being able to sneak in through a hole in the fence. It’s a changing world and we have to accommodate the change, Kunselman says. He’ll support the resolution.

9:14 p.m. Briere wants to review the procedures soon enough to take action at the Oct. 7 council meeting. Higgins says that she wants to add a resolved clause that following the first three football games, the AAPD will meet with the neighborhood and bring recommendations to the Oct. 7 meeting. Briere says she’ll support that.

9:22 p.m. Lumm asks Seto to come to the podium. Seto says what’s being asked is doable. He can hear concerns and make suggestions, he said, but there will be certain things he can’t fix. Hieftje asks Seto how easily things could be changed in the middle of the season. Seto expresses confidence that AAPD could be flexible. He gives the Ann Arbor marathon as an example of that. He describes how AAPD often modifies its logistical operations on the fly. Hieftje expressed some concern that the barriers might be taken down too soon. Seto describes the balance that is to be struck.

9:22 p.m. Petersen says that according to her at-home fact checker, three overtimes were not required in the Notre Dame game in 2011 as Seto had said. Instead, it was a play late in the fourth quarter.

The council is “running out the clock” while Higgins crafts amendment language that would require a report to the council at its Oct. 7 meeting.

Outcome: The amendment to include an Oct. 7 report is unanimously approved.

9:25 p.m. Teall says she can’t support the resolution. Petersen calls it common sense. She can think of 114,000 good reasons to support this resolution. She sees it as a public safety issue. The council has now been discussing this for an hour.

9:28 p.m. Lumm is now holding forth. She appreciates the modification of the closure of SB Main to be just one hour before the game start. Higgins responds to comments by Lumm and Petersen about meeting national standards for security. She says that UM needs to think about meeting those standards as it builds out its campus. She somewhat wistfully says that in the future that will be the rest of the council’s problem – an apparent reference to her loss in Tuesday’s primary election.

9:30 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the street closures around the Michigan football stadium on game days. Dissent came from Briere, Teall, Higgins, and Kailasapathy.

9:30 p.m. Bike share program: $150,000. The council is being asked to approve a $150,000 expenditure from the alternative transportation fund in support of an initiative spearheaded by the University of Michigan and the Clean Energy Coalition (CEC) to establish a bike share program on the university campus and in an area west of campus in downtown Ann Arbor. The selected vendor is B-Cycle.

In a bike share program, users get access to bicycles parked at a station by swiping their credit card or membership card. Users can then return the bicycle to another station location near their destination.

Potential specific and general bike share station locations in Ann Arbor. The program would include 12-14 bike share stations with an anticipated total of 120-140 bicycles. The contract to provide the service was won by B-Cycle.

The city’s $150,000 would provide the necessary local match for a $600,000 Federal Highway Administration Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant that the CEC has received. The CMAQ funds have to be spent on capital (bikes and stations). Operations will be supported in the first three years of the program by UM at a level of $200,000 annually for a total of $600,000.

9:34 p.m. Petersen leads off by saying that she has mixed feelings. She says she’s disappointed that there’s not a communications plan for safety in the city’s parks – she’d like more signs on mixed-use paths. She doesn’t feel like the city has the safety infrastructure to support a bike share program. Her vote, she says, will be “not yet.”

Hieftje says that the plan was never to put bike lanes on every downtown street, because the traffic moves slow enough in some places that bicycles can keep up with cars. Briere agrees with Petersen. Signage is great, but she doesn’t think that signage replaces “people paying attention.” Briere is encouraged that UM is a strong financial supporter. She says it’s not about commuting but rather about moving from State and Liberty to the corner of Huron and Main (the Washtenaw County building).

9:41 p.m. Kunselman recalls the bike share program that Jeff Hayner had described during public commentary. They were painted green and were made available, and they disappeared to the far reaches of the city, never to return to the downtown, Kunselman said. He describes the number of abandoned bikes downtown and on the campus that clutter the streets. He says that the bike share program might help to “clean up our streets.”

Kunselman talks about the carrying capacity of the environment. He’s concerned about the fact that the money is coming from the alternative transportation fund, and might be taking away from other needs. Transportation program manager Eli Cooper describes the intended use of the fund as making improvements as well as maintaining non-motorized infrastructures. Kunselman asks for examples of maintenance activities. Cooper says that if anything were to be deferred, then it would be a half-mile of bike lane including signs. That would be postponed for about a year, he said.

Kunselman clarifies that this is “seed money.” That’s right, Cooper said. It’s for capital needs. The UM is contributing operating money. CEC is working on sponsorship revenue and handling fare revenue. Cooper sketches a vision of private cooperation.

Kunselman asks about clutter on downtown sidewalks. He wants to know if the specific locations will require council approval. Cooper indicates that the right-of-way permitting program is authorized by the council, but the individual locations wouldn’t need approval.

9:48 p.m. Cooper responds to Petersen’s concern about adequate signs in the park system. Lumm reports about mishaps in the parks – pedestrians being “slammed into” by bicyclists. She feels that bicyclists are more inclined to commute by bicycle paths. She brings up bells. Hupy says he has a bell on his bike and he’s one of those people who commutes through parks.

Lumm says that obviously a lot of effort has gone into the bike share initiative. She appreciates the responses about the impact of the program on the alternative transportation program. She says it’s appropriate to Ann Arbor. But she’s now expressing skepticism, saying that the city doesn’t prioritize its transportation programs. She objects to the fact that there’s not a long-term plan for the operating expenses – saying that UM’s commitment ends after three years. Still, she says she’ll support the resolution.

9:53 p.m. Warpehoski asks Cooper about the CMAQ grant deadline. Cooper says that there’s a deadline at the end of the federal fiscal year – Sept. 30.

Briere ventures that the council will hear that some of the bicycle lanes are in bad shape. What’s being done to maintain bike lanes? Cooper says he annually does a visual inspection of the entire system. An inventory of the bike lane inspections is available online, he says – it’s part of the city’s Bicycling in A2 website. He describes the citizens request system for repairing potholes.

9:57 p.m. Petersen asks how long it will take before signs will show up in the parks. City administrator Steve Powers indicates he can provide an answer tomorrow. Petersen asks how to get a specific piece of educational literature about what every motorist should know about bike lanes. Cooper lists off various locations where it’s available and ways it’s distributed.

Higgins says she doesn’t think the city has done a good job of educating cyclists. She describes bicyclists who go through red lights. She described encountering a cyclist who was using proper hand signals and discovered that it was Chuck Warpehoski. She oftentimes sees cyclists go up on the sidewalk and use the crosswalk. She expresses concern that the city would be suddenly adding a lot of additional cyclists. “I don’t think we’re there, yet,” Higgins says. Cooper says that the bike share program is another point of contact for additional education.

10:06 p.m. Higgins says that handing someone a pamphlet doesn’t educate them about what they need to do. She thinks users of the bike share system should have to pass a test. Petersen says she’s not concerned about educating cyclists, because they know their risks. Petersen says she’s concerned about education of motorists.

Anglin says he thinks it’s a good program. Matt Sandstrom from the CEC is fielding questions. Anglin asks if helmets are required. That’s a tricky question, Sandstrom says. He points out that helmets are not the law in Michigan. Education about helmets can be placed on kiosks, he said. CEC would be pro-helmet, Sandstrom says.

Anglin asks if most of the users are anticipated to be younger. Not necessarily, Sandstrom says. Kunselman picks up the idea of education. He says that education needs to be taking place in school. He asks if anyone remembers the rule about bicycles needing to give an audible signal before overtaking a pedestrian. This isn’t about education, but rather about bike sharing, he says. It’ll be the first in the state, he says. He points out that pedestrians don’t follow the rules of the road, either.

10:09 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the $150,000 allocation over two years to support the bike sharing program. Dissent came from Petersen and Higgins.

10:09 p.m. Waldenwood sidewalk design budget: $10,000 The council is being asked to approve a design budget for a sidewalk to fill in a gap from the northeast corner of Penberton Court and Waldenwood northward to connect to the path leading the rest of the way to the King Elementary School.

In its form, the resolution is similar to other sidewalk design budgets the council has been asked to approve in recent months. [For example, the council has approved similar design budgets for a sidewalk on Barton Drive at its July 15, 2013 meeting, a sidewalk on Newport Road at its Jan. 22, 2013 meeting and for a sidewalk on Scio Church Road at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting.]

However, the sidewalk gap near King School includes a history of advocacy by nearby resident and former Ann Arbor Public Schools board member Kathy Griswold dating back to 2009. For students crossing Waldenwood from the west to attend school, the segment of sidewalk would allow them to make the crossing at the intersection, where there is a four-way stop – instead of crossing the street using a mid-block crosswalk. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, “The Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS) Transportation Safety Committee has agreed the use of a new crosswalk at this stop controlled location would be preferable over the existing mid-block crossing at the school entrance.”

Waldenwood sidewalk gap. Green indicates existing sidewalks. Red indicates a sidewalk gap. Blue stars indicate signers of a petition in support of the sidewalk.

From the fall of 2009 through the spring of 2010, Griswold addressed the council on at least nine occasions on the topic of the King School crosswalk and the related sidewalk gap. The construction of a sidewalk had been met with opposition by the immediately adjoining property owners. The funding of new sidewalks – as contrasted with repair of existing sidewalks – is typically achieved at least partly through a special assessment on adjoining property owners. Sidewalk repair – but not new construction – can be paid for with the city’s sidewalk repair millage. In the case of the Waldenwood sidewalk, it’s located to the rear of the residential properties – and the city does not typically special assess properties to finance sidewalks to the rear of a property.

10:17 p.m. Petersen says she’s happy to see this come to the council. It has been debated since 2009, she says. Petersen says that the AAPS safety committee minutes from that era don’t indicate clearly that the group endorsed moving the crosswalk from mid-block to the four-way stop. City traffic engineer Pat Cawley is recalling the specific meeting for Petersen.

Kailasapathy asks public services area administrator Craig Hupy to the podium. She asks if the project comes to a halt if the property owners object. Hupy says that if the council approves the resolution, then the city staff would meet with the community and then come back for the second resolution in the special assessment process. Kailasapathy confirms that it’s a council decision, not one determined by the adjoining property owners. Hupy indicates there are three chances to kill the project along the way. Kunselman confirms that the property owner can’t kill the project.

10:20 p.m. Lumm thanks staff for their work. She asks how residents will be notified for the next step. Hupy says that they’d be mailed a meeting notice. He ventures that there could be more than one meeting. Lumm noted that it would have made sense to undertake the sidewalk construction when Waldenwood was recently repaved. She indicated that she was glad that this is going through a formal process.

10:26 p.m. Briere asks for the approximate timeline for the project. Hupy says he can’t speak to exact details. It’s a relatively simple project from an engineering and design perspective. The time-consuming part for this project would be the public engagement portion of the project. He ventures that it could come back to the council in late winter or spring of 2014.

Briere ventures that the sidewalk could be constructed by the start of school in the fall of 2014. Hupy allows that might be possible. Petersen said she thought that the property owners wouldn’t be special assessed because it’s on their rear lot lines. Hupy says that Petersen has picked up on the fact that there’s likely not anything that will be assess-able in the project.

10:26 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the design budget for the Waldenwood sidewalk. It needed an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council, because the council’s action altered the city’s budget.

10:27 p.m. Public art administrator contract extension: $18,500. The council is being asked to appropriate funds to pay for public art administrator Aaron Seagraves’ contract through the end of 2013. The amendment brings his total compensation for the period from June 11, 2011 through Dec. 31, 2013 to $48,900. The specific projects mentioned in the resolution, which require administrative work, are the Kingsley rain garden, Argo Cascades, and the East Stadium Blvd. bridges.

10:29 p.m. Briere says she can imagine people asking why the city has a public art administrator, if the city doesn’t have a Percent for Art program. There’s the old business of Kingsley rain garden, Argo Cascades, and Stadium bridges. There’s also a need to address the new business of integrating the new public art program into the capital improvements program.

10:32 p.m. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy explains to Briere that the reason that the contract extension goes through the end of the year is to allow for a bridge between the old Percent for Art program and the new program.

Kailasapathy notes that an issue had come up when she and Lumm had attempted a budget amendment to refund the money for public art to the funds of origin. She says she really has a problem with the resolution, so she won’t support it.

10:35 p.m. Lumm also says she has a problem with the resolution. She says that she’s tried at every point to discontinue the public art program. Instead of returning the $800,000 in unspent funds, the council had decided to maintain a public art “slush fund,” she says. She doesn’t think that the council should continue to “throw good money after bad.” She won’t support the continued spending on Percent for Art projects.

10:42 p.m. Higgins asks why $18,500 is being appropriated for compensation, but $20,500 is the amount in the resolution. Hupy describes miscellaneous supplies as accounting for the $2,000. Hupy points out that the information was provided in answers to the council’s caucus questions.

Petersen says she’ll support the resolution – because she wants the area around the Dreiseitl sculpture to become ADA compliant. Kailasapathy asks why a public art administrator would be handling ADA compliance. City administrator Steve Powers says that hasn’t been decided yet.

Anglin calculates that the public art administrator is being paid only $20/hour. He calls that a bargain. Kunselman says he’ll support it, because it’s a small amount. But he cautions that he might not vote to support spending the money on the remaining Percent for Art projects in the pipeline. He says the pressure is on the public art commission to bring forward a high quality piece of art. He said he could say right now that he’s not going to vote to spend money on “anything that’s hanging from a light pole.” That’s a reference to the recommended project for the East Stadium bridges location, proposed by artist Catherine Widgery and recommended by a task force.

10:47 p.m. Briere asks what would happen if the council voted not to spend the money on the East Stadium bridges location. Would the money revert to the public art fund? City administrator Steve Powers says that’s for the council to decide. The council could say, “Try again,” he says. Briere points out that the council would still need to amend the city’s public art ordinance in order to return public art funds to their funds of origin.

Hieftje supports the resolution, saying that it’s necessary to have administrative support for the art program. Teall reiterates that point, that a successful art program requires an administrator. Teall says that residents do see the value of public art, and having an administrator is vital.

10:48 p.m. Taylor says that there was a common understanding, if not unanimous, that a transition would need to be funded. He calls for honoring the effort that’s gone into this.

10:48 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract extension for the public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, over dissent from Lumm and Kailasapathy.

10:48 p.m. Easement: AATA water main. The council is being asked to accept an easement from the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority for a water main – related to the bus garage expansion at the AAATA’s headquarters at 2700 S. Industrial Hwy.

10:48 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the easement for the water main.

10:49 p.m. Easement: sidewalk at 2760 Nixon. The council is being asked to accept an easement from property owners Byron Bunker and Amy Bunker for construction of a sidewalk related to the Safe Routes to School initiative for Clague Middle School.

10:49 p.m. Lumm offers a brief statement of support, noting that it’s a part of the Safe Routes to School program for Clague Middle School.

10:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to accept the sidewalk easement from the Bunkers.

10:50 p.m. Easement: sidewalk at 425 E. Washington (The Varsity). The council is being asked to accept a sidewalk easement on the east side of The Varsity building, which will connect Huron Street with Washington Street. It’s part of the development agreement.

10:50 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the sidewalk easement from The Varsity.

10:51 p.m. Appointments. The council was asked to confirm mayoral nominations made at the previous council meeting on July 15: Sue Perry to the Elizabeth Dean Fund committee; and Evan Nichols to the zoning board of appeals.

10:51 p.m. Nominations. Highlights from nominations for boards and commissions added on Aug. 6 include Rishi Narayan to replace Leah Gunn on the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Narayan is founder and managing member of Underground Printing, which offers screenprinting of apparel in more than a dozen cities nationwide. Narayan made the Crain’s Detroit Business “Twenty in their 20s” list in 2010 as a 28-year-old.

Jack Bernard is being nominated to the board of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. When the AAATA articles of incorporation were changed recently to add the city of Ypsilanti as a member, the board was expanded from seven to nine members. One of the two additional seats is appointed by the city of Ypsilanti. Gillian Ream was appointed to that spot. Bernard’s appointment would fill the additional slot appointed by the city of Ann Arbor. Bernard is a lecturer in the University of Michigan law school and an attorney with UM’s office of the vice president and general counsel. He is also currently chair of the university’s council for disability concerns. Given the nature of wrangling over Eric Mahler’s recent appointment to the AAATA board, Bernard’s chairship of that group could be a key qualification. Some councilmembers objected to Mahler’s appointment, arguing that someone who could represent the disability community should be appointed instead.

10:51 p.m. Originally slated on the agenda to replace Newcombe Clark on the board of the Ann Arbor DDA was Al McWilliams. However, the most-recently updated version of the agenda does not include his name. Al McWilliams is founder of Quack!Media, an ad agency located in downtown Ann Arbor. Quack!Media lists the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority on its website as one of its clients. McWilliams has written advocacy pieces for bicycling on his blog.

Originally slated for nomination to serve on the public art commission was Jeff Hayner. But the most-recently updated version of the nomination list did not include his name. He has filed petitions to run for the Ward 1 city council seat. The Ward 1 city council ballot for November will include incumbent Democrat Sabra Briere, and independents Hayner and Jaclyn Vresics.

10:51 p.m. Public Commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

10:52 p.m. No one speaks.

10:52 p.m. Closed session. The council has voted to go into closed session under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act to discuss pending litigation.

11:08 p.m. The council has emerged from its closed session.

11:08 p.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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